RXX1v.]

ON CHINA.

}
wo
1&4 5
“Fd

British Policy in China.

“1861. (To Mr. Hargreaves).—You will have seen
that these articles generally, especially those in the Times,
lay all the blame of their wars on our commercial classes, and
the cost thus entailed on the country is made a grievance on
the part of the aristocratic and propertied classes, on account
of the taxation which they bring on the country. So far as
the charge against our merchants is concerned, I am afraid
that many of the residents in China, especially the younger
and less experienced of their number, as well as those engaged
in the opium trade whether old or young, have often been
active promoters of hostilities with that empire. As a rule
the Chinese are not a people who attract much sympathy
from those who live among them. How could it be
otherwise, when they feel no sympathy for others? Like
begets like’ But it is very short-sighted and unphilosophical
 conduct to try to care this ungenial characteristic
of a people by violence and injustice, which can only increase
the feeling of alienation and repugnance. Yet this is the
receipt invariably prescribed in our intercourse with the
Chinese as a cure for their insolence, by the young merchants ;
for Sir George Bonham, the former Governor of Hong Kong,
draws a distinction between the conduct of the old and substantial
 houses and the younger residents; the latter are
always for ¢ pitching into the Celestials ’ by way of making
them more civil. By the way, I am afraid the prospect of a
sudden increase of trade, which always follows a war expenditure
 for a time, is not without its influence on these
young houses, to say nothing of the enormous profits which
have been made ont of the claims for compensation for losses
of property incurred during the war. Now none of these
motives can have any sway with the merchants and manufacturers
 of Lancashire, who are the parties principally

1861.
Aire, B7.