The Sun.
London, England, 1853-10-21 00:00:00

is, therefore, by no means surprising that
he should have refused to " give up posses-

sion" (query, what possession, if the creditors
were in receipt of the rents ?), " and thereby
relieved himself of the responsibility he incurred in
becoming possessed of the property !" He might
well distrust the advice tendered by parties con-
nected with the scene of his misery. He knew
that, under the colour of law, he had been de-
prived as well of his liberty as of the property he
inherited, and be would not voluntarily relin-
quish the claim to which, perhaps erroneously, he
may have considered himself entitled. But surely
if he were in error the law should have interposed.
Obstinacy can scarcely be considered worse
than murder, and yet its punishment in this
instance has been more severe. There are few
persons who would not prefer speedy execution to
forty years of protracted suffering under the gentle
discipline of Winchester Gaol.
Mr. WRIGHT states that poor MILLAR " had
offers of assistance from High Sheriffs to pass
through the Insolvent Court, as well as from
himself (Mr. WRIGHT), and thus in a legal man-
ner to be liberated from prison, all of which he
(MILLAR) most obstinately refused !" The conclu-
sion at which the minister of the Gospel arrives is
that, " consequently, his remaining in gaol is his
own act, rather than that of any oppressor." He does
not, however, state when these offers were
made, or how long MILLAR had been pining in
his dungeon when it was so kindly proposed that
he should pass through the Insolvent Court. We
know that habit is second nature, that men be-
come accustomed to such privations, and will not,
after a certain time, be willing to mingle with the
world from which they had been so long se-
cluded—that they are no longer fitted to come
into collision with their fellow-men. On the
destruction of the Bastile, a piisoner, who
had been nearly as long imprisoned as poor
MILLAR, though probably with better diet
and greater provision for his comfort, ap-
plied to be admitted to some other prison—and
bad as was Winchester Gaol—:fie man, who had
been forgotten by his friends who was alone on
earth, might have dreaded a worse fate if he were
discharged. The public will, we believe, regard
the matter in a very different point of view from
that in which it has been considered by the
Chaplain of Winchester Gaol. They may possi-
bly question the expediency and justice of per-
mitting men to be imprisoned at the mere will
and pleasure of a vindictive and malicious credi-
tor who may have no equitable claim, and think
that among the many inquiries recently instituted
with a view to future law reforms, one into
the system of imprisonment for debt may
be added. We cannot conclude our obser-
vations on this subject without quoting the
description of imprisonment for debt given by
Lord ELDON, who was little disposed to give reins
to his imagination. The Noble and Learned Lord
said in his celebrated speech on the slave trade—
" The law of arrest for debt is a sanction to com-
mit greater oppression and inhumanity than is to
be met with in slavery itself—to tear the father
from his weeping children—the husband from his
distracted wife, to satiate the demoniac vengeance
of some worthless creditor !" We commend these
observations to the consideration of the Rev. Mr.
WRIGHT.