The abolition of imprisonment for debt has frequently been discussed. Many county court judges are against committals; some, of course, remain in favour of them. Judge Henry Tindal-Atkinson, County Court Circuit No. 58, was one of the witnesses to appear before the Select Committee on Debtors (Imprisonment), Sessions 1908 and 1909. In his evidence, the learned judge favoured the abolition of imprisonment, which he considered generally oppressive, and particularly hard on the working man, whom it placed rather at the mercy of the creditor. “Credit he thinks pernicious,” to quote from the report of the Select Committee, “and extravagant, from the necessarily high prices charged by tradesmen, uncertain that they may not have to wait years for their money. It is witness’s experience--which he illustrates by a comparison of committal orders in different districts on his own and other circuits--that extravagance increases in proportion to wages, the working man in good times spending every farthing and leaving no margin for present debts or future emergencies. Then in the case of process, fees further increase the debt, amounting perhaps to 8s. 6d. in a £2 claim. Witness favours abolition of imprisonment, and thinks it would diminish plaints. He does not think committed debtors necessarily dishonest.” In the same report, Judge Henry Mason Bompas, of County Court Circuit No. 11, expresses an opinion in conflict with Judge Atkinson’s. “Witness opposes the abolition of imprisonment as likely to check the credit required by the working classes, increasing its cost, and leading them (the working classes) to treat their obligations too lightly.... Witness is of opinion that imprisonment has not sufficient terrors. To the Burnley colliers his Honour’s seven-day sentences appeared so much in the light of a holiday above ground that he has been obliged to increase them. He instances a case of a man in employment doing his imprisonment by proxy, the unemployed substitute receiving five shillings in solatium of the seven days. The efficacy of imprisonment he deduces from the proportion of cases in which committal orders produce payment. Witness thinks credit desirable in certain cases, and that the question of tempting persons to it applies to all classes of society.... With regard to proof of means, witness says his practice is to accept arrangements between debtor and creditor as evidence upon which to make an order, subject to his knowledge of the creditor, as voluntary on the part of the debtor, who has the opportunity of attending court and making his own statements. In cases where no agreement is produced, evidence as to the man’s wages is obtained from the employer upon a printed form, if the debtor does not object. He alludes to the difficulty of ascertaining what a debtor may be paying into court upon other debts (whereby, in fact, his wages may not represent his income, in which case witness would regulate the