In the time of Edward I, the Parliament of Acton Burnell registered the celebrated Statute of Merchants. The object of this law was to protect the commercial interests of the country. Its preamble relates how pov erty had fallen upon merchants from the want of a speedy remedy for recovering debts, and the consequent desertion of the realm by merchants with their merchandise : and it was therefore enacted that a merchant who wished to deal securely should cause his debtor to come before the mayor of the town, and in his presence acknowledge the debt. If after this he failed to pay the bill, he could be imprisoned in the Tower, there to remain until he settled up. If at the end of three months he had not done so, his land and goods were handed over to his creditor. The creditor who confined his debtor under this law, was bound to furnish him with bread and water. In France also the creditor had to furnish aliment to the imprisoned debtor, and not only that, but he was compelled to advance a month's food in order to make the impris onment effectual. If he did not do so, the prisoner was set free. Imprisonment for debt was abolished in England in 1869, or, rather, a law was passed in that year to that effect. As a matter of fact, however, thousands of persons are sent to jail for debt there every year. As a prominent English judge remarked concern ing this law, " it merely mends the proce dure as regards imprisonment, but in no wise ends it." Judge Chalmers, in an interesting article,
printed a few years ago, relates some of his experiences with poor debtors who ap peared before him. A frequent excuse of these unfortunates for not paying what they owe, is that their children are ill and in need. One, a wretched-looking lad of twenty, was brought before him for a debt of £2. On being asked why he did not pay it, he replied that " all the children had been ill." It appeared that he had married at sixteen and had three children. When the judge asked him what made him marry at that age, his answer was : " Because I was out of work." His sweetheart was doing something and he saw nothing for it but to marry her and share her wages. Another case was where a woman was summoned for refusing to pay a balance due on some furniture. She declared that the last time the plaintiff's collector had called, he agreed to forgive her the sum due if she would commit adultery with him. She had complied and so considered her self freed from the debt. " But," said the judge, " how can you get rid of a debt against the plaintiff by committing adultery with some one else? " She argued that the man with whom she had committed adultery was acting as the plaintiff's agent. " Yes," replied the judge, " he was the plaintiff's agent to collect debts, but not to commit adultery." In another case, the defendant, a molder of brass, gravely objected to pay for the expenses of his wife's funeral, on the ground that she was no longer of any use to him.
yps*
