did not pay in one shape must pay in another. As the law stood, many a tradesman was compelled to sell goods at a loss of ten per cent., because he could not give six for the loan of the sum he wanted. Nothing was more common than when a man had a bill coming due, for him to offer the holder five-ten guineas, to keep the bill for a week; and yet it was said that the existing law, which was evaded every hour, protected the smaller commercial interests. The measure before the house might be thrown out this session : but, like the catholic emancipation and the repeal of the test act, it would surely be carried in the end. The Solicitor-General rose to move that the bill should be read that day six months. The hon. and learned gentleman then proceeded to contend, that if the laws regulating the interest were repealed, the landed interest could not obtain money at the same low rate which they now did. The merchant got his advances cheaper, because it was known that he could turn that money to account, and make it productive, and repay his loan in a short time, but the landed interest required a longer time to pay their advances.

Was

He meant those who could give only personal security. The rich man might supply his temporary necessities at a comparatively cheap rate; but the man in an humbler class of life must take his loan at whatever price the lender might choose to fix upon it. Every man almost had occasion to borrow at some time, and every man who had only personal security to offer must have felt the pressure of the moneylender's high demands. If there was any member of that house who, before he came into it, had ever occasion to be in debt with his tailor, he must, if he has a scintilla of recollection, remember that for so much he was an involuntary borrower, and that he had to pay a rate of interest great in proportion as his necessities were known. But there was another objection to the removal of the present laws for regulating the interest of money. It would have the effect of making capitalists engross the profits of most profitable trades, without incurring any of 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 persón 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 trade

it to be expected that the moneylender would, under such circumstances, lend to the country gentleman in preference to the merchant, at the same rate of interest? If he lent at all, there was no doubt that he would require a much higher rate of interest, not only than that paid by the merchant, but than what was now legally allowed. But there was another class of borrowers who would be still more severely affected by this proposed repeal.

would

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. Looking at all the consequences which must attend such a change, he felt it his duty to move, as` an amendment, that this bill, so unpropitious in point of time, and so pernicious in principle, be read a second time this day six months.

On the amendment being put, Mr. Sergeant Onslow observed, that of all the arguments which could have been used against this measure, that urged by the learned gentleman who last spoke, with respect to the comparative facilities of obtaining loans by the merchant and the landholder, was the weakest. 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. It was to reduce it to that value, or to prevent its being carried higher than that value allowed, that 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. The learned serjeant then proceeded to contend, that on the ground of good policy, there was no just cause for continuing the present laws. We had, he observed, 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 till the reign of Henry VIII. This act was repealed in the reign of Edward VI.; but the statute of Henry VIII. 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 it. That value, he should 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, according to the experience which we had had, 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 then proceeded to show, that according to the practice of most civilized nations, a rate of interest was fixed for loans of money, and that in proportion as those laws were relaxed, the prosperity of the country declined.

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

hon. colleagues. He believed that all of them, except the learned gentleman who had moved the amendment, 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 publicly 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 by any thing that occurred in the course of the debate.

Mr. Bright, in opposing the bill, observed, that he considered the absence of the whole body of ministers from the house to be inconsistent with their public duty. He was afraid to remove the penal system of usury laws, because he thought the removal of them would diminish the comforts of the middle and lower classes of the community.

The house then divided, when there appeared-for the bill, 40; against it, 45; majority against it, 5.-The house then adjourned at twelve o'clock.

House of Commons, Feb. 15.— Mr. Goulburn moved the order of the day, for resuming the debate on the Catholic Association.

Sir R. Wilson thought the association should be put down, but did not approve the present bill: he thought emancipating the catholics the best method of annihilating the association. Was England ever in a better condition of power and advantage to grant a boon of this nature than at present? Let the house reflect on the repetition of those claims for the last twentyfive years; that they were the rights of six millions of people; that the laws complained of were of incredible absurdity and cruelty. Every member did not know that a catholic priest was subject to the penalty of death for marrying a protestant woman to a Roman-catholic, and that the parties must give evidence against the benefactor of their affections on pain of three years' imprisonment. When the catholics were low in the power of opinion, they were taunted with the factthe people were said to be opposed. They went to work, and proved successfully that their claims were abetted by the intelligence, the wealth, and the numbers of the general population. Now they were no longer disposed, nor was there any attempt, to do them justice; but the force of opinion which they had collected in their favour was deemed formidable, and they were to be put down, because they succeeded in disproving the assertion that their advocates were inconsiderable. At the present moment this country was in a state of profound peace. Was this the way to perpetuate

petuate it? Was this the time to bring forward a measure so obnoxious? Would they consume, with the brand of party, the tree of their hope, and plant in their stead one that would produce the bitter fruit of discord? When they had disavowed the slavish doctrines of the holy alliance; when they had acknowledged the independence of South America; when they had in various instances showed a praiseworthy spirit of liberality; it was deeply to be lamented that so much pains were taken to lower this country in the eyes of Europe, by the adoption of measures that could only lead to internal discord, and which were wholly at variance with the foreign policy that had been pursued. If war should unfortunately take place, would not coercive measures of the nature now contemplated, which estranged the hearts of the people, produce the most deplorable consequences? In that case, he would ask gentlemen, if the standard of rebellion were unfurled, would it be the same that they formerly saw raised on the mountains of Wicklow, and at Tarah-hill? The Roman-catholic clergy were hostile to the rebellion, because they believed it to be connected with the principles of the French revolution, and they knew that those principles were inimical to their interests.

The Roman-catholic nobility and gentry were also adverse to that insurrection, because they believed that by a long succession of peaceful and tranquil conduct, they would be enabled to realize their dearest hopes, by a series of legislative enactments. But now the minds of the Romancatholic clergy, nobility and gentry

were embittered; and if the standard of rebellion were raised, though they would not stand forward to join it, yet the fact that they had supported the association, the destruction of which had goaded the people to madness, would be a stimulus of no common power. He was not the advocate of catholic dominion. He abhorred the use which catholic states too often made of their power. He saw, with terror, the abuse of catholic power in Spain, in France, and in Belgium. In France, a ferocious and abominable law had recently been proposed a law, which pointed out those who brought it forward as demons who delighted in cruel and sanguinary punishments. In Belgium, efforts of an arbitrary and bigoted nature had been attempted; but they had a king there whose wisdom and justice would not admit of such arbitrary encroachments on the principles of civil liberty. In this country, however, what was to be feared from the catholics? With an established church, intimately connected with the state; with an immense body of dissenters; and, above all, with the assistance of a free press, what had these realms to dread from the power of the catholics? He was not fighting the catholic battle, but his own battle-the battle of all the dissenters-the battle of civil and religious liberty. He disliked the term "catholic emancipation;" it was too narrow a phrase, since, in the abstract, the measure so called tended to repeal the disabilities of all dissenters, of whatever denomination, in this country, Those, therefore, who supported that measure, were not fighting

a partial

a partial battle, and ought to receive the support of every man who was friendly to religious freedom. Many persons, he believed, opposed the emancipation of the catholics, not because they disliked catholic emancipation, but because they were afraid it would lead to the repeal of the test acts, and they dreaded any increase of the power of the dissenters. They cared nothing about the catholics; but they held in terror, not merely the religious, but the civil and political opinions of the dissenters of this country. It had been said that the people of England were hostile to this measure. He did not believe it. They were too enlightened not to know that there could be no civil without religious liberty. He appealed, therefore, to their generous feelings, to do justice when it had so long been denied. Nay, he would appeal to their alarm. If, unfortunately, war should break out, and discontent were suffered to remain amongst the population of Ireland, how direful might be the event? We might see our commerce crippled, and our vessels carried under the mouths of cannon planted on the coast of Ireland; it might at last become a contest " pro aris et focis." Convinced that this measure would do incalculable mischief, he should constantly raise his voice against it. In opposing this measure, he was sure he spoke the sense of his constituents; but, even if it were otherwise, a plain and manly exposition of his sentiments was certain to procure their esteem.

Mr. Lockart, Mr. Banks, Sir R. Brydges, and Mr. Grenfell, spoke against the association, but in favour of emancipation. Sir J.

Newport defended the association. Generally they thought the peace of the empire, and the union of Ireland with England, depended upon the emancipation of the catholics.

Several members afterwards spoke, among whom were Mr. Canning, Sir F. Burdett, and Mr. Brougham, after which the house divided, and the motion was carried by 278 against 123.-Adjourned at half-past twelve.

House of Commons, Feb. 18th.On the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the house resolved itself into a committee of ways and means.

In the committee, the right hon. gentleman moved that the sum of 5,000,000l. remaining in the exchequer, should be applied to the service of the present year; that the sum of 20,000,000l. be raisedby exchequer-bills, for the present year; and that the sum of 60,000l. paid into the exchequer by the East-India Company, be also appropriated to the service of the present year.

to.

The several motions were agreed The house resumed. Report on Monday.

Mr. Brougham moved, that the Catholic Association be heard by council at the bar of the house. The debate was carried on by Mr. Brougham, Sir F. Burdett, Mr. Wynn, Sir J. York, Mr. Hobhouse, the Solicitor General, Mr. Peel, Mr. Spring Rice, Sir J. Sebright, and Mr. Scarlett; after which, the motion was negatived by 222 against 89. Adjourned at half-past one.

House of Commons, Feb. 21.Sir G. Clerk, in bringing forward the navy estimates, observed, that, the extraordinaries of the

on