IV. The Characteristics of Trade Statistics by Country: 1855-1940

Table 2 and Table 3 show the exports and imports by country from 1855 to 1940. The sources of this table are Statistical Bulletin: 1920 and Report of the Bureau of Customs, 1921-1940, but the statistics in 1865-1867 are modified by the author in these tables. The amount of exports and imports in 1865-1867 were double in Statistical Bulletin: 1920, repeating the same miscalculation of Census: 1903 regarding the exchange rate between pesos and escudos.

The trade statistics of the late 19th century given in Statistical Bulletin: 1920 were the data first gathered by the US Bureau of Insular Affairs and later compiled by the US Bureau of Census. It was compiled by the Bureau of Commerce and Industry of the Philippine Islands with detailed notes. In its notes regarding the classification of trade partners, it is mentioned that in 1867-1868 "China" includes "Cochin-China (French East Indies) and Japan,"while"China"includes"Hongkong and Amoy"in 1893 [Statistical Bulletin: 1920, 128]. This note on the classification of trade partners was taken from the annual trade reports of the late 19th century.

Needless to say, this is a relatively minor issue on the classification of trade partners. The major problem is rather located in the"British Asian colonies"and their relationship with"China."

First,"British Asian colonies"is the term which the author uses for Table 2 in this paper. Census: 1903 called them "British India"[Census: 1903, IV:568-574], while "Historical Review: 1904" referred to them as "British East Indies" ["Historical Review: 1904," 608-611]. Then, what term was used in the annual trade reports in the late 19th century? In these reports from the 1860s to 1890s, the term "Posesiones Inglesas (British possessions)" is used. Thus, "British India" in Census: 1903 or "British East Indies" in Statistical Bulletin: 1920 does not mean "India under British rule," but it means "British colonies in Asia."

In examining Balanza general del comercio de las Islas Filipinas, 1854-1855 and Balanza mercantil de las Islas Filipinas, 1858-1860, the term"India Inglesa"was used instead of"Posesiones Inglesas."In Balanza general...1854-1855 and Balanza mercantil...1859-1860, Singapore was referred as "India Inglesa," while in Balanza mercantil...1858, Singapore and Calcutta were named "India Inglesa." From this observation, we may assume that "British possessions" should mainly mean Singapore in the trade statistics for the 1860s-1890s.

Second, in the relationship between"British Asian colonies"and"China,"we should point out the fact that in Census: 1903,"China"included"Hongkong"in 1855-1902 [Census: 1903, IV: 568-574]. On the other hand,"Historical Review: 1904"specified that Hongkong was included in"China"in 1856-1867 and 1888-1894, while it was included in"British East Indies"in 1873-1887["Historical Review: 1904,"608-611]. Why did"Historical Review: 1904"give such a claim?

This was because the amount of exports and imports of"China"and that of"British East Indies"("British Asian colonies"in Table 2) reversed at the year of 1873. While"China"accounted for the major part of trade in Asia in 1855-1867 and 1888-1894,"British East Indies"took the leading position in 1873-1887. It is assumed that the classification of Hongkong was confused because the Spanish colonial government faced difficulty in deciding whether Hongkong should be included in"China"or in"British East Indies"after it was placed under British domination in 1842["Historical Review: 1904,"605-606, 609]. If this assumption is correct, we might conclude that the note of Census: 1903 which stated that"China"included"Hongkong"in 1855-1902 is incorrect.

According to Legarda's study, the major export partners in 1846 were in order of share the United Kingdom, China, United States, Spain and Australia, while in 1847 they were the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, China, Spain and Singapore. The major import partners in 1846 were in order of share China, Singapore, Spain, the United States and the United Kingdom, and those in 1847 were China, Singapore, the United Kingdom, Spain and the United States [Legarda: 1950, 240-241, 244-245]. This indicates the fact that as Asian entrepots Hongkong and Singapore played an important role in the Philippine foreign trade.

In addition, the existence of Hongkong and Singapore as Asian entrepots made it difficult to grasp the precise amount of the foreign trade by country from the late 19th century to the middle of the 20th century.

As Legarda discussed on the trade in the late 19th century, Hongkong was an important entrepot not only for China, but for the United States and European countries. To Singapore, on the other hand, many commodities came from the United Kingdom or other European countries and India. If these commodities reached the Philippines, the proportion of trade with these countries was understated in the statistics. Hongkong and Singapore were"termini"for shipping from Europe and the United States, while Manila was of minor importance to these countries. Therefore, a large proportion of Philippine trade with Europe and the United States was carried through Hongkong and Singapore by Spanish vessels. Foreign ships also engaged in the transshipment; however, since the importation of goods by foreign ships was subjected to the imposition of higher taxes, they preferred to enter Mania in ballast and to carry export goods from the Philippines [Legarda: 1955, 226-228].

Thus, it is most probable that the most of the commodities exported from the Philippines to Hongkong and Singapore were re-exported to China, Europe and the United States, while the most of the imported goods from Hongkong and Singapore were originally imported from China, Europe and the United States. This is a very important reason why Hongkong and Singapore which had relatively high share of Philippine foreign trade from the late 19th century to the early 20th century. In the following section, we will discuss the changing pattern of trade by examining the Philippines' major trade partners.