My Lords, I venture to make a few observations on the Motion to go into Committee on this Bill. They are remarks that would not have been applicable on the Second Reading of the Bill, as to which, I think, no question can arise. It has been the practice of this House, for many years, to treat the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill as a matter of course, and I think that it has in every year up to the present year only come up from the House of Commons at the very close of the Session, and, indeed, very frequently— it was the case last year—it has been passed on the last day of the Session by the suspension of the Standing Order.

Three years ago the House of Commons seemed to have awakened to the importance and the potentialities of the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill, and they appointed a Select Committee, which went into the whole subject of the position of the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill. That Committee took the matter very seriously, and presented a Report. With your Lordships' leave, I should like to read two sentences from that Report. They said:—

"They wish, however, to record their view that it is most undesirable that these Acts, which are essentially of a temporary and emergency nature, should be allowed to Chill into the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill and so become, without any deliberate intention of Parliament, part of the permanent system of law.

"Finally, although the point is not strictly speaking referred to them, your Committee would like to record their opinion that the present practice by which the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill is regularly introduced and passed through all stages under great pressure of time at the very end of a Session when serious discussion is, not practically possible, is open to grave objection. There would seem to be no reason why the Bill should not be introduced at a much earlier stage of the Session when proper Parliamentary time could be allotted to its discussion."

That was the view taken by that Committee, and this year, three years having elapsed, according to the suggestion of the first Committee, a Committee was appointed which went through the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill and practically settled the Schedule which appears in the Bill this year.

I do not propose to place before your Lordships this year any amendment to the Bill, because not only has it been settled in the manner that I have mentioned by a second Committee this year, but I see from the OFFICIAL REPORT that it was adequately discussed in another place before coming up here. What I want to suggest to the House is that this belongs to a class of legislation which is eminently appropriate for discussion and consideration in your Lordships' House and that, whether a Select Committee should be appointed to revise this Bill this year or not, at any rate I suggest that for the future the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill should be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses who would go through the Bill very much as the Committee in the House of Commons the other day went through it, and settle the Bill for the consideration of Parliament. If what I have said commends itself to your Lordships, I should be prepared to put down a Motion to the effect of the recommendations which I have ventured to make.

My Lords, the account given by the noble Lord of the proceedings of the Committee of 1922 and of the Committee of this year is, of course, perfectly accurate, and I do not differ in any respect front what he has said as to the importance of this Bill. This year, at all events, the Bill is brought here in sufficient time so that if your Lordships have proposals to make in Committee or elsewhere it can be done, and no complaint on that score, I think, can arise this year. With regard to the observations of the noble Lord as to the constitution of the Committee, after hearing what noble Lords sitting on other Benches have to say on the matter I will, of course, consult my colleagues, but as at present advised I feel myself in a good deal of sympathy with his suggestion. I think that this Bill, instead of being considered by a Committee of one House only, might well be considered by a Committee representing both Houses. I will convey the suggestion to my noble friend who leads this House and it shall receive full consideration.

My Lords, the

I should like to divide on this matter, because I think, unless some strong action is taken, we shall go on from year to year without any legislation whatever. We have been told for the last five years that all that was necessary was to continue the Act for one year, and that then the Government would bring in legislation. They have not done so. Supposing we go back to 1912–13, we were not so badly off then, and what I venture to say we want are not regulations as to how little we can work, but regulations to enable everyone in this country to work as long and as hard as they possibly can.

My Lords, this Bill is not only a very proper measure but a very useful one as well. The Committee has discharged its functions as well as it could, and has administered very considerable and increasing sums derived from the levy. The expenditure has been on all kinds of useful purposes and is designed to smooth over certain difficulties which have arisen between the miners and those who employ them. The fund has been put to many useful purposes, and may be put to more useful purposes still, especially as it is an increasing fund and the scope of its activity is also increasing. I cannot think that any member of this House is likely to offer any real opposition to this measure which is desired, as far as I know, by everyone.

My Lords, I have to move that this Bill be now read a third time, but I should like to make a few brief observations before the Question is put. When I brought in this measure I was impressed by the great urgency of the matter. I had had to investigate many cases that were brought before me of hardship and indeed of poverty, sometimes of criminality and blackmail, which were caused by the machinations of those moneylenders. Since then I have been much more educated upon the subject by an immense correspondence, giving me innumerable instances of the devious ways in which the organisations of moneylenders and others are knit together in order to get into their nets people whose miseries they afterwards exploit to their detriment and also the detriment of their relations. You can hardly take up a newspaper to-day in which you do not see cases in which moneylenders are concerned which must touch the heart of anybody who has any human concern about his fellow creatures. What is worse is when you read the observations of the Judges, almost from day to day, as to the utter futility of the resent state of the law under the Moneylenders Acts and their utter powerlessness to do anything to help in the matter.

Of course, the present Bill has been open to criticism and I entirely agree with what the noble Viscount opposite said upon the Second Reading, that it is almost impossible to stop a great many of the hardships and of the intrigues which arise in the carrying out of a business of this kind. Assuming, however, for it is the assumption on which one must attempt to legislate, that the business of a moneylender is a necessity in this country—it is not my own view at all, but it is the general view of people at large—a great deal may be done to alleviate these evils by this Bill. Every day one gets more and more evidence of the audacity of these moneylenders. This Bill tries to put an end to a most offensive proceeding, the constant and persistent sending of moneylenders' circulars, almost every one of which is founded upon the suppression of truth or a false statement as to facts. The growth of this practice is so enormous that evidently it must pay in some way or other.

The Public Prosecutor sent me the other day particulars of a case which came before him, in which one moneylender had within six months issued 190,000 circulars, each one of them done up in an envelope requiring a three-halfpenny stamp, printed on good paper and having all the appearance of a respectable document in order that people might open it. Your Lordships can easily draw your own conclusions, if one moneylender can afford to do that, as to the way in which people are induced by these circulars to go to the offices of these people. If we saw these 190,000 circulars—God forbid that we should have to look through them all—we should find that each one of them was founded on a false suggestion. A common one—and I have had to look through some thousands of circulars—is: "Try our short loan system. We give you pounds and you pay back in guineas." One finds out afterwards that this most attractive system means that you get £100 for a month if you pay £105 at the end of month. There are many other devices of that kind. There has recently been brought to my notice another class of ease. Some moneylenders do not adopt the system of putting their circulars in envelopes requiring a three-halfpenny stamp, but put them into letter boxes all through London. These circulars are plainly intended for servants and offer loans of anything up to £5, generally at a shilling a week per £, or something like that. Could anything be worse than that servants should take up such documents as this and should be led into the hands of these people while they are carrying out the duties which are entrusted to them?

In addition to that, touting is a matter which is going on to an enormous extent. I venture to say that there is not a single port in the Kingdom where young naval officers come in, or a single town where there are barracks, where there are not these moneylenders' touts. I was told the other day by a very high official in the Admiralty that the number of young officers who, coming on shore after long service at sea, unfortunately get into the hands of these moneylenders, is a most disastrous thing for the Service. To show you the way in which the tout is encouraged may I quote from a circular, which I have here. It was sent by a moneylender in London to a very large number of people. In this he says:

"We have in our possession a considerable number of silver wrist watches sold throughout the War for £3 10s. These were made dust-proof and water-tight; the fifteen jewel movement is splendid, the whole being a very desirable watch. We have decided to give one of these watches until they are all disposed of to each customer who introduces from this date either personally or by letter a client to us to whom we lend £5 or upwards."

Your Lordships can easily calculate, if they give a £3 10s. watch for an introduction to a man who borrows £5, how much profit is made out of the poor borrower.

The Bill, of which I am now moving the Third Reading, has very drastic provisions as regards both circulars and touts. Probably the most valuable provisions, however, are those which regulate the rate of interest. That is where the existing legislation has broken down. The existing legislation allows a Judge to interfere if the transaction is unconscionable, without giving any indication whatever as to what is "unconscionable" in the case of a man who has no security coming to ask for a loan from a moneylender. The Bill makes a provision that anything over four per cent. per month—that is forty-eight per cent. per annum—is to be held to be unconscionable, and therefore the Judges will have something to go upon to show how far they ought or ought not to interfere in administering the Act which is at present in force and which, of course, is not interfered with by this Bill. That, of course, is a very valuable provision.

There is also a provision as regards poor persons. That is, that in the case of a loan of £3 or under no principal or interest can be recovered at law. I have had hundreds of letters from the very poorest classes in this country, and the-way they are treated by moneylenders is a great scandal. Probably you do not know that the interest they are charged comes very often to 3s. 8d. for £1 for, say, ten days. That is not an unusual thing. These people have written to me from places throughout England saying that the moment they get into debt with any of these people, the law is not put into force against them but the money- lenders employ regular bullies who go and terrorise the debtors when they are at work and are likely to be exposed to their foreman or employer. The object is to frighten them into procuring somebody to find the money for them. I have a letter from a school teacher, or from somebody on her behalf, in which it is stated that the moneylender used to go up to the school in which she was teaching and, in the presence of the pupils, demand the money and use abusive language towards her because the poor girl was unable to pay. That is not a matter which you can cure by a Moneylending Bill, and I only refer to it because it is well that the poor should know that there is a provision in the Bill with regard to loans of not more than £3 and the interest thereon not being recoverable. I would certainly advise these people whom attempts are made to terrorise not to be frightened, but to go straight to the police and tell the police of the action of these moneylenders and the methods by which they are trying to recover their money.

Another class of matters mentioned in the Bill, and to which I attach great value, is that comprising the limitations which the Bill provides for allowing bankruptcy summonses to be served. There is most valuable evidence taken by the Committee—evidence given by Mr. Williams, one of the Official Receivers—which goes to show the length to which a class of professional moneylenders goes with a view to what almost amounts to levying blackmail. I am only going to read one or two answers of his which will show your Lordships how this matter is carried on. This gentleman was asked with reference to proceedings in bankruptcy:

"Do you think it is used by the moneylenders illegitimately in the way of bringing pressure to bear such as other people do not bring to bear upon debtors?"

The answer was:

"That is the conclusion I have come to; that is my own view. In my opinion, the moneylender does not present his petition with a view of bringing about a rateable distribution of the assets amongst all his creditors, which really should be the object of a petitioner, but rather with a view of exerting pressure which will bring the money from somewhere."

He then goes into detail as to the number of petitions which are presented, and he says that, roughly speaking, from thirty to thirty-five per cent. of the receiving orders are made on the petition of registered moneylenders.

He continues:—

"Of course, one sees constantly cases coming in on a receiving order, where perhaps there are a dozen petitions filed against the same debtor, most of those petitions being petitions by other moneylenders. I had a case only the other day where there were fourteen petitions against the debtor, and twelve of them were petitions by moneylenders. Of course, many of them had been paid off, but ultimately what does happen is that the debtor comes in with, in my view, increased liabilities, and his assets have been very considerably diminished in trying to pay off the instalments to the moneylenders. In that way I believe that the ordinary creditor suffers."

There is one other answer of this gentleman's which I should like to read to the House, and it is this—

"I think I ought to say that in my experience I cannot recall a single case where the borrowing of money by a trader from a moneylender was likely to result in any useful purpose at all. It only serves to postpone the actual date of the failure. I cannot recollect a single case where it could have served any useful purpose."

The provisions in this Bill are particularly valuable as regards naval and military officers, and other persons in the employment of the Crown. A number of Acts have been passed from time to time by the Legislature, for the purpose of preventing the pay or pension of these people from being interfered with or taken in execution on judgment. The reason, of course, is that the pay and right to pension are given to them with a view to their carrying out the services of the Crown; but these people are not protected from bankruptcy, and the evils which would have resulted from a policy of leaving them subject to execution for debt of course follow if, the moment they get into the clutches of moneylenders, they can be served with bankruptcy notices, and in that way, of course, probably lose their employment. Just imagine the case of a young officer—I know of one—who, for three years, was going about from one moneylender to another, attempting to pay off one through another, paying interest at enormous rates, and all that time trying honestly to carry out his work as, say, the commander of a submarine. Such a man does not know at what moment he may be served with a bankruptcy notice, and in that way driven out of the career to which he has devoted his life. It is impossible for him or for a civil servant, or anybody else, if he has such a matter hanging over him, efficiently to discharge his duties towards the country, which is in that case his employer.

There is one other matter to which I might refer, although I do not want to weary the House by going into details. Hitherto, in the vast majority of cases, it was utterly impossible for a man who had dealt with moneylenders to defend himself. Proceedings were taken in the High Court. First, a Writ was issued, and then a summary motion. To defend himself in those proceedings the man, who had not got a shilling and who had been borrowing money at enormous rates of interest, was invited to come in, employ solicitor and counsel, and expend a considerable sum of money, even before he got leave to appeal at all—what we call a summary motion. That, to my mind, was a denial of justice, and I put into the original Bill that I introduced in your Lordships' House a provision that all proceedings should be taken in the County Courts. I notice that the Select Committee of the two Houses to which the Bill was referred have altered that, and have left it to a Secretary of State to provide as to the particular Court in which the proceedings shall be taken. I do not take that as being hostile to my provision at all. In certain cases, if you wish to give an opportunity of defence at all, it may be proper to have the matter decided before a summary tribunal like the petty sessions in very small cases. That may be necessary if you are to give an opportunity to very poor people, to have their case heard at all. But I do hope that, if the Bill becomes law, there will be no hesitation whatever on the part of the Government in making such arrangements as will in the best possible way delimit the powers of the Courts as regards these particular cases, and not allow such a denial of justice as certainly has resulted, and must result, when people in such a predicament as are these borrowers are driven into the High Court of Justice to defend themselves at enormous expense.

I believe the Bill to be an honest effort to do something to mitigate what is a great public scandal. Whether it will become law or not I do not know, but I make a most sincere appeal to the Government, who, I know, are occupied with great and important matters which primarily call for their attention, to give some consideration to a question of this kind, for they will find the more they sift the matter the more they will be convinced of the great amount of poverty created among the poor by this traffic in money. I read the other day a report of an independent inquiry made in America, and I was astounded to find how much of the poverty in America was attributed by that Committee to people being led into improper and extravagant habits, which they could not possibly afford, by the advance of money to them, with the ensuing utter misery which must result in such circumstance. I commend this Bill to your Lordships' attention, and I hope that, if it does pass your Lordships' House, His Majesty's Government may afterwards give it fall consideration with a view to its being passed in another place, and to its becoming the law of the land.

My Lords, I, too, hope that this Bill will receive favourable consideration. As the noble and learned Lord has remarked, I pointed out on the Second Reading certain inadequacies in the scope of the measure. I had in mind the old usury laws which were on our Statute Book for a long time, and which prohibited loans at a high rate of interest. Those Acts proved to be a dead letter, because the moneylender, when approached, said: "No, I cannot lend money, because I cannot get any interest, but I will do this. I will purchase from you an annuity. I will pay you a sum down, and you will pay me an annuity"—which was, of course, a very large amount proportionate to the advance—"and that will not be a loan transaction at all, but the creation of an annuity." So far as I can see, this Bill leaves that kind of transaction where it was, and I have no doubt that the noble and learned Lord thought it very difficult to strike at a thing of that kind. I do not like to prophesy, but I think it likely that the moneylenders will not go under, but will proceed to buy annuities wholesale, and that in some shape or form they will get what they want. They may be able to send out circulars saying, "We will buy annuities; who will come into our market?"

Therefore, while I am not satisfied that this Bill will create a complete revolution in the system which now obtains, I think the Bill is a very valuable one. It puts an end to the system of circulars, at any rate, as regards loans; it severely restricts the rate of interest on loans, and it prevents a number of things being done, which are done at the present time, in the way of touting and canvassing for loans. On the whole, I think the Bill is a valuable gesture against what is a very bad system, and therefore I hope that the Government, even though they may think that it does not go the whole way, will consider that it goes far enough to be a valuable alleviation of a most monstrous system which flourishes to-day.

My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount does not appear to think that this Bill is going to achieve quite as much as its promoters expect and hope, and, if he has nothing better to say for it than that it is a valuable gesture in the first place, and, in the second, that it will stop the tiresome nuisance of circulars, it will do what other Bills passed during the last 3,000 years have done—they have been gestures, they have proved ineffective and the evils and scandals of moneylending have continued. Because moneylending meets a demand—right or wrong, a demand. We have had some experience in this country, not indeed such a long experience as other countries, but we have had 600 years' experience in this country of anti-moneylending agitation and edict. These agitations recur at fairly regular intervals. The last campaign in which I was concerned was in the House of Commons 20 or 25 years ago. It was a really first-class stunt. I remember it well, and Lord Carson does, too. I well remember a wretched moneylender being dragged to the bar, and being rebuked by Mr. Speaker Gully because he had failed to answer some question upstairs about his method of book-keeping.

Well, the time comes round when laws passed by Parliament prove quite ineffective to prevent the abuse of a public demand. The noble and learned Viscount. Lord Haldane, has already referred to one out of the very many methods by which this demand will be met in spite of this Bill. Lord Carson says that this moneylending is not a necessity. Why should it go on if it is not a necessity Moneylenders do not send out 190,000 advertisements, printed on fine paper, stamped at the cost of a closed envelope, just for fun, just to let one know that someone called Hector McTavish lends money. No, they do it because they know there is a public demand for these circulars. They know very well that they are going to charge high rates of interest because in many cases they are lending money to people who have no security. If I wish to borrow money and I go to Drummond's Bank, they know precisely what security I can offer and they charge me a reasonable interest accordingly. On the other hand, if I want to borrow £2, £3 or £5 and I go to Mr. Drummond and ask him to lend me £3 or £5 he will say: "What is your security? Who are you? I have never seen you before. I do not know you. What guarantee have I that you will repay the money?" and I say: "You do not know me and I cannot give you any guarantee that I will pay." Then Mr. Drummond will say to me: "Very well, I am afraid I cannot deal with you. You must go to somebody who deals with persons who can offer no security and you will have to pay accordingly."

Do not let us be over-worried by the nuisance of the circulars. I get them and I have no doubt that every other member of this House and every official of this House is in the same boat. But I would, at least, say this for the moneylenders' circulars, that they are not couched in such familiar or friendly terms as those of others who frequently implore me to buy their cigars or wines, and if my noble friend is out to stop this nuisance I wish he would stop one which, to myself at any rate, is much the greater of the two. But these circulars meet a demand. The demand may be foolish. The way the demand is fulfilled may be irregular and often is fraudulent. But if the moneylender is fraudulent to his client, make no mistake, the client as often as not, and often deliberately, is fraudulent towards the moneylender, and rates go up accordingly. Rates must go up when you are dealing with customers of this kind, and although the rates of interest are what we call exorbitant and, of course, in some cases are positively tyrannous, there are tens of thousands of cases where a legitimate need is met by this fraternity, and where a reasonable rate of interest is charged.

It is no good opposing this Bill. The country demands something of this kind. Every generation, or every second generation, this demand becomes insistent and anti-usury laws have to be passed. For a time there is quietude, and then, of course, the trouble begins again in some other form and fresh repressive legislation is necessary. I would, however, make one suggestion. Instead of solely making it illegal as far as Parliament dare, and can to lend money, why not try to make it illegal to borrow money? In that case you would have two criminals to attack instead of one, and to that extent you could hope that you might be able to halve the crime.

The object of my remarks is not to oppose this Bill, because I know that, public opinion is infected by these indignations and enthusiasms every twenty, thirty, or fifty years, and we are now in the midst of one of them. What I want to say, however, is that in my opinion the scandal of moneylending is very largely caused by trouble into which people get by betting, chiefly on horse-races. I should think that sixty per cent., possibly seventy per cent., of the people who have to suffer from unconscionable rates of interest get into trouble by betting upon races in places they have never visited and upon horses they have never seen. Why is no effort made to remove what is one of the fundamental causes of this great moneylending scandal? We have not the courage to do so. It has been reduced to a fine art by the betting Press. They come down my street every morning. They begin between 9.30 and 9.40 regularly and they go on until late at night. The earlier part of the day is devoted to assisting people to understand what is going to occur during the latter part of the day, and the latter part of the day is devoted to telling you whether you have won or lost your bets in the afternoon and how you had better bet tomorrow. The organisation is one of the most perfect things in the world, and there is not a little street or slum in London where anybody who wants to bet under the stimulus of the betting Press, cannot do so with the greatest case. I once saw what I think was a perfect triumph of scientific organisation. Somebody came shouting the betting news down my own street about ten o'clock in the morning. A man came down a ladder front the roof where he was working; a girl came up from the basement to the street and met a gentleman in a frock coat who came from the front door, and three halfpenny papers—betting papers and nothing else—were bought for one house. Until Parliament has the courage to check the betting scandal, it is idle for Parliament to say that it can expect to stop the money lending scandal.

My Lords, everybody must sympathise with the objects of this Bill, and everybody must be conscious, as well as the noble and learned Lord who is promoting it, that there are very hard cases. But the question is whether this Bill will not make the hard cases harder and more numerous. I cannot help asking your Lordships to consider whether that will not be the case. There are useful provisions in this Bill; but there are provisions in it which, in my humble opinion, will make things worse for the honest man who has no security except his industry, his occupation and his honesty. It will make it harder for him to borrow and more likely that he will be dragged down by his borrowing.

Money borrowing—do not let us speak of money-lending—is a necessity as the world is constituted. It has been a necessity ever since there has been any form of civilisation. There are times when people who have no capital, or no handy capital, but who have brains and courage and industry require a lump sum of money in advance. If they have no security to offer but their industry and their honesty, the question will arise as to what terms the moneylender will ask, and the moneylender will have to say substantially to the borrower: "If I knew that you were an honest man, a hard-working man and a frugal man, I should be able to lend you this money at a very little higher rate than I should lend it to somebody who could offer me ample security; but because there are numbers of people who are not honest and will go to every shift they can to avoid paying me, and because there are a still greater number of people who are shiftless and will be idle and will not work, and will be extravagant and will not be able to pay me, therefore I must charge you a rate which will enable me to meet the losses which I have upon other people."

After all, the interest charged by a moneylender is made up of two factors. It is partly the rate for the accommodation, but it is much more the insurance. An analogy will make this very clear to your Lordships' House. In shipping matters there is what is called the borrowing of money on "bottomry." The electric telegraph and submarine cables have almost abolished it, but in olden times it was one of the most common forms of borrowing. A shipmaster, driven by contrary winds or accidents into a port where he had no connections, having to raise money for repairs of the ship and other expenses, found himself without anybody to whom he could appeal. He had no connections. His owner was not known, and it would be impossible to refer to his owner in time. What did he do? He gave as security the ship. The law said he could pledge his owner's ship. But the ship might sink before it got home, the ship might get into collision and have a charge made upon it for that collision, and the maritime lien might take precedence of the bottomry. The ship might be the subject of salvage. The risk, therefore, was very great that the lender would not be repaid. The consequence was that the rate of interest on loans on bottomry was quite different from the rate of interest on ordinary loans. Thirty or 40 per cent. was, for them, not at all uncommon. Just in the same way the moneylender requires to insure his loan, and the worse you make it for the moneylender, the more you treat him as an enemy of the human race, the more you treat him as an outcast and pariah, the more he will be driven to charge everybody a high rate of interest, and the more the honest, frugal man will have to pay for the extravagance of the shiftless and dishonest borrower.

When the Act of 1900, which I think was promoted by Lord James of Hereford, came before this House, very much the same sort of thing was said as has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson. When that Act was passed I was a Judge of the King's Bench Division, and we had to consider what would be harsh and unconscionable discussed the matter with some of the wisest of my wise brethren, and we all felt the necessity of so conducting ourselves as not to put up the price against the honest man. I endeavoured myself, whenever I had to deal with these cases, to look at the matter from that point of view. We must give the moneylender reasonable security, a reasonable rate of insurance, as well as a reasonable reward. There are clauses in this measure which as I have said, are useful. The idea of restricting the rate of interest, the idea of restricting advertisements seems to me, with all respect to the noble and learned Lord, quite futile and dangerous Touting is such a nuisance, and touting also is such a temptation that I feel anxious to abolish it, but how a man is to start a business as a moneylender—and, after all, it is a useful and legitimate business—if he is not to make known that he is a moneylender, and not to make known on what terms he lends money (which I suppose is what advertisement means) I do not know.

The noble and learned Lord has been eloquent upon the poor person. I remember a very interesting account, in one of those hooks relating to the East End of London, of the "square dolly woman," a woman pawnbroker, who dealt in such small sums of money that no laws could possibly apply to her. She was known as a "square dolly woman" because she always treated her borrowers honestly. Under this Bill there is no room for the "square dolly woman." Nobody is to recover a debt of £3, and therefore nobody will lend £3. The poor man who wants £2 or £3 will be told: "Oh, Lord Carson has prevented that; I cannot lend it to you because I shall not have barely my principal." When this measure was in my mind, during the stages through which it has passed, I took to reading Bentham on Usury, and I find this passage which, with your Lordships' permission, I will quote—

"The proposition I have been accustomed to lay down to myself on this subject is the following one—namely, that no man of ripe years and of sound mind, acting freely, and with his eyes open, ought to be hindered, with a view to his advantage, from making such bargain, in the way of obtaining money, as he thinks fit."

Your Lordships will see how he goes on. I venture to say that he puts the horse before the cart, and not the cart before the horse. How is a man to get the money? Bentham says—

"nor (what is a necessary consequence), anybody hindered from supplying him, upon any terms he thinks proper to accede to."

My Lords, I cannot take quite the same view of this Bill as the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down, for I listened day after day to evidence as to the amount of harm done by pestering people, not people who really needed money at the time, but pestering people to borrow money which they could have done without, and particularly requesting people to borrow very small sums, and then being very hard upon the people who had borrowed. I could not help somewhat regretting, as I listened to my noble and learned friend opposite, that he did not appear for Shylock in the well known case. I feel certain that Portia would have had a much more difficult task in persuading the Doge of Venice if my noble and learned friend had been able to speak with that enthusiasm in Shylock's behalf with which he spoke for all the poor oppressed persons who will be prevented from getting a living if they are not allowed to worry everybody day after day with circulars. Of course, it would have spoilt the best play in the world, but what would such a price as that have mattered if justice had been done?

Before I leave that part of the subject, I should like to say that I was surprised to hear Bentham quoted, and to find that the ideal is to leave the freeborn, grown-up Englishman alone to make any contract that he pleases. How many years have gone by since that principle was abandoned? I have not the knowledge of the Statute or ally other law which my noble and learned friend possesses. He could tell us in a sentence or two of any number of Statutes which interfere with a man making a contract that he wishes to make. There are hundreds of them. They have been passed for the benefit of the working man, and of all sorts of people, grown-up people, thoroughly able to take care of themselves in many ways. Parliaments have determined that these people are not fit to make those contracts—daily contracts—which they would wish to make, Parliaments have protected them, and if they masts such contracts they are set aside.

My noble and learned friend said that in dealing with the existing Act it was difficult to say what is harsh and unconscionable, and that when he first had to deal with it he called together a few of the more intelligent of His Majesty's Judges to see if they could arrive at some sort of agreement upon the matter, I am sorry to say that I was not of the assembly. But for all that I had to try some of the cases. They are in the law books, and anybody can read them. We all recognised that you could not lay down any hard and fast rule, and if these cases are looked up it will be found that we were by no means illiberal to moneylenders. No one says that in no circumstances shall interest be above such and such per cent. You cannot. You must take into consideration the circumstances of the borrower and what security he can offer. There was a Judge who used very picturesque language in this respect—Baron Bramwell. A case is recorded in which he asked this question of counsel: "On what terms would you lend a mutton chop to a starving dog? "You cannot lay down any hard mid fast rule. We have tried to remove what we all believe to be a very great grievance and to remedy the very great wrongs which are being done to people in necessitous circumstances. People who go to borrow money are not free agents. They are not all in a position to go to Mr. Drummond, as in the hypothetical case put before your Lordships by the noble Earl. It never occurs to them to go to Mr. Drummond. They are people who would not borrow at all if they were not pestered into borrowing.

The noble Earl said that a greet deal of the borrowing is in order to pay bets. That is perfectly true, but if it were more difficult to borrow money it would, therefore, be much more difficult to bet, and in this way this Bill does strike at the great evil of betting, particularly at the evil of street betting, which appears to flourish in Mayfair. I was surprised to hear the noble Earl say that there is demand for this money; why should we interfere with the demand? Again, it is exactly similar to the case already cited—liberty of contract. We have interfered with that. There is a demand for drink. Do you not interfere with that? Did the noble Earl when he was in the House of Com- mons and the licensing question was being discussed, get up and say, "There is a demand for drink"?

What happened was this. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson, denied that there was a necessity for this, and I said that there was a demand which seemed to connote a necessity. And I say the same about drink.

It comes to this: You may drink up to a certain point, but beyond that you may not drink. The law says you may not drink more than is good for you. And that is what this Bill says: You shall not enter into contracts which are manifestly bad for you, whether they are contracts to buy drink or to borrow money. We have had a great deal of evidence to show that in the workshops there are many people, some of them foremen, who are licensed moneylenders, and, being licensed moneylenders, they plague the people in the shops to borrow money and in that way get them into their hands. They are most cruel and most oppressive, and it is for that reason that we provide—and I say this boldly—one of the best things in the Bill, that where the sum of money is very small there should be no recourse to the Courts at all in order to get it back. There was probably no real necessity to borrow it. It was borrowed probably for purposes of betting or of drinking. Therefore, if the people like to pay it back well and good, but leave it as a debt of honour and do not trouble the Courts with it. I think the question of the circulars has been a little misunderstood. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillimore, asks: How is a moneylender to begin to conduct his business if he cannot send out circulars?

I did not say that. On the contrary, I said that repression of touting by circulars was quite legitimate. I was speaking of advertisements which are separately dealt with in the Bill.

I think the noble and learned Lord will find that 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 newspaper. He can send out his cards; but we desire to limit his expenses and prevent him throwing away money, as he often does. For my part, and I think I can speak for my friends, what actuated as was not a feeling that these circulars were a nuisance. It is not because we have to open a dozen or more of these circulars and then throw them into the wastepaper basket. It is not that. It is because people who would not borrow money and get into difficulties, but would set to work and make money in other ways, have this temptation put in their way and get into the hands of moneylenders. That is the real reason why circulars were prohibited. It is only extending a little further the excellent doctrine that if you can avoid it you should not put temptation in the way of people. It has been argued, and quite properly, that you should not, in low class neighbourhoods, where people are poor, hang up clothes at the door with no one to look after them; or put up open stalls at which people might go and pick up goods. If there are temptations which many people cannot resist, I see no infringement of the liberty of the subject in saying that you shall not put these temptations in their way.

The noble Earl asked: Why not prohibit borrowing? I suppose that was a reductio ad absurdum. It would be useless to attempt to prohibit borrowing. You cannot prohibit a man who is poor from asking for a loan. What could you do to him if he is an absolute pauper and asks for a loan, and takes no notice of your law? Nothing. If a man is carrying on a business in a way which has received the condemnation of centuries I hold that we are justified, however hopeless our efforts may be, in making one more effort to control what those on the Committee believed, with the noble Lord, Lord Carson, to be a grave evil inflicted upon people who deserve that the State should try to secure them better treatment.

I beg to move pro forma, in accordance with the rules of the House, that Causes 1 and 2, which are financial clauses, be omitted from the Bill.

moved to omit from paragraph (b) of subsection (3) the words "principal remaining due to the moneylender together with the interest thereon," and insert "balance remaining unpaid all interest in respect of the loan being." The noble, Lord said: The object of the Amendment is that the interest on the sum lent should be brought into consideration and not only the interest on the capital.

moved to add to the clause: "For the purposes of this section any person in his Majesty's naval, military or air forces shall, whether on full pay or half pay, be deemed to be a public officer holding a public office or employment." The noble Lord said: In pursuance of an undertaking which I gave to my noble friend, I beg to move this Amendment.

I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.

My Lords, this is an important Bill and I should have to ask your Lordships' attention to it in some detail were it not that in substance the same Bill has passed your Lordships' House in two previous Sessions. I myself introduced a Bill of this character in the year 1923. The Bill then passed this House and only failed to pass into law because of the General Election that occurred in the autumn of that year. In the following year, 1924, a similar Bill was introduced by my noble and learned friend who now leads the Opposition, with the addition of some valuable clauses dealing with the probation of offenders. That also passed this House, but again failed to become law owing to the occurrence of another General Election. The Bill is now introduced substantially in the same form by ourselves this year and has passed the House of Commons. It has a few new clauses, which are mainly formal, and a few clauses have been omitted from it or struck out in another place.

Among the clauses so struck out is a clause, which your Lordships may remember, which sought to abolish Grand Juries at Quarter Sessions. For myself I regret the omission of that clause. I think that calling Grand Juries at Quarter Sessions means a waste of money and a waste of a good deal of time by busy men. The cases have already been fully examined by magistrates and the examination, generally perfunctory, given to bills by the Grand Jury is of very little use. Still, it was decided to delete the clause and I will not ask your Lordships to reinstate it. I may ask your Lordships to deal with one aspect of the subject in Committee. I understand that it happens much oftener than. I should have thought, that the only bills sent to Quarter Sessions are cases where the accused has pleaded guilty at petty sessions. In those cases the Grand Jury have a purely formal duty under the Act of 1920, and I think that it would be of some use if your Lordships were to insert a clause to the effect that where the only cases remitted to Quarter Sessions are cases in which the accused have pleaded guilty, a Grand Jury be not summoned.

The remaining provisions are very much the same as in the former Bills. Part I deals with the probation of offenders and the statutory effect of it is that each petty sessional division will be required to have available the services of a probation officer. The same officer may be appointed for more than one division and the agent of a voluntary society may be appointed if the justices so desire. The appointment will be made by a probation committee of the magistrates and the cost, so far as it falls upon the public funds, would be shared between the Exchequer and the local authorities. These are very useful proposals which will result in an extension of the probation system, which I am certain is of great value.

The Second Part of the Bill deals with jurisdiction and procedure, and I need only refer to the fact that the First Schedule, and the clause relating thereto, provide that certain offences now triable at Assizes are to be made triable at Quarter Sessions, and that by the Second Schedule, and the clause relating to that Schedule, certain offences now only triable at Quarter Sessions will be able to be dealt with at petty sessions. I think that the adoption of those clauses by Parliament shows that Parliament has continued confidence in the manner in which magistrates carry out their duties. Parts III and IV of the Bill contain certain amendments of the law. I will only refer to Clause 38, which will increase the penalty for drunkenness when in charge of a motor car—a very serious offence—from the present penalty of 40s., or a month's imprisonment, to a penalty not exceeding £50, or four months. That clause shows the gravity with which the offence is regarded by Parliament. I do not think it is necessary that I should refer to the other clauses. The Bill contains many improvements in the law which have been long asked for and desired, and I am confident that if it is passed into law it will prove to be very useful. I beg to move.

My Lords, I agree with the description of this Bill given by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, and also with his com- mendation of the Bill to the House. That is not unnatural because, as he has said, this Bill has been through three Parliaments, and it passed substantially as it is now when the late Government was in office. Therefore, I do not propose to trouble your Lordships with any comments on the Bill in detail. There has, however, been some anxiety in the minds of people with regard to the appointment of probation officers. Clause deals with the matter. I do not doubt that the Government will be careful to give no preference of any sort to any kind of probation officer. Fear arises in this way. The present probation officers are not, properly speaking, officials at all, but are selected by voluntary societies, and they have done admirable work. Some of the most important of the societies are Church of England societies; others belong to other denominations.

This Bill enables proper probation officers to be appointed freely, and I think there is a great deal of advantage to be got by picking out those who have gained experience and who have done their work well from the existing people, although they may be denominational officials. It would never do, however, if it went out that there was any likelihood of preference being given to denominational probation officers in the choice to be made have no doubt that the Government are alive to that. It has been recommended to them from various societies, and I think care will have to be taken that the selection is made of probation officers entirely on their merits and from the point of view which promises to give most advantage to the public concerned. Subject to these remarks I will only say that I think the introduction of the system of probation officers is a great feature in this Bill. It will get rid of a great many sentences of the ordinary kind and save a great many people, particularly children, from being put into gaol. I think also that it will prove effective in reforming incipient criminals and delivering them from the consequences of their vice. With these observations I entirely approve of this Bill.

My Lords, there are no doubt many valuable provisions in this Bill, but, unless the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack is able to assure us that all the matters have been already passed in this House, I should ask that we might have an interval before the Committee stage. I would refer to two matters which seem to me of importance and with regard to which, as at present advised, my vote would be against the provisions of the measure. The first matter comes under Clause 11 and Clause 30, and relates to the power of the police to arrest and of the examining magistrate to go through the preliminary stages of the trial of a man at a different place from that in which the offence has been committed.

What would happen to a decent, respectable man, with not very much money, who, being in London on business, found himself charged with a sexual offence supposed to have been committed in Yorkshire, where he ordinarily lives He is arrested in London and tried its London. He wants witnesses and, above all, he needs a lawyer who will examine into the character of the prosecutor. He is bound to have a London solicitor, because the proceedings are conducted in London, and a London solicitor will be quite out of touch with Yorkshire and quite unable to make the necessary investigation. He would have to bring am witnesses, and, I forget whether he would be ultimately repaid, but in the first in stance he would have to pay for the expense of bringing up his witnesses from Yorkshire.

Clause 11 contains a provision that if the magistrate, during the course of the proceedings, thinks that the accused will suffer hardship then he is to surcease, but that may really make all the difference between conviction and acquittal depend upon the discretion of a single examining justice, who may not necessarily be a stipendiary. That might possibly be remedied, as in the case of bail, by giving an appeal to a Judge in Chambers. That might possibly mitigate the hardship of that clause. Clause 30, however, contains no such discretion given to the magistrate of stopping the matter if he thinks the accused is suffering, but it enables the magistrate in the first instance, not merely to try the man at a place where the offence was not committed, but to hale him to a place where he is not.

The Clause says:—

"Where it appears to any justice necessary or expedient, with a view to the better administration of justice, that any person charged with any indictable offence, or with a summary offence, should be tried jointly with or in the same place as some other person who is charged with an indictable offence or a summary offence, as the case may be, and who is in custody or is being or is to be proceeded against within the jurisdiction of that justice, he may, notwithstanding that the person so charged is not within that jurisdiction, issue a summons or a warrant against him."

That seems to me, again, a case where very great hardship might be inflicted, and where no discretion is given to the justice to surcease. The man is compelled to suffer in this case in a place where he was not and where possibly the offence has not been committed. That is one point which I should like to have further considered and on which, I trust, possibly some concession may be made. I cannot help thinking it may be very hard sometimes upon individuals, and particularly those in humbler circumstances.

The other point touches upon a matter to which the Lord Chancellor referred, and that is the increased jurisdiction given to Quarter Sessions. I confess that I am very averse from any increase of jurisdiction of the Quarter Sessions, and especially the kind of jurisdiction proposed to be given under this Bill. I have looked through the cases in the Schedule, and a whole number of them are cases where it is conceivable and possible by law, to give a sentence of penal servitude for life. This matter was laid down by 5 & 6 Victoria, and under that any felony which, when committed by a person not previously convicted of felony, is punishable by transportation beyond the seas for the term of life was removed from the jurisdiction of Quarter Sessions. One inroad and, as far as I know, only one inroad has been made upon that. The late Lord Bramwell persuaded the Legislature to make burglary triable at Quarter Sessions when it is conceivable that there may be a sentence of penal servitude for life. But that rested upon the ground that the distinction between housebreaking and burglary was so very fine—it depended upon whether it was before a certain hour of the clock or not—that it was silly that there should be different tribunals for the two, and housebreaking, being only punishable with 14 years' penal servitude, was triable at Quarter Sessions.

I do think, with all respect for Chairmen of Quarter Sessions, and Deputy-Chairmen in the Second Court of Quarter Sessions—which, as all lawyers know, is a different position—that it is very doubtful whether in a large number of these cases (I am not speaking of all)—indeed, in all those cases where there is a possible penalty of penal servitude for life, the jurisdiction should not be with Quarter Sessions. Take the case (of all others a case most necessary to try carefully) of arson—arson of crops, 14 years' penal servitude, arson of stacks, penal servitude for life. I venture to think it is very undesirable that that sort of case should go to Quarter Sessions.

Those are the two points on which I wished specially to speak. But I cannot help thinking that Clause 39, as it stands now, is almost comical. It says:

"No person shall—

(a) take or attempt to take in any court any photograph, or with a view to publication make or attempt to make in any court any portrait or sketch, of any person, being a judge of the court or a juror or a witness in or a party to any proceedings before the court, whether civil or criminal."

I conceive of some great trial of historical importance and the editor of the Graphic or the Illustrated London News, or some other such paper, sending somebody to make a sketch of the scene at which that great trial takes place. If he does, and if the artist does not put in a blank where the Judge is, and other blanks where the jurors and the witnesses are, he is to be liable to a penalty not exceeding £50. I cannot help thinking that that is almost comic as it stands, and that the clause will require rehandling.

My Lords, I am very glad that attention has been drawn to Clause 11. It was one of the matters to which I wished to draw the attention of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. I should like him to consider—no doubt it has been considered—whether the very wide language of that clause does not really go so far as to enable you to try people in any county in this country for offences committed in another county. If so, that should not be done without express words. The words as they stand seem to me to be very wide. Then there is another point on Clause 28. Your Lordships may recollect that last year this House was good enough, at my instance, to add to that clause, which deals with penalties against drunken motor-car drivers, a provision that there should be a compulsory suspension of the licence for 12 months. I am still enamoured of that proposal, as the punishment would fit the crime, and when we come to Committee I shall propose to put it down again. I also join in the appeal to the Lord Chancellor not to take the Committee stage till next week, if he can find that convenient.

My Lords, I quite recognise that it is desirable to give sufficient time for noble Lords to consider this Bill and to put down their Amendments, and we do not propose to take the Committee stage before Tuesday next. With regard to what was said by the noble and learned Viscount, these appointments will be made by a Committee of Magistrates. I am quite sure they will be disposed to make appointments on the merits, and we hope they will take that course and I am sure the noble and learned Viscount will use the influence which he possesses in that direction. As to what has been said by Lord Phillimore, I would remind him that all the provisions on which he has commented have already twice passed this House. It is rather unfortunate that the comments which he made about taking photographs in Court were not made earlier in the history of the Bill.

The purpose of Clause 11 of the Bill is, of course, to avoid the sending of prisoners about the country from one county to another. It contains a provision to the effect that if hardship is likely to occur then that course shall not be taken. In the original Bill that proviso was limited to cases where undue hardship occurred, but we have made it stronger, so that where any hardship is likely to occur then the magistrate will not proceed. Clause 30 is intended to provide for cases where two persons are chargeable with the same offence which they are said to have committed together, so that the facts to be proved are exactly the same in both cases. In those cases the Bill seeks to provide that one of them may be tried in the same place as the other, so that there shall be one inquiry in the case of both prisoners charged with the same offence. It seems a reasonable pro- vision, and the clause is guarded by the initial words that this course should only be taken where the magistrate thinks it necessary for the administration of justice. I think that, so guarded, no prejudice is likely to occur. Of course, I will consider what noble Lords have said about these two clauses, and no doubt they themselves will raise the points in Committee. I do not think it can be a fact, as Lord Russell suggested, that Clause 11 will enable anybody to hear a charge in respect of an offence committed wholly outside the country.

As regards the observations made on the First Schedule, that is to say, the proposal that certain offences now triable at Assizes shall be triable at Sessions, I rather regretted to hear the comments of Lord Phillimore, and, as at present advised, I cannot say that I agree with him. I think that the offences scheduled have been very carefully selected, and are just of the same kind as those which now every year go to Quarter Sessions. I believe that the experienced magistrates who sit at Quarter Sessions are quite competent to deal with the offences named in that Schedule, and I hope that, when the time comes, I shall persuade the House to stand by it.

rose to ask His Majesty's Government—

1. Whether it is true that on October 17, a lame man, the driver of a lorry belonging to the Daily Herald and carrying newspapers, was compelled to stop by four young men in Fascist uniform, one of whom pointed a revolver at him; that they possessed themselves of the lorry and drove away with it, but were stopped by an accidental collision; that in the proceedings taken against them by the police a charge of larceny was withdrawn; and that no punishment was ever inflicted upon them, except that they were bound over to keep the peace, and that the man with the revolver was fined for having no licence.

2. Whether threatening a man with a deadly weapon is not in itself a criminal offence; and, if so, why the law has not been enforced in this case; and, if not, whether the Government contemplate any amendment of the law; and the like questions in regard to intimidation by numbers.

3. If the facts are as stated, what assurance the Government can give that the liberty and security of peaceful subjects of His Majesty (without distinction of class or party) will be more vigorously protected for the future.

My Lords, I think the noble Lord has put his Questions in very moderate terms, and I am glad to have the opportunity of answering him, especially as this matter has given rise to a good deal of misrepresentation. The facts of the case are very simple. On this night, October 17, a car was being driven from Bouverie Street towards Euston Station with some papers which were to be despatched by train. Two young men, I do not know how they were dressed as I have not had that detail given to me, got in front of the car and the driver very naturally stopped. Thereupon two other young men got on to the car. One of them is said to have pointed something at the driver, but the driver said he could not swear that it was a revolver. The driver got off, and these four young men got into the car and drove off. As luck would have it, they ran the car into some railings, with the result that it was damaged and the papers spread about. The four young men got off and ran away.

The police, of course, made inquiries. They heard that a young fellow had boasted that he was the prime mover in the affair, and thereupon he was arrested and charged with stealing the car and papers. He also declared himself to be a member of a body calling themselves the National Fascisti, whatever that expression may connote. I believe there are two bodies of Fascisti, and that this is one of the two which does not desire to be confused with the other. The police searched the offices of this body, but found nothing at all on which it was possible to proceed. The man was remanded, but before his case came on three other young men came to the police and said that he was innocent, and that they themselves, and a fourth man, had done this thing. It turned out that the first man was boasting, it was mere braggadocio on his part, and that he had nothing whatever to do with it. He was discharged. The fourth man was shortly afterwards arrested, and the four were then charged by the police with larceny.

That having been done, it became the duty of the Director of Public Prosecutions to look into the matter, and he did so, and having considered all the available evidence, he was satisfied that probably no magistrate would commit these men on a charge of stealing and certainly no jury would convict them. They said, and apparently said truly, that they objected to the contents of the paper, that they only meant to stop it and cause delay in the circulation of the paper and so hamper its further publication. Taking their own account, that was a very foolish and a very wrong thing to do. But it did seem plain that they had no intention of stealing the car or papers, or depriving the owners of the possession of these things. They only meant to drive the car a little way, I suppose, and leave it. Upon that the Director of Public Prosecutions was satisfied that there was really no evidence of larceny, and he did what was the only fair and right thing to do. He gave directions that the charge of larceny should be withdrawn. The offence was difficult to deal with and he made lip his mind to proceed under an old Statute and take out summonses for an order that these young men should give securities to be of good behaviour in the future. As regards the fourth man, Wilson, he was found to be in possession of a pistol without a permit. He was charged with that at the same time. An order was made by the Magistrate that the four men should find securities to be of good behaviour, and Wilson was fined £20 for being in unlawful possession of the pistol. The three who had given themselves up found securities without difficulty; they were apparently respectable young men, and nothing was known against them. The fourth was not able to find securities or to pay the £20, and as a consequence he was locked up and I believe is still in one of His Majesty's prisons. That is a complete history of the case.

Do I understand that there was no clear evidence that a revolver was used for the purpose of holding up this man?

That is so. The only statement about a revolver was made by the driver, and he said he could not swear that it was a revolver. That made the matter much more difficult from the, point of view of a prosecution, and that being so no charge could be made out of threatening with a revolver or intimidation. The damage which was done to the car was plainly accidental damage. Unless it was malicious and wilful you cannot proceed, but, of course, the civil remedy remains. The Director of Public Prosecutions, bearing all these things in mind, considered that no criminal charge could be upheld.

I have only a few comments to make. I am not saying for a moment that these young men are free from blame in what they did. They took a course which was not only foolish but very reprehensible, but I am satisfied that the Director of Public Prosecutions took the right view, that, the charge of larceny could not have been pressed. That being so, it would have been most wrong to proceed with the charge, for a charge which is put forward most solemnly and does not succeed does much harm to the administration of justice. There was no question of leniency. He had no idea of leniency towards these young men. What he desired to do was to take the best course he could in order to bring these young men to justice and to show them that they were breaking the law.

I wish to add that, in consequence of the action which the Director of Public Prosecutions took, some attacks have been made upon him in the public Press which seem to me wholly unjustified. The Director of Public Prosecutions is a most able and most careful public servant. All who have to do with him know perfectly well that he has no desire except that the law shall be justly and impartially administered; and to anybody who has been in contact with him, to any of the noble Lords on either of the Front Benches, I am sure it is perfectly absurd to suggest that he took his action from some other motive. Being a public servant his mouth, of course, is shut, and perhaps that is why some newspapers have taken the courageous action of making attacks upon him which, if made upon anybody else, would probably have been met and have received their just reward. He cannot defend himself against these people who take the course of making these vile and unfounded attacks upon him. I need only say to this House that nobody who knows the Piddle Prosecutor would believe that he is capable of the conduct of which he is so falsely and unfairly accused.

I only add one other observation. The noble Lord asks at the end of his Question what assurance the Government can give that the liberty and security of peaceful subjects of His Majesty, without distinction of class or party, will be more vigorously protected. To give an assurance of that kind would be to admit that there has been some remissness in the past. I have no such admission to make. I, of course, entirely agree with the noble Lord that justice must be administered without distinction of person, of party or of class. There is no one here who would advocate any other course. I believe that has been the course taken in the past, and particularly in the matter to which the noble Lord has referred, and therefore I am sure he will not ask me to give an assurance in the terms which he suggests. I hope I have given a plain answer to the noble Lord and that after what I have said he will be most anxious to dissociate himself from the unfair charges which have been made by others.

My Lords, the noble Lord who put this Question down upon the Paper has in so doing rendered a great public service. This is a very serious matter and I propose, with the permission of your Lordships, to speak very plainly about it. There is a very strong feeling in many quarters of the country with regard to this case. Immediately Parliament reassembled Questions concerning it were asked in another place, and if it had not been for the fact that the trial of the Communists was proceeding my colleagues in another place would long before now have pressed for a clay there to debate this case. In view of the Communist trial—I think your Lordships will appreciate what is meant—they decided it was better to wait. The occasion has now come, and, indeed, this particular case has already been the subject of some discussion in another place to-day.

I feel that the issue raised by the noble Lord in this Question is one of the most serious which can engage the attention of Parliament and I am bound to say with every respect but most emphatically that I find the reply of the noble Viscount on the Woolsack extremely inadequate and profoundly disappointing. Surely nothing can be more injurious to the best interests of the country than that large masses of the people should come to feel that the law is not being impartially administered as between one class and another? And the fact does remain that, because of this case and because of other recent happenings, that view has come to be taken amongst hundreds of thousands of the workers of this country. Criticism in this matter is by no means confined to Labour circles This series of Questions clown upon the Paper in the name of the noble Lord is, in itself, an evidence of that. Weighty articles dealing with this case and with other relevant happenings have appeared in the course of the last few weeks in leading Liberal newspapers and even in leading Unionist newspapers. Therefore the disquietude—and much disquietude has been evinced—is not confined by any means to Labour circles.

The main facts are very well set forth in the Questions of the noble Lord and they were developed by him in a speech of great clearness and of conspicuous moderation. I am afraid I shall not be able to speak quite in the same fashion as he did, because I feel upon these matters extremely strongly and there are some things which I feel it my duty to say quite frankly. I have already indicated that in my view the defence of the Government, not only here to-day but also the defence of the Attorney-General in another place and at the Guildhall, does not at all fully meet the position. What really is the defence of the Government? It comes to this, that the charge of larceny could not, in their opinion, have been sustained, and they seem to think that that ends the matter. Not so. There is a great deal more to be said than that. The Attorney-General, in his speeches and replies to questions dealing with this matter, has, in effect, contended that no criticism of any sort or kind lies against the Public Prosecutor and I rather gather that that also is the contention of the noble and learned Viscount upon the Woolsack. I venture very respectfully to traverse that view.

I do not wish to go into past happenings too much, but certainly as regards the Attorney-General I do feel it necessary to remind your Lordships that two years ago he gave advice to the then Government which proved to be absolutely wrong. He put the Government in the very humiliating position of having to bring in a Bill of Indemnity. Not only so, but certain things were done in con- nection with that matter, the matter of the Irish deportees, which evoked the criticism, to use no stronger word, of a Lord Justice of Appeal, It is therefore quite clear that, so far as the Attorney-General is concerned, his opinions are not unassailable, and I feel I am entitled, with respect, to traverse the view which he has expressed.

The Government, I think, must try to realise that it is not upon the larceny point that criticism in this Daily Herald case begins and ends. There is a great deal more to be said than that. Quite apart from the question of intimidation by numbers, there is this important matter of the revolver—of threatening with a deadly weapon. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack said that the driver of the van stated that he could not swear that it was a revolver. According to my information, the driver of the van was terrorised by something which was pointed at him, which he thought was a revolver, and which subsequently proved to be a revolver. In those circumstances it is very difficult for me, as a layman, to believe that some serious offence was not in that act committed, and I think that the reply of the Government on the point is quite inadequate.

The noble Lord said that it subsequently proved to be a revolver. That is not so. There is not the least evidence of that.

I am informed that one of the men was fined for having a revolver, and according to my information it was the same revolver. I submit that the Public Prosecutor did not make sufficiently close inquiries into this matter, and what we want to know is why was not a more adequate alternative charge preferred. Why, when the larceny charge was withdrawn, was such a comparatively trivial charge as breach of the peace put forward instead? Surely, my Lords, some more serious charge than that could have been preferred and the case sent forward to a jury. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack said that no question of leniency was ever entertained for a moment. Be it so, but the fact remains that the Magistrate who was trying this case, when the charge of larceny was withdrawn, said to the accused: "I think the Public Prosecutor has been extremely lenient in withdrawing the larceny charge." He later went on to say: "You have put yourselves in an extremely serious position and if the case had gone on you would have been severely punished." I submit that there is great conflict between those words and the action of the Public Prosecutor in' withdrawing the charge, and in not merely withdrawing the charge but asking simply for penalties which were, in effect, nominal.

I am sorry to say it, but I do say it, that nothing which has been said to-day has to my mind removed the very ugly impression that this case has created. Even if a more serious alternative charge could not have been preferred I think that, in all the circumstances, there might have been more willingness evinced on the part of the Government to reply to one of the Questions of the noble, Lord—to face the position and, if need be, alter the law. No indication of any willingness to do that was evinced. It has been well said that laws must not only be just but that people must think them just, and, rightly or wrongly, large masses of the workers do not believe that, in this case, the law has been fairly administered. That is a serious matter. That feeling, permit me to say, has been strengthened naturally enough—and this has been commented upon not merely on Labour platforms and at street corners, but in some of our most respectable and able journals—by the fact that this Daily Herald case has synchronised more or less with the prosecution of, and sentence upon, the Communists.

I will not discuss that to-day, and I am not expressing the slightest sympathy with Communism, but the workers know, as your Lordships know, that only a few years ago certain highly-placed personages used language with regard to the Army which was scarcely distinguishable, if at all distinguishable, from that for which the Communists have been sent to prison, and yet nothing was done to these highly-placed personages. That is not forgotten and it is contrasted with the treatment meted out to these Communists, who are poor men and not highly placed. That is how the argument is put, and in the circumstances one cannot be surprised. On top of that there is this Daily Herald ease, and I say that it is not surprising, in the circumstances, that it has come about, in the minds of a large number of people, that confidence in the good name of British justice has been rudely shaken. I repeat that this is a most serious state of things. I will not say anything more, except that, putting it in the most favourable light, it is said that this case has been badly bungled by the Public Prosecutor. I regret very much that the attitude of the Government to-day, and their attitude previously in the Communist case, has done nothing to remove the impression which has been created, that justice is not being fairly administered as between class and class. I say with profound conviction that scarcely anything can be more disastrous than that.

My Lords, at the close of his remarks the noble Lord said that the manner in which this case had been managed by the Public Prosecutor was such that belief in justice had been rudely shaken. I submit, with some confidence, that it would have been much more rudely shaken if the Director of Public Prosecutions, having formed, as he had formed, the opinion that this prosecution could not be sustained, had notwithstanding, because of some feeling as to the result on the public mind and in the Press, proceeded with that prosecution. The Public Prosecutor is a public officer who has to do the duty placed before him day by day. He has to deal with many cases of many kinds, and his first duty is to see that in ordering a prosecution he is not acting oppressively. I say that if the Public Prosecutor had proceeded with this prosecution for larceny he would have been guilty of acting oppressively, and I cannot conceive of any man holding his office—I held it for fourteen years—acting otherwise than he did.

For a good many days Lord Charnwood has had on the Paper of this House a Notice which, without using such strong language as was used by the noble Lord who has just spoken, really implies charges and innuendoes against the Public Prosecutor. And though he repudiated the, last paragraph—and I am sure it cannot really be his motive—the paragraph which asks

"What assurance the Government can give that the liberty and security of peaceful subjects of His Majesty (without distinction of class or party) will be more vigorously protected for the future"—

I cannot think that he quite saw the consequences of that language. Could any one read that except as meaning that the Director of Public Prosecutions had not done that which should be done? I confess that when that is printed, and appears on the Paper of the House of Lords for days and days, it does require something to be said to repudiate an innuendo of that kind. My noble friend is a distinguished author. Many of us have read his works. I have, and I notice that when he is writing about a historical character he is careful to verify his references. No one who heard the reply given by the Lord Chancellor could doubt that in this case the noble Lord would not have put some of the statements which he has put on this Paper had he endeavoured to verify his references.

With regard to the revolver, it is not quite so simple as Lord Arnold says. He says: "Oh, he pointed something, and it must have been a revolver." That is not the way in which you prove criminal charges. You must prove something before you can convict a man, and, if I am rightly informed, it does not rest there. Not only was there no evidence sufficient to sustain the charge that he had a revolver in his hand, but there is no evidence, as I am informed, as to which man it was who presented the revolver. Really, the whole evidence of the revolver disappears when you come to look into it. Again I say that the Director of Public Prosecutions in a case like that would be very wrong if he preferred a charge which he knew he could not sustain. I do not think the noble Lord quite realises how serious these things are. When you are in a position of responsibility of that kind you have to take care, as far as lies in your power, not to do injustice, and not to put people on their trial when they ought not to be put on their trial. That is the first obligation and duty. And may I point out that, if there is any suggestion still anywhere—I do not think there is—that the Director of Public Prosecutions was influenced by political feelings, i f he, not believing that there was a case for prosecution, had gone on with it because he was afraid of public opinion, he would have been doing the very thing for which it is now suggested that he should be condemned. I think it is a rash thing to copy a newspaper report and put it down as a Question in the House of Lords without any inquiry as to its exactitude.

As regards the noble Lord's speech, I have very little to say. The Lord Chancellor has answered that. But I have known Sir Archibald Bodkin all my professional life, and to suggest that he should be influenced by anything except motives of duty—duty to the country, duty to those concerned with the case with which he has to deal—is absurd. I feel it very strongly, and resent any attack being made upon him. He is a public servant, his mouth is closed, and after what has been said elsewhere by the Attorney-General and has been said tonight by the Lord Chancellor—and indeed anyhow—I cannot imagine that any reasonable person who really considers the case impartially will believe that he acted otherwise than properly and absolutely rightly.

My Lords, unless I had felt compelled to do so I would not have risen to address your Lordships, as I have already addressed you to-day on another matter. But such attacks have been made upon the Director of Public Prosecutions that I think it would be cowardly of any one who knew him, who knew his reputation, who knew what had been his career, and who knew his qualities, to sit silent and let them go uncontradicted to the world. I hope I am wrong, but, as it seems to me, the noble Lord opposite, Lord Arnold, jumped at this occasion to make some political capital.

Lord Charnwood, who, among other accomplishments, is a barrister, went into this matter, and rather suggested that the law should be altered in some way. I understood the noble Lord to say—and it was pretty clear—that there was no question of larceny in this case. Larceny means the taking of the property of another feloniously with intent to deprive him of his property. What happened here? I have made myself acquainted with the statements of these people—they have been published. There is no evidence at all but the confessions of these people themselves. The only other thing is that the driver of the van containing the newspapers says that some one—he could not say which person—pointed something at him, which might have been a revolver. He said—the Lord Chancellor has mentioned it, but it does not yet seem to be accepted by the noble Lord opposite—that he could not swear it was a firearm at all, he could not swear what it was.

Lord Charnwood suggested that something might have been done in the way of a charge of threatening. Threatening to do what? I do not know what criminal charge could be brought of that character, simply because someone said: "He pointed something at me which may have been a firearm." But Lord Arnold—I was about to say I was thankful that I should never be tried by him, yet I suppose I might be tried by him as one of my Peers—would apparently proceed in a criminal trial in this way: "The prosecutor says that someone pointed something at him. He cannot say it is a firearm. The defendant is a man who has a firearm." No one proved that he had it, on that night, but he is proved to have had a firearm because he was convicted of having it without a licence. If he had had it with a licence he could not have been convicted of it at all. "And," says the noble Lord—who might try me—"that proves that the man in the dock, who has got a firearm without a licence, pointed that firearm at the man who prosecutes."

I did not say that it proved it. I said that it seemed to me that in all the circumstances there was a case here for very careful consideration. I quite think a more serious charge could have been preferred, and I certainly think there was a case for a jury. And, even taking the case which the noble and learned Lord has put, many a man has been hanged on less evidence than that.

Not by me. What charge could have been preferred? A charge of larceny was preferred. The noble Lord, Lord Arnold, said there was a case for a jury. Let us see what it was. A charge of larceny was preferred by the police before the Public Prosecutor, Sir Archibald Bodkin, knew anything of the case whatever. It was preferred by the police, who are no more lawyers than some other people are. Having preferred it, they asked the Public Prosecutor to take up the case and, of course, he did his duty. He looked into the facts. The first thing that a responsible man who is prosecuting has to consider is whether there is a case which it is fair to lay before a jury. The noble Lord opposite says that there was and that he feels that a jury would have convicted. On what evidence would they have convicted? He would have had to get a jury prepared to convict upon no evidence at all—a Russian jury.

What is the evidence of larceny? The only evidence at all is the statement of the young men, and what they said was: "We belong to the Fascisti." I think they are a parcel of idiots to do anything of the kind. They do not know the harm they are doing their country by these idiotic performances. They said that they belonged to the Fascisti. The real Fascisti, the Fascisti of Mussolini, are a very different sort of people. But having said that they belonged to the Fascisti, they went on to say that they had read the Daily Herald, that they did not like it and, therefore, thought it would be a good thing to delay its circulation on that particular day. There were a great many copies of the newspaper in this van. They got hold of the van and they said—this is their own account, there is no evidence but their own, none whatever—"We did not intend to steal it." That would have to go to the jury. It is all a question of intention. If you take property from another it does not follow that you mean to steal it. You may take it with his leave; you may take it for a lark, and you may take it under a claim of right. There has to be a felonious intention to deprive the owner of possession of the property. These young men said: "We did it because we did not like the Daily Herald and we wanted to delay its circulation on that morning. We intended to drive the van away and leave it somewhere with the newspapers." There was no other evidence.

What jury with any regard for their oath could have convicted them upon that evidence? That being all the evidence, I think I can tell the noble Lord what would have happened. The Grand Jury infallibly would have thrown out the bill if they had any regard for their oath, and these people would not have been put upon their trial at all. What else could they have been charged with? It is the sort of behaviour which is very undesirable and is illegal. The Public Prosecutor, who is a very good lawyer, a man of excellent judgment and of no political leanings at all, came to the con- clusion that under an old Statute which had been used for the prosecution of a person named Lansbury in 1913, there was authority to show that these young men might be proceeded against. So he abandoned the charge which could not have been proved—a charge which had been preferred by the police and not by him—and he proceeded upon a charge which could be proved.

Is it a sign of wickedness and iniquity to start a prosecution and then abandon it? Has it never been done before Does not the noble Lord think that the Public Prosecutor abandoned it because he was satisfied, as anybody who looks at the ease must be satisfied, that a conviction could not be obtained? He took an extreme course—the finding of the case I have mentioned shows the research which he made—and he took a course which resulted in those four young men being bound over with sureties to be of good behaviour. If they do anything contrary to the undertaking they have given they can be brought up without any further trial and can be sent to prison. It is like entering into recognisances. The young man who had a pistol without a licence—not necessarily on that night, that was never proved—somewhere in his pocket or in his room, was fined £20. I heard the noble Lord say something about there being one law for the rich and another for the poor. Well, this young man is not rich enough to pay £20 and he is in gaol now. He was also bound over to be of good behaviour, but he is in gaol. What more can the noble Lord want? If you are in gaol it does not matter much for what offence you are there.

The noble Lord, Lord Charnwood, said that there had been suggestions in this case that a political tinge had been given to it, and I was glad to hear him say that these suggestions are absurd. But they have been repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Arnold. He said that they are not absurd at all. He is convinced with thousands of others, that there is something political about this case. Had Sir Archibald Bodkin wished to make political capital at the time the Communists were being prosecuted, and had he been a politician, a Machiavelli, is it not obvious that he would have seized upon a person upon the Government side and have prosecuted him for a small offence?—yes; he would have prosecuted him. Then had anybody said: "You have behaved in a political way," Sir Archibald Bodkin could have replied: "Not at all; I prosecuted this member of the Fascisti"—a friend of the Government, I suppose—"and I am prosecuting the Communists at the same time." What could have been said? A man who had the slightest political leanings would have done that. But that is exactly what Sir Archibald Bodkin did not do.

I am sorry to mention the matter, but it has been dragged into this discussion by the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, in his attack, to which I shall have to allude. The Public Prosecutor prosecuted the Communists. The Communists were convicted by a jury of their countrymen and were sent to gaol. I wonder, and I have been wondering for some time, what noble Lords and others think about interfering in this Communist case at the present moment. Do they know that those men have ten days in which to appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal if there is anything wrong about their conviction or sentence? Do they know that hardly a person is convicted nowadays who does not appeal to that Court? Is it decent or proper to indulge, here or anywhere else, in comments and attacks upon that case, when words that are said by awkward people, or by people replying to awkward people, may prejudice the case which those men may have yet to bring before the Court of Criminal Appeal?

May I with great respect ask the noble Lord this? Is it not the ease that this matter has been commented upon by nearly every newspaper in the country, and has it not been previously ruled that after a case has been tried before a jury and a verdict given, though an appeal may be pending, the verdict may be the subject of comment, because the appeal will be heard before Judges? Has not that been the rule?

Yes, it might not be a contempt of court to discuss the Communist case, or to write a leading article about it—it would not necessarily be a contempt of court—and the reason is that the Judges are less liable to be influenced by what is in the newspapers than would be people who serve on juries. But you may do a great deal of harm without committing contempt of court. You can do a great deal of harm to people who may appeal without rendering yourself liable to be committed to prison for contempt of court. I myself have regretted to find that this ca-se has been enlarged by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Arnold) into an attack upon the Attorney-General. What has the Attorney-General to do with this case? The noble Lord, Lord Charnwood, brought forward a definite case, in which he represented that an explanation was required. That case had nothing to do with the Attorney-General. The Attorney-Genera did not know what Sir Archibald Bodkin was going to do in that case. He only knew of it after he had been talking to Sir Archibald Bodkin upon some other legal business. Sir Archibald Bodkin, after consulting the Attorney-Genera upon another matter, merely mentioned what he had done in this particular ease. Why then bring the Attorney-General into this case? He had nothing to do with it. Why bring in the Communists?

I cannot help repeating what I said almost at the beginning, that I cannot but think that this case has been treated so differently by the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, from the manner in which it was treated by the noble Lord, Lord Charnwood, because it seemed to present a very good opportunity to drag into this case another case in which the people concerned were tried upon a quite different charge, at a different place, and prosecuted by a different person, the Attorney-General, and because it was supposed, I hope mistakenly supposed, to present an opportunity to those sadly in want of some better political capital of making something out of it.

My Lords, may I ask your Lordships' indulgence for one moment while I reply on a personal point that was made by my noble friend opposite, Lord Desart? My noble friend remarked that I had done some injustice to the Public Prosecutor by allowing a Question, in certain terms, to be on the Notice Paper of this House for fourteen days. I intended no injustice. I conceive with a little difficulty where my noble friend's quarrel with my words arises. For fourteen days he has had this Notice before him, and I have had the pleasure of meeting him and others of your Lordships during that time, and he might have pointed out to me that he considered that I was doing some injustice to a responsible public official. I intended none. May I explain this? It was a point of complaint on the part of my noble friend that I had set something down without attempting personally to inquire into the facts. The facts which I have put down I took from the newspapers. I set down a report which has been put about this country, and widely believed, and I put it clown in the form in which I believed it was being circulated, because I thought to put the matter in that way was necessary in the public interest. Having done so, I confess that I feel I have nothing for which to apologise.

I hope I may say that I did not really mean the comment to be so serious as my noble friend seems to regard it, but I did think that it was unfortunate that the words should have been on the Notice Paper.

My Lords, I would not venture to rise at this late hour were it not that I wish to say that those of us on these Benches do not accept the modification of the noble Lord, Lord Charnwood. Those on the other side of the House who have attempted to defend what took place, have tried to make out that the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, was making a personal attack on the character of Sir Archibald Bodkin. Perhaps I may make it quite clear that we are not concerned with personalities. What really concerns us is that none of the noble Lords on the other side of the House who have spoken have really attempted to touch on what we consider to be the real issue. What we wanted to know from the learned Lord Chancellor was, could there not have been another charge? He did not tell us that. What I venture to suggest to your Lordships will cause very much more consternation to constitutionalists all over the country is that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack would not admit that there had been any remissness at all. Indeed, he seemed to think that there is no way in which it is possible under the existing law to deal with men who hold up people by threats of violence because they regard that as a perfectly legitimate piece of propaganda.

Nothing that has been said from the other side of the House has in our opinion in any way touched on the point that the noble Lord, Lord Charnwood, made, as to what is being said about this ease in the country, and, from the case that has been made out by the Government, rightly said—namely, that whereas Communists are being imprisoned for suggesting that the Constitution is not sufficient for the proper government of this country, and that they are willing to resort to force—those are their opinions and not the opinions of the Labour Party—that whereas they are being imprisoned for that reason, you have a body known as the National Fascisti, whose members are only bound over for actually resorting to force. Nothing has been said to-night that is going to allay the consternation about the way in which justice has miscarried on this occasion, and for that reason I feel that it is only right that we on these Benches should make it quite clear that we cannot see any reason for the suggestions in the noble Lord's Question being in any way modified.