The Sun.
London, England, 1839-06-25 00:00:00

A short discussion took place last night in the
House of Lords on the Committee on the Bill for
suspending the Usury Laws, which had some refe-
rence to the present state of the Money Market.
Lord ASHBURTON alluded to the subject with re-
gret, and would have said more but that he feared to
increase the public inconvenience. He did say of the
law suspending the Usury Laws, which the Bill
is to renew, that it had added to the
difficulties of the Bank. We understood the
Noble Lord to affirm, that the power of ob-
taining a higher rate of interest had thrown
more money into circulation, and rendered it pro-
portionably difficult for the Bank to limit the cur-
rency, which had for some time been its object.
Somehow or other almost all laws seem to fail in
the objects contemplated by the Legislature,
—whether they be benevolent, as in this
Bill, or malevolent, as in the penal laws against
the Catholics ; and Lord ASHBURTON as-
sured their Lordships that the usurious bar-
gains which had been formed in consequence of
the law suspending the Usury Laws were frightful,
and would astonish their Lordships. He allUded
particularly to the information he had derived from
solicitors; which, could he lay it before their Lord.
ships, would make them shrink aghast at the con-
sequences of their own enactments.
The present state of the Bank of England, to
the_ difficulties of which Lord AsunuaToN so 1
feelingly alluded, is another example -of the same
fact. When the Charter was renewed every
right-thinking political economist remonstrated
against it, but Lord A L THOR P and Mr. PoULE77
THOMSON were obstinate in wrong, and passed the
new Charter, giving the Bank greater powers than
ever, by conferring on its notes—for the especial
protection of the Bank—the extraordinary, but
lying, privilege of being a legal tender. The Bank,
intended to be favoured, was made the regulator
of the currency. It is in consequence obliged to
apply its screw, to raise its rate of interest, and
drive business from its own counter to the counters
of its rivals. The rate of profit on mercantile and
other transactions,which is low, by no means warrants
a high rate of interest, and other banks continue to
lend at what may be called the market rate, while
that charged by the Bank is above it. Strange to
tell, London merchants send, it is said, bills into
the manufacturing districts to be discounted. The
measures, therefore, which the Bank is now obliged
to adopt is cutting up its own trade and augment-
ing that of its rivals. That the power conferred on
it is a gross injury, indeed nothing less than a gross
fraud, on the country, is certain ; but it is seldom
that we can trace so clearly the effects of such
an injustice in injuring those it was intended to
benefit.

The debate is otherwise a forcible illustration
of some of the inconsistencies of statesmen. A
few nights ago the House of Commons, when
the Canada question was discussed, rung with
Sir ROBERT PEEL'S declamation against pledg-
ing the House, by an abstract resolution, to some
course of conduct in 1842 ; last night the Duke of
WELLINGTON was equally emphatic against net
preparing to do something in 1842. He could net
allow the Bill to be made perpetual ; he wished to
take the subject into consideration in 1842 ; and by
enacting that the law should expire at that time, he
really pledged the House as much to consider it in
1842 as Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S Canada Resolution
pledged the House to do something else at the
same period. But this inconsistency is no-
thing compared to that of Sir ROBERT PEEL him-
self, who, while he declaims so lustily against bind-.
ing the House at a future period, by every law
he assents to, binds, not only the House, but
the country, whatever may be the circumstances, for
an indefinite period. Take for example this very.
Bank Charter. Has not Sir Robert PEEL, who has
such a horror of pledging the House, bound him-
, self and bound the country to suffer that grievous
injustice and great public wrong for a long term of
years ? When the Duke of WELLINGTON, by limit-
ing a law to the year 1842, compels the Legislature
then to consider the subject, and when Sir R °BERT
PEEL, gives his assent to such a law as the
Bank Chaiter, they really pledge themselves,
pledge the Parliament, and pledge the country, to a
particular line of conduct for an indefinite or a

definite period, and yet they profess to have a horror
of pledges !

'We beg the attention of our readers to the de-
cision of. the Court of Queen's Bench in the case
of DAVID JONES, the Welsh Dissenter, who has
been so long imprisoned for the heinous clime of
not furnishing, out of his own pocket, the sacra-
mental bread and wine required by the Church-
going portion of the parish of Llanon. JONES, it
will be recollected, was one of the Churchwardens
of this parish, of which the renowned EBENEZER
MORRIS, that godly mirror for parsons to see their
likeness in, is either curate or vicar, we know not
which, while a rich squire was the other. The
rate-payers had been regularly summoned to con-
sider the propriety of laying a Church-rate, and
had, in the undoubted exercise of their legal right,
put a negative upon the Churchwardens' demand
of more cash. Upon this, what does EBENEZER

truth, that all other men. teach falsehoods, even those
who teach arithmetic, their friends demand for them
all the money that the State can devote to education. Mr.
LANGDALE, a Catholic, in a sensible speech, pointed
out the intolerance of the Church. Mr. LirroN dreaded
that Protestant children would be converted by
Catholic urchins were they mixed at school. They are
.such wonderfully clever people, the Catholics, children
and all, according to the testimony of the Protestants
that it would seem to be a good thing for the people to
become Catholics.
Mr. MORGAN J. O'CONNELL crushed Mr. LITTON, as
far as that was worth while, and encouraged the Go-
vernment to persevere.

Mr. CRESSWELL dwelt on the impropriety of trying to
set aside the vote of the House of Lords on this ques-
tion, and controverted Mr. EWART'S statement that the
combined plan of education had succeeded at Liverpool.
Mr. VERNON SMITH admitted that Government had
given up their first plan, because it was unpopular,
and this was a temporary expedient to satisfy the
thirst of knowledge.
Sir GEORGE CLERK threatened almost an insurrec-
tion in Scotland, if' Government should pursue its plan.
We must be excused for saying that Mr. SHILL
was more violent than effective, and that we have heard
him deliver more biting sarcasms than any he spoke last
night, with infinitely less vehemence. His gestures seemed
rather to provoke the merriment than the sympathy of
the House. The close of his speech was both graceful
and fNtive, and Lord ASHLEY will feel for sometime
to come the just accusation that religion—how re-
pugnant to its nature:—makes even him cruel ; and,
in obedience to the commands of his priest, he will not
allow little children to come unto the Saviour.
Mr. GOULBURN followed Mr. SHILL, and made a
dull prosing speech, which made us much admire the
patience of the House in listening to him. He did at
length weary them out, and cries of " Divide," caused
him to close his oration. He threatened the House of
Commons with the House of Lords.

Lori J. RUSSELL distinctly explained that the plan of
June 3 was notlike the plan of April 115—that the Govern-
went would be bound by the vote of the House—that
it differed so little from that of last year that he was
willing to take it on the same terms ; and on the
close of his short and effective address the Committee
divided. We announce the result with regret, as
showing the falling off in the Liberal party. The num-
bers were, 275 for the vote, and 273 against it. Other
stages will expose it to other trials, and it can scarcely,
we are afraid, be carried through the House of Commons.
If that be so, we hope that the House will make no grant
whatever, for every grant only tends to increase the riches
and the arrogance of the priesthood. Some other
routine business was transacted, and then the House
adjourned.