M. Maxime de Gorostarzu, a French advocate, Counsel to the French Consulate-General, supplied the Select Committee with certain information on the French law. To take an extract from the report, “Witness states that imprisonment for debt in civil matters is not possible in France, debts for goods supplied being only recoverable by execution, nor does witness think its want is felt.” Imprisonment for debt was suppressed by the Revolution in 1793, re-established within the next two years, again suppressed in 1848, but re-established once more. In 1867 “it was finally restricted, in deference to public opinion.” Mr. John Arthur Barratt, a member of the English Bar and of the New York Bar, stated before the Select Committee that, generally speaking, imprisonment for debt on civil process was impossible in the United States, except in cases containing an element of tort or fraud. There are, however, States in the Union in which imprisonment for debt exists, notably in Massachusetts. Mr. Peter Morison, a solicitor practising in the Scottish Courts, stated, in his evidence, that imprisonment for debt was abolished in Scotland in 1880, except for taxes, fines or penalties, rates or assessment, sums decreed for aliment and _praestendum_ orders (_i.e._, orders by a judge to perform an act). Mr. Ernest Joseph Schuster, a member of the English Bar, and a Doctor of Laws of the University of Munich, explained that the rules as to imprisonment for debt on civil process were uniform throughout Germany. “Imprisonment for debt _per se_ does not exist, but, by provisions of the German law for dealing with mischiefs which might arise, debtors may, for the protection of their creditors, be imprisoned.”