HL Deb 15 June 1824 vol 11 cc1339-40

The Earl of Hardwicke moved, that the order to hear counsel at the bar against this bill be discharged.

The Earl of Lauderdale

said, that the bill was a most important one. By the first clause, the company, who, if the hand-bills could be credited, were only anxious to benefit the poor, exonerated themselves from the usury laws, and were to be enabled to lend money to any amount without being punishable by them. Those laws, were very injurious, and ought to be done away, but he saw no reason for granting to a single company the privilege of being exempted from their operation, He had presented a petition from certain: persons, praying to be beard at their lordships' bar against the bill. Their lordships had granted the prayer, and he had a petition to present, when the bill was read a second time, praying to be heard on all the clauses. Unless their lordships were prepared to shut their door against the people, they could not consent to the motion for discharging the order of the day.

The Earl of Liverpool

said, he was not in the House when this order was made, or he should have objected to it. His vote on the bill itself would depend on the clauses; for if it came out of the committee in its present shape, he should certainly oppose it. There was no reason for exempting the company from the operation of the usury laws. The bill was brought forward for a public object, and was of great importance. It was not their lordships practice to hear persons who advocated their individual interests at that stage of the bill. He thought their lordships should discharge the order and allow the bill to be read a second time.

The Earl of Lauderdale

thought the doctrine just held by the noble earl, was both novel and dangerous.

The Lord-Chancellor

understood this to be a private bill; and on such bills it was their lordships practice to hear counsel on the principle. He could not consent to discharge the order to hear counsel against the bill.

The House then divided: for the discharge of the order 26; against it 17.

The Earl of Lauderdale

opposed the second reading of the bill. It would deprive a body of men of their business, for the purpose of giving it to a company who were totally incapable of carrying it on.

The Lord Chancellor

said, that if this bill came out of the committee as it now stood, there was hardly a sentence of it which he should not feel it his duty to oppose.

Lord Redesdale

could not consent to the second reading. There was one objection which struck him as decisively against it. Pawnbrokers could be punished criminally; but how could the company be punished? If a pawnbroker received stolen goods, he might be indicted and punished; but, how could the company be proceeded against in such a case? Their lordships should also be careful how they allowed so many companies with large capitals to be formed, as they might have a dangerous influence on the constitution and government of the country. He would exhort the noble earl at the head of the Treasury to give this point his serious consideration.

The Earl of Westmorland

expressed his perfect concurrence in the sentiments of the noble lord who had just sat down. The creation of so many companies might be dangerous to the state; and, so far from promoting trade, they only established monopolies, and ruined individuals. He would vote against the bill.

The House divided: for the second reading 17; against it 14.