The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, JULY 8 1874

Evening Star, Issue 3549, 8 July 1874, Page 2

The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, JULY 8 1874

The question of imprisonment for debt is again before the Legislature and a Bill for its abolition has been introduced. We have not received any intimation of its provisions, but are prepared to expect that they will only extend to cases where no fraud is intended. John Hill Burton, an able writer on political and social economy, observes :

It is not the policy of the laws of any civilised community to inflict direct punishment on the citizen for extravagance or imprudence, unless it be accompanied by direct fraud.

The subject has been brought somewhat prominently into notice in Dunedin lately, and has been discussed more as a matter of humanity than one of social economy. The instinctive feeling of mankind condemned the practice and led to the kindly release «f the luckless debtor. But this was merely a single instance of the operation of the laws. The man was released from its trammels, but the law itself remains. We should be prepared as a community to aid in its abolition, on well grounded convictions of its injustice and folly. There is an acknowledged difficulty in dealing with the remedy of creditor against debtor. Burton, in his summary of the history of British legislation respecting it, remarks ;

In leaving the unfortunate debtor, however, subject to those remedies which his creditors are entitledto adopt for their own safety and advantage, it has often been found that, thus thrown on the mercy of injured and exasperated men, hs has been subjected to more severe punishment than the criminal law inflicts on great offenders. Under the old system of imprisonment for debt, the captivity incurred by the mere thoughtless exercise of a too sanguine temperament frequently lasted all the days of a long life.

We have had a recent instance in the Dunedin Gaol, where a man, unable to pay a comparatively small debt, contracted, as he believed, in defence of his own right, was subjected to a longer term of imprisonment than many a convicted thief. It is perfectly true the result was that the creditor obtained payment of the debt, through the liberality of the public ; but

The penniless debtor was not made more able to meet his obligations by being immured within the walls of a prison.

Ihe law that authorised the infliction of a punishment for non-payment of a debt, by depriving the debtor of every opportunity of acquiring the means of discharging it, still remains unrepeaied ; and looked at in this light it is only putting into the hands of creditors the means of indulging in what must be regarded as ineffective revenge. Many of those who have put this law in execution would feel very much insulted were they compared to Shylock ; yet where is the difference in spirit between their conduct and his ? They place a man in prison, knowing he cannot pay them, and knowing that so long as he remains there he will be unable, either to pay his old debts or support himself by his industry; but they say :

I’ll have my bond : I will not hear thee apeak : I’ll have ray bond; and therefore speak no

more. I’ll not be. made a soft and dull-eyed fool, To shake the head, relent, and sigh, and yield To Christian intercessors. Follow not; I’ll have no speaking : I will have my bond.

Hill Burton goes somewhat fully into the details of the principles that should govern legislation on this subject. He draws a distinction between unsuccessful tradesmen who have done their best to meet their obligations, and those living on fixed incomes. He shows that the insolvency of the first may arise from causes over which they may have no control; while the latter have always the means of regulating their expenditure to their income; and he therefore arrives at the conclusion that, while commercial men on yielding up the whole of their property should be “ absolved from their obligations,” “ the ordinary debtor, if he should be fortunate enough to secure valuable property,” should still remain liable. This however is more a question of the law of insolvency than of the remedy of creditor against debtor. Its only bearing on the question is to show that where no fraud is manifest, it is idle and even wrong to place power in the hands of a creditor or creditors, to punish simple indebtedness more severely than crime.