THE 
MONTHLY MAGAZINE. 
Pew Series. 
Wor. II.) f AUGUST, +1826. i (No. 8. 
DEBTORS. 
Destrors—why talk of debtors ? what new circumstances have arisen 
‘to demand attention at this particular time? None in kind, and none 
need there be, but enough in degree—the old oppressions and their 
accumulating aggravations are quite sufficient, at any, period, to fix the 
thoughts of such as are not utterly indifferent to all that does not im- 
mediately touch themselves. But what more can be done than has been 
done? Have not debtors been separated from criminals, wherever the 
existing space admits of separation? Have not many of the prisons 
been enlarged, and are not the rest in a course of enlargement? 
Have not the insolvent acts been softened and softened till it is almost a 
farce to speak of their severity? And will not, at last, three months’ 
imprisonment absolutely free the insolvent from his creditors? No: 
debtors are not every where separated from felons; the prisons are not 
every where enlarged, nor likely to be—nay, many of the debtor-prisons 
are private property, and fairly out of the reach of public control; the 
insolvent laws have not lost their character of severity, nor is three 
-months’ imprisonment a farce—no, nor is it an acquittal of the debtor’s 
obligation. But what more can be done, unless you at once throw open 
the prison-doors, and leave the deluded creditor a helpless, unprotected 
‘prey to the swindling sharks that throng the metropolis ?—Why,. that is 
-very much what we are going to propose; and as to the creditor, we 
are strongly inclined to believe that, left to himself, he would protect 
himself better than any law has ever done or can do. 
Imprisonment for debt, then, it is which we denounce. Imprisonment 
is in its nature a penalty—the severest that can be inflicted, short of 
capital punishment—and reservable, therefore, for crime alone. But, 
Say our opponents, who are always nice distinguishers, to confine for 
security is ene thing, and to imprison for punishment another. What 
idle distinction is this! It is still confinement—it is still imprisonment ; 
the fact is the same, be the object which it will; and imprisonment for 
debt is equally odious, oppressive, and inapplicable. 
Is debt a crime or is it not? Why, a fraudulent debt is surely a 
crime. We are not inquiring about fraud but about debt. Is every 
pier a crime? Why that cannot be precisely said; but still it is not 
M.M. New came Te Woe8s tear 
