Both in Greece (Pint. Vita Solonis 15) and in Rome (A. Gel]. xx. 1, 19; Liv. ii. 23) the creditor had a claim to the person of the debtor. Previous to the time of.Solon, this arrangement had produced consequences at Athens closely analogous to those which afterwards led to the struggles between the patricians and plebeians at Rome; and his abolition of it forms one of Solon's many claims to the character of an enlightened legislator. By the Twelve Tables, it was enacted at Rome that if the debtor admitted the debt, or had had judgment pronounced against him for it, thirty days should be allowed him for payment. At the expiration of that period, lie was liable to he given into the hands of his creditor, who kept him sixty days in chains, exposing him from time to time publicly, and proclaiming his debt. If no one stepped in to release him, the debtor at the end of that time might be sold for a slave, or put to death. If there were several creditors, the letter of the law permitted them to cut their debtor in pieces, sharing him in proportion to their claims; but Gellius tells us that no Shylock ever was found at Rome. To treat him as a slave, however, and make him work out the debt, was the common practice; and the children in his power, in accordance with the whole constitution of society at Rome, followed his condition. The lex netelia (326 me.) alleviated the condition of the debtors (next) to the extent, at least, of preventing summary imprisonment, and relieving all debtors, for the future, from being put in chains. There do not seem to have been any public prisons for debtors at Rome, and each creditor, consequently, was the jailer o his own debtor. In this circum stance we probably see the reason of the prominence which was given by the plebeians to a change in the laws of debtor and creditor, on the occasion of their first seces sion, in 494 B.c.; and subsequently during the whole course of the struggles between the two orders. Whatever we may think of the policy of limiting the rate of interest, as was afterwards done by the laws of Licinius, and had previously been done by those of Solon at Athens, there can be but one opinion in modern times as to the propriety of abolishing the right of private imprisonment.
During the feudal period, the person in general was not attachable for debt, imprisonment being inconsistent with the duties of warlike service, to which every man was bound; and it was for the encouragement of commerce, and in consideration of the merchant having to deal with strangers and foreigners, that it was first introduced by the mercantile communities of Europe (Bell's Commentaries, Shaw's ed. ii. p. 1067). By the statute of merchants, it was enacted, at Acton Burnel, in 1282, that in lending money, a merchant •might bring the borrower before the lord mayor of London, or the chief warden of another good town, and cause him to acknowledge his debt and day of pay ment. A recognizance was then enrolled, and an obligation written by the clerk, and sealed with the king's seal and the debtor's. Failing payment, the creditor was entitled to produce this obligation, and to demand a warrant to seize the person of his debtor, and to commit him to the Tower. The history of the law of imprisonment for debt in this country is stated with great clearness by Mr. Bell in the section of his Commentaries to which we have just referred, but it is impossible to condense it within time limits of the present article. Further information on the subject will be found under Impaisoli NEXT, DILIGENCE, EXECUTION, SANCTUARY, INSOLVENCY, etc. Generally, it may be stated here, that up to the passing of the later bankrupt acts, the prisons of•this country were crowded with debtors. It was ascertained by parliamentary returns, that in the 18 mouths subsequent to the commercial panic of 1825, 101,000 writs for debt were issued from the English courts. In the year ending 5th Jan., 1830. there were 7,114 debtors sent to prison in London, and on that day 1545 of these were still in confinement. The returns for 1870, which do not distinguish between debtors and other civil prisoners, are as follows: The number of debtors and others under civil process in prison was for England and Wales, 8,804; Ireland, 694; Scotland, 727. See DEBTS, RECOVERY OF.