Prospectus (1843)
economist.com
economist.com
we seriously believe that FREE TRADE, free intercourse, will do more than any other visible agent to extend civilization and morality throughout the world—yes, to extinguish slavery itself. Then, if we look around us at home, we see ignorance, depravity, immorality, irreligion, abounding to an extent disgraceful to a civilized country;
I've pointed out repeatedly that the Economist is specifically ideological on the principle of free trade, and must be considered in that regard. The position was a fairly left-liberal one initially (opposing the old orders of mercantilism, feudalism, and monarchical monopoly), though that political framing has shifted with time and as free trade principles are set up against a different set of alternatives.
That said, the newspaper itself is less doctrinairily conservative than it's often given credit for (though it tends toward the right side of the political spectrum, or did at least through the 2000--2015 period), a fact observable especially in its political endorsements (typically made of both UK and US national office), or occcasionally lack thereof.
Some other interesting history is that the paper was owned by Pearson PLC through 2015, a firm largely known for publishing but with its origins in construction and the oil industry. I suspect this has played a role in the Economists long-standing dismissal of the question of limits concerning finite fossil fuel extraction, though the paper's been more reality-based in addressing global warming, at least in recent decades.
I find origins (institutions, words, legal concepts, technologies, scientific methods) interesting. They're often illuminating, but should also be remembered as not necessarily reflecting present circumstances or orientation. This is especially true in the publishing and media world where iniital alignments may be radically changed over time. The American Mercury and TLC are two particularly notorious examples of drift and/or realignment.