The Sun.
London, England, 1819-03-16 00:00:00

FOR THE SUN

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' ACT.

Ma. EDITOR,--Having inserted the Letter of
my sister JUSTITIA, I hope you will not re-
fuse the same indulgence to myself.
That the reciprocities of society are defined by
" 'Nature, Reason, and Religion," I am far from
disputing; but I cannot exactly understand how
the mere question of " Equivalence" is to op-
pose the freedom of " Nature," the prudence of
" Reason," or the forbearance of "
They who would justify itnprisotiment fr:r Debt,
had better draw their arguments front the social
state of man, than from his natural state.
'y sister's positions, Sir, as set forth in her •
introductory paragraphs, are perfectly reasonable
to far as they reach to the Debtor's property
being made available to the Creditor's rights ;
hilt when she extends her arguments to the in-
carceration of his person, they seem to me not
only infringing the law of nature, but injuring
the state of society.
The present Laws are defective, so far as they
do not mote immediately and more cheaply reach
the Dc briar's property. By this detect, the Debtor
And the Creditor both suffer the mischiefs of ex-
;WON' And delay. If the Delrot's property is
tm re than his Debts, the expellee falls lipon him ;
it it be less, the Creditor's loud is diminished ;
since the law, while a penny remains, must be
paid first, and in toll.
But Justrtrk will tell me, that the man who
incurs a debt without having sufficient meauS of
its payment, commits a crime ; that he ought to be
punished. and that a prison is his proper punish-
ment. Be it so ; the moment, however, that
this penal complexion is given to the case, she
will reinewher, that our law knows nothing of
any criminal process at the suit of a subject. It
in fact recognizes the pm inciple that no English-
man should be deprived of his liberty, unless at
the instance and with the knowledge of his So-

vereign.
Besides, as every matt is by onr law presumed
innocent until he is found guilty, the right of
imprisonment in civil cases ought not to exist
in !nestle process; but to be deterred until a Jury
of his countrymen, or his own acknowledgment,
shall have recorded the accused Debtor guilty of
owing money. It is no answer, Sir, that be may
avoid this by giving bail : the very fact of being
arrested is often enough to deter his best friends
from becoming his surety.
I will Venture to ask my sister JUStITIA-

since she so nicely calculates the portion 0,
" shock" which any one Debtor's failure gives to
society—how much of its " symmetry" does his
imprisonment repair, after Liis property has been
found unequal to the full payment ? I must own,
Sir, that I do not like to see a question, whereon
so much of individual happiness and general pros,-
perity dependi, discussed in these abstract terms
of " reciprocities," and " dependencies," and
" shocks," and'' symmetries."
Sir. I am no advocate for time Insolvent Act ;
yet I do not therefore see any reason for desiring
the re-enactment of the old law. Before I state
to you what I think the law should be, I will take
the liberty of suggesting a few plain principles.
Wh,tever provisions may be necessary to de-
ter the fraudulent Debtor, especial care should he
taken that no vindictive Creditor should be able
to use them against the Debtor who is unfortu.
fate only, and nor fraudulent.
Even with the fraudulent Debtor, every means
should he afforded, and exerted, for laying hold
of his property, before his person is resorted to;
not only, because until his property shall be
found inadeqoate he has committed no offence,
bat because, until his fraud shall be proved, he
ought riot to be accounted fraudulent.
No measures, which are in themselves penal,
should be resorted to, for the purpose of ascer-
taining whether a Debtor is fraudulent ur not.
The imprisonment of the Debtor is no recant-
pence to the Creditor. It is a satisfaction per-
haps but a vindictirq satisfaction, which, as the
law does uot recognise in criminal cases, assuredly
it does not in civil.
Were the law of Imprisonment for Debt nar-
rowed, or even extinguished, no facilities would
be afforded to the dishonest Debtor. The law
which encourages the Borrower, discourages, the
Lender—the more easy a is to avoid payment, the
more difficult it is to obtain a loan. Exactly, as
the less able a man is to repay, the less able be is
to borrow,

Not that I would advise—let me not be thought
quire so notch of knave or fool—not that I would
advise any law for the protection of a Debtor's
property.—On the contrary, it should be rendered
still mote liable, and more speedily liable, to the
Creditor's claims than it is at present. I merely
conceive, that where the Debtor's property exists,
it alone ought to be reached ; and that, where it
does not exist, his person is no compensation.
I have said that the law which encourages the
Borrower discourages the Lender. Let me pro-
ceed to observe, that the more heavy and the
more numerous arc the penalties which surround
the Borrower, the more readily will a Lender be
found ; trusting, perhaps, a little to his ability of
repayment ; but much to his fear of punishment ;
and not at all to his integrity.
Thus, as it seems to me, the Law of Imprison-
ment has precisely the inverse effect of its appa-
rent object. All the penalties which may be de-
vised, can never deter a needy man from borrow-
ing, so long as he can find a wealthy man to trust
him : but they induce the opulent lender to part
with his motley, by the fearful consequences which
impend over the borrower.

To constitute a loan, there must be—l thank
my sister Jll MT! A for the word—a " Recipro-
city." There must be a lender as well as a
borrower. The object of the Law of Imprison-
ment appears to be to deter heedless men from
borrowing. Would not that purpose be equally—
and better—answered, by a Law of Liberty, which
would deter cautious men from lending ?
1 may be answered, that the public system can-
not be kept in motion I,lrithout credit. I acknow-
itud this fact. But to overturn my argument, it
must be :hewn that the species of loans to which
that argument applies, belongs properly to the
Public Credit. I contend that it does not. /rn-