[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.] Ensor's footnote to Miss
Margaret Wilson's letter in your issue of the 17th inst.-is misleading. "Power to pay and wilful omission to- use that power" is not a condition precedent to imprisonment in the great majority of cases in which persons are imprisoned for non-payment of money, quite apart from imprisonment in default of payment of fines. There were 13,002 Debtor. Prisoners in 1930 according to the latest Report of the Commissioners of Prisoners. In 8,992 cases proof of means was theoretically necessary before com- mittal. For 8,982 it iias not necessary. In 78 cases it is uncertain whether or not means had to be proved.
Mr. Ealsor appears to be under the impression that bastardy and separation orders are enforced 'through the County Court. They are not, and it is not necessary to prove means in such cases before a man is committed to prison in default of pay- ment.
As to his assertion that in a large proportion of cases money is withheld out of spite I would suggest that he should study an article by Miss S. M. Fry in The Magistrate for October, 1932, which shows the close relation between the figures of unemployment and imprisonment for debt. I am reluctant to refer to Chapter XI of my own book, English Justice.—
Previous page
