Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow USURY LAWS REPEAL BILL 17 June 1823 - The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, Vol. 5 Speeches and Evidence

Return to Title Page for The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, Vol. 5 Speeches and Evidence

USURY LAWS REPEAL BILL 17 June 1823 - David Ricardo, The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, Vol. 5 Speeches and Evidence [1819]

Edition used:

The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, ed. Piero Sraffa with the Collaboration of M.H. Dobb (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2005). Vol. 5 Speeches and Evidence 1815-1823.

Part of: The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, 11 vols (Sraffa ed.)

About Liberty Fund:

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.


USURY LAWS REPEAL BILL
17 June 1823

Mr. Serjeant Onslow moved that the usury laws repeal bill be committed. Mr. Davenport opposed the motion.

Mr. Ricardo argued, that money ought to be placed on the same footing as any other commodity. The lender and borrower ought to be allowed to bargain together, as freely as the buyer and seller did when goods were to be disposed of. The hon. member who spoke last,1 feared that this measure would place the borrower entirely in the power of the lender. But, did the present laws alter his situation? Certainly not. Means were found to evade the law; for though the law said, “You shall not take more than a certain interest for your money,” it could not compel a man to lend at that particular rate; and, therefore, he who wished to borrow at all events, and he who wished to lend at as high a rate of interest as he could get, both conspired to evade the law. These laws operated precisely in the same way as the laws against exporting the coin of the realm. Now, notwithstanding those laws, did not the exportation of that coin take place? The only effect of the statutes in that case was, to place the traffic in the hands of characters who had no scruples against taking a false oath. They were encouraged to evade the law, and made a great profit by so doing.

The House divided: For the motion, 38; Against it, 15. On the report stage (27 June) the bill was lost.

[1 ]Mr. Davenport.