Lord Duncanwished to repeat a question which he had asked of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department before Easter, and to which he had on that occasion received an unsatisfactory answer, on the subject of the Bill which had been passed last Session for the Abolition of Imprisonment for Small Debts. He would again call the attention of the right hon. Baronet to the facilities which the 57th Clause of that Bill afforded to fraudulent persons owing less than 20l. to escape the payment of their debts. Many unfortunate tradesmen in the city which he had the honour to represent (Bath), had suffered severely from the ex post facto operation of the law; and he wished to know whether the Government meant to adhere to their former resolution respecting the measure, or whether they contemplated some step for remedying the evils to which it had given rise?
§ Sir J. Grahamwas sorry to hear that in answering the question of the noble Lord upon a former occasion, he should have said anything unsatisfactory to the noble Lord. He wished to inform the noble Lord that he adhered to the resolution he had formerly expressed upon that subject. From all the inquiries he had made, he had no reason to think that, upon the whole, the abolition of imprisonment for debts under 20l. had worked ill; and 1240 he certainly could not assent to any measure which should re-enact the penalty of imprisonment for debts under that amount. He was aware that the retrospective effect of the measure of last Session might in some cases have worked hardly; but that which had once been done he could not undo. If, however, it should appear that under the operation of that measure frauds were committed by the secretion of property, the Government would be prepared to give to that subject their best attention. But the experience which they had had of the measure was hardly sufficient to justify any new enactment upon the subject. One of the most important considerations connected with the passing of the Bill had been, whether it would not unduly diminish the credit given to the working classes. But he was happy to find from all the information he had received upon the subject, that the measure had been attended with no such injurious effect.
§ Mr. Divettwished to ask the right hon. Baronet whether his attention had been called to a clause in a Private Bill affecting the West of England, which would have the effect of re-enacting, in certain cases, the penalty of imprisonment for debts under 20l.?
§ Sir J. Grahamsaid that any concurrence he might have given to such a clause could only have been the result of an oversight; and it should be his duty hereafter to oppose it.
§ Colonel Rawdonwished to know whether it was the intention of the Government to introduce a measure for abolishing in Ireland also imprisoment for debts under 20l.?
§ Sir J. Grahamsaid that in his opinion it would be better to wait the result of the experiment made in England, before any final decision was taken for the extension of the measure to Ireland.