Star.
London, England, 1825-02-18 00:00:00

~'

e nothing
ell the".

Wirt °Nett
Mr. BUNS,
ral principle of _ present
true we had been thriving
had we done under the restrictions on commerce,
which we were now just& priding ourselves in re-
moving. It was only by 'degrees prejudices could be
removed, but he was surprised it should be so difficult
to remove the prejudices of the Country Gentleman,
who were so greatly interested in the repeal. The pro-
hibition of gaminthouses was for the preservation of
morals. His Honourable Friend had said the wisest
man in the country was bringing in a Bill to prohibit
persons disposing of their property as they pleased. He
would not dirpute his wisdom, but be thought his Bill a very
Obeli ape, and would be very much surprised If it amid pals
through that House. If an Act was rioted to preveo bad bake
let above 151. an acre, what would the Country Geode:men my so
it, sad why should there be one law for land, and another
for money ?
Mr. CRIPPS said he disapproved of the principle of I
the Bill. Where an interferhnce with private property
was beafficial to the country, it was surely justifiable.i
For one individual who was rallied by illegal interest aow,ten woold
be ruined by high Interest after the peering ads. Dm
Mr..IOHN SMITH said, it appeared, by some Gen-
tlemen, to be a sufficient cause for rejecting every pro-
posal for improvement, that we were at present in a
state of prosperity. He was confident that the existence of the
Usury Laws was an evil, and ought to be removed. Ile had fre-
quently known tradesmen make sinuous sales of goods, to raise mo-
ney to meet their bills, because they were not allowed to borrow
money at a higher rate of interest than Ave per cent. The subject
had been mooted for the last fifty years, all ever boor, andall
were agreed in the conelesion that the Usury Laws were injurious.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, be bad read all
that had been written on the subject by the principal
Writers who had treated on it, and had also read over
the evidence that bad been given before the Committee,
and hi, conclusion was, that the repeal would be inju-
I lOUS to she community at large. If all borrowers of
money were voluntary borrowers, who borrowed not
Ifrom necessity, but to make profit, he would not think
lie necessary to interfere; but that was the case with
only one class of borrowers. When money was lent on
Bills of Exchange it could be recalled immediately, bike
when lent on montage it would probably not be recalled
in less than three years, and this would seise the rate
of interest on Country Gentlemen eight out of ten of
whose estates were subject to debt. The general bor.
rower, who had nothing but personal security to offer,
would suffer still more severely. If the Usury Law wail
repealed, monied men would put into their pockets all
the profits of trade in the country, without being lia-
ble to the payment of the debts of the trade.—
Suppose a brewer wanted iflo,ooo (one exampled/was as good as
fifty) a monied man lends it at ten per cent. and takes a security
un the brewery. The ten per cent. is paid as lung as the brewer
can pay it, and then the lender takes the brewery for the capital,
leaving all the other creditors unpaid. The instance of letting lead
without restriction did not apply, for thereat of land was restricted
by the importation of corn. The Learned Gentleman concluded by
moving, that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
Mr. Serjeant ONSLOW said it was the first time
he had beard that the Corn Laws were a restriction on
the landed interest—he always thought they were
intended for the protection of the lauded interest.—
The purport of the Bill was to enable men to do with
money what they were enabled to do with every mbar
species of property s—to enable them to regulate the
rent of money as they do the rent of land. if, as the
Learned Gentleman who spoke last supposed, when the
law was repealed, a brewer would be obliged to pay ten
per cent. for money, what was the reasdn the rate of
interest was not now as high as the law allowed?, Be-
fore the reign of Henry the Eighth, taking interest for
money was illegal ; the consequence of which was, that
a grinding interest was exacted, which produced great
distress. When the question was agitated in the Par-
liament of Henry the Eighth, Edward the Sixth, and
Queen Elizabeth, the question discussed was not the
rate of interest, but whether it was lawful to take inte-
rest at all ? Luther said, it was sufficient proof that the
Pope was Antichrist, that be held that a mortgage might be taken.
The present time was most favourable to the repeal of the Usury,
Law, as the market rate of money was now below the rate allowed,
low.
by w.
Mr. ROBERTSON said, the present law was neces-
sary, to prevent avaricious men taking advantage of
necessitous men. When Solon undertook to make laws
for Athens, be sound it necessary to -kibolish all claims
of creditors on their debtors, in consequence of the enormous usury
that had been practised in contracting them, and that 'hewed the
, danger of the repeal of the Usury Laws in this country.
Alr. MA BBALBY supported the Bill, and deprecated any in-
terference by the Legislature in private contracts between indivi-
duals. The laws were altogether inoperative, and were constantly
evaded, by which the borrower was placed in a worse situation
than if perfect freedom was allowed.
Alderman HEYGATE opposed the Ea The effect on the
landed interest, in time of war, would be, that the interest aide&
debts would be raised.
The gallery was cleared for a division.—The numbers were, on
the Amendment—

Ayes ... ... ... OS
14)es ... ...
40
Majority against the Bill ... 5
The BM is of course lost.—&ranpn were not re-admitted into
the gallery, and the House adjourned at Half-past Twelve.

11 et doll etra peeptale, IleAle Act tad
them amen doe well material.
la "NOT wee akets:aethiar sathael ,
ves be mokri el met the pipmatlstu. He
lea tq the Otani mean et the
WM
the questioa_was whether the gene-
r the ?meat law was soaad?-4t was
en thnring under the Usury Laws: so