_Letters of Horning_ (Vol. ii., p. 393.).--Letters of Horning, in the law
of Scotland, are writs issuing under the signet of the sovereign (used in
the Supreme Court, or Court of Session, for signifying the sovereign's
assent to writs issuing from that court) obtained by creditors, commanding
messengers at arms
"To charge the debtor to pay or perform his obligation within a day
certain." ... "If payment be not made within the days mentioned in the
horning, the messsenger, after proclaiming three oyesses at the
marketcross of the head borough of the debtor's domicil, and reading
the letters there, blows three blasts with a horn, by which the debtor
is understood to be proclaimed rebel to the king for contempt of his
authority."
§ 26. "Denunciation, if registered 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 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.