The Sun.
London, England, 1830-05-28 00:00:00

EAST INDIA ATONOPOLY.

Lord EBRINGTON presented a petition frcA» Corn-
wall against the monopoly of the East India Conya.ny.
Mr. W. PEEL brought up the Twenty-third Report of
the Commissioners for enquiring into Charitable Insti-
tutions.—Ordered to be painted.
Mr. Alde'rman WOOD presented a petitioU frain
the parish of Christ Church, against The Pill for the
removal of Scotch and Irish pauPers. . . .

Mr. O'CONNELL presented sevcrid petitions froM
places in the count; .of Cork, against the Vestry Acts ;
and also a similar one from the parish of the Holy Trinity,
in the city of Cork.
Mr. O'CONNELL presented a petition frOM the pro-
prietors of two newsppers, in Ireland, against the pro-
posed increase of duty on stamps, and also complaining of
taxation in general.
Mr. O'CONNELL then snored far a return of Irish
newspaper stamps and advertisements, and the sums re-
ceived for the tame, up to the sth May, 1530.—Ordered.
Lord MILTON presented a petition from Bawtry-
aglinst negro slavery.
Mr. BRIGHT. moved for a return of the number. of
surcharges issued in resp,.et of the as,.ssed taxes for the
last ten years.—Ordered.
LorkF. L. GOWER gave notice of Lis inteution to
move to bring in a Bill for the relief ut insolvent debtors
in Ireland (we believe).
Mr. HUME presented a petition °tic an individual
confined for debt in Castle 13u,h, in the Isle of Man, com-
plaining of the law o- arrest for debt, for sums above 201.,
not extending to that. island, and praying an amendment of
tb' law.—Laid on the table.

Mr. MACQUEILN presented a petit:on from tlie
farmers of Bedford, relative to the diatilnition of spirits
from corn. .

Sir J. NEWPORT presented a petition front Glenniore,
in the county of Kiikenny,.against ihe increase of taxes in
Ireland.

HUSH REGISTER OFFICE.

Sir J. NEWPORT, seeing the Right lion. Secretary
of State (Sir Robert Peel) in his place, . wished to draw
his attention to a recent occurrence of .Public interest. By
the death of Lord Kilwarden the office of Registrar of
Deeds in Ireland had 'become vacant. He (Sir J. New-,
port) considered the present as a very fit .opprtunity fit
the Government to show i!5 disposition. for retrenchment-
by abolishing the office of. Registrar altogether, as it was a.
mere sinecure, and there 'could net be ar,y noise about
vested intemsts, which were • now extinct. He wished to
see the regulation of these offices on the Caine footing
throughout the United Kingdom, and be considered that
I the excellent regulations adopted in the Register Office in
Scotland afforded an example worthy to be followed. He.
therefore hoped that the Government would _pause becor.
they filled up the appointment ;.atid, it really were in-
tended to continue it, that the Howe would previously
have the opportunity of expressing ita opinion on the expe-
diency of its. continuance.
Mr. O'CONNELL condemned the present regulations
of the Irish Register Office, and stated.that since the passing

of the new Act more cap-no: was ineurre.l, and conrusion
I.rreat.e!, than formerly.
Sir R. PEEL could assure the lion.
•B tronet and the.
Ilouse that before the office was Ii letl op, amp'e nnlYtrt-u-
-city si.onld be given for tilting the •subject umnder con,-
deration.—(Hear.);—He felt assured Cott thertt.r.avas. no
j tlispOsition on the part of the Crown for the continueno: of
an totcless office.—(llear.)
hhr JOHN NEWPORT said a few words in 6:planation
in•a law tone of voice, and the conveisttion dropped.
Cu!ouel EVANS presented a petition front certain in-
h tbitants of Rye, cotopitining• of the inter ttenen of 4 nii
liter/ armed force on the recent occasion of a disturitarten
at live, between certain landowners and other persons, re..
I.live to the sluices which served ta clear the hart:tint,
The Hon. Member entered into a detail of the disturb-:
ance x-totic.h took place there on the :126t11 ult., and consi-
dered the interference of the military as illegal. • •
Mr. BURRELL maintn'oed that Mr. et:ads acted
with great discretion and firmness. If the rioters were
allowed to procet:d with the work of dt.struction, a great
dell of valuablelmtl wortll he ruined.
The SOLICITOR•GENERAL stated the procerdings •
that took plane in the Court of Chanc •ry open an. applica.
Hon about the sluice. • There was ultinvitelt a thence of
CCUrt, ti, tkretrect that the sluice was a nuitolose. It
was, latraower, tatiostifi dale in the re* of !lye to' talc
he law int) their own Their going by night vs'ag-f
in Ws opinion, araaggravation of their improper conduct.
Mr-. fIUME found fault with the hurried manner in
syl.iefi the- late Bill for Rye and other private Bills scera
were passed through the House. - Ile could not approve of
the en:ldiot" of those who proceeded riotously to tireak
dawn' the sluice ; but it ought to he considered that they
I provocation, seeing that the Giant of Citaneerj did
t et:force its own decree, aril that the Cominissittotts
.r.gardel.it. That was the state in which the psti-
• voo-e• He hoped that the AdMiralty would take
'L• • . the ease, and would not let the Bill pass through
:tient, but would see that the decree of the Court of
f.''!••••. try was carried into effect.
.• E. KNATCEIBULL said, tint the landholders
bad no bad feeling towards that town. Thetet
was jno opposition made to the Bill as it was ptryint_.-
throtOt the Committee, and it was known to all parch.* '
that application was to be made to Parliament. The
Hon. Baronet defended the conduct of Mr. Curteis, who
acted with promptitude and discretion on the occasion of
the riotous procced;ng..
Sir R. PEEL said, that le -would not give any oniniott
on the question between the people of the town of Pre
:and the Commissioners. He absented himself from voting
main the Bill, upon the principle that it was bettn- for a
Minister of the Crown not to interfere in giving an opi
nion on a ptivate 13111. The time for making repair
the sluice would not, by law, expire till 1831, and yt-t,
tt
ten o'clock at night, about 500 persons, preceded by a
band of music, went to level it by force, and so destroyed
the communication between Rye and Dover. H.- felt it
his drat), to sit), that the Magistrrte (Mr. Herbert Curteis)
at:te-1 with promptitude and temperance. The men in
t.lte Preventive Service were called to assist in putting
dawn the rioters. Rye was not a place from which tie
Blockade Service could be safely drawn away, and, in
nice to let them attend to their own deity, be (Sir B.
Peel) ordered troops to go in aid of the civil service.
The; e was nn alternative, but to give protection to Too..
per v. Ile hoped the Gallant Colonel would inte.fere,
with his censtituents, and advise them on their conduct
in this matter. The Magistrate was perfectly right in
prewnting the dest-uction of the sluice by eight and by

violence.
Sir C. BURRELL agreed With what had fallen from
the Right lion. • Gentleman, and bore testimony to the
proper conduct of Mr. Curtgis.
Mr. OTWAY CAVE said that one reason why there
was no opposition to the Bill in going through the House
wa,, that there was no Member then in the House to re-
present the interests of the town of; Rye. The Court of
Chancery decreed the sluice to be a nuisance, and yet a new
13111 was brought in, in the face f that decree ; by which
n:11 only seven feet of water would be left in the harbour.
fle was not much surprised, under all the circums'ances,
that the people took into their own hands the execution 41
the decree of the Court of Chancery.
After a few. words from Mr. TKANT and Mr. Palo-
WALVIS, the petition was brought up and read. •
.nviie,C:n7;llE%c):(7:,ertl
ttEi:eVaylAltoiNll:Sutgchioeitnteruled that it was a very dangerous
proper, Magistratespartitcoulti,allilyin i tan::
•
ii those
where tbeji own pecuniary interests were concerned. lie
spoke not from the slightest personal feeling en the ques-
tion; but he could not nelp observing that one of the
p. icons, who was himself the most interested in the resul.,
was foremost among the number of those who were Most
active in furthering the infamous 'and flagitious Bill that
was now pending before the other House of Pat lianaent. It
appeared that, in consequence of what had already oc-
curred, the public market had been removed from Rye to
Winehelsea. The town of Rye had experienced a double
grievance t for some time, in the first place, its political
pri
er,us',iintldseog,,v‘t,
redyl, ioeasndoet
soon
nef
yeiu7sdat nr pd
redressed.ue and,idh,e;ns.in
ceßArieunitry,trtliieioep);feiodxtri
nt,inieiarttswgtlitao
iseceavlm
latter
wouldwa
to hint, offering to remove the military upon condition of
his being responsible for the peace of the town. To this he
could only reply that the-peace of the town had never once-
been disturbed, and the military were kept there only for
the purpose of protecting a public _nuisance.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL maintained that the Hon. and
Gallant Member was misinformed in stating that the
market had been removed to Winchelsea.
After a few words from Mr. W. BURRELL and Sir C.
BuARICLL, defending the,condtict of the Magistrates,
Mr. OTWAY CAVE observed that the great object ap-
peared to be for certain landed proprietors to consult their
owir immediate interests at the public expense.
Mr. HUME would suggest to the Hon. and Gallant
3lember not to press the printing of the petition, as the
subject . was now under consideration. At the same time •
he thought it the duty of the Right Hon. Baronet, the
.Speretery of State for the Home Department, to oppose •
to the utmost extent the Bill that was in progress through
the other House.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said it was no part of his duty
t.) interfere with the progress of any Bill that was before.
the Other House of .Parliament ; neither did he think that
he was called upon to interfere officially with private Bills
in any respect.—(Hear, hear.) Presuming even the al,
'eged grievance to exist, be still thought that it ought not
to be redressed in a tumultuous manner. If the parties
should find that they had a right to abate the nuisance
by law, there would be no opposition whatever offered on
his part.
Colonel EVANS explained, and the petition was then
ordered to lie on the table.
SCOTCH JUDICATURE. .
Mr. BROUGHAM presented a petition from_ the in-
corporated Society of Solicitors of the Consistorial Court
of Scotland against the Scotch Judicature B;11.
yt.
Mr. FERGUSSON briefly supported the prayer of the
petition, and, after a few words from the Loan Anvo.
cave and Mr. SruanT (of Beverley), it -was ordered to
lie on the table.
Mr. BROUGHAM then said that he had, a petition to
present on the same subject from the Dein and-Faculty of
Advocates of Edinburgh, and be felt highly flattered io
having heen. selected for the purpose by so distinguished a
body. In the present instance all that the petitioners
asked o was that the measure might be allowed to stand
over the next Session, suggesting that all the improve-
, inents.:of which it was susceptible might then be tirade.
-„They would not be understood as Being by any means on- •
favourable to the principle of the Bill ; for, oil the con-
s
acary, they were all, with seven or eight exceptions, most..
i'aVourahle to it--tine only thing they desired being some"
further delay, so that the details might he duly considered.
The LORD ADVOCATE felt very happy at seeing
such .a spirit of honeurable independence evinced by the
learned body from whom this petition came, more espe-
cially when he considered that one great obieet,of the Bill
Was to do away with a number of useless places, which
the members of that body might be supposed to have an
interest•iii still keeping upo, As the JUry_Biii wastso soon
tolexpire,.•.,he thought it necessary 'to press the measure
without deity.
-Mr. FERGUSSON could not see that the Learned
Lord-had anroceasion to be in a hurry on that account,
as, the Jury Bill would not expire before the end of the
next Session.
Sir C. FOASES was opposed to the principle of
making it onligatory uponScotch,Juries to be unanimous
in their verdicts.
'Mr. KENNEDY supported 0- '%ll.
- Sir R. PEEL felt l;nansl, tp r 'sad the liberality of
the learned professions), vsle hut. in all other
instances that had come \ /e. There was no
error more vulgar than t old impute inte-
rested motives to the memo. 7rofessions when
t'ie public good was concerns—, :gabled to state
from experience, that be had re. assistance
from members of the legal and medical or in son:e
public measures upon which he had Co4.'"
Mr. BROUGHAM felt pride in be 45o4etiestinoony to
the liberality with which the parti:e!.:-m4Actuated on tine
resent occasion. Though all their Aseaostokf interests
would he directly injured by the proposed measure,_ yet
they never once suffered their minds to be. warped in the
cenclusion at which they hal arrived with regard to it.—

This was a test to which the members of the legal pro-
fession in England had not yet been put; but he hoped
that, when they were put to it, they would follow the
example of their brethren in Scotland.

After a few words from Sir Ronitax Pi= and Mr.
Fnanussonr, the petition was ordered to lie on the table.
Sir J. NEWPORT, after observing upon the ill effects
of the drawback system ity, the soap and candle trade,
moved for an account of the amount of the revenue col-
lected as the produce of the duties on soap and candles,
dnring each of the five years ending the Ist of January
last, specifying the amount received for each article; also
the drawback paid on exportation to Ireland and foreign
countties, and stating the time which was allowed for pay-
ment of the duties and repayment of the drawback. The
Right Hon. Baronet expressed a hope that the Govern-
ment would keep the duty on soap low, and not admit of
drawbacks, which not only diminished the public re-
venue, bat destroyed that fair competition which ought to
take place among trader a.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER expressed
Iris concurrence in the principle laid down by the Right
Hon. Baronet ; but there were other articles in which the
same inconveniences were felt as in those in question. The
only way in which the evil could be remedied was, to form
a scale of duties for all three articles to which the prin.
triple of drawback applied. His object was to produce uni-
formity of system. He had carried the principle into
effect with respect to glass, and he hoped that ultimately
it would be in his power to accomplish the object sug-
gested by the Right Hon. Baronet.
Mr. HUME said that if the Right Hon. Gentleman
wonld reduce the duty on soap to the lowest possible scale,
lye would confer a very great benefit on the public. To
"16 an ex.tent was smuggling carried on in the articles of
awre and candles, that the revenue lost one-half of its due.
The returns were then ordered.
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

A Message from the Lords brought down " A Bill for
enabling his Majesty to appoint certain persons to affix
the Royal Signature to instruments requiring such sig.
nature."

SIGN MANUAL.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said, in rising to move the first
Leading of a Bill to make a temporary provision to enable
his Majesty to affix the Royal Signature to such public
instruments as were laid before his M tjesty, he could not
avoid expressing his deep reset at the circumstances
which rendered the application to Parliament necessary.
His Majesty had informed the House, in his gracious riles-
sage, that on account of the indisposition under which his
Majesty was labouring, it was painful and inconvenient to
the King to attach his signature by the Sign Manual to
the multitude of public instruments requiring that signa-
ture, and to which it was essential. He must, at the
same tithe, state that, under these painful circumstances,
all applications made to his Majesty to affix his signature
to arty instilment; to complete which that signature
was necessary for the public service, more particularly such
instruments as concerned the administration of justice and
the granting of pardon, his Majesty ha I been at all times,
at whatever pain or inconvenience to his Majesty, ready
to take the subject into consideration, and give his signa-
ture to all measures that were connected with the adminis-
tration of justice, and extending that mercy which was
the peculiar prerogative of the Crown. The House would,
however, he hoped, be unanimous in desiring to spare his
Majesty the pain and inconvenience of affixing the Sign
Manual to such instruments, if it could be done without
injury to the public service. He hoped it would he found,
that consistently with that object—that is, without any
injury to the public service—the measure then before the
House might merit its unanimous support. The present
Bill provided that his Majesty might, by a warrant or
Commission, signed in tile first instance by the Sign Ma-
nual, authorise certain Commissioners, or one or more of
them, to attach a stamp instead of the Sign Manual, to
public instruments. The stamp was to be prepared under
the direction of the Lord President of the Council.
'[here were to be two stamps, one of them was to be en-
graved with George Rex, the ordinary signature of his
Majesty, the other was to have only G. Rex, there being
certain instruments to which attaching the King's initials
gave validity. The Bill provided that the person em-
ployed and authorised to sign for his Majesty, by affixing
the engraved stamp, should not be authorised to affix it to
any document which had not a memorandum engrossed on
it, specifying the nature of the instrument, and bearing
the signatures of three of seven of the Great Officers of
State who were responsible as Ministers of the Crown.
These seven Officers, the signatures of three of whom
were necessary to give authenticity to any instrument, are
the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President of the Council,
the Lord Privy Seal, the Fit at Lord of the Treasury, and
the two Secretaries of State. The Bill provided, more-
over, that any one of the seven Officers empowered to affix
the stamp in the presence of his Majesty, shall certify by
own signature that it was done in his presence, and
by his command, which was a double security provided
against fraud. An oath was also provided by the Bill, to
be taken by each of the seven persons mentioned, that he
will not affix the stamp, but in the presence and by the
command of his Majesty. The person, therefore, who made
the of the stamp, could not affix it but by the command of
his Majesty, and in his presence. These remarks would
show the House the precautions which had been used to
draw up the Bill. As a farther precaution, it was made
of temporary duration, being limited in i•s operation to
the present Session of Parliament ; and God grant that it
may not be necessary to apply to the House to make any
farther provision on the subject. But in case it should
be necessary to bring the measure again before Parlia-
ment, the House would, he hoped, be of opinion that the
Bill ehould.be extended. There was one other provision
he would ment'on. The Bill provided, that nothing con-
tained in it should prevent his Majesty from attaching his
signature it the ordinary way, so as he was accustomed
to sign; and nothing in that Bill was to prevent the sign
manual from having its ordinary operation, notwithstand-
ing the provision made for affixing the Royal signature in
another manner. His Majesty, therefore, would be under
no constraint in exercising the Royal authority, or any of
the prerogatives of the Crown. In our history there
were many examples of the Royal signature being at-
tached in the way now proposed. In the reign of Henry
the Eighth, a commission, issued by the Sovereign, em-
powered certain persons to apply a stamp bearing the
Royal initials to instruments, and giving to instru-
ments so stamped the authority of the Royal signature.
In the reign also of Queen Mary the same power was
exercised, and the stamp was frequently applied. It was
also stated by Bishop Burnett, that a stamp had been used
in the latter part of the reign of King William 111.
Notwithstanding these precedents, showing that, by his
own power and authority, the King could issue a Cam-
missio■ for this purpose, Ministers thought it would be
safer fdr them to apply to Parliament. It was unnecessary
for him to ewer further into the details of the measure.
As it was of a temporary nature, and every means had
been employed to provide adequate security, he hoped that
the Bill would receive the unanimous support of the
House. As it was desirable to pass it with as little delay
as possible, particularly as instruments concerning pardon
and other public instruments ought in t to be delayed, he
proposed—as the House would, he hoped, have an oppor-
tunity of seeing all the provisions of the Bill in a short
time—that it should be read a first and second time then,
and to-morrow carried through the other stages, so that
the measure on Saturday might receive the Royal Assent.
In this preposition he hoped het hould have the concur-
rence of the House.
Lord ALTHORP thought that some evidence ought to
be produced at the bar to justify the House in passing the
Bill. He hoped and trusted that the House would be able
to provide sufficient checks, so that the power of the Royal
signature should not be improperly used. Whether it
were desirable or not to pass the Bill, he thought it ought
not to be done without some evidence of his Majesty'.
situation. He did net mean to object to the motion for
reading the Bill a first and a second time, but he thought
it would be desirable, before going into a Committee, as
the House was about establishing an important precedent,
that evidence should be given at the bar of the necessity
of passing the Bill.
Sir ROBERT PEEL thought, when the Noble Lord
considered the circumstances of the case, he would not
press his suggestion. His Majesty had communicated by a
Message to both Houses, that it was painful and inconve-
nient to him to affix the sign manual to public documents.
The Message was, he thought, sufficient to justify the
House in agreeing to the Bill.
Lord ALTHORP was understood to say that he did not
meat to persist in his suggestion, he only threw it out as
worthy of the ennsid.- the Rouse.
Sir CHARLES v L said there was some
distinction I►etweer. stamp and writing
with his own hand. ?: Secretary had re-
ferred to cases in w oissioners had signed
for the King by u' tis name; but it war
necessary to adv an between the King
using a stamp su a with his own hand.
The physical ac More time was required
to write the IV affix hi tstamp. The Hon.
Member enter .ef account of the process of sign-
ing papers fly .g, observing that the Sign Manual
was not the es .cosof an Act, but the origin of set-
ting in moticiethe'Officers of the Crown, the Lord Privy
Seal, and the Keeper of the Great Seal. The Hon. Mem-
ber quoted an opinion of Sir Edward Coke's, to show that
to OUt old institutions, the written signature of the

King was alone held to constitute the Sign Manual. This.
said Lord Coke, was the means which the wisdom and pru
dence of antiquity had invented when the Great Seal was put
in motion, to preserve it in high esteem. He did not say
. .

•hat the King might not, proprius manibus, employ a
.t imp to signify the Royal will, but in Lord Coke's ♦iew
~f the matter, the Sign Manual was not a stamp, but the
hand-writing of the King. The Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man admitted, that by the Bill, proper precautions were
taken to guard against the King's signature being surrepti-
tiously obtained ; but there was no clause to provide against
the stamp being forged. At present it was treason to
forge the Sign Manual, but there was no law, he believed,
to make it treason to forge this Stamp. He should not op-
pose the second reading of the Bill, but when it went into

a Committee, he should propose a clause in order to pro-
.ect the stamp against forgery. The lion. and Learned
Member read a clause, which he said had been copied from
a statute passed in the reign of Queen Mary, making the
forgery of her stamp treason, and this clause he said he

should propose in the Committee.
Mr. BERNAL had attended to the provisions of the
Rill, and he thought that there was no necessity to adopt
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's suggestion. From the
precautions taken, he saw no danger whatever, not even
the scintilla of danger, that the stamp would he forged.—
Conceiving the clause to be unnecessary, he, for one, should
oppose its intromission when the Bill was in a Committee.
Sir ROBERT PEEL had not, perhaps, entered suffi-
ciently into tke precedents according to which the King
had at former times issued a Commission to affix a stamp
for him. He must say that the provision authorising three
of the principal Officers of the State to affix the stamp
was a sufficient guard against the stamp being forged.
Since yesterday another precedent had been discovered in
the reign of Philip and Mary, which he would read to the
House, as a curious illustration of the means taken, under
similar circumstances, by different persons to accomplish
the same object. When the present Bill was drawn up,
that precedent was not known of, and it was curious to
*ee how much the two measures resembled each other.
The Hon. Gentleman then read a Commission, issued, we
understood, in the 3d and 4th of Philip and Mary, au-
thorizing certain persons to affix his stamp to public in-
struments its the presence of certain petsons, such as the
Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Chancellor, and
several other distinguished persons, or any seven, six, five,
four, three, or two of them. In the Bill provided on the
present occasion, however, they go beyond these provisions
for they required the seal to be affixed by his Majesty in
the presence of a confidential servant at the same time that
his Majesty gives the assent required, and also in the pre-
sence of three out of the seven Great Officers of State
named in the Bill—the signatures of all these persons to
he placed its a memorandum at the back of the deed, and
the person who affixes the stamp being moreover required
to declare by his signature, that it was done in the pre-
sence of, and by the command of his Majesty. Having
thus briefly stated the provisions of the Bill, he felt it ne-
cessary to say, that as its duration would be short, they
not thought it necessary to introduce any clause re-
specting the forgery of the stamp; but he found that in
the Regency Act a similar omission had taken place.
Sir C. WETHERELL interrupted the Right Hon.
Gentleman, by observing that it was not necessary to do
so, because the affixing of the Sign Manual in this form
being once recognised by the Legislature, the forgery of it
became treasonable by the laws already existing.
Sir R. PEEL expressed himself satisfied with this ex-
planation, and therefore felt it unnecessary to say more
respecting that part of the subject, unless it became requi-
site to extend the provisions of the Bill beyond the present
Session.

Mr. LENNARD begged merely to observe on the sub-
ject of the punishment of the forgery of this stamp as an
act of treason, that he hoped the number of treasonable
offences would not be extended.

The Bill was then read a first time.
On the motion, " That the Bill be now read a second

ime,"

Sir R. VYVYAN expressed a hope, that a measure of
so much importance would not be hurried through the
[louse without a knowledge of its provisions. Many
clauses had been added, and it was necessary the Bill
should be printed before they were called on to go further.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
could be easi'y done by to-morrow morning.
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be
committed to-morrow (Friday).