the interval between the third and last (the shortest) period, there was a further increase upon the last of almost 200 per cent.! The imports increased nearly in a geometrical ratio in each interval. Where Mr. Whitmore obtained his figures, which represent the Company's exports as gradually diminishing in amount since 1790, we cannot imagine, unless from the mendacious report put forth by the Liverpool East India Association, which has misled many others. We quote our authority; and if that be correct, as we sincerely believe it is, we have only to charge Mr. Whitmore with committing a very important and fundamental error, but we are entitled to retort his argument, and tell him that, according to his principle, the country has been a loser by the free trade, which has not increased the exports to India from this country, notwithstanding our boasted improvements, in the same ratio as they augmented antecedently to the opening of the trade.'

We do not remember to have met so apt an illustration of the truth, that all seems yellow in a jaundiced eye,' as is contained in this futile endeavour to confute what is unanswerably true. The object of Mr. Whitmore was, to show that, since the relaxation of the charter, the trade to India had increased in a much greater ratio than it had done for many years before. Whether the trade of the Company had, antecedent to that time, been stationary or progressive, was a point respecting which an impression might be stated; but, in truth, of little consequence, when the prodigious increase indicated by the returns from 1814 to 1819, formed part of the estimate. Mr. Whitmore, however, did assert, that previously to 1813, the Company's trade to India had gradually decreased; and the writer in The Asiatic Journal,' carefully avoiding the real merits of the case, eagerly joins issue on this introductory allegation. To us it appears extremely immaterial whether the figures, said to be taken from Mr. Milburn's work on Oriental commerce, be accurately or inaccurately cited. We are very far from affirming that the latter is the case, though we candidly acknowledge, that, after a very diligent search, we have been unable to find them. To say the truth, our suspicions were excited by the assurance of the writer's 'sincere belief in their correctness,—a sort of voucher for authenticity which stimulates incredulity, and makes one wish for those marginal references to official documents, which are the best evidence of statistical statements. To these we have had recourse, and we find, in the first volume of the East India Papers, published in 1812, by order of the House of Commons, an account of exports to India on account of the Company, from 1757 to 1792, which we confess our incompetence to reconcile with the figures attributed to Mr. Milburn. This account is dated East India House, 12th May, 1812,' and signed Charles Cartwright,' but not having room to insert it at length, we abridge it on a principle which, we trust, is not liable to the imputation of ' culling items, and instituting comparisons, between periods which do not show the state of the facts.'

Now, if this account be correct,' (as we sincerely believe it to be) the East India Company have little cause to boast of the increase of their exports previous to 1792-3. In truth, they have always made a merit of an annual sacrifice for the encouragement of British trade and manufactures, and have repeatedly contended, that their exclusive admission to the markets of India and China was more injurious than beneficial.* To be sure, the arguments employed by the advocates of the Company, adapt themselves to the altered condition of things with wonderful flexibility.. Previous to 1813, when it was thought prudent to discourage the prospects of the free traders, document on document was produced, to prove the commercial losses of the Company; now that experience has realized the anticipations of the private merchants, their chartered competitors disavow their former assertions.

We do not know, any more than The Asiatic Journal,' where Mr. Whitmore obtained his figures representing the Company's exports as diminishing in amount from 1793 to 1813, nor have we taken much trouble to inquire. We have, however, no doubt of their substantial accuracy; and the following statement of exports from the port of London to British India, in the nine years ending in 1811, sufficiently justifies Mr. Whitmore's assertion, that the Company's trade was in a state of languor and depression :

* Evidence of Mr. Grant, before the Committee of the Lords, in 1821-22.

Leaving these statements to speak for themselves, we come to an ingenious hypothesis, which, as the Americans say, would be very important if true,' but, not being true, is of no importance whatsoever. We are told, that if the amount of the Company's trade, the exports of cotton manufactures, and of twist and yarn, be deducted from the total consignments to the East Indies and China, in the year ending 5th January, 1829, the free traders would only have exported 2,063,6531. worth of British and foreign goods, which is less than the amount of goods exported from England by the Company in any year between 1802 and 1810! Very possibly. 'As to porter,' said the Irishman in the Orators, if it was n't for the hops and the malt, I'd as lieve drink Thames water.' This principle of deduction will explain anything: if we subtract the exports of the East India Company, and The Asiatic Journal' subtract the exports of the private traders, there will then be no exports at all! The facts, however, are directly the reverse. In the first place, the exports of merchandize by the East India Company did not, in any one year from 1802 to 1828, amount to so large a sum as 2,063,6531. 2dly. In addition to that amount of hardware and woollen goods, the free traders alone, by the confession of The Asiatic Journal, have exported, during the last year, twist and yarn to the value of 393,1357., and cotton manufactures to the amount of 1,656,7551., thus proving, to demonstration, the falsehood of the accounts by which the advocates of the Company, in 1813, attempted to impose on Parliament and the country.

The writer in 'The Asiatic Journal' is also much dissatisfied with Mr. Whitmore's account of the Company's trade to China, and his endeavour to refute it is equally unsuccessful :

"The honourable Member sets out with stating, that the export trade of the Company to China has gradually declined since 1801. Here again we regret that he has not afforded us some clue to the authorities for his figures. The official accounts laid before Parliament this Session and the last (we believe, upon the motion of Mr. Whitmore himself), contain the following statement of the East India Company's exports from England to China :

That this statement, in which the last year is the largest of the series, shows a progressive decline, we may, without much boldness, deny; but Mr. Whitmore, as usual, suppresses a fact very

* Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed, 10th and 17th June, 1828, and 28th April, 1829.'

material for the proper understanding of the matter at issue. He has not even alluded to the Company's exports from India to China, which not only greatly enhance the aggregate amount of their exports, but explain an apparent falling off in any particular year. Thus the reader will doubtless be struck with the small amount of the exports in the year ending 5th January, 1828: in that very year, the Company shipped from India to China 158,000 bales of cotton, which must have been worth alone upwards of a million sterling !'

This passage commences with an expression of regret that the authorities, which attest the fact of a decrease in the Company's China trade since 1801, were not cited by Mr. Whitmore. We confess we are inclined to think that the writer knew very well where they might be found, seeing the research he has employed in collecting the items of a period, which seemed to him more easily convertible to his fraudulent purpose. If he will take the trouble to consult the evidence of Mr. Charles Grant, before the Lords' Committee in 1820-21,* he may there find an account of the total annual value of British produce and manufactures exported to China from 1793 to 1819, from which it appears, that in the years 1802, 1803, 1804, respectively, the imports at Canton were 3,424,787, 3,259,808, and 4,249,691 tales; that in 1819, they had decreased to 1,851,369 tales; and, taking the tale at 6s. Sd., the figures of "The Asiatic Journal' present no augmentation since that time. But, secondly, supposing the returns of exports from 1824 to 1829 admissible, as they stand above, they surely would prove nothing more than that the trade, during that time, had been stationary. The asserted shipments of cotton wool from Surat, or the Hooghly, in 1828, is totally irrelevant to a question in which the amount of British manufactures exported is the subject of consideration. We, however, should be little inclined to insist upon the fractions in this account, which might appear to indicate a progressive decline, had not our contemporary set us the example. The comparison is unfairly made the items are craftily culled, to deceive and delude those readers whose indolence might be satisfied by a glance at the first and last years of the series; add the amount of exports in the three years preceding 1824, and the juggle is exposed. The value † of exports in the years 1821, 1822, 1823, respectively, were 747,0361., 864,160l., 669,4897., exhibiting, in 1822, a greater amount than in 1829, 'the largest,' says the writer, ' on record.'

The next charge against Mr. Whitmore is, that he quoted Milburn in confirmation of his opinion that there was no country with which trade could be so easily carried on as with China. We have looked diligently,' says the writer,' through Milburn's valuable work without being able to discover any such passage, or any passage at all like this declaration, which would indeed be a

* Oriental Herald,' vol. xx. p. 386.

Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed, in 1824.

curiosity, seeing that the author has in several places expatiated on the peculiar difficulties which beset trade in China. We happen to know from the late Mr. Milburn's own oral observations, that he could not have entertained the opinion ascribed to him." Be that as it may, if the writer will refer to pp. 454 and 455, of 'Milburn's Oriental Commerce,'* he may there find the passages in question. After stating that the external commerce of Canton is very considerable, and remarking on that carried on by the Company, the Country Traders, the French, Dutch, Portuguese, Swedes, Spaniards, and Americans, Mr. Milburn says, "The commerce of Canton, immense as it is, is carried on with an astonishing regularity, and in no part of the world can business be transacted with so much ease and dispatch to the foreign merchant.' In another place he says, The commanders of all European ships are allowed, as a great favour, to wear a flag in their boats, which prevents them being stopped at the hoppo or custom houses, of which there are several between Whampoa and Canton; but all other boats, whether belonging to ships, or the Chinese, must have a chop, which is renewed in every custom house in their way up to Canton,' Again: The principal street in the suburbs of Canton, is denominated China street; it contains nothing but shops, in which are to be met with the productions of every part of the globe, and the merchants are in general extremely civil and attentive.' We are not at all anxious to set up these statements of Mr. Milburn against those of Sir George Staunton and other gentlemen, whose testimony is above suspicion, and whose opportunities of forming a correct opinion have been more extensive. That the jealousy and distrust of a semi-barbarous government, alarmed by the excesses of drunken, ill-disciplined seamen, have occasionally thrown impediments in the way of commerce with the English, cannot be denied ; but neither Sir George Staunton, nor any one else, we believe, has ever contended that the Chinese people are opposed to amicable and advantageous intercourse with other nations. The toleration of the Portuguese at Macao; the prosperity of the trade of the United States, and the extent of the Indian Country trade, all discredit the pretended inhospitality of the Chinese to strangers who visit their ports. In the evidence taken before the House of Lords in 1820, 21, it is expressly stated by Mr. Goodard and Mr. Crawfurd, that among the Chinese population scattered over the Eastern Archipelago, foreign manufactures are in eager demand, and it is well known that the Junks annually import large quantities into China, from Singapore and Batavia. The most conclusive fact, however, is the traffic in British manufactures, carried on through the deserts of Tartary at Kiatka, than which the annals of trade attest no more conclusive illustration of the efforts which mercan

* Published by Kingsbury, Parbury and Allen, in 1825.