decide each case before them on its own merits. While the courts have administered the Moneylenders Acts with scrupulous care and fairness to both parties to a moneylending transaction, yetowing to the past reluctance of the legislature to fix a maximum rate of interest on loans-the moneylending fraternity have been able in a great number of instances to impose a far heavier rate of interest upon the unfortunate borrower than is either equitable or proper in the circumstances. And it stands to reason that the very existence of an abstract definition, such as "harsh and unconscionable," in a statute dealing with a concrete subject, necessarily involves a certain lack of uniformity in judicial decisions, and consequent uncertainty on the part of the public as to the state of the law in practice. The existing law, moreover, does nothing to prevent temptation from being put in the way of the foolish or inexperienced individual who happens to be financially embarrassed. The continuous flow of moneylenders' circulars affords an excellent illustration of the rapid strides made by modern methods of advertising.

It is now proposed to remedy the defects and omissions of the Moneylenders Act of 1900, and bills recently introduced by Lord Carson in the House of Lords, and by Mr. Wells in the House of Commons, suggest a number of alterations and improvements in the existing law relating to moneylending transactions. These bills, which are similar in design, are now being considered by a Joint Parliamentary Committee of the two Houses. Lord Carson proposes that where the interest charged in respect of the sum lent exceeds 15 per cent. per annum the court is thereafter to presume excess of interest and may re-open the transaction as being a "harsh and unconscionable" bargain within the meaning of Section 1 of the Moneylenders Act, 1900. But the door is left open to the lender to apply to the registrar of the County Court who can inquire into the circumstances of the proposed transaction and dispense with the limitation of 15 per cent. at his discretion. Where the amount of the loan does not exceed £20 the interest charged is limited to 10 per cent. per annum; and compound interest is forbidden in every case. Mr. Wells proposes, without any qualifications, that a rate of interest exceeding 20 per cent. per annum is to be deemed excessive.

Both measures provide that the lender and borrower, or their

respective agents, must deliver to each other within one week of the making of the contract a written statement, signed by both parties, disclosing the names of the parties, the date of the contract, the amount of the loan, the amount actually paid over, the amount retained in respect of interest and other charges, the rate of interest and the intervals of payment.

In regard to the circularisation of invitations to borrowers, Lord Carson aims at prohibiting the sending of any document and the insertion of advertisements in any newspaper or periodical for the purpose of inducing people to have recourse to moneylenders; and any moneylending transaction brought about by such means is to be declared void. Lord Carson finally proposes that Section 16 of the Post Office Act, 1908, shall be applied to moneylenders' circulars along the lines at present applicable to obscene and indecent matter. Mr. Wells desires to achieve the above objects in substantially the same fashion. He does not propose however, to invoke the assistance of the Post Office Act, 1908, but in regard to the insertion of moneylenders' advertisements he would go further than Lord Carson and lay upon the proprietors and publishers of newspapers and other periodicals a duty to refuse acceptance of any such advertisements.

Both legislators agree as to the penalties to be inflicted. On summary conviction a term of imprisonment not exceeding one month, or a fine not exceeding £20 (or both) may be inflicted; and conviction on indictment may subject the offender to a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months, or a fine not exceeding £100, or both.

The proposals of Lord Carson and Mr. Wells, while dealing boldly with the evils attendant upon moneylending transactions, are open to one criticism. The proposed restrictions upon the rate of interest, namely 15 per cent. (by Lord Carson) and 20 per cent. (by Mr. Wells), are too stringent. The plain fact of the matter is that unless professional moneylenders are legally permitted to make a substantial profit out of moneylending transactions they will have recourse to numerous devices in order to evade the law. As a general rule people only turn to moneylenders when all other means of assistance have been abandoned, and the borrower is in the direst financial straits. A man is desperately in need of money; he must meet his creditors at once or go into bankruptcy and, being already overdrawn at the

bank, he goes to a moneylender and asks for a loan. The lender is not likely to put out his money at so low rate of interest as 15 or even 20 per cent., unless the security is substantial.

A surrender of an uncharged life policy, or the assignment of a reversionary interest, covering the capital value of the advance, are examples of real securities. But these may not be forthcoming, for in a great number of cases the harassed borrower has no security to offer beyond his own personal bond. Driven to distraction, the borrower agrees to sign a document stating that he has been lent a sum far in excess of that which he actually receives from the lender. The rate of interest charged on the loan is reasonable (say 15 or 20 per cent.) and the document purporting to make the loan is perfectly valid on the face of it, there being no indication, of course, that the amount of money actually advanced is not truly disclosed. A fraudulent transaction, no doubt. But how can the fraud be detected? There are not likely to be any witnesses to the signing of the document in the moneylender's office beyond the parties to the transaction and, in the absence of fraud, a court of law cannot in such circumstances go behind a document which appears to be valid in every respect. It is submitted therefore, that the maximum rate of interest permitted by law should be at least 30 per cent. per annum. Take the case of a lender with a capital of £1,000. Supposing the whole of that sum to be lent out at 15 per cent. per annum, the income derived therefrom will be £150 a year, assuming always that no bad debts are incurred. Now that is not a sufficiently attractive proposition for a lender of small capital; but raise the legally permissible rate of interest to 30 per cent. per annum, and there will be more encouragement to lend money on proper terms and less inducement to resort to improper devices.

In conclusion it may be said that it is very doubtful whether any legislative enactment in regard to moneylending transactions will achieve in full the purposes for which it is designed. But any well considered effort to mitigate the existing evils should meet with popular approval and support. Both Lord Carson and Mr. Wells deserve our gratitude for having attacked this formidable problem, and it is hoped that the Joint Parliamentary Committee who are now considering the two Bills will be able to evolve a workable Act.

D. MESTON

P

MACAULAY AND MILTON

1. The Sonnets of Milton. With Introduction and Notes by JOHN S. SMART, M.A., D.Litt. Glasgow: Maclehose, Jackson. 1921.

2. Milton Agonistes: A Metaphysical Criticism. By E. H. VISIAK. A. M. Philpot. 1924.

3. Milton, Man and Thinker. By DENIS SAURAT, D. ès L. Jonathan Cape. 1925.

A centenary is approaching which should not be overlooked.

In the EDINBURGH REVIEW for August, 1825 (No. 84) appeared an article on Milton, which at once arrested the attention of readers by the firmness of its judgments and the vigour of its style. The article is anonymous, in the excellent fashion of a more reserved generation, but no mere anonymity could suppress the insurgent personality of this panegyrist of Milton. We instantly recognise a master of language, and gladly submit to his spell. Here is an early paragraph:

Scarcely any passages in the poems of Milton are more generally known or more frequently repeated than those which are little more than muster-rolls of names. They are not always more appropriate or more melodious than other names; but they are charmed names. Everyone of them is the first link in a long chain of associated ideas. Like the dwelling-place of our infancy revisited in manhood, like the song of our country heard in a strange land, they produce upon us an effect wholly independent of their intrinsic value. One transports us back to a remote period of history. Another places us among the moral scenery and manners of a distant country. A third evokes all the dear classical recollections of childhood, the school-room, the dogeared Virgil, the holiday and the prize. A fourth brings before us the splendid phantoms of chivalrous romance, the trophied lists, the embroidered housings, the quaint devices, the haunted forests, the enchanted gardens, the achievements of enamoured knights, and the smiles of rescued princesses.

It is the fashion to accuse Macaulay of " rhetoric "-as if rhetoric were a crime or a misdemeanour. But the accusation, as far as it has any evil meaning, is false. Macaulay was the sincerest of men, and if he needed defence, we should adduce in his favour this single paragraph, written, we suspect, with a pleasant dimming of the eyes; for every sentence tells us of a happy childhood gratefully recollected in a happy manhood. The

A

Great peet

ingenuous pomp is indicative of enthusiasm and sincerity; and the simple eloquence is a token of real pleasure. If to write with a warmth of love or admiration for things warmly loved or admired is to be rhetorical, then Macaulay is humanly and nobly rhetorical; if to express magniloquently a warmth not really felt, or to deck a feeble sentiment with rounded and empty periods is to be rhetorical, then Macaulay is untouched by the accusation. We may not admire where he admired; we may not glow with the principles that he held dear; but we are not entitled to depreciate a man who lives for a faith we reject or suffers in a cause not ours. Macaulay made many mistakes; but it would be hard to prove that he ever took a small man for a large one, or viewed a great sweep of events opaquely or obliquely.

Taking the lower ground of literary skill, i.e., the power to transmit ideas vividly in words, we feel at once that every word of this essay comes clearly through. Indeed, Macaulay is both tonic and cordial in these days when so much prose is muddled or officialised or affected. We can think of no finer corrective, after a diet of gross journalese, spiced by essayistic preciousness," than such a passage as that on the English Revolution in chapter x of the "History." History." Here is prose that is soundly, solidly and creditably English: prose for everyday wear and not, like the prose of Sir Thomas Browne or Milton himself, for Sundays or holy days.

Macaulay was but twenty-four when he wrote the essay on Milton. A knowledge of this fact has enabled people to prophesy (after the event) with great accuracy. To know the answer beforehand helps the dullest schoolboy to get his sum right; and so critics, knowing that the answer to the present sum is twentyfour, have found no difficulty in proving that the author of the essay was young. But actually the faults of the essay are not the faults of youth they are the faults of Macaulay. He would have written no better essay on Milton had he written twenty years later. He was a prodigy, intellectually mature even in childhood, and he seemed never to grow really paternal. His emphatic manner was attractive rather than repellent: in fact, he was a kind of bachelor-uncle of literature. Unlike his great contemporary, Newman, Macaulay could never have written a history of his religious opinions, because his opinions were of the kind that have no history. What he was, he remained; what he believed,