IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT. (Hansard, 10 August 1838)

§ The Lord Chancellor
called the attention of the House to the Imprisonment for Debt Bill; since the last discussion he had had communication with the Judges as to the time when it could come into operation, and the earliest day on which the necessary rules could be made was the 2nd of November, when the judges met.

Lord Brougham
said, that he had received a number of the most heart-melting letters from parties who, expecting to be discharged on the 1st of October, now found that they were to be detained till the 1st of December; and he suggested that the act which had been passed in this Session enabling the judges to sit in banco during the recess should be made available for the purpose of forming the necessary rules under this act.

§ The Lord Chancellor
knew that a few days ago there was only one judge in London, and he could not hope to find them in town soon.

Lord Brougham
said, that whilst upon this bill he would call the noble and learned Lord's attention to a very hard restriction which was imposed upon newspapers, the proprietors of which were 1150 bound to insert every advertisement at 3s. each; and he had had a representation from a most respectable provincial paper stating that for 3s. they might be obliged to insert an advertisement of so many lines as to take up one-fourth of the paper. This was from a country paper, published only once a week, and such a proposal was enormous. Why was a newspaper proprietor to be taxed more than any one else for a private purpose?

§ Lord Lyndhurst
had a petition to present upon this subject, which he regretted that he had not with him. It was from the proprietor of a country newspaper, and it stated that the sum proposed to be paid would not amount to the money paid to the workmen for setting and printing the advertisement. He (Lord Lyndhurst) could not think for what purpose the clause had been introduced.

The Earl of Falmouth
said, that he had also received several letters stating objections to the clause, and he could not conceive why the clause had been allowed to pass both Houses of Parliament. The 3s. would not be a compensation for the mere labour.

§ Lord Lyndhurst
suggested that the clause should be struck out. What right had they to interfere with private property?

Lord Brougham
said, this was an amendment made by the Commons, and not having had the discussion which, if it had been in the original bill, would have taken place in its different stages, it was only saying, let A, B, C pay out of their own private pockets for the benefit of X, Y, Z, or any other individuals.

§ Viscount Melbourne
advised their Lordships to consider well whether by making this alteration they would not run the risk of keeping the persons in prison till the next Session of Parliament.

§ The Lord Chancellor
said, that this clause, with others, had been left out of the bill originally, because they were considered to be money clauses; and if the same provision, as he believed it did, existed in the Insolvent Act, why should it not be re-enacted?

§ Lord Lyndhurst
Why should they pursue a wrong? If it were in the Insolvent Act, why should they perpetuate what was bad?

Lord Brougham
added, that the proposed clause was of much more general operation than the old one, and it imposed 1151 the necessity of inserting a much larger amount of advertisements.