Sitting of 20 February 1810

MARINE INSURANCE.
Mr. Manningrose to revive his motion of a former night, for a committee to inquire into the present state of Marine Insurance, and to enquire in what manner the public might be better accommodated. He said, he rose in consequence of the fate of his proposition on a former night, from the state of the House, to renew his motion for the appointment of a select committee, to consider of the act of Geo. I. for incorporating the London and Royal Exchange Assurance Companies, and also of the state of the means of effecting marine insurances in London. The hon. gent. repeated the arguments and statements with which he prefaced his motion on the former night, and concluded with moving, that a select committee be appointed.
Mr. Grenfellopposed it on the ground that the establishment proposed would be an invasion of the chartered rights of the existing companies. He should not object, however, to going into a committee, if it were to be an open one.
Mr. Marryattwent over the same ground of argument as on the former occasion.
496
He contended that the supporters of the petition wanted to exempt themselves from that responsibility on the whole of their property, which attached to individual underwriters. The consequence would be, that as the new company would be responsible only to the amount of its capital, if that company should at any time become insolvent, the individual members would still remain in affluence, and drive in their coaches by the persons who had been ruined by such insolvency. The underwriters at Lloyd's often, to avoid litigation, paid for losses which they could not be compelled to make good. They were often, from such motives, induced to pay for vessels loaded with brick-bats and stones instead of goods, and even sometimes for vessels which were never in existence at all. A company, on the contrary, would look more narrowly into every case, and consequently litigation would be increased rather than diminished. In short, the supporters of the intended measure wished to engross to themselves all the profits of the brokers and underwriters.
The committee was then appointed.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—COMPLAINT AGAINST J. DEAN.
Mr. Yorkemoved the order of the day for the attendance of J. Dean, the printer at the bar.
The Serjeant then brought him to the bar.
The Speakerinterrogated him.
Is your name Dean?—It is.
What is your Christian name?—John.
The Speaker. John Dean, a complaint having been made to this House, that you had printed a paper reflecting upon its proceedings, and upon the conduct of some of its members, what have you to say for yourself respecting the offence you have committed?
John Dean. It was I that printed that paper. I was employed to print it by John Gale Jones. I have been employed by him in printing such papers for three or four years. I did not know that in printing that paper I was committing an offence against this honourable House. That paper was printed without my knowledge of its contents, as I did not see the press copy of it until after the whole impression was thrown off. I humbly beg pardon of this honourable House for my offence, and am ready to give up the manuscript, and to prove that it is the hand-writing of John Gale Jones.
The Speaker. You may withdraw.

497
Serjeant, take care that he does not depart.—On the printer having withdrawn,
Mr. Yorkeexpressed his satisfaction, that the person at the bar appeared sensible of his offence, and not only expressed contrition, but offered to make the only atonement in his power by giving up the author of this gross libel. Every gentleman must allow, that it was a breach of the privileges of that House. He thought that printers should be made to feel, that they could not print such libels with impunity. In this case, the individual could not but have known, that, in printing such a paper, he was doing wrong. In consideration, however, of his submission, he did not mean to press for any severity towards the printer. But, whatever it might be the pleasure of the House to do with the printer, he should feel it his duty to take measures to have John Gale Jones brought to the bar.
After a suggestion from the Speaker, as to the usual mode of proceeding in such cases, it was moved by Mr. Yorke, and voted, nem. con. "That the said J. Dean, in having printed the said paper, has been guilty of a high breach of the privilege of this House."
Mr. Yorkeexpressed a wish to hear the opinions of other gentlemen as to the course that should be followed. He supposed the next step should be to move that he be ordered into the custody of the Serjeant at Arms.
The Speakerthought it his duty to state to the House what had been its practice on similar occasions. The last case of this description which occurred, was that of Wiikie, and in that instance the offender had been ordered into custody. The House having voted, that the person at the bar had been guilty of a high breach of its privileges, could not pass over the offence without some degree of imprisonment, in order to shew printers that they could not commit such offences with impuity.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, after what had been stated from the chair, felt inclined to concur with his right hon. friend, that the person should be ordered into the custody of the Serjeant at Arms. As the person at the bar, however, had offered to give up the actual author of the libel, he wished the House to be as lenient to him as possible.
Mr. H. Smiththought that the printer deserved some consideration. It would be more dignified in the House to order
498
the man to attend at the bar to-morrow. He concluded by moving an amendment that he be ordered to attend to-morrow.
Mr. Whitbreadfelt that, after what the Speaker had stated, it would be necessary to take some further notice of the offence than was proposed in the amendment of the hon. gent. If that hon. member would withdraw his amendment, then he should propose an amendment, that the person at the bar be reprimanded by the Speaker, and discharged.—The other amendment having been withdrawn, the hon. gent. then proposed his amendment.
Mr. Crokerobserved, that the House had no security but his own assertion, that the statement of the person at the bar was correct. It might, therefore, be necessary to keep him in custody till the truth of his statement could be ascertained.
Sir J. Anstrutherwas of opinion, that such offences as those of the person at the bar might be suffered to pass sub silentio. According to the statement of that person, the practice had gone on for three or four years, without any notice having been taken of it; and it was not till the name of the right hon. gent. had appeared in large characters in these papers, that he felt it necessary for him to bring the subject now for the first time before the House. Gentlemen should bear in mind the time and circumstances in which this matter was brought under their consideration. The slightest punishment would be sufficient, and as this was the first time for four years that the subject had been before the House, he thought that some notice should be given to printers, that they may not err in the same way again.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas not shaken by what he had heard as to his original opinion. On the contrary, what had fallen from his right hon. friend rather confirmed him in that opinion. If the practice had been going on for a length of time, it was necessary to take measures to put a check upon it. He was inclined to be as little severe as possible, but some punishment must be inflicted. He was sure it was not the intention of his hon. friend, to give countenance to such a practice, though it would obviously have that effect. If the persons who committed such offences should find that there were gentlemen in that House to protect them, they would be encouraged to proceed. To keep the man in custody for the advantage of his evidence, was no more than was done uniformly in case of

499
a witness who was particeps criminis. He should therefore concur in the vote for committing the party to custody.
Mr. Hornercongratulated the right hon. gentleman on the recovery of his animation in argument and debate. He had risen from that languor and chastened tone, which he had hitherto employed in discussing the most important political questions; but perhaps he had now found a subject more to his mind. The only question now to be considered was, what was the extent of the offence, and what should be the measure of punishment? He was of opinion that the more lenient the punishment, the more suitable it would be to the dignity of the house.
Lord Porchestersaid, the question simply was, whether the punishment should be severe or lenient. He thought this printer had shewn every mark of contrition: and he begged the House to recollect, that printers had of late years been obliged to sign their own accusation in the first instance, by giving their name and address at the end of every thing they print. It had therefore been held, in the courts of law, that where a printer willingly gave up his employer, the author, the most lenient punishment should be inflicted. On this ground, as well as from the printer's whole behaviour while before the House, he should vote for his being now reprimanded and discharged.
Mr. C. Adamsproposed, that he should be taken into the custody of the serjeant at arms for an hour.
The question on the amendment was then put and negatived: and afterwards the original motion, "that the said John Dean be committed to the custody of the serjeant at arms," was agreed to, and Mr. John Gale Jones was ordered to attend to-morrow.

CORN DISTILLERY PROHIBITION BILL.
Mr. Rosemoved the order of the day for the second reading of this bill.
Mr. Westernopposed it, on the ground that the same reasons did not exist now as did when the bill was first brought in. The situation of the West India merchants was much changed; and as the ground was altered, they should shew new reasons for the bill. The average prices of corn, except wheat, were lower now than in 1808.
Mr. Rosesaid, that if the importation of corn had not taken place, the quartern loaf would now have been at 2s.; and that not only bread, but beer would have been raised very considerably.
Sir T. Turtonwas for continuing the prohibition, as he considered the average price of all manner of corn, taken together, as greater than what it was in 1808. As his property was entirely in land, it could not be supposed his wish to sacrifice his interest to those of the West India merchants. He thought, however, that the interest of the great mass of labouring peasants and manufacturers should be attended to, and that care should be taken that they should not be affected by a scarcity of corn, he thought also, in justice, that the prohibition should extend to Ireland.
Sir James Hallobjected to the prohibition.
Mr. Parnelldenied that the average prices were higher now than in 1808, and contended that they were the prices of a falling market. In the London market inferior barley was absolutely unsaleable. He was of opinion that the prohibition should not be continued.
Sir John Newportalso stated, that the prices were those of a falling market.
The House then divided on the second reading. Ayes 155, Noes 54, Majority 101.

OFFICES IN REVERSION BILL.
Earl Grosvenorrose, and proposed his bill for preventing the granting of places in reversion. After a few observations from the noble lord, the question was about to be put for the first reading of the bill, when,
Lord Ardensubmitted to the House his objections to the measure. His lordship observed, that in cases where the interest of the crown was directly concerned, the consent of the crown was given, according to the practice of parliament, to the proposed measure. The present bill affected the rights of the royal prerogative,
494
as it went to take away the royal power of granting offices for lives. The King was, by the constitution of the country, the fountain of honour; and in a question like the present, his lordship considered it his duty to object to proceeding without that attention to the rights of the sovereign which the nature of the case required. He thought, therefore, that their lordships could not with propriety proceed further with such a bill, without an intimation of the description he had alluded to.
Earl Grosvenorwas much surprised to hear of this kind of objection, to a measure which had been already recognized by parliament, which had been in part effected by the passing of the bill suspending the exercise of the royal prerogative; an objection which had never occurred before, not even in the case of the rejection of the last bill. Ministers had not expressed any such ground of objection, nor stated their opinions against the bill. He was, therefore, desirous of knowing their sentiments on this important subject.
The Earl of Rosslynspoke with much animation in support of the first reading of the bill. He contended, that the practice of the House of Commons was different from that of their lordships, in whose House it was not necessary to give any exposition of the character of a measure previously, nor to give notice of an intended motion. The first reading would put their lordships in full possession of the nature of the bill. It was due to the other House, to the general opinion of the public, and to the spirit of the measure of suspension already enacted, and which would expire in a few weeks, to go fairly into the consideration of the bill now introduced by his noble friend.
Lord Redesdalesupported the observation of his noble friend (lord Arden,) respecting the practice whenever the interests of the crown were concerned. The want of attention to it in one instance was no reason for neglecting it in another. The precedents in this question were favourable to such attention. But to afford the fairest opportunity of full information on this subject, he should prefer postponing the adjournment of this debate until the next day, by which time noble lords could consult the journals of the House as to all matters of precedent that bore upon the subject. His lordship added, that he thought it was generally expected, on the introduction of a bill,

495
that a noble lord should open the nature and object of the measure he proposed. The noble baron concluded by moving the adjournment of the debate until the next day.
Lord Hollandcontended that the practice of that House required no notice of motion, nor previous exposition of reasons for introducing a bill, the reading of which would acquaint every noble lord with the object of it. It was strange that this bill should meet with such an objection, after its principle had been so often before them. He wished to know what ministers, the confidential servants of the crown, the persons to whom the government of the country was entrusted, had to say to this measure. Did they object to it or not? The acting ministers of the crown were not present in the House, but there were some members of the government present; and he desired to know from them their sentiments on the objection, and on the merits of the bill itself.
The question being called for, the lord Chancellor stated the adjournment of the debate to be carried by the contents, on which a division took place, and the numbers were Contents, 15, Non Contents, 7.