y different. A so-called sale may
prove abortive through its not being paid for at all, the debtor failing
altogether. In any case the purchases of a year may not be paid for by the
sales of the year, and the "squaring" of the account may take a long time.
Still more the estimates of value may be so taken as not to give even an
approximately correct account as far as the records go. Thus in the plan
followed in the United Kingdom imports are valued as at the port where they
arrive and exports at the port where they are despatched from--a plan which
so far places them on an equal footing for the purpose of striking a
balance of trade. But in the import and export records of the United States
a different plan is followed. The imports are no longer valued as at the
port of arrival with the freight and other charges included, but as at the
port of shipment. The results on the balance of trade drawn out must
accordingly be quite different in the two cases. With other countries
similar differences arise. To deduce then from records of imports and
exports any conclusions as to the excess of imports or exports at different
times is a work of enormous statistical difficulty. Excellent illustrations
will be found in J. Holt Schooling's _British Trade Book_ (1908).

The country which presents the most interesting questions in connexion with
the study is the United Kingdom, with its largely preponderating foreign
trade. Its annual imports and exports, excluding bullion, exceed 800
millions sterling, and the bullion one year with another is 100 millions
more. Its excess of imports, moreover, between the middle and end of the
19th century gradually rose from a small figure to 180 millions sterling
annually, and occasioned the popular discussion referred to respecting an
"adverse" balance of trade, and particularly the belief existing in many
quarters that the nation is living on its capital. The result has been a
new investigation of the subject, so as to bring out and present the
credits to which the country is entitled in its trade as a shipowner and
commission merchant, and to exhibit at the same time the magnitude of
British foreign investments, which cannot be less than 2000 millions
sterling and must bring in an enormous annual income. Other countries such
as France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway and Sweden, are in
the same condition, though their foreign trade is not on the same scale,
and similar rules apply to the