Star.
London, England, 1828-05-21 00:00:00

a-

i"

(S

w

111:7"P"'
matiklniuse, agreeing at the same time tolend a sum of
50,0004 He showed the draft of the agreement to his
lawyer, who exclaimed—" Are vou mad? By lending
this money coincidental with your obtaining for your son
a possible edvantegts Yila-ctrWiljt, usury. ... (Ttke HoaxGestleman here sited theopinitan-of tqldßllenboiongh.
that a billow! taintedliy usury could not be recovered.)
He should, 0/kit theliave at theffonse,shoe how that-
principle toperated. In a long account current the agents
overcharged a sum of 151. for commission—or. interest
upon interest.. That was held to be usury. What was
the consequence? That ;hey were liable to penalties
to three times the amount of the 151.? No; but the
amount of the account current being 92,0001. the taint
or overcharge of the 151. affected the whole, and es `A
rendered the offenders its
to penalties to
the amount of 96,0001. Could any law, therefore, be
justified which prompted men to practices such as these
suggested to avoid the payment of their engagements?
Couldnsen be found to give effect M such laws? What
happened in the case of " Kensington v. Stein ?" The
Jury found for the defendant. " What 1" exclaimed,l
Lord Ellenborough, " Not Guilty? Why this is rank
usury." An Hon. Friend of his (Mr. Thompson) who
)1.4d been one of the Jurors, replied—" I know not what
you call usury, but every merchant in London is doing
that with which the defendant is charged." . So that, in
fact, men would rather commit the lesser immorality—
perjurythan the greater immorality of inflicting the
penalties of the law.? He begged leave to apologise for
having taken up so much of the time of the House, but
believing that great benefit would result from an altera-
tion of thetas, and particularly to the landed interests,
he should propose a nsoclified measure, in which he
hoped he should have the support of those who bad
been in the habit of suppnrting the principle of re-
peal—that he should not be opposed by those who
bad no interest in the question; and, above all, that
he should receive• the suppcit of his Majesty's Go-
verntheet. The plan he proposed was to repeal
that part of the existing law which tendered void any
engagement in which a larger payment than an interest
of five per cent. was paid or contemplated, and to alter
the perielties, so as that the party advancing the money
could-not recover more than the.amount with five per
cent.'interest. The repeal of the Usury Laws would
place-the trensections of merchants and bankers on a
footing-of greater security; it would prevent the us.
princitAid -lender of money from taking advantage ot
the tiectskities of borrowers, by exacting extravagant.
annuities; ittasmuch as it would enable the individual
oppres;ed. its appeal to the Courts of Law, where the
coatettet might be voided. The youthful prodigal, too.'
wooldbe deprived of the Means of ruining his fortune'
by contracting to pay illegal and heavy interest for a
series of years. The repeal would throw open the mo-
ney Market to fait competition, and each man would
be able to supply his .necessities* at a reasonable me ;
nor was the proposition without precedent. In. Cha-
ncery peakeedings on usurious contracts, it was usual to
offer the capital 'and legal interest to the lender, but
nothing awe: In most parts of Holland, France, and
Rosie, this principle was acted on. In France a simi-
lar lair eirtually prevailed; though these *as a certain
rate 6f lige& interest, bills'were allowed to be discounted
at a varying interest. In Russia, where the legal stand-
ard-of interest on money transactions was six per cent.
the Goiernekent keel( bad a Bank, in which bills were
disclatanted at a varying rate above the legal-interest.
He hoped a similar law would be established in this
consul. The only 'objection to his argunsent be ex.
petted to be, that this was not it proper time. Now, in
his 'opinion; this time Was the most proper when the
rate of intereU in the money.market was so low as two
and a half per cent.; so that though the repeal of the
lasi' might cause a fluctuatioo, yet at the present time
there ivairoom enough for the rate to vary. and the
ultinvitte-result would rather depress than raise the ratel
of interest. If his proposition was a good one, uo time
should be lost in adopting it—if bad, it ought to be as
quickly refuted. With the hope that it would be thought
worthy of acceptance. he should move “ for leave to
bird% id i Hai to amend the Usury Lewes
sisslisssia baying nose secanded,
Ti COANCELLOB, of the EitHEQUER sajd,
thrOilivitig‘utiott a foe:Met occasion intimated to the
HOnairatile Gentleman; that. whatever might be his
opri6s on the esury'Liws, he should not oppose the
bripging in of this Bill, it would !pee been quite no-
neckssary for him now to 'offer any observation, had be
notleird that it was the intention of some Honourable
Gentientai to. enter fully into the discussion, as if their
proposal was for a total repeal of the Usury Laws. He
trusted those Honourable Gentlemen would postpone
the dienssion until they had an opportunity of know.
ins What was the precise nature and bearing of the
amendments to be proposed. No one who had paid the
last attention to the clear and very able speech of the
ospourable Gentleman could avoid coming to the
coseltision that, in particular cases, great inconvenience
teed arisen from the operation of the law as it now stood.
Weight instance those cases in which heavy penalties
Vein innocently incurred, without the slightest inten-
tion on the part of those who incurred them to evade
the law. It war surely worth the while of the House
to ascertain whether such amendments haig
-Doe be
introdesed.as would in future presremM -ch • '
lacia
to individuals. These were the considerations whitl •
induced him not to oppose the motion for beinging in
this Bill.. He reserved to himself, hosorekthe tight
of discussing, at a future period, the Amendments of
the Mons:nimble Gentleman, of considering hoer far they
were calculated to effect the end pro without
leading to any Of those ill, eousequencielleilich were
apprehended from a total ryet. He should here have
closed the few observitiorts ha intended to make, were
it pot that the Hen. Member, in the tours! :sf his
sowers had thrown oat something like a censure upon
Government, for not having before instituted some
measure on the aobject. He did got think that ow cen-
sure could justly apply to him. The Hee. Gerstieman
would do him the justice to admit, that when first he
mentioned his intention of bringing the subject under
the consideration of the House, 'he exprened himself
ready to give it all the attention in his power. He told
him, at the same time, that with with a variety of busi-
ness as necessarily devolved upon him, and such a.
number of different engagements connected with the
public service, it was impossible be could direct his
mind so fully to this question as would enable him to
origtnate any measure on it. He also told him that'
there were peculiar circumstances which rendered it
inexpedient to agitate it at present; but if it was post-
poned to next Ses.ion, he should then be prepared to
wore a decided opinion on it. He felt no particular
ottachmentio the present system of Usury Laws; but
le appeared to him that, having been so long. in exis-
tence, and having been interwoven as it were with the
habits of the people, so many interests also being in-
volved. the.repeal of those laws was a matter which
required serious consideration. It appeared to him,.
. therefore, the most eligible course to watt, and hear
recut was the nature of the proposed amendments, that,
lit might judge what was likely to be the effect of such,

a change. He consented, therefore, to the introduc-
tion of the Bill; and it would be mbst satisfactory to
him if thole GgetiOIDITI Who klt 'deeply interested in
the question would discuss tuber the.propoied amend-
ments than the general piinciple. •
Sir R. HERON said, he did not know thiexact rm.
cure of the measure proposed. lie should. have no oh-
.iection to apply a remedy for the' large penalties noir
inflicted under these laws. He, should watch the pro
Kress of the measure. To a total repeal of these laws
be was directly opposed. It was quite visionary to think
of repealing, as had been once proposed, theUsuryLaws,
in such a way as not to affect the Landed Interest. It
appeared to him that the evidence taken before the
Committee of 1818, had a tendency directly contrary to
that stated by the Honourable Gentleman. It seemed
to him to be more opposed than favourable to a total
repeal. The evils of the distressed persons alluded to,
would, in his opinion, have been greater if the trade in
money was free, because friends were induced to come'
forward and assist their commercial acquaintance with
an advance of money, which they would not have done
if the trade in money was free, as they would then, very
naturally, conclude that other resources were open to
them. He felt convinced it was owing to a repeal of
the Usury Laws that Holland lost her trade, because
men were thus induced to withdraw their capital from
commerce for the purpose of lending it out at large in-
terest. He feared the same would be the result here.
Mr. MARTIN spoke in favour of the measure. The
Usury Laws had, he was convinced, been productive of
great mischief ; were it not for theM many, of cite evils
which were felt at the late crisis might have been pre-
',Optic,. The landed intetest could not be injured by a
change of system. 'He saw no reason why the trade in
money should not be as free as in any other article.
Mr. CRIPPS said the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Thomson)
was entitled to every praise for his industry and ability.
He should not oppose the, motion, as it did not go to a
total repeal. He was most desirous that some remedy •
should be applied to prevent such evili as those stated
by the Hon. Gentleman. .Two or three similar cases
came tinder his observatiOn, which' made him a convert'
to some chaoge.— (Hear).* He 'feared • that by one of '
the provisions proposed, the dishonest man might avoid
rtbe payment of any interest at.all.- With respect to the
. -
cases of enormous interest- mentioned by the Honourable
Gentleman, there might be instances of the kind, but
then the interest was paid. only fir a short period to
avoid ruin. Under'such Circumstances, money. Might
be worth, for short periods,; 1501. or even 1801. per-cent.l
With respect to prodigals, hirdid not think it would .be
attended with such advantages. to theM:as thifiturour-
able Member 'seemed to etpect. • tie ensued, however,
the measure would. prove beneficial W ina4;-:stiitliout

.being injurious to any. - • .
Sir J.SEBRIGHT spoke in-favour-of the Bill: He
thought the landed 'proprietor 'would be benyfitted by
it as well as etherclasspi. Why should "money be placed)
on a different footing to other articles ? The price oft
I money, like every thing else, should be. allowed to find)
its level. While he bad oseat.in ;hist !loose he should•
give his support to apT .proposititin ..thicfi.srent to.*
total repeal of the Usury .Lavis. .
The ATTORNEY GENERAL, in reference tot
former Bills on this .subject, said that they proposed a
total repeal, went to remove all 'restrictions on the rate
of intetestpil money. lent on lands, bonds, bills of us..
change., or debts. That. Measure complete repeal
was founded- (xi thetheisiy "thin :the -wder of money, is
of other matters of trade, would). iOon. find its natural
level. On this fanciful, theory;t/iiidvocates of the re;
peal held that there ought to he no :Particular standard
of interest. Now that principle be considered most
'mischievous, and for' that- reason he had oppbsed the
motions for a total repeal. The present motion did not,
however, contemplile
,a total- iepeal of the system, bit
a partial alteration;. for the Hon. Mover proposed td
retain ilegal standard of 'interest. Ever open to new
*information, and Willing to receive the benefit of' second
thoughts, he woOld allow that he was inclined to give
much attentit4 *the ilion.Member's proposition.--;
There were two :e r*ye entorcing the rule laid dolls
by the Uauiy Jc.itiok, Teri_ the; prevention et illegal in-
terest; first, by 'eiactieg • the penalty ; secondlY, by
,getting the contract can Celled in a Court of Low,
whereby the usurious lender lost both his principal and
his interest. There . were Carious mercantile chargei,
and the questicin was, whether they were or were dot
to be sanctjoned? If the case were a fair one, he Would
gladly see the laws varied to meet that' case. It Wes
one thing to repeal a fixed legal standard, and another
to meidiFY the Usury Laws, so Is. to pretense that stand:,
and from operating indiscriminately, and by conse-
quence unjustly. He saw no reason for opposing such
a Plats as might, have the litter object in view, and if
the Hon. Geodesian could contrive to keep the printi7
pie of the Usury Laws untouched; while be at the same'
time prevented those laws from pressing inconveniently
upon coy class of the community, he would be content.
Bat as-he could not anticipate the plan of the. Hon.
Gentleman, it was useless for him to take up the time
of the Noise. One thing. • however, he wished to d*
dare, and it was, that as far as the Hon. Gentlemah's
plan might go to take away the Axed legal standard,
so far did he feel at present determined to oppose it, and
he &bosh& not vary his Minion, unless the HOnoulable
Gentleman was able, when the subject shouldbe
brought forward for full discussion, to throw some new
and strong light upon it. Farther be would•say, that
he believed great practical difficulties would be found
in preserving the legal principle that more than a cer-
tain rate of interest should not be demanded, without
resorting to means of correction, penalty, and punish-
meet. It would be difficult in the extreme to enforce
the law, and yet not have it fall too heavily on the of-
fender. In conclusion, he would again say, that if the
Bill which the Hon. Gentleman proposed to intro-
duce, had for its object to take away the legal standard
of interest, he would feel himself bound to oppose it.
Mr. W. SMITH said, if the Bill went no fus ther than
what. the Hon. and Learned Gentleman was willing to
allow, it would be as well not to bring it in at all. His
Hon. Friend (Sir IL. Heren);said. that in the late period
of difficulty fkieods came forward to relieve the com-
mercial distresses of their acquaintances, knowing the
exorbitant injerest they must otherwise pay; but did his
Eon. Friend'consider the loss w their friends?
Sir It.. HERON explained. What he said was, that
they would not have come forward if other sources of
relief were open, which would be the case if the Usury
Laws did not exist. The use was still the same. Those
friends must have sustained inconvenience in some way
or other. For his part, be did not see what inconvenience
could arise from a iota:epee of these laws. Why should
a maximum be fixed in the article of money more than
any other ? .
Mr. ROBINSON said be should not oppose the prin-
ciple of the Bill, but would prefer a total repeal. He
trusted the Hon. Member would not find that he rather
increased than, lessened the evil. From twenty years
experience, he felt convinced of the impolity of these
laws. Thaopesation was unifosatlY injurious.' It .was
perfectly anomalous in commercial countries that two
parties should be precluded from entering into any'