Page images
PDF
EPUB

shewn, unanswerably, that the restrictions on the use of money were unwise. The question had been discussed by many enlightened men on the continent, and many clever men in this. Mr. Mill, and Mr. M' Culloch were of one opinion, that the use of money, like the use of other commodities, should be left unrestricted. As a philosophical question it had been set at rest. The repeal might not take place this session, nor the next; but, it was a measure which, like Catholic eman cipation, the abolition of the Test act, and many other measures which had long been debated, must be carried at last.

The Solicitor-General began by saying, that he meant to propose, by way of amendment, that the bill be read a second time this day six months. He had read the works mentioned by the last speaker twice over; he had also read the evidence and the report of the committee, and he had come to the conclusion, that the repeal of the Usury laws would be injurious. He did not say, therefore, "continue these laws, because the country has prospered under them;" but, "continue them because the repeal would be injurious." If it could be proved to him that the repeal would be beneficial, he would give his vote for it. He met the hon. member, therefore, entirely on the ground of utility, and would endeavour to shew that on this ground the law ought not to be repealed. The borrowers might be divided into three classes mercantile borrowers, landed borrowers, and persons who did not belong to either of these classes, and who might be considered as general borrowers. He would first take the case of mercantile borrowers, and, if the law applied only to them, he would not deny that the repeal would be injurious. Mercantile borrowers generally obtained a loan to make a profit of it. They did not borrow of necessity, but they borrowed to trade; and if they could make 10 or 12 per cent on the money borrowed, he saw no reason why the lender might not ask them to pay him 7 or 8 per cent. But if they were allowed to demand this, was there any landed gentlemen so ignorant, did any member of that House possess so foggy an understanding, as not to see that, if the monied man could lend to the trader, at a higher rate than five per cent, he would not lend to him at that sum? It was one advantage to the lender, that he could recal his capital at pleasure, or get it back at a short notice. Now, when a man lent

capital to a trader, he was generally enabled to command the use of his capital when he pleased. Very often he received as security transferrable property, which he could turn into money when he pleased. But, if he lent his money on land, he could not get it back at his pleasure; there was all the trouble and inconvenience of mortgage; he could not recal it for two or three years, and therefore, in proportion as he could not command the use of his capital, when he lent it to the landed gentleman, he would thus make them pay a higher rate of interest for it than the trader. The landed gentleman would find no money-lender so pleased with his physiognomy, as to lend money to him at a lower rate of interest than he could get elsewhere; and, if this repeal enabled him to get more from the trader, was it not evident, that it would enhance the difficulty of borrowing to the land-owner? He believed he was not wrong when he stated that eight out of every ten estates in the kingdom were loaded with debt. Now, under what circumstances did the country gentleman borrow money? Was it to speculate upon? Was it to employ it at some seasonable crisis, when by a little prudence and dexterity he might obtain vast profit? Was it to sink it in some scheme where it would fructify to his unbounded advantage? No. The benefits which he could receive as its produce were fixed. He never could obtain from a borrowed sum beyond a determined profit. And here were the great distinctions between these two species of borrowers. Could any one say, that the repeal of the Usury laws would be beneficial to the latter class? But, if the terms of borrowing were so unfavourable to the landed class, what expectation could the general borrower entertain of being able to obtain a loan under any other than oppressive terms? The persons who formed this class generally stood in need of but small sums; their necessities were pressing, and therefore they were exposed to the most grinding demands. However, they had no choice; they were without, perhaps, the sufficient security, and they must submit to the terms imposed upon them, be they ever so oppressive. there was any gentleman present who, before he became a member, happened to have owed a tailor's bill-if that gentleman had a scintilla of recollection of any such transaction, he would, perhaps, remember that he had been for a time an involuntary

If

borrower, and that he was obliged to yield to the ad libitum demands of the lender to whom he made application.-But, there was another most material point. It would have the effect of making capitalists engross the profits of most lucrative trades, without incurring the risks of partnership. If a man could get 10 or 12 per cent for his money by lending it on good security to a person engaged in a profitable trade, he would not become a partner in the trade, where the whole of his property would be liable, in case of failure, to the partnership debts. He would rather lend it, and then he was sure of a certain portion of the profits, if the trade succeeded; and if not, he would have a guarantee for his money advanced, to the prejudice of all other creditors. He would take the case of a brewery. A capitalist might embark his 50,000l. or 60,000l. as a loan on good security, at 10 or 12 per cent in it. The profits of the trade would be perhaps 20 per cent. He would thus secure more than half the profits of the trade without the risk; and, if the trader failed, the other creditors must be the losers. This showed not only the great inconvenience, but the evil of the proposed change. An hon. member had said, that there was no restriction on the rent of land; that the landed gentlemen might ask what they pleased for the use of it. But, he would ask the hon. member if the law, which allowed corn to be imported into this country, when the price was 80s., was not fixing a maximum on rent? Beyond that, the landed gentlemen could not demand a rent. It was because he thought the repeal proposed unseasonable in time, and pernicious in principle, that he should move, that it be read a second time this day six months.

Mr. Serjeant Onslow combatted the illustration of the Solicitor-general, drawn from the corn laws, and contended, that this was meant not as restriction against, but in favour of, the landed interest. He hoped his learned friend would not raise this argument in favour of the corn laws, as he would find it not very palatable to the country gentlemen. His learned friend had talked as if money-lenders were men who never looked but at the rate of interest promised them. Such a class of men had never existed. All who had money to lend, looked both at the rate of interest and the security for paying it; and it had long been the case, that men with a less certain security, such as mercantile men,

could not borrow on as favourable terms as those who, like landed gentlemen, had better security. The learned member seemed also to think, that a lender could at all times have what he asked, and that the rate of interest was entirely fixed by the wish of the lenders. He had taken no notice of the competition of lenders. If this were as the learned gentleman had stated, how was it, that at present, when the legal rate of interest was 5 per cent, men lent their money much below that rate? It was clear, therefore, that some other principle besides the will of the lender, settled the rate at which the rent of money was to be paid. This principle was partly the competition among the lenders. Money was like land or houses, which, when men borrowed, they paid for the use of; and as the rent both of houses and land was unrestricted, he did not see why the rent of money-for there was nothing magical in the term interest— should not be equally so. It could not be denied that the best and readiest security which could be offered for money at the present day was land. The fact was, that money could be at all times obtained on good security, at its fair market value. To reduce it to that value, or to prevent its being carried higher than that value allowed, the present measure was introduced. The land-owner and the merchant could now obtain it at its fair price; but as to the person who had no security to give, he did not know any change of the law which could put him into a better situation with respect to the terms on which he could obtain a loan, than he was at present. He contended, that, on the ground of good policy, there was no just cause for continuing the present laws. We had been in the habit of lauding the wisdom of our ancestors; but that wisdom did not introduce any law for fixing any rate of interest for money until the reign of Henry 8th. This act was repealed in the reign of Edward 6th ; but the statute of Henry 8th was renewed in the reign of Elizabeth, But it was the opinion of the ablest men in that and the preceding reign, that no interest ought to be taken for money. So much for the wisdom of our ancestors. Since those days, however, the principles of commerce were better understood, and a value was fixed upon money. That value, he would contend, ought to be left to the effect of competition in an open market, without any legal restriction whatever.

Mr. Robertson opposed the proposed repeal, and contended that it would be highly impolitic to do away with a fixed rate of interest. Such a principle was at variance with the doctrine of Adam Smith, which it had of late been too much the fashion to condemn. He would lay down a rule which he thought would satisfy all who were conversant with this subject. There was in every country a certain rate of profit in commercial transactions. In this country he took it to be about 7 per cent. In retail trade it was, of course, more. Now, a man who borrowed at 5 per cent had 2 per cent profit; but if he gave 7 per cent interest, he must be inevitably ruined. Yet if the usury laws were repealed, he would be induced to do so; and once driven into that condition, there would be no escape for him. It was the duty of the legislature to protect this class, and he should therefore vote against the repeal. He contended, that all civilized nations had found it necessary to protect their subjects from usury, and fix the rate of interest. It was a departure from this salutary principle, in some of the free states of the continent, where a higher rate than 5 per cent had been allowed by the law, which had caused their ruin.

Captain Maberly supported the bill, because he considered the present system of laws to be unjust, impolitic, and open

to constant evasion.

Mr. Alderman Heygate opposed the bill, as injurious to the various interests of the country, and especially ruinous to the small traders. The present law was not constantly evaded. If it were, this bill would not have been deemed necessary by those who had now pressed it upon the House.

Mr. Maberly maintained the necessity of a repeal of the usury laws.

Mr. T. Wilson contended that no case had been made out for the bill; and that, if carried, it would unhinge all the existing pecuniary relations in the country.

Mr. W. Smith contended, that the bill would not be detrimental to the interests of the country, since none of the ministers, who were the guardians of those interests were present to oppose it. He looked upon their absence to be a convincing proof that there was no danger in the measure.

Mr. Wynn said, he had so often stated his sentiments to be favourable to this bill, that he should not have risen to say a word in defence of it, had it not been for

the allusion to the absence of his hon, colleagues. He believed that all of them considered the bill as one which would greatly advance the public interest. His right hon. friends, the chancellor of the Exchequer, and the president of the Board of Trade, had on more than one occasion, defended the policy of it; and he was confident that all his colleagues, with the exception, perhaps, of the right hon. Secretary for Foreign Affairs, who, to the best of his knowledge, had never taken the question into his consideration, were strongly in favour of it. They had left the House, because they anticipated that the division on the bill would not take place till a late hour, and that their presence would not be wanted to render the question successful. He had stayed behind at the request of his right hon. friend, the president of the Board of Trade, to declare the opinion of ministers on this bill, in case such a declaration of opinion should be rendered necessary. Much had been said of the wisdom of our ancestors. These acts, however, were in the spirit of other acts passed at the same time, which we had now beneficially got rid of.

The constant mistake in former times was, the belief, that those transactions could be regulated by law, which, it was now found, were better regulated by themselves.

Mr. Bright was exceedingly afraid of the removal of these laws, not on account of the country gentleman or merchant, but the influence they had on the comforts of the middling and lower classes.

The House divided: For the amendment 45. Against it 40. Majority 5. The second reading was accordingly put off for six months.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, February 18.

THAMES QUAY.] Colonel Trench presented a petition for a bill for the erection of a Quay on the banks of the river Thames.

Sir Joseph Yorke observed, that the House were, perhaps, not aware that this petition regarded the Quay which his hon. friend, by whom it was presented, had projected. He trusted, however, that his hon. friend would not sacrifice the substance for the shadow, or allow his taste utterly to supersede his judgment. He was a great admirer of his hon. friend's talents. No man wrote better; few men'

posed measure likely to violate the liberties of the subject, and it should therefore have his cordial support. As a motion was about to be made for hearing certain members of the Association at the bar, he would only say, that, if it were carried, he should put in his claim on behalf of other Associations to be also heard. It would surprise him much if the learned gentleman were successful, especially as, not three sessions since, he had supported a proposition of a directly opposite nature.

spoke better; he drew admirably; but he hoped the House would pause before they allowed his hon. friend to draw on the pockets of the public in support of this extraordinary scheme. His hon. friend seemed to forget, that with all his pillars, with all his arches, with all his promenades, with all his flower markets, with all his fruit markets, with all his essences, his plan would create simply a receptacle not alone for the dissolved granite of Mr. M'Adam, but for the offensive filth which this great city was constantly pouring into the river, and which, so accumulated, would, in all probability, occasion a pestilence.

The petition was referred to a committee.

UNLAWFUL SOCIETIES IN IRELAND BILL-PETITIONS RESPECTING.] Mr. Spring Rice presented a petition from the Catholics of Limerick, against the bill. The petitioners declared, that the Catholic Association had contributed, in the greatest degree, to the tranquillity of Ireland. In the prayer of the petition, he most heartily concurred.

Mr. Brougham wished to take that opportunity of putting the House in possession of some information regarding the petition which the hon. baronet had presented. The mode in which a petition had been got up, and the arts used to obtain signatures to it, would not influence his vote on the question of receiving it; since it was the undoubted right of the subject to petition. That under consideration was one of the very few on behalf of the foolish clamour of "No Popery," and "the church in danger," and a few anecdotes respecting it would serve to shew the weight the invaluable document deserved. His information upon this subSir J. Newport presented several pe- ject came from a gentleman of considertitions in favour of the Catholic Asso-able rank in the neighbourhood of Wells, ciation. The English members, he said, might satisfy themselves that the bill would not affect Ireland merely; but would establish a principle on which the liberties of Englishmen might, at some future period be invaded. The measure was called temporary; but it was evident that it would be co-existent with the unjust denial of Catholic rights.

Sir T. Lethbridge said, he had been commissioned to present the petition of about 3,000 inhabitants of the city of Wells, and its vicinity, stating their alarm at the proceedings of the Association, and that, although they were friends of religious toleration to its utmost extent, they were averse to granting political power to papists: they contended also, that the tendency of the proceedings of the Association was, to bring about a revoJution in the country, and they prayed, therefore, that measures should be persevered in for putting it down. In that prayer he entirely concurred, and he was quite sure, that if the bill were not passed, the table would be covered with petitions from all parts of the kingdom, expressing the fears of the inhabitants of the dangers likely to arise from the continuance of the Association. He saw nothing in the pro

and not very likely to misrepresent the facts. The petition had been sent forth from the office of an attorney, the agent of the hon. baronet. He did not say that the petition was prepared by the attorney in his capacity of agent, but it certainly issued from the office, or perhaps, more properly, officina of a respectable solicitor, who happened also to be the agent of the hon. baronet. His correspondent further mentioned, that this individual had interested himself in the matter as agent also of the Wells' party, which was raising the cry of " No Popery!" to serve an electioneering purpose against the present members, Messrs. Tudway and Taylor. It appeared that this agent had ridden many miles to get signatures to the petition. "In one instance," said the writer of the letter, "he stopped at a school close to my gate, and asked the master of it to get him all the names he could, without even giving him a copy of the petition. The schoolmaster to oblige him, agreed to do it, and forthwith put down all the names of the scholars who could not write, and induced those who could write to affix their signatures. Some of the boys afterwards went home bragging that they had signed for brick and

mortar. According to the electioneering cant, "brick and mortar" was a nickname for the party opposed to the sitting members. Having thus addressed himself to persons of one period of life, the agent thought fit to call in the aid of individuals of a more advanced age, and accordingly next repaired to a knot of old women, whom he frightened by telling them that the Irish Catholics were coming over to cut their throats. Notwithstanding their importance in the state, the signatures of these venerable matrons could not be taken, but their assistance was employed against their husbands, who, though they entertained no apprehensions themselves, yielded to the soft persuasion of the gentler sex, and were thus prevailed on to sign their names to the petition. Others had been informed that they were signing for the church, which was threatened with danger; but he believed that none of the canons of Wells, nor well-educated persons, generally, had taken any trouble upon the subject, leaving it only in fact to "brick and mortar." No doubt, other petitions might be got up, and other arts used to get them signed; but it could not always happen that such evidence of the practices of a party could be procured. He was conscious that no petitions ought to be treated with disrespect. He would receive, hear, and print them, if it were only for the sake of securing a fair hearing to those millions, who would soon address the House on this subject for themselves.

Sir T. Lethbridge felt great surprise at the contents of the letter from which the learned gentleman had derived his information. He was not aware of any unworthy practices in getting up the petition; and it was rather extraordinary that the learned gentleman had not given the name of his correspondent. It might be found that his anecdotes were derived from no better authority than a country school-master, or, perhaps, one of his pupils. The petition which he had just presented had been signed, to his knowledge, by magistrates and clergy, and by some of the most respectable yeomanry in the neighbourhood of Wells.

Mr. Brougham fully acquitted the hon. baronet of all knowledge of the proceedings to which he had adverted. The letter was written by a person of rank, fortune, and high connections, and not by a school-master.

Mr. M. Fitzgerald presented a petition from Kilnemana, in favour of the Catholic Association. It was signed by persons of rank and of great landed property, and, among others, by lord Kenmare, who was descended from ancestors_distinguished for their devoted loyalty. Several of his near relatives, after having bled for their country in her battles, had returned to Ireland on the peace, and had put themselves at the head of their tenantry to preserve tranquillity. The appearance of the name of this nobleman to a petition in favour of the Association, was a proof that it possessed the general confidence of the Roman Catholics.

Sir F. Burdett said, that he had been intrusted with a petition from several members of the Catholic Association, praying a hearing at the bar against a penal enactment which affected all their fellow-subjects, and inflicted upon them an unmerited stigma. As the subject was about to be discussed, he should content himself with saying, that justice to the petitioners, and even to the House, required that before sentence were passed, the parties accused should be heard.

UNLAWFUL SOCIETIES IN IRELAND BILL-MOTION FOR HEARING ROMAN CATHOLIC ASSOCIATION AT THE BAR OF THE HOUSE.] Mr. Brougham said:In rising to submit to the House the proposition of which I gave notice last night, I feel the anxiety naturally to be expected in an individual who, in the absence of a more powerful advocate, undertakes to call the attention of the House to one of the most important subjects that has ever been brought forward. At almost any other period, and with almost any ordinary measure, so far from regarding the motion with which I shall conclude as matter of argument and grave moment, I should rather have considered it a mere matter of course. In all common cases it seems to have been consistent with the forms and practice of the House, and befitting its wisdom and its justice, never to condemn any party until they have been heard. If accusation has been brought forward, the course, I apprehend, has been, not to refuse the party an opportunity of refuting what had been laid to his charge. But, from some symptoms of a disposition to hurry and impetuosity, which I fancied I discerned in the manner in which the measure against the Catholic Association was propounded, my mind has received

« PreviousContinue »