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

•
go is
01 N (0(

MONDAY EVENING, MARCH 14, 1831.

PRICE 7D.

market. exclusive of any charge whatsoever !! ! Vide statement in -..
.1611 of the Lords' Report, printed by the Common 4. ilth July, lal
from which it appears that the coot prices in China are :
athea
Cnngou
Twanksy ....

Here then we have clear evidence, that the teas nurchasei at Han:-
burgh at the prices comprix,il in the reviewer's stateincet. must have
involved a ruinous loss to the importers. The revieser, however. res.
sons upon his statement, as if it proved that the company sold the. 7
" teas in 1828.29 for the immense RIM of £1.832,3.% mole than thev
would have fetched had the trade been free :" from which he wont
wish us to inter, that the prices at llan:burgh are those at which the :ea
would be sold here in a free trade.
The utter fallacy of such a conclusion will be further apparent
comparing the Hamburgit prices with those in America or in Holls:.d.
And here I would observe, that in order to render the prices of i've
same commodity in two countries fit objec,s of comparison, the circum-
stances of the two countries, 1)041 as to the demand for the article aryl
I the facility of obtaining a supply of it, should resemble each other. In
respect to tea, England and Holland are more assimilated than any
two other countries which could be selected. In both, the rates of run.
sumption, relatively with the population, do not greatly vary, and in
both, black tea is the kind most generally used.

From a comparative statement of prices of teas at Ham-
burg!) and at ltotterdarn. as shown in the official 7eturn,,
applied to the quantities of the several sorts sold by tlle
Company 182849, we find that the total excess of price et
Rotter,:arn, over the reviewer's price at Htunburgh, was
1,309,7911.

Seeing, then, that the prices which the I'dinburgh Reviewer has
adopted as ti ose et which tea could have been sold if the trade had
been free. arc 1,309,7911. lower than the prices realized in a fir trade
at Rotterdam, the Reviewer's calculation is, I humbly submit, demo.
lished, since it is quite evident that, upon a comparison of the London
and Rotterdam prices, the excess of the former, instead of being
1.832,3561. as assumed by the Reviewer, is no more than 522 5651! !
Nor is it to be supposed, that even the statement, when thus cor.
rectal, gives an accurate view of the ease. These calculations are
(trended upon the assumption, that the qualties of the teas drought
from Ilanthurgh, Rotterdam, and other places, are the same as thine
sold by the Company ; whereas, on comparing the valuatien put upon
the Hamburgh and Rotterdam teas by the London broker:, with the
prices realized at the Company's sales, it will be seen that there is a
material difference in quality.
It appears that it' the teas sold by the Company in 1828,29 had
been the same in quality as those brought from Rotterdam, they would
havefetched 239,4001. less than they did ; and as we have already
sees that the excess of price paid to the Company, as compared with
Rotterdam prime, was 522,5651, it follows that the real excess—
quality for ;panty, was that sum, minus 239.4601. viz. 283.1031.
Now it is admitted, that the East India Company import their teas
at a profit. 1 have already shown, that the price of the teas brought
from Hatnburgh, upon which the Reviewer's statement is founded, did
not equal the cost price at Canton ; and I must now state. that even
the teas brought front Rotterdam were purchased there at a loss to the
importer.
In the select committee of the House of Commons, it is stated the
return in tens of the Netherlands Association, " have caused a loss of
twenty-five per cent, and that the Dutch private traders have aban-
doned the trade since the year 1825, in consequence of some heavy
losses."

The Reviewer next attempts to show that the Company have either
violated or evaded the laws affecting the trade in tea. If so. why are
they not impeached ? They seem to have many enemies always on the
watch ; how comes it, then, that advantage is not taken of this sup.
posed delinquency, to bring charges against the Company, and at once
to dispossess them of their obnoxious privilege ?
Hut to proceed with the Reviewer's mistakes. In page 288, speak-
ing of the allowances to the China servants, he says, that " the fac-
tory costs nearly as much as is required to defray the entire expense of
the civil government of Scotland; and in page 289 he adds, that in
1828-29 the expense of the factory " amounted to 09,0861. which
would give to each of the twenty gentlemen of which it consists,_
an average income of about four thousand five hundred a-year for
doing DM to nothing."
Be pleased, my Lord, to turn to page 103 of the Appendix to the
Report frem the Commons Committee, and you will see that of the
sum of 89,0861, which the Reviewer declares to be divisible among
twenty persons, 16,7821. is for rent, repairs, and table at Canton ; and
that the remainder was divided among twenty-seven persons instead of
twenty, and this without reckoning copying writers and domestic ser-
vants, all of whom are paid out of the same fund. Refer, also, to page
15 of the Report from the Commons Committee, and you will find that
the whole charge upon the Company's trade fo► management in China.
is two per cent. whiltt the rates of " commission on the transactions of
private traders and Americans in China appear to fluctuate from five to
two and a half per cent."
Then, as to freights, the Reviewer says the Company " were long in
the habit of paying 261. 10s. of freight for such ships as they chartered,
while private merchants were not paying more than 81. or 101. per tun ;
and, although the Company have latterly reduced their freights, they
are still about one hundred per cent, higher than the current rates."

Where the Reviewer gets his information I know not. Even Mr.
Akers, from whale evidence the Reviewer has quoted in support of his
statements, rates the difference of freight at forty instead of one hun.
Bred per cent. But let us again appeal to official documents. From
the First Report it appears, that the average rate of freight paid by
the Company from 1814 to 1829, was 181. 16s. 9d. per ton, instead of
261.105. as stated by the Reviewer; and if we turn to evidence given
expressly for the purpose of showing that the Company's freights were
extravagant, we find it stated by Captain Pope, " 1 could fit a ship of
600 tons, the same as the Company's ships are fitted, and sail that ship
direct to Canton and back, for 131. • ton, and, for 21. a ton snore, I
could pay the port clues," which are included in the Company's rates.
So then, what the Reviewer calls 81. or 101. is 151; the difference be-
! tireer, which and 181. 16s. Sd. is fully accounted for by the fact stated in
evidence, not only by the Company's officers, but by witnesses opposed
to the Company, viz. " that the ships were taken up when anatesials
for fitting ships were more expersive than they are now." Need I add,
that the obligation to take up ships for a oaks of voyages is imposed
upon the Company by law.
will only state further upon this part of the subject, that the Re.
viewer, whilst he insinuates that, notwithstanding the reductions which
the Company have made in their frieghts, " they are still about one
hundred per cent. higher than the current rates," has altogether forgot.
' ten to enlighten his readers with the simple facts elicited in the evi.
dunce, and stated in the official documents, that the seductions to
which the Reviewer refers will have the el ct of bringing down the
Comprty's freight upon black tea to 21d. per lb. and that Mr Bates,
the authority triumphantly referred to by the Reviewer as " decisive,"
stated in evidence that the freight of the tea if bought in tree trade
would be 3d. per lb. Two months, indeed, had scarcely passed away,
when Mr. Bates told the Committee, " from experience, since my last
examination, lam convinced that 24d. and 20. per lb. is high enough
to fix the freight." We are not informed how Mr. Bates gained this
experience, possibly he had seen the official statement, 'hewing that the
Company's freight would not exceed 24d. per lb. and, in the ardour of
his zeal, he came at once to the conclusion, that if that were indeed the
case, if the Company could accomplish so much, the free trader must
be able to accomplish still more. Certain it is, that the official state-
ment was made public in the period which intervened between Mr.
Bates' examinations.

But to return to the Reviewer. He states (page 291) that the
Company " being the only sellers of tea, they invariably understoek
the market." To this bold assertion, unsupported by proof, I oppose
the evidence of the tea brokers. "Is there as much tea put up to sale
as the consumption will take ?' Quite so ;in fact, we refuse tea al.
most at every sale. What then, becomes of the impudent assertion,
that the Company invariably understock the market ?
He says (page 394), " The East.lndia Company are the only fo-
reigners trading to China who never dell except with the Hong mer-
chants:" he has forgotten to add the important fact stated by the Cont.
mons' Committee, that they are " the ohly traders who abstain entirely
from ail illicit dealing."
We arc now presented with some of the extracts from the evidence of
the six witnesses to whom I referred at the outset. The first quotation
is from the evidence of Cap: aim Coffin, an American ; and, as a EOM-
men of the manner in which the selection is made, I will just observe,
that whilst we are told that Captain Coffin said, in answer to the quer
thin, ' But you do not give more for teas you purchase of the Hong
merchant than you give to others ?" —" Not in any fray; we tire Mtn
no further advantage than a preference of trade, if we can trade squatty
well with him." The Reviewer has altogether omitted to add, that
Captain Coffin was also asked, " Is there, in your judgment, any dif.
ference between the quality of the teas putchased by the East India
Company and those purchased by the Americans?' In answer to

:~
~\,
;.

which he said, " I should think there was a difference front five ta
ten per cent. in favour of the teas purchased by the Company."
But the most extraordinary example of unfairness is in the geotation
made from the evidence of Mr. Joshua Bates, in sh-ch \l.. Roes
stated that the teas cost the country about a million and 4 11-111 more
than they would if bought on private account. l'rein this :,o•ut Mo.
Bates was examined three times: the Reviewer Kites only his first
statement. Some judgment may be formed of his natives for not
giving either the record or the third, when the tact is tmawn, that in
the second 31r. Bates was called upon to give the particle-it:- of his cal -
culation, and that having done so. it was most triumph: 31;1y sheave tit
be full of inaccuracies and errors, some of which he Itimsde ocknow-
ledged on his third examination !
The Reviewer calls special attention to the evidence of Capt. John
3lackie, as *hewing "that it is a radical mistake to supnose that 1:
commerce can be carried on with the Chinese except through the port cf
Canton, and Captain Mackie traded every where along the coast . In-
deed ! Can it he, that the master of a small vessel of WO tons was per-
mitted to trade at various ports, whilst every port, excepting Canton,
has been hermetically closed by the laws of the Celestial Empire against
foreigners, in spite of the efforts of Lords Macartney and .intherst t
obtain a relaxation of this prohibition ? Yes ; such is the feet. Ca.,.
tarn Mackie had not indeed permiteion, but lie found his way
least he says he did. And in what manner does your Lordship state, ,•r
he did so? Why, just as the master of a Folkestone lugger co'itrites
to land his tubs in spite of the Prev entire service and Custom-4m..
,fficers !! Heat his own wee...try. •• %Vas the trade you carried e" nos.
therited by the laws of Citina?—i understood it was not author-as .
it was done quite openly." An! this is one of the clan of witnesses ems
whose evidence the Legislature are cow urged to act, in opposiiiee is
:he opinions and statements of gentlemen of the highest character and
r .spectability, who have passed years In China.
the Reviewer proceeds to remark, " that the value of all the con nes-
dities exported by the company besides military stores, does not ex-
ceed the miserable pittance of 750,0001." But why ? may I ask. Is
not the cause of this small export the necessity under which the (on
piny are placed, as governors of India, of occupying the whole oc
their trade from thence in the remittance cf that portion of the rev, rut..t
which is expended in this country ? Can it be expected, that while
jje Company must bring produce from India mufficient to rialize
millions stetting annually, they should also bring returns for I .r.„-e yam.-
titles of goods exported thither? It is clear that if they did eeies-t
them, they must do as many of the free traders have been compelicd re
4ar submit to ruinous losses ; and is not the country deeply interested
In realizing the Indian tribute ? Travel through any county in Eng-
land, and number the estates, and fortunes, and incomes created by
Indian means. Remember, also• by extending exports to India, you
reduce the value of the rupee in exchange upon England, and come-
quently compel the poor natives of ledia to yield more to effect the go-
vernment remittance than they did. Wlten all this is fairly considare,,
we shall cease to wonder that the Company do not increase their ex•
ports; and may perhaps be led to regret that we have not, in our fisted
arrargerreats, sufficiently consulted the welfare and prosperity of the
country from which we drew so largely.
But the :teport says, that front 36,000 pieces imported by the .11. •
racing into Canton, they have diminished to 16,370 pieces.
Then the Reviewer says--" The American public have been Mein.
dandy supplied with tea for little more than a third of what it ces
• cost the people of England, exclusive of the duty. Ile may well ex•
dude the duty ; for it is stated in the Evidence that the American (to.
vernment forced the trade, by allowing 12 mouths' credit for the enti..s
upon tea. This caused excessive importations. and consetieent r doe •
Lion of price, to the ruin of the importer, the risk of the Hoveromeir.
and the temporary benefit of the coesuntsr.
A statement of what the teas brought from New Vatic, and velu,
by the London broker, would sell for, according to the Reviewer's state-
ment, contrasted with what they were actually purchased at in Ame-
rica, proves the Reviewer guilty, on this head, of the gtossest exagge-
ration.

It must be unnecersary for me to proceed. Every man of commoi.
candour, who has followed me thus far, must be prepared to Otto,
ride the Review in disgust ; for surely, whatever may be the opinior.
entertained by different persons upon the East `ndia question, there env
be but one, in censuring and consigning to inf any this glaring attempt
to cheat and delude the public.
But " usque ad nauseam." In page 315 rf the Review, we are 1".
formed, that in 1814, the exports from Great Britain to India amounted
to 870,1771. ; and in page 63 of the papers printed by the House ef
Commons on the 9th of February, 1830, we are informed, under the
signature of the Inspector-General of the Customs (quite at good an at'.
tbority, we should presume, as the Edinburgh Reviewer) that such es-
ports amounted to 1,874,6901. The Reviewer has, therefore, left out t
million ! Having made this blunder, he goes on to contrast the in-
crease in the amount of exports to India since 1814,
with the assertion
of the Company in 1813, that the opening of the trade .ewould he • a
other than a ruinous transfer of it into new channels, attended with t•
beggary of many thousands of industrious individuals." How far this
prediction of the Company has been verified, let the thousands or weav-
ers sod manufacturers in India testify. I pretend not to say that there
ha. not been a gnat increase in the .spurt of 13titish manufactures to
the Bast, but I do tiny that that advantage, if suet' it be, has been gaitb,l
at the expense of multitudes of our Indian subjects, whose interetes
have been overlooked in deference to the British manufacturer,
In short, the throwing open of the trade would, your Lordship tray
be assured, be detrimental alike to the finances of the empire at !ionic
and our dominions abroad, without providing any serious odes:Hasse ler
those who are moat loud in the clamour raised by the Reviewer soil his
associates, ivassmsch as it distinctly appears by the evidence of their
Own most approved witnesses, that the trade of other stn.-. with Chit
has been either abandOned altogether, or greatly riAttesi% is Laprolitablc
and injarious. And here I beg leave to mention, that witt'e vie 11,itis'•
East Imlla Coutpany have successfully carri,4l on trade with
the Companies of every other nation have uniformly failed.
Here, toy Lord, I take my leave of this Revitistr. I have I 'et)
him to he guilty of surprising information furni.htrl by inn:,r ulex.
eeptionable witnesses, and of selecting for ;he puh!ic guidence a fees
persons by no means entitled to such a preference. I have exposed his
perversion of public accounts, and his deliberate misrepresentation of
the terms of en Act of Parliament. In a word, my herd. 1 have esta-
blished his prostitution of the high office clan exalted public instructor
to factious purposes, and have shown his on :a:thine:as to enjoy any
portion of public confidence relative to this most important question, to
to particiimte in its settlement.
I purposely abstain from noticing the rumours which connect this
article with an individual of some notoriety ; but should the identiliea.
tion prove correct, and the writer return, in the same spirit and througi.
the:same channel, to a further review of the India Question, he shall
be taught to feel how much he is at present indebted for mercy and rot.
bearance to your Lordship's most obedient servant, _

41 L RTII ES

The Killarney P.or Seholar.-111 the Rev. I. STEWART.
This is a very pleasing and interesting little wo, k, from
the pen of the intelligent author of Bible Gems.
It is printed and published by the enterprising Mr. Skill.
of Swaffham, from whose press are constantly issuing vo-
lumes admirably adapted to amuse and instruct every el.ts,
of youthful readers.
The present little ptoductiou contains clever descriptive
sketches of the beautiful scenery for which the neig•hhour-
hood of the Irish Lakes, have been so long and so joitt:ly
celebrated, interspersed with amusing pen-and-ink portraits
of living characters. " The author has visi:ed every spot
he describes, and lived among the people of whom he writes.
There is hardly a character introduced whom he cannot lay
his linger upon; there is no painting at random, nor a single
caricature."

Cours de Litienature Francais. ; or, a coarse of in French
Literature. Hy J. ROI/DOTHAN. JOY. lira.
This judicious and clever little volume is on precisely the
sante plan as the author's valuable German Lessons noticed
in our last publication of the 17th of last September. It
consists of a copious and varied selection of passages, in
prose and verse, from the classical writers of the French,
from the time of Rochefoucault to the present day, ar-
ranged for the use of those who are acquiring the language.
in brief and progressive lessons, accompanied with an inter-
linear translation, both literal and free. The nature of the
work would not allow of lengthened quotations, and there-
foie few are sufficiently ample to convey a full ides of tilt:
characteristic manner of their authors ; a desideratum that
might be easily supplied by one so conversant with French
literature as the intelligent author of the work now hefote
us, either in an appendix to future editions, or in a separate
publication in continuation of the above.
In conclusion. we can safely recommend the French
Lessons to heads of schools and private students as ad-
mirably adapted, in conjunction with the same gentleman's
excellent and well-known French Grammar, to promote
the speedy and thorough acquirement of that fashionable
language.
Coaches were first used in England in Richard tie
costa time, mink: the none of Wilhite:4es. What sett our own then
were in point of is is not easily **detained* 'bet hi Osman!,
we are told, about &same period, they woe •rebirles..niade -ea
fete cluroly boards:" of diem, as late as 1618. John Siftternina• ti e
Elector of &admire:et, when he went to Walser:, to do homeve to
the Duchy of Warsaw, had 36 in his train each drawn by tie ham%
Our hackney coaches are so called from the French word •' twiaerik,-
, common horse, for all purposes of tiding.-4. J. W.

0;
-z--_ _
, liihv •
0, onoisAitpro
1788.

I

I

1

sTti• KS
:• er rt c• 114.713 6 NI
col.. for An. 75% 6 64
3 cent. lird. shut
:-.t • rt. 181 R, shot
p.,At Cr Red. shut
rtnt. New. 844 Sk 4A

T TWO O'CLOCK.
ner I. 1826,
mut Jan. 1860,
Ohl Annuities New,
£lOOO Each. Bills 17 18
£5OO Ditto 17 18
£lOO and £2OO Do. 19 18