HC Deb 21 March 1907 vol 171 cc936-44
*MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.)

rose to call attention to the large and constantly increasing number of commitments to prison for debt by orders of County Courts; and to move, "That the present powers of committing to prison for non-payment of a debt ought to be restricted." He said that the number of persons committed to prison for non-payment of debt, by order of the County Courts, had steadily increased within recent years. The figures were in 1899, 7,867; in 1900, 7,899; in 1901, 8,494; in 1902, 9,530; in 1903, 10,544; and in 1904, 11,096. There had thus been a steadily progressive increase during those years, the increase in 1904 being 50 per cent. on the number in 1899. Apparently the law was put in operation in a very different way in different parts of the country, or, in other words, a very different standard of the conditions which justified imprisonment seemed to be adopted by different Judges. At Leicester the number of plaints in 1904 was 15,000 and seventy-seven persons were imprisoned, and at Brighton there were 9,000 plaints and thirty-nine commitments. On the other hand, at Rotherham there were 13,000plaints and 408 commitments, and at Hull there were 14,000 plaints and 322 commitments. There was a similar disparity between one circuit and another. For instance, in the Monmouth Circuit there were 25,000 plaints and only twenty-one commitments, whereas in the Suffolk Circuit there were 16,000 plaints and 224 commitments. In some districts one defendant in every 1,200 was imprisoned, while in other districts the proportion was one in sixty. Who mainly benefited by the present system of imprisonment for debt? His answer was tallymen, money-lenders, and that class of sharks to whom certain tradesmen sold their debts at about a shilling in the £. He had heard of a case in which a book hawker gave credit for two guineas for a family Bible to a servant girl sixteen years of age. He did not wish the House to understand that the servant girl was sent to prison. When a working man's wife was induced to buy jewellery or trinkets on credit she concealed from her husband what she had done, and when the county court notice was delivered she was able to conceal it also. In some instances it might actually happen that the first knowledge the husband had that there was any debt was when he was arrested. Who were the victims of the system? In the main this was a system of collecting debts from the wage-earning classes, although tradesmen were affected to a certain extent. No doubt he would be told that before an order of commitment was made the Judge gave the debtor a chance of paying by instalments. That was perfectly true, but what a county court Judge did was to ask what a man's wages were, and then to estimate what amount he could spare out of his wages. It was perfectly obvious that that was a very unsatisfactory system, and that much oppression might unwittingly be committed under it. The treatment in prison of civil debtors under the present rules did not substantially differ from the treatment of criminals. He had heard a story of two prisoners who were exchanging confidences. One said to the other, "They gave me fourteen days for stealing a duck," and the other replied, "Oh! I got forty days for not paying for one." The present system was grossly unequal as between the man who owed a large sum and the man who owed a small sum. The former could make himself bankrupt and so rid himself of all his liabilities, but the man who owed a small sum could not do that. He believed he was right in saying that there were few civilised countries, if any, in which such a system prevailed. He was told that it did not prevail in Scotland, and he believed he was correct in stating that it did not prevail in the United States, France, or Germany. The present law and practice in this country encouraged the pernicious system of credit and the growth of firms whose main business it was to tempt poor people to borrow money at ruinous rates of interest, or to buy articles which they did not want, and which they certainly could not afford to purchase. His own inclination was to advocate the abolition of imprisonment for debt altogether, but it might be that public opinion in this country was not yet ripe for that drastic reform. He was therefore anxious that the gravest evils should be got rid of, and, as he desired to carry along with him those who were not willing to go the whole way, his Resolution suggested that there were cases in which the present powers might be continued. They might be retained for debts incurred by fraud and dishonesty and for wilful and malicious injuries to property. The Attorney-General had stated in reply to a question that the Lord Chancellor had given the subject most sympathetic consideration. In answer to a supplementary question which he had put, the Attorney-General said he quite agreed that the evil was great and that some change was necessary. That was in November last, but when the Lord Chancellor introduced a Bill dealing with County Courts he very much regretted to find that that Bill did not include any provision with regard to the question with which he was concerned that night. It was, however, evident that the Lord Chancellor was strongly in favour of dealing with the question, and Lord Ashbourne, Viscount Cross, and Lord James of Hereford also strongly advocated that the Bill should include some provision dealing with imprisonment for debt. He hoped it was not too late to induce the Government to deal with the question in the present Bill, and so bring about a valuable social reform which would be approved of by everyone except that class of firms who encouraged people to incur debts and buy goods which they really did not want, knowing that they had the screw of imprisonment by the power of the County Court Judge behind them. He begged to move.

MR. MACLEAN (Bath),

in seconding the Motion, expressed the hope that he would carry with him the hon. and learned Solicitor-General when he stated the principle that no man should be deprived of his liberty except for an offence against the State. He knew that a man in England was not imprisoned for non-payment of a debt, but for contempt of Court. Still the fact remained that the system existed of collecting debts by means of the threat of imprisonment. Imprisonment for non-payment of a debt no longer obtained in any other civilised country in the world. Allusion had been made to the practice in Scotland. About twenty-five years ago imprisonment for debt in that country was absolutely abolished, with the result that a far sounder system of credit had grown up. That was what they desired to effect in England. It had been suggested that some difficulties might arise when a strike occurred, and credit was given by small traders to the men on strike; but he thought that the Labour Members would be found to be more or less in favour of the Resolution proposed by his hon. and learned friend. The present system set up a very harmful factor in social life, there having gradually grown up a system of business frankly based on the power of a creditor to send a debtor to prison. That system enabled a certain class of traders to make huge profits out of poor people. Last session it was stated in answer to a Question put in the House that a communication had been made to Judge Rentoul by a firm of traders stating that they did not wish that he should imprison more than sixty of their debtors in the course of a year. He believed that if imprisonment for debt were absolutely abolished that spurious and injurious system of doing business would die out. No one desired to prevent in any way honest tradesmen from getting payment of their due and proper debts. No doubt occasional hardships might occur if a Bill prohibiting imprisonment for debt were passed, but he thought that the balance of advantage would lie with the abolition of the existing system. There was not the least doubt that certain County Courts rules were extremely difficult to work out, as he could testify from his own experience, and the County Courts were largely used by money lenders and the class of traders who imposed on stupid people by sales to them of sham jewellery.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the present powers of committing to Prison for non-payment of a Debt ought to be restricted."—(Mr. Pickersgill.)

SIR WILLIAM BULL (Hammersmith)

admitted that the question was an extremely difficult one, but he could not help thinking that the hon. and learned Member had not had that experience of County Courts recently which he used to have. The effect of the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member would be practically to do away with the present system of credit altogether. He would like to trace a not altogether imaginary case brought before a County Court. Mr. Jones borrowed from Mr. Smith a sum of £10 in October, 1905, for, as he said, the purpose of enabling him to finish a job he had in hand, promising to repay at Christmas time when the job was completed. Months passed and Smith was not paid, and at last, on January 1st, he decided to put in operation the process of the County Court. It took about a month after issuing process for the case to come on; more often in the London Courts it was six weeks before it could be heard, but the average time was a month. He therefore went and issued an ordinary summons for the recovery of the £10. It was returnable on February 1st, and when that date came he found that he was, say, 200 cases down the list. He was at the Court at ten o'clock; but the case did not come on before twelve. It was heard before the Registrar, and, the defendant announcing that it was defended it was put back till the afternoon. There were two or three heavy running-down cases, and the hearing of the case was adjourned till March 1st. Thus the defendant got another month by merely jumping up and saying that the case was defended. On March 1st, if plaintiff was lucky, he got his case heard, and he issued execution against the goods of the defendant. No return was made for a month—the bailiffs did not make a return under that period—and then at the end of that month he found that the landlord was in for rent or that the goods did not belong to the defendant, so that the proceedings were abortive. The creditor issued a judgment summons in order to obtain the money by instalments, and that was returnable on May 1st. Summonses were very rarely served by the officer of the Court, and when the creditor was told in June that it had not been served he asked for leave to serve it himself, and did so. The summons was returnable in July, and then he applied for an order for payment by instalments. The Judge heard what the debtor's means were, and with a matter of £10 the creditor would get an order of 5s. a month. In the meantime the Long Vacation came on and nothing happened until October. The defendant did not pay the 5s. a month, and the creditor applied for another judgment summons which he got on November 1st, but was told that it could not be served. He then applied for another judgment summons which he served and which was returnable on January 1st. Up to this time he had not got a penny from his debtor and had spent many in Court fees. The judgment summons came on, and the defendant, if he was wily, turned up and said he could not pay 5s. a month as he was out of work or had illness in his family and so on. The result was that the judge reduced the order to 2s. a month, and no committal order could be issued as long as the 2s. a month was paid. When one sum of 2s. was due the Clerk of the County Court advised the creditor not to go to the expense of a warrant for 2s., but to wait until two or three instalments were overdue. In the following May as the instalments had not been paid, he obtained a warrant for the payment of the 6s., and if the man paid the 6s. he even then did not go to prison for seven days. If, however, the man did not pay, he could be sent to gaol not for not paying, but for contempt of court. From the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite it would appear that the County Court was a great engine of oppression upon the debtor, but as he had shown, it took tit least sixteen or seventeen months before a man could get 2s. or 3s. out of his debtor if the latter knew how to get out of it. Sometimes he pleaded poverty; sometimes he was wise enough to stop away. That was the state of the case as it stood at the present time. He was not quite clear whether the hon. Member for Bethnal Green stated the number of committal orders or the actual number of persons who went to prison. [Mr. Pickersgill: The actual number who went to prison.] He quite admitted that in different County Courts the procedure entirely differed, and it was amusing to see when a Judge first came, if he was at all severe, how old plaints were raked up for the purpose of putting this law in force. Nobody knew better than the Registrar and the Judge of the County Court exactly the kind of debt which it was sought to recover, and the tallymen and credit drapers, simply to save their own time, put all their cases together and had twenty or thirty at a time. That class of trader knew very well that the very worst character they could get was a character for being severe and pressing for orders for committal. The Judge knew all the tallymen in his Court, and they were treated more severely than the ordinary tradesmen. But he would not like the House to get the idea that the County Court was entirely used by the tallyman and credit draper and by nobody else. He could assure the House that it was the ordinary trader who used the County Court, although he did not like to do so, as the intricacy of the forms and practice required skilled advice and it was not a profitable business for solicitors. Some very large firms had County Court clerks for the purpose of dealing with their County Court work. The County Courts were of very great use to persons engaged in trade and commerce, and he hoped the House would pause before it passed a Resolution to the effect proposed. A very great deal more evidence ought to be adduced before a system was abolished which had worked very well in the hands of the Judges who administered it. By long practice they could see whether a man was telling stories or was able to pay or not, and he thought there were few cases of hardship, and no great number of miscarriages of justice. He believed in 80 per cent. of the committal orders the sums were paid before they were actually enforced.

THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir W. Robson,) South Shields

said the hon. Member had given them some idea of the hardships of the existing system upon the creditor, who had all sorts of trouble and inconvenience for sixteen months to get 2s. a month out of a debtor. He would have thought that that was a condemnation of the existing system. In 1869 Parliament intended to abolish imprisonment for debt, but it left one door open. Debtors were no longer imprisoned for debt, but for failing to comply with the order of the Court. Such an order was not made unless there was some proof that the debtor either had, or had had since the judgment was made, means of satisfying the judgment. In form that rule was applicable to all classes. In effect it operated against the poorer industrial class alone. In the case of a middle-class debtor, the creditor proceeded against the goods of the debtor, and if an execution did not satisfy the claim no further proceedings were taken as a rule. But in the case of a working man debtor, the creditor did not look to the goods. The only substantial asset of such a debtor was his wages. They were brought under the law by an order for instalments, and if the instalments were not paid the debtor was sent to prison. Every one would agree that that was a heavy penalty to pay, seeing that it fell almost exclusively on those who possessed the smallest means. But the matter did not lie absolutely between a creditor and a debtor, or between a body of creditors and a large number of debtors. It was a matter which touched in many aspects the interests of the community at large. The existence of this remedy had created competition among tradesmen for credit business. That credit business resulted in large losses or in that kind of tedious, costly, and unsatisfactory litigation of which they had heard. Those losses must be met by putting them on to the price of the goods generally, so that the community as a whole as well as the individual debtor paid more for their goods owing to the existence of this costly and mischievous habit. There was also a habit among certain tradesmen of keeping a sort of "hanging gale" over customers; they kept their custom under control by allowing an unpaid sum for goods supplied to stand over. That was a vicious system of trading, but how could it be best dealt with? It had been said that if they removed imprisonment for debt they would destroy credit. To some extent that would be true, but what other remedies were available? One remedy was the seizure of the debtor's goods, and another remedy worthy of consideration was the system which prevailed in Scotland, where there was no imprisonment for debt. It was the remedy of the attachment of wages. The system was tried in England, but it had been abolished. To what extent the arrestment of wages prevailed in Scotland he was not prepared to say until further information was available, and further information was certainly desirable before they attempted to frame legislation dealing with the matter. One point had been touched on very lightly, and that was that there were many kinds of debts, debts in which no voluntary credit had been given by the creditor, as in the cases of alimony and bastardy. It would be very hard in such cases to deprive the creditor of any remedy, and therefore, cases of that kind they were obliged to consider very carefully in framing any legislation. All the considerations pointed to a little further inquiry before an attempt was made to frame any Bill upon the subject, and he suggested that possibly a Select Committee would be the best way of carrying out an inquiry. The Government regarded the object in view sympathetically.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, "That the present powers of committing to prison for non-payment of a debt ought to be restricted."—(Mr. Pickersgill.)