USURY LAWS REPEAL BILL.

HC Deb 08 April 1824 vol 11 cc283-319

The order of the day, for going into a committee on this bill, was moved by Mr. Serjeant Onslow. On the question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair,"

Mr. B. Cooper

said, he had examined with the greatest attention, all the arguments which had been advanced in favour of the repeal of these laws, and his opinion of the impolicy of such a course still remained unaltered. The only arguments he had heard in support of the proposition, were these; first, that as the laws were not now generally enforced, there was no necessity for their continuance: secondly, that other countries were not subject to these laws as we were; and thirdly, that the present rate of interest, of from 2½ to 5 per cent was sufficient to satisfy any money lender. Now, with respect to the first of these arguments, he must be permitted to say, that the mere infraction of a law was no argument for its abandonment: and, besides, it was the duty of the government of the country to see that the laws were not violated. With respect to the second argument, namely, that other countries did very well without these laws, he was inclined to think that this would not be found to be the case; for they did, to a certain extent, exist in all countries, and had done so from the earliest times. It was true that they were abandoned in France during the French revolution, but they were again revived under the Code Napoleon. Holland had been cited, on a former occasion, as an example; in which country it was stated, that the rate of interest varied from two and a half to thirteen per cent. He could only say, if that were the case, he was at a loss to know who would like to live in such a country with such a state of things? It had been contended, that these laws were introduced under the Jewish dispensation, at a time when very erroneous notions prevailed on this subject; but it was well known that they were in practice amongst the Greeks and Romans. A strong impression existed amongst the Romans as to the necessity of some laws on this subject. Different opinions had at all times existed in this country on political matters. Conflicting notions had been entertained as to the extension of trade, or the truth of particular maxims in political economy; but the Usury laws had been uniformly deemed necessary. He hoped the House was not so firmly attached to the principles of unrestricted freedom in trade, as in this instance to be ready to bow down before their favourite idol, and remove all the remaining barriers and restrictions in money transactions. He had heard all the arguments which had been advanced in favour of the proposition, and the more he examined them, the more steadfastly was he attached to his own. He therefore felt it his duty to move, "That the House will resolve itself into the said committee on this day six months."

Mr. Davenport

seconded the amendment, and maintained, that the repeal of these laws had been considered injurious in all ages. He thought the report which had been drawn up on this subject was a mere skeleton, compared with the magnitude of the question. The question lay in a small compass, and it might be brought before the House in a very few words. It was simply this—"Are we, or are we not, to give up the money-market to adventurers and speculators?" The situation of one class of men—the British merchants, who were the pride and stay of this country, and the admiration of Europe—would be altogether altered by this measure: for instead of embarking their capital in merchandize, they would turn to the more profitable pursuit of money speculations. In his opinion, the repeal of these laws would be productive of the greatest discord amongst families, and would break asunder the bonds of social intercourse. He therefore implored his majesty's ministers not to give their assent to a measure which was fraught with such injurious consequences.

Mr. Leslie Foster

said, it was one question as to the policy of having originally adopted a system of Usury laws, and quite another, now that they had been so long in use, whether they should be repealed. For nearly three centuries, the country had gone on under the present system: it has been raised to the most exalted state of prosperity; a greater mass of capital had been accumulated than ever before was possessed by any other state, and a far greater quantity of relations had arisen in the nature of debtor and creditor, than were to be met with in any other country. The question which chiefly pressed on him was, the effect which the actual operation of this measure would have on a large body of landed proprietors. In Ireland, he was convinced the measure would have a most baneful effect. A majority of the landed proprietors in that country would, if the bill were carried, be placed in a most hazardous situation. There were many of them whose titles were not of that certain and decided character which, under ordinary circumstances, would induce money-lenders to advance loans on them. The most numerous class of creditors, in Ireland, were judgment creditors; and, even on comparatively small estates, there would sometimes be twenty, thirty, or forty creditors of that description. By the law now in force, the borrower was protected to a certain degree; but if it were repealed, the creditor would have a right to deal with his debtor on any terms he pleased. There was hardly a landed proprietor in Ireland who would not be compelled to pay 9 or 10 per cent, either if he borrowed money, or wished to prolong the time at which a loan was to be repaid. As the law now stood, there was but little temptation for a creditor to file a bill against the person to whom he lent money; but, let the present measure once be carried, and the hope of extorting 9 or 10 per cent would give rise to constant litigation. When suits were commenced, the only hope of the debtor was, that some person would stand in his situation, advance the money to the lender, and take in return an assignment of the debt. But, no man would do that without seeing the title-deeds of the estate. This would be an intolerable grievance; for, in many instances, it would be most difficult to make out titles, and frequently it would lead to very unpleasant discoveries. The measure would, to a certainty, raise the rate of interest in Ireland, from 6 to 8 or 10 per cent. Now, was it not a very strange argument to induce the House to entertain a measure which they never can recal, because, forsooth, at present the rate of interest was unusually low? Why, the very term "unusual" implied that it was not a natural state, and that there was no security for its continuance. Even in England the possessors of land, although perhaps not driven into the court of Chancery, would still be subjected to serious inconvenience; for the repeal of these laws would impose upon them greater difficulties than they had ever yet encountered. He would address himself to the professional knowledge of the learned serjeant, and would ask him, whether very many of the decisions in courts of justice, even in this country (in Ireland it was particularly so), did not relate in common parlance to usurious transactions. Of Ireland he could speak in an especial manner. There was a proceeding in equity commonly known by the name of "lease and loan," the meaning of which was, where a loan of money was made at the legal interest, but accompanied by a bargain greatly to the benefit of the lender, A number of these bargains had been set aside; and there were many more which had never been investigated, but which might at some future time occupy the attention of the court of Chancery. Now, suppose, after this measure should have passed, a bill were filed, impeaching a transaction which had taken place twenty years ago, he should like to know how the court was to deal with a case of that kind? [Mr. Serjeant Onslow said, the bill was merely prospective.]—He (Mr. L. F.) really could not even guess, how such a case could be determined. If the House now repealed these laws, it would be contrary to all principles of justice, to deprive a large class of persons of their estates, on account of its previous misconception, that there was any thing wrong in usury. But, at all events, it would be necessary that the bill should speak plain language; and, with all his objections to the measure, he certainly should, if no one else did, propose a clause rendering valid all antecedent usurious transactions. But, what would be the consequences of the proposed change? Suppose a man, in the month of March last, had entered into an usurious transaction, he, perhaps, would be involved in ruin, whilst he had before his eyes the more enviable condition of his neighbour, who had postponed a transaction of precisely a similar nature till the month of June. If this were purely a res integra, he was not prepared to say that he should approve the system of Usury laws; but it was impossible to form an idea of a state of things more different than that of originally framing a set of laws, and proposing to remodel a system, under which a variety of interests had grown up. He was quite persuaded the result of this measure would be serious mischief to both countries; but if, unfortunately, the commercial interests should preponderate, and the measure should pass, in mercy to Ireland, he fervently loped that country would be exempted from its operation. She possessed, comparatively, but very little capital, at least much less than she ought; and he trusted they would give her the benefit of standing by for a time, until it was seen how far the system would answer. In the bill which had been introduced by the learned serjeant, by a strange kind of novelty, the kingdom of Ireland was mentioned as a country distinct from England; and upon this occasion he should gladly avail himself of the distinction.

Mr. Robertson

thought, if this measure were carried into effect, it would have a fatal influence on the prosperity of the country; but he principally wished to call the attention of the House to the superficial views in which it had originated. He had heard adduced, in support of the proposition, the production of Jeremy Bentham, in reply to Adam Smith; and he had heard, with astonishment, that work described as one of the ablest works that had proceeded from the head of man. He wished to direct the attention of the House to the evidence adduced before the committee, with a view to shew the kind of authority upon which the measure had been recommended. The first witness to whom he wished to refer was the late Mr. Ricardo. He was asked "Has your attention been called to the laws which restrain the rate of interest?" He answered "Yes." "Have you that experience, to say, or have you perceived whether those laws are beneficial or otherwise?—I think otherwise. In what respect do you think otherwise?—It appears to me from the experience I have had on the stock exchange." In fact all the experience which Mr. Ricardo had at that time was got on the stock exchange for he was not at that time a member of that House. But he went on; "It appears to me that, upon all occasions, those laws are evaded, and they are disadvantageous to those only who conscientiously adhere to them." But, he would ask, did government borrow to make a profit? Certainly not. Did the landed proprietors borrow with a view to profit? Certainly not. The whole of the error, as it appeared to him, consisted in this; namely, in supposing that money should be placed precisely on the same footing as all other commodities. This was a very great error. Money could not be bought and sold. You may lend money, but you cannot buy it as you would buy goods. It would be absurd to say, if four bales of cotton were given for 100 sovereigns here, and five bales in Manchester, that therefore the value of money was 15 per cent less in Manchester than in London. Twenty shillings formed the true measure of a sovereign, and they would have no other. It was on this point that the whole argument failed—in not considering money as distinct from every other commodity. It was said, that the usury law was framed to prevent the lending of money at an exorbitant interest. This was not the case. So far was it from being the case, that when the usury law was enacted, the lending of money was not contemplated by the legislature. When the law was passed not one word was said as to the lending of money being the cause which rendered it necessary. The law when enacted in Henry 8th time, set forth, "that no person should take, in payments of wares, merchandise, or by mortgage of lands, above the rate of ten pound per centum by the year." Not a single word was said about the lending of money. The law was intended to remove a scourge which bore most severely on the country. The custom was, at that time, when persons purchased goods at a certain given sum, and were not able to pay for them afterwards, for the creditor to say, "You must give me a high rate of interest, or you must go to gaol." History did not inform them what effect this system had had on the country; but if it had been continued the consequences must have been fatal. That act had met with the approbation of sir Thomas More, the chancellor of Henry 8th, and he had no doubt that it operated beneficially. The hon. gentleman then proceeded to animadvert on the work of Mr. Jeremy Bentham. He contended that the gentleman had not an adequate knowledge of the subject; and that therefore his opinion should not have any great weight in the scale. The bill now before the House proceeded on theory, instead of experience, which was a most erroneous course. They had had the experience of the present system during a period of three centuries; and if that were not sufficient, they could turn their attention to other countries. Of this he was quite sure, that the landed interest of England would be placed in the most perilous situation, if these laws were repealed. The effect of this unrestricted system on landed proprietors had been well described by sir John Malcolm in his late publication on Central India. He stated, that the agriculturists there paid a set of usurers their debts before the landed proprietors received their rents. Speaking of the cultivation of central India, sir J. Malcolm observed, "That the rich Bankers were mixed up in the petty details of even the smallest villages. They found the seed for the agriculturist, who was not able to purchase it; and they made a claim, equal to fifty per cent, on agricultural produce." He further stated, "that this system of robbery was found by our government to be so pernicious, that they sent out surveyors to correct it. Their instructions were, to direct their attention most particularly to the practice of lending out money at this exorbitant rate, and to put ah end to it." The mischief, in these cases, did not so much affect the rich capitalist as the lower classes of society. If an unfortunate poor man wanted money, he was sure to get it, by promising 40 or 50 per cent. The consequence was, that he soon became the victim of his own imprudence, and was ruined, At present, this could not be the case, because he was protected by the existing law. In China, the people were so oppressed and aggrieved by the practice which was now contended for, that it was at length settled by an imperial edict, that the creditor should not seize on the body of the debtor. It was said, "if you lend money, it must be at your own risk. The property of the debtor is at your service, but his body you must not touch." Let gentlemen look to the state of Rome. Whilst she was free, during the whole period of her being a republic, in the days of her greatest glory, this was her scourge, this it was that kept down the energies of her people. They all knew what the power of a dictator was in Rome: and that that power was first created by the feuds and dissensions which were consequent on a system of usury. The ascension of the sacred Mount by the people was occasioned by the evils which originated in a widely-spread system of usury. And, from similar evils it was, that sometimes, when the enemy was at the gate, the people could not be induced to go forth to meet them. Even Caesar, on his return from Spain, was so occupied with concerns arising from proceedings of this description, that he was unable to leave Rome. And, if such were the consequence of allowing an unrestricted trade in money in the Roman Empire, he could see no good reason to suppose that the same events might not happen in this country. The monied interests would soon sway the destinies of Europe, and now was the time to avert the evil: for it might not be in their power to repeal this bill, if it should become necessary, at a future period. With these views, therefore, he should certainly persevere in his opposition to the measure.

Sir Henry Parnell

said, he did not believe the House would refuse to concur with him in opinion, that the hon. member who had just sat down, had expressed most extraordinary doctrines, not only in respect to the usury laws, but to the whole science of political economy. He had been, at first, at a loss to account for the sentiments of the hon. member, and for the confidence with which he informed the House, that Mr. Ricardo knew nothing of political economy, and that Mr. Bentham was equally ignorant of the subject of the interest of money: but the difficulty he felt had been completely removed, so soon as the hon. member made it known to the House that he had studied the principles of political economy in the preambles of statutes of Henry the eighth and Elizabeth. When the hon. member referred to such authorities, it was no longer a matter of astonishment to him that he disputed the opinions of Mr. Ricardo and Mr. Bentham, and opposed the bill now before the House. The hon. member had not only told us, where to look for principles to govern our judgment, but had also favoured us with his advice, as to the best way of obtaining a knowledge of the facts that bore upon the question. He had passed over all the civilized and industrious countries that were similar to our own, and desired us to look at once to central India. He had said, there were no usury laws there, and that extortions and frauds were the consequence. But the hon. member had wholly overlooked the dissimilarity between central India and Great Britain in respect to civilization, opulence, and morals; and he had himself told us that central India was the worst-governed country in the world, whilst he paid the highest encomiums upon the government of this country.

Besides the extraordinary manner in which the hon. member had quoted prin- ciples and facts, little had fallen from him in the way of argument against the bill, nor had the other hon. member who preceded him done more than go over the same course of objections which had before been submitted to the House. His hon. friend, the member for the county of Louth, had repeated the assertion, that the effect of the repeal of the usury laws would be, to place the landed debtor in the power of the monied creditor, and consequently that he would have to pay a higher rate of interest for money on mortgages than the present rate. This was a doctrine so much at variance with all common notions, and with every day's experience in matters of dealing for the use or loan of any commodity, that it was impossible to comprehend how any man's mind could form such a notion. Those who advanced it, gave no explanation of its modus operandi: they let it rest on mere assertion, and, in point of fact, it amounted to nothing more than a speculative conjecture, founded upon no sound principle, and supported by no facts whatsoever.

Another conjecture was, that the present low interest of money was accidental and could not be relied upon as the fixed state of the money world. But this opinion was of the same character as many more that the opponents of the bill advanced; it was the result of a complete ignorance of the nature and causes of interest. This was proved to be the case by the arguments used in support of it. It was said that the low rate of interest depended on the plenty of money in the market, and that whenever a scarcity of money occurred, the interest of money would rise. But the interest of money did not depend upon the plenty or scarcity of it in the market. It depended wholly upon the rate of profit to be made by the employment of capital in trade and manufactures; and as this rate of profit, though not fixed, did not change suddenly, the interest of money would not be subject to successive fluctuations. If gentlemen would consider on what numerous dealings, on what an extent of capital and competition, the average rate of profit must depend, they would be disposed to allow the accuracy of the statement now advanced. But, so long as hon. members really knew nothing about the nature and causes of interest, and so long as they would take no pains to learn them, but preferred to adopt and repeat the say- ings and notions of a system of economists, that was formed before any knowledge existed on the subject, they would continue to oppose their own interests, and to contribute to perpetuate the evil effects of the usury laws.

The hon. member for Cheshire had appealed to the experience of three hundred years to justify the laws: but this experience would lead to a result directly opposite to that of the hon. member; for no man can deny that they have been wholly useless in securing a single object they were intended to gain. On the contrary, they had led to all sorts of fraud and extortion in money-dealings, and encumbered all the operations of fair trade and industry. Another hon. member had spoken of the general principles of trade, as something which had been the offspring of fancy, for the mere amusement of political economists, and an idol to which they were ready to sacrifice all wise and salutary institutions. But, while the hon. member shewed that he did not comprehend the nature and meaning of these general principles, he had set forth a charge wholly uncalled for, and unfounded. The general principles of trade were certain principles, which had been drawn from the patient examination and consideration of facts, by men of the greatest knowledge and science. They were founded upon the undisputed truth that the labour and capital of a country will be most usefully employed, and lead to the greatest extent of valuable productions, when they were left wholly unfettered by legislative interference: and they had for their object, the increase of the wealth and of the civilization and enjoyments of mankind. They were not, at this time of day, depending for evidence of their utility upon the opinions and writings of individuals, but the value of them was every day attested by the complete success that uniformly attended those measures which were the most faithfully founded upon them. There was no case in which general principles were more applicable than in the case of the usury laws; for, of all the inventions of mankind to obstruct the operations of industry, the fixing of a value on money, and the prohibition of loans, was the most operative and ruinous.

In respect to the consequences which the hon. member for Louth had foretold of the repeal of these laws in Ireland, it appeared to him, that he had drawn his conclusions from very ex- aggerated statements, and that he formed a very incorrect opinion of the extent to which Irish estates were encumbered. The difficulty of making out titles was equally exaggerated; for there existed nothing in respect to Irish titles to occasion any particular difficulty. All estates in Ireland were held under grants of the Crown, made after the forfeitures in the course of the seventeenth century; and it was generally supposed, that the law for registering all deeds in Ireland, gave assistance to the making out of all titles. But, the whole case of the hon. member rested upon assuming, that the lenders of money had the power of fixing the rate of interest upon it: and upon the supposition that the value of the article called money is regulated by different principles than the value of all other commodities. But this is a doctrine so wholly unfounded, and so generally abandoned by every one who had inquired into the subject, that it was unnecessary to dwell further upon it in order to expose it. The certain effect of repealing the usury laws in respect to Ireland, would be, the giving of a fit encouragement to the owners of capital in England to send it to Ireland, and, in this way, the measure promised to be of the greatest advantage to that country.

Mr. Curwen

said, he was not disposed to interfere with the existing laws. No desire had been expressed on the part of the public for their repeal, and where it was possible that such important interests would be hazarded, he preferred the safer course of abiding by experience; he was also afraid that the proposed alteration would give rise to an immense deal of money-jobbing.

Mr. Sykes

said:—I rise, Sir, to take this opportunity of expressing my opinion on a subject confessedly of the greatest importance, and on which the most surprising misconception still prevails; as well as to answer some of the extraordinary sentiments of the hon. member for Grampound (Mr. Robertson). I cannot, indeed, pretend to follow that hon. member through the wide field of argument which he has taken, both on this and on a former night, to defend the usury laws; he has sought for examples and doctrines both in the polished and barbarous states of antiquity. The laws of Greece and Home have been ransacked for his purpose; and we are gravely told, that we ought to limit the rate of interest of money because the virtuous Brutus was of that opinion. If, however, the hon. gentleman had gone a little deeper into the subject, he would have seen that the Roman law was constantly evaded, and that the cost of that evasion fell upon the debtor; as ever has been, and ever will be, the case.

But the hon. member has not confined himself to the classical regions. He has "surveyed mankind from China to Peru." or rather, "from Peru to China;" for I think it was in the mazes of the celestial empire that the hon. member left us last, after having extricated all the authorities which the emperor of China, or Lima, or Thibet, could supply. But, not content with relying on these enlightened authorities, he has occupied no inconsiderable portion of time, in impugning the contrary doctrines of the most distinguished political economists of modern times. He has told us that our late revered and lamented friend, the member for Portarlington, and that most original and profound writer, Mr. Bentham, who, happily for science, still survives, knew nothing of the subject of economics: that the first was ignorant of the theory of money, and the second had but a limited conception of it. Sir, I will not waste the time of the House with defending the character of either. The hon. member puts his authority in opposition to theirs and in this situation, I leave him. I will leave the hon. member in one scale, Mr. Ricardo and Mr. Bentham in the other, and call upon the House to say which kicks the beam. Having thus disposed of the hon. gentleman and his authorities, I would wish to address myself to the House on the question of the usury laws, considered in the two-fold aspect of their honesty and their policy. And I cannot but think it very remarkable, that no hon. member has ventured to say, that the statute which limits the interest of money is just. Indeed, it would be a bold assertion in any one to say, that whilst the borrower is free to make any bargain he pleases in the commodity in which he deals, the lender is to be subject to a law which confines him to take 5 per cent for his money, whatever the value of it may be. The landed gentleman may say, "I will raise my rents up to the exigency of the times; I will sell my corn or my cattle for any price which the state of supply and demand will enable me to obtain; I will be fettered by no shackles in the disposal of my property, but, when I want money to improve my estate, or for any other purpose, I will insist on paying 5 per cent and no more for an accommodation which may be of double that value." Now, I ask, whether this be just fair or honest, and can the country gentlemen of England famed for these qualities, claim to be placed in such a position.

But I presume that those who are not bold enough to defend the usury laws oh the ground of justice, will assert their policy and say that there are some blessed effects of expediency which outride all the rules of honesty and fair dealing, and make that law admissible, as useful, which cannot be defended as just. In answer to this, I feel no difficulty in saying, that the inexpediency of these laws is as evident as their injustice, that they are peculiarly injurious to that class which they are supposed most to benefit: and that they have not the poor recommendation of utility to counterpoise their injustice.

To put the House in possession of the effect of the present system as it regards the landed gentlemen, we must suppose the market rate of interest to exceed the legal rate: for it is only under such circumstances the law has any operation. In this state of things the borrower must either go without his loan, or he must give to the lender, for the use of his money, what it is worth. It surely cannot suit his convenience to forego the accommodation which he seeks, and he cannot expect to borrow at 5 per cent what the lender can make 6 or 7 per cent of, in some other contract. But the law says, that no more than 5 per cent must be taken at the expense of forfeiting treble the sum borrowed. Under these circumstances, some mode of evading the statute must be resorted to; and the usual one is that of annuity, by which the borrower binds himself to pay 10, 12, or even 14 per cent for money, which, had the parties been unfettered by any law and permitted to arrange their own contracts, he might have had for 6 or 7 per cent. I need not remind the House of the consequences of this mode of borrowing money. They are legible in the history of many of the once opulent proprietors of estates in this country. I have known gentlemen of large unincumbered estate in fee simple who unable, through the operation of the present law, to borrow money at money's worth, have had recourse to a loan by way of annuity at 10 per cent, and thereby plunged themselves in inextricable difficulties. In short amongst the many instances I have witnessed of annuity transactions, I have never seen any thing but ruinous consequences, where the transaction has been to a large amount. Not that I would argue against any system from separate individual facts: but here the facts flow in one continued current of authority, all confirming the theory which reason had already established. The truth is, that country gentlemen do not know their own interest. Happy, indeed, would they be, in the language of the Roman poet, "sua si bona norint." But they have somehow misconceived the situation in which they stand, and supposed, that if it were not for the usury laws, the lender would demand and obtain any terms of interest he pleased. How they can fall into this error is quite surprising, when they now see that all the united efforts of the capitalists cannot raise the interest of loans to the legal interest of 5 per cent. Now, if it were in their power, when the market rate of interest was at five to raise it to any height they pleased, I ask, why they do not now raise it to five when there is no statute to prevent them? The fact is, that the value of money fluctuates like every other commodity, and no law can restrain it. Like the element from which the term "fluctuation" is borrowed, it will ebb and flow, according to the state of supply and demand, and as long as the waves of the sea obey the law of planetary attraction, so long will the value of money continue to fluctuate according to the varied wants of borrower and lender.

The hon. member for Grampound distinguishes, money from all other commodities, and says it cannot be bought. Where the hon. gentleman learned this doctrine, I am at a loss to imagine. I believe the hon. member is a merchant and if so, his own experience must have taught him, that he is every day buying money: for he who sells any commodity buys the money which he takes in exchange. Buying and selling is but the exchange of equivalents; and when money is exchanged for goods, either may be said to be bought or sold. The hon. member has also pressed upon the House, the authorities of distant and ancient territories in favour of usury laws, and I hope that he will go along with me to states and times of more modern date, and of nearer proximity. He will find, that neither in Holland nor France does any effective law against usury prevail. In the Low Countries interest is generally low: but it is always varying, and that without the least inconvenience to the parties dealing with each other. In France, the laws for regulating the interest of money were abolished at the revolution, and though again renewed by the code Napoleon, they are now evaded without the least difficulty. In Livonia, Baron Storch tells us, that the empress Catherine reduced the legal rate of interest from 6 to 5 per cent, the market rate being 6 per cent. Now mark the consequence, immediately the value of money on loan rose to 7 per cent, the lender not being content with 6 per cent as heretofore, because he was liable to a penalty for contravening the law; and he charged an additional one per cent to indemnify himself against this risk. This example from Russia appears to me to prove the whole case. It gives us the fact, and at the same time tells the reason on which it is founded. What was true of Russia in or about the year 1780, is true of England at the present day; the same shifts are practised to evade the law, and the expense of doing it falls on the borrower, who cannot obtain his loan without indemnifying the lender against all risk.

But, Sir, if we are to have a regulated interest, I ask why is that to be fixed at 5 per cent? Is there any magic in the number 5? I know that it is a favourite number with ministers, and that we have five millions of sinking fund, and five times ten millions of annual taxes; but I have yet to learn why 5 per cent should be the favorite number for the interest of money. Indeed, the old notion of prohibiting the taking of any interest seems to me to rest more on principle, than that of the moderns, who, admitting some interest should be taken, would limit it to 5 per cent whatever may be the real value of the use of money. I remember reading of an honourable member of this House, who in the time of Queen Elizabeth, when the act of Henry 8th for limiting interest to 10 per cent was revived, stated in his place, "that it was not the amount of interest that constituted the crime, but that the taking of any interest was a vice most odious and detestable, and contrary to the word of God, and that all lending for gain was a damnable deed in itself, and was no more to be compromised than theft or murder." Now, this is at least intelligible language, and though had it been my fortune to have sat in this House in the reign of Queen Elizabeth I will not pledge myself to say I would have voted with the honourable member, still I find more of principle in his way of putting his case, than in that of the hon. member for Gram-pound. Mr. Wilson, for that I think was the gentleman's name, rested on Scriptural authority, and on the religious prejudices of that age: But the hon. member rests his proposition upon no authority, and in the nineteenth century, amidst all the lights of reason and experience, defends the usury laws upon the practice of Rome, China, and central India.

Before, I sit down, Sir, I would say a few words on the abuse which has been lavished on capitalists. If we were to trust the representations, of honourable gentlemen who have argued for the usury laws, the lender of money is a greedy cormorant who would swallow up the borrower, if the law did not interpose a shield between them. How far that is true, the preceding argument has, I hope, sufficiently explained. The truth is, that borrower and lender stand in a relation of mutual and equal necessity. And with respect to the advantage which arises to the country from those who, either by fortunate speculation or industrious habits have realized wealth or capital, I surely in these enlightened days need not detain the House. It is capital that gives the stimulus to labour, and hence arise all those arts, improvements, and inventions, that add to the convenience of life. In fact, capital is not only the stimulus to, but the measure of labour, which cannot go beyond the funds supplied by the accumulation of wealth.

The evils of the usury laws as they affect the landed interest are equalled by those which arise in mercantile transactions: but I have not touched on the latter, because I am conscious that there are many other honourable members in this House better qualified to trace the mischief of the law as it operates in the dealing of merchant with merchant. To them I leave this part of the question, and set down with returning thanks to the learned mover of this bill, and promising him my best exertions in support of it.

Mr. Lockhart

declared, that he had no intention of attacking the money-holders; for, independent of the respect which he personally entertained for many of them, he knew the power which they already possessed, and the still greater power which the bill before the House, if carried into a law, would invest them with. He was no enemy to general principles, but he always required to be shown that the principle asserted was a true one. For instance he required to see something like a very sound principle in the present case, before he could feel himself warranted in repealing laws which, as they stood, produced not the smallest grievance. Besides, in admitting any principle, he begged to say, he always would admit it with qualification: for, as the philosopher of old had said, "give me a principle and I will move the universe;" so there were disputants to whom give a principle, and let them carry it far enough, and they would shake the whole constitution of society. The existing laws had been acted upon, and experience proved, that the prosperity of the country had not been interrupted by their operation. He apprehended that the effect of their repeal would be, to throw the capital of the country into the hands of the few; and who could foresee all the evils that might result from such an occurrence? The hon. gentleman proceeded to defend the references of the hon. member for Grampound to distant countries and to former times; since they went to prove clearly, that various nations, at various periods, had been sensible of the mischiefs growing out of usury, and had been compelled to enact laws against it. He repeated, that the had no intention of offending the capitalists; but the sure consequence of permitting usury, was the accumulation of money in the hands of a few; and it was impossible not to see, under such circumstances, that the worst use was likely to be made of it. The whole people of England had been in favour of the laws now sought to be repealed, livery act, from the time of Henry 8th downwards, which repealed any former act upon the subject as not being sufficiently restrictive, set forth, in terms—that it was passed because restraints upon usury were found to be beneficial. One thing gratified him, however; and that was, to observe, that this bill had not been taken up as a cabinet measure. No minister had undertaken to espouse the cause of it as a minister. It appeared as if they were disposed, as in the case of the Catholic question, to leave every gentleman to vote as he might please upon it.

Mr. Philips

remarked upon the prepos- terous hostility to the supporters of the measure shown by its opponents, because the arguments of the former were supposed to be drawn from the science of political economy. Those who opposed the bill did it mainly on the ground, that the existence of the present laws was favourable to the landed interest. He would suppose, for argument's sake, that it was so. Now, what reason would that form for a continuance of the laws? Why should the laws particularly favour the landed interest? Was it not just and politic that the interests of the tenantry, of the farmers, and the agricultural labourers should be consulted. Then, upon their own showing, why not fix a legal maximum for the rents of land, and for the price of produce, together with a minimum for the wages of agricultural labour? But it was a mistake, to assume that the laws were beneficial to the landed interest. Let the House look to the tenor of the evidence before the committee. Mr. Sugden, whose experience in conveyancing was very considerable, had said, that while money was at from 6 to 8 percent during the war, the landed interest seldom failed to pay between 10 and 14 per cent by way of annuities. The solicitor of the Bank of England had given the same kind of testimony: so had sir Samuel Romilly, than whose opinion there could be nothing more decisive. The land-agents too must be admitted to be tolerably good witnesses on this question. Now, Mr. Wakefield, a gentleman of extensive practice, confirmed that opinion by many particular cases. In one case, a gentleman wanted to borrow money on a fee-simple, without incumbrances, of the value of 200,000l.: it was not even entailed; yet he could not raise any at 5 per cent. The same witness remarked, that he had hardly ever known a landed proprietor to raise money upon annuity without nearly ruining his estate. The merchants and bankers concurred in the same sentiment. In short, the proof was all one way, namely, that the landed interest were injured by the existing laws.

Mr. Attwood

said, that he agreed with the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Sykes), who had observed, that this question ought to be decided on the ground of its justice rather than of its policy; a view of the subject, which had rather strangely been lost sight of in the course of the debate. But, first, as regarded the question of policy, and the influence of the present law on particular interests, he dis- agreed on this point, to some extent, both with the hon. member for Hull, and with many others who had spoken on the same side. He did not think with them, that the law, as it at present stood, was injurious to the landed proprietors, considering them as borrowers of money. He believed, on the contrary, that the present law was, to some extent, advantageous to that particular class, and enabled them, at certain periods, to borrow money at a lower interest than, without the aid of the law, they must have paid. It had given them this advantage during the scarcity of money which existed in the late war; and was calculated to give them a similar advantage, in the event of another war. Those who argued differently, said, it is not in the power of any law to fix an arbitrary price for money, any more than for commodities and property. Such laws, said they, will be always evaded, and men will obtain, and do obtain, notwithstanding such laws, the fair value of whatever they have to dispose of. Now that as a general maxim, was undoubtedly true, but, like all other general rules, it was to be understood by a reference to particular circumstances. People would be disposed to evade all such laws, but they would calculate the amount of the penalty; they would calculate the risque of detection; and unless the price which they could obtain, were sufficient to cover these, they would be content with the rate which the law should allow; and if the penalties were heavy, if discredit were thought to attach to a breach of the law, in such cases many persons, and probably the majority, would remain within the pale of the law, whatever advantage offered itself as the reward of going beyond it. The laws against usury had, no doubt, been evaded during the last war, by means of the system of lending on annuity, by many of those who lent money on land. But it was not sufficient for the hon. member for Hull, and for the hon. gentleman who spoke last, to cite particular and detailed instances of such evasion; the question was, as to what extent the law had been evaded; whether that evasion was general, not whether it had taken place in particular instances: and the fact, he was persuaded, would be found to be, that with respect to loans on land, the evasions of the law had been partial, and that the law had been in general submitted to. The evidence of Mr. Preston had been referred to, to shew that the usury laws had been evaded, by means of lending on annuity; but if that evidence was examined further, it would be found, that Mr. Preston estimated (and a more competent opinion on this branch of the subject could not be given), that there had not been, during any period of the late war, a greater amount than one million advanced on annuities secured on land in any one year; and that the whole aggregate of such loans, existing at any one time, had never exceeded seven millions; and Mr. Preston would be found to have estimated further, that a fourth part of all the land of England was under mortgage. Thus, then, the law was evaded to the extent of seven millions, and submitted to, to the extent of many hundreds of millions; for till that was lent on mortgage was lent at the legal rate. But little weight, then, was to be given to these particular instances adduced of evasions of the law. The right hon. president of the Board of Control stated the case of an individual, who having the best and most undoubted landed security to offer, had been unable to obtain money on mortgage at the legal rate, and had been compelled to pay an annuity interest of l0 per cent. To what then did this amount? One man on good security is compelled to pay 10 per cent for money, whilst other men on security no better, obtained money at 5 percent; the same commodity, of the same value, in the same market, and at one and the same time, differing in value by one half.—That was an unnatural state of things, and was effected by the interference of the law; except for the law, there would have been no money lent on good security at a rate so high as 10 per cent, nor any lent at a rate so low as five per cent. One uniform rate would have existed, of perhaps 5½, or 6, or 7 per cent; and the result of the usury law therefore had been, that whilst that portion of borrowers, who had been unable to procure supplies in the legal market, had been compelled to pay an interest, higher than they would have otherwise paid; another and a much larger number, had, by means of the law, obtained money at a lower rate than they must otherwise have given; and it was plain, therefore, that all that great body, who during the late war had obtained money on mortgage at 5 per cent, had been benefitted by, the present law.

But it was, in fact, this very circumstance, relied on by many as the main support of the existing law, which esta- blished, in a very strong manner, the necessity of its repeal; unless indeed measures were to be openly supported in that House, because they promoted particular interests; and not as they squared with the principles of justice, or as they were calculated to affect the general interests of the community. Those gentlemen who supported the usury laws, as beneficial to the landed interest, argued as though they had established that whatever the landed interest gained in this way, was a clear gain to the country at large. They forgot, that whatever was thus gained by the landed interest, was lost by the monied interest; that whatever the borrower gained, the lender lost; and it remained for them to explain, on what ground it was, either of justice or of policy, that they called on the legislature to interfere between two parties, the one a borrower, and the other a lender of money; to give an advantage to one, at the expense of the other, when they were both alike entitled to the equal protection of the state. Could there possibly be a more striking exemplification of this argument, than had been given by the member for Taunton? Two sons, said the hon. member, receive each his inheritance from their father, one in land, the other in money; the son who receives the land, is left by the law in its uncontrolled use, to lease or to sell, or to dispose of its produce, at whatever rate; the other in possession of money, is controlled by the law. He must pay for the produce of land, whatever the owner of the land is able to extract from him. But if he lend to him his money, it is forfeited if he ventures to take more interest than a certain rate. And, can any man pretend that this injustice between these men, or the classes they represent, is necessary for any purpose of general good? Another argument very much a-kin to this, which had been resorted to by those who defended the law as it now stood, was, that it enabled the government to borrow at a cheap rate, by making government the only party who could legally pay more than 5 per cent interest, thus giving it a monopoly, as it were, of the usurious market. They had been desired to calculate how much the national debt would have amounted to, except for this law. That debt, they were told, must have been increased, by all the additional interest which the government would have been compelled to pay. But the answer was, if the government are in want of money, let them go into the market, and pay the proper value for money, precisely as they are compelled to do, when in want of cloth, provisions, or any of the materials of war. Let those who contend, that when the government should want money, it would be fit, on that account, to make a law, or to continue one, having for its object to force down the value of money, in order that the government might get supplied at a cheap rate; let those gentlemen proceed somewhat further, and propose that whenever the government should have occasion to make a contract for cloth, a law should first be passed, rendering it penal for any man to sell cloth, for more than a certain price by the yard. That mode of proceeding, would open abundant resources for keeping down a government debt within moderate limits; and it would be a mode of proceeding not to be distinguished from the one recommended, either in policy or principle. They had been told of the wisdom of their ancestors, and that the usury laws were to be approached with veneration, for they had existed from a remote antiquity. Now, their ancestors, whether wiser than their descendants or not, were at least more consistent. They did not confine themselves to statutes for keeping down the price of money. They had abundance of statutes for restraining the prices of commodities, as well as of money. Those old statutes, in particular, of purveyance and preemption, those monuments of the wisdom of their ancestors, were founded precisely on that principle so much applauded, of keeping down the expense of the Crown at the expense of the subject. And, let any man shew, if he could, why, in this view of the question, it would not be quite as wise to revive these old statutes, as to continue the statutes against usury. Indeed, the statutes of purveyance and pre-emption, had, in some respects, an advantage over the usury laws. They inflicted no more of loss on the subject, than they gave of advantage to the Crown; they reduced the price of no more than that portion of commodities which was purchased by the Crown; whilst the usury laws, to effect that the Crown might borrow what money it wanted cheaply, went to reduce the price, not of that portion of money only, but of all the money which every lender in the kingdom had to dispose of.

The main arguments, then, which had been adduced in support of these preposterous laws, resolved themselves into this; that these laws gave advantages to one class of men, at the expense of another class'; and that they gave an advantage to the state, as borrowers of money, by an unjust injury inflicted on all lenders of money. It was extraordinary that such arguments could have been persisted in. Those who resorted to them had endeavoured to shelter their opinions under the authority of Adam Smith, and, undoubtedly, if their arguments had the sanction of that eminent writer, they would be entitled to more respect than their opponents seemed willing to allow. But it was not fit that that assertion should pass uncontradicted. The law against usury, which Smith thought advantageous, was not the kind of law which they desired. His authority supported no law the object of which was, to force down the common rate of interest below its natural level, in order to give advantages to this or the other class of men, or to the government in its capacity of a borrower, or on any such ground; and it was surprising that any man who had read a single page of his work, could entertain for a moment such an opinion. His opinion was, that it was desirable to fix a legal limit to the rate of interest, but that such limit should be, not below the natural market rate, but above it. He did not say, as those who refer to his authority have assumed, that when the natural rate of interest was 6 or 7 per cent, it was good to fix the rate by law at 5. When he pointed out 5 per cent as a proper limit, he referred in express terms to a market value similar to the present. When, said he, the common rate of interest is 3 per cent on money lent to government, and 4 or 4½ on money on mortgages, then 5 per cent is a proper limit for the law to fix; by the same argument he would have fixed 7 or 8 per cent as the legal limit during the scarcity of money which prevailed in the late war. His argument, in short, went to this, that it was fit to restrain those bargains by which necessitous or sanguine men sought to borrow money, at a higher than the common rate. He thought that it was for the general good to prevent money being lent to schemers and proprietors, who would make up for a bad security by a high interest, and to direct loans of money rather to the prudent borrowers with good security. It was on this that the question between Smith and Mr. Bentham turned, the latter maintained that it was for the advantage of a country that encouragement should be given to new projects and to enter-prizing men; and he was perhaps right.

But, the principal evil of these laws, and one in comparison with which all others were trifling, arose out of their application to the operations of commerce, or rather to that system of credit, on which manufactures and trade of all kinds mainly depended for their extension. To all this system, the principle of these usury laws was so directly opposed, so utterly irreconcileable with it, that it was not going too far to say, that they could not exist together; that wherever these usury laws should be executed, according to the principle they were founded on, there commerce must be destroyed. And it would be readily seen, that such was the tendency of these laws, for the object they aimed at was this, that no man should be allowed to make, by any loan of money, a greater gain than the common rate of interest would allow. But no man would advance his money, in the transactions of credit and business, unless he could obtain by it, a greater advantage than the ordinary rate of interest. If he could obtain no greater advantage than this, he would necessarily withdraw his capital from commercial credits; the ordinary rate of interest might be obtained without the expenses, the hazard, and the labour necessarily attendant on such transactions. The very principle of these laws was destruction of the principles of commercial credit. Then there was the question of their uncertainty, as practically bearing on the existing transactions of commerce. And, to so great an extent did this proceed, that in many of the principal branches of commercial transactions, it was impossible for any man to say, what those laws rendered penal, and what they allowed. In all those transactions, for example, in which both interest was charged and commission; in all those where credit was given for goods, and extended at a higher price charged; in all those transactions where interest was charged on money, a part of which remained in the hands of the lender, whilst the interest was charged on the whole; and those commercial gentlemen who heard him, would well know, how much of commerce generally rested on these operations; wherever these operations were carried on, transactions occurred daily, and no caution could prevent it; respecting which no man could tell, nor could any lawyer inform him, whether they were subject to the penalties of the usury laws or not. And then came into view the monstrous extent of those penalties, and these were so enormous, that when an individual was told, that it was doubtful whether he were liable to the penalties of the usury laws, he learned by that, that it was doubtful whether he was or was not ruined, how large soever his fortune might be. But, to shew more clearly in what manner these laws applied to the transactions of commerce as actually carried on, he would state to the House one or two circumstances, which would place that in an indisputable point of view. They would find in the evidence given before the committee on these laws, by Mr. Kaye, the solicitor, this case stated—A merchant applied to Mr. Kaye to draw an agreement which he had entered into, by which he was to advance a certain sum of money on the mortgage of a West-India Estate, on condition that the planter should consign to him the sugars which the estate produced, on the sale of which sugars, he was to receive a commission. Mr. Kaye informed his client, that he thought it doubtful whether this condition, the essential part of the agreement, would not be construed to be usurious: he advised him, therefore, to adopt this course—to leave out of the written agreement, every thing relating to the consignment of the sugars, and the commission on them. Now, for what object was this condition to be omitted in the written agreement? It formed the most essential part of the agreement; it formed the inducement on which the money was advanced; it could not have been advanced without. The stipulations as to the sugars, and the commission were still intended to stand as part of the contract: but they were to be left out of the written agreement to prevent legal proof of this part of the contract being attainable. Now, the transaction thus described was, as was well known, very common in the West-India trade. Very much of this trade was founded on transactions precisely similar to this. No man would deny, that this description of transactions, was equally advantageous to both parties as well as to the country. Why, then, were they to be hidden and disguised, concealed from the eye of the law, and carried on under the hazard that transactions like these were to be rendered void, the debt forfeited, the securities avoided, and the lender ruined by monstrous penalties? It was not on the transactions of this particular trade alone that these laws thus operated. It might very shortly be shewn, that they operated alike on all descriptions of commerce: as it existed in practice, and was actually carried on; and for this purpose he would refer them to a particular case. A case had been tried in the court of King's-bench, in which the question was, to set aside a debt, on the ground that the party advancing the money, had made charges which the law held to be usurious. It was a cause of great magnitude; the debt proposed thus to be set aside, amounted to several hundred thousands of pounds; and the penalties, if they had been applied, would have been three times this great amount. In this cause the parties whose proceedings were impugned, the lenders of the money, brought forward many of the most considerable merchants and bankers of London, for the purpose of proving that the charges which it was said the law held to be usurious were, in fact, the regular and customary charges of London merchants in the general course of their business: the ordinary practice, in fact, of business in London. These merchants, as they described to the court the nature of their own daily transactions, were informed successively by the judge (the late lord Ellenborough), that those transactions were usurious. They were the representatives of three mercantile houses, than whom there were none more eminent for their wealth, their character, and the extent of their concerns, in the city of London. Now, these gentlemen were not aware that their daily transactions bore this character in the eye of the law; for if they had known that, they would scarcely have come forward, without necessity, to submit them in an open court to the judgment of lawyers. One of these gentlemen replied to the judge, that those transactions were such as his house had been daily engaged in since he was acquainted with its business, and were such as they should still continue. And, indeed, this gentleman knew perfectly well, that his own and that all other business, was essentially founded on these transactions. The answer of the judge was "it is rank usury." Here, then, is the application of the law to the transactions of commerce. And let gentlemen consider, then, what was the full import of the information thus conveyed to the principal merchants of the empire, respecting the nature of their proceedings, as viewed in the eye of the law. They were told that their transactions were usurious, that is, that they were ruinous; that they were subject to penalties, which no fortune, however large, could support; that however great their wealth might be, however honourably it might have been acquired, by however long a period of successful industry in the eye of the law they were beggars, they were not worth a shilling, their fortune was confiscated, one half of it to the king, and the other half to the informer, as soon as an informer should appear. Need any thing further be said, to show the operation of these laws as applied to the transactions of commerce? But he would mention one other circumstance, in the experience of an hon. friend of his, a member of the House. An eminent banking establishment, of which that gentleman was a member, had, in the course of their transactions, delivered in an account, in which they had made a charge, a part of which, to the amount, he believed, of fifteen pounds, was of doubtful legality. It was doubtful whether this fifteen pounds was not a charge of interest, more than the law would allow; whether it were not usurious, and subject to the penalties of the law. It was some charge of interest upon an interest which had previously accrued; or interest upon a commission which had been previously charged; or something of that nature, he did not precisely recollect what; but its legality, when inquired into, was found to be doubtful. The party against whom the charge had been made, attempted to take advantage of this illegality, and was disposed to apply to the usury law, to enforce the penalties which it had provided. The sum asserted to be illegally charged, was 15l. A proper penalty, provided the illegality were established, would probably be thought to be the loss of the 15l.; for what reasons were there, that an overcharge in an account of interest, should be placed on a different footing from that of an overcharge on a sale of goods? If the overcharge could be proved, let it be abandoned, or if a different rule must of necessity be established for money, then a penalty of three times the sum overcharged, would satisfy probably the most vindictive justice. That in the present case would have amounted to three times 15l. But it was no less than 96,000l. to which the penalties amounted in this case and to the danger of which these parties were exposed. 32,000l. was the amount of the debt, they had made an overcharge, if overcharge it were, of 15l. They were exposed to the danger of a forfeiture of the debt, and to penalties amounting to three times the money which had been lent. And what course did these gentlemen pursue? They obtained possession of the accounts in which the charge had been made, the Banker's pass-book, and burned the book; thus destroying the only legal evidence which could be given of such a charge having been made. Could it be pretended, that it was fit the law-should thus deal with property; or that merchants should be placed in a situation, in which they should be driven to destroy their own accounts, to protect themselves from its effects?

There was however one consideration of an opposite nature, which suggested itself so palpably and plainly, that he felt it necessary to advert to it. If this were the character of the existing law, as it applied to the operations of business, whence was it, that the commercial community had so long and so patiently submitted to that law; that they took so little interest in its repeal, and had failed to offer support to the learned Serjeant, whose measures deserved the thanks, not of the commercial world only, but of the country at large. It was because the law was, to a great degree, inoperative. Its very enormity afforded aprotection against it. It was not resorted to. Men could rarely be found base enough, to avail themselves of the provisions of this law, or to call for its execution. The manners correct the laws; the virtues of the people remedy the vices of the law. You say that it is necessary you should protect bylaw the necessitous, the distressed man, the man on the verge of ruin, from the unjust extortion of his grasping creditor. He will not avail himself of your protection; he despises the protection which you propose, and the law which offers it. He may be necessitous and plunged in ruin; but if he were to avail himself of your law, he would be worse than necessitous, he would become infamous. The law therefore remains, generally speaking, a dead letter. As regards trade, it is in reality, what it is not with respect to loans on land, in a general sense disregarded; its character is not even generally known. The worthy alderman said, "the usury law is known, and respected, and obeyed." Amongst merchants it is unknown, and where known it is detested and abhorred, and set at nought. When called into action, which is a circumstance of rare occurrence, it is by individuals whose character is as desperate as their fortunes, and who have nothing further to lose in cither; and sometimes it is resorted to by men who are trustees for the estates of bankrupts, men who think themselves bound to claim for others whatever advantages the law gives them; and suffer themselves to be persuaded by lawyers, that they are bound to do that as trustees, which they would scorn to do for their own interest. But when under these circumstances the law is resorted to, it is then but seldom that it can be executed. Juries cannot be found who will make themselves the instruments of putting in force such monstrous and atrocious injustice. In that cause, some particulars of which he had detailed, the judge told the jury, that the law was plain, that it admitted of no doubts; that the transactions submitted to them were illegal; that they were usurious. The jury, honourable men, men of station and character, declared that they were not usurious, that they were legal; and in that way will juries always act. They will disregard any duty however solemn; they will violate any oath however sacred; but they will not commit the still greater iniquity of stripping men of their fortunes, of plunging them in beggary, without a cause; nor lend themselves to be the instruments of robbery, profligate, open, and undisguised, under the name of law.

And they were laws, such as these, so executed, and so applied; that some thought they ought to approach with respect; they were covered with the rust and the wisdom of antiquity; that they were to be venerated as monuments of the wisdom of their ancestors. Their ancestors, when they originated these laws, did not contemplate the circumstances, nor the transactions, to which they were now applied. They knew nothing of that complicated system of credit, on which an extensive commerce must be founded; committee had then no existence. Our ancestors made laws, suited in their judgment to the circumstances around them. There existed two classes, and two only, to which these laws could then apply. One was that of the landed men, then, as now, borrowers of money; the lenders were the Jews. The first class had the making of the laws, the monied man, the capitalist, had then no place in this House. The monied interest it was likely was ill represented here. The borrowers made the laws; and they made them such as, in their judgment, would assist their own interest; and doubtless we should have seen laws which allowed no interest for money at all, which rendered it penal to take any remuneration for the loan of money, if the legislators of that day could have seen their way, to extract his money from the pocket of the Jew, without giving him some recompense. These were the circumstances under which originated laws, now to be applied to the deeply-involved and complicated transactions of the commerce of the present day. Our ancestors meant to regulate, by them, the interests which then existed; and we should best imitate their wisdom; not by a slavish and an imbecile adherence to laws, the occasions of which have long ceased to have existence, but by adapting our institutions and our laws, to the altered circumstances of the times; to the situation in which we are placed; and to the interests which exist around us.

Mr. John Smith

said, that he had never heard the arguments on the side of the repeal of the usury laws so well put as they had just been by his hon. friend the member for Callington. He must, however, allow, that he had reason to believe that the proposed repeal of those laws was not viewed with a favourable eye by a great many persons concerned in money transactions. He nevertheless was firmly convinced, that the existing laws were injurious to the landed interest. They might as well endeavour to prevent water from rising to its level, as money from obtaining its real value. The law being unjust was necessarily evaded. He would not travel with the hon. member for Gram-pound into central India; but this he would say, that, practically speaking, there were no usury laws in the commercial state of Europe. In Holland there was nothing like the slavery which the hon. member dreaded of the debtor under the creditor. There was no country in which there was so much industry, frugality, and good conduct in the bulk of the population and so little misery, vice, and poverty; and yet there were no usury laws. He was afraid, however, that, by going further, he might weaken the effect of the excellent speech of his hon. friend the member for Callington. He would therefore content himself with congratulating the supporters of the bill on the addition which their side of the argument had thus acquired, and would sit down with expressing a hope, that the House would pass the bill now under consideration.

Mr. Alderman Heygate

said, that the proposed measure was fraught with difficulties, and thus much had even been admitted by the honourable members who were most favourable to it. Even such of them as had concluded that it ought to be adopted, had not denied these difficulties. For his own part, he felt convinced they were so great and so numerous, that they could not be got over. It was necessary, in contemplating this bill, to look at the state of the national debt, and the manner in which it had been contracted—at the existing mortgages on land—at family entails, and other settlements of property. Without taking such a view of the subject, it would be impossible to treat it wisely and justly; and it would be shortsighted in the extreme, to discuss it upon mere abstract grounds. He knew that in these times, when many gentlemen thought, and thought conscientiously, that they had made certain discoveries which had never before been dreamed of, it was an arduous undertaking to advocate the provisions of any ancient law. When those discoveries were backed, too, as in the present instance they were, by the influence of his majesty's ministers, the task became still more arduous. The arguments he had to offer in support of the law as it stood, would, perhaps, have little weight. Still he felt it necessary to express his conviction, that at the present moment it would be inexpedient to alter the existing regulations. No man could enjoy the land of which he was the owner without obeying such requisitions as the state chose to impose upon him. He was compelled to contribute to the support of the poor, to the maintenance of highways, and was called upon for other contributions. Why, then, had not the state a right to say to the owner of money, "you shall receive no more than a certain rate of interest, to be fixed by the authority of the legislature?" As to the question of policy which had been urged by an hon. member, he had to observe, that it had been held in all states to be better that the rate of interest should be low than high, and that it should be fixed. He had no doubt that, but for the usury laws, the national debt would have been much larger; and although it was easy, in a time of profound peace, to say it would matter little to the country if that debt were larger, he should like to ask how people would like to pay half as much more taxes than they did at present? He was ready to admit, that the penalties inflicted under the usury laws ought never to have existed, and should not continue; and he would pledge himself, if no gentleman better able to discharge such an undertaking should do it, to bring in a bill for the purpose of moderating those penalties, and proportioning them, not to the magnitude of the sum lent, but to the circumstances under which it was lent; and in which alone consisted the crime. The hon. member concluded, by declaring it to be his intention to support the amendment.

Mr. T. Wilson

declared, that nothing which had been advanced in the course of the discussion on the present bill had, in the slightest degree, altered the opinions which he had formerly expressed against the repeal of the law. He should, therefore, certainly vote for the amendment.

Mr. John Martin

suggested, that the objections of the hon. alderman to the penalties might be better urged in a committee than in the shape he proposed. He therefore thought the hon. alderman was pledged to vote for the committee, in which, too, the objections of other hon. members might be obviated.

Sir J. Wrottesley

deprecated the repeal of the existing laws, on the ground that such a measure would henceforth prevent the setting aside of many injurious contracts.

Mr. Serjeant Onslow

explained, and denied that any of the arguments which had been used in support of the bill had been refuted by the observations of those who were opposed to it.

Mr. Calcraft

felt called upon to deny the latter assertion. He admitted, that, in a theoretical point of view, he was not prepared to combat the bill of the learned Serjeant; but, if it were said, that the very material objection which had been brought against it on behalf of the owners of landed property had been refuted, he would maintain the contrary. The most able speech of the hon. member for Callington (Mr. Attwood), to the talent and ingenuity of which he was not insensible, applied to the commercial interests of the country. If the existing laws did affect those interests to the extent that hon. member had described them, he was willing that, so far, they should be repealed. But, for the landed interest, he denied that it had been in any way shown that it would not be affected by such a measure. He believed it would have the effect of setting persons who held incumbrances upon landed property to watch the opportunities at which they could raise the rate of interest upon those who were indebted to them. In all countries, and at all times, it had been found necessary to impose restraint upon the passion of avarice, which almost universally prevailed; and it had always been for the advantage of the country where that passion had been interfered with. He denied the assertion, that there were no usury Jaws in Holland or France. The worst effects had been found to ensue in the latter kingdom, in consequence of freeing the rate of interest; and the law had very soon been altered. In conclusion, it was his firm conviction that, in the present state of the country, it would be highly injurious to change the present laws.

The House divided: For going into the committee 74. For the Amendment 58.

A list of the Majority of 74 who voted for the Speaker leaving the Chair.
Allen, J. H.	Herries, J. C.
Alexander, J. D.	Horton, R. W.
Alexander, J.	Hodson, J.
Althorp, visc.	Hume, J.
Attwood, M.	Huskisson, right hon. W.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Benyon, B.	Ingilby, sir W.
Birch, J.	James, W.
Blair, J.	Kennedy, T. F.
Brown, J.	Kerrison, sir R.
Calvert, J.	Lambton, J. G.
Clerk, sir G.	Leader, W.
Colborne, N. W. R.	Lewis, W.
Coote, sir C. H.	Long, sir C.
Dalrymple, col.	Lushington, S.
Denison, J.	Maberly, J.
Douglas, W. K.	Maberly, W. L.
Ebrington, visc.	Macdonald, J.
Ellice, E.	Martin, J.
Ellis, C. R.	Mitchell, J.
Ellis, T.	Monck, J. B.
Ellis, hon. A.	Normanby, visc.
Ellison, C.	North, M.
Evans, W.	Ommanney, sir F.
Fleming, J. S.	Parnell, sir H.
Forbes, sir C.	Peel, right hon. R.
Gladstone, J.	Fhilips, G.
Haldimand, W.	Phillimore, J.
Hardinge, sir H.	Plummer, J.

Porcher, H.	Vernon, G.
Rice, T. S.	Vivian, sir U.
Robinson, right hon. F.	Walker, J.
Russell, lord W.	Whitbread, S. C.
Sebright, sir J.	Whitmore, W.
Smith, W.	Wood, M.
Smith, J.	Wynn, rt. hon. W. W.
Smith, R.	TELLERS.
Tierney, right hon. G.	Onslow, Mr. Serjeant.
Tindall, Mr.	Sykes, D.

The House having accordingly resolved itself into a committee on the bill,

Mr. Serjeant Onslow

said, that there was but one blank in the bill, and that related to the period at which its operation was to commence. That blank he proposed to fill up with the words,"1st of January, 1825."

Mr. Calcraft

observed, that the hon. and learned gentleman was very indulgent. The hon. and learned gentleman was willing to allow nine months to elapse, before he overset all the money transactions in the country, and placed them on another footing. Surely those who were the most wedded to this change in the law, would nevertheless wish for an extension of the proposed period. He appealed to the right hon. the chancellor of the Exchequer, who had allowed two years and a half before the commencement of the experiment on the silk trade, whether it was fitting that a question of the greatest importance, affecting all the money transactions of the country, should be hurried on at an earlier period than a question affecting only one branch of our trade? He trusted the House would not press the measure on the country before the people were aware of it. He said this from a firm persuasion, that the only reason it had not met with a stronger opposition was, that it was not sufficiently known. Fortunately, if the bill should pass that House, it would stand a good chance of being lost somewhere else.

Mr. Robertson

re-urged his objections to the principle of the bill.

Mr. Lockhart

implored the House to consider that, by repealing all the laws relating to the interest of money, they were taking away from the poor the protection which the law afforded them against the extortion of pawnbrokers. At present, that class of money-lenders were restricted from taking above a certain rate of interest: now, if all the usury laws were repealed, they might extort what interest they pleased. Did the learned serjeant contemplate this result from his measure? If he did not, it was an additional reason for postponing it.

Mr. Serjeant Onslow

observed, that no bill had ever been more delayed than the one then before the committee. As for the operation of the measure, it would but affect the Usury Jaws, not the acts respecting pawnbrokers.

Mr. Wkitmore

contended, that the bill would have no effect at all at the present moment.

Mr. Alderman Heygate

insisted that the landed interest of the country would be ruined by the bill.

Mr. Leslie Foster

said, that before they were called upon to pass a measure which would subject the landed interest to great injury, they ought to be told on the other hand, how it was proposed to get that interest out of the difficulty.

Mr. Hume

said, he would refer the hon. and learned gentleman to what had taken place during war time for an answer to his question. At that time the landed gentlemen borrowed money at 10 per cent, which, but for the existing laws, they could have borrowed at 8 per cent. Supposing a war to break out, government would be obliged to borrow at an increased interest as they had done before, and the landed interest must be satisfied to share the same fate. It was not fair that the monied proprietor should have a limit fixed to his per centage, and that the landed proprietor should let his land at as high a price as he could, without any limit being assigned. The fair course of proceeding was, to remove restrictions from all, and to let money be as free as any other article.

Mr. Calcraft

maintained, that the effect of the repeal would be, to excite competition between persons who borrowed money on mortgage and the government itself.

Mr. L. Foster

said, it now seemed to be agreed upon all hands, that the landholder would have more to pay for money, under the operation of the present bill, than heretofore. That was an evil for which it did not appear that any remedy could be devised.

Mr. Davenport

was of opinion, that the bill would prove the ruin of the landed interest, and hoped, as it was patronized by ministers, that, they would repeal the stamp duties on mortgages, which, as soon as the bill was passed into a law, would be shuffled about, like cards, from one hand to another.

Sir J. Wrottesley

observed, that if the bill should pass into a law during the present year, many persons in the country would know nothing about it, as it had not obtained that full consideration, to which it was entitled from its importance. He was anxious that time should be given for the country to consider and understand it, and to retrace their steps if it should be found necessary to do so. With that-view he should move as an amendment, that the blank should be filled up by substituting the year 1826 for the year 1825.

The gallery was then cleared for a division, but during the exclusion of strangers, the hon. baronet withdrew his amendment, and the committee divided on the question, that the chairman should report progress, and ask leave to sit again. The numbers were—Ayes, 57: Noes, 61. Majority, 4. The committee then divided on the question for filling up the blank with the insertion of the year 1825. The numbers were: Ayes, 60; Noes, 59. Majority, 1. The next division took place on the question, that the chairman report progress, which was negatived, the numbers being—Ayes, 61; Noes, 65. Majority, 4. The committee again divided on the question, that the chairman do leave the chair, when the numbers were—Ayes, 72; Noes, 59. Majority, 13. The House having resumed,

Mr. H. Sumner

begged to put a question to the Speaker. He wished to know whether it was consistent with the rules of the House for the chairman of a committee of the whole House, after he had received instructions to report progress and ask leave to sit again, to remain in the chair and put the committee to the necessity of expressing its opinion a second time, as to the propriety of the House resuming before he left the chair.

The Speaker

replied, that the instruction of a committee to its chairman to report progress and ask leave to sit again, was merely a declaration of its resolution to proceed no further at that time with the business which it then had under discussion. The chairman was therefore bound to remain in the chair until the question was put and carried "That I do now leave the chair." The first question, namely, "that the chairman do report progress and ask leave to sit again," might be put in order to bring an unpleasant discussion to a close; and in the interval between the carrying of that question and the putting the second question, "that I do now leave the chair," he might he instructed to report to the House any disturbance or extraordinary occurrence which might have happened whilst the House was in a committee. He conceived that the chairman of the committee had been perfectly in order in not leaving the chair till he had been authorized to do so by the vote of the committee.

Mr. H. Sumner

confessed that his opinion had been the other way; but he bowed willingly to the authority of the chair.

On the question, that the House do again resolve itself into a committee on this bill on Tuesday next.

Mr. Littleton

said, he would give the House another opportunity of expressing its opinion on this impolitic bill. He would move as an amendment, that the words "Tuesday next" be struck out of the motion, and that the words "this day six months" be inserted in their stead.

The House then divided upon this amendment, when there appeared. For it, 67. Against it, 63. Majority, 4. The bill was consequently lost.