COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 6 August 1872)

§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY
, in moving (in the absence of the Earl of Harrowby) that the House go into Committee on the Bill, said, that as some of their Lordships thought this Bill was too much in the interest of the pawnbrokers, he might state that he had received a bitter complaint from one of them against the compulsory insurance of their customers' goods; and he would ask Her Majesty's 545 Government whether they would take into consideration the granting any relaxation of the insurance duty for that part of the insurance amounting to about a fourth, which would be necessary to cover the risks of the customers? The proposal for insurance of pawnbrokers' pledges seemed to have been first made by Mr. M'Culloch, but the provisions of this Bill had been sketched out in a pamphlet dated June, 1868, by a pawnbroker of Exeter, Mr. J. R. Brooking, to whom seemed to belong much more credit for these reforms than he had hitherto obtained.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
said, that on the second reading he stated his objections to this Bill. Those objections he still entertained, but at that period of the Session, and in the present state of the House, it would be useless to offer any Amendments which would materially alter it, as such a course would probably cause the loss of the measure; but he wished to express his opinion—an opinion fortified by that of several persons of experience with whom he had conferred on the subject—that this was a step in the wrong direction. His view was, that no other course but that of establishing perfect free trade between the pawnbroker and his customers would be satisfactory, and that when Her Majesty's Government found leisure to deal with the subject, they would find that there was no escape from the difficulties of the pawn broking trade except by the adoption of some such a course. At present, our legislation hampered the trade and hampered the customers with a number of regulations; but it did not do what a thoroughly paternal Government would do—protect the poor man against the necessity of going to the pawnbroker to pledge small articles. If there was to be protection, that would be the best form of protection in the case. The only argument against free trade in the transactions between pawnbrokers and their customers was that it would afford additional facilities to a portion of the criminal population, by enabling thieves to get rid more readily of stolen property; but that objection was not a valid one, inasmuch that the thieves, knowing what police supervision existed in connection 546 with pawning, preferred to go to buyers of another kind, and, therefore, the restrictions imposed upon pawnbrokers did not lead to a greater percentage of detections in criminal cases. He did not wish to detain their Lordships; but he did wish to enter his protest against the supposition that he was any party to the creation of the vested interest which might hereafter be held to have been created by this Bill, for their Lordships knew the difficulties to which vested interests had given rise, when legislation was proposed in respect to another trade. He did not say that such interests might not be fairly urged on the consideration of Parliament; but he only hoped that by protesting now he might keep himself in court for a future occasion, when legislation in respect of pawnbroking might be attempted on a more direct and genuine basis.

THE EARL OF MORLEY
protested against the supposition that the Bill was a step in the wrong direction; on the contrary, it was a decided step towards free trade, for whereas under the existing law the pawnbroker was only allowed to enter into a free contract with a customer for amounts above £10, the present Bill reduced the amount for which free contracts should be made to £2 2s. He had himself considerable sympathy with the views of the noble Marquess with respect to the expediency of introducing complete free trade into pawnbroking, but the Committee of the House of Commons by whom the subject was considered did not think that it would be expedient to go so far at present.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
asked if the Government would accept a Proviso "that nothing in the Bill should be considered as creating any vested interest?"

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL
said, he did not think the Proviso necessary. The Bill as it stood contained nothing which could tie the hands of Parliament.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
said, that technically his noble Friend (the Duke of Argyll) was right, but his noble Friend knew that the doctrine of vested interests was extended to very wide limits in practice.

§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY
said, he would now move the Amendment of which he had given Notice, to leave out Proviso 2, which makes a farthing into a halfpenny, and three farthings into a penny, because it seemed to have been adopted to make up for the insufficient supply of farthings by the Mint, and he feared that the Proviso would encourage the Mint to neglect the proper supply of farthings. That farthings were insufficient in quantity in some parts of the country was shown by the answer given by Mr. Stubbs, a magistrate's clerk at Liverpool, to Question 3,095 of the Select Committee of the, House of Commons. He said— As to Section 4, which enacted that pawnbrokers were to give farthings, I may say that in Liverpool farthings are scarcely known, and it is frequently the case that rows of pins have been given in lieu of farthings. Whether from scarcity of coin or from other causes, I cannot say, but I have not seen a farthing in Liverpool certainly within the last six years. If the Proviso applied only to fractional sums, not represented by any coin, it would be intelligible; but it did not seem called for, except by reason of a deficiency of coin, for which the Mint was responsible. The Proviso was most unjust in principle, for it was the same in form and spirit as a Proviso would be enacting that in certain cases half-a-sovereign or a sovereign should be required where a debt amounted to 9s. or 19s., for if a portion of the copper coinage was to be treated as non-existing, the silver coinage might soon come in for similar treatment. Any deficiency of small coin fell very severely upon the poorer portion of the population, and he had seen that proved by the fact that the only complaint which he heard made in Savoy after the annexation, was that the French Government had not given them as much small change as they had under the Piedmontese. He might also refer to the whole population of Catalonia having rejected two new copper coinages of the Revolutionary Government in Spain, so that even the beggars would not take these coins. The first of these coinages diminished the number of coppers in the piece of silver from 34 to 32, so as to get rid of four small coins called ochavos, and the second reduced the 32 coppers to 20, which would not 548 harmonize with any prices current in the country. Beyond that, moreover, it was useless for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce the duties on tea and sugar if at the same time he stinted the supply of farthings, so that the consumer could not benefit by these reductions, which are only profitable to the importers. The noble Lord concluded by moving the omission of the Proviso.

§ LORD REDESDALE
said, he must express his concurrence with the noble Lord (Lord Stanley of Alderley) in the view that the Proviso against which he had moved his Amendment would not have been fair to poor persons who might be obliged to have dealings with pawnbrokers.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, he also concurred in thinking that the Proviso would have been unadvisable.