which, if true, would be a serious charge; but the fact was, that on his appointment, he, for the first time, introduced the practice of trying the prisoners on the first day of the session, instead of the fourth, as had been usual before that time. The attorney-general on that circuit (Mr. Benyon) was the only person who could have uttered a complaint of any inconvenience from delay; but he could assure the House that that learned gentleman had never said a word on this subject. He was thankful for having had this opportunity of explaining his conduct, and was only anxious to show that he had not neglected the claims of public justice for the sake of private emolument.

Sir M. W. Ridley said, that it was with no view of calumniating the hon. and learned gentleman that he had put the question which had been alluded to. He had information on which he thought he could rely, that the sittings at Chester had been postponed, on account of other engagements of the hon. and learned gentleman; and although he was bound to give credit to all that had now been stated, yet he was not at all persuaded that the sittings at Chester had not commenced later than usual by nine days. The hon. and learned gentleman acknowledged, that of two plans which had been submitted to him, he had chosen that which gave him the opportunity of going to Launceston. It was not for him to determine any thing as to this, or whether it was usual for the attorney-general to take special retainers. He believed that he was correct in saying that the gentlemen of the bar had experienced great inconvenience from the arrangement made by the hon. and learned gentleman.

The Attorney-General declared, that he had never heard of any inconvenience to any body but the attorney-general for the circuit. When lord Ellenborough was attorney-general, he took special retainers to the last.

Mr. Wynn said, that he had been that circuit for seven years, and the chief justice had always thought himself at liberty to make very great deviations in fixing the time of the assize. In the present instance he did not think that any inconvenience had been occasioned by delay. He never remembered, however, that the associate opened the court. It was usual to appoint a barrister to do so, because it might be necessary to make a motion which could not be heard before the

clerk. This was the only deviation which he recollected from what he believed to have been the constant custom. He concurred in the very humane regulation of the learned chief justice, of bringing prisoners to trial on the first day, instead of the fourth. With respect to the motion then before the House, he thought it extremely wise and proper, and gave it his entire assent.

Mr. Abercrombie said, he had received communications from gentlemen in the profession, who thought very differently from the hon. and learned gentleman. He understood, with reference to Easter, that the Chester assizes were twelve days later than usual, and according to the most favourable way of viewing the subject, two days later than usual. They felt that something different from the ordinary course had taken place on the present occasion.

Mr. Macdonald expressed a hope, that this would be the last time that the two offices of attorney-general and chief justice of Chester, would be vested in the same person. Very considerable inconvenience must always arise from this union, and he trusted the committee would direct their attention particularly to this subject.

The motion was then agreed to.

USURY LAWS REPEAL BILL.] Mr. Serjeant Onslow, in moving for leave to bring in a bill for Repealing the Laws that regulate the rate of Interest, did not propose to go into the subject at length, as it had been fully discussed on a former occasion ;* but must remind the House, that these laws were not only attended with no good effects, but were productive of the most pernicious consequences; and though they had now existed for a great length of time, and derived some sanction from their antiquity, it was a most mistaken notion as to the views of the first framers, which had supported the sanction they enjoyed, and the prejudices which prolonged their existence. These laws had originated in a wish to open, not to limit, the rate of interest. Before their enactment it had been forbidden to take any interest at all on the loan of money. Every profit, even the smallest, derived from such a loan, was branded with the name of usury; and it was with a view not so much to limit the rate of interest, as to protect

* See Vol. 34, p. 723.

those who took any, that the laws in question were framed. He had last year proposed to press the measure of a repeal of these laws, but it had then been objected that the state of the funds was such, that it was improper to agitate the subject. He had not then felt the force of that argument for delay, but he had yielded to the authority of those by whom it was urged, and he was happy that he had done so; for since that time the public attention had been called to the subject, not only by Mr. Bentham's most able pamphlet, but by a periodical work (the Edinburgh Review) which usually advocated the soundest principles of political economy. By this time he trusted any doubts of the inexpediency of the measure which he had to propose were removed. He should, therefore, be brief in his remarks, and merely refer to what he had before said, namely that in their origin, the laws of which he now prayed the repeal, were founded on mistaken texts of scripture. The first law on this subject was enacted in the reign of Henry 8th, when it was declared that at ten per cent. it was lawfull to take interest. In the reign of Edward 6th this law was repealed, and it was again declared by the law unlawful to take any rate of interest whatever on money borrowed. Yet in that reign we are informed by acontemporary historian that the rate of interest was commonly 14 per cent., so impracticable was it to affect the rate of interest by legal enactments. It was perfectly clear, that the more restraints were laid on money transactions, the higher always was the amount of interest actually paid on loans; and the effect of these regulations had only been to oppress and ruin the sinking tradesman; who, but for them, might have saved his credit by obtaining a temporary assistance at the fair market rate of the commodity. He had been told, on a former occasion, that all this might be true, but that the repeal of these laws would have an ill effect on the contracts made for loans on the credit of the public funds, which being regulated by the legal rate of interest, the public at least was a gainer by borrowing money at that rate. The fact, however, was the very reverse of this; and the loans contracted for by the public were, in reality, never affected by the legal rate of interest, but regulated, like all other money transactions, by the relative state of demand and supply, the credit of the borrower, and the opportunities of the lender. It was

true that, at the time that argument had been used, some circumstances then affecting the price of stocks gave it the appearance of having weight; but those stocks had now risen 10 per cent.; the rate of interest paid by government had lowered in just the same proportion as in every other quarter, and the argument could no longer have any force.-Other objections that had been urged were, the apprehension of detriment to the landed interest, and loss to those who had borrowed money on mortgage. It was proved, that the fluc tuations which the rate of interest might experience, in consequence of the repeal of the usury laws, would induce the lenders of money on mortgage security, frequently and suddenly to call in their principal, and expose the borrower to the danger of a foreclosure, or to the expense and trouble of repeated conveyances and reconveyances: but that inconvenience had been felt, and was daily felt under the existing system to a much greater degree than it possibly could under any other. Nothing was more common than for a lender to call for a repayment of his principle at a time when the market rate of interest, being 6 or 7 per cent. it was impossible for the mortgager to prevent a foreclosure, except on the most ruinous terms: either he was driven to sell his land at a time of sudden depression, when half its value could not be obtained, or (as he was precluded by law from raising money on the usual security at 6 or 7 per cent. if that happened to be the market rate) he was compelled to borrow by granting annuities at the most exorbitant rate. The common mode of late years had been, to grant annuities for a term of ninety-nine years, determinable on three lives, at fifteen per cent.; or determinable on four lives, at fourteen per cent. He knew an instance of an hon. member, a most respectable man, who, being called on to repay money he had borrowed on mortgage for the improvement of his estate, could only meet the demand by borrowing at this ruinous rate. It was owing to this that estates had been sold for almost nothing in the very worst of times; for, though the courts sat their faces as much as possible against foreclosures, yet they could not be altogether prevented. It had farther been objected, that the repeal of these laws would be hurtful to the monied interest, who would be tempted to loss by lending their money at high rates to speculators and projectors. He left it to the good

Sir J. Newport said, that the fluctuations in the money-market, to which the learned gentleman alluded, were experienced at present, and the bill, he believed, would tend to lower them. What was the state of the law now? The legislature had enacted a statute, preventing a larger rate of interest than five per cent., from being taken by the lender of money.. "The effect of that law, in its operation, had been so ruinous, that the legislature itself had been obliged to depart from its provisions, by having recourse to the annuity system, which, in some degree, relieved the country from its effects. The legislature should certainly do one of two things-either have no fixed rate of interest, or, if they sanctioned one, they ought to enforce it. They had not done either. They had established a fixed rate of interest, and they had then departed from their own principle, by giving persons an opportunity of borrowing on annuity, by which, in effect, a very large interest was realised, and a great degree of obloquy was cast on the lender upon annuities. He begged the House to recollect that in those countries where no fixed rate of interest existed, money was borrowed at a lower rate than in those where a contrary system prevailed. He could instance, as a proof of this, Holland, Flanders, and, indeed, all countries where the principle of a fixed rate of interest was not sanctioned; and, if they travelled from Holland and Flanders to Russia and Great Britain, the effect of the system, in both cases, would bring the subject fairly under their view. In the two latter countries provisions restricting the rate of interest within a certain boundary, had been introduced, and in both they had been evaded. In Great Britain, the principle of leaving money to find its own level, was sanctioned by the annuity act; and he was convinced, that not only the borrower on mortgage, but borrowers of every class in society, would procure money at a much cheaper rate

t

Leave was given to bring in the bill.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Friday, May 2.

LORD SIDMOUTH'S CIRCULAR LETTER.] The Lord Chancellor stated the result of his inquiries respecting the cases of Spence and Hogg, mentioned in the opinion of the law officers referred to in Lord Sidmouth's Circular Letter. With respect to the case of Spence, it appeared, that on the 13th of April, 1801, an information upon oath was sworn before Mr. Ford, then at Bow-street, by a person of the name of Searle, that he had printed for Thomas Spence a work intituled "The Restorer of Society to its Natural State," and for that work Mr. Ford held Spence to bail, to appear in the court of King'sbench on the first day of the ensuing term. On the first day of the term, the then attorney-general filed an information against Spence, who was called on his recognizance, and appeared. He was subsequently tried and convicted. With regard to the case of Hogg, it appeared that an information was sworn before the then lord mayor, by a person who had purchased at Hogg's shop the trials for adultery. The lord mayor held Alexander Hogg to bail, to appear in the court of King'sbench on the first day of the ensuing term, and the recognizance was drawn up by the then attorney-general. On the first day of the ensuing term, the late Mr. Perceval, having in the mean time become attorney-general, that gentleman filed an information against Hogg, who was called upon his recognizance, and appeared. Subsequently, upon Hogg's delivering up all the books charged against, the prosecution was dropped. There was no opinion given with respect to these cases in any other way than by the proceedings he had stated.

Earl Grey expressed his acknowledgments for the candid statement of the noble and learned lord, but observed, that