The terms in which the great Dutch minister De Witt speaks of the hostility or rivalry to be apprehended
in 1663 and 16G9 is the First Part of a Report made to the Commissioners of Public Accounts in 1711, by Dr. Charles Davenant, who then held the office of inspector-general of customs. (See Lord Whitworth's edition of Davenant's works, Lon, 1771, vol. v. p. 376, where, however, there is a misprint, third line from the bottom, of "exports" for "imports," and of "imports" for "exports.") Davenant says that he takes the statement from "a manuscript remaining in the Custom House, which appears to be an authentic copy of what had been offered to the House of Commons," but in what year he cannot find. (p. 351.) From the manner in which he expresses himself, however, he has left it somewhat doubtful whether the sums he has put down are the value of the total exports and imports of the kingdom, or only of those of the port of London, which he seems to intimate bore the proportion of between three and four to one to those of the rest of the country, (p. 352.) The statement has been generally assumed to be that of the total exports and imports. It is repeatedly quoted or referred to in the work entitled "The British Merchant," a series of papers first published in 1713, with the object, in which it succeeded, of defeating the proposed treaty of commerce with France which was to have followed the peace of Utrecht, and afterwards collected in three vols. 8vo., in 1743. The principal author of "The British Merchant" was Henry Martin, Esq., who succeeded Davenant as inspector-general of the customs; but Anderson (Chron. Deduct. of Com. ii. 496), and after him Macpherson (Annals of Com. ii. 534), are mistaken in supposing the account for the year 1668-9 to rest upon his authority; for it is given by Davenant, along with that for 1662-3. The authors of "The British Merchant," who are sturdy upholders of what has been called the Mercantile Theory, maintain that the balance against us indicated by these two statements, or the "great national loss," as they term it, was occasioned by our having then a full trade with France; "which full trade," say they, "being afterwards prohibited, the general balance in the year 1699 was got to be so far in our favour as 1,147,660l. 10s. 9d. [that is to say, such was now the excess of exports over imports]: total gained by us from having no trade with France in the
