attempt that had been made for the improvement of that law, only further tended to display its unspeakable absurdities; and, as a proof of the singularity of its enormity, he should state one of its operations to the House. If a man had, from passion or any other cause, produced an injury to a woman, the last and perhaps the worst that could have befallen her; but still willing to make her all the reparation in his power, offered her himself in marriage, and had been accepted, still the next of kin could enter a prosecution against him, demand his appeal of battle, and eventually perhaps have him prosecuted to death. Here, then, appeared not only the absurdity, but the crying injustice of that law, which that House and the country now wished to see abolished. But the great evil of the Wager of Battle generally had been, that it gave to a vindictive party a power he never should have had, and that, without the possibility of the slightest interference upon the part of the government or the Crown! If a party had been convicted at common law, the Crown, if it perceived sufficient motives for so doing, could have exerted its royal prerogative in the extension of mercy, and issued the royal pardon to a penitent individual. But by the law of Wager by Battle, the Crown and the government were denied the highest attribute they could possibly wish to have enjoyed that of dealing justice in mercy to all who had endeavoured by contrition to deserve it. In fact, vengeance or avarice were the judges to decide with Wager of Battle; and, under all the circumstances, the trial by appeal could neither be made equitable nor just. The second part of his intended bill related to trial by battle in writs of right; and he was convinced that the absurdity of the practice in this case was so apparent to every member of the House, that it was unnecessary for him to detain them with any further observations. He should therefore conclude with moving, "That leave be given to bring in a bill to abolish Appeals of Murder, Felony, or Mayhem; and Wager of joining Issue and Trial by Battel, in Writs of Right."

Mr. Denman said, that it would be presumptuous in him to go over the grounds so ably gone over by his hon. and learned friend; he rose, therefore, for no purpose of discussion, but merely to state how cordially he concurred in every thing that had been said, and to expres a hope (VOL. XXXIX.)

that the great reform contemplated would be adopted by the unanimous vote of the House. The appeal of murder, which was proposed to be abolished, was always an appeal from a jury, that decided without prejudice, to one which must of necessity be prejudiced. This would have been particularly the case with the appeal which had suggested this change in the old law, where he was sure an impartial jury could not have been found. The same was the case in the last appeal for the riots in St. George's-fields, where a person was tried at the instance of the widow of the deceased, whose abandonment of the prosecution was purchased by 500l. He seconded the motion most cordially, and hoped that the spirit of the age, which made this reform necessary, would not stop here, but follow up the principle of improvement, in other parts of our criminal administration which cried aloud for revision and reform.

Mr. Bernal rose, particularly as a member of that profession to which the hon. and learned attorney-general had proved himself so great an ornament, to thank him for the manly eloquence with which he had prefaced his motion for leave to bring in a bill to abolish the barbarous law of Wager of Battle; but he begged leave to suggest to him that he believed the right of appeal could be still demanded in cases of treason committed beyond the seas, and if so, that he would also have the right abolished in that as well as in all other cases.

The Attorney General apprehended that appeal in cases of treason, was totally abolished.

Mr. Bernal said, he knew it was abolished in this country, but he believed it still extended to treason committed beyond seas.

Leave was given to bring in the bill. It was accordingly brought in, and read a first time.

HOUSE OF LORDS. Wednesday, February 10. WESTMINSTER HUSTINGS BILL.] Lord Sidmouth having moved the third reading of this bill,

Lord Holland said, there were circumstances connected with this bill which, as it appeared to him, would render the passing of it at this time, and in its present shape, very improper. He thought it unfair towards the parties who were (2 E)

candidates, while at the same time he was of opinion that the situation in which the high bailiff was placed was one which required some remedy. He, however, did not mean now, in the last stage of the bill to offer any objection, except on a point of form. This, their lordships would observe, was a bill to revive an act which had expired; and on examining it, he found that it merely recited the title of the bill which it proposed to revive. He was aware, that if the bill proposed to continue an existing act, it would be sufficient to set forth the title of the act; but when the law had been allowed to expire, the case was very different: it then seemed necessary that all the provisions of the act proposed to be revived should be recited in the reviving bill. If this were not done, their lordships would be obliged, in the case of every revived act, to go and search the charnel house of parliament, in order to learn the existing law from defunct statutes. This, their lordships would recollect, was to be an act of parliament de novo; for the act proposed to enact what at this time was not the law of the land, and yet when passed, the law would not appear on the face of the act.

The Lord Chancellor did not consider the objection of sufficient weight to delay the passing of the bill. The noble lord admitted, that if the bill had been to continue an existing act, it would not have been necessary to do more than recite the title of such act; and, in fact, this was also all that was required for the renewal of an expired law: for by an act introduced by the late Mr. Perceval, it was provided, that in any act purporting to continue another, it should be sufficient to recite merely the title of the previous statute, though it should have expired before the continuing act passed. The present bill, therefore, would, on its being passed, have the force of law in the same manner as if all the provisions of the expired law had beer. recited in it. The noble lord must, therefore, perceive, that the present bill was unexceptionable, for it not only proposed to revive, but to continue, the former act.

Lord Holland, notwithstanding what had been said by the learned lord, was of opinion that, as this was de facto a bill to revive, it ought to contain the provisions of the expired act. He did not mean to assert, that it would not have the force of law when passed; but though the word

continued was inserted, he thought it would be more regular, if the amendment he had suggested were adopted. The act had expired, and their lordships were now passing a purely reviving bill.

The Earl of Lauderdale thought it very extraordinary, that a bill which on the face of it professed to revive, should be regarded as the same as a merely continuing bill. He should have expected the learned lord to propose to strike out every thing relative to the revival of the former act. If he approved of the bill, he would make a motion to that effect; but it was not for him to seek to correct a bill which he disapproved and considered altogether unjust.

The Lord Chancellor was satisfied, if he understood Mr. Perceval's act, that the wording of the present bill was perfectly correct. It proposed both to continue and revive. All that could be objected to it, therefore, was, that it contained more words than were necessary; but he did not consider that a reason for delaying the measure by striking out the superfluous words.

Lord Holland did not consider Mr. Perceval's as strictly applicable to the present bill, which distinctly professed to revive an expired law. He, besides, thought it necessary that the provisions of the former act should be recited, in order that the law might be known. The bill was then read a third time.

Mr.

HOUSE OF COMMONS. Wednesday, February 10. USURY LAWS REPEAL BILL.] Serjeant Onslow, in rising to move for leave to bring in a bill to repeal the laws which restricted the rate of interest, said, that as there were now in the House many members who were not present during the former discussions of this subject, he might be permitted to say a few words An as to the grounds of his motion. opinion in favour of the measure, similar to that which he proposed, had been expressed, not only in England and on the continent of Europe, but by the most enlightened citizens of the United States of America. In the year 1817, a motion mas made in the House of Delegates of Virginia for a repeal of the Usury Laws, and the speech of Mr. Hays, the gentleman who brought forward the measure, was an evidence of the talents of the supporters of it in the United States.

The laws against usury had, in fact, their origin in a blind and fanatical perversion of the words of scripture; and the opprobrium which had been cast upon those who in modern times took more than the legal rate of interest, was formerly thrown on all those who took any interest for money lent. The term usury, in fact, was applied to the receiving of any use or interest on money. The act of Henry 8th, the origin of the present usury laws, was not an act of restriction, but an act of enlargement; for as it was found impossible to enforce the absurd prohibition on the taking of interest, the rate was limited to 10 per cent. In the reign of Edward 6th that act was repealed, and the taking interest prohibited; but the consequence was, that the rate of interest which before was below 10 per cent rose to 14 per cent. In the reign of queen Elizabeth, the law fixing the rate at 10 per cent was revived, while, at the same time, the taking any interest was declared sinful and detestable. Since that time the rate had been gradually reduced; but it was remarkable, that while the taking interest above a certain rate subjected the lender to treble penalties, it did not appear that the law prohibiting the taking of any interest had been repealed. The disapprobation of the habit of taking any interest on money was repeated in the act of queen Anne, though in different terms. The learned serjeant then recapitulated the various inconveniencies with which the usury laws were attended, as had been fully proved before the committee which had been appointed to inquire into the subject. It had been proved, that in consequence of fixing a legal rate, which had often been below the market rate of interest, the landholder, when incumbered by debts, was forced to a disadvantageous sale of his estate, or compelled to raise money by way of annuities, on lives named by the grantee, at from 10 to 15 per cent. Although during the period at which these inconveniences were felt by the landholder, the same inconveniences were not felt by the holders of bills of exchange: that was to be attributed to the Bank restriction, which enabled the Bank to discount bills to an unlimited extent. As some observations of Dr. Adam Smith had been alluded to, which were at variance with his view of the subject, and, indeed, with other parts of that distinguished writer's own work; it was satis

factory for him to state, as he was enabled to do, that Dr. Smith, with the candour which distinguished great minds, had confessed, after having read Mr. Bentham's work, that the view he had taken of the subject was not correct. His bill was simply to repeal the restriction on the rate of interest under special contracts, the rate of interest under orders of courts of law or equity remaining as at present. He then moved, "That leave be given to bring in a bill for repealing the Laws which prohibit the taking of Interest for Money."

Mr. Hume said, that the motion had his hearty concurrence. Property in houses was left to the discretion of its holder. Why, then, should money, the representative of property, be restricted? The holder of every other kmd of property was left to manage it to his profit or his loss, as it might happen. A man could let his house at full value, at double value, or at half value. Why should not the holder of money have equal freedom? The owner of a house worth 1,000l. might get a yearly rent of 100l. 2007. or 300/. for it. If left equally free, the owner of money might get 10, 15, or 20 per cent from some, when from others he could only get 5 or 6 per cent. Although this country had flourished under restrictive acts, he hoped the time was come when the principles established by the many able books on political economy would be recognised, and when every restriction would be removed from manufactures and commerce from the efforts of industry, and the enterprises of speculation.

Leave was given, and the bill was brought in, and read a first time.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Thursday, February 11. CONGRESS AT AIX-LA-CHAPELLEHOLY ALLIANCE.] The Earl of Liverpool having laid on the table, an Additional Paper relative to the payment of the pecuniary indemnity by France to the Allied Powers under the convention signed at Aix-la-Chapelle, on the 9th of October 1818,

Lord Holland wished to ask the noble earl, first, whether any paper had been laid upon the table respecting the slave trade; and next, for some explanation respecting the documents which had been laid before the House. He did not mean to desire an explanation of the language