The Sun.
London, England, 1828-06-20 00:00:00

USURY LAWS.

Mr. P. TIIOMSON moved the second reading
of the Usury Laws' Amendment Bill.
On the question being put,

Mr. DAVENPORT— Opposed the Bill, on the
ground that it would be most injurious to the landed
as well as to the commercial interests of the country.
There was a most respectable class of men, small
landowners, who would be ruined if the Bill . were
passed into a law. This system of repealing the
Usury Laws was tried in Prance by the National
Assembly; but such were
.the injurious effects of the
measure there, that they were obliged to alter it in
twenty-three days. The Hon. Member concluded
by moving, as an amendment, that the Bill be read
a second time that day three months.

Mr. IRVING very much approved of the principle
of the Bill, and with regard to the object of afford-
ing facilities to the mercantile world for borrowing
money in times of momentary pressure, he thought
the suggestions of the Hon. Member deserved the
best consideration ; but at the same time he thought
the measure ought to be confined to commercial, con-
cerns, and that real or landed securities should re-
main untouched.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
was friendly to the principle of the Bill. He ad-
mitted the evils of the present laws, and he wished
to see those evils corrected; but he did not think
it possible to carry that object into effect in this
Session, and l►e therefore urged the Hon. Mem-
ber to postpone its further consideration for the
present.
Mr. HEATHCOTE concurred in the recom-
mendation given by the Right Hon. Gentleman, to
postpone this question to the next Session.
Sir GEORGE PHILLIPS thought that unless
the Right Hon. Gentleman would give a distinct
pledge on the part of the Government to bring for-
ward a measure of this sort next Session, or unless
be would give a similar pledge to support the mea-
sure when again produced by the Hon. Member for
Dover, that Hon. Member ought not to withdraw
his Bill at this moment. The reason why the Le-
gislature did not alter these laws was, that the Mern•
bers of that and of the other House of Parliament
ktor,ll rather in the situation of borrowers than len-
ders, and therefor? wished to fix a maximum of in-
terest. As those who borrowed never gave more
than five per cent., those who lent should never
take less. Each pa. •y should be at liberty to make
his own bargain. There was no more reason why
the interest of the money should be limited than for
placing a. restriction on the rent of .houses. He (Sir
G. Phillips) woulcl advise his lion, Friend not to
press the House to an immediate decision; but he
thought his Hon. friend had a perfect right to
require that the principle of the Bill should be ad 7
mit ted.

Mr. SUGDEN opposed the Bill.
Mr. ROBINSON, defended the principle of the
. _

Mr. L. FOSTER appealed to the lion. Gentle-
man to state what coarse he meant to pursue.
Mr. P. THOMSON wished to have the Bill
read a second- time, in order that he might introduce
certain qualifications into it,
Mr. LESLIE FOSTER said, as it appeared that
the object of the Hon. Gentleman was to continue
the debate? he should claim his privilege of addressing
the Ilouse.
Mr. P. THOMSON had no wish to prolong 60
4.laate ; but as he saw several friends of the measure
were anxious to deliver their sentiments, he felt no
disposition to interfere with the course the House
chose to follow.

Mr. LESLIE FOSTER objected to the Bill, be.-

cause it held out expectations which it would disap-
point. He thought a middle course might be
steered with advantage. But this Bill was no
middle course; but the merest delusion ever practised
on the House. It was evident, from Mr. Preston's
evidence before the House of Commons, that the
lauded interest was materially concerned in this
question. That Gentleman supposed that one-
fourth of the laud was burdened with debts. IR
1804, it was known by the Property Tax returns
that the rental of England, from land alone, amounted
to 38,000,000/. per year. Supposing it might now
be increased—he would take it at present at
40,000,0001., and at twenty years' purchase this
would make 800,000,000/. Taking one-fourth of
the land as burdened, this would give 200,000,000/.
as the amount of real property which was pledged.
The whole of-the other interest did not amount to
6,000,0001., and therefore they were called on
by this Bill to benefit an interest amounting to
6,000,000/. at what might.prohably ruin an interest
of 200,000,000/. He could assure the Landed
Gentlemen that they were mistaken, if they sup-
posed it would be optional with them to pay off a
mortgage or not. If it were for the advantage of
their creditors, they would be compelled to pay it off
through the medium of a costly Chancery suit.—
He would call on the Country Gentlemen, therefore,
not to suffer themselves to be taunted by Jews and
philosophers into assenting to the principle of
this Bill.

Lord PALMERSTON thought, whether the
Bill then before diem passed or not, they were all
agreed that the present laws must be altered. Those
laws were not now defended by any person either as
advantageous or effective. They took money out of
the general rule applicable to all other commodities,
and did not allow a man to deal as he liked with his
own property. They were passed at a period when
it was very much the fashion to make laws for every
trifling thing. But we were now grows wiser, and
had become sensible that it was better to leave men
to take care of their own interest. As for the landed
interest, while he was as ready as any man to admit
the necessity of upholding their interest, he did not
think those laws were advantageous to them. The
former proposed Bill had been objected to, as doing
too much. This Bill was opposed, because it did
not do enough. Whatever might be the fate of this
Bill, he should never think of opposing it on the
ground stated by one Hon. Gentleman, of its contain-
ing five pages of repeal and only five pages of enact-
ment. Every person who knew the state of our laws
must know that no greater benefit could be conferred
on the public than a measure repealing the old Sta-
tutes that disgraced our Statute Book. He should
support the Bill.

Mr. D. W. HARVEY, though ready to admit
the necessity of modifying the penalties of the Usury
Laws, could not approve of this 13111.
Mr. BRIGHT opposed the Bill.
Mr. P. THOMSON replied, and observed, that
though he intended to press the Bill to a second
reading that evening, he would not carry it further
during the present Session, on the understanding
that the Right Hon. Gentleman would, in the course
of the next Session, introduce some measure on the
subject of the Usury Laws.
Mr. HERRIES was willing to admit that it
would be beneficial to all if those laws were greatly
modified, if not entirely repealed.—(Hear, hear.)—
On the understanding that further proceedings on
the Bill would be abandoned during the present
Session, he should certainly vote with the Hon.
Gentleman (Mr. P. Thomson), and had no doubt
that, in the course of next Session, some measure
would be proposed by the Government that would
make a considerable improvement in the law as it
now stood.

The numbers were—
For the second reading se
Against it 4O
The Bill was read a second time accordingly.
VOTERS' REGISTRATION BILL.

Lord NUGENT requested that the Voters' Re-
gistration. Bill might be read a second time without
opposition, in order that in the Committee he might
introduce into it certain amendments which would
remove objections which he entertained to it in its
present shape, and which would render it more
palatable in the country.
Sir R. WILSON opposed the principle of the
measure, and as that objection to it could not be re-
moved in Committee, he moved that the Bill be read
a second time on this day six months.
Mr. H. GURNEY expressed the same sentiments.
Colonel SIBTHORP also coincided with the
Hon. and Gallant Member for Southwark.
• Mr. P. THOMSON recommended that the Bill
should be withdrawn fur the present Session.
Mr. JEPHSON resisted its further progress.
Mr. W. SMITH contended, that the measure, as
amended, would be beneficial.

Colonel DAVIES decidedly objected to any such
change.
Mr. T. B. LENNARD supported the measure,
as it was calculated to shorten contested elections.

Lord NUGENT contended, that his Bill was not
liable to the objections stated.

Mr. G. LAMB opposed the further progress of it.
After some conversation between Mr. W. SMITH,
Sir R. WILSON, and others, which was interrupted
by cries of " Spoke " and " Question,"
Lord NUGENT declared that he did not propose
to divide the House.
The Amendment that the Bill be read a second
time that day six months was then carried, and the
Bill consequently is lost.