The Sun.
London, England, 1828-05-22 00:00:00

BETTING TN ST. JAMES'S.

At a late hour last night an important change took place
in the Oaks :—Zoe is amiss, she coughs, and at 9 and 10
to I had no friends ; Lambtonian, who is in the same
stable, fell back to 12 to I. Rosalia improved a little;
the rest as before.

'pectableCA RsinlCg
hhge
guinea's
Ili.
ea
lii in.iosn,bweachia,oimeu
het
single ladies
Ok' Tolfl Er at 1
niCe
penuriousrUß RE N Cl:
habits,•
stuhresiding
ii,necaanmeequexaltlryemreselpey
actpapbrleebbeonrsoivueghofina
French
eeiccounty of Salop.
tttihhieeeyeisxMacivdhedadlneguepof6tuotrhoneinggluaitneeta%s'are.ach, Acting from this motive,
dthisepoeseldeosft shilesrtergusionhelat:ubty,
worth
produced
0
difficulty prevailed uponagthaientldeEr
nothing
teah icnbg,
she did at 283. for each guinea, and directed her legal
friend to purchase in the funds to the full amount produced
when the funds were 54. The piping times of peace arri-
and realised nearly 1,2 001. by her golden speculation.
ved, and Consols rwosaest
oob7li6gke dw lite:
Gold also fell in value under the mild influence of peace,
f;i::::eligtmhhtae
nyy-ootyleanngerstrh,
the
sister
averagewhose
t ehyoaorndl
giving Miss TABITIIA a striking and expensive pi cof of the
caprice of the currency,r. Cheltenham Chronicle.

SPIRII OF VIE PUBLIC JOURNAL,

The speech of Mr. P. Thomson, introductory
of a motion for mitigating the operation of the
Usury Laws, was heard on Tuesday evening
with great respect by the House, and will com-
mand, no doubt, an equal degree of attention
throughout the country. Grounds, we are of
opinion; might be stated for inducing Parliament
to pause a little before it consented to an .abrupt
and absolute repeal of so much of the tfoury
Law as establishes a certain rate of interest fo'v
money. No man of any reflection can be disposed
to swallow the absurd notion that particular in-
terests only are protected, and others exclusively
restrained and embarrassed by the present law.
The fact is, that for one case in which it shields
the borrower, in many more it disappoints or
oppresses him. Should the state of the market
and the urgency of his own afiirs be such as to
justify a rate of interest of 8 per cent., without ex-
totrliialeevacogataniiii eerein him who wants to borrow, or blame-
able covetousness in him who has money tolend, the
a neitherfaiorbtparionfirtel fo
on r hiss
era]
peciteaslsitwthu
necessities, nor
epNr'itiedtioirigoofradirirceechtolymvicosltaattiengcatillineoltaLvk.
c arrdi:nenragoe-
of that solid security which the nature of his
propertyiought to afibrd him, if the price of mo-
ney in the 'Market be but 10s. per cent. above
the legal interest. He is therefore obliged to
offer an inferior—viz., 4 IleTsonal and tempo-
rary—security, paying for -it, Dot tell shillings,
but ten pounds above the lawful interest, because
of the risk supposed to be attached to the sub-
stitute of a deed of annuity for one of mortgage.
The whole system of annuities, with its evil
workers, the Howard's and Gibbs's, nod hun-
dreds like them, have grown out of the 14ury
laws, and without them could never have exist,-
ed. It is remarkable that this attempt of Mr.
Thomson should have been the only one during
many years, and having in view the correction of
a system, so ruinous, against which no outcry or
shout of hato-r has burst forth, on behalf of
those sages the country gentlemen and their ad-
vocates. Mr. Thomson has, indeed, stopped
short of what it may one day be judged desirable,
even by the " country gentlemen" themselves,
to accomplish : but, keeping an eyg to the pre-
judices yet afloat upon the question, lie acted
wisely to halt where he did. His propsition
goes to sweep away whatever had been so pre-
posterously ingrafted on money transactions be,
tween itiati and man, as to throw an air of crime
and
.atrocity ovei simple bargain for merchan-
dise. He gets rid or the enormous penalties,
amounting to treble the stun le»t, by which not
only has the contract hitherto ken invalidated,
but the lender punished. So much interest as
is at present allowed by law, may still be enforced
against the borrower under the contract in which
he binds himself to pay a higher interest ; 3nd,
moreover, he is liable in conscience and honour
for the exce4s above the legal interest, without
enjoying that protectlini from public sympathy
against lenders which has ;Netofore been in a
manner created by the penal pr&isions of the
law. The Attorney-General and Mr. Goulburn
whose negativesileilabstained
,
subjectled a
fromden, on
sup por support, at least is or some
value—both
offering‘ethdairaelcat
hoz
sition to Mr. Thomson's motion ; and Mr. Sub
morepov
declared himself anxious for sonic amendment of

a law from the present state of which he had
known " great injustice to be inflicted." \Vc
are therefore not without hope that one of the
hydra-heads of a vicious and obsolete course of
legislation will ere long be severed irrevocably.
—Times.

Mr. Estcourt's Licensing 13111 was read a se-
cond time last night, committed, and ordered to
be re-committed on the 6th of June. We agree
with Mr. Slaney, that the principle on Ivhich
public-houses arc placed under the controui of
Magistrates is fundamentally vicious. There it;
no reason why Magistrates should .regulate the
supply of ale and beer, any more than the supply
of meat or bread. All the reasona which have
hitherto been urged for giving Magistrates the
power of determining the number of' public-
houses are futile in the extreme. It has been
said, if you allow public-houses to compete
with each other, they will use undue means to
entice customers, and thus the morals of the
people will be exposed to great danger. But in
all other trades men arc of anxious to obtain
customers as publicans are. The baker and
butcher would willingly sell as 'nue!: bread and
meat as possible. But bakers and butchers supply
only those who they think are able to pay them.
The publican would not give his ale and freer
gratis, any more than the baker his bread.
Those who love to be intoxicated will always
find means of indulging their propensity; rid
nothing can be more preposterous than the idea
of subjecting the community to a monopoly
which deprives them of a wholesome commo-
dity, and makes them pay an undue price for
one that is bad, for the sake of the public
morals. If there be sixty tipplers in a neigh-
bourhood, it matters not whether these sixty
tipplers become intoxicated in three houses or
thirty houses. It is the quantity drunk, and not
the number of houses in which it is drunk, that
determines the amount of intoxication. But; the
pretext is too stale to be believed by any one in
the present day. The public morals are not the
object for which public-houses are placed under
regulation, but the public plunder.
housesed
b y
noisy were to in ale and beer and dealers in bread and meat,
however, one material difference betweeaTiClecralecir3::
all
but the inhabitants of remote quar-
tersl
liberal,
alt, el e
aconsumption
ionfvatrliiaehfloyrinetor, if'c certain
effects, more agreeable to the consumers thau
to third parties. Much may be allowed in the
dPiusbtulircb
day time, when we arc prepared for noises of every
description
i;obtutheil
open to a late hour, not only would the
or brawling ;
neigh-
bourhood be disturbed by the noise in the pub-
lic-houses,
In
:fr.! es
fial 'c
distinction,etistreet, f l
N Magistrateswe
whether they a avt
seh
e drunkards
keptar
a ground
the
fnr streets.tli
e nt
ours
reelinegvenhomme,
er-
guardians of the peace,
during which houses may be
open, to punish transgressors, and to abate the
nuisance of refractory
publicans. No matter
whether there be three or three hundred houses
licensed, the Magistrates ought unquestionably
to have
sufficient powers to secure the public
be licensed or not
against the nuisance above alluded to. But this
is perfectly distinct from licensing ; and indeed
licensing, which gives a value to houses on ac-
count of the licenses, is the greatest obstacle
with which a police desirous of keeping the
peace has to contend. It has introduced a cir-
culation of publicans, who are merely a sort of
servants of the owners of the houses, and who,
when the measure of their iniquity is full,
?mike way for other occupants. In this manner
houses so ill conducted as to be quite a nuisance
in neighbourhoods are never shut up, but merely
receive a rapid succession of occupants. Mr.
Slaney furnished some curious statements respect-

lb

s the districts oppressed by brewers' mohopolies,
and those exempt from them, and observed that "in
those districts where there was no mone-oly the
beer was very much better, andi:iore wholesome
in quality." This we '.:an very easily believe ;
for why should brewers invest money in the pro-
perty of publie-hr,uses,
„lu or Magistrates defile them-
selves in traffie' • licences, in ieences, but for the ad-
vantage +2,tereby taken of the public ? Mono-
polies are never for the benefit of consumers.—
A 'l, to Mr. Estcourt's Bill, it recognises the prin-
ciple of controuling the trade in ale and beer, and
therefore it is far from answering the expectations
the public are entitled to form. What it does is
merely to diminish the chances of the power being
exercised corruptly. The power to withhold
licenses, however, is one which must be abused ;
and it reflects little honour on the Magistracy
that they should be so anxious to retain it. The
best part of the Bill is the eeneurrent power
which it gives to tou t
t 2, magistrates to 'act along
with magistrates (24.: towns in which there might
not be six !:esident magistrates. These little
boroughs,are the principal seats of this vile traffic.
A Coupex r j quire may be prejudiced or influen-
ced .by passion, and he, no doubt, has often his
Nee ; but it is obvious that the value of the mo-
nopoly of a publicshouse must be a much more
irresistible bribe to a petty tradesman elevated to
the magistracy of a little Borough than it can be
to a Country 'Squire. We have no doubt, there-
fore, that the infusion of Country Magistrates
will operate beneficially in these local jurisdic-
tions. We were sorry to hear Members like
Mr. Baring lamenting the infraction of the rights
of these Magistrates. The right to oppress and
plunder the people is too often a sacred right in
the eyes of our Legislators. No word of the
right of the poor man to protection from oppres-
sion—to be allowed to obtain his food and drink
without obstruction. Surely the right of the
poor roan to have food and drink for his money
ought to have preference over the right of Cor-
poration Magistrates to make a profit of him.— ,
Morning Chronicle.
The observations with which Mr, Thomson
introduced his motion for wave to bring in a
Bill to amend the r-
sisury Laws made out a
cogent case for attention of the Legislature.
The instance:
s which he adduced of the practical
evils resy'iting from those laws must bring con-
victios, home to every mind not closed against the
Incest instructive lessons of experience. Nothing
can be more absurd than to have a set ef penal
restrictions applied to the trade in money which
cannot be applied to the trade in any other com-
modity. In the cattle, or corn, or wine, or oil
market, a man may take the highest price he can
get for the article in which he deals, without
z unning the -Ask of being called to account in a
Court of Law for it, provided he does not adopt
any v.-of:lir practices—such as entering into a
cunspiracy, for instance, to enhance the value of
the article ; but, in the money market, the law
ties him down from receiving more than a cer-
tain price, under any circumstance, for the use
of money, which is the rnnunndity in which he
deals. If a iii 1 cuntracts to let another have I
the use of re 'Neese, or a horse, or a carriage, or a
ship, ';et- a month or a year, or other specified
tir:ee, he is at liberty to take whatever amount
or compensation the borrower and the lender
mutually agree upon ; and if the lender
chooses to give more than the use of the thing
thus borrowed is worth, the law takes no notice
of the transaction, but leaves such things to the
correcting power of public competition and
mutual self-interest. It is certain that, if a per-
son asks exorbitant prices for any commodity in
which he deals, the temptation of the profits
which he receives operates as a corrective by bring-
ing competitors into the market, who, by under-
selling him, soon cause him to lower his terms,
and tho 3 reduce the thing to its proper level.
But, in respect to money, the law has fixed the
maximum of the price which the lender can re-
ceive for its use, and upon this subject we would
ask two questions—first, whether there is any
sound reason for this distinction ? and, secondly,
whether it operates any good to the borrower ?
With rard to the first question, we say that
the distinction is founded upon a superstitious
notion, which obtained a long time ago, that to
knit out money at interest, or use, was a sin, and
therefore all interest was, in the first instance
forbidden. This, though very foolish, was, at
the same time, consistent ; for, if the fact of
taking interest is in itself sinful, it would be as
much a sin in principle, though not in degree,
to take five per cent. for money at use a 3
to take, twenty per cent. ; and, therefore, inte-
rest ought to be abolished altogether, or not
limited at all ; but nobody contends that it ought
to be abolished altogether. As to the second
question, we say that, so far from the Usury
Laws working advantageously for the borrower,
they do him a great deal of mischief. They
make the lender hese recourse to various subter-
Yugee and circuitous proceedings to evade the
'3W, the expellee of which he makes the bor-
rower pay ; while at the same time it frequently
happens that moneyed people decline to lend,
because they do not think the legal interest high
enough for their risk ; and they do not like to
put the principal, or rather three times the
amount of the principal, in jeopardy, by enter-
ing into an illegal transaction ; and thus, the
number of lenders being diminished, the market
is the more easily raised on the borrower. Under
all the circumstances, we think that Mr. Thom-
son, instead of moving to bring ie a Bill to
amend the Usury Laws, ought to have moved
for a Bill to repeal them. They are bad, not
merely in (legr
ce but in principle, and no mo-
dification call cure them. When we talk of
amendin a law, we must mean that it is gsus-
ceptible of inzprovottent; but the Usury Laws
constitution, and
are not—the vice is their
with their existence.—
only to be got rid of
Morning Herald.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer means to
ask leave to-night, to bring in a Bill to prohibit
the circulation of Scotch one-pouted notes in
England. Ministers, it would therefore appear:
are fully determined to put an end to one-pow-id
notes in England. If it be asked how the
Scotch contrived to slip out of the Bill for their
-
suppression, we answer by decision and perseve-
rance, by early and continued remonstrance.—
Let the Bankers and public of England follow
their example, and a similar result will be the
consequence. Let them neglect the opportunity,
and defer exertion, and all the evils of the mea-
sure will be poured out upon them.—New Times.

From an account laid on the table of the
House of Commons , it appears, that in the year ending
January 5, 1826, the aggregate value of British 'manufac-
tured woollens and woollen yarn exported from Gicat
Britain was 6,194,9261. ; in the year ending Jan. 5,1827,
4,982,908/. ; and in the year ending Jan. 5, 1828, the
value amounted to 5,277,861/. In the year ending Jar.
3, 1826, the quantity of foreign wool imported into th,
country amounted to 43,725,281 lbs. ; to Jan. 5, 1827,
13,964,067 lbs. ; and in the year ending Jan. 6,182 s,
29,152,4471b5. Also, in the years ending Jan. 5, 182;.,
27, and 28, the amounts of British wools exported we, e
678,034 lbs., 888,657 lbs , and 760,109 lbs.