The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-22 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, June 21.

Their Lordships assembled at five o'clock.
The Earl of WICKLOW presented two petitions from
Cork, in favour of the Thrkenhead Docks Bill. •
Lord COMBERMERE presented a petition from
Cheshire in favour of protection to agriculture.

• DON CARLOS.
The Earl of CLARENDON, after referring to a cor-
respondence which had taken place between Don Carlos
and the Noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs,,
with reference to a proposal of Don Carlos for the mar-
riage of.his son to the Queen of Spain, expressed a wish
to have some explanation on the matter from her Ma-
jesty's Government. He wished to know if her Ma-
jestfs Government had any objection to produce the
correspondence which had taken place on the subject ?
The Earl of ABERDEEN said, that whatever part
her Majesty's Government might take with respect to the
marriage of the Queen of Spain, due atttention would be
paid to the honour and independence of that country.
It was perfectly true that a Noble Lord had submitted
to him (the Earl of Aberdeen) a letter from Don Carlos,
in which his Royal Highness referred to the Noble Lord
bearing the letter as being in possession of his (Don
Carlos's) intentions, and of the sacrifices which he was
inclined to make for the pacification of Spain. That
Noble Lord stated that Don Carlos was ready to relin-
quish his claim to the Spanish throne upon his son's
marriage with -Queen Isabella. Whether the Queen
was to marry his son as a subject, or as sove-
reign, he (the Earl of Aberdeen) could tot say.
Upon receiving this communication, he had im-
mediately informed the Spanish GovernMent of
it, but he had not thought it his duty to press for an
answer. •He did not think it was expedient to pro-
duce the correspondence which had taken place.
Several petitions in favour of the legalisation of Pres-
byterian mixed marriages were presented.

LAW OF LIBEL BILL.
Lord CAMPBELL postponed the discussion on this
Bill until the third reading, in consequence of the absence
of Lord Denman.

The report on the Bill was then brought up.
INSOLVENT DEBTORS ACT AMENDMENT

BILL.
Lord BROUGHAM moved that the report on this Bill
be brought up. The object of the Bill was to amend the
Bill by which the arrest in mesne process was abolished.
That Act had been found to be defective in many of its parts,
and it was to remedy the evils which were complained
The Bill was also intended to reach the culpable debtor,
while it would give protection to the unfortunate one.
There were cases in which this Bill would retain the
system of imprisonment for debt, but in substance
this system, by this Bill, would be abolished. The
Bill would only retain it in very extreme cases, or in
cases of absolute and distinct fraud ; and against
a contumacious debtor. Under the former Bill on this
subject which he had introduced in 1942, not less a sum
of money than two millions had been distributed amongst
creditors. He therefore had great confidencein the present
Bill, seeing that the last had worked so well. He said
they ought to abolish imprisonment in all cases where the
debtor could show that he was an unfortunate, and
not a guilty or contumacious debtor. His Noble
and Learned Friend (Lord Cottenham) had intro-
duced e dill on this subject, but his Noble and Learned
Friend proposed to abolish imprisonment for debt in
in all cases absolutely ; and he proposed that in the case
of a fraudulent debtor, the insolvent should be indicted.
This provision never could be carried into effect, as very
few creditors would be found to prosecute; whereas the
provision in his (Lord . Brougham's) Bill would carry
itself into effect. This Bill was not to apply to any per-
son before the Ist of January, 1845. He would at pre-
sent rest contented with the step he had taken, but he
would, probably, in the next session of Parliament, in-
troduce a measure with respect to the distinctions which
at present existed in the law relating to debtors and
creditors, between traders and non-traders. He did not
believe that a sum of 1001. had been lost in the City of
London by the abolition of arrest for debt on mesne
process. He had made many inquiries, of tradesmen,
and none of them had experienced any loss in conse-
quence. All he asked of their Lordships was, to com-
plete their m eisure of 1842, which had been found to
work well, and with advantage to the public.
Lord COTTENHAM had not expected to be called
upon to discuss a subject which their Lordships had dis-
posed of in the last week in April, when he moved the
second reading of a Bill on this very subject, namely, the
Debtors and Creditors Bill, which stood this night for a
third reading, and the principle of which was unani-
mously affirmed on the 30th of April last. He ex-
pressed his surprise that his Noble and Learned
Friend should now object to the abolition of
imprisonment for debt. It was true, his Noble
Friend intended to relax the system of imprisonment for
debt, but he retained the principle. He (Lord Cotten-
ham) was surprised that such a change had taken place
in his Noble and Learned Friend's opinions in so short
a time. In April last his Noble and Learned Friend
had advocated the abolition of imprisonment for debt,
and, in proof of this, he need only refer to what took
place on the second reading of his (Lord Cottenham's)
Bill in the month of April last. The Bill of his Noble
and Learned Friend would alter all the existing bank-
ruptcy laws, while it took away one of the most im-
portant functions of the courts of equity. He thought
their Lordships had a right to adhere to the decision to
which they came in the last we in April, and not, by
assenting to the Bill of his Noble Friend, rescind the
vote to which they came on that occasion. He admitted
that if his Bill did not to pass, the Bill of his Noble and
Learned Friend would be a very useful measure. -
Lord ASHBURTON thought there were cases in
which imprisonment for debt should be still continued.
He thought the Bill of the Noble and Learned Lord
who had just sat down was quite as stringent with respect
to imprisonment for debt as the Bill of his Noble Friend
opposite (Lord Brougham). He thought the man who
took the property of his neighbour, under a promise, to
pay for it in a month, and did not at the end of that time
do so, was as much guilty- as the man who committed
theft; and, in his opinion, a man so conducting himself
ought to be deprived for a time of his personal- liberty.
He thought there ought to be imprisenment for debt in
all cases where the insolvent could not make a fair and
open disclosure of his affairs.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said their Lordships
were placed in a considerable difficulty, inasmuch as they
were called upon to decide between the two measures
of his two Noble and Learned Friends (Lord Brougham
and Lord Cottenham). One Noble and Learned Lord
said that his Bill was better than the other, and how
were their Lordships to come to a decision upon the re-
lative merits of the two Bills ? He would recommend
their Lordships to refer the Bills to a Select Committee,
in order that the best parts of each Bill should be
adopted and placed in one Bill. This appeared to him
to be the only way in which they could get out of the
difficulty in which they were placed. lie thought they
ought not to make such great alterations in the la* of
the land as had been proposed without due consideration.
By the Bill of his Noble and Learned Friend near him
(Lord Cottenham) a prince of the blood might be sum-
moned before a Bankruptcy Commissioner, interrogated,
and, if his answers should not be satisfactory, committed
to prison. He (the Lord Chancellor) did not mean to
say that there should not be this equality in the law—
God forbid that he should—but this he said, before they
proceeded to make such large changes in the established
law of the land they ought to have ample opportunity of
well considering the subject. He thought that the system
of imprisonment for debt acted in terroretn over persons,
and restrained them from running into debt. He ad-
vised their Lordships to be cautious in considering this
question, and not to come to any conclusion upon it
without first having fully investigated the subject.
Lord BROUGHAM was ready to accede to the pro-
position of his Noble and Learned Friend (the Lord
Chancellor) of referring these Bills to a Select Committee.
Lord CAMPBELL had heard the speech of his Noble
and Learned Friend on the Woolsack with much sur-
prise and mortification, for it now appeared that impri-
sonment for debt was not to be abolished during the
present session of Parliament, although they had arrived
at the third reading of this. Bill. It was now, after the
Bill had passed through all the " stages up to the third-
reading, in the end of June, that his Noble and Learned.
Friend on the Woolsack came forward to oppose it. He
(Lord Campbell) could not but regret that his Noble and
Learned Friend had thought it his duty to take such a
course. On the second reading of this Bill his Noble
and Learned Friend had supported it, and now he came
down and opposed it. He (Lord Campbell) could assure
his Noble and Learned Friend that this change of con-
duct would not meet with the approbation of the
country. To reject the Bill of his Noble and Learned
Friend (Lord Cottenham) would be to reverse a decision
which had already passed that House.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said they were not
called upon to reject that Bill. There were two Bills
before their Lordships, and the proposition before their
Lordships was to refer the two Bills to a Select Com-
mittee.
Lord COTTENHAM said the effect of sending these
Bills to a Select Committee would be to reject this Bill ;
and he believed that that was the object of the Fro-
position.—(Hear, hear.)
TheTh LORDs
Earl lof
eNHCIETILEOAR ex
d.
abolition of
imprisonment for debt would have the most pernicious
effect, and therefore he should oppose the Bill of the
Noble and Learned Lord (Cottenham).
The LORD CHANCELLOR then moved that the
Bill be re-committed.
The Bill was then ordered to be referred to a Select
Committee.
DEBTORS AND CREDITORS' BILL.
Lord COTTENHAM then moved the third reading
of this Bill. -
The LORD CHANCELLOR moved that this. Bill
also be re-committed.
Lord DENMAN•supported the original motion. He
regretted that the decision which had been arrived at on
the second reading of the Bill of his Noble and Learned
Friend (Lord Cottenham) was not to be carried out ; for
he thought it was of the highest importance that impri-
sonment for debt should be abolished without delay.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that if the Select
Committee on these two Bills should be appointed, he
would suggest that the Committee should proceed with
its labours some day next week, and continue sitting
de die in diem, so that there would be very little loss
of time, as the report could he made in a few days.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said it was not intended
to overthrow this Bill by referring it to a Select Com-
mittee.
dheth2elystmofigAhtugeuxspte.ct
Histhe ret
of thatd CommCommitteeE aljbLo usta
! sition of referring the Bill to a Select Committee was
virtually to reject the Bill ; and he would recommend
his Noble and Learned Friend to wash his hands of the
Bill, and leave the blame of its defeat to those to whom
it was justly due.
After a few words from Lord KENYON,
Lord COTTENHAM said he had no hope of getting
this Bill passed this session, but he had done all is his