by enhancing his general prices, so as to make the upright and prudent customer pay for the rogue or wasteful defaulter. Hence the cost of numerous articles made and sold in England above all calculations of reasonable profit, if bad debts were not to be invariably taken in as an important item the estimate.

Now, tradespeople cannot expect to be aided by the Legislature in bolstering up a mistaken and demoralizing system of this description. If they will persist in carrying on their business in defiance of precept and experience, they cannot expect help or commiseration. If they will make hazardous bargains-if to get rich faster, or realize larger profits than their neighbours, they will persist in dealing with questionable customers, they ought in reason to bear the risk and loss of the speculative ventures into which they have voluntarily entered. The extent to which credit is carried in London is astonishing. From the inquiries of a Parliamentary Committee some years since it appeared, hatters and shoemakers had often £4,000 and upwards on their books in debts below £10, and that five-sixths of their book-debts were below that sum. Half of these debts were probably lost, and, as all these traders did not go into the Gazette, the loss was doubtless averaged, and the good customer made to pay for the bad one!

These are no new sentiments of ours; we have long tried to impress them on public attention, and upwards of fifteen years since urged upon Parliament the policy of narrowing the facili ties for the recovering of debts under £20.*

Courts of Requests we hold to be little better than public nuisances; productive of fees to officers, but promotive of bad usages in trade and bad habits in individuals. Increasing the facilities for the recovery of small debts multiplies their number, and encourages credit transactions among classes where it is hurtful, and where there is no pretext of commercial utility for its existence.

It appears that previously to the recent gaol delivery under the 7th and 8th Victoria, c. 96, upwards of one-third of the debtors in the prisons of the metropolis were there for debts under £20; most of them had been contracted by mechanics and labourers, clerks, curates, half-pay officers, small annuitants, and others, with the butcher, baker, publican, coal-merchant, greengrocer, hatter, tailor, dressmaker, and shoemaker, and who, having a weekly or other periodical income, depending on no contingency, ought not to have been allowed to fall into arrear. It is obvious that the temptation to incur debts by such people is very great;

* Treatise on the Police and Crimes of the Metropolis, p. 130. Longman, 1829,

that a too ready facility for sending to the shopkeepers for anything you want, or fancy you want, without the trouble of drawing your purse tends to lavishness, and the incurring of pecuniary obligations that cannot afterwards be easily liquidated. It is a privilege that is sure to be abused, to the detriment of both seller and buyer, and will not be refrained from unless firmly resisted by retailers, who, as they could not singly adopt this course, the Legislature has endeavoured to compel them to act simultaneously, by withholding from them the power of imprisoning defaulters. It was the only resource for bringing credit within wholesome limits, of compelling dealers carefully to discriminate among their customers, and exclude from their books those whom they knew, from the fixed nature of their incomes, that if they did not pay, according to the proverb, 'upon the peck-bottom,' would have no additional means of paying an accumulating account. Buyers equally with sellers will be ultimately benefited by the new system, when generally in vogue, by making them more economical in their expenditure, and compelling them to live within their means. It will have the further benefit of emancipating many persons from a degrading vassalage to which they have heretofore been subjected by retailers, with whom, from having incautiously got into their books, they were obliged to continue to deal, whatever might be the price or quality of their goods.

Our wish, however, is to avoid extremes; we are sensible that credit cannot, and ought not within certain limits and to certain classes, to be dispensed with, and all we aim at is to bring it under prudent restraint. Transactions on trust in commerce and monetary transfers of various kinds among merchants and brokers are unavoidable; expediting business and economising the use of money to an extraordinary degree. Credit is even useful in the hourly dealings and shopping of private life. We will take for instance a family of the middle class. In a house of this rank articles are in constant request from the grocer, butcher, baker, pastrycook, or oilman. You may go yourself to the shopkeeper, select your article, see it weighed or measured, and pay for it immediately, and this would be doubtless the safest mode of dealing for both sides; but this course, in a vast majority of cases, is impossible; it takes time and may be personally disagreeable or unsuitable to other avocations Instead, you may send the servant and give her money to pay for what you want; but this places you at her mercy, and the servant herself in a position of temptation. Having the money, she can, unknown to you, deal with what tradesman she likes, or may cheat you in the quantity, quality,

or price of the article bought. To avoid this you send her with an order in lieu of the money; it reduces the evil one-half, for, instead of being at the mercy of both tradesman and servant, and liable to be mulcted by both, you are now only at the mercy of the seller, who in booking your order may book too much or too high a price. The last is doubtless the best mode, for besides, its other advantages, it obviates the constant trouble of putting your hand in your pocket, receiving change, and settling almost every minute some petty household transaction. But it is the abuse of the practice of booking, of giving credit to improper persons, or for too long a period, that is objectionable and pernicious.

Housekeepers in London usually receive the butcher, baker, and greengrocer's bills weekly; the bills of the publican, vintner, dairyman, and coal-merchant, tailor and bootmaker, needlewoman, and general practitioner, are more uncertain in their appearance: but when delivered they are not always paid; they are brought forward,' and 'carried over' for weeks and months and years. Perhaps, part is paid on account, and there is no final settlement till the occurrence of a death, dissolution of partnership, or a bankruptcy. The custom is bad; bad for the buyers, and bad for the sellers; shorter reckonings are indispensable for their mutual benefit. With people of property and character no losses may accrue from such interminable scores, though with them the practice is pernicious; but how is it with others, the poorer classes, labourers and mechanics, clerks, shopmen, unbeneficed clergy, and the half-pay, who, if they do not pay as regularly as they receive their incomes, cannot pay at all. For tradespeople to give long credit to people of this class is to ruin both themselves and customers, and the Legislature, in withdrawing encouragement from this vicious course of mutual destruction, has evinced both humanity and wisdom.

Besides these, there are others with whom retailers are often culpably negligent in their dealings. With bonâ fide housekeepers they have some security; their origin, occupation, and incomes are known or ascertainable. If they are living beyond their means, or becoming straitened, the facts are easily discernible; the tradesman's own books will indicate, or another source of intelligence is open. When people get behind, it is mostly first with their rates and taxes, and whether they keep up the payment of these, the annually published list of burgesses attests. If their name disappear there, of course they are falling in arrear, and this may be known at the church door, or the list inspected at all seasonable hours at the overseer's, or it may be bought for one shilling, and then kept for reference

to ascertain the paying capabilities or inclinations of every tenpounder in the borough. With such means of verification and open sources of information, what further protection can they need, beyond an increase of common prudence and watchfulness? The housekeeper is a palpable and tangible object; for any debt, however small in amount, his goods and furniture may be seized; or, if the debt exceed £20, then either person. or goods may be taken in execution. But the case is different with lodgers, and those who live in hotels and ready furnished apartments. These enjoy certain immunities in the way of fraud and imposition in the absence of a fixed local habitation. But why are such persons trusted without inquiry? Why are jewellers, upholsterers, and others, despite of knowledge and experience, imposed upon by plausible manners and appearances? Hotel-keepers and lodging-housekeepers ought to be acquainted with the characters of their inmates, and, if business must be done, if credit must be given to occasional residents, why not to their landlords or under their guarantee?

In short, we think the channels of information open to tradespeople for ascertaining the pecuniary resources of their customers are abundantly sufficient to protect them from undeserved losses; but they cannot expect legislation to step in and manage their business for them, and by a series of oppressive, and often abortive enactments, supersede the exercise of common prudence. It is said, why should poor laundresses, tailors, shoemakers, or newsmen be robbed of their hard earnings by a swaggering blade who lives in furnished lodgings, wears fine clothes, and dashes about in his cabriolet? Why, indeed, we repeat? But why do they trust such unknown and homeless scapegraces? Why do not they carry in their bill at the week's end, or at the completion of the job, and if not paid, why so heedless as to continue or repeat their services? Against the housekeeper they have a certain remedy, and, if longer credit be given to lodgers, why not to him who ought to know something of the inmates he harbours, and who ought, if trusted, to become responsible for them. Is it not idle, is it not unreasonable to ask the Legislature to lay prostrate a great constitutional security, the right of every man to personal liberty, to meet an exigency so easily guarded against. And for what, and for whom, is everyone's rights to be invaded and jeopardized? To compensate for culpable negligence in trusting a few locomotive outcasts, whom nobody in their senses would trust or have dealings with except on the 'peck bottom.

It is often falsely or unthinkingly said that the law is powerless for the recovery of debts; that a person had better

lose his money at once than go to law for its recovery, unless it be a considerable sum. This requires explanation, if not correction. Against the floating gentry just described the DEBTOR LAWS may be said to be impotent, and, whoever trusts them, it is at their own peril. It is also impotent for the recovery of debts not exceeding £20 from fixed residents, provided there is no visible substance, no property that an execution will reach. But against all other persons, against all housekeepers, and against all persons of every description possessing tangible property, much or little, the law is sharp, prompt, searching, and relentless in its gripe. Against the person it has been relaxed; but against the effects it has been screwed up, as already shown to a pitch of unprecedented rigour. The power of a creditor to pay himself has been increased, but the power to indulge his bad passions has been curtailed.

We will explain, and for this purpose take the situation of a London housekeeper. How can such a person avoid the payment of his debts? For any sum owing, from a penny to five pounds, there is a cheap and ready process to be had against him. If his washerwoman's bill, jobbing gardener's bill, or milk score is long; or if he owe his servant a month's or quarter's wages, a summons may be taken out against him for a shilling in any of the numerous Courts of Requests, situated in every district of the metropolis. In a fortnight or so he may have an execution in his house. Suppose the debt exceeds five pounds, that it ranges between that sum and £100, the Palace or Marshalsea Court is open the year through, whose jurisdiction extends twelve miles round Whitehall. Any of these are speedy and cheap resources. In the Request Courts a suit may be commenced and ended in about ten or twelve days, and the costs not exceed nine or ten shillings. In the Palace Court a suit may be begun and concluded in a month or five weeks, and the costs amount to eight or ten pounds, and for which the debtor is liable. Against these remedies it may be urged, that these are all local courts; that a debtor in Southwark may move into the City; if followed there, he may shift into Westminster; or, if apprehensive of a Marshalsea writ, he may steam down to Gravesend or Margate. He may, he may play off any of these moves, but he cannot take his house on his back; his chattels are liable to be seized and sold. suppose he is not a housekeeper, that he is a lodger only, holding a situation in the Bank, the India-house, Somerset-house, the Customs, or the Treasury,-how can he escape his creditor? If his debt exceed £20, he may at once be shut up in Whitecross Street or the Queen's Prison, and he cannot well avoid this, for,

Or