territorial power,* the genius of the Company became more and more alien and repugnant to the high duties which devolved on it. Without making an extraordinary demand on the intelligence of the age, the dissolution of the Company might have been expected about the year 1784; still more naturally in 1793; still more in 1813; but though the absorbing interest of the war with France affords some apology for the feeble half-measures of those days, there will neither be that nor any other excuse for inadequate arrangements, at the approaching expiration of their exclusive privileges.

If any doubts remained as to the expediency of throwing open the tea-trade, they were removed by the evidence taken by the Committee, of which Lord Lansdowne was chairman, in 1821. But notwithstanding the conclusive nature of the evidence in favour of the removal of re

Assuredly the conquest of India, from the expulsion of the French in the seven years war to the battle of Mahedpore, never could have been effected without national fleets, national troops, and national authority. Yet we are informed that "" our astonishment will be increased when it is added that "this great conquest was made not by the collective force of "the nation, but by a company of merchants." Malcolm's Pol. Hist. of India, 1. i.

strictions, the impression produced by it is less intense than that which results from the violation of all received doctrines, and of all logic, exhibited by the counter evidence. To read proofs of the superior activity and economy of free trade is somewhat tedious and superfluous; but when the monopolist is required plainly to state his pretensions we cannot listen to them with indifference; they provoke our impatience to correct the absurdity and remedy the evil. For these reasons I extract the following passages. from the evidence of Mr. Charles Grant, as being more satisfactory and stimulating than any thing that was or could be advanced on the other side. On the subject of the expensiveness of the Company's China ships, from their being "constructed for war and for political "" purposes as well as for trade," Mr. Grant observes that "they serve also to command respect "for the nation and its interests throughout the "Indian seas, and particularly from the super"cilious and despotic government of China. "It would be ruinous to the Company's interests "to give up this admirable class of ships, and "to entrust their valuable China commodities, "and the protection of their interests in the "eastern seas to a parcel of small ships taken up fortuitously, and for a single voyage."

On the nature of the "respect" thus inspired into the Chinese government, and the fruits thereof, he says, "Although the English expe"rience a full share of the haughtiness and " insolence with which foreigners are generally "treated while in China, yet the Chinese them"selves can no more conceal their dread of the "military character and power of the British "nation, than they can deny their commercial

preponderance among the various nations who "visit the port of Canton for trade; and what

ever advantages the servants of the East-India "Company may have derived, in their various "discussions with the Chinese authorities from "the opinion which they entertain of the power " and commercial superiority of the British "nation-advantages to which the present state "of the whole foreign intercourse may be justly "ascribed; it is, nevertheless, the fact that the "ENGLISH in China are considered as the "objects of more peculiar jealousy, and hence << THEIR whole conduct is watched with more "scrupulous care."-" The Chinese respect the "wealth and property, the ships and the ser"vants of the Company; and that respect is

intimately connected with their own interest; "but I do not think they would at all equally

respect an individual, though having the com"mission of the king of Great Britain."

It is well known that the trade of Canton is conducted, on the part of the Chinese, through the medium of a company of monopolists, called the Hong merchants. It might be supposed, therefore, that Mr. Grant would speak with much approbation of this part of Chinese policy, especially as the profits of the Chinese Company are not fixed, like the rate of dividend of the English Company, but rise and fall according to the result of their several transactions. It might have occurred to him that, whatever could be said for or against making an exclusive Company the sole channel of foreign commerce, was equally applicable to the English as to the Chinese Company. If the English Company is beneficial to the English nation, the Chinese one must become more so to the Chinese nation, being composed of individuals who are really, and not nominally, merchants; and if the Chinese system is injurious, the English system must be more so. Nevertheless, Mr. Grant thus describes and characterises the restrictive policy of the Chinese:-"The non-extension of the sale of our manufac"tures in China may indeed be, in a great measure, charged to monopoly,-but to a spe

66

"cies of it now unknown in Europe, and framed

by the Chinese themselves. Restricting fo"reigners to one port, they will only allow them "to trade with one company in that port, consisting of eight or ten persons, to whom all "the foreign trade is confined in absolute mono

poly; the foreigners not being permitted to "trade with any other Chinese, nor any other "Chinese to trade with foreigners, unless with "the sanction of the monopoly merchants, called "the Hong."—"The jealous policy of the Chinese government; the strict monopoly against its own subjects under which it has placed the trade of foreigners; the narrow channel through which "that trade has its entrance into the country; "the inadequacy of such a channel for conveying

a large trade to distant parts, &c. all these "formidable hindrances to the extension of Bri"tish commerce in China seem to be quite un"known or overlooked; but they are all realities." "The Chinese Hong fix among themselves the

prices of the imports they receive from foreigners, and the prices of the exports they furnish to them, and, therefore, are in effect the ar"biters of the extent of foreign trade."

66

Now for the contrast between the barbarous Chinese monopoly and the refined English monopoly. "The India Company," says Mr. Grant,