importation of opium; but neither the Chinese nor any other nation are entit.ed, after having, by a long connivance at and participation in the trade, induced foreigners to import a large amount of valuable property into their territories, to pounce upon and seize such property on pretence of its being contraband! The Chinese are a remarkably clever people; and it is impossible that they should not see that, in this instance, their government has been guilty of the grossest injustice; and that it has rendered itself liable for the full value of the property it has so unwarrantably seized and destroyed. Suppose the British parliament had, in 1796, passed an act prohibiting the importation of tea; and suppose farther, that the collector of customs and other authorities in Liverpool had paid no attention whatever to this act, but that, from 1796 down to the present day, they had openly countenanced the trade, that it had rapidly increased; and that every year hundreds of Chinese ships laden with tea had arrived in the Mersey, safely unloaded their cargoes, and sailed either with silver or other British produce on board: what, under these circumstances, would the Chinese have said, had the British government suddenly turned round and declared, “You are engaged in an illegal trade;" and without farther intimation have proceeded to seize and destroy all the tea belonging to them in England? Would not the Chinese, the Russians, French, and, in short, the whole world, have declared such an act to be flagrantly unjust? And would not every honest man in England have said that the Chinese had been swindled; and that the government of China did not deserve to be treated with ordinary respect, if it did not endeavour to procure redress for its subjects. Now, this is precisely the case of England against the Chinese. The morality or immorality of the opium trade is wholly beside the question. Though opium were ten times more injurious than has ever been represented, that would not alter the fact that the trade in it had been openly countenanced by the Chinese authorities for a period of more than forty years; and such being the case, foreigners were certainly entitled to infer that that countenance would not suddenly be withdrawn; and that, at all events, their property would be respected. This, in fact, is not a question about which there is any real room for doubt or difference of opinion. The conduct of the Chinese has been most unwarrantable; and the government of this country has not only a well-founded claim for redress, but is called upon to enforce it by a just regard for the national honour and the interests of the British subjects, whose rights have been so outrageously violated at Canton. It is laid down by all writers on public law, that it depends wholly on the will of a nation to carry on commerce with another, or not to carry it on, and to regulate the manner in which it shall be carried on. (Vattel, book i. § 8.) But we incline to think that this rule must be interpreted as applying only to such commercial states as recognise the general principles of public or international law. If a state possessed of a rich and extensive territory, and abounding with products suited for the use and accommodation of the people of other countries, insulates itself by its institutions, and adopts a system of policy that is plainly inconsistent with the interests of every other nation, it appears to us that such nation may be justly compelled to adopt a course of policy more consistent with the general well-being of mankind. No doubt, the right of interference, in cases of this sort, is one that should be exercised with extreme caution, and requires strong grounds for its vindication. But that this right does exist, seems sufficiently clear. We admit that a slight degree of inconvenience, experienced from one nation refusing to enter into commercial transactions with another, or from its insisting that these transactions should be carried on in a troublesome and vexatious manner, would not warrant any interference with its internal affairs; but this, like all other questions of the same kind, is one of degree. Should the inconvenience resulting from such anti-social vexatious conduct become very oppressive on others, the parties so oppressed would have as good a right to interfere to enforce a change of conduct, as if the state that has adopted this anti-social offensive policy had openly attacked their territory or their citizens. A state has a perfect right to enact such rules and regulations for its internal government and the conduct of its trade as it pleases, provided they do not exercise any very injurious influence over others. But should such be the case-should the domestic or commercial policy of any particular state involve principles or regulations that trench on the rights or seriously injure the interests of other partics, none can doubt that these others have a right to complain; and, if the injury be of a grave character, and redress be not obtained on complaint being made,—no reasonable doubt can be entertained that the aggrieved party is justified in resorting to force. These principles appear to us to apply with peculiar force in the case of China. Tea, a peculiar product of that country, has now become a necessary of life in England; and no one can doubt that a most serious injury would be inflicted on the people of Britain, were any considerable impediment thrown in the way of its importation; and as the arbitrary policy of the Chinese government, which is not influenced by the maxims, and is regardless of the forms, that prevail among civilised states, has already interrupted this trade, and constantly exposes it to great dangers, it certainly appears that this is a case for forcible intervention-dignus vindice nodus,—and that we are entitled to demand that the trade should be placed on a solid footing, that the import and export duties should be rendered intelligible and moderate, and that an end should be put to the extortion and interference of the Chinese authorities.-S. PAPER. The following is to be read as a conclusion of the article Paper in this edition of the Dictionary. This measure has, also, in part obviated the injustice done to authors and publishers, by compelling them to pay a duty on the paper used in printing books previously to their publication; and, consequently, before it can be known whether the books will sell. When they do not sell, the tax has obviously to be paid out of the capital of the authors or publishers, and the loss arising from an unsuccessful publishing speculation is increased by its amount. (See vol. i., p. 200.) It is true that every duty on paper, how limited soever operates in this way, and is, therefore, objectionable on principle; but the hardship inflicted on an unsuccessful author by the existing paper duty being only half its former amount, is no longer of any very material importance. As respects revenue, too, the measure promises to be most successful. In 1835, the nett produce of the duties on paper, in the United Kingdom, amounted to 715,743/., of which the duty on stained paper produced 60,1417. The latter duty, as already seen, was totally repealed in 1836, and deducting it, the duty on printing and writing papers, paste-board, &c., in 1835, amounted to 655,6021. Now, the rates on the latter descriptions having been reduced a half, it follows, that had the consumption continued stationary, the duty would now have amounted to 327,8017.; whereas, it amounted, in 1838, to 539,789., being an increase of 65 per cent., and we understand that the increase last year was still greater. The fair presumption, therefore, is that in. a year or two, the consumption of taxed paper will be doubled, and that the revenue will have lost nothing by the reduction. This, in fact, is almost always the case. An oppressive tax on an article in general demand is never effectually reduced, without the revenue being in a very short time benefited by the measure. It may be truly said of taxation, The only thing to be regretted, is that the pruning knife is seldom vigorously and skilfully applied.-S. STOCKS. [We give the following Tables, exhibiting the fluctuations in stocks in two of the principal markets of the United States during the year 1840. The following prices of some of the principal stocks sold in the New York market at or near the close of each month in the year 1840: Stocks. Jan. Feb. March April. May. June. July. Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. United States Bank Bank of New York Manhattan Bank Merchants' Bank 96 Bank of America Phoenix Bank 118 118 Dry Dock Bank 60 50 44 Delaware and Hudson Canal 691 73 Lafayette Bank 66 Mechanics' Banking Asso. 64 68 68 761 73 72 74 70% 73} 624 65 63 661 65 64 125 125 123 120 123 124 91 93 92 951 96 96 110*100 112 114 115 115 99 100 101 100 101 103 111111 113 110 110 110 114 114 116 115 116 1163 40 41 403 41 42 38 39 39 45 501 52 1022 96 94 94 98 92 934 95 94 93 93 761 814 771 82 801 81 741 74 76 78 76 76 154 161 121 181 154 18 174 24 29 54 281 281 44 46 45A 45 404 414 36 39 37 40 39 38 115 118 122 1244 130 130 122 125 126 129 129 1314 504 49 482 50 49% 56 55 119 121 120 119 116 117 120 124 781 82 73 78 76 84 841 881 244 243 213 22 24 281 214 234 55 The Prices of some of the principal Stocks sold in the Philadelphia Market at or near the close of each |