sion found the Temple in a condition al- | having been written by a contemporary. together ruinous, and that this state was Let us think what that return actually owing in part to a work of deliberate was, the poor remnant of 42,360 who destruction at the hands of the kings of represented what had been a great naJudah (2 Chron. 34: 10, 11), may well tion, their struggle with difficulties, dismake it probable that he actually saw, in union, want of means (Haggai 1: 6, 11), part at least, what he here describes. the opposition of kings and princes (Ezra 4: 4, 5), the joy and praise mingling with weeping and lamentations (Ezra 3: 13), and we shall hardly think it likely that one who had that before him would have spoken so rapturously as this writer does. "Break forth into joy, Sing together, ye waste places of Jerusa- For the Lord hath comforted his people, And all the ends of the world have seen the salvation of our God."-52: 9, 10. No! here as elsewhere, the prophet, seeing what was far off, was led to see things in brighter colors and in nobler forms than they actually appeared in when the time of their historical fulfilment came. Like other prophets, he was We may ask, on the other hand, at what period towards the close of the Captivity would the mind of a later writer have turned to so disastrous a marriage, and so ill-omened a name as that of Heph zibah, as suggestive of hope and gladness? What is there in the books that do tell us of the return of the exiles after Cyrus had appeared, to lead us to think of them as presenting in strange combination, the formal hypocrisy of a surface religion and a wild craving after all forms of magical idolatry? Was Moloch worship with its infant sacrifices a pressing danger then? Was it likely at a time when the rigor of the teachers and leaders of the people was setting them against any tolerance of mixed marriages (Ezra 10: 2), or the presence among them of men of other races (Ezra 4: 3), that any unknown writer would have spoken as this writer speaks, of the wel-"a man of desires." There came before come to be given to the "sons of the stranger?" Why at such a time, when deliverance was close at hand, should he have thought that the "righteous was taken away from the evil to come," and not rather have mourned for him as cut off from his share in the restoration ? Had there been such a man so full of divine insight, so capable of guiding and teaching, after Cyrus had taken Babylon, is it likely that there would have been no record of his works in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, not even in Jewish tradition? Would it have been left to Haggai and Zechariah to strengthen and stir up the people? Would such a writer, assuming his existence, have been likely to come under the same influences, to reproduce the thoughts of the same prophet, to present the same images, allusions, plays upon words and names, as the historical Isaiah. Lastly, we may add that the very glory and beauty of the language which speaks of the return is against the notion of its his mind the vision of a Jerusalem, a city of peace, beautiful and heavenly, which no earthly Jerusalem ever did or ever can realize. The yearning of his soul was to be satisfied elsewhere. He looked for "a city that hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God." On these grounds, therefore, I submit to the judgment of such students of Scripture as may care to look into them, that the hypothesis of a deutero-Isaiah, the charge of supposititious authorship, which has found favor with so many eminent critics, must be dismissed as not proven, as involving those who accept it in a labyrinth of difficulties and contradictions, as robbing one of the noblest books of the Old Testament of half its life and power. To separate that book from the old age of Isaiah is hardly less. perilous a venture than that which separates the Pastoral Epistles from the old age of St. Paul, or the Second Epistle which bears his name from the old age of St. Peter. Temple Bar. HISTORY OF DEBTORS' LAWS. Si non habet in ære, luat in corpore if he cannot pay with money, let him pay with his person. So ran the old Roman law, the spirit of which still pervades the legislation of our own country in these our own times. Virtually the British creditor still exclaims, in the words of Shylock, "The pound of flesh, which I demand of him, Is dearly bought, is mine, and I will have it." It is true no usurer of the present day can put in force that charming enactment by which, according to the laws of the Twelve Tables, an insolvent debtor who happened to have several creditors might be literally cut to pieces, and a portion of his quivering carcass be given to each in proportion to his claim. There was a clause, however, which Shylock would have done well to have studied, for it expressly held the creditors harmless if they cut off somewhat more or less than they were strictly entitled to take: At si pluribus addictus sit, tertiis nundinis partes secanto; si plus minusve secuerunt, sine fraude esto. We are told, indeed, that there is nothing on record to show that this barbarous law was ever enforced, but neither is there any proof to the contrary; while the mere fact of its having been passed lends probability to the suspicion that it was also at times carried into force. The fate of poor debtors among the ancient Romans was particularly hard and pitiable. There was no public debtors'-jail: the creditor was likewise the jailer. Under the Empire the rich money-lenders had prisons within their own houses, in which they kept their adjudicated debtors at hard labor -thus turning their imprisonment to some account, and so far depriving it of the appearance of a malicious revenge. There seems to have been a summary process for the recovery of debt. A debtor who refused or neglected to pay his creditor was summoned to appear in court, when, if he failed to justify his conduct, he was enjoined to satisfy the plaintiff within a period of thirty days. At the expiration of that term the creditor was empowered to lay hands upon him and take him, if necessary by main force, before the judge. If he then failed either, to produce the money or to find sureties for its payment, he was delivered over to his creditor, who kept him in chains for sixty days-exposing him to the public gaze on three successive market-days. When that term had also expired, the creditor was entitled to seize upon the property of his debtor up to the full amount of his claim; and if it proved insufficient, he could then either sell his victim into slavery, or put him to death. For the recovery of interest the property of the debtor was alone, strictly speaking, answerable; but by means of a legal fiction -known as nexum, or nexi obligatiomoney-lenders contrived to include the interest in the original debt, so that the borrower became liable in his person for both principal and interest. A law passed about the year 325 A.U.C. abolished the nexum; and another law gave a debtor his freedom on the surrender of all his goods and chattels, provided his debts had not been incurred through fraud or false pretence; but for all that the creditor was to the very last unduly favored, and even stimulated by self-interest to act harshly and tyrannically towards his debtor. Previous to the time of Solon, the Athenians were quite as severe as the less-polished Romans. All debtors who were unable to meet their engagements became the bondsmen of their creditors, together with their unmarried daughters, their sisters, and their sons under age. The poor man, as Mr. Grote observes, literally borrowed upon the security of his body, and upon that of the persons of his family. In many cases debtors were not only deprived of their liberty, but sold to foreign slave-dealers and sent across the seas, while others only preserved their own freedom by bartering that of their children. This degraded and distressing state of society was remedied by a general act of repudiation, so far as the lower classes were concerned, and by a depreciation of the currency for the benefit of solvent but embarrassed debtors. All contracts based upon the security of the borrower's person or lands were at once cancelled and entirely prohibited for the future. No free citizen of Athens could from that time be enslaved, imprisoned, or arrested for debt. The only redress was by means of a legal judgment, which placed the debtor's property at the disposal of his creditor to the full extent of the liability of the former. One good result of the abolition of imprisonment for debt was, that the poor were prevented from thus involving themselves, as no one could be found to lend to them. Habits of thrift and industry were thus compulsorily acquired, in lieu of the reckless and gambling proneness to stake their own and their children's liberty upon the chance of a speculation, or for the gratification of an extravagant fancy. According to Herodotus, the ancient Egyptians entertained peculiar notions on the subject of loans. Every man who had occasion to borrow money was required to pledge the embalmed body of his father; and until this was redeemed, he was incapacitated from performing the funeral rites of any of his own children; and in the event of his death, his own body was denied burial. This singular custom must have proved particularly inconvenient to those whose fathers were still alive; but possibly they contrived to elude the letter of the law by giving a post-obit bond to surrender the body of their respected parent as soon as it should be in a fitting condition to be received in pawn. seventh year a sort of jail-delivery took place, and debtors and bondsmen, being of the children of Israel, recovered their freedom and were cleared of all liabili ties. Every man returned to his hereditary patrimony, and started afresh in the great struggle for existence. But the mild ordinances of Moses were not in all times treated with inviolable respect. At the date of the second building of the Temple, Nehemiah was called upon to rebuke the nobles and the rulers, and to charge them with exacting usury every man of his brother. The evil must have risen to a great height; for the people complained that they had been obliged not only to mortgage their lands, vineyards, and houses, that they might buy corn and pay the king's tribute, but also to bring into bondage their sons and their daughters. On this occasion Nehemiah acted much in the same manner as Solon under nearly similar circumstances, and prevailed upon the rich to restore to the poor their houses and lands, and likewise one per cent. of the corn, wine, oil, and money they had exacted of them in their necessity. Usury is likewise forbidden in the Koran. "Whatever ye put out at usury," said the Prophet, "to increase it with the substance of others, shall have no increase from God." Neither is it permitted by the Mohammedan Law to confine in prison for more than a few months any but a fraudulent debtor, or one who, having the power to discharge his obligations, yet refuses to do so. The custom is to summons a long winded debtor before the kazee, when, if he ac It was clearly, therefore, not from the Egyptians that Moses borrowed his debtor-and-creditor laws. The absurd prohibition of usury or increase, however kindly intended, must have seriously interfered with internal trade as well as with foreign commerce. This prejudice, however, was not confined to the Hebrews. The philosophers of Greece were never weary of denouncing the ex-knowledge his debt, a brief delay is acaction of interest, while even such a sagacious thinker as Aristotle deemed it not unworthy of his intellect to enunciate an idle conceit, to the effect that, money being naturally barren, it must be necessarily contrary to nature to expect offspring from it. Moses, however, knew the people well for whom he had to legislate, and accordingly threw the protection of the divine law round the poor and the friendless. For only six consecutive years could a Hebrew be held in bondage, and even then only in the capacity of a hired servant; but as nothing is said about the wages he was to receive, this stipulation is not likely to have stood him in much stead. Every corded, within which he is bound to satisfy his creditor. Should he, however, set up an unjust defence, he is at once sent off to jail for a period varying from two to six months, at the discretion of the kazee. The imprisonment in all cases terminates with the voluntary surrender of property, as it does also on the debtor taking a solemn oath that he is not possessed of any effects whatsoever. It is not in the kazee's power to compel a prisoner to give up his goods and chattels; but it is to seize upon any money that belongs to him, and to distribute it among his creditors. In Richardson's translation of the Damathat we read that in the olden time, if a Hindoo debtor was unable to find either money or security, he was liable to be sold into bondage, together with his wife and children, and even his grandchildren if living under the same roof with himself. He could demand, however, that a certain fair valuation should be placed upon himself and family, at which they should be redeemable by his relatives. In like manner, a price could be set upon any landed property he might possess; but the power of redemption did not extend to cattle, horses, elephants, or other live or dead stock. Whoso denied a just debt was not only fined, but sentenced to receive in open court from five to fifty cuts with a rattan in the presence of his wife and family. And whoso was in the habit of repudiating his obligations was separated from his kinsfolk, and morally and civilly degraded. A troublesome debtor could also be placed in the stocks and publicly exposed; but a debt was held to be cancelled as soon as interest had been paid to double the amount of the original claim. A borrower of copper or iron was liable to pay cent. per cent., if the loan were not returned within twelve months-and so also with grain; but the latter had to be repaid fourfold, if two years were allowed to expire. Poor creditors sometimes practiced a peculiar mode of distressing rich but dilatory debtors. They would sit dhurna at their door or gate until some arrangement or instalment was extorted by their importunity. From early dawn till after sunset the poor wretch would remain without a morsel of food or a drop of water, or the slightest shelter from the pouring deluge or the scorching sun. Should death supervene, it was believed that the spirit of the deceased would forever haunt and molest the stony-hearted debtor, who had done him to death. Under the British government this practice has long since been declared illegal, and can be proceeded against as an annoyance and a nuisance. The ancient Germans, if we may credit the somewhat fanciful picture of their manners and usages sketched by the master-hand of Tacitus, never dreamed of deriving a profit from the necessities of their neighbors. As loans were unknown among them, they had no need to legislate for the recovery of debt, or for the punishment of debtors. They freely and with pleasure gave presents to one another, but never fancied for a moment that the recipient was thereby laid under any obligation to the donor. It might be more correct, perhaps, to say that in the absence of a circulating medium their trade was confined to a rude system of barter, and that debts were unknown because there was no one in a position to give any credit. It was not so, however, with the Gauls in Casar's time, who had no scruples about either running into debt, or selling their debtors into captivity. The Chinese, as we learn from Sir John Davis, practice a much more sensible variety of dhurna than that formerly in vogue among the Hindoos. Instead of starving themselves to death, and broiling in the sun, or shivering in the rain, creditors simply quarter themselves and their families upon their debtors, and in doing so are forbidden to make any noise or uproar. A very obstinate debtor, who will take no trouble to get clear of his liabilities, is subjected, after a reasonable delay, to the discipline of the bamboo. No claim can be enforced for interest to a greater amount than that of the original debt, on the not very logical principle that "the offspring must not be greater than the mother." Sir George Staunton tells us that no man can be imprisoned for debt for any great length of time; but, on the other hand, if a debtor, even after surrendering the whole of his property, is still unable to meet his obligations, he may be compelled to wear a yoke round his neck in public, in the hope that his friends and relatives may take pity upon him, and make up the balance, to save him from such terrible disgrace. Whoso incurs debt by gambling, or other immoral conduct, is subjected to corporal punishment and banished into Tartary. Whoso owes money to the crown, or would aid a father in distress, or is otherwise unable to bury a deceased parent, is permitted to sell himself and children as slaves-recovering his own and his family's freedom by good conduct through twenty years of servitude. The Emperor's debtors, if they have been guilty of any species of fraud, are strangled; but if their embarrassments arise from misfortune or acci sence of any movable property, the debtor's "body shall be taken where it may be found, and kept in prison until he have made agreement, or his friends for him; and if he have not wherewith he may sustain himself in prison, the creditor shall find him bread and wine, to the end that he die not in prison for default of sustenance, the which costs the debtor shall recompense him with his debt before that he be let out of prison.' Two years afterwards, in A.D. 1285, this statute was further confirmed, but with certain modifications. It was now enacted that any time within three months after his imprisonment, the debtor should be at liberty to dispose of his lands, tenements, and goods, so as to satisfy his creditor; but if he neglected to do so, the latter was then empowered to enter into possession "until such time as the debt is wholly levied; and nevertheless the body shall remain in prison as before is said; and the merchant shall find him bread and water." dent, their wives, children, and property are put up to auction, and themselves deported across the border into Tartary. Our Saxon ancestors appear to have entertained as crude notions on commercial matters as did their German brethren, according to Tacitus. No traffic of any kind was permitted, except in the presence of witnesses, four of whom were required by the laws of Canute for any purchase exceeding in value the sum of fourpence. A creditor, moreover, was required to make three demands for payment in the court of his hundred, before he could even apply to the shiregemot, or county court, to fix final date for the payment of his claim; on the expiration of which he became at last entitled to levy a distress on his debtor's property. But previous to the Conquest no Englishman, though he were a bondsman, could be thrown into prison; and under the first three Norman kings, not even a criminal could be imprisoned until convicted by the verdict of twelve men. It was not until the statute of Marlebridge, 52 Hen. III. cap. 25, that any Englishman could be confined on a civil action, and only then on an implication of fraud. The statute in question, commonly called "A remedy against accomptants," was especially directed against bailiffs and persons in trust, who absconded without rendering a satisfactory account of their stewardship, and without leaving sufficient property to cover their defalcations. This measure was somewhat enlarged by the "Remedy against Servants," enacted 13 Edward I.; but in both cases fraud and poverty were implied. In the eleventh year, however, of the reign of the last-ment for debt was contrary to the comnamed monarch, the Parliament of Acton Burnell registered the celebrated "Statute of merchants," by which a staple merchant was empowered to bring his refractory debtor before the mayor of the town, and compel him to put his seal to a Bill Obligatory, payable at a certain date. If this bond were not taken up when due, the creditor could again appeal to the mayor, who would incontinently cause the movables of the debtor to be offered for sale to the amount of his liability; and if no buyers presented themselves, his goods were to be delivered to the creditor at a fair valuation. And in the ab Already a falling-off is perceptible in the treatment of the poor prisoners, whose supply of wine is thus commuted for water. But it was not until 25 Edward III. cap. 17, that the process for debt was assimilated to that used in writs of accompt, and that indebtedness came to be regarded as a punishable offence. And yet, in the thirtieth or thirty-first year of Queen Elizabeth, one George Ögnell instituted an action against Clement Paston, sheriff of Norfolk, for permitting the escape of two debtors intrusted to his custody, when the defendant pleaded that imprison mon law of the land. This plea was held valid by Sir Roger Manwood and the other judges, who ruled "that the awarding of the capias ad satisfaciendum was erroneous, for by the law the bodies of the recognizors were not liable to the execution." This case was more than once cited in after times by impris oned debtors petitioning for relief, as a proof of the illegality of their detention in confinement; but it does not seem to have been viewed with much respect by the bench.. These unhappy beings had only too much reason to complain, even assuming the justice and expediency of punishing poverty and |