Page:Europe in China.djvu/72

54 Commons (June, 1833) concerning the arbrogationabrogation [sic] of the East India Company's trade monopoly, Sir George Staunton moved a series of resolutions, one of which (No. 8) ran as follows: 'That, in the event of its proving impracticable to replace the influence of the East India Company's Authorities by any system of national protection, directly emanating from the Crown, it will be expedient (though only in the last resort) to withdraw altogether from the control of the Chinese Authorities, and to establish the trade in some insular position on the Chinese coast where it may be satisfactorily carried on beyond the reach of acts of oppression and molestation, to which an unresisting submission would be equally prejudicial to the national honour and to the national interests of this country.' Whilst this important subject was under discussion, the House was counted out, and on a subsequent resumption of the debate the resolutions were negatived without a division, indicating the general indifference as regards Chinese affairs which then prevailed in England.

At the time when Sir George Staunton drafted the foregoing resolution, the project of stationing in Canton three Superintendents of British trade in China was definitely placed before the country by the Bill above mentioned which passed into law two months later. In speaking of 'a system of national protection directly emanating from the Crown,' Sir George Staunton referred to Lord Napier's proposed mission, the failure of which he appears to have foreseen. In suggesting a remedy for this expected failure, the establishment of the Commission 'in some insular position on the coast, beyond the reach of acts of oppression and molestation,' Sir George Staunton may not have had in his mind more than the establishment of a trade station after the fashion of the East India Company's factories, but he evidently came very near the idea of a British Colony. He had to advantage studied the history of the East India Company and drawn from it lessons which Cabinet Ministers failed to master. Speaking before the House of Commons in support of the above resolution, he argued that the port of