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

'COURTS OF RECONCILIATION

Lord .`3IIO.I:GHAIVI brought in a bill to establish courts
of reco.nciliation. The bill was read a first time.
BRAZILS.
The Earl of MALINIESBITRY 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-
surried 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
R He believed the Poles themselves would have the
good sense to accept suck 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
hturtanity and policy both demanded some sort of arrange-
meat which would lead to cessation of hostilities, and
nothing could be more horrible than the atrocities of the
R ussian 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- I
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 R UTLAND was not satisfied with the
reply given by the noble earl. As to the conscription of
the kith January, he was not going to defend the acts of
the Timperor of Russia, but he maintained that the Em-
perc,r had ordered that conscription out of motives of mercy.
He was most unwilling to act harshly, but in getting rid of
tb e disaffected spirits of Warsaw he was preparing the way
ff,r the introduction of measures of good government, which
Ile 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 BROUGHAM bore testimony to the kindly dispo-
sition evinced by the Emperor of Russia, but he could not
accept the excuse 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
te, enable 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 the better it would be. (Cheers.)
PRISON MINISTERS' BILL.
The Duke of BUCCLEIICII 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
:much regret that I find myself obliged on this occasion—
althoughvy
I ant 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
tb.e 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 lam called to give by justice. (Hear.) My noble
friend objects to this bill that it lowers the statue of the
Church of England and puts other denominations of Chris-
tians upon the same footing as the Church of England. I
think I may appeal with tolerable confidence to a public life
of,o more than 40 years to obtain for me the credit of refusing
consent to any measure which would be injurious to the
interests or
(gear)
to the position of the Church of
England.
utay first
addresses
It is nearly 40 years since in one of
es
to Parliament I opposed a measure
brought forward byI.1111m;
making an attack on the
interests of the Established Church of Ireland. Ten years
later, rather than consentto a measure which I conceived
was likely to injure that branchpret,dof our Established Church,
I seceded from a Cabinet
by
memory I always look back wiltl:d overa man to whose
pea and affection, and
with whom I had no other cause of difference, and with
many of the members of which I have r
always continued on
appeal to the
terms of friendship. I
ecolleeaeeturioenthorfeaytoeurn.
lordships whether from that time when
a broughthe forward
r
ing to the integrity of the Church has been
I have not been foremost to oppose it, and whet
has not always been energetically raised in favourmyofvoicye
measure tending to improve her position? (Hear, hearT
I
say this in answer by anticipation to those who might be
disposed to say that in this matter I had allowed myself to
be overruled by the opinions of others to consent 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, for
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 considered the
provisions of the Bill very imperfectly when he 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 proper ty of the possessor, but that
it
should be capable of being secured to his successors, and