Star.
London, England, 1831-03-14 00:00:00

LITERATUkE.

The Edinburgh Reviewer refuted. bring an Ezposure of Grnsa
Misstatements in the leading Artisie of Vo. CIV. entitled " Th.
East-lsofi Company—China Question. J. Ilatchard and Son.

We have frequently bad occasion to express our opinion,
that much delusion existed as to the advantage which will
result, to the general interests of the country, by what is
termed opening the China trade. It cannot be denied, that
deductions, from what appear general truths in Political
Economy, are a little at variance with the theory of ex-
clusive trading charters; but we hesitate not to say, that
I the wonderful fabric of our Eastern Empire could never
have been deduced as the probable product of any truth its
what is termed Political Economy. And the question is,
whether that which has been practically raised without re-
ference to that science is to be destroyed in acquiescencl.
with its theoretical principles. The pamphlet before us is a
masterly exposure of some of the misrepresentations which
are current among the antagonists to the East India Com-
pany ; and we think it our duty to lay a copious abstract of
it before our readers. It is in a letter to Earl Grey.
In the last number of the " Edinburgh Review," No. CIV. there it
an article entitled " Reports from, and Minutes of Evidence taken
before, the Select Committees of the Houses of Lords and Commons.
on the Affairs of the East India Company." Knowing as I do, that
this Review is a favourite publication with the party of which your
lordship is the head, and which is considered to be an organ for the
communication of the sentiments of that party ; feeling also, as I must
In common with men of all classes, that the India question is one,
respecting which it is of vital importance that those who will have to
decide upon it should not be in error, regarding the facts by which they
must be ultimately governed ; I ask your indulgence, while I endea-
vour to satisfy your judgment, that the article to which I refer is one
which it is impossible for your lordship to adopt or sanction, and which.
on the contrary, you are hound to repudiate, as utterly unworthy of con.
fidence or respect.
Never were the suppressio veri et suggestio falai' mote copiously il.
lustrated within so limited a space. One would imagine, from a con.
treat of the title and commentary, that although the committees were
appointed to inquire into the drain of the East India Company, in the
most comprehensive construction of those terms, no evidence whatever,
in any degree worthy of notice, was received by either of the committees
on any other subject than the China trade ; whereas, a reference to the
reports and evidence will prove, that many other topics, equally grave
and important, were fully considered. Bat, my lord, the truth is,
that the accomplices in this imposture well knew that the assailants of
1 the Enit India Company had totally failed in their attempts to sustain
by evidence their manifold imputations ; and, therefore, with their ac-
customed cunning, sought to distract the public attention from the con-
templation of that failure, and to entrap the public sympathies by an
appeal to their selfishness ; hoping, in the hurly-burly of political con-
fusion, by which the present moment is so particularly distinguished,
to snatch, by a premature decision of the Legislature, a measure of im.
policy and injustice.
The Cast and most prominent characteristic of this Review is the spirit
of acrimony which pervades it throughout. This is illustrated by va-
rious extracts, the two concluding of which are, that the Reviewer in-
sists " that the Company should be absolutely interdicted from having
any thing whatever to do with commercial affairs," and, that " no-
thing so monstrous was ever heard of u the proposal to continue such
a system."
There can be no difficulty in obtaining your Lordship's assent to my
position, that these extracts from the Review exhibit a spirit of viru.
lent acrimony, and a longing desire to fix upon the Directors the guilt
of being governed in their conduct by the most dishonest and disho-
nourable intentions.

You will perceive that the present Reviewer furnishes extracts from
the evidence, and selects those persons best entitled, in his estimation,
to enjoy public confidence, and to govern the public judgment, in re-
ference to the great question of East India affairs. He makes the se-
lection, exclusively, from the proceedings of the Commons' Committee;
and the witnesses whom he quotes are_
Captain Abel Coffin.—An American sea-captain, who speculated in
the exhibition of the Siamese youths. and has brought them to this
country : sailed three voyages to China, and stopped there, each time,
fur a very short period.
Mr. John Aken. —A slop-seller of Wapping ' • had been in the sea
service, afterwards a second-class agent ut the Cape of Good Hope :
made two voyages to China.
Captain Charles Hutehinson.—Went three voyages from India to
Canton ; stopped generally three or tour months each time.
Joshua Bates, Esq.—An American, partner in the house of Baring,
Brothers, and Co never was in India or China.
Mr. John Deans.—Resided twenty years in the Eastern Archipelago
as agent or merchant, principally in Java : had been twice in Canton a
lonA time ago.
Captain John Mackie.—Resided in India from 1820 till latter end
of 1829 ; carried on a smuggling trade with China under Spanish
colours.

These five comparatively insignificant and half-informed
witnesses are all that the reviewer selects out of forty ;
witnesses, almost every one of whom had been long resident
in China, or had much superior opportunities of becoming
acquainted with the trading concerns of the company, and
the Indian trade generally.

If, my Lord, I were to rest here, with the single interrogatory,
whether the writer of an article which professes to convey information
to his readers, and yet purposely omits nil reference to the most im•
portant evidence which has been taken, expressly, for the purpose of
coil: cting that information, should be permitted to exercise the smallest
portion of influence upon the opinion of the public or the decision of
Parliament, l'sannot doubt but that your honourable mind would in-
dignantly negative his claim to confidence, and reject his alliance es a
painful and disgraceful contamination. I will proceed now to notice
Isome of the reviewers most serious misrepreseautams.
The reviewer then gives a statement, dmirn from the official &ten-
ments laid before the Parliamentary Committee but year, to prove that
the Company had received in excess of price, in the year 1828.!2t
over and above the price of similar teas at Hambiirgh, the sum of
£1,032,356.
The bulk of the teas comprised in this statement consists of &basil
Congou, and Twankay, the prices of which at Hamburgh are said to
have be;ii

Bober •
Congou
Twankay ls. 2jd.
But tbesepricas are actually lower than the cost prices in the Canton