IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 4160, 21 July 1874, Page 3

IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT.

TO THE EDITOR. Sib, —Will you kindly permit one interested to offer a few remarks upon the expediency of abolishing imprisonment for debt. It will, no doubt, be within your knowledge that the same question has occupied the attention of the British House of Commons ; but I fear the hon. members of the General Assembly are treating this question in a light manner, and are not aware of the injustice to which retail tradesmen will find themselves exposed should the Bill now before the House become the law of New Zealand. I would advocate that the power to imprison for debt be limited to £5. That was, I think, the decision arrived at by a majority of 143 in the House of Commons upon the question of imprisonment for debt, and in the course of the debate Mr. Lopes said ;—“ Imprisonment for debt was really imprisonment for contempt of Court, because no judge was permitted to commit a man to prison unless it was proved he had had means in his possession of paying the debt. Why, he asked, if a man had power to pay, should he be allowed to snap his fingers at the judge and at the creditor who made the claim. If it were to pass into law it would be injurious to the retail tradesmen.” Mr. Eoebuok also adds, in the interest of the working class, “ And of the necessity that ofttimes occurs for credit. If you take away the power to imprison for debt you also take away his credit and his means of living.” These remarks apply with equal, if not greater, force to this Colony, for it is well known three-fourths of the business done here is upon credit; whereas in England credit is the exception ; and it would be almost an impossibility to do otherwise, particularly in outlying districts. Take this, for an example. A number of immigrants arrive ; labor is procurable, —but they have not the means to purchase food until they have earned it, and pay is often made but once a month. Tradesmen have come to their relief and given them credit, but can it be supposed they will continue to do so if all protection be withdrawn ? Will it not chiefly come hard upon the new arrivals, who, on the other hand, should be met -with sympathy ? During the working of the present Act, whereby we are enabled to imprison for £3, I would ask how many have actually been imprisoned ? I speak from my own personal experience, and can say that, out of many, cases in which I have sued, but two debtors actually entered the prison, and their stay in the establishment did not exceed an hour in each case, the debt and costs being paid in full; and this was simply a prevention of swindling, both having insultingly defied me. It is these small debts that give tradesmen so much trouble. It is well known there are a number of unprincipled persons in every community ; and it is from those we seek protection. If it be deemed necessary to retain such an Act in England, where the working classes are in an immeasurably inferior position to the same class here, where there is no such thing as a poor man in the English sense of the word —how much more necessary is it to retain it in force here, where, by repealing it, we only offer a premium to dishonesty and fraud.—l am, sir, yours respectfully, H. Wilkin. Wanganui, July 16.