« PreviousContinue »
D E B T
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND OPPRESSIVE,
PROVED FROM THE
RIGHTS OF NATURE.
By EDWARD FARLEY, Esq.
“ The Body of the Debtor shall always be free, that he
“ may ferve the King in his wars, cultivate the ground,
AND SOLD BY T. HOOK HAM, NEW BOND-STREET, AND ALL
OTHER BOOKSELLERS IN TOWN AND COUNTRY.
he great national evil of Imprisonment for Debt still continuing, carrying with it all those destructive consequences, which have already been pointed out in both Houses of Parliament, and which, at this time in particular, from the peculiar distresses of the middling and lower ranks of people, is now more felt, than when the kingdom was in a state of prosperity, calls aloud for the exertion of every independent mind to restore the conftitution to its original purity, to reconcile the interests of the Creditor with the perfonal liberty of the Debtor, and to give the blessings of a free conftitution equally alike to all the subjects of the British empire; that the man, whose personal labor tends to the support of government and the maintenance of his family, may be considered as
sacred as the personal liberty of the Peer or Commoner, whose duty it is to preserve inviolate our excellent constitution. Any attempt therefore to call forth the attention of the public to the importance of the subject, will, I flatter myself, be deemed useful; and my past endeavors, though they have not had the success I could have wished, have nevertheless had that fanction and approbation given them, that encourages me to perfevere, in hopes, like Mr. Wilkes in the case of General Warrants, I may see that power annihilated, which is contrary to those laws handed down to us by our glorious ancestors, and which it is our duty to leave uncorrupted to our posterity. Amongst other encouraging instances, the sentiments of Mr. Sawbridge, conveyed to me in the following letter, demand my particular thanks, and, as they are the honest ideas of an upright senator, deserve to be recorded.
Olantigh, Aug. 29, 1785. “ I HAVE long been convinced, that Impri« fonment for Debt was not only contrary to the