Sitting of 31 March 1824

USURY LAWS REPEAL BILL.
Mr. Ellispresented a petition from the chamber of commerce in Dublin, setting forth,
"That the petitioners have observed

37
with great satisfaction the bill now before the House to repeal the existing laws against usury; that the petitioners are convinced that very erroneous opinions have prevailed with respect to the operation of these laws, and that their real tendency is, to aggravate the evils they were designed to remedy; so far from regulating the relations between the lender and the borrower on just and salutary principles, they only serve to encourage a recourse to evasive expedients, ruinous in numberless instances to both parties; to the lender in the risks his cupidity tempts him to incur, and to the borrower, forced into circumstances which render him in a yet greater degree the victim of extortion; thus the law that affects to interpose for the benefit of the necessitous man, only tends to confirm his subjection, to deepen his difficulties, and by its fatal protection, to precipitate his ruin; that the usury laws, mischievous in their evasion, are also mischievous in their observance; to establish under penal sanctions a fixed standard for the use of money, which, like other commodities is liable to perpetual fluctuations in value, can have no other effect than to divert it from the beneficial purposes to which it would otherwise be certainly applied, and to prevent the intimate connexion between capital and industry so conducive to the advantage of both; on the one hand it tends to diminish the usefulness by obstructing the circulation of capital, and on the other, to deprive industry of pecuniary aids, which, if adapted to its exigencies, and acquired without undue sacrifices, could not fail to give new vigour, and a wider field for its operations, while they would in numerous instances be the means of averting the irremediable ruin of which a temporary pressure is the occasion; that the laws in question are directly at variance with the enlightened policy which the wisdom of the House has so distinctly recognized, and so beneficially applied, as the rule of legislation; the policy founded upon the principle, that to liberate private interests from legislative interference, and to leave them, as far as practicable, to the discriminative management of the individual, is the most effectual means of providing not only for their advancement, but their security; that the petitioners beg leave to add, that at a period when the market rate of interest is so much under the legal rate, an opportunity is presented for accomplishing all the objects
38
of this great measure without the hazard of incurring even the temporary inconvenience which is sometimes found to attend the movements of improvement; may it therefore please the House to proceed to the total and immediate repeal of the existing laws against usury."
Sir H. Parnellspoke to the respectability of the petitioners, and to their ability to judge upon this question. He hoped that the House would attend to the strong arguments which the petition contained.
Mr. Alderman Heygatedid not at all acquiesce in the doctrines of the petition. Among the landed interest the greatest alarm prevailed upon the question; and the further the bill proceeded, the more its opponents multiplied.
Mr. Curwensaid, he should oppose the measure.
Mr. Sykessaid, that the opposition to the measure must proceed upon the apprehension, that the rate of interest would be increased; but he was satisfied that any such fear was totally unfounded.
Sir T. Lethbridgewas of opinion, that the effect of the bill would be, to place borrowers at the mercy of lenders.
Mr. Philipssupported the change of the law, disputing the assertion of the hon. alderman, as to the increase of the opponents of the bill. There never had been such a coincidence of testimony among intelligent men, as upon this question. They all agreed that the existing laws were injurious both to borrowers and lenders.
Mr. Grenfellwas convinced that, even as the law now stood, money could never be obtained at a lower rate of interest than it was worth.
Mr. T. Wilsonargued, that such an alteration ought not to be made but at the request of the landed interest. Whenever other persons were paying 5 per cent, landed proprietors would be obliged to pay 7 per cent. The repeal of the present law would be beneficial to Ireland.
Mr. D. Gilbertsaid, that the passing of the bill before the House would be highly advantageous to the landed interest.
Sir E. Knatchbullobserved, that money could not now be obtained on mortgage, at a less rate of interest than 4½ per cent.
Mr. Monckremarked, that money on mortgage bore a higher rate of interest than money advanced on good bills, be-

39
cause it was exposed to the risk of a chancery suit, and could not be obtained again immediately on its being wanted.
Ordered to lie on the table.

BURIALS IN IRELAND BILL.
Mr. Hutchinsonpresented a petition, which, he said, he offered with pain and regret. It prayed, that the bill which had been brought in by the Attorney-general for Ireland, respecting the right of burial of the Catholics, might not pass into a law. He felt regret, because, whatever were the defects of the bill, if defects there were he had no doubt of the kind intentions of his right hon. friend, and of the Irish government on this subject; and he felt it his duty, as an Irish gentleman, to say that he considered Ireland deeply indebted to lord Wellesley for his unceasing anxiety to promote the welfare of Ireland, and that he was persuaded that if his excellency's administration had not succeeded to the extent of his excellency's wishes in restoring peace and quiet, it was not for want of his earnest exertions. The petition was from Mr. Devereux, a Catholic gentleman of great fortune, of the county of Wexford; and Mr. Eneas Macdonald, of the county of Mayo. It prayed that the bill might not pass into a law.
The petition was then read, setting forth,
"That the Petitioners have read the draft of a bill now before the House, for repealing a certain act, and making certain provisions therein specified, with respect to the burials in Ireland of persons dissenting from the Established church; that it is truly stated in the said draft, that the easement of burial in the church-yards of Protestant churches has been long enjoyed by all classes of his majesty's subjects; that no injury or inconvenience affecting the rights, interests, privileges, or prerogatives of the established church, or of the ministers thereof, at any time resulted, or is now alleged to have resulted from such practice or enjoyment in Ireland; and the petitioners further humbly submit, that they are sustained by the said bill in the position that such practice is also justifiable in principle, for the professed object of that bill is, to provide that all classes of his majesty's subjects may be permitted to have the said easement of burial according to the rites of the several religions professed by them; that although the prin-
40
ciple of toleration is thus distinctly recognized in the terms of the said bill, nevertheless its provisions not only render such principle inoperative, but introduce new enactments more intolerant and obnoxious than those which they affect to remedy; that the operation of the said bill, if passed into a law, would be, to tempt and excite the clergy of the established church to the exercise of an odious jurisdiction, to taunt the great body of the people of Ireland, both lay and ecclesiastical, daily and hourly upon the degradations to which the law proscribes them, on account of their professing the Catholic faith, to produce constant and immediate collision between the clergy of the different communions, and to increase that spirit of disunion and discontent already so perniciously prevalent in Ireland; that the provisions of the proposed law would apply in a particular manner to the city of Dublin, inasmuch as the burials in that city are generally had in the church-yards of Protestant churches; that no inconvenience had resulted from the practice of free burial, as it existed in that city prior to the appointment of the most reverend Dr. Magee as archbishop of the diocese; and the petitioners humbly submit to the consideration of the House, whether it can be esteemed a just or reasonable regulation to subject the enjoyment or dispensation of such a right to the caprice of the very same individuals whose proceedings respecting the same matter have rendered necessary any application for the interposition of the legislature; the petitioners are unwilling to trespass on the House with a detailed reference to the manifold inconsistencies and insufficiencies of the said bill, they are more anxious to solicit the attention of the House to the illiberal and impolitic principles which it tends to establish, nor can they disguise the sentiments of regret and disappointment with which they are impressed on observing that its first necessary consequence would be, to pronounce, by implication, the sanction of the legislature for proceedings which have been universally condemned by every liberal and enlightened mind, by declaring, as is insinuated by the said bill, that such proceedings were indispensably unavoidable, according to the existing law; the petitioners, therefore, most respectfully suggest, as a course more suitable to the high office of parliament, and to the importance of the sub-

41
ject, and the real merits thereof, and also more likely to remedy the evils lately created, that inasmuch as it is admitted, that the practice of free-burial has long existed in Ireland, without any injury or inconvenience, and the principle thereof is distinctly recognized and professed, the legislature may, in its wisdom, directly establish such right by positive enactment, instead of transferring its own jurisdiction or control to other persons, or making provisions, avowedly unnecessary, but directly tending to the perpetuation of the most prejudicial collision and contest, without effecting, or even professing to seek, any one countervailing benefit or advantage; and it is further most humbly submitted, that if it shall be considered necessary, provisions may be made at the same time, to prevent the use of such rites of burial in any Protestant churchyard during the performance of divine service in the church situated therein; the petitioners for these reasons, among many others, humbly pray the House, That the said bill may not be passed into a law, but that such measures may be adopted in the matter as may protect the public feelings from the offensive interposition of inconsiderate fanaticism, or more furious intolerance."
Ordered to lie on the table.