Star.
London, England, 1821-04-13 00:00:00

Member ended into it general review of the Use"
Laws, and contended that the operation of them was
equally unjust as injurious. • A late Member of this
House (Sir Samuel Shepherd) had changed his opi-
nion on the subject, in consequence of having read
Mr. Bentham's book, which convinced him that the
doctrines of Dr. Adam Smith were erroneous. He,
concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to
repeal the Laws regulating the Interest of Money,
and the rate thereof.
Mr. DAVENPORT said, that the adoption of the
measure would produce the worst possible effect in
the country, particularly on the Agricultural Inte-
rest. He hoped the Honourable and Learned Mem-
ber would withdraw his motion.
Sir ROBERT HERON said, that if the Bill should
pass into a law, he hoped the title would be altered,
and that it would be called " A Bill for the more
speedily Ruining of the young Nobility !"—(Laughter).
Lord ALTHORPE did not see that the measure
would be attended with all the injurious consequences
which Gentlemen anticipated. He could not con-
ceive how the Landed Interest was likely to suffer by
it. Capitalists could get eight per cent. on mortgage,'
and eleven on annuities, yet they were unwilling to
transfer their money to the purchase of annuities.
He was glad the measure had been introduced, and
he thought this a very proper time for giving it that
consideration which it deserved.
Mr. PHILLIPS made some observations in sup-
port of the motion. In his opinion, temporary diffi-
culties would be removed by the repeal of the laws
in question ; whereas, in consequence of their opera-
tion, every sort of exaction was now practised on per-
sons in want of money.
Mr. GORDON deprecated the measure, as most
objectionable. The effect of it would be to add to
the difficulties under which the needy were at present
labouring.
Mr. J. P. GRANT contended, that the soundest
principle to act upon was for the borrower and the
lender to settle their affairs between themselves, in
the best manner they could.
Mr. CALCRAFT' did not think that if the. laws
were repealed the borrower of money would be bet-
ter off than at present. There had been a maximum
for the price of bread, and he did not consider that
the purchaser would acquire any advantage by its
being done away. The same principle would hold
I good with respect to money. He should certainly,
if he remained of the opinion he then was, divide the
House upon the motion on the second reading.
Mr. RICARDO insisted, that it was as much in
the power of the borrower n keep down the price of
money, as it was in the power of the lender to raise
it. He should give his ready assent to the motion.
Mr. BARING was most happy that the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman had brought forward the motion,
and he should give it his cordial support. There was
no class of persons who had suffered more from the
operation of the Usury Laws than country Gentle-
men, who not being able to raise money on mort-
gage at five per cent. when the Government paid six,
were obliged to resort to extortioners, who imposed
upon them in every respect.
Mr. MONCK followed on the same side, and dwelt
on the injury of a fixed rate of interest being sanc-
tioned by the Legislature. It was a well known fact,
that since the maximum on the price of bread hail
been done away, the people were infinitely betel
supplied with bread than before.—The question was
then put, and leave given to bring in the Bill.