We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 January 2017
In a previous publication I demonstrated the enormous value of Russia's overseas commodity exports to Great Britain's industrial development during the second half of the eighteenth century. Yet when value is determined only by sheer volume of commodities, the determination, even when supported by impressive shipping data, might not be as convincing as a determination of value based on other factors, for example, on money value.
Scholars continue to argue over specific aspects of Anglo-Russian trade, over the accuracy of British commercial records, and over the degree of British involvement in Russian overseas commerce. This article addresses these issues and suggests that historians should not forget to look at the broad trends in the value of that trade when they debate specific aspects of the commercial relations between the two nations. Moreover, it seems to me that value comprehended in English pounds sterling or Russian rubles would further demonstrate the significance of Russia's overseas commodity trade to Great Britain, since such a demonstration would rest, as it were, on a surer foundation.
1. Kaplan, Herbert H., “Russia's Impact on the Industrial Revolution in Great Britain duringthe Second Half of the Eighteenth Century: The Significance of International Commerce,” Forschungen zur osteuropäischen Geschichte 29 (1981): 7–59.Google Scholar
2. See Clark, George N., Guide to English Commercial Statistics, 1696–1782 (London: Royal Historical Society, 1938)Google Scholar, and Knoppers, Jake V. Th., Dutch Trade with Russia from the Time of Peter 1 to Alexander I: A Quantitative Study in Eighteenth Century Shipping (3 vols.; Montreal:Interuniversity Centre for European Studies, 1976), l:xxxix–xxxxi.Google Scholar
3. The rates of duty were first established in 1660 on a list of valuations of commodities, butin 1696 the inspector-general made his own estimate of the average price at which each commoditywas imported and exported, by consulting published price lists and merchants. During the eighteenthcentury, very little adjustment was made in commodity valuation. It was not until 1798 that theinspector-general readjusted the official values in line with the real export value based on merchants’ declarations and on current prices. See Ralph Davis, The Industrial Revolution and British Overseas Trade (Leicester, U.K.: Leicester University Press, 1979), pp. 77–80ff., and Thomas S. Ashton's introduction to Elizabeth B. Schumpeter, English Overseas Trade Statistics, 1697–1808 (Oxford: ClarendonPress, 1960).
4. See Cullen, L. M., Anglo-Irish Trade 1660–1800 (New York: A. M. Kelley, 1968)Google Scholar and Fisher, Harold E. S., The Portugal Trade (London: Methuen, 1971)Google Scholar.
5. See the edition, hand-revised and amended, to 1801 of Sir Charles Whitworth, State of the Trade of Great Britain in its Imports and Exports, Progressively from the Year 1697: also the Trade of each particular Country, during the above Period, distinguishing each Year. In two parts with a Preface and Introduction, setting forth the Articles whereof each Trade consists (London, 1776), in Public Record Office (London) Board of Trade (hereafter cited as PRO BT) 6/185, ff. 81–181. Thevaluations found in this edition are the official values recorded by the inspector-general of thecustoms. Writing in 1939, David B. Horn stated that the board of trade had frequently requested regularreports on commercial and trading activities, but it was not until 1765 that any appreciable improvementin data gathering took place. Samuel Swallow, the consul general in Russia, was thanked bythe board for the “accuracy of the accounts transmitted.” “Since these statistics are often expresslystated to be copied from the customhouse books of the foreign ports, they would seem to offerfigures independently compiled, which might profitably be compared with the official British statisticsto which Professor G. N. Clark has recently drawn attention. Even if, with Professor Clark, wedoubt the reliability of all eighteenth-century commercial statistics, the accompanying reports of theconsuls and other ministers provide strictly contemporary and well-informed comments on the natureand extent of British foreign trade.” David Bayne Horn, “The Board of Trade and Consular Reports,1696–1782,” English Historical Review 54 (July 1939): 476–80.
6. See calculations and analysis of Ralph Davis's computed current real values compared to theofficial values in Kaplan, “Russia's Impact on the Industrial Revolution,” pp. 15–16, 38–40.
7. See Gayer, Arthur D., Rostow, Walt W, and Schwartz, Anna Jacobson, The Growth and Fluctuation of the British Economy 1790–1850: An Historical, Statistical, and Theoretical Study of Britain's Economic Development, With a New Introduction by W. W. Rostow and Anna Jacobson Schwartz (2 vols.; New York: Barnes and Noble, 1975), l:70nGoogle Scholar.
8. See Kaplan, “Russia's Impact on the Industrial Revolution,” pp. 36–37.
9. See N. L. Rubinshtein, “Vneshniaia torgovlia Rossii i russkoe kupechestvo vo vtoroi polovine XVIII v.,” Istoricheskie zapiski 54 (1955): 343–61; B. N. Mironov, “K voprosii o roli russkogokupechestva vo vneshnei torgovle Peterburga i Arkhangel'ska vo vtoroi polovine XVIII-nachale XIXveka,” Istoriia SSSR 6 (November-December, 1973): 129–40; and “Eksport russkogo khleba vovtoroi polovine XVIII-nachale XIX v.,” Istoricheskie zapiski 93 (1974): 149–88.
10. Artur Attman, Dutch Enterprise in the World Bullion Trade, 1550–1800 (Goteborg: Kungl.Vetenskaps-och Vitterhets-Samhallet, 1983), pp. 70 and 65–75, passim.
11. Ibid., p. 75.
12. See Rubenshtein and Mironov, supra.
13. Attman, Dutch Enterprise in the World Bullion Trade, p. 65.
14. Ibid., p. 75.
15. See records in PRO FO 65/1–2, 4–5, 6, 9, 13–15, 17–18, 20, 23–24, 26, 33, 35, 37, 40, 42,48–50, 52; 97/340–342; and BT 6/141, 231–33, 266; SRO CO 51/2/661; and British Museum AdditionalManuscripts 34428.
