Recently, I was asked about the characters in the second book of my Lords of Worth series, A Good Rogue Is Hard to Find. Or, more specifically, I was asked about the actions of my characters.

In this novel, my heroine has undertaken the task of trying to recoup monies owed to the common person by peers who refuse to pay. The tailor, for example, who hasn't been paid by an earl for the last four evening coats he's made. Or the furniture maker, who is owed for an entire library set made out of rosewood by a marquess who simply doesn't care if the man ever sees a penny.

In my novel, my heroine has come up with all sorts of devious schemes (most, ironically, that I actually stumbled across in the history books) of stealing back the money owed from the aristocratic men and women who owe it and have no intention of ever settling their debts.

This particular reader was quite dismayed - well, somewhat horrified- by the idea that my heroine should have acted so unethically. I was asked why she (or the tailor) simply didn't take the offending aristocrat to court and sue him for the money owed? Surely there were better options? Surely the peer could just be sent to Debtor's Prison to straighten him out?

All excellent questions, and they have a very long-winded answer buried in my research notebooks that reference statutes and old records and laws that I spent ridiculous amounts of time pouring over during the writing of this novel. Luckily, the amazing and brilliant Courtney Milan has a wonderful post up on her site that answers these questions in a much more concise, understandable manner then I ever could. Instead of rambling on, I've posted her article below for anyone interested in how the law worked in the Regency when it came to debt and peers. Spoiler alert: It really sucked to be a commoner...


Peers & Debtor's Prison - by Courtney Milan (at courtneymilan.com)

Someone on the Beaumonde asked if you could put a peer in debtor's prison. This seemed like a fun question, so I took a crack at it. I started from John Palmer's 1830 treatise entitled "The Practice in the House of Lords, on appeals, writs of error and claims of peerage": "The persons of Peers, and of their Widows (except Widows of Bishops), and the persons of Peeresses in their own right, are protected from Arrest, in all Civil Suits, either in the first instance, or after judgment except on judgments on a Statute Stapel, or Statute Merchant, or on the Statute of Acton Burnel. Nor are they liable to be attached for non-payment of money, though they are not exempt from attachment for not obeying the processes of the Courts."

So that needs to be untangled a little, because it's not a clear cut "you can't arrest a peer." Instead, it says, "you can't arrest a peer except on judgments on a Statute Stapel, or Statute Merchant, or on the Statute of Acton Burnel." The Statute Merchant and the Statute of Acton Burnel are both old, old statutes (stemming from medieval times) that allow seizure of goods, land, and the body of debtors. In other words, it's possible to hold a peer for nonpayment of debt. (Text of those statutes online ; you should read them, because it's a little more complicated than simple nonpayment).

Even that is deceptively simple. Back to John Palmer, who adds this seemingly disconnected gem a little later: "Peers are also exempt from being sued in the Marshalsea or other inferior Courts." So where could you bring suit? You'd have to sue in the King's Bench, or to the King's Justices in Westminster. Some explanation of this process is here.

At this point, I needed to interpolate a bit: The judicial process in the 1800s was generally rough, and in many cases--particularly civil cases, it was enforced by third parties. You wanted to hold someone for nonpayment of debt? Well, you could do it yourself. Rough and ready justice. But you couldn't just go and nab a peer. You had to go to court and get a judgment first. And you couldn't just go to any old court; I'm guessing you had to take your case to Westminster and present it to judges who were quite possibly drinking buddies with the debtor. In other words, good luck with that one.

As a test of my interpolation, I looked for a case where a peer was sued for nonpayment of debt.

I found the case of The Earl of Lonsdale v. Littledale, from 1793. You can read it here but I'll sum up: Lonsdale owed Littledale money. Littledale brought suit in King's Bench. The justices rejected the suit, explaining that you could only bring suit for money owed if you had the defendant in custody--but you couldn't take peers into custody; so sorry, no way to sue. Note the lovely line, indicating that the Court was really, really listening to the pleas of the poor commoner trying to get his money, at the end of the reported decision: "Holroyd, who was going to argue on the other side, was stopped by the Court." Very nice.

This doesn't foreclose all possibility of suit, because you could still get an original writ--basically, a court summons requiring the peer to show up on his own. But I'm guessing that while it was legally possible to detain a peer for nonpayment of debt, it was practically implausible.