has not fairly quoted his authorities. The sections referred to are almost literally as follows:

And whereas it may happen that the tea imported by the said Company may not always be sufficient to answer the consumption thereof in Great Britain, and to keep the price of tea in this kingdom upon an equality with the price thereof in other neighbouring countries of Europe; be it enacted, &c, that it shall and may be lawful for the Company to import such quantities of tea as they shall think necessary, from any parts of Europe, under license from the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, § 10.

If the said Company shall at any time neglect to keep the market supplied with a sufficient quantity of tea, at reasonable prices, to answer the consumption thereof in Great Britain, it shall and may be lawful for the said Commissioners of the Treasury to grant licenses to other persons to import tea into Great Britain from Europe, § 11.

It is impossible not to perceive, from these two sections, that the act of Geo. II. was passed to obviate the stringency of the restriction against the importation of tea from Europe, and the temptation to smuggling owing to the high duties imposed upon that article. The 10th section, therefore, authorized the Company, if they pleased, to import tea from Europe; and in order that the country might not be at the mercy of a public body, which, through impolicy or imprudence, as well as selfishness, might deprive it of a necessary. of life, it invested the Lords of the Treasury with the power of allowing other persons to import tea from Europe.

It is a fact uncandidly concealed by the reporter, that this law was passed for the purpose of suppressing the system of smuggling, through the medium of the Swedish and Danish Company's imports, the chief part of which was directed to the supply of this country. A committee of the House of Commons was appointed in 1745 to inquire into the causes of smuggling; and the duty on tea was reduced to 1s. per lb. and 25 per cent. on the gross sale price. A sudden stoppage, however, of the usual supply from Europe might have been prejudicial, and therefore a legal mode of introducing tea from Sweden and Denmark was provided.*

But assuming that the act was passed to compel the Company " to keep the price of tea in this kingdom upon an equality with the price thereof in other neighbouring countries of Europe;" and assuming that the Company have failed to fulfil this condition, or, to use the words of the report, that they have "taken a shameful advantage of their supposed privileges;" what is the penalty? The Lords of the Treasury may (not shall) allow other persons to import tea from Europe. Have no persons applied for licenses; or has the Treasury refused them? In either case, how are the Company to blame? Circumstances may render the latter willing to allow such an interference with their monopoly ; and if the law is imperative upon the Treasury, why does not the Liverpool Association apply for licenses? In a moral point of view, this Association is more culpable than the Company; the members affect to see an exorbitant profit extorted from their fellow subjects: they have the means of counteracting it, and they tamely look on.

But independent of this consideration, what lawyer or practical man would have the assurance to hold the act of Geo. II. to be now in operation as regards the import of tea from Europe, in the face of the eighth section of the 53d Geo. III. c. 155, which, after it had been enacted (§ 2) that all prior acts relating to the trade in tea, repugnant to that act, were thereby repealed, declares

In 1784, it was computed that of the eleven millions of pounds of tea consumed in this country, eight millions were smuggled. The quantity now smuggled, it is supposed, from official data, is not more than 20,000 lbs.

declares that "it shall not be lawful for any person or persons, save with the special leave or license of the Company, to import any tea into the United Kingdom from any port or place whatsoever ?" The reason had ceased, and the law was suffered to expire.

The Commutation Act of 1784 (24 Geo. III. c. 38) which, in the passage already quoted from the report, is described as making "further provisions for securing to the public cheap teas,"- -an act the wisdom and policy of which are seldom disputed, it now suits the "reporter" to designate as a measure of the minister of the day to support the East-India Company at the expense of the nation," which, he affirms, was, after it passed, worse off than during the smuggling system." How stands the fact? From 1784 to 1786 the importation of tea rose from five millions of pounds to twenty-one million pounds and a half; the putting-up prices, instead of being set at the arbitrary will of the Company, were fixed by the act, and the Company were required to sell the tea without reserve, if but a penny per pound advance was made upon those prices.* If it be meant that the nation could buy tea more cheaply of smugglers, who paid no duty, than of the Company who paid 12 per cent., we can understand the proposition; but if it be asserted that the nation lost by the quadrupling of the regular importation of tea, and by its being offered them at a price reduced by sixpence per pound on the average of all teas, and by two shillings per pound on some sorts, the statement is

untrue.

With respect to the prices thus fixed by the Commutation Act, the writer says, “it is remarkable that the Company's prices, down to the present hour, exceed this (maximum) by full 15 per cent." This is intelligible enough; it is a charge that the East-India Company contravene the law. We were about to examine the truth of this allegation, when, reading a little further, we found this sapient reporter endeavouring to demonstrate the extravagant disproportion between the reduction in the Dutch prices of tea and those of the English Company, by a comparison between the respective prices of 1772 and 1827; in doing which it must have been his object to represent the Company's prices in the latter year as high as possible; yet (will it be believed?) the putting-up prices of the year 1827 are stated precisely the same as are set forth in the Commutation Act, although the writer had previously asserted that they were fifteen per cent. higher!

The Report contains the following passage respecting the Canadian tea trade:

. The Company has lately sent teas direct from China to Canada. The results of this speculation afford matter of curious illustration. Your committee have before them the account of one of these sales, which took place at Quebec in the month of September last, and it enables them to exhibit the following comparison with the Company's sale prices in London, of a corresponding period.

• In some sorts of tea, the Company have voluntarily reduced the advance to one farthing.