The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-21 00:00:00

(LEFT SITTING.)

•
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Their Lordships assembled at five o'clock.
The Earl of WICKLO W presented two petitions from
Cork, in favour of the Birkenhead Docks Bill.
Lord COMBERMERE presented a petition from
Cheshire in favour of protection to agriculture.
DON CARLOS.
The Marl 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 ft 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-
jesty's 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 cot 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 legalization 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.
DEBTORS AND CREDITORS BILL.
Lord BROUGHAM moved the third reading of this
Bill. 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 of.
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 P 342, not less a sum
of money than two millions had been distributed amongst
creditors. He therefore had great confidence in 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 a Bill 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 frat denit 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.