Sitting of 1 May 1817

WOOL TRADE.
Mr. Burrellsaid, he held in his hand a Petition relating to a very important subject, viz, the laws which regulated the growth, trade, and manufacture of Wool. The petitioners, who consisted of a number of respectable wool growers in the neighbourhood of Bright-helmston, considered themselves much aggrieved that there should be so little restraint on the importation of foreign wool whilst the prohibitions on the export trade gave the manufacturer a monoply of all wool of British growth. He would remind the House, that the price of this article had lately fallen 50 per cent., or from 3s. to 1s. 6d. per pound; and yet he believed that few gentlemen perceived any alteration in their tailors bills. The petitioners remarked, that foreigners paid nothing towards the taxation of this country; and stated their readiness to produce evidence at the bar of the House in support of their allegations.
Mr. Western,having a similar petition to present from Essex, wished to say a few words on the subject. In the last year, the House having recognized the situation of the agricultural interests of the country as one of great distress, appointed a special committee to investigate the causes, and to endeavour to discover a remedy. In that committee, the state of the wool trade ought to have been a subject of primary consideration. Of the necessity of some measure for the relief of the wool-growers, there was a general impression. Persecuted, on the one hand, by the laws, which inflicted a severe penalty on any attempt on their part to and a foreign market for their wool, and on the

95
other hand, by the permission given to the wool of all Europe to be brought to this country, it was naturally to be expected that they should seek redress. They were, however, not permitted even to be heard before the committee, although the manufacturing interest was fully heard; and this refusal was founded on the assertion, that there was no ground for any inquiry into their case.
Lord Lascellessaid, that at the appointment of the committee alluded to, it was found impossible to investigate the whole subject; and the consequence was, a resolution to limit the inquiry in the first instance to the state of the wool trade. The result, was that it appeared that wool had borne a sufficient price up to that period, and had not therefore affected the agricultural interest. The committee sat before Easter, so that there was ample time for hearing the evidence of the wool-growers, but not one attended to make any communication. With regard to the general question of policy, he must oppose the prayer of these petitions at all times, but he thought the distress of the manufacturing interests an unanswerable objection to it at the present period.
Mr. D. Gilbert,also having a petition to present on the subject, made a few observations on it, the tendency of which was generally in coincidence with the remarks of the noble lord, but at the same time recommending that some restriction should be laid on the importation of the coarser kinds of foreign wool. The wool growers wished, either for a tax on the importation of foreign wool, or a bounty on the exportation of their own wool, but would prefer the former.
Mr. Frankland Lewiscomplained of the limitation that the committee of last year imposed on their inquiries, and represented that the House owed it to the country and to its own character, to appoint a committee to go into a bona fide investigation of this important subject. If such an inquiry were commenced, it would be proved that the laws regulating our wool-trade were as absurd and anomalous as the laws regulating our general commerce.
Mr. Curwenurged the necessity of an inquiry, but admitted that it would lead to a very wide and important investigation, comprehending not merely our domestic interests but our foreign policy.
Mr. Shiffnerobserved, that all that the petitioners required was a fair remune-
96
rating price for their commodity, which would be given them by the imposition of a duty on the importation of foreign wool.
The petitions were read, and ordered to lie on the table.

ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.
Mr. Grattanheld in his hand a Petition from the corporation of Dublin, which he regretted that most respectable body had not, by availing themselves of an ancient privilege which they claimed, presented to the House by their own officers, as it would have relieved him from what he felt to be a very unpleasant duty. It was the petition against the claims of the catholics. As he had the honour to be one of the representatives of the city of Dublin, he was, in that capacity, instructed to present it; but, at the same time, he must confess that he totally differed from the sentiments expressed in this petition by his worthy and honourable constituents—he differed from them totally and sincerely. But, as he did not think it his duty to pass any criticisms or observations on the petition of the city which he had the honour to represent, he would merely beg leave to lament that which he would not presume to condemn.
Ordered to lie on the table.

PETITIONS RELATING TO REFORM, &c.
Sir F. Burdettsaid, he held in his hand a Petition from the borough of St Ives, in Huntingdonshire, praying for a Reform in parliament. He should take this opportunity of remarking, with reference to the measure of relief brought forward by the chancellor of the exchequer, that he had never considered the distresses of the country, great as they were, to be of a permanent nature. He regarded them as arising out of the corruption of that House, and the insupportable load of taxation which an unnecessary war, supported by that corruption, had brought upon us. He entertained hopes from the tranquillity, and he might say the passive acquiescence with which the people had endured sufferings which might have provoked a different conduct, that parliament would see at length that their interests, and the interests of the country at large, were the same thing. Convinced as he was and as the petitioners appeared to be, that every political evil under which they laboured was in someway or other connected with the notorious corruptions of that House, he hoped

97
they would persevere in firmly demanding their constitutional rights.
Ordered to lie on the table.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN WALES.
Mr. Ponsonbysaid, that in consequence of a number of communications received by him respecting the Administration of Justice in Wales, since he had given notice of a motion for excluding the Welch judges from a seat in the House of Commons, he had thought proper to alter his intention with regard to the nature of his motion. He had not spoken to one gentleman of Wales who did not disapprove of the mode in which justice was administered in that part of the empire. He would therefore move, "That a select committee be appointed to inquire into and report to the House their opinion touching the laws relating to the administration of justice in Wales."
Sir W. W. Wynnseconded the motion, and said, that the laws relative to the administration of justice in Wales required considerable revision.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, he would not oppose the motion; but he wished it to be understood, that in agreeing to it, he did not mean to throw any slur on those most respectable persons concerned in the administration of justice in Wales, which was certainly different from those which pervaded the other parts of the kingdom, and he therefore thought them a very fair subject for parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Ponsonbydisclaimed any intention of throwing a slur on the persons actually employed in the administration of the laws of that country.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, that if the question which was fixed for that night had been brought on, he should have thought it his duty to have explained some matters which related more particularly to himself in his judicial capacity. He was extremely anxious to have an opportunity, which indeed now presented itself, of speaking on that subject. He had scarcely left town, when he was informed that an hon. baronet had asked in that House, whether he and an hon. and learned friend had not postponed the circuit for a week or a fortnight, on account of special retainers which they had received to go to Launceston. He never heard any fact that gave him more utter astonishment. No human creature had ever suggested to him, even in a whisper, that any arrangement which had been
98
made had occasioned any inconvenience; and there was in fact no foundation whatever for the assertion. It had been said that the judges left the business to be done by a clerk, which was nothing more than the usual practice whenever circumstances rendered it necessary. When he accepted the situation of chief justice of Chester, he found associated with him as honourable a person as ever lived (Mr. Burton), who had been the second judge for twenty-eight years; and he then took the resolution, that as long as he had that second judge for his associate, he would leave him to fix the time of the circuit, He now said, in the presence of some of the most respectable gentlemen of the profession, that he had never been on that circuit in the spring at an earlier day. If they proceeded to Chester sooner, they would have travelled on Good Friday, which was not thought proper, and therefore it was resolved that the 31st of the month should stand. The appointment of the circuit in this way gave him the opportunity of performing his duty at Launceston. He had at that moment the very envelope of the card sent down to him at Westminster-hall, which was written by the amanuensis of his learned friend (for it was very well known that he could not, from his infirmities, write himself), in which it was stated, that the appointment of the 31st of March would suit the convenience of public business. Acting on this information, which was the best he could resort to, he had fallen into a scheme which was represented to him to be as good as any other. His predecessors, in fixing the circuit, had always thought it necessary to consult the convenience of the Oxford circuit. From the moment he commenced the Chester circuit, the directions he gave were, that no special retainers should be received. He could not reply to calumnious attacks in newspapers, but he would defend himself in that House from the charge of having acted with any impropriety, or having sacrificed the public interest to private emolument. The cause at Launceston was tried on a Friday, and he was at Welchpool, the first assize-town, before it was usual to be there. It was not customary on the first day to do more than open the court, and then to adjourn to the next day. Both judges were there at the earliest hour that their attendance could be required. It was said that the judges had delayed the trial of the prisoners,

99
which, if true, would be a serious charge; but the fact was, that on his appointment, he, for the first time, introduced the practice of trying the prisoners on the first day of the session, instead of the fourth, as had been usual before that time. The attorney-general on that circuit (Mr. Benyon) was the only person who could have uttered a complaint of any inconvenience from delay; but he could assure the House that that learned gentleman had never said a word on this subject. He was thankful for having had this opportunity of explaining his conduct, and was only anxious to show that he had not neglected the claims of public justice for the sake of private emolument.
Sir M. W. Ridleysaid, that it was with no view of calumniating the hon. and learned gentleman that he had put the question which had been alluded to. He had information on which he thought he could rely, that the sittings at Chester had been postponed, on account of other engagements of the hon. and learned gentleman; and although he was bound to give credit to all that had now been stated, yet he was not at all persuaded that the sittings at Chester had not commenced later than usual by nine days. The hon. and learned gentleman acknowledged, that of two plans which had been submitted to him, he had chosen that which gave him the opportunity of going to Launceston. It was not for him to determine any thing as to this, or whether it was usual for the attorney-general to take special retainers. He believed that he was correct in saying that the gentlemen of the bar had experienced great inconvenience from the arrangement made by the hon. and learned gentleman.
The Attorney-Generaldeclared, that he had never heard of any inconvenience to any body but the attorney-general for the circuit. When lord Ellenborough was attorney-general, he took special retainers to the last.
Mr. Wynnsaid, that he had been that circuit for seven years, and the chief justice had always thought himself at liberty to make very great deviations in fixing the time of the assize. In the present instance he did not think that any inconvenience had been occasioned by delay. He never remembered, however, that the associate opened the court. It was usual to appoint a barrister to do so, because it might be necessary to make a motion which could not be heard before the
100
clerk. This was the only deviation which he recollected from what he believed to have been the constant custom. He concurred in the very humane regulation of the learned chief justice, of bringing prisoners to trial on the first day, instead of the fourth. With respect to the motion then before the House, he thought it extremely wise and proper, and gave it his entire assent.
Mr. Abercrombiesaid, he had received communications from gentlemen in the profession, who thought very differently from the hon. and learned gentleman. He understood, with reference to Easter, that the Chester assizes were twelve days later than usual, and according to the most favourable way of viewing the subject, two days later than usual. They felt that something different from the ordinary course had taken place on the present occasion.
Mr. Macdonaldexpressed a hope, that this would be the last time that the two offices of attorney-general and chief justice of Chester, would be vested in the same person. Very considerable inconvenience must always arise from this union, and he trusted the committee would direct their attention particularly to this subject.
The motion was then agreed to.

USURY LAWS REPEAL BILL.
Mr. Serjeant Onslow,in moving for leave to bring in a bill for Repealing the Laws that regulate the rate of Interest, did not propose to go into the subject at length, as it had been fully discussed on a former occasion;* but must remind the House, that these laws were not only attended with no good effects, but were productive of the most pernicious consequences; and though they had now existed for a great length of time, and derived some sanction from their antiquity, it was a most mistaken notion as to the views of the first framers, which had supported the sanction they enjoyed, and the prejudices which prolonged their existence. These laws had originated in a wish to open, not to limit, the rate of interest. Before their enactment it had been forbidden to take any interest at all on the loan of money. Every profit, even the smallest, derived from such a loan, was branded with the name of usury; and it was with a view not so much to limit the rate of interest, as to protect
* See Vol. 34, p. 723.

101
those who took any, that the laws in question were framed. He had last year proposed to press the measure of a repeal of these laws, but it had then been objected that the state of the funds was such, that it was improper to agitate the subject. He had not then felt the force of that argument for delay, but he had yielded to the authority of those by whom it was urged, and he was happy that he had done so; for since that time the public attention had been called to the subject, not only by Mr. Bentham's most able pamphlet, but by a periodical work (the Edinburgh Review) which usually advocated the soundest principles of political economy. By this time he trusted any doubts of the inexpediency of the measure which he had to propose were removed. He should, therefore, be brief in his remarks, and merely refer to what he had before said, namely that in their origin, the laws of which he now prayed the repeal, were founded on mistaken texts of scripture. The first law on this subject was enacted in the reign of Henry 8th, when it was declared that at ten per cent, it was lawful to take interest. In the reign of Edward 6th this law was repealed, and it was again declared by the law unlawful to take any rate of interest whatever on money borrowed. Yet in that reign we are informed by a contemporary historian that the rate of interest was commonly 14 per cent., so impracticable was it to affect the rate of interest by legal enactments. It was perfectly clear, that the more restraints were laid on money transactions, the higher always was the amount of interest actually paid on loans; and the effect of these regulations had only been to oppress and ruin the sinking tradesman; who, but for them, might have saved his credit by obtaining a temporary assistance at the fair market rate of the commodity. He had been told, on a former occasion, that all this might be true, but that the repeal of these laws would have an ill effect on the contracts made for loans on the credit of the public funds, which being regulated by the legal rate of interest, the public at least was a gainer by borrowing money at that rate. The fact, however, was the very reverse of this; and the loans contracted for by the public were, in reality, never affected by the legal rate of interest, but regulated, like all other money transactions, by the relative state of demand and supply, the credit of the borrower, and the opportunities of the lender. It was
102
true that, at the time that argument had been used, some circumstances then affecting the price of stocks gave it the appearance of having weight; but those stocks had now risen 10 per cent.; the rate of interest paid by government had lowered in just the same proportion as in every other quarter, and the argument could no longer have any force.—Other objections that had been urged were, the apprehension of detriment to the landed interest, and loss to those who had borrowed money on mortgage. It was proved, that the fluctuations which the rate of interest might experience, in consequence of the repeal of the usury laws, would induce the lenders of money on mortgage security, frequently and suddenly to call in their principal, and expose the borrower to the danger of a foreclosure, or to the expense and trouble of repeated conveyances and reconveyances: but that inconvenience had been felt, and was daily felt under the existing system to a much greater degree than it possibly could under any other. Nothing was more common than for a lender to call for a repayment of his principle at a time when the market rate of interest, being 6 or 7 per cent, it was impossible for the mortgager to prevent a foreclosure, except on the most ruinous terms: either he was driven to sell his land at a time of sudden depression, when half its value could not be obtained, or (as he was precluded by law from raising money on the usual security at 6 or 7 per cent, if that happened to be the market rate) he was compelled to borrow by granting annuities at the most exorbitant rate. The common mode of late years had been, to grant annuities for a term of ninety-nine years, determinable on three lives, at fifteen per cent.; or determinable on four lives, at fourteen per cent. He knew an instance of an hon. member, a most respectable man, who, being called on to repay money he had borrowed on mortgage for the improvement of his estate, could only meet the demand by borrowing at this ruinous rate. It was owing to this that estates had been sold for almost nothing in the very worst of times; for, though the courts sat their faces as much as possible against foreclosures, yet they could not be altogether prevented. It had farther been objected, that the repeal of these laws would be hurtful to the monied interest, who would be tempted to loss by lending their money at high rates to speculators and projectors. He left it to the good

103
sense of the House to determine, whether so circumspect a body as monied men were in general, would be likely to lose much from a neglect to exact sufficient security on their loans. It was absurd to conceive them incapable of directing their own affairs, and unjust as well as impolitic to intermeddle. Adam Smith had said, with great truth, that they were always more likely to lend to the thrifty than to the improvident. Besides the word "projectors" was an unmeaning and idle word, conveying an indefinite interpretation, on an indefinite class of men. For himself, he deemed it impossible to draw any line, and say who were projectors and speculators; and certain it was, that the most successful schemes, as well as the ordinary progress of improvement, must, in the outset, have been no other than projects, and the production of projectors. He should merely add, for the present, that every part of the empire suffered from these laws; but if any part suffered more than another, it was Ireland. Ireland had a fertile soil, a great population, a favourable climate; it was deficient only in capital: it was the want of that which repressed the national energy, and prevented any increase in the stock of national happiness. He should only add, that in moving for leave to bring in the bill, he should not propose to fill up the blanks under a period of several years. The learned serjeant then moved, "That leave be given to bring in a bill for repealing the laws which prohibit the taking of interest for money, or limit the rate thereof."
Sir F. Floodgave the motion his hearty concurrence, being convinced that the measure must be of essential advantage to the empire in general, but particularly to Ireland, which possessed such natural advantages, as, if properly cultivated by means of capital, would enable her to vie with any country in the world. He observed, that money ought to be permitted to regulate its own price, and in this opinion he was supported by the experience of time, as it would appear developed in the acts of the legislature. The first of these acts restrained the interest of money to 10 per cent; the next reduced it to 8, observing in its preamble, "that the high interest of money was injurious to agriculture;" the next statute lowered the interest of money to 7 per cent.; and that which followed brought it down to 6 per cent. The last statute on this subject was the 12th of Anne, chap.
104
15. This statute showed the necessity of abolishing a settled rate of interest. By that act the interest of money in this country was reduced to 5 per cent. Any person who read this statute would see, that it proclaimed the great benefits which had arisen from the repeated reduction of the rate of interest; and must admit, that a long and expensive war was alleged as a reason for still farther lowering it. If the usury laws were done away, the moneylender, instead of getting 14 or 15 per cent, by the annuity system, would be content with five or six. The repeal of those laws would be beneficial to this country, but still more so to Ireland, into which it would be the means of pouring money, and, consequently, of encouraging commerce, agriculture, and manufactures.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that in the general principle of the measure proposed, he perfectly coincided. It was, however, to be recollected, that when, a system of laws existed to which the community had been long accustomed, and on which private arrangements and legal transactions were founded, to repeal them, even if they should be erroneous in principle, was a matter of some difficulty and delicacy. He doubted whether as yet the public mind was prepared for the measure; but he acknowledged the state of public credit was such that the question might be agitated without inconvenience, and he had hopes it might lead to a successful issue. The difficulty in raising money on landed securities was now less than it had been, and the state of the money market was such, that great accommodation to the agricultural interest might be hoped for from the diffusion of capital through the country. He should reserve his judgment on the measure proposed till he saw the particular enactments of it, to which he should give his utmost attention.
Mr. Lockhartsaid, the learned serjeant seemed to be perfectly aware of the inconvenience to which persons would be exposed, to whom land had been mortgaged, if a lower rate of interest were introduced; but, to obviate this difficulty, he had very properly stated, that he would postpone the operation of the bill to a very distant period, that parties might be enabled to make every necessary arrangement. He thought the operation of the bill would fall heavily on the landed interest. The money market would be in a constant state of fluctuation. Per-

105
haps not in a very great degree, but from five to six, or perhaps to seven per cent. Would not, therefore, those who had lent money on mortgage, be constantly changing their securities, in order to get a higher rate of interest; and could the landed interest of this country suffer this fluctuation? Could persons, whose property was subject to such enormous expenses, for conveyances, &c. bear still greater burthens?
Sir J. Newportsaid, that the fluctuations in the money-market, to which the learned gentleman alluded, were experienced at present, and the bill, he believed, would tend to lower them. What was the state of the law now? The legislature had enacted a statute, preventing a larger rate of interest than five per cent., from being taken by the lender of money. The effect of that law, in its operation, had been so ruinous, that the legislature itself had been obliged to depart from its provisions, by having recourse to the annuity system, which, in some degree, relieved the country from its effects. The legislature should certainly do one of two things—either have no fixed rate of interest, or, if they sanctioned one, they ought to enforce it. They had not done either. They had established a fixed rate of interest, and they had then departed from their own principle, by giving persons an opportunity of borrowing on annuity, by which, in effect, a very large interest was realised, and a great degree of obloquy was cast on the lender upon annuities. He begged the House to recollect that in those countries where no fixed rate of interest existed, money was borrowed at a lower rate than in those where a contrary system prevailed. He could instance, as a proof of this, Holland, Flanders, and, indeed, all countries where the principle of a fixed rate of interest was not sanctioned; and, if they travelled from Holland and Flanders to Russia and Great Britain, the effect of the system, in both cases, would bring the subject fairly under their view. In the two latter countries provisions restricting the rate of interest within a certain boundary, had been introduced, and in both they had been evaded. In Great Britain, the principle of leaving money to find its own level, was sanctioned by the annuity act; and he was convinced, that not only the borrower on mortgage, but borrowers of every class in society, would procure money at a much cheaper rate
106
if the interest were left unfettered by law. There should be but two parties in transactions of that description—those who borrowed, and those who lent. The legislature ought not to interfere.
Mr. H. Martinexpressed his approbation of the bill, which, he doubted not, would enable the public to borrow money at a lower, rather than at a higher rate of interest, than that now sanctioned by law.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.

ACADEMICAL SOCIETY.
Earl Spencerpresented a Petition from the gentlemen composing the Academical Society in Chancery-lane, complaining of the inconvenience they had sustained by having recently been refused a licence under the Seditious Meetings act, at the sessions in the Old Bailey. He understood these gentlemen were highly respectable, though he had no personal knowledge of them. He proposed that the petition should be read, and he should then move that it do lie on the table. In confining himself to this motion he was actuated by two reasons; first, that he was not at present aware in what way the House could redress the grievance complained of; and, secondly, because he did not wish to take the subject out of the hands of any noble lord who might already have taken it up. The petitioners had done him the honour to place their petition in his hands, and it being worded in a most respectful and proper manner, he felt it his duty to present it.
The Earl of Darnley,though he agreed with his noble friend, as to its not being obvious what relief the House could give, still thought the question of so much importance that an act ought to be passed to amend the seditious meetings act, in or-
94
der to prevent the possibility of its being so misconstrued; for if the magistrates of London, who were supposed to be more enlightened, made such a mistake, what was to be expected from country magistrates? It really seemed as if the effect would be to destroy all freedom of discussion whatever. In saying this, he did not mean to pledge himself to bring forward such a measure, but he thought, from what had been disclosed upon this subject, that parliament must unavoidably feel the necessity of passing a bill to the effect he had described.
The petition was read, and ordered to lie on the table.