th prisoners than they are in any other part of
Christendom. Perhaps both these deviations from a general character are
violent efforts of a wary legislature made in behalf of trade, which
cannot bo too much cherished in a nation that principally depends upon
commerce. The question is, whether this laudable aim may not be more
effectually accomplished, without subjecting individuals to oppression,
arising from the cruelty and revenge of one another. As the laws are
modelled at present, it cannot be denied that the debtor, in some cases,
lies in a peculiar manner at the mercy of his creditor. By the original
and common law of England, no man could be imprisoned for debt. The
plaintiff in any civil action could have no execution upon his judgment,
against either the body or the lands of the defendant: even with respect
to his goods and chattels, which were subject to execution, he was
obliged to leave him such articles as were necessary for agriculture.
But, in process of time, this indulgence being found prejudicial
to commerce, a law was enacted, in the reign of Edward I. allowing
execution on the person of the debtor, provided his goods and chattels
were not sufficient to pay the debt which he had contracted. This law
was still attended with a very obvious inconvenience: the debtor,
who possessed an estate in lands, was tempted to secrete his moveable
effects, and live in concealment on the produce of his lands, while
the sheriff connived at his retirement. To remove this evil, a second
statute was enacted in the same reign, granting immediate execution
against the body, lands, and goods of the debtor; yet his effects could
not be sold for the benefit of his creditors till the expiration of
three months, during which he himself could dispose of them for ready
money, in order to discharge his incumbrances. If the creditor was not
satisfied in this manner, he continued in possession of the debtor's
lands, and detained the debtor himself in prison, where he was obliged
to supply him with bread and water for his support, until the debt
was discharged. Other severe regulations were made in the sequel,
particularly in the reign of Edward III. which gave rise to the writ
of _capias ad satisfaciendum_. This indeed rendered the preceding laws,
called statute-merchant, and statute-staple, altogether unnecessary.
Though the liberty of the subject, and the security of the landholder,
were thus in some measure sacrificed to the advan