The Sun.
London, England, 1863-06-09 00:00:00

BRAZILS.

The Earl of BIALMESBURY said he should postpone
proceeding with his motion relative to the position of our
affairs with the Brazils till the 19th.

POLAND.

The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH rose for the purpose of
inquiring of the noble earl the Secretary for Foreign
Affairs whether there was any reasonable hope of a
satisfactory settlement of the affairs of Poland.
He was understood to ask the question in the
hope that something more than correspondence had
taken place, because, whilst the time was being con-
sumed in writing, plunder, massacre, and incendiarism were
decimating unfortunate Poland. He sincerely desired that
it could be arranged that Poland might be placed, with such
arrangements as might be made by the other European
Powers, under the sovereignty of a prince of the Czar's
family, and that her Majesty's Government would will-
ingly accept the arrangement, and consider it as a sufficient
performance of the obligations Which were imposed upon
Russia. He believed the Poles themselves would have the
good sense to accept such a proposal.
Earl RUSSELL said, as despatches were shortly ex-
pected from the Austrian Government, in answer to com-
munications from the Governments of Great Britain and
France, he ventured to think that it was not advisable to
make any statement in reference to the position of matters
at the present moment. He agreed with the noble earl that
humanity and policy both demanded some sort of arrange-
ment which would lead to cessation of hostilities, and
nothing could be more horrible than the atrocities of the
Russian soldiers on the one hand, or the orders
of assassination on the other, that were issued by
some secret courts which had been set up by
the insurgents. The proposal for an armistice was
so surrounded with difficulties that he should hesitate be-
fore he ventured even a hope that such an arrangement was
possible. It was not the business of the British Govern.
ment to erect a kingdom of Poland on its old basis, but to
do what we could to effect the general peace of Europe.
He did not consider that armed intervention would be ad-
visable ; no good could possibly come of it.
The Duke of RUTLAND was not satisfied with the
reply given by the noble earl. As to the conscription of
the 13th January, he was not going to defend the acts of
the Emperor of Russia, but he maintained that the Em-
peror had ordered that conscription out of motives of mercy.
He was most unwilling to act harshly, but in getting rid of
the disaffected spirits of Warsaw he was preparing the way
for the introduction of measures of good government, which
he was most desirous of conferring upon his Polish subjects.
As to the insurrection it could do no possible good to the
Poles, and he (the Duke of Rutland) entreated their lord-
ships not to say anything which would encourage the con-
tinuance of a useless and fatal contest, the only result of
which would be to prevent the extension of that constitution
to Poland which the Emperor was anxious to grant.
Lord BROUGHA:a bore testimony to the kindly dispo-
sition evinced by the Emperor of Russia, but he could not
accept the exerase offered by the noble duke near him, for
the conscription which was so justly styled a proscription,
namely, that so unjustifiable an act was committed in order
to errable the Emperor to grant constitutional Government
to Poland. He approved of the plan suggested by the noble
earl (Ellenborough), and he hoped that if such a plan of
settlement as an independent kingdom of Poland, under a
Russian King, should be brought forward, it would be
accepted by all parties.
Lord STRATFORD de REDCLIFFE, whilst admitting
the high character of the Emperor of Russia, strongly ad-
vised that, whatever might be the arrangements finally
entered into, material guarantees of the most perfect nature
should be taken to insure the safety of the Poles, and to
secure the performance of the treaties in their favour.

Lord DENMAN begged, that whatever course might be
resolved upon, language would not be used which would
have a tendency to render reconciliation impossible.

Earl GREY had heard with some alarm that negotia•
tions were still in progress, for he feared that diplomatic
interference would tend far more to aggravate all the evils
of the contest than to alleviate or terminate them. He
would not go into the merits of the question. He should
only say that it they were not prepared to interfere with
arms in their hands, the less they interfered with their ad-
vice th 3 better it would be. (Cheers.)
PRISON MINISTERS' BILL.

The Duke of BUCCLEUCH presented a great number
of petitions against this measure.
The Duke of SOMERSET moved the second reading,
and explained the provision, of the bill, the object of which
is to provide ministers of various religious denominations as
chaplains to attend upon prisoners who do not wish to avail
themselves of the spiritual ministrations of the Church of
England chaplains.
Lord BERNERS moved that the bill be read a second
time that day three months.

The Earl of DERBY said—My lords, it is with very I
much regret that I find myself obliged on this occasion
although I am happy to say it does not often happen—to
express opinions opposed to those of my noble friend who
has just spoken, and of, I believe, other noble friends in
this house. I have the greatest respect for the religious
scruples and opinions of my noble friends. So highly do I
value the principle of unity of action that if this were a
matter of minor importance or a question on which I felt a
shadow of a doubt, I should infinitely prefer to waive my
own opinions, and to give way to objections and scruples
the force of which I did not myself feel. But I did not look
upon this as a matter of minor importance. My opinion of
the policy and justice of this measure is so clear and so de-
cided that, painful as it is to me to differ from my noble
friend, I cannot refrain from giving that vote which I be-
lieve 1 am called to give by justice. (Hear.) My noble
friend objects to this bill that it lowers the status of the
Church of England and puts other denominations of Chris-
tiansth upon the same footing as the Church of England. I
think I may appeal with tolerable confidence to a public life
of
consent
than 40 years to obtain for me the credit of refusing
rnterneasctanto:odany measure which would be injurious to the
England. (gear.) to the position of the Church of
my first .) It is nearly 40 years since in one of
brought forward addresses
to Parliament I opposed a measure
interests of the byEstablished Me. Hume, making an attack on the
caobnlished Church of Ireland. Ten years
later, rather than übtrto a measure which I conceived
was likely to injure thaBet branch of our Established Church,
I seceded from a Cabinet presidedwit over by a man to whose
memory I always look back
cat respect and affection, and
with whom I had no other
difference, and with
many of the members of which leheaf
collection of your
ebarsure threaten-
terms of friendship. I appeal to the ye alwaYs continued on
lordships whether from that time whenrea
ing to the integrity of the Church has been
I have not been foremost to oppose it, and whether forward
(Hear, heara)n
has not always been energetically raised in faveorureryotveieye
measure tending to improve her position?
say this in answer by anticipation to those who might be
disposed to say that is this matter I had allowed myself to
be overruled by the opinions of others to confent to a mea-
sure which I deemed to be unfavourable to the position of
the Church. I shall speak of this Bill as dealing chiefly
with Roman Catholics, because, although it applies to other
denominations, it is practically, as the noble duke said, fcr
the relief of the Roman Catholics. My noble friend says
that the Bill places the Roman Catholic Church
upon a footing of equality with the
Church of
England, but I think he must have
herconsideed the
provisions of the Bill very imperfectly when makes
that assertion. I have seen it stated over and over again
that this is a Bill for the endowment of the Roman Catholic
Church, but those persons who use that language miscon-
ceive entirely the essentials of the word endowment. I hold
it to be essential to an endowment that the possession of it
should be permanent and certain—that it should not de-
pend on the voluntary action or caprice of any party—that
it should not only be the propel ty of the possessor, but that
it should be capable of being secured to his successors, and

that It should be maintained at law as a positive and sub- '
stantial right. (Hear.) But what does this bin say P It
provides that in any case in which it is the 0,, non of the
justices that the number
Church of England of prisoners differing from the
.1:1 L any prison is so great as in their
judgment to
other WI require the ministrations of a clergyman of any
- Jugious persuasion the said justice may appoint a
m-inister of such religious persuasion to attend the said
prisoners, and may award him such reasonable recompense
as they may think fit. It goes on to say that the said minis-
ter shall hold his appointment at the pleasure of the jus-
tices, and shall be subject to all the rules and regulations
of the prison. Now, I appeal to your lordships whether
every one of the essentials of an endowment are not only
studiously omitted here but absolutely contradicted. (Hear.)
It is left entirely to the justices if they think fit; they may
refuse to pay the minister; they may pay him what sum
they may think fit ; and they may discharge him when they
please. This certainly does not look very much like placing
the Roman Catholic Church on a footing with the Church
of England. My noble friend says that the present law does ,
all that is necessary ; but I differ from him there altogether.
I do not think that the provisions of the law as it stands
are satisfactory, or founded on justice. Whatever may be
the provisions of the law at the present time, it is perfectly
clear that this injustice is so great that in many of our prin-
cipal prisons they are to a great extent departed from. The
law is that every prisoner shall be visited by the chaplain
of the gaol, who of course is a minister of the Church
of England. I know the perfect honesty and con-
scientiousness of my noble friend, and I will ask him one
question. If this were a Roman Catholic country contain-
ing a considerable number of Protestant prisoners, and if
they were compelled to receive, whether they would or not,
the visit of Roman Catholic priests, so that the whole period
of their confinement was not only a penal sentence, not an
attempt at reformation alone, but one continued system of
proselytism, would he consider the provisions of such a law
satisfactory? (Hear.) My noble friend says that this re-
striction does not apply to the case of prisoners who desire
to see a minister of their own persuasion. The law says that
the chaplain shall be a clergyman of the Church of England;
it is the good sense of the magistrates which says to the
prisoners, " If you desire to see a minister of your own per-
suasion we will take upon ourselves to supersede the law
and allow you to see him." But is it reasonable to argue
from the supposition that men of the character and the past
lives of the majority of our prisoners will readily come for-
ward and ask for the services of a minister of their own re-
ligion ? (Hear.) A very considerable number of the Roman
Catholic prisoners have asked for the services of their own
clergy; and it is greatly to the credit of the Roman Catho-
lic clergy that in no case have they neglected the call made
upon them. (Hear.) With regard to Protestant dissenters
there have been no such demands, and for very sufficient
reasons. There are no such broad distinctions between the
different sects of Protestant dissenters as to prevent the
members of one receiving religious consolation and instruc-
tion from the ministers of the other; the Dissenting minis-
ters would not object to prisoners of their persuasion re-
ceiving the ministrations of the Church of England chap-
lain. The case of Roman Catholics, however, is widely diffe-
rent. They are instructed that to listen to the teachings
of a minister not of their own persuasion is a heinous sin.
A prisoner of no particular strength of religious feeling
would not object to listen to the chaplain of the Church of
England, because he does not consider his teaching to be of
any authority whatever; but he will most earnestly d eprecate
being visited by a priest of his own faith, who has more
power over his mind, and to whom he will attribute a great
deal mere authority and responsibility than he would to the
minister of any other persuasion. We have been led to be-
lieve that reformation is the great object of punishment. I
am afraid it does not follow as frequently as philanthropists
would wish—(a laugh)—but undoubtedly it is one of the
objects of punishment, and one of the agencies which we
must use in bringing it about is that of religious instruc-
tion and consolation. Ido not know whether my noble
friend has seen a return moved for in the House of Com-
mons by Lord Edward Howard. From this return it ap-
pears that there is a very large number of Roman Catholics
in the various gaols of England. In the 11 convict prisons
of the country there are 1,388 Roman Catholics, being an
average of 126 to each prison. In 14 of the other prisons
the average number is 133, the number in each of the 14
exceeding 50. The Roman Catholics acknowledge the same
God as we do; they acknowledge the same Saviour; they
acknowledge the same Mediator; they look for the remis-
sion of sins from the same quarter, and the same quarter
alone ; and every moral precept which their Church teaches
is derived from that source to which alone Christians can
look for the foundation of their religious belief. Therefore,
although I may differ from the doctrines of the Roman
Catholic Church, I cannot deny that the influence of the
priests of that Church must have a powerful tendency to
guide the minds of prisoners of their own persuasion, and
to awaken those prisoners to a sense of their former life.
Either it is desirable that Roman Catholic prisoners should
have that teaching or it is not. If it is desirable, we are
bound to give it them in order to accomplish the main ob-
ject of punishment—namely, the reformation of offenders.
They will not accept your teaching ; they are not desirous '
Of it ; and it is not your duty to force it on them. But it is
your duty to let them have religious instruction which they
will attend to. My noble friend does not dispute that in
some cases this instruction is now given. The only paint in

dispute is whether it should be given gratuitously or should
be paid for. My noble friend does not dispute the propriety
of allowing Roman Catholic clergymen to give instruction
in prisons ; but he contends that they should do so on their
own responsibility and at their own expense. It is quite
true that there are prisons in which there are very few
Roman Catholic prisoners; and in these it is never im-
possible and seldom difficult to procure the attendance of a
Roman Catholic clergyman ; but there aro many prisons in
which it would he unjust and impossible to call on the Ro-
man Catholic clergyman to give his services without any
remuneration, if it be desirable that the prisoners of his
religious persuasion should have the advantage of these
services. (Hear, hear.) I belong to a county in the gaols
of which there is the greatest number of Roman Catholic
prisoners, while my noble friend belongs to one in the gaol
of which there is perhaps the smallest number. This may
account for our taking different views on the subject. I find
that in the borough gaol of Liverpool there are about 3.50
or 360 prisoners who are members of the Church of England.
The Protestant chaplain of that prison receives a sum of
£4OO a year for his services. In the same gaol there are
460 Roman Catholic prisoners. The Roman Catholic priest
attends twice a week, and the remuneration for his services
to about 100 more prisoners than are attended by the Pro-
testant chaplain is just nil as against the £4OO paid to the
latter gentleman. (Hear, hear.) My lords, it is impossible
to look at those returns and to argue in the face of the facts

which they disclose that yon are dealing justly and equit-

ably as between the ministers of the two religions. (Hear,
hear.) Why does not my noble friend object to the system
which exists in Ireland, and under which there is compul-
sory payment out of the county rates of the Roman
Catholic chaplains employed in the gaols of that country.
If it would be a mortal sin to do this in England, we are
sinning deeply in Ireland, because there the law not only
gives you the opportunity, but compels you to do it. (A
laugh, and "Hear, hear.") Certainly, among my noble
friends coming from the north of Ireland, who are most
strongly opposed to the Roman Catholic religion, I have
never heard any objection raised to the payment out of the
county rates of the Roman Catholic chaplains in the gaols
there. (Hear, hear.) I think it of no small importance
that the magistrates should have the appointment. I think

it of importance that the priest should feel that he is ap-
pointed by the magistrates, subject to their jurisdiction, and
responsible to them for the performance of his duty. It
therefore appears to me that the bill is one which meets
the justice and the equity of the case, and does not go be-
yond it. (Hear.) It does not place the Roman Catholic
Church in a position different from that of other denomina-
tiOPS. Still less does it place it on a footing in the slightest
degree of equality with the Established Church. I should
regret very much if the bill had that effect ; but it
has not. What it provides is that where duties are to be
performed—laborious, painful, and responsible duties—you
shall not, if they are services to the State, insist on their
perfomance without remuneration ; that you shall make a
fair return for services which you may deem valuable, in
carrying out the work of prison reformation. I am well
aware not only that I differ on this question from several of
my noble friends around me, but that this measure has met
with much misapprehension and prejudice—honest preju-
dice, no doubt—and that it is not likelyto be popular in this
country. But where I have clearly seen my way with
regard to the justice and policy of a measure, I hope that I
never have shrunk, and that I never shall shrink, from
incurring the risk of unpopularity ; and I think I made
a much greater sacrifice than in taking a course which
connects me with unpopularity out of doors when I
find myself differing on this question from noble
friends around me, with whom, on moat occasions it has
long been my happiness to act. All considerations of this
sort, however, must give way to considerations of policy
and justice, and believing the measure to be founded not
only upon policy and justice, but upon the higher principle
of Christian charity and religion, I deem it my duty to give
a conscientious and cordial vote in favour of the second
reading. (Cheers.)
After a few remarks from Lord BERNERS in ex-
planation,
The Earl of HARROWBY considered the bill would
introduce a new subject of discord throughout the country,
without any adequate advantage.
The Earl of CHICHESTER. supported the second read-
ing of the bill.

The Bishop of LONDON said he should have had
no hesitation in voting for the bill if it had been a
matter of justice ; but he thought, on the contrary, that
justice was not likely to be forwarded by the adoption of
the measure. It was a question of Principle whether for
the first time in this country they should permit the appoint-
ment of Roman Catholic priests to our great public institu-
tions. If adopted, the bill must be carried further, and he
asked why they should step out of their way to create a
difficulty. He asked the house to reject the bill.
The Earl of Cork, Lord Arundel of Wardour, and the
Earl of Donoughmore supported the bill.
Lord MELVILLE and the Bishop of CASHEL opposed
the bill.
The divided.chooonunts-eecnotns6s
Non-contents ts
The numbers w ere --
Majority , —35
The bill was then read a second time,

The Bishop of Winchester vino the only member of the
episcopal bench that voted for the bill.
THAMES EMBANKMENT (NORTH SIDE) BILL.
This bill was read a second.
BAKEHOUSE REGULATIONS BILL.
This bill was passed through committee.
SALMON FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) ACT CON-

TINUANoB BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
Their lordships adjourned at a quarter to 9 o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—Last Evening,

The SPEAKER took the chair at 4 o'clock.
SECOND READINGS.

The following bills were read a second time :—Dulas
Valley Mineral Railway, Law Life Assurance Society, Oke-
hampton and Lidford Junction Railway, and Wicklow Cop-
per and Hibernian Mines Companies.
ROYAL ASSENT.

At 5 minutes after 4 o'clock the Deputy Usher of the
Black Rod appeared at the table and summoned the
Speaker and the house to hear the Royal Assent given by
commission to several bills. The Speaker returned at 25
minutes after 4 o'clock.

SEA FISHERIES,
Sir G. GREY brought up the reply of her Majesty to the
address agreed to the other evening praying for the appoint-
ment of a Royal commission to inquire into these fisheries
Her Majesty desired to inform the house that she had
directed the appointment of a Royal commission. (Hear.)