1826. } Debtors. 127 
stone again) is always counselling the crown; the member always levy- 
ing taxation; the lawyer is “ always in court, and before the eyes of 
the judges.” And why not the parson, who is, of course, always in 
the church, or the physician who is always with his patients, or the 
sempstress, who is always at her needle? Precious reasons for an age 
of common-sense! Reform—oh, reform it altogether. Let the law, 
for one, be the law for all. 
Well, then, we have seen the punishment of imprisonment. for debt, 
is inappropriate; defective in principle; unjust in operation ; partial, 
disproportionate, and we should add graduitous, if it were not indis- 
putable, that all oppressions which are the consequences of legal enact- 
ment, meant for the benefit of a whole community—and that is the 
only genuine object of a law—are gratuitous—uncalled-for, that is, by 
any general necessity; and, of course, ought to be removed by imme- 
diate repeal. , 
For the repeal, then, of the law of arrest, we call—absolutely. What 
without substituting any thing in its place? Not precisely so, since 
something, we suppose, must be conceded to existing prejudices: our 
remedy may be, where there is property, attachment of that property ; 
but where there is none, impunity. Impunity? Yes; but then, ob- 
serve, if there be no remedy, there is, what is better, a preventive, 
and that is the care and caution of the creditor. But is this a doctrine 
fit to be promulgated? What nation under the sun has ever lived 
without the penalty of slavery or of imprisonment for debt? None, that 
we know of; but that is of very small importance. We know all 
nations, ancient and modern, have exercised great cruelties against 
debtors, and done nothing to check the folly of creditors; and for that 
very reason we think a change desirable—at least worth trying. Seve- 
rity never yet prevented crime ; and severity in the form of imprison- 
ment has not prevented debt, and will not; but we feel confident that 
impunity will do so, for no man will trust who has no longer the means 
of enforcing. The true remedy then is—to throw the creditor com- 
pletely on his own resources. 
But for the repeal of the law of arrest—substituting as much or as 
little as you will—we are urgent, not only because the law is oppressive, 
but because it is unnecessary ; and for our own parts, if we consulted 
nothing but our own convictions, and could venture to judge of others 
by our own feelings, we would rest the grounds of repeal on the gra- 
tuitous mischief produced by the operation of this law—convinced as 
we are, that were the law of arrest completely withdrawn, even with 
nothing substituted in its stead, creditors could and would take care of 
themselves, particularly after such long and lengthened experience of the 
real inutility of the law—vastly more to their own interests, and if they 
could be supposed to think of others, to the interests of their cus- 
tomers too. 
But we know the prejudices, particularly of men of business, are a 
little inflexible ; still, though we think them, and many others beside 
them, inaccessible to reason and argument, inaccessible even to the 
appeal and force of facts, except by the slowest steps, we do not think 
them insensible to humanity—though we cannot readily get at their 
understandings, we can at their sympathies. The discussion of prin- 
ciples seems vague and shadowy, and what may be right or may be 
wrong, to those who are unaccustomed to weigh them; and make little 
