actions, where nobleness of character is added to nobility of birth-which BURKE describes as the "sensibility of honour that feels a stain as a wound." Who is it that has made this exposure of the conduct of fashionable and "honourable" men?-who is it that has brought this disgrace upon patrician rank and station, equal to any thing that the least scrupulous of our vulgar traders in democratic popularity have done in the way of Greek loan, or other sordid speculations which we have from time to time felt it our duty to denounce? At the bottom of all these things, there is the same base passion—a grovelling cupidity that hankers after the property of others, and, when exercised at the gambling table, makes cards and dice the implements of a predatory ingenuity, to transfer that property into their own pockets. Let us suppose these professional gamblers, that neither cog the dice, nor mark the cards, a class above thimble-rig practices.-What then? Are they, and their "honest" practices, the less dangerous to inexperienced young men of fortune frequenting the clubs? Are they less injurious to manly morals, and less detrimental to the happiness of families and the interests of society? What consolation is it to the wretched widow and orphans of the unfortunate man, who has been "most honourably" fleeced of his property by the "professional skill" of a practised gambler, and who, in the frenzy of despair, has committed suicide -what consolation is it, we ask, to his widow and orphans, that it was by the superior skill of the veteran in this "hellish" accomplishment, and not by "cheating," that the husband and the father was plundered of his property, and his unhappy family plunged into all the misery of the most deplorable privation and bereavement ? If we heard that at the fashionable clubs persons collected in the morning and continued all day, and frequently all night, to shuffle, deal, and cut cards-without having any intention of plundering one another-by exhibiting their ingenuity in this sort of pastime with black and red-spotted pieces of paste-board, how frivolous their conduct, and how useless their lives would appear to be!-how unworthy of rational creatures, to say nothing of man's higher destinies! But when the great object of morning and noon and nightly whist is the eagerness for unearned pelf—the avidity for another man's money, this sort of "recreation" is no longer frivolous-it is wicked. Can the fairest play by which men make regularly one, two, or three, or more thousands a year, be otherwise described than as the genteel rapacity, with which, in "polished life," man preys on man? If the exposure which has now taken place, and which is carried on the wings of the Press from the metropolis to all parts of the empire, should have any effect in curing the vice, or, at least, moderating the rage for gambling in the higher classes, it would be well. If it should also have the effect of putting the professional gamblers out of all associations of gentlemen who are really anxious to preserve their respectability, it would be still better; and many a family would have cause to bless the day when the performers of those clubs drew up the curtain of their own mysteries, and exhibited themselves and their proceedings to the astonished public gaze, in the Court of King's Bench. Imprisonment for Debt-Exemption of Legislators.— THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, we are glad to perceive, at length appears to be really in earnest in proceeding with his Bill for the abolition of Imprisonment for Debt, and substituting for that mischievous, cruel, and impolitic practice, the more reasonable protection to the creditor, of rendering the property, -not the person of the debtor (except where absconding from the jurisdiction is meditated)—available in discharge or satisfaction of the debt. * * The most zealous opponent of the principle of the bill, on Wednesday night-indeed we may say, the only avowed opponent of its principle, for the opposition of others was to parts and not to the whole-was Mr. RICHARDS. Nor can we say that he was a persevering opponent, for his determination to throw it out-by moving that the SPEAKER leave the chair that day six months-lasted only during the debate, and evaporated when the question came to the vote; for he actually voted against his own motion. Thus his arguments against the measure, so far from converting anybody else, did not convert himself. * * * Mr. RICHARDS describes the proceedings in the Insolvent Court as something like a farce, producing on the whole, to creditors, about three farthings in the pound; and he says that debtors can get through that court and become free men again, after suffering about two months' imprisonment. Is not this, we ask, a strong argument against the side of the question which he advocates-in his speech, we mean, not by his cote? If Imprisonment for Debt, at present, is only a state of probation to a speedy discharge through the Insolvent Court, is not this another reason why such a mockery of protection to the creditor should be abolished? It is, indeed, a very strong argument for abolishing Imprisonment for Debt altogether, unless Mr. RICHARDS be prepared to revive the law of Imprisonment for Debt in all its unmitigated severity, before either the "Lords' Act" was passed, or the Insolvent Court established. Would Mr. RICHARDS dare to make such a proposition? Would any man in parliament dare to do it? Again, as to the three farthings sterling, squeezed out of debtors at present in passing through the Insolvent Court, what does that prove? Does it not prove either the great poverty of the persons in general imprisoned by the law, or that the law, as it stands, is not effectual to reach their property? If the former, why should they be imprisoned at all? If the latter, why should not the law be altered? We offer Mr. RICHARDS the choice of either horn of this dilemma. Perhaps he will speak for the one, and vote for the other. Mr. RICHARDS speaks of the antiquity of the law of Imprisonment for Debt, as if it were coeval with our Constitution.— But the ancient common law of this country knew nothing of imprisonment for any civil injury (the mode of compelling a debtor to pay,) before the statute of 25th Edward III., cap. 17, which first enabled a capias to issue against the person in actions of debt and detinue. It is true, that by the statutes of Marlbridge, the 52d Henry III., cap. 23, and Westminster 2, 13th Edward I., cap. 11, a capias was allowed to take the person in actions of account. Those statutes passed in derogation of the milder and wiser policy of the common law, and were made by the great men or feudal lords in parliament, to compel their bailiffs to account, by throwing them into prison. The process previously of compelling a defendant, in actions for civil injury, to obey the KING's writ, was by summons, pledges, and distress; and if necessary, by" distress infinite." It was the wisdom of our ancient common law-and we wish our legislators in parliament knew a little more of it than they do—it was, we say, the wisdom of our ancient common law, to compel a man to make atonement for every species of civil injury, by process against his property-viz., his goods or chattels, and the profits of his lands; but, "if he had no substance, the law held him incapable of making satisfaction," as a great authority says, and therefore looked upon all further process as nugatory." Now we hold that this was wiser, more humane, and more politic than shutting a man up in prison, because he is unable to pay his debts, and so making a bad case worse. This was the spirit of our ancient law; so, if Mr. RICHARDS respects the wisdom of our ancestors, he will pay more reverence to the common law-which did not imprison the body of the debtorthan to the statute law, which does. There is one point connected with this subject-an "amendment" to the bill of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, rather than any part of the original bill, of which we decidedly disapprove. We allude to the amendment which is to cover, with the shield of privilege, members of parliament who defraud their creditors -a disgraceful privilege to the reformed parliament, we do not hesitate to say, and for resisting which, in the determined manner he did, Mr. JERVIS deserves great credit; as also do Sergeant WYLDE, Lord SANDON, Mr. ToOKE, Mr. M. PHILIPS, and Mr. AGLIONBY. While arrest for debt simply was allowed, we could hardly quarrel with the privilege; but when arrest for debt is done away with, except in cases where fraud is committed, or where there is an intention to abscond from the jurisdiction, why should members of parliament be privileged? All fraud is criminal; therefore it is that the Insolvent Court has the power to remand fraudulent debtors. Why, again, we ask, should a member of parliament be exempt from imprisonment for a criminal act? And if we understand the ATTORNEYGENERAL'S amendment, it has the effect of giving that exemption, or none. [The Bill" for Abolishing Arrest on Mesne Process in Civil Actions, (except in certain cases,)" eventually was passed Aug. 16, 1838.-See 1 and 2 Vict. cap. 110.-ED.] Capital Punishments-Mr. EwART's Motion.-May 22, 1837. OUR labours for the reform of the criminal-law, seem at length to be drawing towards an end. The division in the House of Commons, on Friday night [19th], upon Mr. EWART's motion, to limit the punishment of death to cases of actual murder, though nominally a defeat of the great principle for which we have contended, was such a defeat as affords us the consolatory assurance of future victory, and that at no distant time. It was one of the last vehement struggles of the barbarous system of legislation, against which the sentence of enlightened opinion has gone forth; but struggles of this sort, indicate less of the vigour of health, than the agony of approaching expiration. A majority of onet in support of the system, not merely of useless but brutalizing executions-which ministers wish to uphold-may with some confidence be said to announce the coming doom of the life-destroying vengeance, which had, too long, in this country usurped the name of justice. If Sir George SINCLAIR, the member for Caithness, and Mr. LYNCH, the member for Galway, who were both favourable to Mr. EWART's proposition, had not been shut out on the division, the majority of one would have been the other way. But, as it was, the expression of the real opinion of the house was in favour of the abolition proposed; for we find, on examining the list, that there were no fewer than fifteen placemen in the majority. Omitting those placemen, the [proposed] instruction of Mr. EWART to the committee, giving them the power to limit [+ Majority, tellers included, 77,-minority 76 one. ED.] |