increased both in the river and on board the foreign boats. In 1838, however, the boats resisted the search, and, in defiance of all laws, a British merchant was concerned in bringing some opium up to Canton, which was discovered and seized. The Hong merchants interfered, as they were responsible for such infractions of the law; and matters were about to become critical, when, on July 12, 1838, Captain Elliot, the British superintendent of the trade of British subjects in China, accompanied by two ships of war, proceeded to Canton to seek a reception, and forwarded an open letter for transmission to the governor. But no reception was granted, and a British boat having passed the Boca Tigris was fired upon.

A proclamation was then issued to foreigners announcing the arrival of an Imperial Commissioner to put a stop to the opium traffic, and forthwith an edict was issued, demanding the instant delivery of every particle of opium, under threat of immediate forfeiture. The edict was executed to the letter, and Captain Elliot having required of the merchants the surrender into his hands of all the opium, he gave up the whole of it to the Chinese officials, and thus upwards of 20,000 chests of the noxious narcotic were abandoned and lost. But no sooner did one trouble end than another began. In August an affray took place at Macao, between English sailors and Chinese villagers, in which a Chinese was killed. Commissioner Lin demanded that the murderer should be given up, but Captain Elliot refused. And in retaliation the Commissioner prohibited any provision or other articles to be supplied to the British at Macao; in consequence of which the superintendent left Macao, and invited all who wished to quit the place to follow him. Further complications afterwards arose, and in the end a war arose, which was concluded by the treaty of Nanking on August 29, 1842, by which British subjects were allowed to trade at Canton, Amoy, Foochowfoo, Ningpo, and Shanghai, Hong Kong was ceded to Britain, the value of the opium confiscated, six million dollars, was repaid, the monopoly of the Hong merchants abolished, and three million dollars due by them repaid, and an indemnity of twelve million dollars agreed to be paid between 1843 and 1845.

CHAPTER XII.

THE COLONIAL TRADE.

Colonial Legislation.-Customs Duties in the Colonies.-The Sugar Duties.Differential Duties.-Free and Slave Labour.-Consumption of Slavegrown Produce.

THERE remained much to be done as regards colonial legislation. Although Mr. Huskisson intended that there should be an open trade between the colonies and foreign countries, he did not enact this by positive legislation. He only gave power to the Crown to adopt open trade with any country willing to meet us on equitable terms; and, in consequence of this measure, the Crown entered into treaties with foreign powers with respect to the navigation laws. But this reciprocity principle was after all of limited application. Many countries had no advantages to offer us in exchange. Many were shut up in their own mistaken views of commercial policy; and with all these the commerce of the colonies was hermetically shut. Was it wise to cripple our own trade, or the trade of our colonies, because foreign countries chose to cripple theirs? There was an obvious fallacy in the reciprocity principle. It seemed indeed plausible, and even reasonable, but it did not stand the test of scrutiny. Its advocates said: We are friends to free trade; we grant all the benefit which you tell us will arise from an unrestricted interchange of commodities between different nations; we agree to all your reasoning; but, in order that there should be a free interchange, it is necessary that the removal of our restricted regulations should be met by corresponding measures on the part of other nations. If this be not the case, we are giving away the advantage we possess of supplying at least ourselves with our own productions; we throw open our ports to receive the produce of the industry of foreign countries, whilst they shut their gates to ours, and we destroy our national industry in those articles in the production of which foreigners excel us without their becoming in their turn customers of ours.' As Mr. Poulett Thompson observed, however, the fallacy of this reasoning lies in this: these gentlemen misunderstand the nature of trade. In order to buy we must also sell. We may open our ports to the silks and wines of France, to the corn of Germany and Russia, to the drugs of Asia and of India; but we can get no pound's

worth of any commodity without giving in return a pound's worth of our own productions. Our manufacturers will give away nothing; they will not send their goods to foreign ports without getting an equivalent in return; and I will venture to say that the producers of foreign commodities of French silks, of German cloth, with which, according to these gentlemen, this country has been and will be overwhelmed, are as little likely to make a present to the British consumer of their hard-worked produce without taking in return the staple articles of this country.' Unfortunately, while we were discussing the point the colonies were suffering. But there was another colonial grievance which also demanded correction.

Some of our British colonies, especially the West Indies and Canada, had a customs legislation framed exclusively for the interest of the mother country. No article was more important to the West Indies for ordinary consumption than fish, yet no fish was allowed to be imported except the produce of our fisheries. Lumber, staves, and other articles necessary for manufactures, as well as flour and provisions, were charged the immoderate rates of 30 to 40 per cent., and foreign manufactures had to pay a duty of from 20 to 30 per cent. Not only, therefore, were many colonies precluded from having direct relations with foreign countries, but they had to pay for such goods as they received a high and heavy tax to benefit the manufacturers of Great Britain. Nor was there any uniformity in the levying of such duties. Whilst the West Indies and Canada charged from 30 to 40 per cent., the Cape of Good Hope and New South Wales charged only from 3 to 10 per cent. It was reserved for Mr. Labouchere, in 1841, to effect a great reform by doing away with all prohibitions, and reducing the duties to very moderate amounts. In introducing his measure, Mr. Labouchere justly said, "We have to legislate for a great empire, whose interests are deeply affected by the trade regulations which we lay down; and it is important that the empire should know that the spirit in which we legislate for it is not a feeling of narrow jealousy, watching only the peculiar interests of those whom we represent, but a wide and comprehensive desire to confer equal benefit on all parts of the empire, and on all the various classes of its multifarious people. I cannot forget that it is by perseverance in a system of monopoly and exclusion that other great colonial empires have fallen to pieces. A great colonial empire is indeed glorious, but it is at least uncertain; and the only way in which colonial possessions are to be kept together is by acting towards them all in a spirit of equal and impartial justice, treating them all with parental kindness, not allowing any favourite in the family, and considering their greatness and their prosperity and happiness our prosperity and happiness.' The proposals of the Government did not meet with much opposition,

and thus another great advance was made in the adoption of a just policy towards the colonies.1

Another important measure connected with the colonies was the equalisation of the sugar duties. In 1836 the duties on East and West India sugar were already equalised, but not so the duties on colonial and foreign sugar. It was only during the reign of King James that sugar was specially mentioned in our tariff, and for a long time the importation was unimportant. At the commencement of the present century the quantity imported was 4,000,000 cwt., and during the whole period of the war, from 1801 to 1814, the average consumption in the United Kingdom was only 18 lbs. 7 oz. for each individual, the average rate of duty being 268. 2d. per cwt. After the war, the social condition of the people being far from satisfactory, the consumption somewhat lessened, whilst our policy of excluding all foreign-grown sugar, and especially slave-grown sugar, by a prohibitory duty of 31. 38. per cwt., rendered any chance of improvement morally impossible. A differential duty was also imposed upon Mauritius and East India sugar, which continued till 1825 as regards Mauritius, and till 1836 as regards the East India. In 1840 Mr. Ewart moved that all British sugar should be charged a duty of 248., and all foreign sugar a duty of 348. per cwt., but the motion was lost by 27 to 122. On May 7, 1841, Lord John Russell described the condition of the British West Indies after the abolition of slavery, and showed how, after a momentary state of suspense, those colonies had already returned to a state of prosperity. He described the distress which existed in the manufacturing districts; a considerable portion of the working population of the country being unable to enjoy the ordinary necessaries and comforts of life. The revenue was, moreover, declining. The taxes were not producing as much as was required; and he moved that, Considering that it is practicable to supply the present inadequacy of the revenue to meet the expenditure of the country by a judicious alteration of protective and differential duties without any material increase in the public burdens, such a course will, in the opinion of the House, promote the interests of trade, afford relief to the industrious classes, and is best calculated to provide for the maintenance of public faith and the general welfare of the people.' But a strenuous opposition was made to the proposal, not only by the advocates of a restrictive policy, but by those who had been the earnest advocates of the abolition of slavery. Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Gladstone led the opposition; and Lord Sandon proposed the amendment, That, considering the efforts and sacrifices which Parliament and the country have made for the abolition of the slave trade and slavery, with the earnest hope that their exertions and example might lead to the mitigation and final extinction of those evils in other coun

6

1 1 & 2 Vict. c. 113.

tries, this House is not prepared, especially with the present prospect of the supply of sugar from British possessions, to adopt the measure proposed by her Majesty's Government for the reduction of duty on foreign sugar.' For eight nights did the Commons debate this important question, and the issue was the defeat of Lord John Russell's motion by 281 to 317. Immediately after, Sir Robert Peel moved a vote of want of confidence in the Ministry, and, after another five nights' struggle, it was carried by 312 to 311, the majority of one thus ousting the Liberal Cabinet.

Though the effort for the equalisation of the sugar duties had been defeated, it was soon afterwards renewed. In 1842 Mr. Labouchere moved that colonial sugar be charged 208., and foreign sugar 308., and the motion was lost by 164 to 245. In 1843 Mr. Hawes proposed a differential duty of 10s., and he lost his motion by 122 to 203. In March 1844 the member for Taunton proposed the admission of Brazilian sugar at the same duty as colonial, and he again lost the motion by 132 to 205. And in June 1844 Lord John Russell's motion for a duty of 248. on British sugar, and 348. on foreign, was lost by a majority of 69. In that year, however, the first inroad was made on the exclusion of foreign sugar by making a distinction between sugar the growth of China, Java, or Manilla, or of any other foreign countries which her Majesty in Council shall have declared to be admissible as not being the produce of slave-labour, and other foreign sugar, Lord John Russell insisting upon making no such distinction, but placing the produce of all countries on an equal footing.

6

In 1845 Sir Robert Peel introduced his measure on the sugar duty, proposing to reduce the duty on British West India, Mauritius, and East India sugar from 1l. 58. to 16s. and 148. per cwt. according to quality, foreign free-labour from 31. 38. to 11. 88. and 11. 38. 4d., and other foreign sugar from 31. 6s. 14d. to 31. 38. And again Lord John Russell moved as an amendment, That it is the opinion of this House that the plan proposed by her Majesty's Government in reference to the sugar duties professes to keep up a distinction between foreign free-labour and foreign slave-labour sugar, which is impracticable and illusory; and, without adequate benefit to the consumer, tends so greatly to impair the revenue as to render the removal of the income and property tax at the end of three years extremely uncertain and improbable.' The amendment, however, was lost by 94 to 236. Again in July 1845 Viscount Palmerston moved for an address. to the Crown, praying that Spanish subjects be permitted to import into the United Kingdom all the productions of the territories of the Spanish Crown, paying thereupon no higher duty or customs than those which are paid by the subjects or citizens of the most favoured nations on the production of like articles being the productions of the territories or possessions of such nations ;'