§ On the second reading of this bill being moved by lord Ellenborough,
The Earl of Moiraobjected to its principle, which appeared to be this, that a debtor was to be subject to twelve months imprisonment for a debt of 20l. or under. This, he contended, was contrary to those sound principles of legislation which ought to regulate the law of debtor and creditor. Twelve months imprisonment was a severe punishment imposed for a great offence, and he saw no reason why an unfortunate debtor should be subjected to it. Another objection to this bill was, that there was no provision by which the fraudulent could be distinguished from the unfortunate debtor.
§ Lord Ellenboroughcontended, that his noble friend had in some degree misconceived the object of the bill, as it did not impose twelve months imprisonment upon a debtor; the creditor might release him sooner. The only object of the bill was, that after having been imprisoned for 12 months the debtor might demand his discharge. He admitted that there were no means in this bill of distinguishing the fraudulent from the unfortunate debtor, nor was it practicable, but at the same time it was not likely that such frauds would be committed for the sake of obtaining an amount of less than 20l. He could not consent to give Tip imprisonment for debt, which was the security to the creditor for obtaining his debt if it was to be had; and without such the creditor must frequently take the place of his dis- 253 charged debtor, and commercial credit be destroyed.
§ Lord Erskineobserved, that under the law, as it now stood, a debtor might be imprisoned for an indefinite time; but by the present bill he might, where the debt did not exceed 20l., demand his discharge at the end of twelve months, his property being still liable; this, therefore, he considered as a great advantage to debtors of that description. There was, he thought, a great error in some of the arguments respecting imprisonment for debt, as they seemed to suppose that one-half of mankind were creditors and the other half debtors, whilst the fact was, that a great number of the creditors were themselves debtors, and if the security they had against their debtors was taken from them, must themselves become insolvent.
The Lord Chancelloralso supported the bill. He had some doubt as to how far it might tend to weaken the security of the creditor, but he thought it an experiment worth trying.—The bill was then read a second time.