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

the initiative while his opponents are engaged in r
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.

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 hare 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
have 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 brough
under public notice, that the place of confinemen

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 covfined.

But, melius est petere fontes, quam 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 inc,arce-
.

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 he 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-
sonto put the law in force at his
be permitted
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-
manthus who
ing. Like the miserable Rhada , 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-

tern 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 money
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 bal.