The Sun.
London, England, 1826-04-29 00:00:00

LAW OF DEBTOR AND CREDITOR.

A great deal has been said on this subject, both in
and out of Parliament, both now and in former times,
but it does not appear that any better system than that
upon Which we at present act has been,devised, although
that system is by no means good. Abstractedly, it
certainly sounds harsh to say,. that the body of any
individual is liable to perpetual' imprisonment at the
instance of a person to whOm he owes money ; and it
is also undeniably true, that many cases of a severe and
heart-rending nature could be cited to show the utter
injustice of such a proceeding. But, notwithstanding
this may be admitted as truth, we take it to be equally
clear that a Creditor is entitled to some remedy against
his Debtor, to compel him to pay the money which
he owes to him. How this point can be effected in
any gentler manner than simple incarceration, (and we
admit that it is severe); we are at a loss to imagine, and to
abolish imprisonment for debt entirely, would be to
deprive a Creditor of the only remedy which he has
in cases where his Debtor is without property. It
appears to us that either measure is unjust, but as it
is a case admitting of no medium, the only alternative
was to choose between two evils, and we must confess
that we think the lesser of the two has been taken. It
is somewhat strange that the only cause for which
arrest of the person was allowed in former days, was
for trespass on the lands of another, and that is now
one of the excepted cases in which arrest is not per-
mitted. It therefore appears, that the law of arrest
for debt has grown up with the trade of the country,
and has sprung from it apparently as naturally as the
credit which gives life and spirit to all commercial
transactions, and credit chiefly depends on the respon-
sibility of the person with whom we deal.

Some portion of the evils resulting from the law of
Debtor and Creditor as it now stands, has been greatly
mitigated: by the passing of the Bankrupt and Insol-
vent Debtors' Acts ; but it unfortunately happens
that the theory on which both these codes of laws pro-
ceeds has not been thoroughly understood, and it
has therefore given rise to abuses which time has
sanctioned, and which a long succession of custom'
has compelled us to imagine sound. When speaking
Of the Insolvent Act, some weeks since, we endea-
voured to show that there was no real distinction be-
tween a person subject to the Bankrupt Laws, and a
person subject to the Insolvent Laws, or indeed so
little as hardly to justify the application of two such
opposite codes to remedy one and the same evil. But
this, it would appear, is not the only cause of com-
plaint against the Insolvent Act. If provisions con-
tain other clauses, which have been allowed to pass
sub silentio, and which have, nevertheles, been pro-
ductive of much evil, and that too without effecting
any good commensurate with that expected, or even
sufficient to outbalance the evil which it has caused.
The clause to which we more particularly alluded, was
passed for the first time in the sth Geo. 4., and is
carried into the Act of the present Session, and re-
strains persons seeking the benefit of the Insolvent
Act from taking the rules of the King's Bench and
Fleet prisons. We have no hesitation in stigmatizing
this clause as decidedly unjust, for no good reason
can be given why prisoners for debt should not be
permitted to avail themselves of this indulgence, in all
cases where the Marshal or the Warden shall be will-
ing to incur the liability to which they are exposed,
in case the party should make an escape. Commit-
ment to prison for the payment of a debt, is a com-
mitment t 6 safe custody, and not to close and safe
custody as in criminal cases, and where restraint of
the person is employed as a means of amendment, and
as a punishment fora" crime. The motive, however,
on which this clause was passed, was alleged to be
the expectation that so many persons would not in
such a case seek the benefit of the Insolvent Act.
Against such a motive we beg at once to enter our
decided protest, because we hold it to be in direct
violation of that principle upon which the temporary
Insolvent Acts were passed, viz. that of clearing the
public gaols, and because we look upon it as unne-
cessarily augmenting the severity of these laws, which,
in the mildest shape, we have already said, are suf-
ficiently harsh and severe. But not upon principle
alone do we object ; we assert that the alleged expec-
tation has failed, and vouch in proof thereof the fact,
that the number of commitments in the Michaelmas
Terms before and after the passing of the clause, give
a difference of seven only in favour of the clause.--
And this, we take it, is unanswerable as to the quan-
tum of good that the clause has produced.
As to the evil it has produced, we say, look at the
public gaols, look at the prisons of the King's Bench
and Fleet, and let their crowded state answer the ques-
tion. In the King's Bench prison the average num-
ber of prisoners since the passing of the clause has
been 700 ; and think of the personal inconveniences,
the injury done to moral and religious feelings in this
motley community, shut up in a space destined origi-
nally to contain at the utmost SOO. Is there in this
nothing to dread ? Is thbre no gaol-fever to be appre-
hended ? No contagious disorder to expect, if, when
the hot weather comes, this number shall not be very
greatly reduced ? And, is not this the effect of this
unjust clause, when it is shown that the difference be-
tween the number of prisoners who took the rules in
two corresponding terms in the year before, and the
year after the passing of the'clause in question, amounted
to.
On the subject of the expences, too, attending a
petition to the Insolvent Debtors' Court for a dis-
charge, a word ought to be said. But a little fact here
will suffice. The number of prisoners who have been
the last four years, is above
in
nof money spent by them alone
3 relievedo ,000, i England,
andthe sum
(not including that spent by their opponents) exceeds
considerably 600,0001. ; that a fee of 12s. 6d. is paid
thef 1 ass,soigoicti ;
by each insolvent for the attendance of the provisional
asignee, and for preparing the assignment from the
Er
and that this fee
and this indirectly
in the face of the Act, which declares no fee shall be
assignee
taken, except such as the Commissioners shall approve.
aso v i
producedsi onalss
tgipeewar dtos o
It would be curious to know the amount di-
vided amongst the creditors of these thirty
thousand insolvents in the same period.

LONDON,
SATURDAY EVENING, APRIL 29, 1626.

The Marquess of LANSDOWN in presenting 10
night, in the House of Peers, a Petition from the
Parishioners of St. Olave's, complaining of certain
abuses in that Parish, expressed his conviction that
the Bishop of LONDON had done every thing in big
power to settle amicably the disputes between the
Rector and the Parish.

The Bishop stated, that the real facts were, that Oe
Rector had a legal right to Tithes to the amount of
2,4001., but that so far from raising that amount, an
arrangement had been proposed for fixing the rata
universally through the Parish, at Is. Gd. in the pound'
which would have produced about 1,350/. per arm'
Difficulties, however, had arisen, which had rendered
it impossible to effect that arrangement. The Right
Rev. Prelate then observed, that if any part of his
conduct in this matter had been to blame, it was for
giving his consent to the introduction of a Bill which
would deprive, not only the present Rector but his
successor, of his just legal rights ; but, that his object
had been to promote peace and quiet in the Parish►
and to see the Rector living in harmony with his
flock.

The amiable conduct of the Bishop of LoNDotiti
throughout this dispute, is justly entitled to the high"