presented a petition from Mr. Owen, of Lanark. The hon. member professed himself unable to see his way sufficiently clearly to warrant him in founding upon the petition any subsequent motion. He would, nevertheless, willingly lend his aid to any other hon. member who might feel inclined to do so.

said, he had advised Mr. Owen never to bring his plan again before parliament.

contended, that this visionary plan, if adopted, would destroy the very roots of society.

said, that in the debate on this subject, though there had been a great difference of opinion on the Usury Laws themselves, the opinion of the House was unanimous as to the injustice and ineffectiveness of the penalties provided for a breach of them. As the members of the legal profession to whom he had applied had declined the task, he had been induced to frame a bill to amend the law as far as related to these penalties. His principle was briefly this. By the existing law, the forfeiture, and penalty, amounting to three times the principal sum, was out of all proportion to the degree of the offence. For example, if a man took 5l. too much interest on a principal sum of 100,000l., the penalty would be forfeiture of the 100,000l., and three times more, in all 400,000l. But if a man took 100l. interest too much on 100l. principal, an offence in degree infinitely greater, the penalty would be only 400l. His intention was, to proportion the penalties to the degree of the offence, and not so excessive that conscientious men would not sue for them. He moved, for leave to bring in a bill "to regulate the penalties aad forfeitures incurred under the Usury Laws."

in moving the order of the day for the second reading of this bill, for the purpose of withdrawing it, said, he owed it to himself to give a brief explanation. In withdrawing the bill, he did not wish it to be understood that he was to be prevented by any clamour that might be raised from prosecuting his object; but, on a subject so delicate as the Poor-laws, when a feeling was raised, no matter how mistaken, he wished to afford full time for examination and correction of the error. It had been supposed by some, that his object was to introduce the poor-rates into Scotland. It was, in fact, just the reverse. It was to prevent assessments from spreading further than they had gone, and finally to abolish them. According to the report of a committee in 1818, out of 700 parishes, the number from which returns were obtained, there were only 145 in which there were assessments. Assessments were either good or bad: if good, they should be general; if bad, they should be abolished; and seeing that in the greater part of Scotland no assessments existed, he wished to abolish them in the remaining parishes, and to produce that uniformity of system, which was so desirable. It was asserted by some, that assessments were necessary in every civilised country. His answer to this was the fact he had stated, that, in the greater part of Scotland, there were no assessments. The vicious system of assessments had produced the most mischievous consequences in Scotland. That system prevailed to a grievous extent in the border counties. The assessments were regulated, not by the exigencies of the particular parishes in which they were levied, but by accidental circumstances. Thus, in Berwick there was a very large assessment in one parish, while in the very next parish, perhaps, there was no assessment at all. An experiment, conducted by Dr. Chalmers in one of the lowest parishes in Glasgow, where there was a population of nearly 10,000 persons, had been attended with the best effects. In the course of a few years, assessments to the amount of 1,400l. per annum had been completely eradicated, and the poor had been placed on a much better footing. If the measure which he (Mr. K.) had proposed, were adopted, he was satisfied that it would have the effect of reviving that spirit of independence, which had once existed among the poor of Scotland, but which had been, in a great degree, unfortunately extinguished by the system of assessment. He was convinced that it would have been a boon to the poor of Scotland themselves. In moving that the bill be read a second time that day three months, he wished it to be distinctly understood, that he did not mean finally to abandon the subject, but that it was his intention again to call the attention of the House to it early in the next session.

said, that with respect to the measure being a boon to the poor of Scotland, he could only observe, that the poor of Scotland themselves thought it a great grievance. The bill proposed by the hon. member was considered by all who had paid any attention to the interests of the poor, and who were in the habit of administering to their wants, to be most objectionable in principle.

said, that the proposed measure had never received the slightest encouragement from any public body in Scotland; on the contrary, they all concurred in reprobating it. He strongly recommended the hon. member to pause before he again brought it forward.

observed, that the poor of Scotland might be left wholly without resource if the system of assessments were abolished.