Ingestrie, Viscount

Irton, S.

Jenkins, Sir R.
Jones, Captain
Kemble, H.

Knatchbull, right hon.
Sir E.
Knight, H. G.
Knightley, Sir C.
Lennox, Lord A.
Lincoln, Earl of

Litton, E.

Thompson, Mr. Ald.
Thornhill, C.
Tollemache, F. J.
Trevor, hon. G. R.
Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Vere, Sir C. B.
Verner, Colonel
Villiers, Viscount
Vivian, J. E.
Williams, R.
Wodehouse, E.
Wood, Colonel
Wynn, rt. hon, C. W.
Yorke, hon. E. T.

TELLERS.

Egerton, Sir P.
Egerton, Mr. T.

Langdale, hon. C.
Lang ton, W. G.
Lemon, Sir C.
Bill passed.

Style, Sir C.

Thornely, T.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Vigors, N. A.
Villiers, hon. C. P.
Vivian, rt. hn. Sir R. II:
Wakley, T.

Walker, R.
Wallace, R.

Warburton, H.

White, A.
Williams, W.

Wilshere, W.

Wood, Sir M.
Wood, B.

Wrightson, W. B.
Yates, J. A.

TELLERS.

Grosvenor, Lord R.
Wilbraham, Mr. G.

THANKS TO THE ARMY IN INDIA.] The Speaker informed the House that he had received, from Lord Auckland, the following letter, in return to the thanks of this House, communicated to his Lordship by Mr. Speaker, in obedience to their order of the 6th day of February 1840: "Calcutta, May 4, 1840.

"Sir, I received your letter of the 6th of February last, transmitting to me the resolutions of the House of Commons upon the late military operations to the westward of the Indus. Your letter, and the resolutions of the

The right hon. the Speaker of the
House of Commons.

"AUCKLAND."

House of Commons, have been published in quent event. For instance, if peace general orders, and the separate resolutions ensued, that equivocal state would be a have been communicated to the several condition of peace; if it should be followofficers who have been particularly named for this high honour. I am confident that this ed by a declaration of hostilities, that deunanimous approbation of the House of claration would have rather a retro-active Commons will be received with a sense of operation, and that equivocal state would grateful exultation by all to whom it has be converted into a state of warfare. But been directed; and I request that you will that order was not a simple order authorsubmit to the House the warmth of feeling ising detention. The order appeared to with which I would acknowledge my share of him to be a departure from the practice this distinction. In conclusion, I have parti- ordinarily pursued in such cases. In the cularly to thank you, Sir, for the honourable first place, it authorised detention in cusand obliging terms with which you have communicated to me the resolutions of the House. tody; but, in the second place, the same I am your faithful and obedient servant, order departed from its simple character, and became a conditional order, directing forcible seizure, and authorizing a forfeiture of ship and cargo. But this order again received a character of contingency, for it made its execution to depend upon due reparation and satisfaction being made to her Majesty. The order was unconditional in so far as it was addressed to Courts of Admiralty in all parts of the world, directing them to proceed, and deal conditionally with all seizures which might be brought before them. Now, the question which he wished to put to the noble Lord was this-whether the nature of the present order, being also a conditional order, made any difference in our relations with China? He wished to know, did this country remain in the same equivocal state with reference to China, or whether the effect of the order was to place us in a state of peace or war.

CHINA.] Sir R. Peel said, since he had last put a question to the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs on the subject of China, the order in council of the 3rd of April last had appeared in the He understood from the noble Lord, that it was through a mere inadvertence that it had not been published before. In looking at every instance in which an order in council authorising the detention and holding in custody of ships and cargoes had been issued since the year 1792, as far as he had been able to examine them, such orders had been uniformly published in the Gazette. He only referred to this, that it might not hereafter be transformed into a precedent. The general rule appeared to be, that when an order in council authorising the detention and holding in custody of ships was issued, it was officially announced in the Gazette; and the departure, in this instance, was not a departure for any reason, but a mere inadvertence. He wished to ask the noble Lord, what were our present relations with the government of China, and he put that question on account of the nature of the order in council which had been issued, that order in council authorising the detention and holding in custody of vessels, ships, and cargoes belonging to the Emperor of China or to his subjects, or to other parties resident in China. If there had been only a simple order in council to that effect, he apprehended that no question could have arisen. In that case, the order in council would not be tantamount to a declaration of hostilities; it would merely be an equivocal state, the character of which would

Viscount Palmerston conceived the nature of the order determined the nature of our relations with China. As far as his opinion respecting the effect of the expedition recently sent out went, he could only say that it would be impossible, on account of the distance, and on account of delays attendant upon communications with that part of the world, for any one to form an opinion as to the effect which that expedition was likely to produce upon our relations with China. What our relations with China actually were at the present moment was known to all the world. With respect to the order in council, to which the right hon. Baronet had just adverted, it was perfectly true, that the order in council went much further as to provisions than was usual in such cases, but it was occasioned by a necessity which arose out of the peculiarity of the case. If the proceedings in question related to a country within a short distance of Great Britain,

the government of that country within a reasonable time, we might have contented ourselves with making simple reprisals and keeping in safe custody the vessels or cargoes captured, in order to allow time for the moral effect of such a proceeding, postponing any ulterior steps until the effect of such preliminary measures became obvious. Under such circumstances, and by adopting such precautions, a final rupture might be eventually avoided. To take such a course in our intercourse with China would clearly be now impossible. Suppose a certain number of vessels were to be now detained by our officers on the coast of China, if the Chinese government gave us satisfaction for the injuries we had sustained, there need be no departure from the simplicity of the first order; but let the House suppose a different result to ensue, it was obvious that the ships so detained must be made prizes of war. If, then her Majesty's Government had neglected beforehand to empower the Courts of Admiralty to deal with such cases, those courts must wait first until there was a total failure of all attempts at amicable arrangement; and, secondly, until, in consequence of that failure, powers sufficient for the emergency were forwarded from this country to the east. Such a delay, he need hardly observe, would amount to no less than eight or ten months, during which time it was clear there would be great difficulty of taking care of ships. Therefore, it was, that in this case they gave a contingent power to the Courts of Vice-Admiralty to adjudicate upon such ships as were sent before them by the detaining officer.

decide on the sufficiency of the satisfac tion? Is there to be any legal authority -any power given to any one on the spot to determine whether the reparation offered is sufficient or not?

Viscount Palmerston-For the same reason before stated, viz, distance, full powers had been given to an authority to determine on the behalf of the Government, whether the reparation offered was sufficient or not.

Sir R. Peel-In what position will the foreign merchant resident in China be placed? Is the noble Lord aware that there is an important variance between the recital of the orders in council, and the directory part of them? The directory had ordered all our vessels to detain and hold in custody all vessels belonging to the Emperor of China, and all persons inhabiting that country. Under this di rection, our vessels must detain the vessels of all persons residing in China, whose case is not mentioned in the recital. I wish to know, if the noble Lord has no objection to make the statement, what he considers would be the situation of foreign merchants, Americans for instance, who belonged to the factories, because, in the East, a merchant is considered to belong to the country to which the factory belonged; but, in this country, a Dutchman carrying on business in an American factory, would be considered a Dutchman.

Viscount Palmerston said, that in that respect the order in council had been copied from the previous orders in council. The course usually pursued under such orders in council, he believed, was to detain the vessels of those that were neutral, and also those with whom the country was at war; and then, if the matter in dispute was brought to an amicable conclusion, both the ships and the cargoes were released; but if war ensued, then the ships of the enemy were condemned, and the neutral cargo was restored by the sentence of a court of Admiralty, duly commissioned for the purpose; and if, after hostilities had commenced, any neutral who chose to fix his residence in the State which was at war, assumed the character of a common enemy, he would be treated as such.

Sir R. Peel-I am not entitled to enter into any argument upon the question, but the relations of this country with foreign nations is a most important one to our merchants, and it is necessary that they should have every possible information upon such a subject. I understand the purport of the answer of the noble Lord to be, that, although the Orders in Council were different from former orders, still they in no respect altered the position of our relations with China any more than had they been simple orders in council. The next question I have to ask is, when a vessel is seised and sent to a court, will it depend upon whether or no the Emperor of China gives satisfactory explanations that it is to be adjudicated upon; REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRE

their support, the more unwilling was
he to tax that support, as it was impos-
sible that it could be ultimately successful.
What was the position of the bill? They
had now occupied nine days in discussing
this measure; five or six of those days
they had been in Committee; in five days
they had passed five clauses out of a bill
which contained forty-six; and if the re-
maining clauses-one of which was a
money clause, and required their peculiar
consideration-took a like time, it was
absolutely impossible that the bill could
pass in the present Session. He could
not anticipate, either, that the opposition
to the bill would be relaxed, or the en-
mity to it diminished. The last day they
went into Committee, after they had given
five days to its discussion, instead of
making any progress, the whole evening
was occupied in the discussion of an in-
struction which had been previously ne-
gatived by the House.
He had every
reason to believe, that the same degree of
opposition would be persisted in during
the Session, and that it would be ulti-
timately successful. He feared, then,
even had the opposition been fair and
candid, that it would occupy too much
time to allow of the bill passing this Ses-
sion. But he wished to notify to the

although he might not be strictly in order, he was anxious to take an opportunity of stating to the House the course he intended to pursue with respect to the Irish Registration Bill, which was fixed for Thursday next. He had introduced that bill at an early period of the Session, but not so early as perhaps he ought, seeing the opposition, and the nature of that opposition that had been opposed to its progress. The bill was read a second time on the 25th of March, and from circumstances over which he had no control, the Committee stood over until after the Easter recess. On the 18th of April the discussion on going into Committee commenced, and lasted three days. He was then obliged to postpone the further proceedings with the measure until after the Whitsuntide holidays, when the Bill underwent three days more discussion, from the 11th of June to the 14th. Ten divisions had taken place upon the bill, and on five of those divisions the whole power of the Government was directed to throw it out. Of those ten divisions the Government only succeeded in one, nine being in favour of the bill, which to the present moment remained untouched. In the remaining nine divisions the bill stood the test, and remained untouched. If the bill encountered an opposition rather un-House that the exertions he and his usual, he must say, and he said it with feelings of gratitude, that it had been supported with a degree of cordiality and enthusiasm unprecedented in the history of any country. He repeated it-it was supported by a degree of enthusiasm hardly precedented in the annals of Parliament. He knew of no instance in which, week after week, Gentlemen would be found coming down to their places in that House, as had been the case on the present occasion, at the sacrifice of great personal convenience, which he was most unwilling to put them to. He knew no occasion on which, for three successive weeks, 300 Gentlemen, without a single defaulter, recorded their support of a measure brought forward by an individual against the declared determination of op-hope of being able to carry the bill in the position by any Government whatsoever. So long as he felt a chance of carrying the bill this Session, he did not scruple to tax the kindness of hon. Friends; but, looking to what had occurred, he felt himself obliged to say, that he would abstain from calling for their further exertions in

Friends had made this Session were not altogether fruitless. They had established by majorities-certainly not by large majorities, but sufficiently so to command the respect of Government-the fact that evils existed in the system of voting in Ireland so glaring as to require an effectual remedy. The House had decided in favour of his bill against that of her Majesty's Government. They had four times. affirmed the principle of his bill. They had approved of annual registration in opposition to the quarterly registrations supported by Government. He might go on carrying the other clauses, and achieving barren triumphs; but as he would, by doing this, stand in the way of much public business, and not having the least

present Session, he did not, for the mere sake of harassing Government or defeating their measures, think it proper to take this course. They had other very important measures before them, which it would not be expedient to postpone, and he should feel exceedingly sorry if any