MR. M. T. BASSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been drawn to the case of Daniel Norley, a labourer in the parish of Burham in Kent, who at the end of last year was summoned to the County Court at the suit of a tallyman, for a debt of 12s. 6d.; and on the hearing of the judgment summons Norley's wife appeared and told the Court her husband was confined to his house by severe illness, and was then and had been for some time supported by the parish and attended by the parish doctor; that, nevertheless, an order was made for payment of the debt in two instalments; in default of payment whereof, Norley was in February last taken from his sick bed to Maidstone Gaol; that he only remained there two days, was sent home, and died a few days after; and, how far this statement is consistent with the declaration—"that no debtor is imprisoned unless he was then, or had been since the issue of the summons, able to pay the debt sued for?"
MR. ASSHETON CROSSSir, my hon. Friend was kind enough to put off this Question for a day or two, in order that I might make the necessary inquiries. The hon. Member did not read the Question exactly as it stands on the Paper. The circumstances, so far as I am informed, are these—Judgment was obtained against Norley on the 25th October, 1871. He was not sent to prison till the 1st February, 1874. Two days afterwards, the creditor himself, hearing that Norley was ill, paid the debt, and so procured his release. The man did not die till Easter. I want, however, to make some further inquiry into the matter, because I think there is some doubt how far it can be clearly proved that the man was in a fit state of health to be imprisoned; and if my hon. Friend will repeat his Question I will state to him the result.