Page:Europe in China.djvu/512

requiring more sizing than superior qualities. The use of steam in the manufacture of the yarns and the imperfect ventilation of steamers' holds and of godowns in China were also named as subordinate causes of mildew. Mr. (subsequently Sir) John Pender, of Manchester, recommended (October 30, 1872) a formal investigation and a Committee, representing both China merchants and Manchester manufacturers, was appointed to inquire into the matter with a view to remove all cause of complaint. The problem was, however, too complicated to admit of a ready solution. Strange to say, it was also found (February, 1873) that goods which, on arrival in Hongkong, were found, by official inspection, to be badly mildewed, condemned and returned to England, were, on arrival there, when inspected by official surveyors, found perfectly free of mildew. The mildew had evidently been developed by the tropical temperature and reabsorbed on return to a temperate climate. On 27th January, 1873, the Hongkong Chamber of Commerce resolved to co-operate with the Shanghai Chamber in making representations to Mr. Pender's Committee, both Chambers being convinced that the remedy must be found at Manchester. No tangible solution of the difficulty was, however, found and it appeared to all concerned, that the evil had to be left to work its own cure. Oversizing and dressing was continued by Lancashire manufacturers with little abatement, and in consequence Hongkong merchants encountered occasionally losses which kept up the irritation, whilst Chinese buyers began to take up Indian cotton goods in place of the Manchester fabrics. The same process went on in the tea trade, especially since 1874, when the import duties on tea were reduced in England by about one half, and when increased exports from China were accompanied by increasing complaints of the admixture of strange leaves and other materials and an undue proportion of tea dust. It was the mildew question over again, only in another form. The complaints were the same and the evidence equally conflicting, the blame being laid by one party upon the other, by the consumers in England on the retail dealers, by the retail dealers on the merchants, and by the