The Sun.
London, England, 1853-11-02 00:00:00

Jr~~
\~'`'l,;

LONDON, WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 1853.

Yesterday was a close holiday on the Stock
Exchange, but the Bears were nevertheless active
in their vocation. New rumours were brought
into circulation. calculated to depress quotations,
and in some degree take away the previous im-
provement. The latest reports were to the effect
that a portion of the Turkish army, amounting to
30,000 men, had crossed the Danube, at Kalafat,
on the 27th instant, and that a great number
more were in the act of passing. It was
further added, that an encounter with the
Russians was expectad on the following day.
Another account from Vienna stated that 3,000
infantry (not 30,000), and 2,400 cavalry had
crossed the river, and that others were passing in
barges when the news was despatched. Neither
account was spoken of with any degree of cer-
tainty. The former was, indeed, regarded "in
a high degree improbable," while it was stated by
the journal in which it appeared that the latter
" was not credited in *Vienna;" but that they
" saw no reason to doubt its authenticity."
Both statements have emanated from private
sources, and must consequently be received with
consid.srable hesitation. There is, however,
nothing very improbable in the notion that
OMER PACHA should lose no time in adopting
active measures to expel the intruders from his
adopted country, and as the time given for the
departure of the Russian troops expired on
the 24th—a forward movement on the 27th
might therefore reasonably be anticipated, and
would naturally enough be ventilated by those
with whom the wish was father to the thought,"
and who unquestionably might profit by its
being credited even for a single day.
While, however, we would advise our friends
not to receive all such statements with absolute
scepticism, we would strongly urge the necessity
of caution, to prevent themselves from being mis-
led through the variety of intelligence received
day by day, and calculated to create a see-saw
movement in stocks and shares by which specula--
tors may realise large profits, but which must prove
prejudicial to bona fide in vesters. Unless the
accuracy of the intelligence be placed beyond the
possibility of doubt, the grounds on which it is
supported should be closely and accurately scru-
tinised, and the probable results considered
in the event of its authenticity being subse-
quently established. When every point has
been investigated, measures may be adopted by
those for whom immediate action is indispensable,
but it is much better, if practicable, to avoid be-
ing in any way influenced by doubtful rumours,
-which, although having a strong verisimilitude,
and in accordance with the natural course of
events, may have been invented by interested
parties for their own selfish purposes.
Let us for a moment reflect on the probable
consequences of the passage of the Danube by.
OAR PACHA, if either of the accounts above re-
ferred to should be confirmed. Assuming, for the
sake of argument, either to be correct, we
find that the passage of the river was com-
menced on the 27th instant. Unless impeded
by the troops under Prince GORTSCHAKOFF,
some days must necessarily elapse before the
entire mat • erte2 of the Turkish army could be trans-
ferred to the opposite bank, so as to enable OMER
PACHA to fling down the gage of battle on any-
thing like equal terms. The Ottoman General
would clearly not attempt to force on a general
engagement, unless compelled to do so by an
attack from the adversary, Who would take advan-
tageincidentalof the confusion
to the passage to
force on an engagement. If OMER PACHA be left
to himself several days must of necessity pass over
before he can bring matters to a erisis--and be-
fore that period could have elapsed, further orders
would be received from Constantinople, counter-
manding the movement, and announcing the
additional time conceded by the SULTAN, and the
improved prospects of a pacific solution of the
difficulty. It may be looked upon as almost
certain that the attack will not originate
with the Turks, whose course, even if
the messenger from the SULTAN had not
arrived, would probably be, so soon as
everything had been properly arranged on the
same side with the Russians, to repeat in more
peremptory terms the summons previously issued
from the Bulgarian bank—and, in the event of
refusal, to endeavour to enforce the demand.
So much time would unavoidably be consumed in
these proceedings that the countermand would
necessarily arrive in the interim.

All then depends on the course to be adopted
by Prince GORISCHAKOFF, whether he will take

the initiative while his opponents are engaged in
the transit, or quietly await their arrival and
further action. We believe the latter to be far
more likely. It cannot be forgotten that Prince
GORTSCHAKOFF, in answer to the demand for the
evacuation of the Principalities, declared that his
master was not at war with the SULTAN, and that
he would merely stand on the defensive to pro-
tect himself from any attack, but that he could
not withdraw until the required satisfaction had
been obtained. According to this view of the case,
the SULTAN would, unquestionably, be justified in
sending his own troops into any part of his own
dominions, and the Russians would not be justi-
fied in preventing or impeding the passage. They
might await the arrival, concentrating their forces,
so as to be prepared for a pitched battle, if such
should be offered ; and this appears to be the
case, for all we learn is, that the Russians were
concentrating on the point, and not that any ob-
stacle had been offered to the passage, when a few
thousands only were ready to protect it. On a
review, then, of all the circumstances, we still
think that a hostile collision is very improbable ;
and, even if it should have occurred, it is by no
means certain that it would prevent the fresh
terms, partially agreed on, from being carried into
execution. Those who are desirous of a pacific
solution of the problem should therefore not be
discouraged, or suppose that the intelligence al-
luded to, if authenticated, would prevent the
amicable arrangements for which they are so
anxious.

1 Many important legal reforms have from time
to time been submitted for public consideration.
The amelioration of the practice and procedure of
the Common Law Courts has been most ener-
getically and efficiently attended to. The evils
of Chancery have been subjected to the most
stringent and searching investigation, and reme-
dial measures introduced, which it is confidently
anticipated may go far to remove the grounds of
complaint that previously existed. But while so
much has been effected the monster grievance
remains comparatively unnoticed. Imprisonment
for debt continues in full force, with all its hideous
features exhibited in their naked enormity, unim-
proved, but not unaltered, for the so-called Prison
Philanthropists—the men who show their huma-
nity (!) to their kind by inventing hard tortures,
and rendering the dreary abodes where they have
influence real " hells upon earth"—have been ad-
mitted to the debtors' side, and persons, merely
because they are unfortunate, and unable to satisfy
the claims of vindictive creditors, are exposed to
privations and annoyances far greater than any
endured by the sturdy felon in the olden time.
Parliament has indeed effected much towards
the amelioration of the law relating to property,
but except the Act for the abolition of arrest on
mesne process (1 and 2 Vic., c. 110), and that
which prohibited arrest when the debt did not
exceed 201. (7 and 8 Vic., c. 96), nothing
has been done for the protection or relief of
the person, but, on the contrary, as we have
already stated, irresponsible Magistrates have
been permitted to subject unfortunate debtors to
all the cruelties and privations that can be intro-
duced under a spurious affectation of a regard for
" Discipline !" Discipline, forsooth! If some per-
sons could carry out their views, the crank, and
the strait-jacket, the strapping to the wall, and

starvation would be applied to debtors, as well as
" the silent," or " separate system," to which they
hale already in some instances been subjected,
under the pretext of discipline—as at Leicester
and Winchester—and which we believe to be
utterly illegal ! subjecting the parties implicated
to heavy damages to those whom they have in-
jured by their stringent regulations. We say
advisedly, that any Magisterial interference with
debtors is grossly illegal. It is only with Houses
of Correction that they have any right to inter-
meddle. These establishments are placed under
their control, but the prisons in which debtors are
or should be confined are in the keeping of the
Sheriff, and are only subject to the control of the
Home Secretary, who must approve the rules to
be framed for their management and the conduct
and treatment of prisoners confined therein ; and

Justices have, we repeat, no right to intermeddle
in any way, and are liable to an action for damage
on the part of any debtor prisoner who may be
aggrieved by the enforcement of regulations which

they had framed or sanctioned. It has been
urged as an excuse in at least one of the cases
which have recently been prominently brought
under public notice, that the place of confinement
is at once a debtors' prison and a house of correc-
tion. This, however, is perfectly beside the ques-
tion. It is expressly provided that in every
county there shall be at least one common gaol and
one house of correction ; and it is totally opposed
to the law to imprison debtors in the latter.
County Court Judges were at first empowered to
do so ; but that was abolished in 1849, in conse-
quence of the abominable cruelties that were prac-
tised in these dens of iniquities ; and it was
enacted that if the small debtor was to be com-
mitted, it should be to the common gaol where
debtors under judgment and in execution of the
superior Courts are confined.

But, melius est petere fontes, qualm sectari rivulos,
why pursue the subject as to the ill treatment or
starvation of prisoners, when we should rather aim
at the total abolition of the process, unless under
the sanction of a Judge, and on plain and unequi-
vocal proof of fraud, or something tantamount
thereto, on the part of the person to be incarce-
rated. We would inquire, what is the advantage
of imprisonment for debt to the community at
large ? How does it benefit society in general to
have an unfortunate man taken from his home
and family, and confined in a close prison, de-
prived of the means of earning daily bread for
himself or his family ? How does it ever assist
the creditor in enforcing payment of his demand ?
Is it consistent with reason or common sense to
suppose that a man, after confinement, while his
exertions are completely paralysed, could do more
than be would do when free, and enabled to apply
them to the best advantage ? And, even if it
were beneficial to the creditor, why should he be
allowed to try the experiment at the public ex-
pense to shift the burden of maintaining the man,
whom he has deliberately rendered unable to
support himself, from his own shoulders to that
of the ratepayers in the county where his victim
may happen to be confined for the time being?
The imprisonment is either allowed as a punish-
ment to the debtor, or as the means of having
him at any time available to answer the demands
of the creditor. If the former, why should an
exasperated, and too frequently a vindictive per-
son be permitted to put the law in force at his
own mere will and 'pleasure, without any regard
to the justice of the case, the manner in which
the debt was contracted, or the ability of the
prisoner to satisfy the claim ? We practically
condemn without hearing, or at least before hear-
ing. Like the miserable Rhadamanthus who, ac-
cording to Virgil, " castigat, auditque dolos," pun-
ishing first, and then investigating to ascertain
whether the case was worthy of punishment ; and
this is the boasted justice of England, the land
of freedom, so far as the moral Pariah of the un-
fortunate debtors are concerned.

But it may be said that there would no longer
be any credit if the power of punishing the dis-
honest debtor were taken away—that the sys-
tem is essential to the maintenance of our trade
and commerce—that it could not safely be abro-
gated in a commercial country. Let us not
delude ourselves, or allow ourselves to be deluded,
by these plausible pretexts, every one of which
were put forward in 1838, when the power of
arrest on mesne process was taken away.. It is
not commercial men or fair traders that fill our
prisons, or find employment for sheriffs' officers.
It is usurious bill discounters, and unfair mosey
lenders—the bill stealers, the patent stealers, the
estate stealers--who are anxious to get their vic-
tims out of the way, where they cannot contest
and expose the nefarious transactions by which
they have been plundered, and cause retributive
justice to be visited on their oppressors. These
are the classes for whose almost exclusive benefit
we maintain our debtors' prisons at so heavy an
expense to the country. Our esteemed corres-
pondent "Observer," whose able communication

will be found in another part of this day's

pression, has happily illustrated the dealings of
one of these classes. We earnestly commend his
admirable letter to the attention of the community.
It will be found well worthy of perusal, contain-
ing as it does some excellent suggestions for the
solution of the great problem—the effectual aboli-
tion of imprisonment for debt except in cases of
fraud or dishonesty.