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 as not to have read the Antiquary, {450} there are few memories which are not the better for being from time to time refreshed.  My own is not of the best, which is sometimes disadvantageous to me, but not in a case like this.  I have frequently read over the Antiquary, again and again, and have always derived much pleasure and amusement from so doing, and that pleasure I hope still again to enjoy.

J. S——­s.

Dr. Euseby Cleaver (Vol. ii., p. 297.).—­Your correspondent H. COTTON, Thurles, Ireland, is mistaken with reward to Dr. Euseby Cleaver.  He was never Bishop of Cork and Ross.  He was Bishop of Ferns and Leighlin, and translated thence to the archbishopric of Dublin about the year 1805.  No doubt the transaction will be found in the Registry of Ferns, but I do not know the date of his consecration.