126 Debtors. [ Aue. 
ditor—not the decision of a court of justice—be deprived of that blessed 
right—the right to breathe the open air of heaven, at the very moment 
when his superiors—the wealth and rank of the country, are triumphing 
in the distinction that Englishmen are in the possession of more freedom 
and independence than is shared by any other people in the world? 
How long did we insult over the poor-spirited French for wearing 
wooden-shoes, and submitting to /ettres-de-cachet ; while, with us, every 
creditor has the power, when he will, to exercise the privilege of the 
old Bourbon government, and issue his own private Jlettre-de-cachet. 
Truly, we are a nation of boasters, if ever there was such a nation upon 
earth. The Athenians were fools to us. 
Thus far we have discussed the principle of the law of arrest: but 
not only is that principle defective ; the law itself is partial in its applica- 
tion. It does not embrace the whole community. Some are completely 
and by special exception exempt, and others are placed under a set of 
regulations totally at variance with it. The trader, at least certain 
classes of traders, are placed under laws of their own—for, to be sure, 
they must have had the making of them. If a man deal in certain 
articles, and can get into debt to a certain amount—to an amount six or 
seven times beyond the common arrestable sum, the law—what ? 
transports him? No. Imprisons him at least? No—protects him ; 
protects his person; takes from him his property indeed, and distributes 
some of it among his creditors, but actually reserves a certain propor- 
tion, and generously replaces it in the hands of the bankrupt ; and this 
not once, but twice or thrice, or as often as he finds dupes to trust, 
and himself unable to make good his engagements. Now what on earth 
is there to account for this distinction between the bankrupt and the 
common insolvent? Why is the one to be less rigidly dealt with than 
the other? But to complete the climax of absurdity—to exhibit the 
unsteady principle of the laws, or rather their utter want of principle 
and consistency, in the broadest manner, it is not a/ trading and 
trafficking that entitles you to this protection. No landlord, no farmer, 
no innkeeper, or schoolmaster, for sundry strange reasons, for which 
always ‘vide’ Blackstone, can by possibility share in the favour. 
And yet, with all this, there are people who resist every proposal for a 
revision of the laws, in the full conviction that they are all excellent, in- 
comparable, unimprovable. Thanks to our better stars, the Secretary for 
the Home Department has, by some unknown process, come to think 
them somewhat susceptible of amendment; and the old opponents, 
of course, to a certain extent, give way to the authority, if not 
the intelligence of office ; but their influence will still be strong enough 
to prevent any complete and enlightened reform. We shall have 
nothing but palliatives—nothing but half-and-half measures; no prin- 
ciple spreading through whole classes of offences, effective of real and 
rational equality—nothing that will decisively tend to simplify, fix and 
define,—to render justice steady—to reduce crime and the temptations 
to it—to check litigation, and cut down lawyers’ fees—nothing of this 
sort is to be expected on this side the institution of political reform. 
But not only does the law thus favour whole classes by placing them 
under peculiar protections; but there are others, not coming under 
these protections, who are expressly exempted from liability to arrest. 
No peer, no member of the House of Commons, no lawyer can be 
arrested. There is no imprisoning any of these persons for debt. In 
the name of common-sense and consistency, why? Oh the peer (Black- 
