Sitting of 17 February 1825

PETITION OF CATHOLIC ASSOCIATION OF IRELAND AGAINST UNLAWFUL SOCIETIES BILL.
Mr. Broughamrose to present a petition which seemed to him to be entitled to the most serious attention of the House. It was signed by a great number of persons who, although they were members of the Catholic Association, approached the House only in their individual capacity, the forms of parliament not allowing them to petition in any other form. This, then, although it was the petition of the Catholic Association of Ireland, came before the House only as the petition of the individuals by whom it was signed. They consisted of a large number of peers, a larger number of persons of distinguished though inferior rank, six prelates of the Roman Catholic church, three archbishops, and three bishops, and a very numerous class of other individuals of distinction, as regarded their fortune, their talents, and their influence over the great body of the Roman Catholic population. These petitioners humbly represented, that they had learned, with deep apprehension, that it was in contempla-

523
tion to pass a bill through this House, the object of which was, to restrain the undoubted right of the people to meet and petition parliament for the redress of the grievances which they might suffer, and especially that it was intended by that bill to dissolve the Association of which the petitioners were members. They stated, besides, that no act or declaration of that body, from its institution to the present hour, had been intended, or was calculated to excite alarm, or exasperate the minds of the people of Ireland. The petition prayed, that no measures might be adopted against the Association, until the persons who were charged with having committed offences should have been heard in their defence. So conscious were they of the purity of their intentions, that they had no objection to the most rigorous inquiry into both. On the contrary, they courted inquiry. He could not, for his own part, imagine any reason which could be offered against granting them that inquiry which they courted. The petition concluded by praying, that they might be heard at the bar of the House by themselves, their counsel, agents, and witnesses.
The Petition was then brought up and read; setting forth,
"That the petitioners have reason to apprehend that it is in contemplation to introduce some measures into the legislature, either for the purpose of entirely suppressing the Association, of which the petitioners are members, or of coercing them in the necessary exercise of what they deem a legal and constitutional right; the petitioners are ignorant of the precise nature of these measures, but the suggestions that have been publicly made respecting them, have filled their minds with surprise and alarm; conscious that the proceedings of their Association are not, and have never been, irreconcileable with the spirit of the constitution, or calculated to excite alarm, or to exasperate animosities, or to endanger the peace of society, or to retard the course of national improvement, but have had the very opposite tendency, the petitioners fly to the bar of the House for refuge and protection; in the name of truth and British justice they ask, they implore, they respectfully demand, a full, fair, impartial, solemn inquiry into the nature and constitution of their body, into the causes that have induced the necessity of their meetings, into the nature, tendency, and
524
effect of their proceedings; this most necessary inquiry the petitioners humbly pray may be had in the first instance, and before any new measure of harshness or severity be introduced, or any new law be added to that code of pains and penalties (as they humbly offer to prove at the bar of the House) of monstrous injustice and of goading degradation, and of foul oppression, under which the devoted people of Ireland continue to suffer, unmitigated as it is by any gracious act of government, or by any declaration that could inspire hope, or soothe the natural anxieties of a disappointed, ill-treated, yet dutiful, most patient, but most sensitive people; the petitioners in humble vindication of their conduct, submit to the House, and are ready by proof to sustain the same at the bar, that their proceedings are, and have always been perfectly reconcileable with the free and genuine spirit of the British constitution, which affords to the aggrieved the right of complaint, and to the injured an opportunity of submitting their wrongs to the wisdom and justice of parliament; that no act or declaration of their body from the day of its institution to the present hour, has been calculated to excite alarm or exasperate animosities; that their proceedings did not and could not in any wise endanger the peace of society, or retard the course of national improvement; if guilty of the heavy crime of thus adding to the calamities of their ill-fated country, they would not be animated with the courage which inspires them, and with the entire confidence they feel in the high-minded justice of the British nation; they submit to the reasoning mind of the House, that if they have excited alarm, and endangered public peace, or retarded public improvement, their proceedings and their conduct must necessarily have been violent, intemperate, provoking, seditious; at least could not have been peaceable, temperate, conciliatory, and loyal; and here they refer to all that has passed in their body since the first day of its formation, to their acts, their public documents, even to every casual and unpremeditated resolution that has escaped them in the heat of discussion; they invite, they implore, the keenest scrutiny, the most rigid examination, the most jealous inquiry into every act, deed and resolution of their body, and if the result of such inquiry shall be to fasten upon them, or even to countenance the, charges that have been made against them,

525
the petitioners, in the face of parliament and the world, pledge their honour and their faith that they will in that case instantly dissolve themselves; but if, on the other hand, it shall appear, that the conduct of the Catholic Association has been strictly constitutional, that they have met for the purpose of considering various grievances which affect their body, and of bringing same in the shape of humble petitions under the consideration of the legislature; if it shall appear that they have ever laboured to inspire the people with affection for the sovereign, with confidence in the House, and with due respect for the laws; if it shall appear that they have taught the people to shun all secret and illegal combinations, to bear their burthens with patience, to look up for justice and redress to the tribunals of their country; if, moreover, it shall appear that the discontent which prevailed in that country, when the Catholic Association first assembled, gradually subsided, as the petitioners pointed out to the people the mode of obtaining constitutional redress; if it shall appear that the outrages, for the suppression of which extraordinary powers were confided to his majesty, have so far ceased as to warrant the suspension of the exercise of those powers in most of the districts heretofore disturbed; if it shall appear that the value of landed and other property has greatly increased; that industry and commercial enterprise, the sure signs of improving times, and the cheering fruits of public tranquillity, are extending themselves in that par* of the United kingdom; if all this shall appear, the petitioners hope that no measure irreconcileabie with the spirit of the constitution, will meet the sanction of the House, and that the House will not listen to that which the petitioners are humbly ready to prove at the bar of the House would be the wicked project of passing new penal laws, which can have no other consequence than to embitter cruel disappointment, and to irritate and inflame an already aggrieved people, whose wrongs have been frequently acknowledged, but have never been redressed; attacked and calumniated as they have been, the petitioners hope they may be pardoned if, with the anxiety natural to honourable and loyal men, they avail themselves of this opportunity to enter into a more particular explanation of their character and their conduct; for a considerable time after the gracious visit of his majesty to
526
that country, the Catholics of Ireland preserved almost a perfect silence with respect to their claims, anxious to give to the confidential servants of his majesty the enviable glory of making constitutional arrangements, which would tend to procure the emancipation of seven millions of his majesty's subjects; they waited in the humble hope and expectation that the legislature would, unsolicited, have enacted some measure for their relief; they waited in submission and in silence, a whole session was allowed to pass away, and their claims were not even discussed in parliament; it was not until an advanced period of the session of 1823, that their petition was presented to the House; and notwithstanding what they respectfully claim to be and are now humbly ready to prove at the bar of the House to be, the irresistible justice of their claims, notwithstanding all their patience, silence, and submission, it was at that period deemed expedient to dismiss their humble and dutiful claims without any repeal of the laws by which they are aggrieved; thus disappointed, the Catholics of Ireland felt the necessity of bestirring themselves in their own affairs, and it was deemed right to enter into an Association to promote the general interests of their body, and to bring under the frequent consideration of parliament the various and heavy grievances of which the Catholic people of Ireland complain; that the Catholic Association was formed first and chiefly for such purpose; it consists of Catholic prelates, peers, and baronets, of many Protestants of noble families and great possessions, of many distinguished members of high and learned professions, of commercial men of great wealth and character, of country gentlemen, farmers, traders, and substantial citizens; that the Association meet publicly, in order to prepare and forward petitions to both Houses of parliament for the redress of grievances; and to procure for the poor, the ignorant, and the defenceless, redress from the known tribunals of the law, for outrages and injuries arising from party spirit; that the petitioners never presumed or pretended to represent in any way or for any purpose, any portion of their countrymen; that the petitioners never presumed or pretended to levy any sum of money from any portion of their fellow-subjects, but they have received the voluntary subscriptions which have been given by Protestants and Catholics towards the creation

527
of a fund, formed to defray the expenses of forwarding petitions to the House, of obtaining justice for the poor, who are not able to obtain justice for themselves, and for other necessary, just, and lawful purposes; amongst the subscriptions to this National Fund, are to be found those of noble Protestant families, of many members of the legislature, and of other high and dignified persons; even the very last subscription that appears on their list bears the name of a noble and venerable personage, whose virtues shed dignity and splendour even upon the exalted honours of the British peerage; the petitioners, in conclusion, disclaim all views and objects inconsistent with the spirit of the constitution, of the peace, happiness, and improvement of the country, to which they are attached by so many ties, and in which they have so great a stake; in the consciousness of their innocence, they humbly pray the Mouse to take into consider, action the subject of this their humble petition, and to adopt no measure against the Catholic Association, or against any portion of the Catholic people of Ireland, without first affording to petitioners a full opportunity of vindicating their principles and conduct at the bar of the House, and to be heard, if necessary, as well by witness as by their counsel."
Mr. Humesaid, that the promoters of the most atrocious bill ever introduced into parliament, had grounded the measure mainly upon two or three words in an address from the Catholic Association, The words were "by the hatred you bear the Orangemen." On bringing in the bill, the right hon. Secretary had read these words as if they meant by the hatred the Catholics bore to the whole of the Protestant community in Ireland. The words had reference to the practices of the Orange party to entrap the ignorant Catholics into the commission of crimes, for which they were afterwards visited with the penalties of the law, and which practices had become so notorious as to justify the declaration which had been made. He was instructed to represent to the House, that every statement which had been made to the disadvantage of the Catholic Association could be proved on oath to be totally groundless.
Ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. Broughamthen presented a petion against the Unlawful Societies bill, from Newry, and gave notice, that he would, to-morrow, move, on behalf of the
528
first petition, that the petitioners be heard by themselves or their counsel, at the bar of the House.

GAME LAWS.
Mr. S. Wortley Mr. S. Wortley moved for leave to bring in a bill to amend the existing Game Laws, which was precisely the same, he said, as that which he had submitted to the House last session.
Sir J. Shelleywished that a clear fortnight should be allowed to elapse between the introduction of the bill and the third reading.
Sir J. Brydgesobjected to the principle of the bill, and said, he would endeavour to strangle the measure in its infancy.
Mr. R. Colbornethought the present game laws were open to so many objections, and that any attempt to amend them ought to have a fair trial.
Mr. Curwensaid, that the evils of the present system were obvious. The gaols were filled with poachers; game was destroyed to a considerable extent, and was, in many places, openly sold, notwithstanding the penalties. He highly approved of the general principle of the bill.
Mr. Secretary Peelwas also favourable to the measure. It would have a beneficial effect in diminishing poaching. He wished, however, that the hon. member had confined himself to legalizing the sale of game, and giving the owner of the ground a property in them, without extending his views to any alterations of the qualification for sporting. It was an attempt to do too much last year, that the failure of the bill was to be attributed.
Mr. Tennysonalso recommended a more gradual reform in the Game laws. This bill went too far. He sincerely hoped, that the illegality of traps to catch the unwary as well as the guilty would be put beyond all doubt.
Mr. Lockhartdeprecated the use of traps for the protection of game. They were a disgrace to the country.
Mr. H. Sumnerwould resist the bill, as he wholly disapproved of its object.
Mr. Brightwas favourable to this alteration of the law, and lamented that the right hon. gentleman should have said any thing in favour of spring guns.
Mr. Peeldenied that he had done so. On the contrary, the practice of setting spring guns in open woods for the preservation of game, met with his decided disapprobation.
Sir R. Heronwas for limiting the bill to legalizing the sale of game.
Mr. Crippswas of opinion that the bill as proposed went too far.
Mr. Benett, of Wilts, supported the measure. He did not believe that spring guns were set in any woods by game preservers in the West of England. He should hold himself guilty of murder, if life were lost on his grounds, in consequence of the employment of these engines.
Mr. F. Palmerapproved of the bill, and attributed the recent increase of poaching to the low wages which labourers received [hear].
Mr. S. Wortley, speaking from experience, was of opinion, that the setting of spring guns prevented scenes which would be ten times more fatal than any which could result from them. If the question was narrowed to the sale of game, he would wash his hands of the bill. His first principle was, to give every occupier of land a right to the game thereon, and protection against the poacher and trespasser. His second was, to make the sale of game legal.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.

TURNPIKE TRUSTS.
Lord Lowther, in pursuance of notice, moved for the appointment of a select committee to inquire into the receipts, expenditure, and management of the several Turnpike Trusts in the county of Middlesex. In order to shew the necessity of investigation, the noble lord entered into some statements regarding the trusts in the neighbourhood of the metropolis. For three miles and a half of road to the north of London, there were three acts of parliament, three sets of commissioners, and ten turnpike-gates. Not less than 200,000 l. were collected in various directions within ten miles of the city, and about half the sum was consumed in salaries and perquisites. An account, before the House, of the Stamford-hill trust, shewed that a large sum had been laid out in annuities, and, on inquiry, he found that these annuities, with interest of 10 per cent, had been granted to some of the trustees by others of the trustees for monies advanced, and said to be necessary for the maintenance of the road. An abuse also existed in the summoning of trustees only, to serve upon special juries. Generally, where the largest sum was collected from the public, the worst management existed; and of this, the noble lord adduced several instances. The tolls of the gate in Bishopsgate-street,
530
instead of being applied to the purposes of the highways, had been expended in relief of the parish rates. The multiplicity of gates in the vicinity of London was a great loss to the public, not only in money but in health, since it made travelling so expensive. Between Hyde-park-corner and Hounslow, no less than 22,000 l. were annually collected, and it seemed impossible that the sum could be laid out in the repair of the road for that short distance. The inquiries last year regarding the Kensington trust, had done much good. The balance had been taken out of the hands of the treasurer, and placed with a respectable banker, after the payment of the debt. He expected hostility from both sides of the Thames, but at present he limited his inquiry to Middlesex, hoping to accomplish something, by not attempting too much in the first instance.
Sir E. Knatchbulladmitted, that the noble lord had made out a case requiring investigation. If the object was, to throw the turnpike trusts into the hands of government, or to place all the roads under the superintendence of Mr. M'Adam, he should decidedly resist such a course; convinced that it would only lead to corruption and jobs, which he always had opposed.
Mr. Sumnersaid, that the greatest injustice would be done to individuals, if they were not allowed to vindicate themselves before a committee from the charges brought against them. He therefore should not oppose the motion.
Mr. Humethought the inquiries of the committee should be extended to all turnpike trusts within ten miles of the metropolis. Turnpikes existed in all directions, from the very centre of the town, and it was highly desirable that the committee should take into its consideration the expediency of removing them to a greater distance, if not of doing away with them altogether. The expense levied upon the public within four miles of the metropolis amounted to not less than 200,000 l. whereas 60 or 70,000 l. properly employed would be amply sufficient. He should move, as an amendment, that the inquiries of the committee be extended to all turnpike trusts within ten miles of London.
Mr. Maberlythought the public indebted to the noble lord for having brought this subject under the consideration of parliament. He was persuaded

531
that the result of the inquiry would be, an enormous saving to the public.
Sir T. Baringapproved of the noble lord's motion. The tax on the public from this source amounted to no less than a million and a half, which sum was disposed of by irresponsible persons, amenable to no tribunal. When a turnpike bill passed that House, the number of respectable names introduced into it, appeared to afford a sufficient security for the proper expenditure of the money; but the fact was, that the actual disposal of the money devolved on persons of a very different description, who too frequently applied it to their own purposes.
The motion, as amended, was then agreed to.

USURY LAWS REPEAL BILL.
Mr. SerjeantOnslow moved the order of the day for the second reading of this bill.
Mr. Calcraftsaid, he felt it his duty to oppose this measure, which had now, for some time been annually brought under the consideration of parliament. The present prosperity of the country, and the convenient state of the money market, furnished of themselves, in his opinion, a strong argument against the repeal of the existing laws. It had been said, that it was impossible to oppose this measure on general principles of policy, for that it was the soundest policy to allow every man perfect liberty to dispose of every description of property in any manner he thought fit. In the expediency of that general principle he was disposed to concur. But, to this principle they had numerous exceptions daily before their eyes. For instance, a man in building a House was compelled to build his wall of a particular thickness to guard against fire. A man was not allowed to keep a gambling table. Both the gamblers and the keepers of those Houses were restricted by law. Only a few days ago the court of King's-Bench had imposed a fine of 5,000 l. on an individual for this very offence. According to the principle of the learned serjeant, that man ought to have turned round on the chief justice and said, "You have no right to punish me for this conduct; it is an unjust interference with my disposal of my own money." But the chief justice would answer—"It is my duty to punish you; you have transgressed a law which was made for the good of the community." If we traced the current history of the country, we should find, that these laws
532
had had a most beneficial effect. Under these laws it was, that the country had attained its present extraordinary state of prosperity.—The hon. member then referred to the spirit of speculation which at present prevailed; and said, that if it was true that there should be an unlimited privilege of disposing of money, there would be no justice in the proposed interference of a noble and learned lord in another place, whose experience was greater than that of any other man in this country, and whose knowledge was more extensive, in consequence of his having so long presided over the Chancery court. But, say gentlemen on the other side of this argument, it is a mutual accommodation to the lender and borrower to remove those laws. He was prepared to admit, that in times of difficulty these laws might be found inconvenient in their operation; but his answer was, that no legislature in the world could guard against these extraordinary emergencies. Another argument was, that by repealing those laws we should do away with the expense of insurances and annuity process; but let gentlemen consider the very small quantity of money transactions that came under this denomination. He contended that it would be most injurious to interfere with those salutary regulations. Was it nothing, that under these laws the country had attained its present exalted situation?
Mr. Humesaid, he was clearly of opinion that the House would do well to adopt the recommendation in the king's Speech, and remove all those restrictions which interfered with commercial transactions. He remembered, that when it was proposed to remove the restrictions on the trade between England and Ireland, it was argued by some gentlemen, that to do so would be ruinous to the country. But, the consequence was, that when only a part of them had been removed, the beneficial result was so manifest, that the Irish merchants petitioned for the entire removal of the restrictions; and this cause, perhaps more than any other, had enabled Ireland to bear that full tide of prosperity which was now flowing in and upon her. The hon. member next alluded to the measure said to be in progress in the other House, with respect to the speculations now afloat in the city. His hon. friend had described the proposed measure to be the project of a wise man; but he must state, that it appeared to him exceedingly absurd, and it would surprise him very

533
much if it should ever pass into a law. What right had any man to interfere in the concerns of another? What right had he to prevent that other from embarking in whatever speculations he pleased? No doubt any man who suffered his name to be implicated in the institution of a scheme which was to be carried into execution by means of a company, took upon himself a certain responsibility. Nothing could be more unworthy than for such a person, be his situation that of director or proprietor, to desert the scheme, and place the property of many persons in a state of jeopardy. It was a paltry act; and he was sure no man whose conduct and character were before the public would be guilty of such an unworthy and unprincipled proceeding. To that extent he was prepared to discountenance these projects; but, if the growing commerce of this country required projects of public improvement; and, if any man, no matter what his station or his wisdom, should tell him that it was proper to compel the parties to pay up at once three-fourths of the money, which, perhaps, might not be required for ten years, he should have no hesitation in saying that such an opinion was most absurd and injurious. Formerly it was urged, that it would be inexpedient to make the alteration when the rate of interest was high. Why, then, now was the very time; and he felt persuaded, that during his life time the rate of interest would never again reach five per cent. He thought the House would do well to follow the king's advice, and remove the remaining restrictions. Why continue to fetter the money-market, when they conceded the principle of unrestrained traffic in every other commodity? Why was not money to be treated like all other commodities, which the possessor had the privilege of turning as he pleased to his own advantage? What would the country gentlemen think if a bill were introduced into that House for the purpose of fixing the maximum of rent at 15 s. per acre? Would they not deem the measure a most unjust and impolitic interference with their rights? As matters stood, the rent of land generally corresponded with its value. The same observation applied to houses. What, then, prevented any gentleman from asking 10 l. an acre for his land, and double the value for his houses? Nothing, but the certainty that he could not be paid. Was it not fair to conclude
534
that money would be likewise lent on the same principle? Me should give his warm support to the bill.
Mr. Crippssaid, he should oppose the bill. The country had experienced the benefits of the Usury laws. Under them it had attained its present height of prosperity and glory. Would they, then, with a rash hand, break down a system which had been attended with such beneficial consequences?
Mr. John Smithsaid, that the argument of the hon. gentleman was a curious, and to him an inconclusive one. Because, during the existence of these laws the country had prospered, therefore it would be unwise to touch them. Surely, the hon. gentleman did not mean to say, that every law which was in operation during the period when the country was in a flourishing state, was so perfect, that it would be endangering that prosperity to alter or repeal it. A noble lord had just made a proposition respecting turnpikes and tolls, which he was satisfied would prove of benefit to the community. Now, would it not be deemed an irrational mode of proceeding, if some gentlemen were to say, that, because the country was in a flourishing state during the existence of the turnpike laws, it would be very hazardous to interfere with them. The only question was this—will the repeal of these laws be useful or hurtful to the community? AH other arguments were idle. In his opinion, the restriction was mischievous. Money was a commodity which would be sure, like other commodities, to obtain its value; and if a law settled the rate at which the use of it was to be paid for below its value, its owners would find means of evading that law. Take, for example, the case of a tradesman who was pressed for money, and supplied his immediate wants by drawing a bill, and had not the means of taking up the bill when it became due. This was a case which frequently occurred, and as the law was imperative on him, what did he do? Why, he went to the banker or holder of the bill, requested him to keep it another week, and offered to give nine or ten guineas for the accommodation. If this man could have borrowed the money of his neighbour, at six or seven per cent, he might have been saved from this sort of ruin. This question had been agitated several years ago, out of the House; and there, at least, it had been finally settled. Mr. Bentham had

535
shewn, unanswerably, that the restrictions on the use of money were unwise. The question had been discussed by many enlightened men on the continent, and many clever men in this. Mr. Mill, and Mr. M' Culloch were of one opinion, that the use of money, like the use of other commodities, should be left unrestricted.' As a philosophical question it had been set at rest. The repeal might not take place this session, nor the next; but, it was a measure which, like Catholic emancipation, the abolition of the Test act, and many other measures which had long been debated, must be carried at last.
The Solicitor-Generalbegan by saying, that he meant to propose, by way of amendment, that the bill be read a second time this day six months. He had read the works mentioned by the last speaker twice over; he had also read the evidence and the report of the committee, and he had come to the conclusion, that the repeal of the Usury laws would be injurious. He did not say, therefore, "continue these laws, because the country has prospered under them;" but, "continue them because the repeal would be injurious." If it could be proved to him that the repeal would be beneficial, he would give his vote for it. He met the hon. member, therefore, entirely on the ground of utility, and would endeavour to shew that on this ground the law ought not to be repealed. The borrowers might be divided into three classes —mercantile borrowers, landed borrowers, and persons who did not belong to either of these classes, and who might be considered as general borrowers. He would first take the case of mercantile borrowers, and, if the law applied only to them, he would not deny that the repeal would be injurious. Mercantile borrowers generally obtained a loan to make a profit of it. They did not borrow of necessity, but they borrowed to trade; and if they could make 10 or 12 per cent on the money borrowed, he saw no reason why the lender might not ask them to pay him 7 or 8 per cent. But if they were allowed to demand this, was there any landed gentlemen so ignorant, did any member of that House possess so foggy an understanding, as not to see that, if the monied man could lend to the trader, at a higher rate than five per cent, he would not lend to him at that sum? It was one advantage to the lender, that he could recal his capital at pleasure, or get it back at a short notice. Now, when a man lent
536
capital to a trader, he was generally enabled to command the use of his capital when he pleased. Very often he received as security transferable property, which he could turn into money when he pleased. But, if he lent his money on land, he could not get it back at his pleasure; there was all the trouble and inconvenience of mortgage; he could not recal it for two or three years, and therefore, in proportion as he could not command the use of his capital, when he lent it to the landed gentleman, he would thus make them pay a higher rate of interest for it than the trader. The landed gentleman would find no money-lender so pleased with his physiognomy, as to lend money to him at a lower rate of interest than he could get elsewhere; and, if this repeal enabled him to get more from the trader, was it not evident, that it would enhance the difficulty of borrowing to the land-owner He believed he was not wrong when he stated that eight out of every ten estates in the kingdom were loaded with debt. Now, under what circumstances did the country gentleman borrow money? Was it to speculate upon? Was it to employ it at some seasonable crisis, when by a little prudence and dexterity he might obtain vast profit? Was it to sink it in some scheme where it would fructify to his unbounded advantage? No. The benefits which he could receive as its produce were fixed. He never could obtain from a borrowed sum beyond a determined profit. And here were the great distinctions between these two species of borrowers. Could any one say, that the repeal of the Usury laws would be beneficial to the latter class? But, if the terms of borrowing were so unfavourable to the landed class, what expectation could the general borrower entertain of being able to obtain a Joan under any other than oppressive terms? The persons who formed this class generally stood in need of but small sums; their necessities were pressing, and therefore they were exposed to the most grinding demands. However, they had no choice; they were without, perhaps, the sufficient security, and they must submit to the terms imposed upon them, be they ever so oppressive. If there was any gentleman present who, before he became a member, happened to have owed a tailor's bill—if that gentleman had a scintilla of recollection of any such transaction, he would, perhaps, remember that he had been for a time an involuntary

537
borrower, and that he was obliged to yield to the ad libitum demands of the lender to whom he made application.—But, there was another most material point. It would have the effect of making capitalists engross the profits of most lucrative trades, without incurring the risks of partnership. If a man could get 10 or 12 per cent for his money by lending it on good security to a person engaged in a profitable trade, he would not become a partner in the trade, where the whole of his property would be liable, in case of failure, to the partnership debts. He would rather lend it, and then he was sure of a certain portion of the profits, if the trade succeeded; and if not, he would have a guarantee for his money advanced, to the prejudice of all other creditors. He would take the case of a brewery. A capitalist might embark his 50,000 l. or 60,000 l. as a loan on good security, at 10 or 12 per cent in it. The profits of the trade would be perhaps 20 per cent. He would thus secure more than half the profits of the trade without the risk; and, if the trader failed, the other creditors must be the losers. This showed not only the great inconvenience, but the evil of the proposed change. An hon. member had said, that there was no restriction on the rent of land; that the landed gentlemen might ask what they pleased for the use of it. But, he would ask the hon. member if the law, which allowed corn to be imported into this country, when the price was 80 s., was not fixing a maximum on rent? Beyond that, the landed gentlemen could not demand a rent. It was because he thought the repeal proposed unseasonable in time, and pernicious in principle, that he should move, that it be read a second time this day six months.
Mr. Serjeant Onslowcombatted the illustration of the Solicitor-general, drawn from the corn laws, and contended, that this was meant not as restriction against, but in favour of, the landed interest. He hoped his learned friend would not raise this argument in favour of the corn laws, as he would find it not very palatable to the country gentlemen. His learned friend had talked as if money-lenders were men who never looked but at the rate of interest promised them. Such a class of men had never existed. All who had money to lend, looked both at the rate of interest and the security for paying it; and it had long been the case, that men with a less certain security, such as mercantile men,
538
could not borrow on as favourable terms as those who, like landed gentlemen, had better security. The learned member seemed also to think, that a lender could at all times have what he asked, and that the rate of interest was entirely fixed by the wish of the lenders. He had taken no notice of the competition of lenders. If this were as the learned gentleman had stated, how was it, that at present, when the legal rate of interest was 5 per cent, men lent their money much below that rate? It was clear, therefore, that some other principle besides the will of the lender, settled the rate at which the rent of money was to be paid. This principle was partly the competition among the lenders. Money was like land or houses, which, when men borrowed, they paid for the use of; and as the rent both of houses and land was unrestricted, he did not see why the rent of money—for there was nothing magical in the term interest—should not be equally so. It could not be denied that the best and readiest security which could be offered for money at the present day was land. The fact was, that money could be at all times obtained on good security, at its fair market value. To reduce it to that value, or to prevent its being carried higher than that value allowed, the present measure was introduced. The land-owner and the merchant could now obtain it at its fair price; but as to the person who had no security to give, he did not know any change of the law which could put him into a better situation with respect to the terms on which he could obtain a loan, than he was at present. He contended, that, on the ground of good policy, there was no just cause for continuing the present laws. We had been in the habit of lauding the wisdom of our ancestors; but that wisdom did not introduce any law for fixing any rate of interest for money until the reign of Henry 8th. This act was repealed in the reign of Edward 6th; but the statute of Henry 8th was renewed in the reign of Elizabeth. But it was the opinion of the ablest men in that and the preceding reign, that no interest ought to be taken for money. So much for the wisdom of our ancestors. Since those days, however, the principles of commerce were better under stood, and a value was fixed upon money. That value, he would contend, ought to be left to the effect of competition in an open market, without any legal restriction whatever.
Mr. Robertsonopposed the proposed repeal, and contended that it would be highly impolitic to do away with a fixed rate of interest. Such a principle was at variance with the doctrine of Adam Smith, which it had of late been too much the fashion to condemn. He would lay down a rule which he thought would satisfy all who were conversant with this subject. There was in every country a certain rate of profit in commercial transactions. In this country he took it to be about 7 per cent. In retail trade it was, of course, more. Now, a man who borrowed at 5 per cent had 2 per cent profit; but if he gave 7 per cent interest, he must be inevitably ruined. Yet if the usury laws were repealed, he would be induced to do so; and once driven into that condition, there would be no escape for him. It was the duty of the legislature to protect this class, and he should therefore vote against the repeal. He contended, that all civilized nations had found it necessary to protect their subjects from usury, and fix the rate of interest. It was a departure from this salutary principle, in some of the free states of the continent, where a higher rate than 5 per cent had been allowed by the law, which had caused their ruin.
Captain Maberlysupported the bill, because he considered the present system of laws to be unjust, impolitic, and open to constant evasion.
Mr. Alderman Heygateopposed the bill, as injurious to the various interests of the country, and especially ruinous to the small traders. The present law was not constantly evaded. If it were, this bill would not have been deemed necessary by those who had now pressed it upon the House.
Mr. Maberlymaintained the necessity of a repeal of the usury laws.
Mr. T. Wilsoncontended that no case had been made out for the bill; and that, if carried, it would unhinge all the existing pecuniary relations in the country.
Mr. W. Smithcontended, that the bill would not be detrimental to the interests of the country, since none of the ministers, who were the guardians of those interests were present to oppose it. He looked upon their absence to be a convincing proof that there was no danger in the measure.
Mr. Wynnsaid, he had so often stated his sentiments to be favourable to this bill, that he should not have risen to say a word in defence of it, had it not been for
540
the allusion to the absence of his hon. colleagues. He believed that all of them considered the bill as one which would greatly advance the public interest. His right hon. friends, the chancellor of the Exchequer, and the president of the Board of Trade, had on more than one occasion, defended the policy of it; and he was confident that all his colleagues, with the exception, perhaps, of the right hon. Secretary for Foreign Affairs, who, to the best of his knowledge, had never taken the question into his consideration, were strongly in favour of it. They had left the House, because they anticipated that the division on the bill would not take place till a late hour, and that their presence would not be wanted to render the question successful. He had stayed behind at the request of his right hon. friend, the president of the Board of Trade, to declare the opinion of ministers on this bill, in case such a declaration of opinion should be rendered necessary. Much had been said of the wisdom of our ancestors. These acts, however, were in the spirit of other acts passed at the same time, which we had now beneficially got rid of. The constant mistake in former times was, the belief, that those transactions could be regulated by law, which, it was now found, were better regulated by themselves.
Mr. Brightwas exceedingly afraid of the removal of these laws, not on account of the country gentleman or merchant, but the influence they had on the comforts of the middling and lower classes.
The House divided: For the amendment 45. Against it 40. Majority 5. The second reading was accordingly put off for six months.