Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1930 > Select Committee on Moneylenders Bill, 1929 > Report - Moneylenders Bill, 1929 together with the proceedings of the Special Committee and Minutes of Evidence

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Dé Céadaoin, 28adh Bealtaine, 1930.

Wednesday, 28th May, 1930.

The Committee met at 11 a.m.

DEPUTY J. T. WOLFE in the Chair.

General O’Duffy, Commissioner, Gárda Síochána, called and examined.

707. Chairman.—I think we all know, General O’Duffy, that you are the Commissioner of the Gárda Síochána, having head offices in Dublin?—Yes.

708. Can you tell us the number of registered moneylenders in the Saorstát? I suppose you cannot give us the number of unregistered?—I can answer the first part of the question, but I fear it would be impossible to give the number of unregistered moneylenders. even if I were to be given twelve months’ notice. Up to now, moneylending has not been regarded directly as a matter for police supervision. I find that under the R.I.C. there were only a few prosecutions, and since 1925 the Gárda have had only six prosecutions.

709. For what offences?—For offences under the existing law. We were more concerned with the evils resulting from moneylending and incidental to it than with moneylending itself. Our position is different from what it is under, say, the licensing laws or the Betting Acts. It is almost impossible to get evidence. Complaints have been made to the police, but immediately the police suggest court proceedings the case is dropped; the people decline to give evidence in court. Usually the transactions between the moneylender and the borrower are secret, and we find that the borrower is much more afraid of publicity than of the moneylender. There are 147 registered moneylenders in the Dublin police district, and in the remainder of the Saorstát there are only 33, so that so far as the registered moneylenders are concerned the problem may be regarded as a Dublin police problem. As I said, it is impossible to obtain an accurate estimate of the number of unregistered moneylenders. In Dublin City we estimate the number at about 50; in Cork there are seven registered moneylenders and 36 unregistered; in Limerick there are three registered, and the Gárda report that there are no unregistered; in Waterford there are three registered, and in addition there are three persons suspected of being moneylenders; and in Galway there are neither registered nor unregistered moneylenders. These are the statistics for some of the principal cities, and the practice would appear to be much the same throughout the country.

The police report that interest from 60 per cent. to 100 per cent. is charged. The amount of the loan is repaid in monthly instalments, and in addition there is usually a fine amounting to 50 per cent. of the instalment, for failure to pay within a specified time. In some cases it is reported that borrowers sign promissory notes for double the amount of the sum borrowed. The registered moneylenders usually act aboveboard and secure their clients through advertisements, but the unregistered find their victims through the employment of touts. The classes of persons that are most affected by the operations of the moneylenders are reported to be badly-paid clerks and other officials who try to live beyond their means, and the very poor. As I said, we have had only six prosecutions by the Gárda since 1925, and without mentioning names I will give very brief particulars of these.

In one case a woman borrowed 16/-from an unlicensed moneylender at the rate of 4/- per week interest. She paid this interest from Christmas Eve, 1925, to the middle of 1926, or 20 weeks, that is, £4 interest on 16/-. She then paid back 6/- of the amount borrowed, and continued to pay 2/6 per week on the 10/- then due. On being advised of an increase she approached the police, and permission was sought from the Attorney-General to institute proceedings, but at the hearing of the case the unfortunate woman collapsed and went back on her statement, and the case was dismissed. In the second case, a carter’s wife borrowed 34/- every Saturday night, and on every Monday morning paid back the moneylender £2, that is, 6/-interest on 34/- for two days. This went on for a considerable time until the husband heard of the matter and he reported it to the police. The case was brought before the District Court and a fine of £4 was inflicted. In the third case, an unfortunate woman whose husband was an invalid borrowed 17/- from an unregistered moneylender and was charged 3/- interest for a few days. In this case a fine of 10/- was imposed by the District Justice. In the fourth case, a fine of £10 was inflicted on a moneylender for carrying on business without being registered. In the fifth case, a moneylender was bound over in her own bail for a similar offence; and in the sixth, another moneylender was fined £2 for a like offence. These are all the cases that the police have had since 1925.

As regards the effect of moneylending on crime, there is no doubt but the activities of the moneylenders have an appreciable effect on crime, but as the Committee will appreciate, it would be very difficult to put that down in the form of a statistical return. Officers have reported to me that pressure brought on borrowers—and this usually amounts to blackmail—has been the motive for many embezzlements and larcenies, and in a number of cases which have come under our notice it has frequently been pleaded in extenuation by the persons charged that they were driven to desperation and to these offences because they were in the hands of moneylenders and because of the pressure exerted on them. Our returns also show that moneylending has been responsible for many cases of suicide, for indulgence in gambling and drink, and for domestic quarrels. Gárda officers report (giving names) many cases of ruined homes which could be attributed to the difficulties created by borrowing from moneylenders.

The greatest evil in this matter is the activities of the unregistered moneylender, who either himself or through his agents or touts, canvasses poor people at their homes. It is reported that increased activity is noticed at holiday times—at Easter and Christmas—and that family bereavements are also taken advantage of. Moneylenders call at the homes of bereaved families and offer loans to cover funeral expenses, etc. Workshops and factories are visited and money offered on loan. There has been an increase in this activity since the institution of dog racing. That is the position as regards crime.

As regards the Bill itself, we think it is very good but that it does not go far enough if the traffic is to be properly regulated. There is, we believe, a very considerable volume of opinion which would favour prohibiting the activities of the moneylender altogether. We do not take that view, but we think now is the time to get legislation to enable a closer supervision to be exercised, closer even than that contemplated in the Bill. It is immaterial whether the Revenue Commissioners or the Gárdai exercise this supervision, but we are very strongly of opinion that we should take advantage of the Bill to get more authority. We think that the Bill does not tackle the problem of restraining the activities of the unregistered moneylender, who is the greatest pest, and as regards the registered moneylender, that the Bill does not create any specific responsibility for its enforcement when it becomes law.

As regards amendments, the first amendment that we suggest is to Section 1 (2). We recommend that moneylenders should be permitted to trade only in their true names, not under authorised names. We think it is very undesirable to have aliens using Irish names for moneylending purposes, that they should not be allowed to use authorised or approved names, but that they should trade in their true names. If a foreigner comes over here and trades under the name of “Hugh O’Neill,” he will probably do a greater volume of business than if he used his own name, which is sometimes very hard to pronounce, and we are very strong on the point that the true name should be used. The other may be rather misleading. The next recommendation we have is not an amendment, but a suggestion, with regard to Section 2 (5). We think that applicants for certificates should be required to state in their application the business name and the address under which they traded for the previous three years, that a notice of the application should be published in three consecutive issues of a daily newspaper circulating in the locality where the business is to be conducted not less than 30 days prior to the application for the certificate, that in addition the same notice should be given to the Gárda superintendent of the district in which the applicant resides, and to the superintendent of the district in which the business is to be conducted, and to the clerk of the District Court in which the application is to be made. Of course, the Minister for Justice will have power to make regulations, and we suggest that these should be some of the conditions. As regards the grounds for refusal, Section 2 (6) says:—“A certificate shall not be refused except on some one or more of the following grounds.” We think that it is undesirable that the grounds for refusal should be limited. Experience in the enforcement of the Act may show a need for other grounds of refusal, and I think that the District Justice should not have his hands tied by the few specific grounds set out here. We would suggest an additional seven grounds for refusal if the District Justice thought fit.

(1) We think that failure to satisfy the Court of financial stability should be a ground for refusal. This would cut out the small money-hawkers, the insolvent individuals who have no reputation to lose.

(2) We think that a ground for refusal should be that the applicant had been previously convicted of an offence under this Act or under any Act relating to moneylending, or that a certificate previously held by an applicant had been revoked.

(3) A previous refusal by a District Court to grant a certificate, which refusal was confirmed by the Circuit Court.

No. 4 is very important from our point of view—that is, the residence qualification. We suggest twelve months’ residence, but the Committee might perhaps extend it to two or three years. We suggest that at least twelve months’ residence should be essential. It would be well that the public and the police should know something of the applicant’s personal character and habits. That would avoid the danger of foreigners coming over and setting up in business immediately—chancing their luck. Another ground for objection that we suggest is where the applicant has been sentenced to a term of penal servitude, or if he has been convicted of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty. The seventh objection is, if he carries on the business of a publican. There is a danger that a publican might carry on moneylending in a public house, or that his bar-tenders might act as agents, and we think it would be undesirable to give him a licence.

As regards the hearing of cases before a District Justice, we suggest that the Superintendent of the district should have the right to appear and oppose the granting of a certificate on any or all of these grounds, and that if the applicant gives evidence of good character, under Section 2 (6) (a) the Superintendent might produce any facts and circumstances known to rebut such evidence of character. We would also like to ensure that the Superintendent would have the right to call witnesses. Unless that is specifically mentioned in the Bill he could not call say the local Sergeant nor a respectable citizen. If he had the right to go to Court to object to the record of the moneylender, he should be allowed to call police or other witnesses. These are the additional grounds we suggest for refusal.

As to the suitability of the premises where moneylending business is transacted, we suggest a new section, and, if it is agreed to, the local Superintendent would be the person to issue certificates. He is in a better position to know the facts and circumstances than anyone else. We suggest certain grounds of objection under which he might refuse this certificate, but the applicant should have the right to appeal against the refusal to the District Court. The six suggested grounds of objection are: (1) that the applicant does not hold a moneylender’s licence himself; (2) that he is not the proprietor of the premises; (3) that other business is carried on in the premises; (4) that the premises communicate internally with other premises; (5) close proximity to a publichouse, factory or tenement quarter; (6) sufficient moneylenders in the area already. The greater the facilities, of course, the greater the abuse. We think that one moneylender should be ample for every 5,000 of the population in the city of Dublin. Assuming that the population of the city and townships is 400,000, that would allow for 80 moneylenders, instead of 147 at present. The question of charging an excise duty of, say, £20, for a certificate of suitability of premises might secure a smaller number and a better type of premises. We would like to make the business quite respectable, open and above board, and we are anxious to cut out the small moneyhawker. We do not think that will mean much in the way of causing unemployment.

As regards Section 3 (1) (b) we suggest that these words should be added in line 36: “and to the local Superintendent of the Gárda Síochána.” If the Committee wish they may make it “to the Gárda Síochána” or “the Commissioner.” We would like the police to be notified.

We come now to the restriction of moneylending advertisements in Section 5 (1) and (2). We would suggest that the premises should bear in a conspicuous place, in letters not less than 3 inches long, the true name of the moneylender, and underneath the words “registered moneylender.” No other words should be permitted. No other notice board, sandwich men or anything like that should be allowed outside. The public would get information, in view of the words we suggest, that the premises were a moneylender’s and that they were registered. Coming to Section 5 (3) we are not clear that that section prohibits moneylenders from carrying on a house-to-house canvas themselves. We would like to make sure of that, as we feel that it is undesirable that a moneylender should be able to go to the homes of borrowers, or prospective borrowers, even to collect money due. The idea underlying that recommendation is that we wish all transactions to take place at the registered office of the moneylender, so that there would be no touting outside, even from the point of view of collecting debts. The visit to collect money is often taken advantage of to canvass. We suggest that statutory powers should be given to the Gárda to demand the production of the licence, the name and address of any person suspected of canvassing, collecting or money-hawking, and that it would be an offence to refuse to give name or address, or to give a false name or address.

Section 6 (1) and (2) deals with contracts with firms outside the jurisdiction of Saorstát Eireann. We have definite knowledge of abuses in this regard. We will call the moneylender in this particular case Mr. X. He is living in Dublin and his practice is to circularise by post prospective clients in Great Britain. He offers to lend money on most attractive terms. When the recipient of the circular applies the moneylender writes and asks for an advance of a certain amount, for fees and preliminary expenses. The moneylender never intends to give a loan in such cases. He gets an amount from a client in England to cover fees and preliminary expenses and the client hears no more about the matter. In many instances people let the case go by default, but in a number of cases, perhaps ten or twenty, within the last twelve months they notified the Gárda Síochána. We approached the moneylender and he said: “I decline now to complete the contract.” He refunded the applicant’s money less an amount for expenses incurred. Of course, no expenses were incurred. That particular gentleman is sailing very close to the wind, but we are not satisfied that we could charge him with a criminal offence. That type evidently came to this country to evade the British Moneylending Act of 1927. We would be glad if the provisions of the section were amended, to make it impossible for gentlemen like that to operate from here. I have a number of files in connection with this particular case, and genuine complaints that have been received from England.

As to Section 7 (1), we would suggest that the agreement between the moneylender and the borrower should be on a prescribed form and should bear stamp duty. It should be an offence to use any other form. Full particulars of the transactions should be entered by the moneylender, in the order in which they occur, in a special book of an approved form to be kept by the moneylender. The particulars can be decided upon. It should be regarded as a serious offence to fail to make such entry when the transaction occurred. We suggest an additional sub-section to make provision for payment in specie rather than in kind by the moneylender. We have had many complaints of complicated systems of lending on the part of moneylenders, in goods and chattels, to poor people. For articles of clothing the moneylender does not lend the money but purchases the clothing and sells it to the borrower at exorbitant prices. The borrower, of course, pays in fixed instalments. We have had reports to the effect that moneylenders approach shopkeepers and traders when they are pressed for outstanding accounts. They offer to settle these accounts for a consideration. If a shopkeeper agrees the moneylender will settle the account, having first made arrangements with the debtor and he charges an exorbitant rate for his services. We are anxious to cut out all that, so that these transactions should be in cash only, and not in clothing, goods or chattels, or by way of settling accounts.

We suggest that Section 9 (1) should be extended so as to provide for supervision by officers of Customs and Excise and by the Gárda. The Guards should have authority to examine the records of moneylenders, the same as they have, at present, to examine the records of general dealers. To enable that to be done, it would be necessary to confer on the Gárda power of entry and search, and to prescribe penalties for failure to admit or facilitate the Gárda. Our idea is to remove the transaction from being one between the moneylender and the borrower. The borrower is in the hands of the moneylender, and is more afraid than the moneylender, and unless there is a third party, I do not think that section could become operative. We do not want to leave the position as it is, between the moneylender and the borrower. We want supervision by the Customs authorities or the Gárda. It is a matter of indifference which. As to Sub-section 2, we suggest one shilling would meet the case. We think the amount should be defined. In Section 15 we prefer the words “true name,” and “registered address” to “authorised name and address.” As regards the hours of business, at the present moment there is no limitation. A moneylender can carry on his business on Saturday evening and on Sunday. We think it is undesirable that he should be open for business during the week-ends, when people might be inclined to borrow more freely than they would at other times. We suggest that the business hours on week-days should be from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., and on Saturdays from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m., and that there should be no business done on Sundays or recognised holidays, such as Christmas Day, Good Friday and St. Patrick’s Day. We also recommend that no business should be transacted with persons under the age of sixteen years.

We would like a special section to be inserted dealing with the unregistered moneylender. We suggest that the Guards should have power at any time, without warrant, to enter premises on which it is suspected the business of moneylending is being carried on illegally, make such searches and investigations as are considered necessary, and demand the name and address of any person found on the premises. We also think that the Guards should have power to stop and demand the name and address of any person suspected of engaging in the moneylending business without a licence and, if the name and address are refused or if it is believed that the name and address given are false, that there should be power of arrest. We suggest that it should be made an offence to obstruct the Gárda in the execution of any such duty or to refuse to answer any questions pertaining to the business. That suggestion is made only as regards the unregistered moneylenders—those money-hawkers who are a great social evil. When money is lent by an unregistered moneylender, we think the amount should not be recoverable in law.

I now come to a very insidious practice which is current in Donegal. There they have what are known as “credit auctions.” I do not know whether any member of the Committee comes from Donegal. In that event, he would know more about the practice than I do. I have no personal knowledge of it. My information is derived from a report. The local officer reported that the practice was somewhat on the following lines:—A and B own two farms and they wish to raise money on credit. They may, or may not, possess any cattle. Both of them go to an auctioneer, whom we shall call C. A tells the auctioneer that he has a cow to sell to B. B signs a promissory note for the value of the cow—say £10—payable to A. A endorses the note to C and thereby becomes liable on it in addition to B. The auctioneer—C—discounts the bill and charges a big commission for so doing. In addition, he charges his auctioneer’s fees. He deducts this commission and the auctioneer’s fees from the £10. When the bill matures, A and B are liable for its face value, in addition to interest during the period which has elapsed. Both A and B are jointly responsible for repayment of this £10, with auctioneer’s fees, commission for discounting and interest. We are told that the auctioneer’s fees, the discount and interest are outrageously high. We should like provisions of the Bill to be extended so as to end this very objectionable form of moneylending.

It was suggested by some of the Superintendents that pawnbrokers should not be given moneylenders’ licences—that they should be disqualified from receiving moneylenders’ licences. I think that would be a hardship. Some of the pawnbrokers have been interviewed on the matter. There are thirty-four pawnbrokers in the city. They pay very high fees. They pay the Corporation almost £100 per annum, the Revenue Commissioners £7 10s. 0d. for each shop and if they take in silver or plate they pay an additional £5 for a plate licence. Of the thirty-four pawnbrokers in the city, only two have moneylenders’ licences. We are given to understand that they have no desire to carry on the business of moneylending. For that reason, we exclude them from the list of persons who should not receive licences. That is all I have to say on the matter.

710. Minister for Justice.—Amongst the houses which you suggested should not be regarded as proper premises for the carrying on of the business of moneylending you mentioned publichouses?—Yes.

711. Are there any examples of publicans carrying on the business of moneylending?—Not as registered moneylenders but we fear there are some unregistered moneylenders amongst them. They are not known as moneylenders, of course, but we fear that in the poorer parts of Dublin there is an abuse in that respect.

712. You suggest that it should be made an offence under this Bill for a moneylender to go around collecting money?— Yes.

713. How could a moneylender collect his debts except by visiting his debtor?— The debtor should come to him during business hours. We fear that they take advantage of the collection of the money to initiate new transactions.

714. Suppose the borrower does not come to the moneylender, should the moneylender have recourse to the Courts at once?—He should communicate with the debtor by letter. We think it is necessary that all business should be transacted on the registered premises of the moneylender and that the moneylender should not be moving around. The great abuse consists in touting and canvassing. It is as objectionable for the moneylender to go around himself as it is for him to send out a tout. I refer now to a particular type of moneylender. My remarks are not of general application. We are anxious to elevate the status of the moneylender, if we possibly can.

715. It would be very hard to discover this business of unregistered moneylenders?—Very hard.

716. You gave an instance from Limerick, I think, of a woman who borrowed 16/-, gave information to the Guards and then went back on that information. I gather from that that people who are in the hands of moneylenders are afraid to take action?—They are afraid of publicity. They are very often people in respectable positions who are living beyond their means. They fear that if their case comes before the Court they will be dismissed. A young man may be afraid that he will bring disgrace on his parents if his case receives publicity. The moneylenders are aware of that. That is why we would like to have a third party—the Revenue Commissioners or the Gárda— responsible for the supervision of the records.

717. This Bill suggests that there should be a limitation on the rate of interest. How would you suggest that that should be enforced? We have had evidence that there are a considerable number of moneylenders who never go to Court at all. Therefore, information as to their transactions is never opened up. How would you suggest that the action of a moneylender who consistently charges 60 per cent. or 100 per cent. should be checked?—By the keeping of a standard record, which would be open to examination by the police. The police would see the name, the amount and the interest charged. In an occasional case, that record could be checked by consulting the borrower.

718. If a lender was found to be habitually charging more than the authorised rate of interest, would you suggest that that should be a reason why he should not get a renewal of his licence? —I have not suggested that, but I think it should be a reason.

719. Would you go further than that, and say that it should be an offence to charge more than the authorised rate of interest?—If the Act prescribes a certain rate of interest, I suggest that a moneylender should not be allowed to exceed that. It should also be made a very serious offence to keep a false record.

720. There should be a penalty if the moneylender is, in fact, charging more than the authorised rate?—Yes.

Minister for Justice.—The Commissioner has given us a very full and exhaustive statement, and I may find it necessary to apply to have him recalled at some future date.

Chairman.—If the Commissioner can arrange, we will have him recalled if it is found necessary at a later date.

Commissioner O’Duffy.—I shall be glad to attend and give any assistance that I can to the Committee.

721. Deputy Cooney.—There are 147 registered moneylenders in Dublin and district and 50 unregistered moneylenders?—There are a number of smaller moneylenders of whom we have not knowledge. We are aware of about fifty unregistered moneylenders.

722. You have stated that you have had six prosecutions since 1925?—That is all.

723. Were these prosecutions against unregistered moneylenders?—In every case.

724. You stated that population, and suitability of premises, and all such matters should be taken into consideration in the granting of a moneylender’s licence. How would you propose to deal with the situation at present where there may be a number of suitable premises being used by moneylenders? Other things being equal, how would you proceed to limit their number in the manner suggested?—If no new licences were issued, it would reduce the number of moneylenders in a very short time. Of the 147 carrying on business now, it is very unlikely that 100 will be in business in two years’ time. They do not carry on this business over a long period. There would be very little difficulty in reducing the number if no new licences were issued. I would not suggest that in the case of a well-conducted business a moneylender should be refused a renewal. By degrees, I think the number would be reduced in the way I suggest.

725. Is it your view that most of the abuses on which you have had reports from time to time occurred with unregistered moneylenders?—That is so, but also with the others. They are both offenders, but the principal offender is the unregistered moneylender.

726. With regard to publichouses, have you had any reports of publicans trading in this way?—They are not recognised as traders, but we have had reports of transactions being carried on in publichouses.

727. They would come under the head of unregistered moneylenders?—It would hardly be fair to classify them as unregistered moneylenders, but they carry on this business in the poorer parts of the city. There are publicans who oblige their customers in this way, and, incidentally, oblige themselves at the same time.

728. Chairman.—Just as there are unregistered bookmakers, there are unregistered moneylenders?—Yes. The practice is objectionable. It is not considered reasonable that publicans should receive moneylenders’ licences. People might be inclined to seek loans under the circumstances in which they would find themselves in publichouses that they would not seek in other circumstances. There is then the danger of the staff being utilised for that purpose.

729. As regards the names, we have had a statement pointing out the difficulty with regard to pronunciation in certain cases. You do not think that that should be taken seriously?—I think it is a reason why we should insist on the true name. People would be more cautious if entering into a moneylending transaction with a person whose name they could not pronounce. They do not mind so much if they think he is an Irishman.

730. What alteration do you suggest in sub-section (1) of Section 6?—I have given the Committee an instance of what has actually occurred, and that will appear in my evidence. I would like if the Committee made it impossible for this particular gentleman to carry on. He has come over here from England, and is carrying on the particular line of business to which I referred. I do not think he is an Englishman. In fact I do not know what countryman he is. He is carrying on under false pretences. The Parliamentary draftsman would, I presume, be able to draft a section to deal with the particular type of abuse to which I have referred.

731. Do you suggest that these people should be prohibited entirely from trading in this fashion?—I would not go so far as to say that they should be prohibited from carrying on a legitimate business. Of course, that would not be a matter for the Gárda. We only give this particular instance of what occurred. The Gárda are in no better position to speak on that matter than any ordinary citizen.

732. I presume you read in the Press the evidence that was given at the last meeting of the Committee, when a witness stated that 99 per cent. of the business of the firm which he represented was done outside this country. Would you suggest that they should not be granted a licence to carry on?—I would not, if they carried on their business properly.

733. Deputy Doyle.—I take it that you have no objection to a system of moneylending, provided it is properly carried on and on a legitimate basis?—None whatever.

734. Have you any knowledge regarding unregistered moneylenders and of the class of people who constitute that group?—It would be rather difficult to describe them as a class. They are generally unscrupulous people, without character, who prey on people with less education than themselves. Quite a lot of these unregistered moneylenders are women, and generally they do not, approach directly the persons concerned. They approach them through a third party, and sometimes a fourth party. The real moneylender is very hard to find. A woman comes to the police and complains of she is being charged a certain rate of interest and states that she is in the grip of some moneylender. She gives the name of the person who approached her. When the police go to that person they find that that is not her real name at all. In that way it is very hard to get at the real moneylender. We find that quite a lot of transactions, particularly in the case of street traders and other poor people in the city, are carried out entirely through women.

735. Deputy Davin.—Can you give the Committee any information regarding the extent to which married women borrow money from registered or unregistered moneylenders without their husband’s knowledge and consent?—I could not. I did not enter into that particular aspect of the case. We think, if it is necessary for a married woman to bring her husband in as security, that there is no reason why the transaction should not be carried out by the husband himself and not by his wife. If it is essential that the husband should come into the transaction, then we see no reason why he should not carry out the business himself.

736. Is it your opinion that moneylenders should be prevented from lending money to married women who are not householders or property owners in their own right?—Yes.

737. In the very valuable evidence which you put before the Committee this morning, you stated that most of the borrowers who do business with registered or unregistered moneylenders are drawn from the ranks of badly paid clerks and the poorer classes?—Badly paid clerks and the very poor classes. I might also include young fellows whose parents are pretty well off but who are not prepared to give these young lads what, I suppose they would regard themselves, as sufficient pocket money. Moneylenders are particularly anxious to get a grip of those young fellows, because they know that in lending to them they are quite safe.

738. Would these badly-paid clerks who borrow from the moneylenders have as guarantors men in their own walk of life? —No, the moneylenders do not look for such a guarantee. Take, for instance, the case of a bank clerk. They feel that his position is a sufficient guarantee. They extract payment from him at exorbitant rates of interest through what amounts to blackmail.

739. Have you come across any case where respectable guarantors were reported to their employers in cases where the borrowers did not honour their bonds? —Not in my official capacity. I have known of such cases, but no such case has come to my knowledge as Commissioner of Police.

740. Would you be prepared to recommend that this Bill should be so amended as to prevent a thing like that taking place—in cases where if a guarantor is reported to his employer he would be likely to lose his position?—I think it would be very desirable.

741. You cited a very bad case in which, I think, you said a woman was involved. She borrowed a sum of 16/- on which she was charged an exorbitant rate of interest amounting to, I think, 4/- per week. Was that case where the woman concerned borrowed the money from a non-registered moneylender?—It was. It was one of the cases in which the police found it very difficult to get the name of the real moneylender.

742. Have the Guards had any prosecutions against registered moneylenders? —No. We had only six prosecutions. The police receive a great number of complaints both as regards licensed and nonlicensed moneylenders. But, in practically every case, when those who make the complaints to the police are asked if they are prepared to substantiate their statements in Court they say “No.” They expect the police to call on the parties they complain about and threaten them, but, of course, the police could not do that. We receive numerous complaints, but then we are not able to get these people to come to the Court and substantiate their statements.

743. Have you any official knowledge of the existence of a registered moneylenders’ association?—I have no official knowledge of it.

744. The reason that I ask the question is that the Committee have been informed that there is such an organisation, but apparently up to the present they have no rules for dealing with the “rotter” type of moneylender?—That association, I think, is more nominal than real. I think that the introduction of this Bill had something to do with the setting up of that organisation.

745. I take it that it is your opinion that if such an organisation did exist, it could be a great help to the police in putting down the “rotter” type of money-lender?—It could. We would like to see such an organisation in existence.

746. Deputy G. Wolfe.—You are entirely against the unregistered moneylenders being allowed to operate?—I am very anxious they should be wiped out.

747. Do you think that unregistered moneylending amongst auctioneers is common in the country?—No; it is confined to a certain class of auctioneer in Donegal. I have had no complaints that the practice I referred to is carried on by auctioneers in any other part of the country. Arising out of a statement made by Deputy Little on the introduction of the Bill in the Dáil, I made it my business to make certain inquiries, and I came across the instance that I have already quoted. The auctioneers concerned are a most objectionable type—as objectionable as the worst type of unregistered moneylender. The ordinary, decent auctioneer does not engage in that class of business at all.

748. Deputy Little.—I take it your desire would be to see the business of moneylending severely restricted?—Yes.

749. You suggest that the number of registered moneylenders might be reduced by not granting any more licences? —That is so. I think the number could be brought down to reasonable dimensions by allowing one for every five thousand of the population.

750. The reduction of the number would naturally lead to an increased amount of trade for those allowed to carry on?—Yes, and that would probably have the effect of bringing down the rate of interest charged.

751. I take it that one of your suggestions is that young people, the sons of well-to-do parents, and people who, while lending money, are really gambling, should be excluded from the effects of the Act?—Yes.

752. The result of the carrying out of these suggestions would be that the moneylender would have a substantial market and should be able to reduce the rate of interest charged. It would then be a much safer business than it is?— Yes, and there would be no necessity for the moneylender to resort to the practices that a very big proportion of them resort to at the present time.

753. Have you noticed that in the City of Dublin there is a great lack of what may be described as benevolent societies —that is, societies to lend money at a very low rate of interest to poor people who may deserve it?—I think that their absence is responsible for a great deal of the abuse that one has to complain of at present.

754. You think that these poor people should not be made the prey of registered or unregistered moneylenders?—They should not.

755. The case of funeral expenses was referred to?—It is certainly very mean that in the case of very poor people a person who is known to be a moneylender should be seen moving around the house of a bereaved family trying to take advantage of that situation. Such a thing as that has come under notice. Every one of the six superintendents in the city has reported on that particular matter.

756. Your evidence has been so full that I think I shall have to defer asking further questions until I have an opportunity of reading it over?—Any assistance that I can give to the Committee I shall be only too glad to give it.

757. In the case of persons who come over here and carry on a moneylending business illegally, would you regard it as being against public policy that we should shelter someone in this country and thereby help him to evade the law in his own country?—I think so. The particular gentleman I referred to has come over here for that purpose—to evade the law in England.

758. Deputy Conlon.—You stated, I think, that in Cork there were seven registered and thirty unregistered moneylenders?—Yes, it is a bad record.

759. Chairman.—I gather from your evidence that you look upon the position of a moneylender as one extremely difficult for police supervision, the reason being, I take it, that whereas in the ordinary case you have to deal with one person who tries to avoid detection, in the case of the moneylender you have the borrower and the lender equally anxious to avoid publicity?—The person who would naturally give evidence is afraid to give evidence.

760. For that reason, you suggest that powers would be of no use to the Gárda Síochána unless they were very ample?— We are very strong on the question of standard records. It is suggested that the Minister should be authorised to draft standard records, and that the Gárda would have power to go during office hours and examine these records.

761. You have both the borrower and the lender up against you, and neither of them wants publicity?—That is so.

762. About putting the name over the door, do you suggest that that should be obligatory or permissive?—I see no objection to making it obligatory. I would like these premises to be recognised as respectable places where respectable persons could go in and get a few pounds.

763. Supposing I were a respectable person and wanted to borrow a “fiver,” would you make it necessary for me to go into a place with a name over the door?—Yes, I would like it to be known generally that it was a moneylending business.

764. Would you not give me a chance of going in on the quiet?—If you went in the back way, I would not mind.

765. Deputy Little.—Do you think that cases of this sort could be kept out of the Press not by merely making the request to the Press to keep them out, but that when a borrower makes his complaint and is prepared to support it, but says: “I am afraid because my name would come out,” the police could say the case might appear, but the name would not appear?—I see no objection. I think there might be some difficulty in legislating for that. Perhaps the Committee might suggest that the case be heard in camera.

766. Minister for Justice.—I think you could do that?—Would it be an offence if it were published?

Deputy Little.—You can make it so.

767. Minister for Justice.—Is it merely the publicity of the Press that he is concerned with?—Yes.

768. In a great many cases it would be Press publicity?—Yes, and the crowd in the Court. I do not wish to mention the unfortunate fellows who go in for that kind of thing, but the particular class are known. They are afraid of Press publicity.

769. Deputy Cooney.—With regard to putting the name over the door, there are quite respectable people who from time to time require a loan, but who would not like to be seen going into a moneylender’s office?—Yes.

770. In the suggestions you make, do you not think that you are denying them the right of negotiating this matter in private?—You may look at it in that light, but the balance is in favour of having the name over the door. The name of the moneylender would appear in the register and in directories, and everything would be open and above board.

771. Take, for example, the bank clerk. If he, through private difficulties in his domestic life, went into a moneylender’s office and were seen and reported, it might mean his dismissal?—I can see that. I certainly would like that the moneylender’s office should be known to be such. If the name were not over the door, it might cut both ways. Perhaps that particular bank clerk might find other means of getting the cash from a friend. I would not like to make it easy for the bank clerk. He is paying double the amount he should pay.

772. I think in a new Bill we will be prepared to meet that?—I think the advantage would lie in having the moneylender’s premises known to everybody. There should be no secrecy about it. The shadow of secrecy and the threat of blackmail should be removed, as it is responsible for most of the abuse.

Chairman.—I would like to thank our able and respected Commissioner for the very valuable evidence he has given us.

Mr. George P. Cussen, called and examined.

773. Chairman.—You are Senior Justice of the Metropolitan District Court?— Yes.

774. I think you have occupied that position practically since its initiation?— I have been Justice since the commencement of the District Court.

775. You have jurisdiction in civil cases of contract up to £25?—£25 and £26 in ejectment cases.

776. I think you have considerable experience in Dublin of moneylending transactions?—Yes. From my experience as a Justice in the Metropolitan Court, I am convinced legislation is necessary to regulate the business of moneylending. I am in entire agreement with the observations made by your learned Chairman at the Committee meeting on 21st May. Judging from the cases that come before me, it is certain a number of moneylenders do not know the rate of interest charged. Again and again, cases are adjourned to have the rate calculated. Except in very few cases, the rate was excessive, having regard to the position and means of the borrower, and it became necessary to reopen the transactions. In every case a decree has been given for less than the sum claimed. Here is a typical case: A borrower required a loan of £20. She was obliged to sign a promissory note for £30. The note provided she was to repay £30 by 15s. a week, and to pay 60 per cent. on any balance unpaid. She paid £16 0s. 6d. in eleven months. She was then sued in the High Court for balance claimed, £27 11s. 6d. The case was remitted to me. I reopened the transaction and dealt with the case as I thought justice required, giving a decree for £3 19s. 6d., and interest at 20 per cent. on the balance due from time to time. Of course, to calculate that balance it was necessary to adjourn the case. I am in general agreement with the provisions of the present Bill, but I submit the following suggestions: (1) It would be more convenient for the public and the moneylenders, and it would certainly be more convenient for us if the licence and the certificate were for the calendar year, January to December (Sections 1 and 2). I observe it is suggested that the licence shall run until the 31st July. If so, applications will be made to us in the month of July for renewal at a time of the year when a great many people are away on their holidays. Why the period is taken from July to July, I do not know. There may be a good reason. (2) The second point—I feel very strongly about it—deals with Section 1, sub-section 3. There you will observe that the moneylender who has not taken out his certificate is liable to an excise penalty of £100, and later on he is liable to an excise penalty of £500. I suggest to the Committee the deletion of the word “excise.” In giving evidence before a Committee earlier this year, I found that a number of the members of the Dáil and Seanad did not seem to be aware that when a penalty is described as an “excise penalty” the power of mitigating it to a proper amount is taken from the Justice. Therefore, it simply means that the word “excise” has been put in to secure a very large sum of money for the Central Fund. It seems to me to be put in quite irrespective of whether the offence justifies the amount or not. You will observe that nowhere does the expression occur except in this section, although some of the offences are much more serious. The other penalties are ordinary penalties. (3) In Section 7 I would personally welcome a definite provision that on the signing of the promissory note or contract, or whatever note or memorandum in writing is signed, a copy should be, there and then, given to the borrower. I observe that the section says, “shall be sent within seven days.” It appears to me that is not a sufficient protection to the borrower. By that time, the money has been paid to and, I have no doubt, spent by the borrower, and it is too late to repudiate the transaction. If he got a copy of the document on the day he signs it, it would be open to him to say, “This is too severe.” I fear for the class of person who would sign anything he is asked on going in to borrow money. In the case I have referred to, the woman told me that she had no idea she had signed the promissory note for £30 when she borrowed £20. She had no idea there was such a document in existence until she was sued in the High Court. (4) In Section 11, I welcome the provision that where a case is not defended the Court may, if it thinks it proper to do so, reopen the transaction. My personal view is that there is power to reopen in Court under the existing law, even where a case is not defended, but that view is not held by all. Some of the borrowers are of a nervous disposition. Frequently, I have had cases where it was quite obvious, on the facts stated by the plaintiff, the case should be reopened, but the case was undefended. It is the general practice in Dublin to take a promissory note for very much more than the cash advanced, the rate of interest frequently going as high as 90 per cent. The unfortunate borrower is afraid to come into Court—first, because he is of a nervous, timid disposition, and, second, because the coming into Court and defending involves a certain amount of publicity. It would be well that the Court might, at its own discretion, open a case, if it thought it necessary, on the facts put before it by the plaintiff or as they appear from the documents. (5) With regard to Section 11, I tentatively suggest that limiting the rate of interest to 20 per cent. might result in hardship to intending borrowers. It struck me the rate might be 25 per cent. or 30 per cent. I gathered, from a perusal of the evidence given before the Committee on behalf of the moneylenders, that on their annual turnover their profit appeared to be in or about 30 per cent. (6) With regard to Section 13, it seems to me that if it remains as it is drafted, there may be difficulty and trouble with the borrowers— that is with regard to the period for suing. It seems to me that under the section as it stands, a lender who lends say, £30 could say that the last payment of 10/- is to be made this day two years, and then the period would run from the time the 10/- became due. These people are prepared to go to great lengths to protect themselves. I wish to make a suggestion, which may require consideration as regards figures. I suggest two provisions—one for loans not exceeding £10 and the other for loans over £10. I would make the period run from the date of the loan. I think it is of great importance where a person borrows from a moneylender that the transaction should be over as soon as possible. The rate of interest will be high, and I think it is an economic loss to the country if a loan is continued too long. Therefore, I suggest for a loan up to £10, eighteen months from the date of the loan, and in other cases two years from the date of the loan. These are all the observations that occur to me.

777. Minister for Justice.—Do you suggest that the word “excise” should be taken out?—Yes.

778. This is the only excise section in the Bill?—That is so.

779. As far as I know, in all legislation dealing with excise matters the penalties are excise penalties. This would be a completely new departure from established procedure?—That is so.

780. There is a minimum fine which you must impose, but which you can mitigate to a quarter, and you can recommend a further reduction?—Yes, we can recommend a further reduction, but never once to my knowledge has that recommendation been acted on by the Revenue Commissioners.

As I mentioned at another Committee, a man was summoned in respect of an entertainment tax for football matches. This man’s name was Murphy. He was fined £100. I could mitigate that to £25. Having heard from the man what his means were, it appeared to me that £12 10s. 0d. would be a fair amount. I wrote on the Minute Book that instead of mitigating to £25, I recommended the Commissioners to mitigate to £12 10s. 0d. in that particular case. Not only did they refuse to accept my recommendation to mitigate to £12 10s. 0d., but they even refused to mitigate to £25. They sent the warrant to me for the arrest of the man, who was unable to pay. I refused and sent it back. I signed it under threat of mandamus. Shortly after, the city of Dublin was placarded to the effect that Murphy was rotting in Mountjoy Jail. His friends, I was informed, had tendered the £12 10s. 0d., but the man was kept in jail for a considerable time. Ever since. I have a horror of excise penalties, and I have no confidence in the Revenue Commissioners giving effect to a recommendation from the District Court.

Chairman.—The instance you give is not an isolated one.

781. Minister for Justice.—With regard to the reluctance of persons to come into Court, I would like to know if you think that the non-publication of the name of the borrower or the name of the surety would minimise the reluctance felt by the borrower?—If the borrower or surety knew the name would not be published, I am sure it would mitigate the reluctance, but I do not think he would know there was such a clause in the Act.

782. In a civil action it might not, but in criminal proceedings possibly it might. Would that be your view?—I would welcome it very strongly.

783. We all like to have things in Court published as much as possible, but there are exceptions to that. Do you consider that to be one of the exceptions?—Most decidedly.

784. Is it a fact that in other cases persons dare not come into Court because they are not in a financial position to pay off the existing debt?—That is so. They do not come in, and they let the decree go. Then there is a visit from the sheriff’s bailiff, and there is a return of nulla bona. An order is got for payment by instalments, and if these are not paid the moneylender applies for a committal order, but never once, as far as my recollection goes, has the moneylender taken out that order. That is to say, he uses all the means he can to bring pressure on the borrower, and I fear on the borrower’s relations and friends, but he never goes so far as to lock the man up for non-payment. That is no good to the lender. He will never apply to us for a warrant for arrest.

785. You make recommendations as to sections dealing with limitations. I am not quite clear what your view on that matter is. Suppose there is a borrowing that would have to be wound up and dealt with within a certain period, but that the man owes a certain amount at the end of the period and signs a fresh promissory note for that sum, due legally, that would be a new transaction. Would you recommend that renewal should be regarded as part of the first transaction?—Yes. There are provisions with regard to renewals. What struck me was that if you had a simple section making the debt irrecoverable unless it was sued for within a certain time after the loan was given, it would be an economic gain to the country.

786. It occurred to me that there might be complications about that. Suppose a man borrowed £20 and there is £10 due, it would be rather easy to get out of that by lending him another £6, and then it would have to be regarded as a completely fresh transaction, I take it?—If he borrowed originally £10 and paid £5, he owes £5, and if he gets a loan of another £1 on a promissory note, then he gets a promissory note for more than the amount advanced.

787. Deputy Cooney.—With regard to the limitation of the period for suing for the repayment of the loan, do you not think that might operate against the borrower’s interest in certain circumstances? —You mean it might be a hardship on him?

788. Yes?—Possibly, but you cannot save a borrower from hardship. Once he borrows the money, hardship must of necessity follow.

789. You are more or less forcing hardship upon him in certain eventualities by the suggestion you make? Is not that so?—Yes.

790. Do you think that justifiable in all the circumstances?—Yes. In making that suggestion, I do not say it is for the protection of the borrowers, but that it would be an economic gain to the Saorstát to have these loans for as short a period as possible, having regard to the fact that the rate of interest paid is high.

791. In most cases where borrowing occurs, it is due to certain domestic difficulties which arise. Under the new legislation which we hope will result from this inquiry, where a certain reasonable interest is agreed upon, at the end of the time specified the borrower may not be able to pay up the loan?—Yes, I agree.

792. And the lender will then be compelled in his own interest to take proceedings?—Yes. That is what I am aiming at. He would take proceedings. The cost would be something, but nothing like what the interest would be, and when he gets his decree he will be entitled to the common law rate of interest only.

793. If cases should come before you where you would see from the evidence very plainly that the borrower has been making an honest effort to pay off his loan, but owing to certain circumstances has not been able to do so, would you not in such cases find yourself in a rather precarious position?—That is my weekly experience. But in the majority of cases where debtors are sued they are honest debtors. We give a decree, but put a stay on the decree, and they pay by instalments. In that matter, I am not referring at all to moneylenders, but to ordinary cases of small debts. My experience is that the majority of debtors in the cases that come before me are honest.

794. Is it your view that steps should be taken to prevent a married woman borrowing money without her husband’s consent?—I would not like to say that I would be in favour of such a provision. I have not given the matter very full consideration, but I should not like such interference with the liberty of the subject. I can conceive cases where a married woman would find it very necessary to apply for a loan to a moneylender.

795. Deputy Doyle.—You cited cases regarding excessive interest charged in moneylending transactions?—Yes.

796. Are there many of such cases coming under your notice?—A great number. In the majority of cases interest at the rate of 90 per cent. is charged, and that refers not to the actual cash advanced, but the figure appearing on the promissory note. The profits made by the moneylenders are 30 per cent., according to the evidence they have tendered here.

797. Would the borrowers be representative of all sections of the community?— A very large section of the community— bank clerks, civil servants and members of the Dáil.

798. All these pay an excessive interest?—Yes.

799. Deputy Davin.—Would you say, speaking from memory, whether in the case referred to in the early part of your evidence, the woman was a married woman or not?—She was a married woman.

800. Did she own property?—She had a house! it was in her husband’s name. She took in lodgers and made a profit from the lodgers, and on this profit she ran the house and fed her husband out of the earnings. In that particular case, it is right to say that the husband knew of her borrowing.

801. Was this a case where the borrower was dealing with an unregistered moneylender?—No, it was a registered company. Do not ask me for the name, as there may be an appeal still.

802. Could you say from your experience whether in cases where there is trouble between the moneylender and the borrower, this is mainly confined to unregistered moneylenders?—I would not say so, because there is a good deal of trouble in moneylenders’ cases coming before me. Then, again, there is a charge of 90 per cent. interest in these cases, and the average profit of the moneylenders is 30 per cent., so that it is quite evident that there must be a great number of dishonest borrowers whose cases do not come before me.

803. Could you, from your experience, say that the unregistered moneylenders charge a higher rate than the registered moneylenders?—I do not think that I ever had a case of an unregistered moneylender suing in my Court.

804. Chairman.—They could not succeed?—In some cases they might. There are plenty of cases where people sue for debts, people who are not moneylenders.

805. Deputy Davin.—I was going to ask a question on that matter, in view of the evidence previously given by the Commissioner, where he stated that the cases that he was concerned with were mainly confined to unregistered moneylenders?— That is so.

Chairman.—The District Justice was speaking of the civil side, and the Commissioner was speaking of the criminal side.

806. Deputy G. Wolfe.—I think there is a provision in Section 11 as to the rate of interest. It is there provided that the interest should be 20 per cent., and you suggest 25 or 30 per cent., that 20 per cent. might result in hardship on the borrower?—I do not understand that.

807. You think it would be easier on the borrower if the rate were raised to 25 or 30 per cent.?—I do.

808. Why?—Because I am afraid that if it were fixed at 20 per cent. maximum, a certain class of people who badly require ready money, but who cannot show that they have reasonable security, would be refused a loan altogether. If you take the average profit of a moneylender, 30 per cent. would not be excessive. That is my reason. If such borrowers as I have in mind were prevented from getting money owing to that provision, it might be a hardship. These people then could not get a loan from anybody.

809. Do you not think that there is a certain class of people who should not get a loan from anybody?—Yes, but I am sorry to say that there are numbers of people who if they did not get a loan now and again would be thrown on the roadside. Take the case of a man with a house and family who gets into arrears with his rent. He is sued by his landlord, who is pressing him, and who is harsh. That man’s only chance is to borrow money from somebody to pay the landlord off.

810. But then it is only a change of person?—Well, I will explain this more fully. I have a number of such cases in mind. A man of that class owing money to his landlord is sued in ejectment. Suppose the man already owes money, and owing to his circumstances he cannot borrow. He is satisfied to pay off the arrears at so much a week, but the landlord refuses that offer. Then if the ejectment proceeds the man would be put on the roadside. This is a case where we have no power to apply the Rent Restrictions Act. In certain cases we succeed in getting money lent to such a man from a charitable quarter, and the borrower repays that amount at the rate of so much a week. Now, if he had not been able to borrow that money, he would be on the road. But the majority of such cases do not trouble the charitable institutions. They go to a moneylender in cases where the landlord is harsh, and they pay for the money lent at a high rate of interest.

811. Deputy Little.—If you will look at Section 11 you will notice that you would have power to vary that 20 per cent. That 20 per cent. is really the standard. There is a misprint at the end of that section. This arrangement of 20 per cent. is without prejudice to the powers of the Court under that subsection. There is power to vary that 20 per cent. You could allow them a larger rate of interest where you considered it reasonable?—The section reads: “Where .... it is found that the interest charged exceeds the rate of 20 per cent. per annum .... the Court shall, unless the contrary is proved, presume ..... that the interest charged is excessive.” The moneylender would know very well if that were the law that it would be very difficult to persuade any District Justice that a higher rate of interest would be allowed, and therefore he would feel that he would be obliged not to exceed that 20 per cent.

812. Throwing the onus of proof upon the moneylender will, you think, make him keep within the 20 per cent.?—I think so.

813. Do you think it better to fix a high rate of interest and not allow it to be exceeded?—I do.

814. If it were fixed at 30 per cent. and not allow that sum to be exceeded under any circumstances, would you agree?—I would personally welcome that limit, provided it was 30 per cent.

815. In Section 13 there is a limitation of time for proceedings in respect of moneylending. You suggest that instead of the date of the debt accruing from the time at which the last payment was made it should be from the date the debt was first contracted?—Yes, in the interests of the debtor.

816. You suggest eighteen months or two years as the limit?—Yes, eighteen months for the smaller sums and two years for sums over £10.

817. That would require a separate section. Section 13 only deals with the limitations, the date to start from the time when the account was created?— Yes.

818. Or else leave that section stand as it is and put in another section?—I understand that in Scotland there is a short period of limitation for certain classes of debts. I am not sure that it is confined to moneylenders.

819. Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney.—I thought there were no limitations at all in Scotland now?—I think I was wrong in saying it exists now. There was a period in some cases of debts limiting the period to one year. It is not a new thing in legislation. Whether it is the law now or not in Scotland, I do not know, but it was at one time.

820. Deputy Little.—Some of us were keen on the section dealing with married women, because instances have come to our notice where moneylenders came to the house and lent money to a married woman. That woman may have less knowledge of business than her husband, and the moneylender would play upon her fears and upon her ignorance of business. If there is a provision that the husband should sign the bill, that would be a protection for the married woman?—Where the husband and wife are running comfortably in double harness, the suggestion is useful.. But suppose the husband and wife are living together and are not running comfortably together, I can imagine cases where this provision would create a great hardship on the wife. Supposing, to take a simple case, the husband is cruel or immoral, or is interfering unduly with the children, and the wife finds it necessary to take proceedings for separation. In such a case she would require ready money to do so. It would be very hard on her if, before borrowing that money, she would have to get her husband to agree. I give that just as an instance of what may happen.

821. I have been told about a case where a woman went out of her mind owing to the fact that she had borrowed money and had not told her husband, and the moneylender used that as blackmail against her?—I am sure that is so. Such cases will happen.

822. Could you make any suggestion about it?—The only suggestion I could make about it would be that there was to be no personal call by the moneylender at the address of the borrower.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney.—The Commissioner has put that view very strongly before us.

823. Deputy Little.—That would meet it. In your experience, have you noticed that the borrowers brought into court in moneylending transactions are dishonest? —Not the majority.

824. It would be very difficult to find out exactly?—It would be very difficult, in that connection, to define honesty. But there is a very considerable percentage of cases where there is a reluctance to pay.

825. Do you think that the moneylenders bring all cases of failure to pay into court?—It would be quite impossible for me to say that.

826. You could not know except from the number of cases that come before you?—We have a very large number of cases coming before us—dozens every week.

827. Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney.—You have dozens of such cases every week?—Yes.

828. We had evidence here that some moneylenders never take their cases into court?—That might be so, but there are numbers of them in court every week. They are regular clients of ours.

829. Deputy Wolfe.—I suppose these are mostly for small sums?—All £25 or under.

830. Deputy Little.—From your experience, would you say there is a great lack of benevolent societies which would lend money on business lines, but not for profit, to people in extreme need?—I know of only two societies which lend money on what we would call “reasonable terms.” I know of one for certain, but I believe there are two. With the exception of these two, I know of no other society.

831. Minister for Justice.—Are they in a pretty large way? Have they large sums at their disposal for lending?—I think not. They are all sums of £5 to £10.

832. Have they large capital?—I would imagine not.

833. They would not be able to put up, say, £20,000?—No.

834. Deputy Little.—Would you consider it advisable that people in extreme need should have recourse to them rather than be made the prey of ordinary moneylenders?—Yes. The absence of that makes it necessary for us to keep what we call a Court Poor-Box, to which, I am glad to say, large sums of money come during the year. It all goes to cases of great necessity. That might be better done by an association lending money.

835. Chairman.—You recognise that this Bill is borrowed from the English Statute Book, with the exception of necessary changes?—Yes.

836. Am I right in my recollection that in England the excise penalty means a very different thing from an excise penalty in this country?—You are quite right, in the consequences.

837. My recollection is that under an English statute, that was never extended to this country, the English Justice gets discretion?—Not alone that, but in the English statute, which was not extended to our country, the period of detention is specified—two or three months; I really forget the exact period. Here if you are arrested for non-payment of an excise penalty you remain in jail.

838. For all time?—For all time, unless the Commissioners wish to let you out.

839. The petition in the excise case is to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue? —Yes.

840. You have given one instance of the result of that?—Yes.

841. I know of another where a petition went up showing on the face of it facts that would indicate the defendant was not guilty. The Justice admitted the facts were as stated in the petition, and admitted he made a mistake and recommended that the penalty should be abolished. It came back, after due course, with the recommendation that the penalty should be enforced?—I do not think that was my case, but I had one very like it. A man called Hanna—the case was reported in the newspapers—was sued for £200 in the Dun Laoghaire Court. He did not appear and the penalty was inflicted—an excise penalty. The next day he brought conclusive evidence to show that he was lying in bed on the previous day; at least his solicitor brought it down. It was shown that he was lying in bed, sick with some sort of fever. A doctor’s certificate was produced. The Revenue Commissioners refused to consent to the case being reheard. In that case there was a recommendation to mitigate the penalty, but they refused. A petition of a very remarkable nature went to the Governor-General, but, at any rate, there was no mitigation of the penalty. An appeal in that case would have to be heard within a certain time, but the man was late for his appeal.

842. As regards your recommendation as to the rate per cent., you recognise, of course, that in this Bill we have no mandate from the Dáil to abolish moneylending. The English statute recommends, instead of 20 per cent., 48 per cent.?— Yes.

843. You suggest a maximum of 30 per cent.?—Yes.

844. Take it that we had evidence from moneylenders that the average bad debts, including the costs of trying to collect, would work out at 33 per cent. You will see that the Bill would wipe them out of existence if unaltered?—They may charge any interest they like at the present time.

845. Suppose we came to the conclusion that the moneylenders are slightly exaggerating their bad debts, and that there was an average bad debt of 20 to 22 per cent., do you think the moneylender, in that case, would be able to carry on with 30 per cent.—He could, of course.

846. Say he lends £100 to various people and gets back £80. The 30 per cent. on £80 is not very much?—About £24.

847. That would mean that he is getting back £104 for his £100?—Yes.

848. Do you think he could carry on business on 4 per cent.?—No, I do not— if those figures are correct.

849. It has been suggested that in England the 48 per cent. has driven many of the small moneylenders out of trade. Do you gather from that that the risk to the small moneylenders is greater than the risk to the large moneylenders?—Yes.

850. That would be the conclusion to draw from it. You think that the limit in Section 11 should be in the way you told Deputy Little?—Of course, it is in it; the limit is there.

851. Your suggestion is that Section 11 is rather unworkable, that there is too great an onus on the Judge, and that there is great difficulty?—Yes.

852. In order to meet that, a rate should be fixed which would be a maximum rather than a minimum rate?— Quite so. The figures of 25 or 30 per cent. that I gave are merely suggestions. There is no particular merit attaching to either figure.

853. If the rate for average bad debts worked out at 25 per cent. or 30 per cent., a fixed rate of 20 per cent. would be absolutely inadequate?—It may be so. If there is a limit of 20 per cent., the vast majority of Justices will not be convinced that that is not a sufficiently high rate. If that is the rate fixed by the Oireachtas, they will adhere to it.

854. How do you think the debts in this country compare with the debts in England—the collected debts?—I do not know how they compare with England. As far as my personal experience goes, there is a much greater readiness to give credit here than I ever remember in my life—credit by traders at the other side of the Channel. They are suing constantly in our courts, and getting their decrees, and getting their money. The Enforcement of Powers Act has had an enormous effect in that direction. It is a very severe Act, and, as Deputy Little brought out at a previous Committee, there is considerable danger of the Act being used by harsh creditors to force money from the relatives of the debtor. Under this Act the alternative is imprisonment.

855. It may well be that it is easier to collect debts in this country than in England?—I think it is. I have no knowledge of England, but I think it is.

856. Deputy Cooney.—You stated that you have dozens of cases in your court— men suing every week?—Yes.

857. What percentage of those would be registered?—They are all registered. We never had a case of a non-registered moneylender suing in our courts as far as we know.

858. Minister for Justice.—He cannot sue?—He might try to, but I do not know of any cases where it occurred.

859. Deputy Little.—I have one case where a woman wrote to me. She complains of a moneylender whose name and address she gives, and this practice is indulged in: She sells second-hand clothing, furniture, bacon, fresh meat, tea and sugar, and she lends money at the rate of 3/4 to the £1, to be paid on Saturdays. When Saturday comes, the borrower must pay that money and the interest back. Then she has not got the price of her Sunday dinner. She must buy her meat at 3d. dearer than she would pay to the ordinary butcher, and when Tuesday comes she must borrow money again. The woman stops the price of meat out of the money which she is lending. Does that type of case ever come before you?—I never had a case similar to that.

860. That is a case where they would sue for goods rather than money lent?— That would be the case of an unregistered moneylender.

861. That is the way an unregistered moneylender could sue?—Yes.

The Committee adjourned until Wednesday, 4th June, 1930.