The Statesman.
London, England, 1824-02-17 00:00:00

COIN OF TIM REALM.

Mr. F. LEWIS Wlsljecitc;statetiTet the Master of the
Mint was unable to attend to-day, and he therefore wished
the Hon. Baronet opposite to put off his motion relative to
the Coin, which stood for this day.
Sir J. WROTI'ESLEY said he had no abjection to posts
pone it to Wednesday seinnight.
The Order of-the Day for the second reading of the
Usury Laws Repeal Bill being read,
Mr. DAVENPORT rose to move that it be read a
second time this day six months, The country had grown
great and fourished under the present spun), and he saw
no reason why that system should be change/. This mea.
sure was contrary to the whole policy of the law of the
land. He could not look upon any measure, the object of

The Gallery was then ordered to be cleared for a divi-
sion, but before that took place,
Mr. HUME said he could not let this motion pass with-
out some observations. He was bound to expose the
wronrview which the Hon. Mover of the amendment bad
taken of this question. Two facts had been stated which
he wished to have explained. It was stated that this mea-
sure was contrary to the law of the land. Now if he (Mr.
H.) knew any thing at all of the principles which formed
the basis of the commercial law of this country, it was ,
that the greatest liberty of bargaining was allowed to I
I every individual.—(Hear.)—And the greatest advantages
which this country ever derived under, any Administration
for the last thirty years, were those which the enlightened
policy of the present Ministers was about to confer upon
it, by acting upon the freest principles of trade.—(Hear.)
It was ale. stated that underwriters were prevented from
charging more than a certain interest upon policies of in-
surance, but this fact he doubted. lie was not aware of

any law hicti prevented ander writers from-Wilzig more
tbao five per cent. to the West Indies or seven to the East
Indies. The correct principle of law was, that which per-
mitted every man to mike the best bargain he could for
himself. Ile was convinced, under all the circumstances,

•
that the two lion. Members had taken a wrong view of
this question. lie stood up as much the advocate of him
who lent as of him who borrowed. He wished to put bor-
rowing money on the same principle as interest for insur-
ance, and he wished to leave it to every man to make what
bargain he pleased. He would agree with the Hon. Mem-
ber, that every transaction of the kind should be such as
to hear the public eye; and if there was any thing like
fraud, deception, or improper proceeding, let the injured
take the peoalties ; they could do that under the Common
Law of the country (hear, hear), without interference.
He therefore hoped the house would not agree to post-
poning the second reading, unless some real solid objec-
tion should be urged against it. One of the principal ob-
jections had been, that you would throw the interest of
money too high for the borrower. The ordinary interest
was from three to four percent, and that was considerably
under what the statute had filed ; and if ever there was a
time for removing such a statute from the statute book,this
was the period. The country was much indebted to the
Hun. Member for pers-vering in bringing the subject be-
fore the house, and lie hoped the house would negative the
amendment.
Sir JOHN WROTTESLEY—OneshouId naturally sup-
pose that some strong grounds would be stated to show the
necessity of repealing a measure which bad received tha
sanction of the country for upwards of 300 years. At the
present moment the rate of interest is from three and a half
to four per cent. What could be the object of repealing
the laws, except to lay a trap for the young and unwary ?
These laws proceeded on a uniform principle, that of
checking extortion and usury, which not only existed in
this country. but to a most miserable extent in almost
every country in Europe. In this country, instead of our
suffering from these Usury Laws, the capital had b. en in-
creasing ever since and from the period in which the last
Act passed—namely, in the reign of Queen Anne, to the
present hour, there never was any country in which capital
had accumulated more rapidly. With regard to repealing
those laws under which the whole capital of the kingdom
centered, if it was necessary to repeal them, this would
net have been the country, of all others, in which money
would have been got. Let us consider this question as it
particularly affects the landed interest. Every body knows
that estates which descend to the eldest son must be bur-
dened with mortgages. Notwithstanding these laws, there
has seldom been any iifficalty is renewing mortgages at
five per cent. There have been, it is true, times of difficulty
and expense; but the person who lent the money at four
per cent. at one time, could say now, we will have four, or
Eve. or six per cent.; and there is no knowing the extent
to which it would go. With regard to the commercial
interest..how could it be possible that those person% who
acgoired the capital which employed the manufacturing
labour of this country could ever procure that capital if the
landed interest were allowed twelve, or an unlimited sum of
money per cent. The consequence must necessarily be
that the manufacturing interest of this country must be
brought into the greatest distress. In what situation would
the Government be placed? Let us recollect what was the
ease is tbe lase war. There was the Bank restriction, and
at one time the funds of this country were under 50, bat a
large proportion of money was raised during the last war,
and if this* laws had not existed, the Government would
sever have been able to have raised the money; they never
would have bad the preference they then had, and always
ought to have for the public security. If there be a repeal
of this Bill, the fair money dealer will be thrown out of the
market by the extortioner and usurer. if the repeal of
these laws would ruin the landed interest, starve the mann-

Mr. JOHN SMITH—It is stated that if these laws
are repealed, it will be attended with the ruin of all the
great interests. Withonteetering into any argument on
that point, it may be sufficient to state that these lairs
against Usury are, in fact, almost generally repealed
throughout Europe. And there is great reason to believe
that all the interests have been much advanced by it.
should not have taken any part on this occasion, but from
one or two circumstances that have occurred within my
own observation. 1 mean the great and destructive effects
which I have known among respectable families in this
country from rising money by way of annuities—(hear,
bear)—effects so ruinous and horrible that I could state
instances which have extended themselves over a course of
years, and from which the individuals have not yet re-
covered. In point of fact. money, 11Ica any ether cots•
nierlity, must fiud Utarket--(hear, hear)—aod if an
individual has occasion for 1,0001. which, perlisps, went
there no laws against Usury, he might find some indivi-
dual would lend at six or seven per cent, he now, by the
laws as they at present exist, pays 13, 14, or IS. pet colt.
If any body has a doubt on the subject. he liar only to
refer to the Committee, and there be will arm these to
distinctly proved by individuals who had fairness eneegle
to avow they did not think any man lent money in that
way under 14 or 15 per cent. With respect to the com-
mercial body, the Hon. Bart, expressed fear fot their situa-
tion. As one of that body I confess I have not the slightest
apprehensions. (Hear, hear.) Unfortunately, it does
happen that when individuals engaged in commerce and
manufactures are distressed fur money. they have recourse
to certain expedients to raise it with individuals who, un-
fortunately for themselves, sink into infamy by leading
money at more than five per cent. are obliged to be paid
& premium for the lose of their honour, and then it is these
transactions are heard of. Having argued this point in
my life very often, I have not, for some time past, fonnd
any man whose understanding I respect at all who differs
from me. It is six years since the matter ocrurred to me.
and I never met with a man of sense who had ventured to
take the other side of the argument.
Mr. ORENFELL-1 hope this Bill will not pass through
the House nithout having the opinion of his Majesty's
Government. It is a subject on which one single tart is
worth a hundred arguments. If 1 understand the grounds
on which this Bill is opposed, it is by those who conceive
the effect of the repeal will be to increase tl.e interest of
money. Now, Sir, I will state the simple fact. In
Holland there never has been any restraint or restriction
whatever upon the interest of money ; and 1 can speak as
well historically as from my own experience, that there is
no country in Europe in which the rate of interest is so low
as in the United Provinces. I therefore hope his Majesty's
Government will give their suppott to this up,asiire, more
particularly as it is in unison with those liberal views and
politics which we have 'eel them act upon with so much
satisfaction of late—(hear)—and I sincerely hope the
Learned Sergeant will persevere.
Mr. 11111SRISSON—I was one of the Members of the
Committee to which this question was referred to in 1818,
and who made the Report to the House. The opinion
then formed I still entertain. 1 have never varied in that
opinion. It was in unison with that of the Committee
itself. I consider these laws as calculated only to lead to
difficulties, litigation, and fraud.—(Hear, hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—When
this subject was before the House last Session, 1 did, un-
doubtedly. vote against the proposition—not conceising
that there ...as any advantage whatever in the existence
of the Usury laws, and being quite satisfied that there
were, on the other hand, many objections which might be
urged against them ; but I was not prepared at that time to
say that the moment was arrived at which it would be ex-
pedient to revise this system of laws and acquiesce in any
alteration. I cannot say that I think the circumstances

under which it is now brought forward are so strongly
against the proposition as they appeared to me last year ;
and if it is desirable the Usury Laws should be altered, it
appears to me this is as favourable an opportunity as could
be taken. (Hear, hear.) I sin not insensible of thee
nature of the objection which may be urged against thi
proposition, but when I know how easy it is to evade the
law—(hear, hear)—it does appear to ms a very favourable
opportunity for making a change, and I shall not oppose
the motion.
Mr. CALCRAFT—I do not think this a fit time to
change the 14. v. 1 know perfectly well that, in point of
principle, it is not very easy to defend ; but in point of
practice, I do say, that without a great deal more of con-
sideration, it is a very dangerous thing to alter these laws.
If the Right Hon. Gentlemen think that when the Govern-
ment are great borrowers in the market, it is likely any
change in the Usury Laws sill bring money cheaper to in-
dividuals, I do believe they are entirely mistaken, and that
the effect will be rather to raise the price upon Govern-
ment than to benefit individuals to the extent that has heel
urged on the other side of Attie house. Gentlemen seem to
think that after this individuals will be protected front
ruin—that they will not be able to enter into that sort
of contract affecting the interests of fit:allies, similar to
those annuity contracts men are driven to under peculiar
circumstances, and that from the mautent these laws are
changed, there will be an end to all ruinous contracts in
money. It is utterly impossible to believe any such th:ez,
unless you are to regulate, at the time you repeal these
laws, the conduct of individuals. I say the danger attend-
ing the repeal of these laws will be, that you will facili-
tate the borrowing of extravagant persons without giving
any real advantage to the steady, industrious, economical
part of the community. These are the persons we ought
to protect—because it is out of nature to believe that,
whatever laws you pass- or repeal, there will not be ex-
travagaace and prodigality, which you cannot guard
against. I was not on the Committee.—(The Honourable
Gentleman was here told that he was.)—l was sorry I was
so unworthy a member; I never attended. I have no oc-
casion to say any thing more about the Committer than
that I bay. read the evidence, and if I had thought this
debate would have assumed any thing of the serious as-
pect it has, I would have brought the evidence here, and
I will venture to say, it would not bear out the view the
Gentlemen have taken. Tbere was hardly a man examiaed
at the Committee—at which it seems I was present, but of
which I have no recollection—who stated any such pro-
spect of advantage from the change of this system as
would warrant us to embark in it. Now, Sir. if money
*were not generally diffused In this country—if there was a
difficulty in any speculation of any sort to find money upon
reasonable terms—if we were cramped in the diffusion of
capital by laws of any sort, it would be right to look into
those laws, and endeavour either to regulate or repeat
them ; bur, on the contrary, when capital is circulated so
advantageously—when, I will venture to say, that dosing
the period of the existence of theselaws, there is sodouotry
not even Holland itself, that lasi Increased in wealth is Goat
proportion this ccuntry ha*, Ido think, nolo) thiteetliner;r
the principle—the genera/ peisoiple in ay be ra"llabbia 19`
alteration—we should pause and consider well before we