2 June 1807

Letter V

III. Proper Remedies

II

In the case of the insolvent knave, if so it has happened, as in fact so it has happened, that Judge and C o have pursued that line of policy which in their position their interest and end in view prescribe, on the part of the legislator, the counter policy, which in the case of the solvent knave we have seen effectual, will not be so now. In the case of the solvent knave, suffering the judgment to receive a provisional execution as if no appeal had been presented was sufficient. But in the case of the insolvent knave supposing no sufficient preventive measures to have been taken at an antecedent period, before the time came for appeal, the property, if in his possession, will of course have been purloined or dissipated.

What then are these preventive measures? By knowing them, we shall know at once the policy naturally pursued, the policy actually pursued, by Judge and C o, the counter-policy proper to be pursued by the legislator. The policy of Judge and C o will consist in avoiding to take these preventive measures: the policy of the legislator will consist in forcing the Judge to take them.

So obvious are these remedies, that were it not for their having been put out of sight by the sham remedies that have been made to take their place, a man might be ashamed to mention them.

At the instance of the plaintiff, he affirming (under the same security against mendacity and temerarious falshood as is exacted in the case of an extraneous witness) not merely the subject, ground and supposed amount of his demand, but his persuasion that by reason of the apprehended insolvency, or meditated non-forthcomingness of the defendant this extraordinary remedy is necessary, take order for the arrestation of his person - to be conducted forthwith not to a Jail, or a Sponging-House, but for immediate examination into the presence of the Judge.