sure for the working of the Bill. That be possible to keep better order among arrangement enabled them to make the officials and to exercise more control measure much shorter than it otherwise over them; there would be fewer offiwould have been, and thus it was that, cials in future, for it was proposed to while the Bill of last year contained no make a clean sweep of several. It was less than 530 clauses, the present Bill con- necessary to have a Chief Judge also for tained only 130. The worthy Alderman, the purpose of trying important cases the Member for the City of London (Mr. and hearing appeals; and he could not Alderman W. Lawrence) seemed to fear help thinking it was a proper provision there would not be power to reach frau- that the appeals should go to that superior dulent, absconding, and embezzling trus- Court of Common Law, from which the tees; but such cases were met by the Chief Judge was taken. With regard to Fraudulent Trustees Act. He believed the remarks of the hon. and learned Memit would be found there was ample pro- ber for Reading (Sir Francis Goldsmid) vision for the examination of bankrupts; as to not giving the Chancery Bar & and his answer to the suggestion that chance, it might be said that no chance penal clauses should be introduced was was given to the Common Law Bar either. that they would be found in the Im- The appointment of an existing Judge prisonment for Debt Bill—which he who had proved his capacity would proshould presently ask the House to read bably carry with it more weight than the a second time-There it was thought by appointment of any gentleman who could the draftsman and himself better to be selected from either the Chancery Bar place them. There had been no omis- or the Common Law Bar. The main obsion, either in this respect or as regarded jects sought by the Bill were to simplify the repeal of existing Acts, for it was the law, to abolish a vast amount of thought better to have a separate Repeal officialism which had encumbered the Bill and to bring it in when the Bill had operation of our bankruptcy system, and passed through Committee and it had to cheapen the administration of bankbeen seen what statutes had been re- rupt estates which, in many cases, had pealed. Only one more question re- cost 75 per cent in this country, while in quired any remark-namely, the ap- Scotland the average cost was not more pointment of a Chief Judge. To that than 12 or 13 per cent. These figures appointment he attached a good deal of pointed strongly to the expediency of importance. It was proposed by Lord adopting as far as possible the Scotch Westbury, in his Bill of 1861, and it was system; and they had the testimony of approved by this House; but the House a Scotch Member (Mr. Anderson) that of Lords rejected the proposal, and to the Bill not only embraced the main that the author of the Bill attributed elements of that system, but was, in some almost entirely the failure of his mea- respects, an improvement upon them. sure, for the provision was material to They had endeavoured to go upon the the working of that Act. Lord Westbury principle of separating the judicial from likened the Judge in that case to the the administrative functions, leaving the mainspring of a watch; and although administration entirely to the creditors, he (the Attorney General) was not pre- and giving the judicial functions entirely pared to go quite that length, he re- to the Court. He was glad to hear the garded the appointment of a Chief Judge general judgment which had been pro-a Judge of the highest authority—as a nounced

upon the Bill by his hon, and most important portion of the scheme. learned Friends, and by those Gentlemen He looked upon it as the keystone of the who were entitled to speak in behalf of the arch, for they must rely upon a Chief mercantile community, and he should be Judge to frame rules of practice for happy to receive any further suggestions London and provincial courts, and to for the purpose of making it more acintroduce uniformity of procedure and ceptable to the public. of practice. Without disrespect to the Commissioners of Bankruptcy, it must be Bill read a second time, and committed said there had been an utter absence of for Monday 19th of April. control over the officials of the courts, which had not existed in the superior courts ; and it was hoped that by the appointment of a Chief Judge it would

a

IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT BILL.

paying the debt, or a portion of it, im(hér. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General, prisonment ought to follow. He dis

Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.) tinctly protested against the short time

(BILL 61.] SECOND READING. that had been allowed for the examinaOrder for Second Reading read. tion of a Bill, which, as it stood, would

Mr. NORWOOD said, he rose to renew open the door to considerable fraud. the protest he had already made against MR. STAVELEY HILL said, he proceeding with the Bill, which was not agreed with the hon. Gentleman who in the hands of Members until Friday had just sat down in hoping that the last. Several telegrams were received Attorney General would not press the in London, from various Chambers of second reading of a Bill which had only Commerce throughout the country that just been placed in the hands of Memmorning, requesting second reading bers, and which contained provisions might be postponed on the ground requiring much consideration. He did that it had been totally impossible to not, however, agree with the hon. Genexamine the Bill. Although it was tleman in his opinions respecting the rather unfashionable not to believe in 6th section. He hoped that section the abolition of imprisonment for debt, would be fully discussed before its prinhe did not see the hardship of the pre- ciple was sanctioned. If there was one sent law, for a man could be imprisoned thing more than another which pressed only after a final process, and then for hardly upon the working classes, it was & very limited period, as Registrars the power of commitment possessed by were obliged to go round to prisons and the County Court Judges. It involved the almost to drive debtors out by compelling loss of more labour, the wasting of more them to pass through the Bankruptcy money, and the infliction of greater Court. He believed that if the power hardship than those who had not had of imprisonment were given up very practical experience or seen statistics on great fraud would ensue. Persons ar- the subject could easily imagine. As rested for debt were seldom mercantile the Bill also introduced an entirely new men, for these had assets and came principle into our law—that of allowing readily under the provisions of the persons accused to give evidence before Bankruptey Law; but persons arrested a criminal tribunal-he trusted that the were for the most part non-traders who second reading would be a little longer had no ostensible or available means on delayed. which to levy executions or defray ex- MR. MʻMAHON said, he hoped that penses of bankruptcy, so that imprison- the Attorney General would proceed with bent was the only means of securing the the second reading of the Bill, which payment of the debts owing by them. really represented nothing more than a He objected to the want of principle in return to the old Common Law of the this measure. By the Bill it was pro- land. At the Civil Law a debtor might be posed to retain the county system of im- arrested and sold in consequence of his prisonment in respect of debts below inability to satisfy his creditor; and by £50; but there was no power to touch a one law if he owed money to several fraudulent debtor who owed £51, who people, which he was unable to pay, his might be a non-trader and have no avail. creditors might seize him and cut him able assets

, so that he would not be made up. But by the Common Law imprisona bankrupt, and who yet might have re- ment for debt was a special Prerogasources which were withheld from his tive of the Crown and the King, who creditors, and upon which he might might, in satisfaction of a debt, seize the be living in affluence. This would body, lands, and goods of his debtor. be making one law for large debtors The whole system, as it now stood, of and another for the poorer classes, and final imprisonment in satisfaction of debt he was certain the Bill would not was merely Judge-made law. He hoped give satisfaction by placing such a that when they went into Committee on premium on roguery. The limitation the Bill, a clause would be inserted reof £50 ought to be removed, and, pealing all the statutes on which the whatever the amount of the debt, the Judges had founded the right of imdebtor ought to be liable to be sum- prisoning a man for debt. When arrest moned before a Judge, and then if it on mesne process was abolished shortly were proved that he had the power of after the passing of the Reform Bill, it was then said that credit would be dis- the debtor had been guilty of fraud, or, turbed, and that traders would not be having the means, persistently refused able to carry on their business. But to pay; whereas debtors in bankruptcy those forebodings were purely imagi- of upwards of £50 would have to take nary, and in the same way he believed their trial before a jury in a criminal no evil would attend the good that must court. That was simply a difference in undoubtedly result from the abolition of procedure. He believed that imprison. final imprisonment. If, however, they ment in cases of fraudulent indebtedallowed the rich man to escape under ness was right, but that the man who the bankruptcy system they ought not to was merely unfortunate should not be permit the poor man to be liable to im- regarded or treated as a criminal. He prisonment; for, by so doing, they would trusted that the learned Gentleman certainly be open to the charge of having would proceed with the measure, though one law for the man in broadcloth and there were one or two points which he and another for the man in corduroys. should like to see altered. He would At present the County Courts were con- suggest that instead of referring, as in verted into agencies for the collection of Clause 4, to other statutes the Act should small debts, many of which were incurred be complete in itself. In Clause 10 by the wives of poor men in consequence there was a sub-section directed against of the importunities of traders. These the concealment of goods, and the onus debts were frequently left outstanding of proving innocence was laid upon the till the harvest season, when the creditors person charged. In the next sub-secinsisted upon payment or sent the debtors tion it was provided that if a man reto prison, and the men so imprisoned moved his goods from the premises he were committed again and again unless was presumed to be acting innocently they satisfied the harpies to whom they in so doing, and the onus of proving were indebted. In Whitecross Street him guilty lay upon those who charged Prison, he was told, the County Court him. Now, he could not see any good debtors were imprisoned in something reason for this distinction.

He could like the cages for wild beasts at the not see why in the case of concealment Zoological Gardens, while persons im- guilt should be presumed, while in the prisoned for large debts were provided case of removal the presumption was to with all the luxuries to which they had be in favour of the party's innocence. been accustomed. All political econo- This measure, in connection with the Bill mists, from Adam Smith to Mill, laid for amending the law of bankruptcy, down that it was not for the interest of a / was, however, a great improvement upon State to encourage credit, and he believed the present Bankruptcy Laws, and he that if they were to-morrow to abolish thought the thanks of the whole com. imprisonment for debt trade would be mercial community were due to the all the more flourishing, and men would Attorney General for having introduced be less tempted to embark in those spec- this and the Bankruptcy Bill. culations where their gains were their MR. SERJEANT SIMON said, that, own and their losses their creditors'. He while anxious to assist the Attorney contended that unless a fraud or a crime General in carrying out the principle on were committed it was not the province which this Bill was founded, he thought of society to interfere, and if this inter- that Section 6 was open very

serious ference were to cease both the trade and objection, and not calculated to give the morals of the country would benefit satisfaction to any portion of the comthereby. He trusted, therefore, that the munity. He had never been an advomeasure would be proceeded with. cate for imprisoning men merely be

MR. CANDLISH said, he did not cause they had the misfortune of not agree with the hon. Member for Hull being able to pay their debts. He would (Mr. Norwood) that the Bill made one not imprison a man merely because he law for the poor man coming before the had been unfortunate; but, at the same County Court with a debt under £50, time, he thought that there ought to be and another for the man whose liabili- some protection for persons who, in the ties were greater. The principle in both course of business, were obliged to give cases was the same; the procedure only trust, and who without such protection was different. The Bill gave power to might find themselves defrauded. the County Court Judge to imprison if tion 6 of this Act preserved to the

to

Sec

MR. WEST said, he had come to the same conclusion as his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Hill) had arrived at with regard to commitments for small debts. He trusted the hon. and learned Attorney General would give a candid consideration to the arguments which had been advanced in regard to the distinction between debts of £20 and debts of a greater amount. The 6th section would in his opinion require careful consideration in Committee, but he thought that the Bill might meanwhile be read a second time.

County Court Judges the power of com- | visions of those Acts were reduced to dead mittal in certain cases. He did not letters by the mode in which they were complain of the principle of the section, interpreted. What he now suggested but what he did complain of was that it was that, instead of leaving the prosemade a distinction between the rich man cution of a fraudulent debtor permissive, and the poor man, because the power of it should be made compulsory. To uncommittal would only apply in cases dertake this disagreeable duty required where the debt was £50 or under. He an amount of moral courage which few did not see why the operation of the Bill men possessed. The Bill should thereshould be thus limited. Why should the fore be altered so that a trustee should man who owed £50 or less be punished, be required to report, and the Judge to and the man who owed £500 or £5,000 order a prosecution in cases of fraud. be allowed to escape with impunity? Provisions existed under the old Insolvency Law and the Bankruptcy Laws for meeting cases of reckless trading, and of persons who contracted debts without a reasonable prospect of paying. These provisions were to be withdrawn; the new Bankruptcy Bill confined the functions of the Judge in Bankruptcy to the administration of the assets; while the effect of this Imprisonment for Debt Bill would be to authorize, under certain circumstances, the imprisonment of persons who owed only small amounts. As the Bill at present stood the Attorney General was not faithfully carrying out his own principle with regard to the total abolition of imprisonment for debt. He proposed to punish the man who committed a fraud upon a small scale, whilst he allowed the man who committed it on a large scale practically to escape. He (Serjeant Simon) hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would make the 6th section applicable to all classes of debtors. In that case he (Serjeant Simon) would give the Bill his support.

MR. RATHBONE said, that the credit given under the protection of the County Courts was given with the idea of making those courts agents for the collection of small debts. A working man's wife was induced to incur a debt for an article which perhaps she did not really want, and then the County Court obliged the husband to pay. In another respect his constituents were of opinion that the Bill did not go far enough. It was no doubt a great improvement upon any previous legislation, because, to a certain extent, it supplied the want of a public prosecutor, directing the Judge in certain cases to order a prosecution. Now, if the Judges had done their duty under previous Bankruptcy Acts, and had carried out the law as it was meant to be administered, very different results would have ensued, but the most important pro

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL said, he did not under-rate the importance of this question, and hoped no Member of the House would suppose that he intended to stifle discussion upon it. If, therefore, he asked hon. Members to allow the Bill to be now read a second time it was on the distinct understanding that there would be further discussion on going into Committee. Although as a whole the Bill had been favourably received, certain misconceptions seemed to prevail with regard to it, and he should like, if possible, to clear away some of those. The principle of the Bill was the abolition of imprisonment for debt, and he did not think it necessary at this time of day to enter into any lengthened argument on that point. The question, as he had before said, was almost concluded by authority. The Commission of 1832, consisting of a number of the Judges, had reported in favour of abolishing imprisonment for debt. The Report of the Bankruptcy Commission in 1842 was to the same effect; the Bankruptcy Committee which sat in 1864 and 1865 were also unanimous on the subject; and all the Bills introduced since that time-the Bill of the hon. and learned Member (Sir Roundell Palmer), and that of the Lord Chancellor last year, as well as the present Bill were founded on the same principle. Imprisonment for debt, he would repeat, was not justifiable as a punishment, because it made no distinc