d within fifteen days, either in the
sheriff's books or in the general register, drew after it the rebel's
single cheat, i.e. forfeiture of his moveables to the crown. So severe
a penalty, with the character of rebel affixed to denunciation on civil
debts, was probably owing to this; that anciently letters of horning
were not granted but to enforce the performance of facts within one's
own power, and when afterwards [in 1584] they came to be issued on
liquid debts, the legislature neglected to soften the penalty. Insomuch
that those who were denounced rebels, even for a civil cause, might be
put to death with impunity till 1612. Persons denounced rebels have not
a _persona standi ne judicio_. They can neither sue nor defend in any
action."

I have preferred, to any explanation of my own, to make the preceding
extracts from Erskine's _Principles of the law of Scotland_, Book ii.,
Title 5., Sections 24, 25, 26.,--a standard institutional work of the
highest authority.

For those who are disinclined to examine the subject too gravely, I must
refer to another authority equally worthy of credit, viz. Sir Walter
Scott's _Antiquary_, where, in Chapter xviii.,

"Full of wise saws and modern instances."

the subject of imprisonment for debt in Scotland is discussed most ably by
Jonathan Oldbuck, Esq., of Monkbarns, who proves to his nephew, Captain
McIntyre, that in that happy country no man can be legally imprisoned _for
debt_. He says,--

"You suppose now a man's committed to prison because he cannot pay his
debts? Quite otherwise; the truth is, the king is so good as to
interfere at the request of the creditor, and to send the debtor his
royal command to do him justice within a certain time; fifteen days, or
six, as the case may be. Well, the man resists, and disobeys; what
follows? Why, that he be lawfully and rightfully declared a rebel to
our gracious sovereign, whose command he has disobeyed, and that by
three blasts of a horn, at the market-place of Edinburgh, the
metropolis of Scotland. And he is then legally imprisoned, not on
account of any civil debt, but because of his ungrateful contempt of
the royal mandate."

I have only quoted what was absolutely necessary to answer the Query; but
there is much more to be found on the subject in the same place.

I cannot suppose that there is any one of your readers so illiterate a