'The Life, Spring and Motion of the Trading World': A Very Brief

Account of Georgian London's Foreign Import and Export Trade

London, like Venice was a trading hub, and throughout the documents of the 18thC,
London is compared with her Italian counterpart in all things apart from our 'superior'
manner of government (they let 'tradesmen' govern in Venice, can you imagine?). I am
inclined to think that our import and export business was slightly less glamorous than that
of the Floating City's, but perhaps familiarity has bred contempt and a fine piece of
cheddar was as highly valued in Venice as parmesan cheeses were in London.

This blog post is a very brief overview of our import and export trade in the mid-18thC and
reflects the abundance of foreign goods available in London, and thus throughout
England. I think it is hard to over-estimate the extent to which the ordinary people of
London were involved in 'trade' and to the extent they identified themselves as
'tradesmen'. The expansion of the Empire beneath the Tudor family's reign had opened
up parts of the world formerly inaccessible to the English people, and the writers of the
18thC certainly looked back on their medieval forebears as ruder cousins, lacking
sophistication and knowledge of the world. Trade brought not only goods to England's
shores, but new ideas, schools of thought and scientific developments; our own advances
were also traded as part of the ongoing development of the civilized world. This air of
enthusiasm, excitement and potential is lost to modern London where we are little more
than a hub for financial services, and an exporter of bad cars, worse actresses and
Newcastle Brown Ale.

England was beaten only by the Dutch for international trade, 'a country not much bigger
than Yorkshire, and with a soil naturally barren'. However, the legacy of the Spanish was a
superb navy, and they were 'mighty in traffic'. The wealth of the Dutch merchants was
thrown into sharp relief in 1747 when the government went to them in crisis: they put over
six millions pounds (sterling) at the service of the government in less than four hours. It is
almost impossible to put a modern figure to this sum, but it's more than a billion pounds.
In cash. With those sorts of amounts, it isn't hard to see how the Netherlands convinced
the poorer countries of the world, possessed of valuable commodities, to trade with them
over any other nation. Britain had struggled with long and sapping wars, and the countries
with which it traded were in decline. They had one large advantage over the Dutch
though: the plantations. The tobacco, sugar and other byproducts of the American and
Caribbean plantations were vital to keeping England, and London, wealthy.

Merchants tended not to deal in one commodity; it was too risky. Instead, they would deal
in the produce of one country, hence Virginia merchants (tobacco and wood), and French
merchants (wine and foodstuffs). England imported wine, sugar, flax, hemp, cotton, rums,
copper and iron ore amongst other basic products such as indigo for dyes. It also
imported a large quantity of fish from America, but it was deemed fit only for the Levant.
England exported made-up clothing, furniture, cutlery, haberdashery, clocks, glassware,
toys and all manner of 'fancy goods'. The rule of thumb is that England imported raw
products, but exported finished products of a relatively high standard. The upper-classes
of Ireland had a strong 18thC, and were buying heavily from the London markets, but the
poor remained very poor, often arriving in England with little more than a strong back and a
desire for gin. Robert Campbell made an acid note of the English attitude to the Irish, 'The
balance paid by Ireland in exchange of goods, and the money spent by their gentry and
nobility in England, amount to at least one million sterling per annum, which is a greater
advantage (relative profit) than we reap from all our other branches of commerce; yet we
grudge these people the common privileges of subjects, despite their persons, and
condemn their country, as if it was a crime to be born in that kingdom from when we derive
the greatest part of our wealth'.

Exports of fancy goods to Denmark and Sweden are recorded, in exchange for woods and
minerals, although this trade was apparently dying out by the late 18thC. To Turkey we
sent lead, tin and sugar, and received carpets, coffee, and silks. Tin and wool were sent to
Portugal, and wine, olive oil and ready money were received in return. To the East Indies,
we sent woollen clothes, hats, firearms and silver bullion, but imported gold, diamonds,
spices, drugs, tea, porcelain, china, silk, cotton, salt-petre and various other goods. It was
judged a very profitable branch of England's trade, and no wonder. The less savoury
aspects of our history are also recorded in our exports of guns, swords and cutlasses to
Guinea, 'in exchange for negroes to work on our plantations, gold dust, and elephants'
teeth'.

This is a broad subject for a blog post and does not take into account the 'triangular' nature
of the slave trade. I will tackle it in more detail in future but until then, I quote Campbell
again, in what has to be one of the greatest comments on the English relationship with
France, ever:

We export to France scarce anything but lead and tin, some tobacco to Dunkirk and some
salmon from Scotland but we import wine, brandy, silks of various sorts, cambrics, laces of
thread and of gold and of silver, paper cards and an innumerable quantity of trifling jewels
and toys; for all which we pay an annual balance of one million and a half. In reckoning up
the imports from France, I should have mentioned pride, vanity, luxury, and corruption; but
as I could make no estimate by the custom-house books of the quantity of these goods
entered, I chose to leave them out.