IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT.

Wellington Independent, Volume XXVI, Issue 3285, 24 August 1871, Page 3

IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT.

TO TIIE EDITOR OF THE INDEPENDENT. ' Sib, — I learn from your issue of Saturday that it is intended to bring in a bill to abolish imprisonment for debt. I have thought for some time that things were made as comfortable as possible for debtors, and presumed that any further legislation would be for the benefit of unfortunate creditors. But, however, it appears that such is not to be the caso. Sir, I regret exceedingly to see any move in the direction indicated, and tremble for the consequences to the generality of Jrcditors. I also deny that there is any necessity for the proposed change. Our guols are not crowded with unfortunate debtors kept there by vindictive creditors. In fact, I have no hesitation in assserting that you will not find, on an average, one in each gaol throughout tho colony of whom it may be said that he is kepi there by a spirit of vindictiveness. Then consider the way tho liberty of tho debtor is hedged about— if he is kept in gaol it must be at tho expense of his creditors, to the tune i I believe of 12s per week. This alone as a rule j acts as a check to much vindictiveness being practised, or he may if it suits him declare himself a bankrupt, and thereby be released immediately from t- durance vile." Sir, it is not the honest but unfortunato debtor that v put in gaol and kept there, but the rogue, the man who it is known could pay it if he would. Havo we not lately hud a caso of this kind come midor our notice ? A man. with a yearly inconio gets into debt and wont pay them. Ho is lodged in gaol and kept there for several weeks by his unfortunate creditors, with the hope of bringing him to his senses, but all of no avail, but at last takes the benefit of the act, and appears before His Honor, but so bad is bi3 case that ho was, I may say, ignominiously driven from tho Court. Will any man, be ho ever so kind in disposition, dare to say that it was cruel to keep a man in gaol under the circumstances. No ! and I would sny he should bo kept there (being a bachelor) until his income had paid his debts. Sir, I object to the repeal of the act for the following reasons. It will cau?e an immense loss to the majority of creditors, and it will make a great ninny more. ' dishonest debtors than there are. As the law is now, a creditor having a deb' or who he supposes can pay but wont, goes through tho ordinary process of summons and distress warrant — and I consider that these kindhearted people don't abolish this cruelty also — without getting his money. Ho obtains an order for commitment as v last recourse, and what is the result? He very often gets his money without his "victim" going to gaol, but which ho never would have obtained had it not been for the last gentle squeeze ; or failing to get his money after a few days hi 3 " friend " is liberated, as Le is satisfied that it is no use throwing any more good money away — by keeping him in gaol— after bad. But how often does it happen that a debtor is placed in gaol and liberates himself immediately by declaring his inability to pay his debts— and the only conclusion you can arrive at from the disclosure of his position is, that it is a pity some of his many friends did not place him there raunv months before— as it is clearly proved that ho has been a consumer with a vengeance. Yes! consuming the industry of many honest men, and but for this friendly act of Parliament would have continued to do so. Sir, I make bold to say that let imprisonment, for debt be abolished, and many a man who passes as an honest man among his fellows, will be induced through tho mistaken kindness of tho Legislature to appear in very different colors. Talk about not being able to make man honest or sober by acts of Parliament; you may make them dishonest, nnd this seems to be the tendency of much of the past legislation on this importaut subject. Let this law come into operation and onethird at least of the debts on the books of most retailers, which at present may be considered hopeful, may be abandoned as hopeless. If our rulers do make this law, then I would ask them to make another to match— to this effect, that giving credit shall bo oriminal, and that no one shall be able to recover any debts whatever for a less sum than, sny, £100. But, however, I earnestly hope that the present law will not be repealed except it be to improve the position of the creditor, as I consider that humanity has been stretched to its utmost limits for thepi'O' lection of tho debtor. — I am, &c., Debtor and Creditor