▁attempt ▁to ▁advance ▁any ▁of ▁them . ▁The ▁so - called ▁notice ▁to ▁show ▁cause ▁issued , ▁purs u ant ▁to ▁section ▁ 6 5 A , ▁did ▁not ▁spell ▁out ▁what ▁the ▁def ences ▁were ▁or ▁how ▁they ▁could ▁be ▁established . ▁ ▁The ▁bur den ▁cast ▁on ▁the ▁deb tor ▁with ▁regard ▁to ▁in ability ▁to ▁pay , ▁although ▁possibly ▁def ens ible ▁in ▁principle ▁as ▁per tain ing ▁to ▁matters ▁peculiar ly ▁within ▁his ▁knowledge , ▁was ▁so ▁widely ▁c ouch ed ▁that ▁persons ▁genu in ely ▁unable ▁to ▁pay ▁were ▁never theless ▁struck . ▁ ▁The ▁prov isions ▁of ▁section ▁ 6 5 F ( 3 )( c ), ▁which ▁sp elt ▁out ▁what ▁the ▁deb tor ▁must ▁prove , ▁were ▁not ▁only ▁un reason ably ▁wide , ▁but ▁also ▁un reason ably ▁pun itive . ▁Wh atever ▁might ▁be ▁said ▁about ▁a ▁deb tor ▁who ▁wil fully ▁fr ustr ates ▁payment , ▁the ▁n aked ly ▁pun itive ▁ret ribution ▁inher ent ▁in ▁the ▁prov isions ▁of ▁sections ▁ 6 5 F ( 3 )( c )( iii ) ▁and ▁( iv ) ▁could ▁not ▁be ▁just ified . ▁ ▁The ▁prov isions ▁allowed ▁a ▁person ▁to ▁be ▁imprison ed ▁without ▁knowing ▁that ▁they ▁had ▁a ▁bur den ▁to ▁prove ▁their ▁defence , ▁or ▁how ▁to ▁dis charge ▁that ▁bur den . ▁It ▁could ▁possibly ▁be ▁cont ended ▁that ▁the ▁magistr ate ▁ought ▁to ▁explain ▁a ▁deb tor ' s ▁rights ▁and ▁duties ▁to ▁an ▁und ef ended