§ Mr. Hume,pursuant to notice, rose to bring forward a motion on a subject of the greatest importance. He hoped the House would indulge him with a patient hearing, while he trespassed on them with some details, which he deemed it right to adduce in support of his motion. Having submitted these details, he should leave it to the House to determine, whether the inquiry which he proposed ought not to be instituted—to say whether a state of things ought any longer to continue, which he considered a reproach to the justice of the land; or whether the evils which existed ought not long since to have been remedied. The subject of his motion was connected with every interest in the country. The law, as now practised, authorising imprisonment for debt, occasioned the most serious mischief; and the question would be, whether it ought to continue under I such grievous circumstances as he should 224 detail to the House. Some years ago he had moved for various returns, to show the magnitude of the evil; and last year for further returns. They world give a tolerably forcible idea of the extent of those evils which he desired to see remedied. He wished an inquiry into the policy of imprisonment for debt, to be connected with an investigation into the state of the prisons appointed for debtors. According to the returns made up to the 25th April last, there were three thousand one hundred and thirty persons confined for debt in the prisons of the metropolis. That was a frightful number of persons doomed to idleness, separated from their families and from good habits, and initiated into the vices inseparable from prisons. After obtaining their release, they could hardly be expected to become good subjects. Of the number of debtors just named, there were nine hundred imprisoned for debts under 20l.; seven hundred and fifty for debts under 50l.: four hundred and fifty for debts under 100l.: seven hundred for debts above 100l.: about two thousand had been imprisoned upwards of six months. In Middlesex alone, in three or four months, there had been two thousand six hundred and seventy-seven arrests; and in the corresponding four months of last year, upwards of three thousand arrests had taken place, under the warrants of the sheriff of Middlesex. In the whole year there had been between eleven and twelve thousand persons arrested for debt under the authority of warrants issued by the sheriff of Middlesex alone. Such being the state of things, it became a question, whether the imprisonments were to be continued for the safe custody of the parties, or as punishments? From those returns it appeared, that, in April 1826, the number of individuals confined for debt within the walls and in the rules of the King's-bench prison, amounted to nine hundred and ninety-five. In the preceding year the number was seven hundred and ninety-one only. In the Fleet prison, the number confined for debt in April 1824, was two hundred and thirty-seven. In April 1826, the number was two hundred and thirty-seven. In White-cross-street prison, which was the prison of the county of Middlesex more particularly, the number of prisoners for debt, in April 1825, was four hundred. In April 1826, the number was five hundred and forty-six. In the Marshalsea there 225 were confined for debt, in April 1826, no less than a hundred and six. In all the four prisons the aggregate number of prisoners for debt in one day, amounted to one thousand nine hundred and seventy-four individuals. In all the prisons of the country, the number was from twenty thousand to twenty-two thousand individuals, shut up for debt. He implored the House to consider the sort of education and the habits that must be contracted by these unhappy persons, thus mixed with the worst classes of society; their labour lost to themselves, to their families, and to the country. This was a frightful state of things, and the laws relating to arrest for debt required to be considered by the legislature. If the House would enter into a consideration and comparison of the laws of England and Scotland in this respect, they would be inclined, if not to abolish altogether, at least greatly to modify, the laws of arrest in this country. But those laws were not always in this state. He had the authority of lord Coke, and of other great lawyers, for saying, that formerly an individual could be arrested for assault only, and not for a simple contract debt. But now nothing was easier than to deprive a man of his liberty, and his family, and the country of his services, by means of those laws. For swearing the affidavit of debt, for stamp, and writ, the party had to pay about 3s. 10d., which, with 1s. to an officer, made only 4s. 10d. The affidavit of the debt might be false and malicious, still the party was thrown into prison. Now, was it not wrong to suffer a person to be deprived of his liberty, and thrown into evil society, on grounds such as these? The person who had thus satisfied his motive at the trifling expense of 4s. 10d., might then leave the country without any fear of the consequences; for he was not obliged, as in justice he should be, to give any security to prosecute his suit, or pay the expenses. Such securities were formerly called for and given. The hon. member described and lamented the hardships of a person thus arrested at an expense of a few shillings, for an alleged debt of, perhaps, 10,000l. or 20,000l., when, in reality, he might not owe one farthing. However wealthy and respectable such an individual might be, he might have to lie in prison several days. The arrest might be made on a Saturday evening; or the sum might be purposely made so large as that sureties 226 could not be easily found. Yet, what was the remedy for all this? He might, indeed, have his action for false imprisonment; but the pretended creditor might have absconded, or not be worth pursuing. The hon. member next showed the petty vexations to which the person arrested was subjected in giving bail below, and above. For the former, in fees at judges' chambers, to sheriff, and for stamps, he would have to pay no less than 3l. 6s. for so small a debt as 10l. It was extraordinary, that while bail for a debt of 10l. cost 3l. 6s., bail on a criminal charge cost only 4s. 6d. This was a matter which well deserved the consideration of the Secretary for the Home Department. Now, in Scotland, no arrest could be made without the intervention of a decree of court, unless the person was leaving the country. But it could not be said, that there were not dealings and transactions, and bills, and notes, passing in Scotland. If a note or bond became due, notice was given, and if the person did not pay, then he was arrested, and proceedings taken against his property. But in England, from the state of the laws, persons went to prison, but retained their property, and the creditor was not at all benefitted, though the country and his own family were deprived of the debtor's labour. At the present moment, he knew of an individual who was living luxuriously within the walls of a prison, from the produce of his lands, which the creditor could not touch. This individual raised money on bonds and notes, purchased freehold estates, and settled his family on them. When the bonds and notes became due, he went to prison, where he was enjoying the produce of the estates, managed by his wife and children. Several prisoners now confined in the Fleet, and elsewhere, had defrauded their creditors in the same way; refusing to give up any portion of their property for the liquidation of their just debts, and living in expense and extravagance. Where, then, was the wisdom of continuing laws which were so abused and perverted. In other countries, there was no such thing as imprisonment for debt; and he was satisfied that trade and business of every description might be carried on much better in England, if there was no such thing as an arrest for debt. By a paper on the table of the House, it appeared that since the formation of the Court of Insolvent Debtors, eleven thousand six hundred and 227 seventeen persons had been liberated by the commissioners therein presiding. The gross amount of the debts which those persons owed came to no less a sum than 8,863,000l., and the sum actually divided amongst their creditors was only 4,788l., being at the rate of about half a farthing in the pound sterling.—The hon. member, after describing the expense of passing through the Insolvent Debtor's court, adverted to the Craven-street institution for the relief of persons confined for small debts. By a return from that society, it appeared, that they had liberated, up to last year, forty-two thousand persons, whose debts were compromised at about 3l. each on an average.—The hon. member then referred to several reports of committees appointed to investigate the Fleet and other prisons, whose recommendations were never acted on by the House. There were, it appeared, in the King's-bench prison, a hundred and ninety-two rooms appropriated for the reception of the prisoners. A great part of these rooms, however, were given to individuals who could afford to pay for them. In 1819, four hundred and forty persons were confined, eighty of whom had separate rooms. What situation then, he would ask, must the unfortunate prisoners be in at present, who, in point of numbers, were nearly double what they were in 1819? Seven hundred and fifty persons were at this moment confined within the walls of that prison, who were crowded into close rooms, not in any way adequate to their accommodation. The hon. member then referred to the want of medical attendance in those prisons—a neglect which reflected the greatest possible disgrace on the authorities by whom it was permitted. No medical officer had been appointed to the Fleet prison until the present year. The hon. gentleman then read an extract from the Report of the Prison Committee of 1814, complaining that there was no infirmary in the Fleet prison, nor any medical attendants to administer to the wants of the prisoners. As the case stood in 1814, so it remained at the present day. The recommendations of the committee had not been attended to. What he most objected to was, that men and women were indiscriminately confined in the same galleries. Under this arrangement, if a woman entered the prison with the least sense of decency, in a very short time she must be inevitably rained. Night and day mist she be ex- 228 posed to the most debasing scenes. The committee of 1814 had recommended the separation of the female from the male prisoners; but the recommendation had riot been adopted, and the prison might be considered as the largest brothel in the metropolis. He had understood that it was the duty of an officer of the Common Pleas to visit the prison once a fortnight; but, upon inquiry of the inmates, he learned that this officer had not been seen there until subsequent to the recent inquest. The coroner upon that occasion, when it was attempted to be shewn that the deceased had lost his life through exposure to the air in walking the galleries, endeavoured to shut out all the evidence he could; observing, that it was the system of the prison which was in fault, and ought to be looked to. Neither of the prisons was adapted to the purposes they were intended for; idleness was encouraged in them, and consequently vice and immorality. He was sorry to have detained the House so long, but he had not detailed half the facts ["No, no"]. He hoped hon. members would not have to experience the truth of this assertion; but there were some persons pining in prison who once had better prospects than some members in that House. He hoped there would be a fellow feeling. He had heard of instances—which he should not mention through fear of being personal—of individuals obtaining a seat in that House to secure themselves from imprisonment. The hon. member concluded by moving, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the state of the King's Bench, Fleet, Marhaslsea, White-cross-street, and Horsemonger-lane prisons, for the reception of persons imprisoned for debt and contempt of court, into the arrangement, rules, and regulations, made for the better management of the same since the Report of the Committees of this House in 1814, and the Report of the Commissioners in 1818; also, to consider of the operation of the laws authorizing Imprisonment for Debt, and to report their opinion thereon, together with the Minutes of Evidence taken before them, to the House."
Mr. Hobhouseseconded the motion. He said, he thought it was too large, and might be advantageously divided into two. The inquiry would not be so easy as the hon. member seemed to think; but he hoped that the other side would not deem 229 the proposition on that account inadmissible.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, it was not his intention, at that late hour, to follow the hon. member for Aberdeen through the long speech which he had addressed to the House. Upon the subject of arrest and imprisonment for civil debt, many eminent men had written. It was a subject which had engaged Dr. Johnson, who had made it the theme of one of his papers in the Rambler. The opinions there set forth were afterwards maintained by many eminent persons. About thirty years ago, the late marquis of Hastings introduced a bill for the relief of insolvent debtors. That bill was periodically introduced; but at the present moment a regular Insolvent act was passed, which was considered an improvement on that measure. He would not travel through the speech of the hon. gentleman who had introduced the motion, but there was one point upon which he must offer a few words; he meant as to the hardships which the hon. member seemed to conceive the debtor was under, on being arrested upon the allegation of a creditor. If the creditor falsely represented that another was indebted to him, could he not be indicted for perjury? As to the law of Arrest, it had prevailed in England for a century and a half. The individual, in the first instance, was not positively cast into prison, but was merely confined, to compel him to procure bail to have the trial carried on. The hon. member, he apprehended, did not object to imprisonment for debt after trial, but only before trial.
The Attorney-General.—That was an extraordinary proposition indeed. No person conversant with trade would listen to a proposition that imprisonment, after process, should be abolished. With respect to the sufferings to which persons who were imprisoned were subject, no man endued with sentiments of humanity but must feel for the deprivations of those thus unfortunately circumstanced. Adverting again to the Insolvent Debtors' act, he was inclined to believe that, by that act, too much relief had been given to persons imprisoned for debt. He would go the length of the hon. member in lamenting that sufficient accommodation was not afforded to women who were in- 230 carcerated for debt in the particular prisons to which the hon. gentleman had alluded; but, if a committee were to be formed, what was the particular question to be agitated? Could imprisonment for debt be abolished before trial? Ought it to be abolished after? The motion before the House embraced so many branches, that he certainly should oppose it. If a committee were to be formed, what would be the particular propositions upon which they would be called upon to decide? Had the hon. member made out any case of abuse against the prisons? It was, perhaps, not generally known to the House, that with respect to the King's-bench prison, the late lord Ellenborough made a regulation, when he was chief-justice of the Court of King's-bench, that the marshal should reside within the walls of the prison. In the same manner did lord Kenyon act, with regard to the superior officers of other prisons over which he had control. The Insolvent Debtors' act, he would repeat, had been made, in too many instances, an engine of fraud. He perfectly concurred in the observations which had fallen from the hon. member for Westminster, that the subject embraced much too wide a field for the exertions of a committee; and he conceived, also, that the principle of arrest for civil debt could not be departed from with safety in a commercial country like this. He was ready to admit that if any means could be devised for alleviating the quantity of human suffering endured by persons confined in prison, it would be worth the while of the House to inquire into it; but this was very different from the proposition of the hon. gentleman. He concluded by saying, that he thought the hon. member had not brought the question before the House in a tangible point of view.
§ Mr. Calcraftconceived that his hon. friend, the member for Aberdeen, had made out a case for inquiry as respected the state of the prisons. Having said this, he would add, that he did not believe, in the present state of society, and in the condition of the country, that it would be prudent or proper to abolish imprisonment for debt. The object, too, of his hon. friend would not be answered if the committee were formed; for the subject was so very extensive, that it would be impossible to embrace all the branches. The law of arrest had been much softened by the Insolvent Debtors' act. That act had 231 undergone considerable improvement since its first introduction. The marquis of Hastings had been named as having introduced an annual Insolvent Debtor's act, but how much better was it to have a permanent act, than one introduced annually. He hoped that his hon. friend would not press that part of the motion which embraced an inquiry into the law of arrest. He was sure that if an inquiry were set on foot into the state of the prisons, without going into the other parts of the subject which the motion embraced, much good would follow, and that many of those horrible evils which now prevailed would be removed.
Mr. Secretary Peelwas not prepared, when he read the notice of the motion, to anticipate that so many subjects would be mixed up with it. The hon. member's motion extended to an inquiry into a most important branch of the judicature of this country; as one of the propositions was, that a committee should be appointed to inquire whether imprisonment for debt should be abolished. To this proposition he most decidedly objected. But what remedy did the hon. gentleman propose? He had not suggested a single one to the House. It was not, surely, his intention to hold out to the creditor, that he should have no remedy against the debtor? The hon. member had stated the evils to which a person was subject who was cast into prison for debt; and he was perfectly willing to admit that such evils existed. But, in stating such an opinion, the hon. member had left out of his consideration the evils to which the creditor was subject. The privations of the debtor, the evils to which he was exposed, would operate to deter many persons from running into debt.—As to the subject of the inquiry into the state of prisons, it was a difficult thing to resist it, without having it supposed that there was a desire to screen individuals. In the present case he would readily concur in that part of the motion which sought an inquiry into the state of prisons, but not into that part which went to investigate the subject of imprisonment for debt. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. member for Aberdeen, respecting the want of a medical gentleman in the Fleet prison, he begged to say, that he had appointed a surgeon, a Mr. Cooper, with a. salary of 200l. a year, to attend both the Fleet and King's-bench prisons. This gentleman was to attend the prisoners 232 on both sides of the Fleet prison, He must, however, tell the hon. member, that he believed he was mistaken in many of the facts he had stated. He was inclined to think the hon. member had obtained his information from a very suspicious source; and he cautioned him not to rely on all that was communicated to him from the quarter to which he alluded. He had himself received many letters from a Mr. Jennings on this subject; and the inquiries he had caused to be made in consequence, convinced him that the statements in those letters were exceedingly exaggerated. On one occasion, it was stated, that a jury summoned to hold an inquest in the Fleet prison, had been previously made drunk. He had accordingly referred this matter to the chief-justice of the Common Pleas, who, upon inquiry, found that there was not a shadow of foundation for the charge. With respect to the state of the Fleet prison, he believed that at present no effectual attempt could be made to remedy its condition. If the revenue had been in a more flourishing condition, he had intended to propose, that a great alteration should have been made in this prison. The city of London were desirous of having the site on which the prison stood, and had offered to give a more convenient piece of ground for the purpose of building another prison on. On consultation with his right hon. friend, the chancellor of the Exchequer, he had, however, found that it would be more convenient to postpone the measure to another year; and he had, therefore, been reluctantly compelled to do so. He had no hesitation in admitting, that the system of the King's-bench prison was extremely defective; and if there was a vacancy to-morrow in the office of marshal, he should recommend its being done away with. The large fees amounting to 2,000l. or 3,000l. a-year were necessary in the present state of the prison; owing to the heavy responsibility and loss which the marshal sometimes sustained. He had been in constant communication on these subjects with the chief justices of the King's-bench and Common Pleas, who, notwithstanding the pressure of public business, were always ready to give whatever assistance they could. They did not refer to the warden or marshal, but sent able and confidential persons who made satisfactory reports. He found it difficult to refuse the inquiry which the hon. gentleman had moved for; and if he would 233 be content to take a committee, the object of which should be limited by that of the former commission and committee, he was willing to accede to it; trusting to the hon. member for forming his committee, so as to ensure an impartial investigation into the subject.
§ Sir Robert Wilsoninstanced, as an example of the mischief of the system of arrest for debt, the case of a gentleman who was arrested, and in consequence of his inability to procure bail for 10,000l. suffered a long imprisonment, although it was afterwards proved that his arrest was wholly unjust. Surely it would not be impracticable to introduce some modifications, which would approximate the system to the law in France and in Holland; where there was no arrest, except upon bonds and bills of exchange, until after judgment. He would recommend his hon. friend to accede to the liberal proposition of the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
§ Mr. John Smithsaid, that when he was last in France, he had an opportunity of ascertaining that the prisons of that country were filled with persons confined for debt. The gallant general was also mistaken in supposing that arrests were not permitted by the law of France in the first instance; for in acting on bills of exchange, the creditor might throw his debtor into prison before the subject in dispute came to be tried. If the hon. member for Montrose went to a division, he would support it; because he believed the state of the prisons ought to be inquired into, and the law of arrest, particularly respecting the frauds practised by means of what were truly called sponging houses.
Mr. Alderman Woodsupported the motion, and complained of the shameful state of the Fleet prison, which required immediate alteration. The unclaimed fund in the court of Chancery might, he thought, be employed for that purpose.
§ Mr. Monckrecommended his hon. friend to leave to the Secretary of State for the Home Department that part of his proposition which related to an inquiry into the state of the gaols; but he hoped his hon. friend would not abandon the other very important branch of his motion; namely, the state of the law of imprisonment for debt. There were at present no fewer than seven hundred persons in prison in London, for debts under 20l. He 234 thought it would be desirable to abolish arrest for sums below 20l.
The Solicitor-Generalconceived, that great benefit would arise from the renewal of a law which expired some short time since, prohibiting arrest for any sums under 15l. The direct benefits of this system would be great; but its indirect effects would be still greater, as the accumulation of law expenses, which were equally heavy upon small as upon large sums, would be thereby checked.
§ Mr. D. W. Harveysuggested to his hon. friend, that, owing to the advanced period of the night, and the empty state of the House, it would be prudent to withdraw his motion for the present, as that part of it which he wished to press was of such importance, as to require a more deliberate discussion than could now be given to it,
§ Mr. Humesaid, that owing to the departure of the right hon. gentlemen opposite, he had no other course left than to withdraw his motion for the present. The Secretary for the Home Department did not deny that the state of the prisons called for revision, and as the right hon. gentleman volunteered to undertake the subject, he was quite willing to leave it in his hands. But he must deny that he wished to establish a system which would facilitate fraud, and injure public credit. He had no such object. His only wish was, to obtain information, by which he was confident he should be able to prove, that imprisonment for debt was cruel and impolitic; that it tended to facilitate fraud and to increase the number of debtors. It was not fair for the right hon. gentlemen opposite, if they did not choose to perform certain tasks themselves, to throw obstacles in the way of those who had the disposition to do it, even if they were not endowed with the same abilities. The right hon. gentleman had referred to the chief justices of the King's-bench and Common Pleas. Now, those learned individuals had been, for the space of ten years, with the instructions of the commissioners before them, containing twenty specific improvements of the law; and they had not yet taken a single step towards the realization of one of those suggestions. He left the measure in the hands of the right hon. gentleman; but with the declaration, that if there should be nothing done, he would again trouble the House upon the subject.
The motion was then withdrawn.