PAWNBROKERS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.—SECOND READING.

HC Deb 29 March 1860 vol 157 cc1578-9

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. HORSFALL moved the second reading of this Bill, the object of which he explained to be to enable pawnbrokers to charge the sum of one halfpenny for every duplicate issued on a pledge under the sum of 5s.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

MR. EDWIN JAMES

said, he should move that the Bill be read that day six months. The effect of the measure was to charge the poor for a duplicate, which pawnbrokers were precluded from doing by the statute. The Act of Geo. II. was the first Act which regulated the rate of interest and issuing pledge-tickets. That Act was amended by an Act of Geo. III., by which no duplicate tickets were chargeable for pledges under 5s. The Bill emanated entirely from Manchester and Liverpool, and was not desired at all by the respectable portion of the trade in London. The argument put forward in support of the Bill was that it would put a stop to the unlicensed pawnshops to which the poor people resorted, where they were not treated with the same liberality as at the licensed pawnshops. If there were such shops as these, carrying on a trade and extorting money from the poor, it was the duty of the Government to put them down in a regular manner. The pledges under 5s. in the pawnshops of London alone amounted to 31,650 in one month, many of them being for 3d. 4d. and 6d., and it would be monstrous to take the halfpenny from the poor and add it to the enormous interest—frequently more than 100 per cent of the pawnbroker. It was purely a Manchester scheme, and he was persuaded the House would never give its sanction to a Bill so palpably favouring extortion.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."

MR. MELLOR

said, it was of little consequence whether the Bill emanated from Manchester or elsewhere. The question was whether it was just. The country pawnbrokers were universally in favour of the Bill. It was found that to take pledges under 5s., issue a ticket gratis, and meet the expense of warehousing the articles was not a remunerative business. The consequence was that the pledges were refused, and the poor were driven to unlicensed shops, where they were charged, not 200, but 800 per cent. The unlicensed trade flourished, and the poor were infinitely more oppressed than if they were charged ½d., as provided by the Bill.

MR. HUMBERSTON

contended that the Bill was, in fact, a protection of the poor. The licensed pawnbrokers were not compelled to accept pledges under 5s., and unless they did the poor were necessarily driven to those who were unlicensed. The charge of ½d. upon the duplicate was therefore reasonable.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 178; Noes 32: Majority 146.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read 2°, and committed for Tuesday, 24th April.