The Sun.
London, England, 1867-03-29 00:00:00

The French Legislative Assembly.

The Legislative Body held a sitting on Wednes-
day, Count;Walewski in the chair. The bill to give
a guarantee to inventions susceptible of being
patented, shown at the Universal Exhibition, Was
adopted :—•
M. Rouher, Minister of State and of Finance, M.
Baroche, Minister of Justice•and the other Go-
vernment-Commissioners, were present.

The order of the day was the adjourned discus-
sion ou the bill proposing to abolish imprisonment
for debt.

M. Guillaume Petit objected to the conclusions
come to by M. Josseau in favour of maintaining im-
prisonment for debt founded upon the result of the
inquiry instituted, as all experience had proved that
inquiries on economic questions very rarely sc:rved
the cause of progress. The numerous investigations
which had taken place during the last half century
would never have produced the slightest approach
to free trade. And for that step the enlightened
initiative of the Emperor was required. He
(the speaker) bad himself consulted magistrates,
lawyers, and ministerial officers of all ranks, and
found that their opinion was that in commercial
matters imprisonment for debt was all but useless.
It had been said that it was a guarantee in the case
of the small trader, but let him want credit, and if
he was a man of good character he would readily
obtain it without that security. Even were it a
guarantee, that circumstance was no argument for
its retention, as the real question was whether the
principle was sound or not. If imprisonment for
debt was abolished, commercial vigilance would soon
find means to obviate the dangers suggested. And
as regarded foreigners, on the eve of the Exhibition,
when everything possible was being done to entice
them to Paris, they were encompassed with insulting
precautions. (Exclamations.) Traders said that it
was impossible to obtain references'before selling to
foreigners, but the banks and discount houses man-
aged to get all the security they required. He con-
sidered this as a relic of barbarism which could be
abolished without danger. (Hear, hear.)

M. Georg was of opinion that the fact of re-
taining imprisonment for debt in matters con-
nected with the State while abolishing it for
debt was .a sufficient argument for the rejection
of the bill. The considerations advanced iu its
favour were all on the side of the debtor, and the
misfortunes caused to the creditor from unfulfilled
engagements seemed to be lost sight of. If such
imprisonment was abolished, the creditor would be
at the mercy of the debtor, credit would receive a
fatal blow, and prices should be raised to cover the
risk. Last year when the situation of the agricul-
turists was unJer examination the suggestion was
made to commercialise agriculture, and many
bankers who were examined said that if they had
the remedy of imprisonment for debt against the
farmers they would treat with them as with traders.
To the objections that this measure was too severe
and rigorous, it might be answered that if it was
necessary to obliterate from the laws everything
that appeared too severe, a great part of the penal
code would have to be suppressed. The minimum
amount for which arrest might take place could be
modified, the practice softened, and abuses sup-
pressed if they were found to exist, but the prin-
ciple should be maintained as indispensable to
public security.
M. Schneider observed that the maintenance
of imprisonment for debt was demanded as a
privilege for commerce, but he believed that
the best protection was intelligence, labour, and
honesty. (Hear, hear.) During his long experi-
ence in business, and in connection with the Bank
of France, he could declare that he had never
thought of it as a guarantee. He admitted that its
suppression might throw impediments in the way
of certain transactions, but it would only be the
unsound ones, and persons deserving credit would
not be prejudiced.
M. Baroche would just answer the question of
M. Nogent St. Laurens. Why did not the Go-
vernment remain quiet, and leave the present state
of things as it was? Because the State bad been
called on by the Chamber, and by M. Josseau,
the present reporter on the committee, to examine
the question of imprisonment for debt and intro-
duce a bill.
M. Josseau—•Yes, but in maintaining the principle.
M. Baroche was about to say, introduce a bill
which, while maintaining the system, should mode-
rate its application. The Government bad thought
it preferable not to introduce a bill on imprison-
ment for debt, but one against it. (Hear, bear.)
Was the Government to be bound to always follow
in the wake of those who represented public opinion
more or less exactly. It had often adopted a quite
different line of conduct, and he did not think the
persons interested or the country had had reason to
complain. (Hear, hear.) The committee had pre-
sented a report against the bill, but the minority
was of four memberslo five-.
g U. Seneca—lt was three to t#,