The Law and the Poor

by Sir Edward Abbott Parry

The opponents of abolition were but too successful in their endeavours to make inroads upon the thoroughness of the proposed reform, and one of the exceptions was called “a saving power of committal for small debts.” It might have been better described perhaps “as a saving power to imprison poor debtors.” This is the famous section 5 of the Debtors Act, 1869, over which so much controversy has since arisen, on the working of which two important commissions have sat and reported, and under which we may proudly claim to be one of the last civilised countries that clings to a system of imprisonment for debt.

It is necessary to set out the section at some length, for it has a googlie element about it and is not so innocent as it appears on the surface. It first sets out “that any Court may commit to prison for six weeks any person who makes default in the payment of a debt or instalment due in pursuance of a judgment.” That, of course, is plain sailing imprisonment for debt. Then, however, follows the sub-section—I again apologise for troubling you with all this, but it is really a good citizen’s duty to understand it—which causes all the worry. It is enacted in sub-section (2) “that such jurisdiction shall only be exercised where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the person making default either has or has had since the date of the order or judgment the means to pay the sum in respect of which he has made default and has refused or neglected or refuses or neglects to pay the same.”

It is the words that I have printed in italics that hit the poor man and the weekly wage earner, for of course it is generally provable that, although he has no present means to pay a debt, he has had since the judgment means to pay which he has spent on the maintenance of his family, or, if you will, on beer or tobacco, or picture palaces, or, in a word, as good solvent middle class people would say—improvidently.

The further matters enacted are all sensible enough, granted you approve of the main principle of imprisonment for small debtors. They deal with proof of means of the person making default, allowing such proof to be given in such manner as the Court thinks just, and for these purposes the debtor and any witnesses may be summoned and examined on oath according to the prescribed rules.

The other material points of the section are that a County Court judge must exercise his jurisdiction in open Court, he may order the debt to be paid by instalments, he may also make continuous committals on each unpaid instalment, he may vary and rescind the order, and the imprisonment when suffered does not distinguish or discharge the debt or other remedies of the creditor. The debtor can take his release in payment of debt and costs.

Anyone who studies this Act of 1869 and comes to the conclusion that this system is anything less than imprisonment for debt, and not imprisonment for fraud, must, I think, be driven to argue that the men who drafted the Act called the Act an Act for the abolition of imprisonment for debt, called section 5 a saving clause for continuing imprisonment for small debtors in certain cases, and did not understand their business. As a matter of fact they knew their business very well indeed, and they carried it out faithfully and well.

What happened undoubtedly was this: Parliament as a whole was out to abolish imprisonment for debt. There were a lot of old-fashioned folk then as now, who wanted to retain it. Compromises were made. It was agreed that there should be abolition, it was also agreed that there should be exceptions. The exceptions readily granted were cases of fraudulent trusteeship and the like. This was not enough for the old gang, so the promoters of the reform threw in poor persons owing small debts. The poor had as few friends in Parliament as the fraudulent and they were huddled together into the same bundle of exceptions as a sop to the opponents of the Bill. When folk describe our present system in the County Court as anything other than imprisonment for debt, a legitimate offspring of its noble Norman ancestor capias ad satisfaciendum, they do it in ignorance of the legal and political history of the Debtors Act, 1869.

I should like to have set out much of the debate in the House of Commons on the second reading of this Bill. Sir Robert Collier, the Attorney-General, openly expressed his regret that imprisonment for debt was going to be retained in the County Courts, and several members spoke wisely about the hardships then inflicted on the poor and the undesirability of continuing them. But the following extract from a speech of Mr. McMahon shows that no one at that time was under any delusion about what was going to be done. “When,” he said, “arrest on mesne process was abolished shortly after the passing of the Reform Bill it was then said that credit would be disturbed, and that traders would not be able to carry on their business. But these forebodings were purely imaginary, and in the same way he believed no evil would attend the good that must undoubtedly result from the final abolition of imprisonment. If, however, they allowed the rich man to escape under the bankruptcy system they ought not to admit the poor man to be liable to imprisonment, for by so doing they would certainly be open to the charge of having one law for the man in broadcloth and another for the man in corduroys.”

Here the warning is clearly given by a man on the spot, that what they were about to do was to set up a system unfair to the poor, and there was really no doubt in the minds of any of the legislators of the day that they were deliberately retaining imprisonment for debt for the poor. I want to insist on this point because one of the stumbling blocks in the way of reform to-day is the strange belief, fostered by the tally-man and his friends, that in some mysterious way imprisonment for debt has really been already abolished and that the working classes really go to prison for contempt of court or some other reason. There is no truth in this whatever.

The Attorney-General who introduced the Debtors Act, 1869, may surely be credited with understanding what it was intended to do. He knew well enough that his Bill was going to abolish imprisonment for debt for the rich and retain it for the poor. He pointed out that he was making bankruptcy cheaper and more stringent. It would be obviously absurd, he said, to make a day labourer a bankrupt, and that brought him to the very difficult question of County Court jurisdiction. At that time the County Court had a jurisdiction to punish for fraud as an incident of debt and also to imprison for debt. He proposed to take away the jurisdiction to imprison for fraud and to leave fraudulent debtors, both rich and poor, to the Criminal Courts. “But then,” he continued, “came the other question of County Court imprisonment where a man was able to pay his debt, but would not do so. He did not regard that imprisonment as a mere punishment for a past offence but it was a process of imprisonment for the purpose of compelling the payment of a debt, and it was a process very analogous to the principle of the Bankruptcy Law.” He came to the conclusion, after further argument, “that this power of imprisonment in the one case he had mentioned must be retained.”