I select first the Amendment which stands second on the Notice Paper, in the name of the hon. Member for East Rhondda (Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan).

I beg move, in page 2, line 9, at the end, to insert the words

"( ) where the total amount of the duties payable by a moneylender exceeds one hundred pounds the Commissioners of Customs and Excise shall remit any excess over that sum or, if the duty has been paid, repay such excess and"

In the Standing Committee I argued that the provisions of the Clause as it stood were unreasonable in relation to large corporate companies. When a company was formed with a large number of branches I said there should be a maximum placed on the total amount of duty it had to pay. I do not propose to weary the House with the same set of arguments that I used in Committee, but I am entitled to point out that pawnbrokers are dealt with in a very much fairer and more reasonable way than are moneylenders. There are insinuations being passed around that I hold a brief for the moneylenders. I am speaking individually and for myself alone, and I do not desire that my party should be considered in any way responsible for the remarks that I make. Any statement I make I make entirely because I was asked to be a member of the Select Committee of both Houses which conducted an investigation into this subject—a very early investigation, it is true, and not a very complete and detailed one. I wish to make that explanation. If there is any Member of the House who thinks that I hold a brief for the moneylenders, I would assure him that there is no foundation for it. I shall have something further to say on that subject later.

My sole point in moving this Amendment is that I want the spirit of fairness and impartiality to be exercised towards all people who are in any way connected with the moneylending business in this country. The pawnbroker will get his licence, and he will be able to trade as a moneylender for £7 10s. The hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) has attempted to reduce the licence duty of the moneylender from £13 to £10 by putting on the Paper an Amendment to that effect. Even had that Amendment been carried the moneylender would have been called upon to pay £2 10s. more than the pawnbroker, although trading under similar conditions. Even with the £100 which I propose as the maximum duty payable by a moneylender, he will be able to get only six licences, while the pawnbroker will be able to get 12 licences for the same sum. Cases could be cited and examples given where the same practice as I seek to establish is already in operation. The legislation with regard to joint stock companies and other companies could be cited. I hope that the promoters of the Bill will be prepared to do something in the direction of the proposal of my Amendment.

I beg to second the Amendment.

There is another Amendment of mine further down to make the total duty payable £50 instead of £100. I have been a Member of the Standing Committee that considered this Bill, and I am concerned only to get a workable Measure. The Bill has been greatly altered in Committee, but there are a few things remaining to be done and this is one of them. As the Bill stood originally, if there were three partners with 10 branches they had to pay for thirty licences at each. That was £450 for one firm. There was a certain advance made to meet our views, and it was this. The promoters said that if there were partners with a number of branches, licence duty would be charged only in respect of the number of branches. In other words, if there were three partners with 10 branches, instead of their paying for 30 licence duties they would have to pay for only 10 licence duties. That was a concession. But the fact remains that such a firm would have to pay £150 for the 10 branches. There is a difference between the branches of a moneylender's business and the branches of a pawnbroker's business. The pawnbroker carries on an independent business at each of his branches; they are so many separate businesses, and he pays a licence for each. On the other hand the moneylender does the whole of his business from the central office; it is the central office that finds the money and lends it, but the branches are convenient places to which clients can go.

In these circumstances it is only fair that some limitation should be put upon the amount of duty that has to be paid. It has been stated by the Proposer of the Amendment that pawnbrokers are in a more favourable position. Of course they are. I am not saying a word against pawnbrokers, but I am none the less in favour of this limitation. I do not know whether it would be convenient for me now to say a word on the first Amendment on the Paper, which has been passed over but is really involved in this Amendment. It was a proposal that the licence duty should be reduced from £15 to £10. That would still leave the duty payable by the moneylender £2 10s. higher than the duty paid by the pawnbroker. If there are ten branches, they represent a payment of £100 a year which is a very fair amount to ask anybody to pay for carrying on an admittedly legal business. This Bill presumes that moneylending is a perfectly legitimate business, as, of course, it is. It is a part of the commercial activities of the world. In another part of the Bill it is insisted that moneylenders must be persons of good character so that here you have persons of good character carrying on a legitimate business to meet the requirements of the public, and in the circumstances I submit a license duty of £10 is quite sufficient, with a total maximum either of £100 or as I suggest, £50.

The promoters of the Bill do not feel that they can accept this Amendment. The figure of £15 is a compromise figure. At the Joint Select Committee which originally considered this question, a figure of £15 was accepted and, when the Bill came to be drafted, the figure of £15 applied to every member of a partnership firm in addition to every address at which the partnership carried on business. It was found, on working the matter out, that this was really oppressive and, by another compromise, it was agreed that the amount of £15 should only apply to the addresses, no matter how many partners there might be in the firm. There was a further concession made with regard to pawnbrokers. The pawnbrokers' licence is £7 10s., but if he desired to take out a moneylender's licence, as practically every pawnbroker must do if he deals in sums above £10, he then would have had to pay an additional £15. A concession was made in this respect—that he should only be required to pay half the amount of the moneylender's fee, so that for £15 he could get both his pawnbroker's licence and his moneylender's licence. The promoters consider that it would be inadvisable to depart from the compromise arranged in the Joint Select Committee and debated at great length in the Committee on the Bill. The proposal to reduce the fee from £15 to £10 was then defeated, and I hope it will be defeated on this occasion. The pawnbroker has to pay £7 l0s. in respect of each address at which he carries on business. The publican pays a licence, duty for every public-house which he owns and an ad valorem duty, in addition, and I do not think it can be considered unfair to moneylenders that they should pay on each branch at which they conduct business. Surely it would scarcely be worth the moneylender's while to open a branch unless he could afford to pay this licence thirty in respect of it. Under the Amendment, a moneylender, for £100, would get seven licences, and then as many more as he wanted. That would seem to be unreasonable and unfair.

This Amendment ought not to be accepted. As the hon. Member who has last spoken pointed out, every publican who has more than one business has to pay licence duty on each business in addition to other duties, while the effect of the Amendment would be that a moneylender could set up a business in every town and only pay £100. I take it that moneylenders are business men and only set up a branch where they expect to get business. If they could obtain all the business they desired by having only one establishment, they would only have one establishment; and the fact that they consider it necessary to have branches indicates that those branches are going to attract clients.

I hope the promoters will resist the Amendment which would fix the revenue derived from this body of people at a maximum of £100. As the last speaker has said, a moneylender for that sum could have a branch in every town and in every thickly populated district in every town.

I would also point out that if this Amendment were carried it would involve unfair competition as against the small moneylender who has only one establishment.

Having regard to the remarks of the promoters I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

With regard to the Amendments to Clause 2, I should like to know if the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) has any choice to make of those standing in his name. I do not know how far they hang together, but I shall select whatever one he wishes to move as covering his point.

I can deal with all these Amendments in a composite manner.

Moving the first one on the Paper?

I will, if I may, move the first one and I will connect it with the others.

Very well.

I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out from the word "the," in line 23, to the end of line 26, and to insert instead thereof the words,

"county court judge for the division in which the moneylenders' business is to be carried on."

This Clause makes it necessary for every moneylender to take out a certificate, and every certificate is to be the basis of a licence. It will therefore be seen that if there were three partners, each would have to take out a certificate, and, if there were 10 branches, a certificate would have to be taken out in each branch. These certificates would be taken out in different places at different times and before different Benches of magistrates, and, in considering whether a certificate is to be granted or not, the tribunal has to decide whether there is satisfactory evidence that the applicant is of good character, whether there is, on the other hand, satisfactory evidence that he is not a fit and proper person, and, finally, whether he has complied with the various rules.

These are questions that really open up a latitude for the exercise of a good deal of preconception and prejudice. What is good character? Is it good moral character, is it good commercial character, is it not being a rowdy person? Different benches will take different views on all these questions, and it is in the interests of uniformity that a county court judge should grant the certificate in the first instance, and that every certificate afterwards required should be obtained from the same county court judge. But the Amendment does not go so far as that. It goes only so far as saying that the certificate ought to be granted by a county court judge. The advantage is that the decisions of a county court judge become authorities that bind other county court judges. They are men who have had the same training and the same ways of appraising evidence, and before such tribunals what is good character, what is a fit person, what is compliance with the various rules and requirements would soon become crystallised into well understood propositions, and it would, therefore, bring about uniformity.

If you leave the matter, as it is now, to the magistrates, you may have a bench of magistrates in one district saying they are not satisfied that an applicant is of good character, because of the views they have on the question of character, whereas a bench in another district may take an entirely opposite view. Again, at one time when a man applies for a certificate he may have one lot of magistrates, with one set of views, and at another time, in the same district, when he applies for another certificate, he may go before another bench, with different views, and the whole thing would result in chaos, quite apart from the fact that it is well known that these are very frequently to be found on lay benches men who are rather subject to prejudice and preconception. The moneylender, in my opinion, has been a very much maligned person, but that is neither here nor there. I think a great number of things are attributed to him that are very unjustly so attributed and there is, therefore, in my view, a great deal to be said for my Amendment to substitute a county court judge for a petty sessional court.

I beg to second the Amendment.

This proposal is one to transfer the granting of a certificate of good character to a moneylender from the petty sessional court to the county court. I submit that that alteration would be very difficult to carry out. For one thing, the county courts have no facilities for this kind of work, and, moreover, they are unsuitable in a variety of other respects. The granting of certificates of good character for many years was done by the petty sessional courts under the Act of 1872, but subsequently, by an amending Act, a part of these duties was transferred to the district and borough councils, so that now They are partly granted by the district and borough councils and partly by the petty sessional courts. It seems to me that, as the magistrates are very accustomed to this kind of work, and constantly have it before them, and have all the necessary facilities, it would be a great mistake to impose duties of a novel character on the county courts, who have had no previous experience of them.

It has been found from experience that anyone who makes an application for a licence would rather go before a bench of magistrates than before a popularly elected body, where men change every year, it may be, and where political partisanship might arise, whereas, in the case of the petty sessional courts, that would not be the case. Therefore, I submit that the best policy would be to give to the petty sessional courts this power of granting certificates of good character to moneylenders, especially when we bear in mind that by the control and assistance of the police, they are enabled to accumulate a, mass of evidence with regard to applicants which it would be quite impossible for the county courts to have. Therefore, I hope the House will not accept the Amendment.

On a point of Order. What I have moved is that the County Court Judge should take the place of the magistrate, for this reason, that one of the things that would have to be decided would be whether there was satisfactory evidence of a person being of good character. That point is dealt with in one of the subsequent Amendments in my name to this Clause, and I wish to ascertain whether, when we are dealing with these omnibus Amendments, I shall have an opportunty, in case the first Amendment is lost, of saying something on the two subsidiary Amendments.

I understood that the hon. and learned Member in his speech moving the first Amendment would cover the other Amendments on this Clause, and I was not proposing to call upon the subsequent Amendments in his name.

Would it be permissible for me to deal with them now?

May I suggest this, that the hon. and learned Member would have a right to reply to the discussion on this Amendment, as this is a Bill that has been taken in Committee upstairs, and he might, in his reply, take the opportunity of referring to the other Amendments?

This point seems not to have been dealt with either by the Select Committe or upstairs, and it appears to me that there is some sound sense in it, because, whether or not we like it, the fact has been accepted that the profession of moneylender, if you call it a profession, is a very important profession, particularly to those who borrow and do not want to pay back. But, generally speaking, there is a considerable amount of prejudice against the moneylender, and petty sessional courts and benches of magistrates are not always impartial, as some of us know. The promoter of the Bill says that the benches are free from political bias, but I am not going to accept that view. Hon. Members on this side know perfectly well that on many occasions we have had to express our views here about the political composition and the prejudices of many of the benches up and down the country, so that I think there is something to be said for this Amendment, and that it would be much better to transfer this duty to a County Court Judge, who obviously, in these particular cases, would be above suspicion from the paint of view of local prejudices, and might bring to bear his experience as a lawyer on the evidence that might be submitted by a superintendent of police or a police constable as to the character of an applicant for a certificate. I happen to be a magistrate of a bench; in fact, I have been a magistrate of two benches in my short life. I can say that the individuals I have met on the magisterial bench are excellent persons socially, but most of the people who compose our magisterial benches, even in these days, have been appointed by the party which may be in power for the time being, and an examination of the magisterial benches will show that they are packed to-day with people of a particular colour and belonging to a particular class of the community. Many of the magisterial benches are drawn from tradespeople, and so on, some of whom have had to have recourse to moneylenders, who, I understand, at times treat their clients very badly.

This Amendment deserves further consideration, and I regret very much that the promoter of the Bill did not wait to hear some other Members speak on it, before giving his decision, because I appreciate the difficulty of giving way now. But I do ask him and those associated with him to examine this point, because it was never discussed in. Committee upstairs. I wish I had had the foresight and intelligence when the Bill was upstairs to bring the Amendment forward. I should like to hear some of the legal Members on the Front Bench opposite give their views on this Amendment.

I very much regret that, although I am in agreement with a number of statements made by my hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Dennison), I cannot draw the same conclusions. As far as we are concerned with this case, we are not dealing with a question of law. If it were a question of law, I should be one of the first to say that such a matter should not be referred to a Petty Sessional Court, but here we are dealing with a question of character. Everyone who has been a member of a bench of magistrates knows the great care which is taken in the investigation of the characters of persons who apply for public house licences. There is the police evidence, and there are all kinds of other evidence. I have sat on a bench of that kind, and I know the great care taken to be absolutely fair. But I have known cases where there have been licences granted which I, personally, would not have granted, and where the balance has all the time been weighted in favour of the applicant.

We have to discuss not only this Amendment, which would transfer the granting of certificates from the Petty Sessional Court to the County Court Judge, but also the other Amendments in the name of the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney). The hon. and learned Member desires to strike out paragraph (a) of Sub-section (6) and to substitute the words "a certificate signed by three responsible householders." I submit that that Amendment would really be playing with the whole question. After all, it is always possible to get certificates of good character from responsible householders. Every householder is responsible. Every one of us, I think, has sufficient friends to secure at least three, to testify as to good character. When a person is going to carry on a business of this kind, his character ought to be examined; he ought not to be afraid of coming before a public tribunal the same as other people with regard to their business. For these reasons, I oppose the Amendment.

The hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Dennison) regretted that he had not longer time in which to study this Amendment.

I said that the matter was not discussed upstairs in Committee; that was my point.

I was only going to remark that, of course, the promoters of the Bill, the Government and other Members of the House have only had the opportunity of seeing this Amendment on the Order Paper this morning, but I think there are very obvious objections to it. The hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney), I think, overlooked the fact that, except in the London area, if the duties were transferred to the County Court, they would only be sitting about once in three months, and, therefore, there would not be the ready access to the authority that von have under the Bill.

Does that apply to London or to the Provinces?

I said to the Provinces.

Only once in three months?

Is that correct? In all the districts with which we are acquainted, the county courts meet monthly.

It varies in different parts, but, whatever the period may be, there is not the ready access to county courts that you have under the Bill to petty sessional courts. Another point of importance is that the magistrates already deal with the granting of pawnbrokers' licences, and, there fore, it is undesirable that the licensing should be divided, and that you should have one authority granting licences to moneylenders and another authority granting licences to pawnbrokers. Again, the petty sessional courts are in very close touch with the police, whereas the county courts are not. Being in close touch with the police, it is very much easier for the magistrates to obtain evidence of character than it would be for the county courts. Shortly, for these reasons, I hope the House will oppose this Amendment, as I think the present arrangement in the Bill is far better.

I sincerely trust that the hon. and learned Member will see his way to withdraw the Amendment, now that it has been discussed. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has given us an explanation of the Amendment, but I want to induce the Home Secretary, who is with us for the first time on this Bill, to give us some information as to his attitude towards the Amendment. He is very eloquent outside the House, and I have read his speeches with great delight, especially his speech of last evening; but I think we ought to have his musical voice exercised in this House also. Though I am not going to press him to enlighten us further on this Amendment, because the hon. and gallant Gentleman has done very well in explaining the position, I trust that the Home Secretary, who did not show his face in the Committee upstairs, except on one occasion when he came in order to make a quorum, and then departed as swiftly as he arrived, will later give us the benefit of his advice. He is the chief of the Home Office, the Department which will have to administer this Bill, and I think it would be courteous if, at a later stage, he were to assist us in dealing with the intricacies of this problem. Some part of the eloquence he displays outside ought to be enjoyed by Members in this House.

May I thank the hon. Member for West-houghton (Mr. Rhys Davies) for his kind references to myself? He must riot think I have been neglecting my duty because I did not attend this particular Committee. I have had the privilege of toe assistance of my lion. and gallant Friend the Member for South Paddington (Commodore King), who has conducted this Bill through the Committee with conspicuous ability, as I am sure all hon. Members will agree. I have had reports from time to time as to the progress of the Bill, and I have been quite satisfied with the work which my hon. and gallant Friend was doing. I had to attend other Committees, but I have taken a close interest in this Bill, and I have the privilege of being here to-day.

I rise to say that I cannot support this Amendment. The position of pawnbrokers has been referred to as analogous to that of moneylenders in regard to these certificates. From a long experience in these matters I wish to say that the granting of certificates by petty sessional courts has proved very satisfactory indeed in the case of pawnbrokers. There is easy access to such courts, whereas in the provinces a county court judge may come to a town only once in three months. It is to the advantage of an applicant that he should get a quick hearing and a speedy decision. In my opinion the promoters of the Bill have dealt very fairly indeed with moneylenders in regard to the conditions under which these certificates will be granted. Before a certificate can be granted to a pawnbroker an application has to be put in 24 days before the date of hearing. For 28 days the applicant's name and address and the nature of his application are posted on the church or chapel doors of the parish in which he resides, so that everybody may see the application, and any person has an opportunity of entering an objection to the granting of the license. Further, the applicant has to give satisfactory evidence as to character, and has to show that his place of business, and any adjacent place, is not frequented by thieves or persons of bad character. Conditions have been made much more easy for moneylenders, and in the interests of moneylenders themselves this Amendment ought not to be pressed. Speaking, as I said before, from actual experience, I am certain that one gets far more consideration from a bench of magistrates, They know the local circumstances, and so does the chief of police, who can give evidence. It will be more to the advantage of moneylenders to apply to the magistrates for certificates than to apply to county court judges.

I rise to support the opposition to this Amendment. I listened with some impatience to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) in moving it. He implied that petty sessional courts were chock full of prejudices mid free conceptions. I hold no brief for the magistrates who sit in the ordinary police courts, but I do not think they are quite such a bundle of prejudices as he tried to make out. In order to establish his point he suggested, by implication, that county court judges were above all human frailties, and without any prejudices or preconceptions whatsoever. I have had some little experience of county court judges. Some of them may be estimable persons, but I have seen judgments given by them which have been chock full of the most bitter prejudices. I am certain they are just as human as magistrates, and would be just as likely to allow their own prejudices and preconceptions to enter into questions of this sort.

I do not think there is the least reason why we should accept this Amendment, nor the other Amendments to which the hon. and learned Member was referring at the same time. The Amendment dealing with the question of satisfactory evidence might lead to very unfortunate results. If we eliminate the words "satisfactory evidence," as the hon. and learned Member desires, and insert instead the words "three responsible householders," we shall be taking away the one safeguard there is as to character. As an hon. Member has pointed out, it is possible for any man, even the most disreputable man in the district—[HON. MEMBERS: "Members of Parliament"]— yes, Members of Parliament, and others even more doubtful even than Members of Parliament, to find three responsible householders who will say his character is satisfactory. I do not know what the hon. and learned Gentleman meant by "responsible householders." He did not give us any definition of the word "responsible."

It is the usual phrase.

We are supposed to have a responsible Government at the present time, but I very much doubt whether any of us on this side of the House would accept that adjective as applied to the present Government. Anyhow, it seems to me there is no real point in this Amendment and no real grievance to be removed, because I notice that further on in the Clause provision is made for dealing with a case where a person feels aggrieved. If a petty sessional court refuses to grant a certificate the applicant may appeal to the court of quarter sessions in the manner provided by the Summary Jurisdiction Acts. That is provided for in sub-section (7) of this Clause. That provision safeguards the right of people who apply for these certificates, and, therefore, I think all of us ought to resist this Amendment.

I have no desire to persist in an Amendment which has not some chance of being carried. My object in putting down these amendments was not to be obstructive, but to try to improve the Bill. I was not very much impressed by the argument that magistrates are more ready of access, because I do not see why you require readiness of access. Off and on, they can be found certainly for one half of every month, and there is no great hurry about it. I was more impressed by the argument that was used about pawnbrokers. It would, perhaps, be a little anomalous that a pawnbroker should go to the magistrates for a certificate of character, while the moneylender should go to the county court judge, but I would like to point out, as bearing upon the subsidiary part of these Amendments, that that distinction between pawnbrokers and moneylenders really arises from the very quotation that was made by the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley), to the effect that, before a pawnbroker can obtain a certificate, he has to post up his application on the church door, and some inquiry has to be made as to whether the place in respect of which he is applying is a resort of thieves, or whether he is familiar with thieves. The House will see at once that a pawnbroker, although a highly respectable man, has to carry on his business just at a spot for which receivers of stolen goods would make a bee-line. He cannot help that, hut it is so. If there were no pawnbrokers' establishments, receivers of stolen goods, or thieves themselves, would not know where to go with their spoil. Therefore, it is very essential that a person carrying on business in such an establishment as that of a pawnbroker should be a person of the very highest character. A moneylender, however, has no establishment to which thieves or persons of that kind can resort. He does not carry on business at a place over which it is necessary that the police should have a surveillance; he merely carries on the business of moneylending, just as a banker does, although he charges a higher rate of interest.

I would like to ask the hon. and learned Member whether he is aware of the fact that for sums over £;10 a moneylender can take security just as the pawnbroker can—either stolen goods or goods belonging to the borrower.

What I was pointing out, not at all adversely to the pawnbroker, was that., on principle, there is a difference in the case of a person who carries on business in an establishment that is abused by thieves and receivers of stolen goods. It is no fault of the pawnbroker, but that is the nature of the establishment, and, therefore, it is essential that such an establishment should be carefully guarded by having in control of it a person who is undoubtedly of the highest integrity, as I am glad to say most of them are. In the case of the moneylender, there is no such need for this safeguard. No cue resorts to his establishment except persons wanting a loan of money. No thief would go there; no person of bad character would go there; they would have nothing to gain by going there. However, as regards the general Amendment, I see that there is no chance of its being carried, and, therefore, I am not going to waste time over it, but, as regards the subsidiary Amendments, I would ask the promoter of the Bill whether he could not see his way to leave out Sub-section (6, a) altogether, because, after all, Sub-section (6, b) gives what is wanted. Paragraph (a) says that the person applying for a certificate must give affirmative evidence of good character. Paragraph (b) says that he is not to get the certificate if anyone is able to give evidence that he is not a fit and proper person, and, surely, that is quite sufficient. After all, why should a man who applies for a licence, or a certificate on which to obtain a licence, to carry on what is avowedly a legitimate business, be forced to go to court and prove in advance that he is a person of good character? Is it not quite sufficient that he should get his certificate unless someone is able to come forward and say that he is not a man of good character? I think it would be quite sufficient if paragraph (a) were struck out, leaving paragraph (b).

Does the hon. and learned Member press this Amendment?

I should like to hear from the promoter of the Bill whether there is any chance of striking out paragraph (a).

I am sorry not to be able to oblige the hon. and learned Member. We consider that both of these paragraphs are necessary. The one is the positive and the other is the negative.

In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Is the pleasure of the House that the Amendment be withdrawn?

This Amendment, I understand, has been duly moved and seconded. May we rot insist upon its going to a Division?

Yes, if the hon. Member objects to its being withdrawn.

Yes, Sir, I object to its being withdrawn.

I beg to move, in page 5, line 24, to leave out the words "may, if it thinks fit," and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."

12 n.

I hope that, after all the eulogy we have had as to the efficiency and the good services rendered by benches of magistrates, this Amendment will be accepted. Otherwise, the position would be that, where a moneylender's licence had been taken away and his business stopped, and where the conviction was quashed on appeal, the moneylender would have no recompense whatever in respect of any stoppage of his business in the meantime. To my mind, his business should not be stopped until it is definitely decided that his licence is to be taken away. Seldom have I seen the iron hand shielded so ingeniously as it is in this Clause. It is full of hatred, contempt, and everything else. I have already said, both in the Standing Committee and in the Select Committee, that there are bad moneylenders—I have had some experience of them; and there are also very bad borrowers. Why should the moneylenders be singled out—

As if they were landlords!

No; you take good care on that side of the House to protect the landlord. If you gave the moneylender half the justice and equity with regard to carrying on his legitimate business that you give the landlord, it would be all right, but my quarrel is that you single him out more than any other trader.

The one lends houses and the other money.

If the hon. and learned Member will put his objection in an intelligible form I will deal with it. I desire to compress what I have to say into as short a time as possible, but I want to ask the promoters of the Bill to look at the matter in this light, that, even in the case of the worst forms of crime—even up to the degree of murder—the sentence is not put into operation if an appeal is lodged—

You could not hang a man who might be acquitted on appeal.

I dare say not, but my argument is that I want to make it a direct—I do not know exactly what the word is; my difficulty is that I have to think in Welsh and speak in English, and the proper word does not readily come to my lips. [Interruption.] I dare say that would put me in a further fog still. The hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) has gone out, so he cannot help me out of the difficulty. The magistrates may regard it as a direction to them to consider and, if they think fit, not suspend the work of the moneylender if an appeal has been lodged. I hope this will meet with a better fate than my other Amendment. It is a very small one, but it will do something to show that there is no desire to single out these people for special treatment.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I feel it is only justice to any person who may be deprived of some right, or perhaps feel that some injustice has been put upon him, that he should have an opportunity of appeal. That is only fair. Whether he is a moneylender, a borrower or an ordinary Member of Parliament or whatever he may be, he ought to have an opportunity of appeal, particularly from a lower Court. The case for the Amendment is considerably strengthened by the refusal of the House to agree that the County Court Judge should be the person who should deal with the licence. If the promoters are not prepared to accept the Amendment I hope they will give reasons for their refusal. Up to now we have had very few reasons why they could not accept this, that and the other. They have made general statements, about which they have submitted very little evidence indeed. I associate myself with the Amendment in order to give hon. Gentlemen an opportunity, if they cannot accept it, of showing their reason.

I had not the advantage of being on the Committee of this Bill, but unless there are some better reasons than those brought forward by the last two speakers, I hope the Clause will be allowed to stay as it is. To accept the Amendment would be to destroy the discretion that is vested in the magistrates and compel them to do something they are not compelled to do in any other case so far as I know. In some cases the magistrate has certain powers, and exercise them. In others he has certain discretions, and exercises them. But, in this case, if the Amendment is accepted the discretion would be taken away from him. In a very bad case it would be very wrong not to suspend a moneylender's licence simply because he had a right of appeal, and unless there are some very good reasons to the contrary I hope the Amendment will be resisted.

I hope we are going to hear from the promoters what their view is on this point. They seem rather reluctant to let the House know where they stand on the matter. I support my hon. Friend in resisting it. It seems to me the court would not decide to suspend a certificate unless it had very good reason for doing so. We may assume that suspension moans that in the view of the court the business has been conducted in an improper and illegal fashion. If that is so, there seems to be no good reason why it should he allowed to continue in that fashion for an indefinite period of time. I am not a lawyer, and I do not pretend to know very much about how much time is taken in getting through an appeal of this kind, but we hear a lot about the law's delays, and there is no telling how long a period will elapse between the order of the court and the hearing of the appeal, but it might be several months, and if the business is conducted in an improper and illegal fashion, that seems highly undesirable in the public interest. The Clause provides that the Court may exercise its discretion and may, if it thinks fit, allow the business to be carried on. That is quite an adequate safeguard, and it seems to me we certainly ought to resist the Amendment.

I hope the House will not agree to the Amendment. Under similar conditions, a pawnbroker who is refused a certificate has no right of appeal and the Court has no discretion to allow him to continue his business. It is no hardship that this matter is left to the discretion of the Court. If you take it away they will be compelled to allow the moneylender to continue his business though there may be a serious conviction.

I am not quite satisfied with the explanation of the promoters. They seem to attach a great deal of importance to the discretionary power of the magistrates. Personally I would prefer to see the County Court Judge come into this matter. I am not satisfied that magistrates are strong in these eases. It seem s to me that if a case has been sufficiently made out, the granting of a right of appeal should be compulsory instead of optional.

It seems to me that there is very great force in this Amendment. It is somewhat unfair to carry out a sentence upon a man before the litigation is finally concluded. It is somewhat unusual, because in this case you may destroy a man's business between the time of conviction and his licence being taken away, and the appeal. It is all very well, if he is successful in his appeal, to give him back his business, but you have damaged it very severely in the meantime, and the man is innocent if he succeeds in his appeal. Comparison has been made with the taking away of a man's motor licence. I do not see that the eases we parallel at all. Merely to take away a man's licence, does not hurt him very much, but here you are taking away his business, and, after that, you hand it back to him, because you have found him to be innocent. As to the length of time before an appeal can be taken, it is an appeal to Quarter Sessions and Quarter Sessions are held quarterly. Therefore, an appeal cannot be outstanding for more than three months, and, in all probability, in most cases, would be outstanding for a very much less period. I think there is great force in this Amendment, and I shall support it.

As one strongly in favour or this Bill, I think there is very great force in this Amendment, and I should like to hear a great deal more argument from the other side before I decide to vote against it. A good many Members of the House are rather surprised to hear some of the Members above the Gangway expressing such views about magistrates, in view of what has been said in recent weeks in this House about those same bodies in another connection. I have got myself thoroughly mixed up as to the views hon. Members above the Gangway take concerning magistrates, but it seems to me that, if a bench of magistrates gives a decision against a moneylender who then wants to appeal, it is certainly very hard that his business should be closed down before the final appeal is settled. There is very great force in this Amendment, and I should like to hear more about it. We regard this Bill as a Measure to deal with the devil, but there is a proverb that even the devil should have his due, and this Amendment does tend to give even the devil his due.

It is quite familiar in practice and under Statute in case of either offences or crimes that after a right of appeal is given a deferring of the sentence should operate in some way or of her. I think it is equally familiar that in and because of lesser crimes or offences a discretion as to what is to happen pending an appeal is given to the inferior court that gives the sentence. In the case of the more serious crimes, the sentence comes into operation at once, but you are entitled to go to the Court of Appeal to get relief such as liberation from prison pending appeal. Undoubtedly, the present class of case falls under the minor class of cases, certainly, so far as Scotland is concerned. [AN HON. MEMBER: "What about England? "] I shall be very surprised if it is any different in England, and certainly the instance given of the motor car applies to both and is a parallel instance. No instance has been stated where the sentence automatically is deferred without any discretion in the Court of Appeal or inferior court. It is quite different in civil matters, but I am talking of cases of offences or crime. One of the reasons for that undoubtedly is that it is advisable to give a discretion in such matters to prevent frivolous appeals. There may he, of course, a very bad case where a licence is refused quite rightly and an appeal is obviously hopeless, but the man will appeal in spite of that, and, having under this Amendment, if it be accepted, the right to carry on his business, he will carry on that appeal as long as he can.

The only point that remains to be dealt with is whether this discretion is, in practice or experience, likely to be fairly exercised. The words "if they think fit," I should think, make it obvious, even to the most obtuse magistrate that to shut down a man when he is going to appeal is bound, in most cases, to have a very serious effect upon his business. I think for the most part they undoubtedly would act in that way, and they would not prejudice a man if he had any reasonable grounds of appeal by causing the suspension of the licence at once. On the other hand, there may be cases where an evil is going on which it is the purpose of the proceedings to stop, an evil which is affecting the community generally or particular persons, and which ought to be stopped at once. Are you going to exclude the court from a right in cases of that kind from saying, "No, we shall not suspend the cancellation of this certificate pending appeal." Undoubtedly, that is the exceptional case. For these reasons, the Government are against the acceptance of this Amendment. They believe the provision in the Clause is right and fair, always hearing in mind—and it is not an unimportant point—that the pawnbroker gets no right of appeal at all. It is in favour of moneylenders, and it is quite proper that we should allow it to be administered under the ordinary safeguards and discretions.

It is very interesting to hear from the Front Bench for the first time an original statement—

The hon. Member has already spoken on this Amendment.

Am I not in order in drawing the attention of the House to the absence of the Solicitor-General, who ought to be in his place to interpret these legal points?

Mr. Harney!

I would like to make a few observations in reply to the very clear—

I see from my Paper that the hon. and learned Member has also spoken.

Not on this Amendment.

Was it on the last Amendment.

Yes. I would like to make a few observations in reply to the very clear statement made by the Lord Advocate. It certainly is so, that when a right of appeal is given the period between the first judgment and the final conclusion of the appeal has to be dealt with in some way as regards the operation of the suspension. In civil cases, what is done in this. A discretion is given to withhold the operation of an appeal. That is called a stay of execution. My experience is, that when a Judge gives a judgment he is very loth to exercise that discretion in favour of the person. In most cases persons have to go to the Court of Appeal, and the Court of Appeal generally allows the status quo to be preserved on money being paid into court. There is a distinction drawn in the quasi-criminal cases between the severe ones and the lighter ones. I do not think there is any principle governing the distinction between major and minor offences. I think it is entirely a matter of degree. The rule undoubtedly is this, that where, in a criminal judgment, there is anything that really very largely affects a man's liberty or right of action, he is permitted to carry on as if the judgment were in his favour until the final result, namely, the Court of Appeal. In fines such as fines in connection with motor cars, undoubtedly the discretion is left to the magistrate. In this case, what we have to consider is, having regard to the effect of the magistrate's judgment, ought we the House of Commons, say, "This is one of those cases where the operation ought to be suspended until the final and conclusive decision has been given"? In my opinion, it is just one of those cases, because what is done is most serious to the man. The man's livelihood in that class of business depends upon his possession of the certificate.

The withdrawal of the certificate by the judge or the magistrate means that his business is stopped. Every week or month that passes, his goodwill is passing away, and ultimately there may come a judgment restoring something which has died in the interval. That ought to be guarded against. Of course, there are possible abuses, and we have to weigh one thing against the other. One possible abuse may be that there may be a case where the certificate was perfectly properly taken away and an appeal was hopeless, but where the person concerned says: "I will appeal, and I shall get a couple of months grace until the appeal has been heard." Compared with the number of cases there may be of that kind, there will be an infinitely greater number where the hardship would fall on the man who may ultimately succeed in his appeal. On the balance, I submit that it is fair to bring this class of case into conformity with what the Lord Advocate rightly tells us is the rule in regard to sentences or decrees of a really serious character.

I was in favour of this Amendment until I heard two arguments against it. The hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) would have led the House to believe that in motor car cases there is no penalty at all on the person whose licence is cancelled, that all that happens is that the licence is taken away, and that the man's livelihood is not taken away. I always understood that there are many men who e tan their livelihood by driving motor cars; and if you take away the licence you take away the man's livelihood too. Consequently, that argument falls to the ground. The motor car licence falls into the same category as the licence about which we are talking. A further argument which makes me think I ought not to support this Amendment. is that the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment said that all he was doing was to substitute the word "may" for the word "shall." That is not what he is doing He is proposing to remove the words

"may, if it thinks fit."

If the result of his Amendment would be to provide that

"The Court shall, if it thinks fit."

I might support him but that is not his Amendment. If we carry the Amendment, the position would be that the court would be bound, however bad a case may be, however definite the conviction may be, to allow the business to be carried on, in spite of the fact that the case is as clear as daylight and a conviction has ensued. I should have thought that if a conviction had ensued in a case of this kind, the man could not carry on his business. When this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament and a conviction has ensued under it, the man's business will, I imagine, have finished, in spite of any appeal. I do not know as much about this kind of business as other hon. Members.

You know a bit about the Home Office.

I know very little about the intricacy of either borrowing or lending, but I should have thought that in a business of this kind, when a moneylender was convicted in a court of law, and a report of the proceedings appeared in the press, that his business would have been damaged for a long time to come, in spite of the fact that he had an appeal pending. For the reasons which I have given, I shall vote against the Amendment.

The last speaker expressed what may be said against this Amendment. Frivolous appeals, or appeals merely for delay should be discouraged. With respect to the question of appeals, I remember on one occasion being briefed by a man who was prosecuted and convicted with respect to milk adulteration. He instructed me to intimate an appeal in court. I asked him: "Why are you making an appeal? You have not a dog's chance if you do, appeal." After leaving the court I stated the grounds against his succeeding in the appeal, and he replied. "Never mind, it will get into the newspapers, and when people see that I am appealing, and the appeal does not come on for perhaps six months, we will drop it, and the offence will be forgotten. I felt that my leg had been pulled in the matter, and I would not have intimated the appeal had I known why it was being done. An Amendment of the Clause in these words might meet the case with which the Committee seeks to deal:

"The Court shall, pending an appeal, unless cause be shown to the contrary, defer operation of the order."

That would show that the Court must have some reason for taking away the certificate. There must be some good cause shown.

I do not wish to show special favour to moneylenders. I know that they have no friends. No man who lends money has friends. It is said that the man who lends money loses his friends. It is the same with a landowner who lends a house to a man for a rent, which is another form of money lending. Both these classes of "lenders" are unpopular members of the community. The moneylender ought to get justice, however unpopular he may be, and it seems to me that this provision would operate harshly unless the Court has the power pending an appeal to defer operations unless it has reasons for not doing so. It would be open for the prosecution to say to the Court: "This is a very bad case, and for that reason the licence should be suspended.' Some such provision as I suggest would probably meet the case better than the words in the Bill.

I was interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) when he said that he had been neither a borrower nor a lender. I am not ashamed to say that I have been both. It is a remarkable thing that a Member of this House can say truthfully that he has never been a lender of money. My experience is that when people come to you to ask for charity they also ask you to lend them half a crown. The hon. Member argued that if the certificate happens to have been suspended, the man cannot carry on business, and that the business must necessarily cease. There is a considerable difference between the business of a moneylender and other businesses which may be closed down by order of the Court. In the case of the moneylender, the business does not consist merely in lending money. The money has to be received back. What is to happen in regard to a man whose certificate has been suspended, if he cannot continue to carry on business of any kind and receive back the money which is justly due to him from the people to whom he has lent it? His office ought to be open to receive back the money. If the magistrate had the discretion to be able to say that pending the appeal no further business of lending money should take place, I would agree; but if we say that he shall not carry on any business at all—it will be found that it would be interpreted in that way—the man will be in the position that he cannot receive back the money that is owing to him. That would be very unfair.

We have had learned opinions given this morning. The Lord Advocate has given his opinion, and the hon. and learned Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Grotrian), who is the Recorder of Scarborough, and has had considerable experience as regards appeals at Quarter Sessions, has given his opinion. Then we had an expression of opinion from the hon. and learned Member for South

I beg to move, in page 6, line 1, to leave out Sub-section (1).

I realise that I am struggling against adversity, and I shall put my case very; shortly as I have already ventilated the point in Committee. This is another instance of prejudice being introduced with a good deal of effect. My Amendment is one of principle—

Not interest?

I am not talking of capital, but of the principle with regard to the actions that may arise from anything done in this House. Why should moneylenders be treated differently from any other trade? It is well known that companies registered before 1916 are not compelled to publish these particulars. No other company incorporated before then has to show the particulars mentioned in the Sub-section which I seek to delete, and I do not see why different treatment should he meted out, unless it is to create prejudice against the moneylending company. It will not cost the promoters anything to agree to this Amendment, and thus to rid this Bill of some of the cargo with which they have overloaded it. They have introduced matters which have not been before the Select Committee and which have not been discussed very fully upstairs. I could give some very nasty instances on that point. One of my objections to the triple set of these Bids is that so much of them is due to the ignorant spite caused by Noble Lords its another place stepping down from their high judicial position because of personal prejudice in order to frame a Measure. I want to rid this Measure of spite and personal prejudice. The Government ought to have taken the matter in hand themselves and conducted an inquiry and given us a fair Bill. The bulk of moneylenders are respectable and are trying to carry on an honest trade. If the Measure was tempered with more of the milk of human kindness, and if more justice and equity were put into it, it would get on very much better.

I beg to second the Amendment. I agree with the general remarks made by the hon. Member. I have never been able to see why a business that must be regarded as legal should be treated with that kind of vindictiveness which certainly characterised this Bill in its early stages. As to the Amendment, hon. Members will remember that by an Act passed in 1917 certain companies were called upon to publish certain particulars. That Act said that companies should not be asked to give those particulars if they were already in existence, and that it should only apply to companies formed afterwards. This Bill says that the provisions of that Act shall apply with the necessary modifications to every moneylending company, even though they were formed before 1916. Why make an absurd exception? In the case of ordinary companies you say that they shall only be required to give these particulars if they were formed after the Act comes into operation. That is perfectly right and proper, but it is not fair that ten years later you should come along and say that it shall apply retrospectively to moneylending companies.

This particular Amendment of the Companies Acts dealing with company directors was passed during the War, and it required all companies registered after its passing to publish certain particulars, including the names of the directors of the company. It was a very simple Measure passed in order that persons who dealt with the companies might know whether they were dealing with British subjects or with foreigners. Every company established after the date of the passing of the Act had to give those particulars, but a company registered before 1917 was not required to give them as it was assumed to be conducted by British subjects. It is proposed now that that exemption with regard to companies registered before 1917 should not apply to moneylending firms. Shortly, it amounts to this, that in future every firm of moneylenders registered under the Companies Acts, either privately or publicly, will have to publish the names of their directors, and people will then be able to know with whom they are dealing.

I have no objection to their being compelled to give particulars. My objection was because you are making a fish of one and fowl of another. Parliament has said that it will not be retrospective for companies generally, but this Bill makes it retrospective for one class of company.

I ask the House to support me in opposing this Amendment in order that these companies may be called upon to give the names of their directors. Surely there is no hardship in that.

I hope this Amendment will not be accepted. I have noticed we have had a lawyer speaking in support of it, and it was said during the last discussion that the weight of legal argument was on the side of the moneylenders. As I listened to the discussion this morning, it occurred to me that, if the weight of legal argument is on the side of the moneylenders, it might not be unconnected with the fact that the weight of money is also on their side. It has been said, "Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." The fact that there is a great financial interest behind this moneylending business may not be unconnected with the ardent support given by lawyers in this House to the moneylending interests. We ought to do everything possible to make it difficult for disreputable moneylending firms to carry on business. Those who are carrying on an honest straightforward business will not he afraid to proclaim to the world what their real names are, and I think there is no justification at all for this Amendment.

I supported my hon. and gallant Friend in his last Amendment, but I am afraid that I cannot support him in this one. I was to some extent disappointed in the arguments adduced in favour of the Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman on the Liberal benches asked that we should not make fish of one kind of company and fowl of another. Now I do not want to suggest any other kind of company is of a "fishy" nature or that the moneylending business is necessarily "fowl," but one must realise that the moneylending business is not exactly the same kind of commercial business as is carried on by an ordinary company engaged in commerce, and, that being the case, the House ought not to support the Amendment.

I should like to support my hon. and gallant Friend, because it is extremely unfair to make fish of one and flesh of another, but, if that rule were applied, we should find that the Amendment would make fish of one and flesh of another as far as new companies and old companies are concerned. It would draw a distinction in the matter of names between the new company and the old company which would be very prejudicial to the new company. It will be unfair to make the new companies do something which the old companies were not required to do.

I beg to move, in page 7, line 20, after the word "circulation,'' to insert the words "or by means of any poster or placard."

I am the first Member on this side of the House to move an Amendment on this Bill, but I do attach great importance to this Amendment because, when introduced a Bill on this subject last year, I had the advantage of having it considered by a Joint Committee, and we unanimously came to the conclusion to remove the possibility of the individual appeal by the moneylender or those connected with a money-lending company to private persons. Moneylending is a legal profession undoubtedly, and you must allow moneylenders some means of advertising their vocation. It was agreed at that time that they ought to be allowed to insert advertisements in the newspapers, because that would not be a personal appeal to any young man or woman who might be taken in by a circular. But then it was said that by doing so we should make it possible for moneylenders to buy a large number of newspapers, to mark their advertisements, and to send them broadcast to individuals, just as they do with circulars. To mark a newspaper and send it broadcast would be acting against the law. I would draw attention to the Amendment in the name of the Financial Secretary to the War Office which is next on the Paper, to leave out certain words in the same Clause. I think the moneylender ought to be allowed to have a placard outside his establishment to proclaim his vocation, since the profession of moneylending is legal, but I have the strongest possible objection to having placards advertising moneylenders all over the streets and inviting people to borrow money. That may be the result of this Bill becoming law as it stands. There are, of course, a very large number of moneylenders who carry on their business in a highly proper manner and like other people they are suffering for the sins of those who do not carry on their business honestly. Those are the people who would advertise in this way and destroy the purpose of the Bill. I hope that this Amendment will receive the general assent of the House, because I think it is highly important that we should make it perfectly clear that the promoters of the Bill desire to remove that direct appeal to individuals by circulars or other means. At Charing Cross Railway Station the other day I met a sandwich man carrying a placard on the top of which were these words

"Why not come to my firm and have all your financial worries cured?"

From the evidence we have had before us I do not think anyone wants his financial worries cured in such a manner. If you allow the Bill to stand as it is now we are not going to do very much good. We do not want to boost up any other trade or profession by this Bill, but we are out to try to do our best, while giving perfectly fair treatment, to moneylenders, to remove temptation from those who are likely to be taken in by the appeals of dishonest moneylenders because a fool and his money are soon parted. We have to get rid of touting on behalf of these dishonest moneylenders who are causing a great deal of suffering and misery.

I beg to second the Amendment.

1.0 p.m.

A previous speaker commented on the number of lawyers who spoke on behalf of the money-lending fraternity. I have no personal acquintance with them but I know about them professionally. My professional knowledge is confined to the receipt of a large number of their circulars since I became a Member of Parliament. They seem to think that as soon as a man is elected to this House he will be likely to be in need of money. I do not approve either of their touting or of their advertising, and I think we should restrict this aspect of their business as much as possible. I confess I am greatly disappointed with the Bill as it stands. It misses out one of the most essential provisions, if foolish borrowers are to be protected. There ought to have been a provision, such as I adumbrated when a Moneylenders Bill was introduced by another hon. Member last year—I mean a provision against moneylenders taking written statements or declarations from intending borrowers.

Will the hon. and learned Member explain what part of the Amendment he is dealing with now?

The hon. and learned Member's arguments are considerably wide of the Amendment but on this Amendment the House can discuss the whole of Clause 4.

It is the practice of certain of the evil type of moneylenders to send their clients to another moneylender, who, very often, is the representative of the first moneylender. They tell him that they have no more money to lend, but believe that their friend has. But they enjoin him not in any circumstances to tell the new lender that he either knows the first lender, or that he owes him any money. When he goes to the second moneylender, the second moneylender will say that he does not suppose that the wretched borrower, whom we will call Mr. Snooks, owes anything to any other moneylender. When he recalls what he has been told by the first one, he confirms this statement, and he is then asked to sign a statement to that effect, as it will be needed to raise the money for him. The wretched borrower signs, and then he is in the toils, and, when the crash comes, he is threatened with criminal proceedings for obtaining money by false pretences. He then goes to his widowed mother or his clergyman father, and weeps that he is in danger of being sent to gaol, whereupon they, terrified by the prospect of such an exposure, pawn all that they have in order to pay the debt. They are too ashamed to consult even the family solicitor, or tell anyone about it. The borrower knows, and his next-of-kin know, that he has signed a lie. The moneylenders knew that it was a lie, and deliberately set the booby-trap for him, intending to use it as I have described.

If that is so, is it not a form of blackmail, and therefore the moneylender who does it can be prosecuted if he dares to use such a declaration?

I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member, but the point is that it never gets to the length of a criminal prosecution. The wretched borrower knows that he has told a lie and he is in terror. I have had a moneylender come to me and say, "Your client signed this." I replied, "On whom are you trying that?" And I told him that I would have him in the Fiscal's hands if he was not careful. I put the blackmail on the other foot. Some of the lower grade moneylenders have a clearing house for dealing with these matters. One of them will say to a would-be borrower, "I am tired of lending you money. Go to Mr. So-and-so. He has a lot of money to lend; but do not tell him you owe money to me."

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman dealing with the whole of the Bill or with this particular Amendment?

I am dealing with this Clause. The hon. Gentleman should not be quite so sensitive about it. I wish to ask my hon. Friends who are promoting this Bill whether they could not get such an Amendment as I have indicated, to deal with declarations, used in another place? It is the root of the whole difficulty. It is a form of blackmail that is used for collecting money from a man's next-of-kin. There is a difference between the banker and the moneylender. The banker lends you money when you have some, but the moneylender lends it when you have none. It is to prevent the next-of-kin of the unfortunate borrower being punished by the use of this kind of declaration that I wish to see the matter dealt with, if possible, in another place. With the Amendment as far as it goes, I have every sympathy.

In the Bill as originally introduced by me circulars, posters and placards were all prohibited, but advertisements were allowed in newspapers under certain restrictions. The matter was thoroughly discussed in Committee, and under pressure I agreed to remove placards and posters from the prohibition. Of course, advertisements in newspapers and posters and placards do constitute a personal affront in the same way as the circular which reaches you by post in the morning. You are not bound to read advertisements in newspapers or posters on the walls or placards on the hoardings. Therefore I do not regard this as a vital element in the Bill. At the same time there are others who think that posters and placards should he prohibited, and if the House desires the Clause to be restored as it was when the Bill came before the House for Second Reading, I have no objection.

I understand that we can deal generally with the whole Clause on this Amendment. There are two Amendments on the Paper in my name. One is to insert, after the word "placard," the words "or by means of a circular or business card." I do not agree entirely with the strong views expressed by another hon. Member about these circulars generally. I confess that I have not been able to see much distinction between the scented envelopes of the moneylenders and the very elaborate things sent out by tea dealers and sugar dealers and cigar merchants and wine merchants. I throw them all into the wastepaper basket, and I am annoyed by the one no more than by the other. If I were on the lookout for wine, I should take the wine circular, but I am well supplied already. I do not think there is any just ground of complaint against these circulars being sent out by tradesmen. If they do not interest you, you throw them on one side. But we have had to bow to the storm of prejudice against such circulars. It is provided in the Bill that the only way money-lenders can make themselves known to the public is by some document or other that will give their name, their address, their telegraphic address and their telephone number, and stating the fact that they lend money. That is all that they are allowed to do.

The purpose of all these Amendments is to ascertain in what way they ought to do that very limited thing. No one wants them to do more. There have been three suggested methods. One is that they ought to be allowed to do it by a business card. The other is that they ought to be allowed to do it by placard or poster. The third is that they ought to be allowed to do it through the medium of the public press. Before the Select Committee, Lord Darling, the President, referring to Lord Phillimore, said:

"I think the Noble and learned Lord will find there is no difficulty for a moneylender to start his business. He may send out business cards. There is a provision as to that and as to putting advertisements in the newspapers."

The Bill as drafted excludes the business card, and allows the advertisement, and, as to the poster and placard, I think there was some misunderstanding. I have here what the hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Burman) said in Committee:

"The Bill as it stands permits a poster or placard outside the registered premises but prohibits them generally on hoardings. The chief reason why circulars have been prohibited is because they are a great annoyance and vexation to the public, but I do not think that reason applies to the same extent with regard to the poster or placard which is a legitimate method of advertising the business, and the promoters will raise no objection to the acceptance of the Amendment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A., 5th April, 1927; col. 77.]

That was an Amendment dealing with the use of placards generally. The Bill does not carry out that proposition, because a poster or placard can only be exhibited at the authorised address, so that as the Bill stands, the only way in which a man who is carrying on this legitimate business—who must be of good character, and who is restricted in a score of other ways—can make himself known to the public, is by a placard outside his premises or by putting an advertisement in the newspaper. These are two very inadequate methods. Once you recognise that his business is legitimate and is properly safeguarded, every channel in ordinary commercial and business usage should be open to him for making himself known. You shut him out from anything in the nature of an invitation, anything like a tout, anything like a puff. Everybody else—the wine merchant, and the tobacco merchant—may tout and puff and humbug us, sending out rosy descriptions of their wares, but the moneylender can do nothing but state "This is my address, this is my telephone number, and the business I do is that of lending money." When you limit him in that way, you ought to open every window to him for making those facts known.

I draw the attention of the House to two or three reasons why the particular method selected, namely that of advertising in a newspaper, is a bad one, and one likely to defeat the very purpose which the promoters have in view. At present, a great deal of money is spent by moneylenders in sending out circulars. They are now told they cannot expend that money on circulars, but they can expend it in the Press. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent a person inserting the few particulars which are allowed as a full-page advertisement on the front of the "Daily Mail." Fancy the front page of the "Daily Mail" with such an announcement as this: "John Jones—or Snooks, or whatever it may be. My telephone number is,—, my telegraphic address is—. I lend money to all comers." Do you think that in such a case a newspaper proprietor could not in the first place put up the prices and in the second place say to the moneylender, "My friend, if you send a good fat half-page or full-page advertisement, I will give you a puff in my leaderettes"? The result will be that instead of the circular which falls quietly into the postal receptacle, which is opened quietly at the breakfast table, and thrown quietly into the waste-paper basket, you will have flashing advertisements in the public Press, and insidious puffs which cannot be given in the circulars but which can be given through a third party in the Press. The wise course is to adopt Lord Darling's advice, and allow these gentlemen to send out their business cards. Prevent them if you like from doing what other business men can do, namely, using puffs, but since you limit them to a mere announcement of their existence, let them make that existence known in the ordinary business way by card, instead of forcing them into the public Press. To force them into the Press will defeat the object which the promoters have in view and will be unfair to the small printers in the country who will be cut out of the profit which is to be made by printing these circulars, while the rich monopoly newspapers will benefit.

We have reached what is probably one of the most important Clauses of the Bill. I think I am right in saying that had it not been for moneylenders' circulars, which were sent out so openly to everybody, this Bill might never have been brought forward. I do not know why the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) should complain about the proposals of the Amendment to impose these restrictions. Having listened to the Debates on this subject for some weeks, I confess that if I had my way, I would place the moneylender, for purposes of advertisement, in the same category as the lawyer. I would not allow any advertisement of any kind which invited anybody to borrow money.

On a point of Order. Is this something new which is being sprung upon us? There is surely nothing in law to prevent a doctor or a legal man advertising in his own way. This is trying to put the camel through the eye of the needle—bringing forward these spurious arguments.

It would have to be a big needle. I do not know whether there are any restrictions in law on the legal profession in this respect, or whether it is by custom, or by regulation, but they do not advertise.

It is due to our modesty.

At any rate, in the legal and the medical professions there is no advertisement. If you want a good lawyer, or a bad lawyer, you have to search for him. The same rule, I am informed, applies to the Stock Exchange. I do not see, therefore, why the hon. and learned Member should complain about the advertisements of moneylenders being restricted. There is an Amendment to be moved later, on behalf of the Home Office, which will prohibit any placards at the place of business of the moneylender. That is a further restriction, and I welcome it. Cases appear in the Press every day, showing the terribly tragic consequences which arise from this business of moneylending. Later on, I shall have something to say on the general principle of moneylending. The hon. and learned Member for South Shields during the Committee stage, and also to-day, has several times expressed the view that moneylending is like any other business. I decline to accept that view. Moneylending is a business apart. If I have £100 to lend and a man who is penniless comes and borrows that £100, that man is in bondage to me until he has repaid that sum. Consequently, I say that lending money is an entirely different business from an ordinary transaction and—

What about if he gets credit for goods; is he not in bondage then?

That is Home Office honesty.

I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Rhondda (Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan) does not want me to enter into combat with him. I should prefer an argument with hon. Members opposite, but these two Amendments on Clause 4, in my view, are very necssary, and any Amendments whatsoever that would restrict this business within very definite limits are welcome, so far as I am concerned.

I also am in favour of both these Amendments. I have been opposed to the moneylending business all my life, because I believe its ramifications are inimical to the general population. I would like to submit to the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) that in his speech just now he said that the quiet dropping of these circulars into a postal receptacle was no greater danger than the sending of wine circulars and so on, but according to the Bill the moneylenders will not be allowed to send out these circulars.

I pointed that out.

I welcome that part of the Bill too, that in future they will not be allowed to send us, as they do now almost weekly, in what the hon. and learned Member rightly described as scented envelopes, circulars very ingeniously worded. I am not speaking for myself, because I have never been in the clutches of the moneylenders, having always learned to say, "No, thank you" to that kind of inducement.

You can only send the name and address now, and I was dealing with the point as to whether it was better that that, and that only, should be done through the post or through a newspaper.

I think the ingenious circulars sent out to all and sundry—

They cannot be ingenious, because only the name and address are allowed.

I welcome provisions tightening up the possibilities of these people, because of my experience of the horror, the harshness, and the insidiousness of the circulars sent out by them. It is easy to see that these circulars are intended not only for the unwary but for people who are really in the moment of need, and I submit that anything that we can do to prevent their distribution we should do. While it is not a legal restriction that prevents lawyers or doctors from advertising, but is a part of the custom of those professions, they have discovered it to be profitable to maintain a select security, and anything that we can do to put moneylenders in a similar position will be a step in the right direction. I submit that there is no need for people who have money to lend or to give to have either puffs from newspapers or these nicely worded circulars sent out. I am very astounded that there should be people in this country running about with the desire to lend money, and it suggests itself to me that, of course, the motive is that of extorting a very high rate of interest for the money lent. I am sorry that in this Bill we could not have dealt with the widespread credit system in this country under which people are invited to get goods, not coin.

If moneylenders want to be treated, as the hon. and learned Member for South Shields suggested, as on an equal footing with other industries, they might themselves open places in London and exhibit their goods, just as the people who sell wines in Holborn illustrate their brands in shop windows. I am sure they would not want any circulars if they exhibited ordinary sovereigns for loan. Let them openly take offices in London and not send circulars to poor people in the country or send poor people along the Strand, carrying placards. The hon. and learned Member for South Shields would, I suppose, say that people who are strong enough would pass them by and not be affected, but he knows as well as I do that in this land to-day there are many clever and insidious ways in which people of cupidity are capable of impressing, not their wares, but their ideas on the common people, and I believe that the use of these artifices has for many years affected, not only the poor artisan people, but many of the middle-class people also, until they have got into the hands of moneylenders and found themselves, in the end, bankrupt. I am sure that any Amendment restricting the possibilities of these people advertising their trade is a step in the right direction, and I hope that both the Amendments to this Clause will be accepted.

I hope I did not hear aright the hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Burman) say that he was prepared to accept the Amendment, having regard to what transpired in Committee upstairs. There is so little interest exhibited in this Bill on the benches on both sides of the House that we are now left simply, with one or two exceptions, to those who have devoted a good deal of time, both in the Select Committee and in the Committee upstairs, to this Measure. I want to enter my protest, after the discussion which we had upstairs, at the readiness which is displayed to accept this Amendment. I am confining myself at the moment to the phrase which we succeeded in having included in the Bill In Committee allowing the moneylenders at least this amount of grace and fair play, that they may exhibit on their own premises the same kind of placard that they would be allowed to put into a newspaper under this Clause. I now understand that the hon. Member for Duddeston is going to give way, remove that concession which he made in Committee, and accept the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn) and also that of the hon. and gallant Member representing the Government.

The original Bill prohibited placards on hoardings, but permitted them on the business premises of moneylenders. Under pressure in Committee, I gave way and permitted posters and placards on hoardings, but now that an Amendment has been moved to restore that prohibition to the Bill, I naturally desire that it should be restored, though I agree that moneylenders should be allowed, on their own premises, to show that they are doing business there.

I understand that the hon. Member is going to accept the Amendment which will prohibit that taking place. Do not let us have any monkeying about the business at all.

I was going to explain, after the remarks of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies)—

I am not giving way to the hon. and gallant Member.

If the hon. and gallant Member will allow me, I was going to explain that if this Amendment is carried, mine, in line 26, to leave out from the word "aforesaid" to the word "if" in line 28, will not be moved.

That means exactly the same thing.

I think I can make it plain. On an Amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Member for East Rhondda (Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan) in Committee, these words, which it is now proposed to insert, were omitted. From the point of view of the Government, they did not mind whether they were in or out, and, under pressure, the promoters of the Bill accepted the deletion of these words. A question was put in Committee to my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General whether, if those words were omitted, it would not be necessary to delete the words lower down as is proposed in an Amendment standing in my name on the Amendment Paper now before the House. Through some mistake, as hon. Members will see if they look at the OFFICIAL REPORT of the second day's proceedings in Standing Committee, it was reported that these words which I now seek to delete were, in fact, deleted in Committee, but in the official record that does not appear, and my Amendment is merely to carry out the intention expressed by the Committee upstairs. But if this Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend be carried, there will be no need for my Amendment to be moved, because it is only complementary to the Amendment which was made in Committee.

I am very much obliged for the explanation, and it does carry out what we agreed upon upstairs with regard to that matter.

May I ask whether, if this Amendment he carried, a moneylender cannot have a brass plate with his name on, his door, or a painted sign to indicate that he is doing business on certain premises?

The proviso to Sub-section (2) says:

"Provided that an advertisement … may be published … by means of a poster or placard exhibited at any authorised address of the moneylender."

Those words will still remain. I do not seek to remove them.

Will not the position be this? If we accept the first Amendment, the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member opposite is not to be moved, and the moneylender will be precluded from using placards and posters in general, but will be allowed posters and placards on his place of business?

Yes.

I would like to ask whether the promoters and the Government have definitely made up their minds to resist my Amendment relating to business cards? Will they not reconsider the sending out of a business card?

No; we could not do that.

I agree with my hon. Friend that this is, perhaps, the most important Clause in the Bill. I am glad, also that there is a general consensus of opinion in the House to accept the Amendment to prohibit general placarding by posters and so on, because I think that is a most objectionable form of advertisement. It is a serious proposition for a Scotsman to see a man with a board on his back with the words, "Do you want money? "I am very glad that that form of advertisement is to be cut out. Nothing has been said about Subsection (3) of this Clause dealing with the question of touting. If there was one thing against which the Committee upstairs, and particularly the Select Committee, of which I had the honour of being a member, set their face, it was touting on behalf of the moneylending business, and I think on examination it will be found that Sub-section (3) of this Clause is very tight indeed. But I would ask whether or not, between now and the time when the Bill reaches another place, some provision could not be added to deal with dud firms, that is, firms who start with no money at all, who may be registered at Somerset House with about £3 capital, and advertise themselves as prepared to lend anything from £5 to £5,000 on note of hand? That is worth inquiring into.

I do not think there is anything in the Bill to deal with that form of abuse in a profession which, after all, is a necessary commercial business to-day, whether it is regrettable or not, and it is carried on in many cases at a high standard. We know it is abused. There are unscrupulous moneylenders, just as there are unscrupulous borrowers. Only this week we have seen a report of proceedings regarding the bankruptcy of a noble lord, a member of the other House, who has been bankrupt three times. He attributes his downfall to having got into the hands of moneylenders. He did not go to moneylenders of his own volition, but because he was being pressed by other people to get money, which he merely handed over to tradespeople or other people who were pressing him hard. I know of a tenant of a public house belonging to a brewery company, of which an hon. Member of this House happens to be a director, and the tenant was being pressed so severely for his accounts that he had to go to a moneylender to get the money to hand over to the brewery company. Let us be quite frank. Let us examine this thing in all its bearings without prejudice. It is extremely difficult to deal with this matter without being liable to be understood as taking the side of the moneylender against the borrower, and I make this confession, that when I was appointed a member of the Select Committee of 1925, frankly I went on to that Committee unconsciously with a tremendous amount of prejudice against the moneylender, but, in the course of the proceedings, having heard the evidence and the whole position examined, I certainly modified my view. I came across sufficient evidence to satisfy me that, alongside the unscrupulous moneylender, there was equally the unscrupulous borrower. This Bill does not deal with the whole contract involved in a moneylending transaction. Nothing is said about the unscrupulous borrower. Instead of being called a Moneylenders Bill, it ought to be called a borrowers' Bill, a borrowers' charter.

But I want to get back to the point that in Committee upstairs we had a very keen debate on the whole of this Clause, occupying four days. We had a very patient Chairman, the same Chairman who is the subject of censure by certain hon. Members. He had a good deal of patience with the promoters of the Bill. I would not like to say he was 100 per cent. Patient with us, though I would be the last to pay him anything but a compliment. There was the keenest discussion and the keenest division on this Clause. On this question of placards, posters and circulars the majority was only 8. I do not know how many Members there were on the Committee who might be regarded as promoters of the Bill, but there were a good many supporters of the Government. Really this is not a private Members' Bill. It is a Tory Bill. The Government have tried to make out that this is a private Members' Bill, but they have not deluded me into that belief, because I have spent far too much time over this Bill, to the neglect, I am afraid, of some other matters.

I want the House to examine this question of circulars free from prejudice. In 1925, when the Select Committee investigated the question and examined numerous witnesses on the question of circulars, there was no objection to the issue of circulars as such but—and this is the kernel of the question—the objection was concerned with the nature of the circulars and the language in which they were couched, the deceptive language, in many cases. The feeling was that the circular to be sent through the post should be in a limited and prescribed form, that the circular should not tell lies and deceive those who received them. This view is borne out by a statement by Lord Darling in another place. Lord Darling was asked by Lord Phillimore whether the recommendation made by the Select Committee as to circulars sent through the post would preclude the sending of an ordinary business circular or business card. Lord Darling, who was Chairman of the Select Committee, was quite definite on the point. He said it did not preclude a moneylender sending out an ordinary business card in the prescribed form, that is, in the form of the advertisements which moneylenders can send to the newspapers.

This is a difficult question to deal with, because one is liable to be misunderstood and to be accused of being in the hands of moneylenders if one argues in favour of this concession. As other Members have made statements about themselves, perhaps it is necessary for me to say that I am not in the hands of the moneylenders and that I hold no brief for them. I have never borrowed, not because I did not need money, but because I thought it was a very bad habit, and because I could not afford to borrow, being too poor to pay back. Also, I certainly could not lend money. If I had had money to lend, perhaps I should have found some difficulty in parting with it, being a Scotsman.

I do not see what this has to do with the question of circulars.

I thought we were permitted to discuss the whole of this Clause.

Yes, the Clause, but not the Bill or the personal affairs of a Member.

I am much obliged. I come here to be corrected. What I want to do is to make clear to those Members who were not on the Select Committee or on the Standing Committee that the form of intimation which a moneylender is to be allowed to make to the public was dealt with very specifically. He is to be allowed to advertise only his name, his business address, his telephone number and his telegraphic address. If it is right to allow a man to let the public know through the newspapers that he is carrying on this profession, surely it cannot be wrong to allow him to send the same information privately to an individual through the post. I have not been able to understand what objection there could be to it, unless it were a sentimental objection. I do not see what logical argument could be advanced against it. If the promoters of the Bill will not agree to that, they ought to be frank with us and say they want to make this business illegal and to stop it. It is not fair to accept this business, as we all do, as a necessary commercial proposition and then to preclude those who carry it on from letting the public know about it; and as we have taken steps to check the abuses of which moneylenders may have been guilty in the past through issuing misleading circulars, I think we shall be going too far if we stop circulars altogether.

With the Clause as a whole I am in general agreement. I think it is a sound proposition. I think we are all unanimous about preventing touting. While I cannot always associate myself with the hon. Member who is moving this Amendment, after my experience on the Select Committee and on the Standing Committee, and after close reflection on the matter, I can say twat I wholeheartedly support his proposal, though I am only speaking for myself and not for other members of the Labour party or for the Tory party. I know there are some members of the Tory party who agree with me, and it is the first time I have ever found myself in combination with hon. Members opposite, but some of them are right on this occasion.

The remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Dennison) with regard to circulars have left me quite cold. He says that the form of the circular is the only cause of complaint. I go further, and say that the fact that the circular is sent at all is a cause of complaint. I will tell my hon. Friend one reason, other than a sentimental reason, why I say that. When a circular of this kind is sent by a moneylender to an individual, it may help to destroy the credit of the individual to whom it is sent. He has not asked the moneylender to send it, but it comes to him as if he were in financial difficulties, and, consequently tends to destroy his credit. With regard to the form, I have here one of the circulars that are sent out by a moneylender in Glasgow. It was sent to one of my constituents, who has sent it on to me, and I think it is well that the House should know the kind of thing that is sent out. It reads as follows:

"I was pleased to see through the Press of the safe arrival of your little son, and trust most sincerely that, you are both making satisfactory progress. How pleased and relieved you must be to feel that the little might is a boy—"

the House will note the spelling "might" for "mite"—

"and that he is strong and well. Please accept my heartiest congratulations and good wishes. At the time when you are rejoicing aver the arrival, you may also be pleased to know that, if you are in financial difficulties, I am prepared to grant any sum from £3 upwards to you and your little son."

This is the sort of thing with regard to which a plea is made that permission should be given to these people to send out circulars.

On a point of Order. I made it quite clear that I was opposed, as was the Select Committee, to the sending out of misleading circulars of this type.

This circular has been sent to me by a constituent of mine, and it is on the notepaper of the moneylender himself. Some of my colleagues have seen it. My hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton says that he made it perfectly clear that he objected to the form of many of these circulars, but I say again that, while it is true that he did say that the form was the objectionable thing, I say that it is more than the form. These circulars may do the people to whom they are sent a great deal of damage, and I am surprised that anyone can defend such a practice at all. It is suggested that they might be allowed simply to send a business card. This might be taken as a business card. A definite form might be laid down for such circulars, but, even if a circular were in the form laid down in the Act, there would still be the possibility of damage to the credit of the individual. I do not want to do anything that will hinder the passing of this Bill, but I did think that this precious circular was worth bringing to the attention of the House during the discussion on this matter. No people suffer more from moneylenders than the poor people in the cities who get into their hands, and, under the form of procedure in connection with a promissory note, they are practically helpless in the hands of the moneylender unless they get legal assistance. They are not in a position to get legal assistance, and, consequently, they are in the toils. I hope that this Bill will pass to-day.

I beg to move, in page 8, line 25, to leave out the words "within seven days," and to insert instead thereof the words "at the time."

2.0 p.m.

In the unfortunate absence of the other supporters of this Amendment, it falls to me to move it. The fact that the other supporters of the Amendment are lawyers affords some reason for believing that it rests on a sound legal foundation. The object is that the carrying out of the transaction should follow the ordinary course of business, and that, at the time the contract is made, both the borrower and the lender should have a signed copy of the agreement. The Bill as it stands provides that the agreement shall be handed over with seven days, but it seems safer, and more in accordance with the ordinary course of business, that the agreement should be handed over at the moment when it is made and signed. One can easily imagine that an untrustworthy lender, dealing with a weak or credulous borrower, might take advantage of the interval to attempt to tamper with the agreement, and introduce terms more favourable to himself. I hope that my hon. Friend in charge of the Bill will accept the Amendment.

I beg to second the Amendment.

This Amendment proposes that the note or memorandum containing the terms of the contract shall be signed and delivered to the borrower at the time, and, in accordance with the provisions of this Clause, it will have to contain a statement of the rate per cent. per annum of interest charged; and the circular referred to in Clause 4 has also to show, in somewhat similar terms, the rate per cent. per annum. The drafting of the Bill has been such as to ensure, as far as possible, that the borrower knows exactly what is the rate per cent. per annum charged, and the suggestion of this Amendment is that the agreement containing this and the other particulars shall be handed over at the time it is made, instead of waiting for seven days.

These words that it is now sought to introduce were deleted in Committee. The Bill, as originally drafted, had these words, "at the time," but after careful consideration the words "within seven days" were substituted. The point raised by the Amendment is that the borrower should know at the time the exact conditions of the contract into which he is entering. If the loan is at a fixed rate of interest he is aware of that when the contract is entered into, because he and everyone to be charged under the contract has personally to sign the contract. Where the loan is not at a stated rate of interest it is already laid down that before the contract is signed the actual rate per cent. per annum involved in the repayment has to be given to the borrower in writing. Therefore his position is well assured. The reason for giving seven days is that many of these transactions are carried out through the post, and while the contract itself may be completed by the signing of the document by all persons who are going to be charged, it seems reasonable that a few days may be allowed for the sending of the copy of the agreement to the borrower, he being, at the time when he enters into the contract, in full knowledge as to what the terms are. After the discussion we had upstairs, I think it is better to leave the Bill as it stands.

I beg to move, in page 9, line 15, at the end, to insert the words

"and any interest so charged shall not be reckoned for the purposes of this Act as part of the interest charged in respect of the loan."

This is with regard to the payment of interest in regard to amounts already due for principal or interest. It is laid down that interest on such overdue amounts may be charged at simple interest. Under Clause 14, where the definition of "interest" occurs, it would obviously not be fair that this simple interest on the over-due amount should be reckoned as interest for the purpose of ascertaining the permanent rate of interest. It would not be fair to reckon this simple interest for the purpose of reckoning the rate of interest on the loan itself.

I beg to move, in page 10, line 21, to leave out the words "five per cent. per annum," and to insert instead thereof the words "the rate provided for in the original contract."

The object of the Clause is to prevent a very great injustice being done to moneylenders. The Clause as it stands says that in bankruptcy not only for the purpose of dividend but for the purpose of voting at meetings and compositions and schemes of arrangement a moneylender shall, as regard; that portion of his claim which is made up of interest, be treated as if the interest is only 5 per cent. after all the other creditors have been satisfied to the full, and then he may come back for the balance. The effect of that is that in the case of the insolvency of his debtor the moneylender shall be treated as if every remedy then opened, namely, for the purpose of receiving dividend for the purpose of voting on a scheme of arrangement, for the purpose of voting for a composition, for everything he could do to get his money back, as if the interest was 5 per cent, and not the full amount.

Take a concrete case. The moneylender makes a bargain. He says, "I will give you £100 if you will promise to give me £148—48 per cent. is the maximum interest under this Bill. There is a bargain. Curtailed in every conceivable way, the moneylender who makes that bargain has to be a man of good character, he has to get a certificate, he has to pay a certain licence fee, he has to make returns, he has to go through an elaborate system of accountancy, and even the 48 per cent. can be cut down if the Judge thinks it is unreasonable. So here you have a man who must be of good character, who is absolutely limited as to the amount of interest he can charge, and who is restricted in every possible way. Having made a perfectly legal bargain under all these adverse circumstances, he ought to have the remedies of the ordinary creditor. This Clause has not been put into the Bill for the purpose of mitigating the evils of moneylending, and it has nothing to do with circulars or with the moneylender getting the borrower into his net. All that has been done by the time this Clause is in operation. It has nothing at all to do with benefiting the borrower, and that is a point I wish to stress. In the circumstances with which we are now dealing, the borrower is out of the picture.

You are creating a preference between one creditor and other creditors. Why? Because one of them happens to be a moneylender and the others are not moneylenders. I confess that I do not see very much difference between moneylenders who take advantage of persons in impecunious circumstances and other traders who also take advantage of them by putting up the price because they know the chances of getting payment are doubtful. When any young man goes to his tailor and says "Oh well, you know, I will not be able to pay you for perhaps six or eight months," the tailor makes him pay 60 or 70 per cent. more for his suit. Therefore, I think the tailor or dressmaker, or whoever it may be, is in exactly the same position as the moneylender.

This Clause sprang up in this way. In 1890, the Bankruptcy Act had a provision that where persons were putting in claims for dividends, if the claim included a claim for interest, i.e., interest upon a debt, only 5 per cent. of that interest would be allowed until all the other creditors had been paid. It was not aimed at moneylenders at all. It came to be considered by the official receivers as meaning not interest on a debt but interest in a debt. So what they did was this. They cut down the interest that the moneylender, like any other creditor, might charge on account of arrears of payments. It was thus that they brought forward this extraordinary anomaly. Take a dressmaker who expends £100 upon buying dresses. She disposes of the £100 worth of dresses to customers for £150. £50 is her gross profit. If a debtor of that dressmaker goes into bankrupty, the dressmaker is allowed to prove for £150, but she is cut down if she charges interest on the nonpayment of that £150. Now take the case of the moneylender. The moneylender has £100, and he says "I will give you that £100 in sovereigns if you will promise to give me within a certain time £150. The £150 received by the dressmaker is capital plus profit, and the £150 due to the moneylender is capital plus profit, but the profit of the moneylender is called interest, and, therefore, the official receivers can cut that interest down. That is a great injustice, and it has operated on a great many occasions against moneylenders. We do not want to alter that. We cannot alter it in this Bill. This Bill goes a great deal further than that. So far from remedying injustice to the moneylender it is going to do a further injustice to them, because not merely will the moneylender differ from the dressmaker, bootmaker, grocer or wine merchant, but he 'will have his profit cut down to 5 per cent. Thus, for all practical purposes, he will be put into a position as though his original bargain was 5 per cent. instead of 48 per cent. as is provided for in the Bill. I say that this is unjust, unfair and unequal treatment.

I think the House ought to vote in favour of this Amendment on purely logical and just grounds. It does not touch the evils of moneylending, and therefore why should a moneylender who has made his bargain subject to all these restrictions and is able to say, "This is a perfectly legal bargain," be deprived of all benefit except 5 per cent. I do not see any justification whatever for that. It was said in Committee that the only grounds upon which this proposal was put forward was that moneylenders might charge exorbitant interest, that they might pile up their claim by putting on interest. It was also asserted that in the case of bankruptcy they might use the method of piling up their claim for the purpose of defeating the other creditors and preventing a composition or arrangements, and compelling publicity of bankruptcy proceedings, and in that way force a man to pay something. Any lawyer in this House knows perfectly well that not one, but thousands of cases arise every year where ordinary creditors say: "That fellow will pay sooner than go into the Bankruptcy Court." It is not only moneylenders who say this, but other creditors. As a matter of fact, this Clause does not prevent that in the slightest degree. The way to prevent this is to make a provision that the moneylender shall not be allowed to push a debtor into bankruptcy. This Clause says that his voting powers shall be limited. He will not have the privilege, for instance, of saying, "Well, I think that man should really have paid 11s. in the £" although other creditors might think that 9s. in the £ was sufficient. This man's voting power is cut down. Why should he not have full voting powers like other creditors?

It may be said it is unreasonable to ask that the law as it stands under the Bankruptcy Act of 1890, and afterwards confirmed by the Act of 1904, should remain unaltered. But the law operates unjustly and unequally at the present time by reason of the renderings that have been given to certain words in the Act of 1890, when there was no Moneylenders Act. I should like to see an Amendment brought in to set the law right and to remedy the injustice which has been done all these years to moneylenders. Certainly, to aggravate the position, as this Bill does, is wholly without any justification. In 1890, or even ten years later, I could have understood people saying: "We must stop these bloodsuckers—that is what the majority of people would call them, but I would not—these vampires, from rushing people into bankruptcy, and putting forward exorbitant interest for the purpose of being able to outvote the other creditors." I could understand that being said in those days, because there was no restriction then as to the character of the moneylender and no limitation as to interest. In those days they might be men of infamous character, and their interest might be 300, 400 or 500 per cent. We have now before us a Bill which says must be men of good character that they cannot charge exorbitant interest. They cannot, for all practical purposes, go above 48 per cent., and they cannot even go up to that if the Court thinks that they have acted unreasonably. They must be licensed. At this time, when you hedge round a particular class of tradesman, the moneylender, with safeguards which are not applied to any other tradesman, to say that if a man becomes insolvent the moneylender, of all creditors, must be deprived of the rights which the law provides for other people, is most unfair.

I beg to second the Amendment.

Put shortly, I gather that the complaint of the hon. and learned Member is that moneylenders have been treated for the purpose of voting or composition on the same basis as they stand at present in regard to voting for the purpose of dividend. He complained of the harshness under the Bankruptcy Act of their being treated on the basis of an allowance of only 5 per cent. interest.

I said that under the Bankruptcy Act they are limited to 5 per cent., but only for the purpose of dividend. That is bad enough, but under this Bill they are also limited to 5 per cent. also for the purpose of composition schemes of arrangement and voting generally, as well as dividend.

That is what I understood. The hon. and learned Member said that we could not alter the Bankruptcy Act, but that we ought not to carry the principle of Bankruptcy Act to its logical conclusion in connection with this Bill and treat the moneylender for the purpose of voting in respect of compositions and arrangements as they are treated under the Bankruptcy Act for the purpose of dividend. The moneylender would still have the opportunity of obtaining any further interest that might be due to him that the estate in bankruptcy might permit, after the other creditors have been paid.

How often does that happen?

He has that right. The provision in this Bill is merely to protect the interest and position of other creditors. The moneylender is limited to 5 per cent. for the purpose of composition. It would be very wrong if the moneylender were to be allowed to rank for the whole of his interest, perhaps an exorbitant interest of 40 per cent., 50 per cent., or 60 per cent.—

Forty-eight per cent.

Forty-eight per cent. is only a guide; it is not a limit. It would be very unfair to the other creditors if, whatever the rate of interest they charged, they were allowed to vote and to have a voice to the whole of the amount, as against other creditors who are limited to 5 per cent.

The other creditors get their full interest in the form of profits, which in one case are called interest profits.

I am speaking of the provision under the Bankruptcy Act which allows only 5 per cent. to be added to the capital sum by way of interest. The promoters of the Bill and the Government consider that it is only fair to the other creditors that moneylenders should be limited to 5 per cent. for the purpose of voting or composition as they are also limited to 5 per cent. for the purpose of dividend.

I beg to move, in page 11, line 33, to leave out the words "of a moneylender," and to insert instead thereof the words

"in respect of money lent after the commencement of this Act."

We have here an instance of the retrospective effect of this legislation. I cannot say what will be the effect of the Clause if it passes in the way in which it now stands, because nowhere in the Bill is there any mention made of what is to happen in the event of a licence being endorsed in consequence of the reopening of a transaction made long before the passing of this Act.

On a point of Order. Has my Amendment in page 11, line 32, at the end, to insert the words:

"Provided that in respect of money lent, when the contract provides for repayment by weekly instalments, a sum not exceeding the rate of twelve per cent. per annum shall be allowed to be charged to cover the costs of collection"—

been passed over? I thought that was the most important Amendment on the Paper.

Yes. I have not selected that Amendment.

If the endorsement can be adduced as a reason for refusing the certificate, it will be most unjust that transactions entered into by all the parties concerned can be re-opened in the way this Clause permits. Just because a Judge does not happen to think the same as a moneylender as to what is a proper amount of interest to be charged, the moneylender has to run the risk of losing his licence in any proceedings on a case which has been reopened. If this is the intention of the Bill it will be very unfair to the moneylender, because he cannot know the mind of the Judge. It amounts almost to blackmail in all cases which may be reopened by the borrower. I have realised from the beginning that this is a borrowers' Bill not a moneylenders' Bill. Hon. Members may look upon moneylending as a sin, but there are other ways of taking people's money which are just as bad. Both should be avoided. It must also be remembered that the moneylender enters into this transaction on the representations of the borrower. This retrospective effect in the Bill will be very injurious. It is dishonest, and it is introduced here with an amount of vengeance which reminds one of the middle ages. The moneylender has no right of appeal. I hope the promoters will accept the Amendment.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I do not think there is any serious grievance here. Under the Moneylenders Act 1900, a transaction can be re-opened on the ground that it is harsh and unconscionable, and if when the transaction is re-opened and comes before the Court and it is proved against the moneylender that it is harsh and unconscionable surely it is fair that a record should be made of that transaction on the certificate. It is a record of the fact that he did something dishonest or unsatisfactory before this Bill was passed, and as the transaction is not re-opened under this Bill but under the Act of 1900, I do not think we are doing the moneylenders any injustice.

He may lose his licence.

I quite agree that follows. If he is proved to have been guilty of harsh and unconscionable conduct there is no reason why that should not be recorded on the certificate.

It is agreed that it will be unfair for a moneylender to lose his licence for a retrospective action. I am asking that the 1900 Act shall be continued and that a moneylender shall not lose his licence under this Bill.

He must take the consesequences.

We are passing a new Bill; I hope it gets through and becomes law, but I do not wish it to be unfair. A moneylender did something years ago which he was quite entitled to do. We are now altering the law and saying that something he did some time ago is now wrong. The promoters of the Bill propose to punish him for doing a thing which was not wrong when it was done.

Oh, no.

It was perfectly legal when it was done. I do not think this House should pass retrospective punishment in the form of new legislation. Hon. Members who sat on the Committee upstairs agreed that this provision is unfair although the majority of the Committee considered otherwise. I want to enter my protest against passing legislation which will have the effect of inflicting retrospective punishment upon men for acts which are declared by the Bill to be wrong but which were perfectly legal when they were done.

I have no love for the moneylender, but I can see that some injustice may be done by the Clause if it is passed in its present form. It would be extremely unfair to penalise a moneylender for something which occurred years ago, if that transaction is reopened after this Bill becomes law, and that he should have his licence endorsed with that particular offence. That is wrong. I think we should start from the time the Bill comes into operation and any offence which a moneylender permits after the passing of this Bill should be endorsed on his licence.

It is rather important to appreciate exactly the situation which arises. There is a transaction which, under Section 1 of the 1900 Act, may be brought into Court and may be characterised as harsh and unconscionable by the Court. It may be a transaction of 10 or 12 years ago, but it is perfectly open to the moneylender, who may have repented of his ways and desires no longer to trade on harsh and unconscionable lines, to himself reopen the transaction. There is no need for the matter to come into Court at all. It is only on his refusal to reopen the transaction, on his insisting on sticking to a harsh and unconscionable transaction, that the matter comes into Court at all. That seems to me to characterise and affect his present method of trading. It does directly affect his present methods of trading if it is brought into Court. If he has changed his methods it will not be harsh and unconscionable. That is the whole basis of the argument. If he insists on sticking to that harsh and unconscionable transaction, then it is a relevant factor to consider whether he is a man who should be allowed to get a certificate at the present time. For that reason the Bill is not unjust and is one which will carry out the object which everyone has in view.

The Lord Advocate, by reason of his clear statement, points the injustice of this Clause. What the Government have in view this. After this Act is passed, if a moneylender is brought into Court a Judge may say to him, "Long before this Act was passed you made a bargain which then you were allowed to make, though we now say it is harsh and unconscionable." It is a transaction which was made under the 1900 Act. The Act did not limit at all the amount of interest, and the transaction made under that Act was one, so far as he knew, in accordance with the law. Now the Judge is to be empowered to say, "Produce your certificate, and we will endorse on it that you were a bad boy, not since the Act told you to be a good boy, but years before." You now have an Act of Parliament which says a moneylender must have a certificate and that certificate shall be used to carry an endorsement as to how he conducted himself since he got that certificate. This Clause says you can put on the back of that certificate what you regard as misconduct, not since he got the certificate, but long before it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I may be wrong, but here are the words—

"Where a Court re-opens a transaction of a moneylender under the said Section 1 of the Moneylenders Act, 1900"—

it is agreed that the Court can re-open in 1928 a transaction which took place 10 or 15 years ago—

"the Court may require the moneylender to produce any certificate granted to him in accordance with the provisions of this Act."

The moneylender is bound to produce the certificate granted under this Act. What can be put on the back of the certificate? The Judge—

"may cause such particulars as the Court thinks desirable to be endorsed on any such certificate,"

i.e., as arises out of the proceedings regarding a transction which has been reopened and which happened years ago.

For what was wrong under the 1900 Act?

That may be, but what I am pointing out is you are now laying down a new Clause. Henceforth, moneylenders shall have a, certificate, and the fact of that certificate shall be a record of how they conducted themselves since they got their certificate. This Clause enables you to put on the back how they conducted themselves before it.

I cannot help thinking that there is an extraordinary confusion of ideas in the minds of those who oppose the Clause. The persons who grant the certificate are bound to take evidence of good conduct and the endorsement of the Judge is part of the material for forming a judgment which is placed at the disposal of the licensing authority. All the evidence of competent witnesses is relevant, and, when you say it is retrospective, you might just as well claim that any species of bad conduct that a moneylender committed before in years past should not count when the licensing authority is considering whether he is a person of good conduct. What hon. Members are asking, logically, is that there should be a wiping out of every offence that a, moneylender may have committed during his life, so that he may, from the moment this Act is passed, appear before any licensing authority in a perfectly clean sheet. I desire to say, speaking generally, that the difficulty of all licensing authorities is always that of obtaining sufficient and reliable evidence, and that there are many cases where there is such a divorce between the Court and the licensing authorities that very important and reliable evidence is not obtainable. For instance, there are the provisions of the Act for the protection of infants, where one authority is charged with the oversight of such infants and the coroner is charged with holding a special inquiry in case the child dies, but where there is no obligatory communication of any kind between the Court and the registrar. I say that is wrong in itself. These licensing authorities ought to be in possession of the fullest possible information. The endorsement of the Judge on the certificate is not in the nature of a judgment, but of information which can be taken into due consideration when the question of character comes up. If you admit testimony as to a man's personal character during a long and blameless life before the licensing authority, equally it is right to admit evidence with regard to any misdemeanours. I hope, therefore, that the House will dismiss this proposal.

The hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) said that this Clause was punishing the moneylenders for some offence committed before this Act comes into force. I submit that what it is intended to punish him for is not offences committed after the Act, but, for having failed to make restitution for them. At any time after he committed an offence it would have been open to him to have said, "This bargain was harsh and unconscionable, and I have no wish to stand by it." If after the Act comes into force, he still stands by that bad act and bargain, it is in effect repeating the crime, and to that extent I think we are perfectly entitled to punish him. If I may put it very briefly, in scriptural language, we may say to the moneylender in such a case that if he will repent he shall be saved, but if he fails to repent we are entitled to damn him on his certificate.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.

I beg to move to leave out the Clause.

I will be very brief in moving the deletion of this Clause. In the first place, those of us who have taken an interest in this Measure fail to understand why Clause 13 was inserted at all. The first point I want to make is that the Clause in fact does not belong to the Bill and has no connection with it, as the Bill would be complete without it. I think the hon. Gentlemen who are responsible for the Measure have succumbed to some pressure in connection with this Clause, though we have failed to find where it came from. Having said that the Clause does not belong to the Bill, I must ask what does the Clause do? We object to this Clause because it gives the pawnbroker what it fails to provide for the moneylender, and in that connection it is grossly unfair. I would like to remind the Committee of what the pawnbroker can secure when he lends money. First of all he can get 20 per cent. interest, and make a charge for the preparation of the documents relating to the loan, not exceeding the sum of 1s. for every £10 lent. More than that, he can also get a charge equal to the actual amount of the Stamp Duty paid by him upon any such document. There are three things, but it does not stop there, for see what else he gets. As a matter of fact, if it went very much further, I do not think there would be anything of the loan left. But it provides that the pawnbroker shall not be deemed to have failed to comply with the foregoing conditions by reason of his having, in good faith and in accordance with the terms of the contract for the loan, made a reasonable charge for the storage or the care of any pledge. Again, towards the end of the Clause it appears to me there is another provision for him to make a further charge, so that it seems a pawnbroker can make five, if not six, charges from the person who borrows money from him. That is not the case with an ordinary moneylender, and for the two main reasons which I have given I move that the Clause be deleted, because it does not belong to the Bill, which would be complete without it, and because it allows a pawnbroker to make several charges which the moneylender is not allowed to make.

I beg to Second the Amendment.

I and those associated with me in this Amendment would like to know the reason why this Clause was introduced at all, and why there is this difference in the, treatment meted out to the moneylender in the ordinary course of business and to the pawnbroker. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, the pawnbroker is allowed under this Clause to make five different charges on the person who pledges something with him and receives a loan from him. A question that was much debated in Committee was that we should not allow any loophole for the moneylender to get any additional charges beyond what was regarded as reasonable interest, and that we should prevent any interest being charged which was harsh and unconscionable. Now here in the first sub-section of this Clause the pawnbroker is entitled to charge 20 per cent. per annum in respect of the loan or on the pledge. In most cases, as the pawnbrokers themselves will agree, they do not give any more than two-thirds of the value of the pledge as a loan. The next thing they are entitled to charge is 1s. for every £10 lent, and also, where documents are pre-pared, the value of the stamp put on the document. I cannot see what extra work is involved on the part of a pawnbroker to make out a document for £10 or £20. In addition to these two items, he is entitled to make a reasonable charge for the storage or care of any pledge. What is "a reasonable charge"? What would be reasonable to the pawnbroker, might not be reasonable to the pawner. In this case the pawnbroker is taking the place of the moneylender whom you have dealt with rather harshly, but whether or not you are dealing harshly with him, he is called upon under this Bill as it stands to pay any charges arising out of a mortgage or a bill of sale.

3.0 p.m.

This Clause was introduced on the last day of the Committee's sittings and we had no opportunity of considering it. If it is allowed to stand, I intend to move the Amendment standing in my name later on with the object of improving its wording with regard to what is a reasonable charge. When we come to Sub-section (2) of this Clause we find that not only is the pawnbroker entitled to make all these charges which have been mentioned, but he is entitled to deduct from the amount he has loaned to the pawner all these charges upon which he is equally entitled to charge interest, because they are to be regarded as part of the principal. I do not think it was ever the intention that that should be so. I think the law should be altered in the interest of the community generally, because, when you are dealing with pawnbrokers and pawners, you are dealing with the poorest section of the community. The pawnbroker has been, and I think is to-day regarded in many cases, as the poor man's banker, but there are, many cases also where the pawnbroker is as unscrupulous as the moneylender. I hope, when the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) gets up, he will throw some light on the reasons why this Clause has been introduced. The moneylender had no one to speak for him in this House. At any rate, they have no direct representatives here as Members of Parliament. We should like to have some enlightenment regarding this Clause, so that we may either withdraw these Amendments or press the Amendment for the deletion of this Clause to a division.

The hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Dennison) referred to the fact that moneylenders had no direct representation in this House, and, if he means by that that the pawnbrokers have appointed anybody to represent them in this House, be is greatly mistaken. I hope he did not mean that.

Oh, no.

I am very glad to hear that, because I think it would be a reflection on some hon. Members of this House. The question was asked why there should be any exception made with regard to pawnbrokers from the general provisions of this Bill. I will state the reasons why as briefly as possible. In the first place, pawnbrokers have been restricted under the Pawnbrokers Act of 1872 as to the amount they can charge for interest and the tickets and other things, on loans up to the amount of £10. The Act of 1872 was passed to deal with amounts up to £10. Beyond that the pawnbroker, like every other person, is simply subject to the common law of the land; he can lend money on any terms he likes, he can charge what he likes, and do exactly as he likes, provided the borrower is prepared to agree. When the Moneylenders Act was passed in 1900 it was not intended that pawnbrokers should be included in it at all, but in the Courts it was laid down that pawnbrokers were included in it, and as the fee charged for registration was a guinea and the registration period was three years, the pawnbrokers did not regard it as worth their while to fight the matter in the Courts, simply because of their having to pay that small fee; and the other payments under the Moneylenders Act of 1900 were no hardship at all to the pawnbrokers as they were already conducting their business on the lines laid down by that Act.

I suggest that the reason why the pawnbrokers are entitled to this Clause is that they are prepared to allow their interest to be restricted to 20 per cent. If the moneylenders were prepared to come forward and say the same thing, I should, say "Give them any other little advantages you can." But they will do nothing of the kind; they know that 20 per cent. is not sufficient for their particular purpose, and they want a much higher rate of interest. The question has been raised as to security. It has been pointed out that a pawnbroker can afford to lend at 20 per cent. because he gets security. Because the Pawnbrokers Act did not apply to amounts over £10 a great majority of the moneylenders of this country are to-day acting as pawnbrokers for sums over £10. They are demanding security. I know they say in their circulars "We will send you back notes on return," and so on, but my experience is that a big majority of them are asking for security. They are entitled to do so in the same way as the pawnbroker under the present Acts of Parliament. Many of these men have actually got large warehouses in our large towns, where they store goods that they take in as pawnbrokers, simply because the Act cannot affect them if the transaction is over £10. So they are getting security and charging a much higher rate of interest than 20 per cent. A question was raised as to why they should be able to charge for documents. This provision is simply copied from the Pawnbrokers Act. A further question was asked about charging the Stamp Duty. This Duty goes to the Government and not to the pawnbroker. There was a further question as to the charge for storage.

I am not objecting to the charging, but I am objecting to the Clause permitting what is described merely as a "reasonable change."

The hon. Member has an Amendment to deal with that point, and if it is called I assume we can discuss it. I would ask Mr. Speaker to tell us whether it would be in Order to discuss that question of a reasonable charge on this Amendment.

It will be in Order because the present Amendment is to leave out the whole Clause.

Let me return to the question of storage. It is laid down clearly in the regulations here that no charge can be made for an article that is capable of being sent through the Post Office, but a charge is allowable for very bulky articles. What are the articles that are usually deposited with the pawnbroker by the lender for a loan over £10? In many cases the article is a piano which has to be stored in a building where it will not deteriorate. It must be kept in a building properly constructed for the purpose, and properly heated, and a certain amount of expenditure is incurred in providing that storage. This Clause will allow a reasonable charge in that respect, according to the class of the article, and I submit that is a fair proposal considering the fact that the pawnbroker is only going to charge 20 per cent. There is another feature about these pawnbroking transactions which is possibly unknown to many hon. Members. The Pawnbrokers Act lays it down clearly that any article pledged for an amount over £2 cannot be sold at the expiration of the term of the contract except by public auction and that any surplus accruing over and above the amount lent and the interest on it, shall be handed over to the pledger on application.

The point raised by the hon. Member for King's Norton that the pawnbroker only lends two-thirds of the value and is bound to gain every time cannot be maintained under the law as it stands. They are restricted to receiving the amount of the loan and the interest, and, as I have shown, any surplus accruing from the sale of the article must be handed over to those who have pledged the article. I submit this Clause is a reasonable one and is fair to a body of traders who have proved themselves to be men of the highest integrity and have carried on their business for the benefit of the community. In some parts of the country attempts have been made to restrict and in some cases to do without this type of trader, but those attempts have proved dismal failures. As the hon. Member for King's Norton said, the pawnbroker is the poor man's banker, and members of that body conduct their business on strictly legal lines. This Clause was accepted by the promoters of the Bill, after consultation with the authorities of the Home Office, and it should be allowed to remain in the Bill.

It has been suggested by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) that we have been unduly favourable to the pawnbrokers in framing this Clause. I may point out that this Clause was introduced by Lord Haldane in another place in 1925 and the present promoters are not responsible for it. The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) his dealt very fully with this matter, and he is always very capable when he comes to speak of pawnbrokers. He has fully explained the position to the House and I do not wish to take up further time. There are subsequent suggestions for the slight modification of some of the provisions which are thought to be a little too favourable to the pawnbrokers, and we are quite willing to accept certain of these, if the Opposition will allow us to have this Clause as it stands.

In view of the explanation given by the hon. Member, I feel inclined to withdraw my opposition to the Clause. On the understanding that the hon. Member will accept three, at any rate, of the ensuing Amendments, I am prepared to withdraw this Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 14, line 30, after the word "pawner" to insert the words "within seven days."

The object of this Amendment is to bring this provision into conformity with the rest of the Bill. The words "within seven days" are precisely the words which appear in relation to moneylenders in this connection.

I beg to second the Amendment.

This is a very reasonable Amendment, and I accept it.

May I move the Amendment standing on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for East Rhondda (Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan)—in page 14, line 30, after the word "memorandum" to insert the words, "signed personally by every party to be charged?"

I was not proposing to select that Amendment.

My name ought to have been attached to it, because I regard it as important.

I do not think I can allow that Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 15, line 3, to leave out the words "for every ten pounds lent."

I beg to second the Amendment.