Lords Sitting of 8 June 1863

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Suitors Conciliation * (No. 120).
Second Reading—Prison Ministers (No. 109); Thames Embankment (North Side) * (No. 107); Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act Continuance * (No. 112).
Committee—Bakehouses Regulation* (Nos. 85 and 122).
Royal Assent—Customs and Inland Revenue [26 & 27 Vict., c. 22];
Hares (Ireland) [26 & 27 Vict., c. 19];
Elections during Recess [26 & 27 Vict., c. 20];
Illegitimate Children (Ireland) [26 & 27 Vict., c. 21];
Drainage of Land (Ireland) [26 & 27 Vict., c. 26];
Marriages, &c. (Ireland) [26 & 27 Vict., c. 27];
New Zealand Boundaries [26 & 27 Vict., c. 23];
Corrupt Practices at Elections [26 & 27 Vict., c. 29];
Savings Banks Monies [26 & 27 Vict., c. 25];
Vice Admiralty Courts [26 & 27 Vict., c. 24];
Stock Certificates to Bearer [26 & 27 Vict., c. 28].

POLAND.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I rise to ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there has been such progress in the negotiations as to afford a reasonable hope of a satisfactory settlement of the affairs of Poland? I do not think the question can be considered premature. The insurrection in Poland, which the Emperor ordered the authorities of the country to to put down in ten days, has existed for four months and a half; and, according to the last accounts, it was rapidly extending itself to various distant points in the ancient provinces that belonged to Poland before 1772. While diplomatists are writing and consulting, plunder, massacre, and incendiarism are extending through the whole country. My Lords, this is not an ordinary case of diplomacy. Generally, diplomacy originates with the Governments which conduct it; but, in this instance, I think it may be considered to have originated with the nations which those Governments represent; for in all parts of the world, except perhaps in Prussia, deep sympathy has been expressed for Poland. When, some years ago, the diplomatic intervention which preceded the Crimean war was undertaken, that diplomacy proceeded from statesmen who had in view not a distant but a coming danger, and endeavoured to avert that danger by diplomatic arrangement; but the evil with which diplomacy now deals is a present, existing evil, which has existed for more than thirty years, and has been increasing in intensity until it has arrived at a degree of enormity which has compelled the people of Poland to rise in arms, and makes it impossible for the people of Europe to view their condition with indifference. This is a question of humanity. From one end of the Kingdom of Poland to the other, war is carried on with a degree of atrocity unknown in ordinary warfare. It is a question of justice—because the Poles have never had the constitution which was promised to them. It is more than that, it is a question of policy affecting not only Russia, but affecting every state in Europe. It is impossible that insurrection can continue in Poland without exciting an insurrectionary feeling among the turbulent spirits of every State in Europe. For now 160 years Russia has been endeavouring to establish her power in Europe—to secure to herself an entrance into Europe. That entrance into Europe is,
480
at this moment, denied to her. While Po-land remains as she is, or even as she has been for several years, it will be impossible for Russia to move an army into Europe. She would require more than 100,000 men to protect her communications, and the longer this state of things remains in Po-land, the greater will become the difficulties of Russia. Depend upon it, that wherever any part of the Russian Empire presents a weakness, it will be discovered by those who are anxious to take advantage of any opportunity that may be afforded for acting against her. Circassia will be responsive to Poland, and everywhere there will be a material alteration in that position of strength which I confess, for my part, I am desirous that Russia should maintain. When the Powers assembled at the Congress of Vienna, they participated in the general feeling of distrust and apprehension of Russia. Things were then somewhat different from what they are now. In France, the ancient monarchy had been restored; France had suffered great losses; her frontiers had been thrown back to their ancient limits; she was deemed to be in a state of abeyance, and no injury or encroachment was apprehended from that quarter. In Belgium, and on the Rhine, and in Italy, what were then deemed securities had been taken against France. The great danger seemed to be on the side of Russia. Russia had performed great services for Europe, but she stood in her strength, and certainly evinced a disposition to use that strength in a manner that threatened the independence and security of other States. With those feelings, this country desired, in connection with Austria and Prussia, to establish in Poland a state of things which, unfortunately, they did not succeed in bringing about. They desired to establish in Poland an independent kingdom. Russia insisted on uniting the Kingdom of Poland to herself. I confess, that even at the present time, if I could see the map of Europe arranged as I should most desire, I should rejoice to see the re-establishment of the Kingdom of Poland in all its integrity, and within the ancient limits, but under a better Government and with an hereditary monarchy; but I know how visionary is my hope of seeing that great act of moral retribution accomplished. I cannot be insensible to the changes that have taken place in Europe. We have seen a change of dynasty in France; we have seen her great increase of strength,

481
and we have seen that strength used with great effect in Europe. We have seen other material changes in the distribution of power and of territory as established in 1815. Having regard to those events, I do not think it would be expedient to take any measures which would permanently deprive Russia of her power of interfering, and I hope usefully interfering, for the maintenance of a Conservative policy in Europe. We cannot now preserve the balance of power in Europe without the intervention of Russia. It is upon that account, that, as a friend of Russia as well as a friend of Poland, I do earnestly desire to see an end put to the state of things which now exists. When the Congress of Vienna imposed on Russia the duty of giving a representative national constitution to Poland, she imposed on her a condition which, in the political position of Russia, it was impossible for her to perform. I say impossible; because I hold it to be impossible to give a really good Government, of a constitutional form, to a country of which the sovereign is a foreign despot of enormous power, educated in the practice of despotism, and ready on all occasions to exercise his despotic authority, and throw the sword of Brennus into the scale to turn it in his favour. There was and still is that difficulty, which it is impossible to overcome, and which must at all times make it impossible to establish a really good Government in Poland under a despotic foreign Sovereign, capable of using on all occasions his arbitrary power. My Lords, a constitutional Government can only exist with benefit to the people where there is mutual confidence between the Sovereign and the people, and where there are mutual interests, where there is a mutual desire to support the constitution, and where, above all, the Sovereign is attached to his people, and depends on them for his position. All these circumstances are wanting in the case of Russia. Even were she so disposed, the difficulties which she has to encounter it would be impossible for her to overcome. But, my Lords, there never has been any attempt to overcome those difficulties. We are told in the papers which have been laid on the table of the House, that up to 1831 no attempt had been made to give that constitution to Poland which she had a right to, in accordance with the Treaty of Vienna. We know what has taken place since. We know that there has been no security either for property or for per-
482
son. Nothing could be more cruel and exhaustive than the conscription. Every man must have felt that his family, his life, and his property, depended on the will of a despot; and it was utterly impossible for the country to prosper or to be contented. That was the case before the last instance of violent despotism—which the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary properly called a "proscription"—was perpetrated by Russia. That proscription came on the people of Poland as one of the plagues of Egypt, destroying in one night the firstborn in every family. It created a deep chasm between the people and the Sovereign, which it was impossible ever to pass. It destroyed all confidence, all possibility of ever trusting the word of the Sovereign, who had violated his obligations. If the Emperor puts forth his hand, and offers it to the people of Poland, how can they take it? There is blood upon that hand. It is the blood of the people of Poland, of the families of those to whom he offers it—blood shed in the perpetration of an iniquity which has no parallel in Europe. My Lords, I can come to no other conclusion than this:—That to attempt to give good Government to the people of Poland while the Emperor of Russia directly exercises authority in that country is a thing impossible, and that there are no guarantees—of which the noble Earl spoke some time ago—which could secure it. It is a thing impossible, and therefore it is a thing which no prudent person would endeavour to obtain. But it is most desirable that Russia should endeavour to accomplish two objects—that she should give good Government to Poland, and, at the same time, preserve her own power of entering Europe by the Vistula. I know but one course of proceeding by which that double object can be accomplished. The wise course for Russia to pursue would be to propose to dissever the connection which was established at Vienna between the Russian Empire and Poland, then declared inseparable, and to place Poland, with such arrangements as to the political relations between her and Russia as might be deemed expedient, as an independent country with respect to internal Government, under the sovereignty of a Prince of her own family. I do trust that Her Majesty's Government and the other Powers of Europe which were parties to the Treaty of Vienna would willingly accept this compromise, and consider it as a sufficient performance of the

483
obligations which were imposed upon Russia at the Congress of Vienna. Further, I do hope that the Poles themselves would have the good sense to accept it, and that no visionary ideas of future grandeur, however gratifying they might be to their pride as a nation—great as their pride justly is—would induce them to decline to accept that which, for the present at least, would give security for the government of Poland and the permanent peace of that country. My Lords, I know not what value is to be attached to the statement I have seen in the foreign rather than the English papers; but I see it there stated that it has been suggested by the Government of this country, and has been at last acquiesced in by foreign Powers, that an armistice should be proposed to the Emperor of Russia and to the insurgents in Poland. I believe that measure to be utterly impracticable. There are wanting on the side of the Poles three things essential as it has always been supposed, to the making of an armistice—an ostensible, acknowledged Government With which to Contract it; an army for Which to contract; nor is there any possibility of making that demarcation of limits which is essential in all cases of armistice. The only force possessed by the Poles is one which is here and everywhere, which is here to-day and gone to-morrow; The Polish insurgents collect only to strike. They disappear when they have struck their blow. They have no regular, no acknowledged limits within which they act. In an armistice the two sides keep their arms. But what is required here is that one side should lay down its arms. There is no other mode by which the Poles can perform their part of the arrangement. And what is it to lay down their arms? You may maintain, and you may extend an insurrection, but you cannot renew it when you have once thrown down your arms. And what is to be the position of the insurgents in the interval during the time in which the diplomatists—who are proverbially not the most rapid in their movements—attempt to bring about a permanent arrangement? From the penalties of treason the Poles might be relieved, but they would be still subject to the criminal law. Russian officers now rule in every parish throughout Poland. They have at their beck what are called peasant guards. Every man who has property, who is supposed to have patriotic feelings, is denounced, and there is a general sequestration of the property of such persons.
484
Even in Lithuania, which is not a part of the Kingdom of Poland, no peasant is now permitted to pay rent to his landlord. He pays it to the State; and the State here-after, if satisfied of the good conduct of the proprietor, will give him the balance which is due to him. This is a state of things which we know not as having existed at any time in any part of the world, and all this machinery would remain to affict Poland during the long period of negotiation which must ensue if an armistice were agreed upon. Does the noble Earl, or does Her Majesty's Government, suppose that in diplomacy by itself there is any strength at all? Its strength is in the force by which it is supported—in the force behind. The strength of the Poles in diplomacy is the strength of the insurrection. It is no other. And, depend upon it, great as the sufferings of the Poles have been, they might have suffered for years longer, but if they had suffered in tranquillity and in silence, never would the sympathy of Europe have been extended to them. They have now the sympathy of Europe because they have had the courage and the spirit to rise against their oppressors. It is because they show themselves worthy of liberty that all Europe feels they ought to possess it. All I can say to the Poles is—"Persevere! Keep your arms! Strike down your enemies wherever you can reach them! You have embarked in a career of honour, of patriotism, and of glory. You may fall in the field; but it is better to fall there than to die in the ranks of your enemies. Persevere! And depend upon it, having adopted this course—adopted, perhaps, by despair, but sanctioned by reason and by justice—you will have the respect of all men, and, I trust, that Providence will bless your efforts."
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the noble Earl commenced by asking me what is the state of the negotiations in regard to Poland, and then expressed, with his usual eloquence, the views which he entertains with regard to the contest now going on in Poland. I will answer in a few words the questions he has put to me, but I shall try at the present moment to avoid entering into a discussion of the opinions which the noble Earl has expressed. As a Member of the Government I cannot think that it would be my duty to enter upon such a discussion at this moment. The present state of affairs in regard to diplomacy is this:—The Russian Government, as your Lordships are aware, have given separate

485
answers to the three Powers—Austria, France, and Great Britain. To Great Britain they gave a longer and more detailed answer than to France, and a much more detailed answer than that which was given to Austria. But the result of what Russia stated to the three Powers was, that on the basis of the Treaties of 1815 they were willing and desirous of exchanging ideas, as it was termed, with these Governments. Now, to have said at once, in reply to the Russian Ambassador, that the three Governments had no proposition to make would have been to place ourselves in a very disadvantageous position as regarded Russia. I think it might fairly then have been said by Russia, "As the three Powers have no suggestion whatever to make, the Emperor of Russia is quite free to use his power as he pleases, and to make such arrangements as he thinks best fitted for his own interests in Poland." My Lords, the three Powers, thinking that such would be a disadvantageous position, entered into communications with regard to any proposition which should be made tending to the future welfare of Poland, and to that permanent peace which they all declared was the object of their individual endeavours. These confidential communications which have been going on between the three Powers have not hitherto resulted in any communication to Russia; but France and Great Britain are agreed upon certain propositions which they think would be properly made to Russia, which would be becoming their own character, and which, if adopted at once by the Emperor of Russia, would conduce to the welfare and the permanent peace of Poland. These propositions have been sent to Vienna. With the Court of Vienna we had had previous communications, but the terms upon which France and Great Britain have agreed have not hitherto been approved by Austria. Those communications only reached Vienna on Saturday last. Count Rechberg, the Austrian Minister of Foreign Affairs, made various observations upon them, but he said he must take the pleasure of the Emperor, and he could not take the pleasure of the Emperor until Tuesday—that is, until tomorrow. We are therefore expecting the communication which the Austrian Government will make to the Governments of Great Britain and France. And in this state of affairs, having to consider—as we ought to consider—deliberately and carefully such communications as Austria shall make. I venture to say that it is not expedient
486
that your Lordships should now enter into a discussion upon this subject. With regard to the opinions which the noble Earl has expressed, I have already said I do not think it advisable to discuss them at present; but I will make a remark or two as to what he said both as to the Congress of Vienna, and as to the present state of things. When Lord Castlereagh arrived at the Congress of Vienna, the Emperor of Russia stated to him his views with regard to Poland—views which are well known, because they were afterwards adopted in the Treaty of Vienna. Lord Castleragh said at once, and I think with great sagacity, that in his opinion there would be considerable danger in adopting the propositions of the Emperor of Russia—dangers more especially affecting Austria and Prussia, who had shared in the partition of Poland. Lord Castlereagh said, that if a kingdom of Poland was erected which was to belong to the Emperor of Russia, who was to grant to it institutions of a liberal character, it was not to be expected that the Poles would consent, for the sake of that union, to renounce views which they had cherished since 1772—the restoration of Polish Nationality and the re-establishment of an independent kingdom: but, he said, such a kingdom would give rise to wishes on the part of the Polish subjects of Austria and Prussia for the enjoyment of similar privileges; and thus the Russian plan of establishing a kingdom of Poland would only nurture a spirit of discontent and disaffection among the Polish subjects of Austria and Prussia. Lord Castlereagh proposed, with the consent of Austria and Prussia, that there should be an independent kingdom of Poland; that it should be either an independent kingdom, comprising all the provinces of ancient Poland, or that it should be a kingdom confined to the Duchy of Warsaw, which at that time the Emperor claimed to be under his own jurisdiction. It became clear, in the course of the correspondence, and Lord Castlereagh admitted it to the Emperor of Russia, that although the earnest desire of Great Britain was to establish an independent kingdom of Poland, and however willing Austria and Prussia were to contribute to the reconstruction of such a kingdom, those two Powers were most averse to press anything upon the Emperor of Russia which might possibly lead to hostilities. Therefore, as that object of an independent kingdom could not be obtained, it was proposed that the provinces, instead of forming a king-

487
dom of Poland, should be divided in such a manner as to maintain the balance of power. Such were the general views of Lord Castlereagh at the Congress of Vienna. But the views of Austria and Prussia were affected by subsequent negotiations, and more especially were affected and disturbed by the return of Napoleon from Elba; and therefore a different arrangement was finally agreed upon by the Congress. Now, as to what the noble Earl has said about a suspension of arms, I do not deny that the objections which he has made to what he considers to have been proposed by the Government are of great force. I admit that it may be found totally impracticable to provide for any temporary suspension of arms. But, at the same time, both humanity and policy seem to demand some such measure; because, as the noble Earl has truly said, nothing can be more horrible than the present state of Poland—nothing can be more horrible than the conduct of the Russian soldiery, on one side, destroying villages, taking the lives of those who fall into their hands, killing their prisoners on the field of battle; and the conduct of the insurgents on the other hand, who, when they find the peasantry are opposed to them, hold secret courts, which end by hanging those against whom sentence of death is passed. More than that, we hear of orders of assassination going forth from a secret tribunal, with a declaration that no one opposed to them should be allowed to live. Surely humanity suggests that any step would be desirable that would put an end to such a state of things. We would consent to propose one plan after another—one scheme after another—if we had any hope that such a state of things might have even a temporary pause. But if diplomacy is to have any effect, only consider how difficult it would be—nay, how futile it would be—to be exchanging diplomatic notes or holding conferences, while events are taking place in Poland from day to day which may, on one side, embitter those whom we expect to accept terms, and may drive them into such a state of fury that they will accept no terms whatever; or, on the other hand, if the insurrection is suppressed, may place the Powers which had taken part in the negotiations in a position to be told, "You have been framing schemes of conciliation and devising plans for the future welfare of Poland, but in the mean time the armies of the Emperor of Russia have suppressed the outbreak, and now it depends upon his
488
good will and pleasure alone what terms he will grant to Poland." Therefore, the question whether it is possible to have an armistice or not is surrounded by immense difficulties. It is surrounded by such immense difficulties as makes me hesitate to give any assurance to the noble Earl that we can come to any satisfactory termination of these discussions. Our position, as I conceive, under the Treaties of 1815, is this—that being parties to the Treaties of 1815, and those Treaties not having been annulled, we are still bound by them. That being so, we have to propose terms which we think will be consistent with those treaties, and which we think will also tend to the welfare of Poland and lead to the establishment of durable peace in that portion of the world. Such is our task. It is not our task to propose the construction of a great kingdom of Poland, comprising all the ancient provinces of Poland, nor to propose such a plan to the acceptance of the different Powers who were parties to the Treaties of Vienna. It must always be our endeavour to conduct our communications with the different Powers of Europe in such a manner as to preserve the general peace. For my part I can see no advantage that could arise from armed intervention on behalf of Poland. I can see nothing but confusion and calamity likely to arise from an interruption of the peace of Europe. I cannot see what clear or definite object which a British Government could propose to itself, would justify them on entering into such hostilities, and I must enter my protest against engaging in any such contest. I ask with humility—because I feel how incapable I am of conducting an affair of such great difficulty; but as holding a grave and responsible office in the Government, and being responsible to the Crown and to Parliament for the conduct of these negotiations—I do venture to ask your Lordships to pause at this time, and to await the result of further communications. When these communications have been made, Her Majesty's Government will fearlessly produce to Parliament the results at which they have arrived whatever those results may be—whether, as I hope, these results will be such as shall be beneficial to the Poles, or that we are obliged to say that after all our efforts we have failed in obtaining those concessions to which the Poles look for freedom. Whatever course we may pursue, I shall be ready to state that course to the House

489
and to abide your Lordships' judgment upon it.
THE DUKE OF RUTLANDsaid, he regretted that the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, had not made his appeal before the subject was introduced; because now the address of his noble Friend (the Earl of Ellenborough) would go forth to this country and to the world unanswered. That speech was couched in eloquent, but, as he considered, hasty language. The noble Earl said, that the sympathy of the people of this country was with Poland. No doubt, sympathy for poland had been shown by both sides of their Lordships' House, and that sympathy was also very general throughout the country. But they must take care, that in expressing that sympathy and giving vent to their natural feelings, they did not do a great injustice to a great and friendly Power. The noble Earl bad alluded to the dreadful conscription of the 14th of January, which every one must deplore. He was not going to apologize for that cruel and impolitic act. He thought it unworthy of the Emperor of Russia and of the people of that great country; but they should remember that the object of the Emperor was one of humanity. The Emperor, in giving a most reluctant consent to the carrying out of that conscription, did so in order to grant that constitution to Poland which had been referred to by both the noble Earls who had addressed the House; and when the noble Earl said that there was no parallel in the history of Europe to that act of cruelty and violence, he must be allowed to say that other nations, claiming to be even in the van of civilization, had, on occasions of emergency and danger, carried out measures quite as severe and unjustifiable and in a much more cruel manner, causing oceans of blood to be shed. He said again that the Emperor of Russia, in getting rid of the disaffected spirits in Warsaw, was desirous of giving liberal institutions and a better constitution to those who remained, who were the peaceful inhabitants. Their Lordships had listened to the eloquent language employed to depict the horrors of this war and the lamentable state of Poland—to his belief, no words could express the horror they must feel at what was taking place in Poland; but, he ventured to say, the best way of stopping the effusion of blood would be, not by lending their support to those who were engaged in insurrection and waging a war that could
490
ultimately be of no benefit to themselves, but, rather, to give their moral support to the cause of order and good Government; and then, when the insurrection was put down, it would be for the Governments of France, Austria, and England to step forward and recommend the granting of such a constitution and those institutions which might lead to the happiness of the Polish nation. It was not only the combatants but the non-combatants who were suffering most severely in Poland. He could not do better than read to their Lordships an extract from the correspondence of The Times upon this point—
"A Polish proprietor in the kingdom was summoned not long since before a Russian General, charged with having rendered assistance to the insurgents, and solemnly cautioned against doing so again. The proprietor explained his position. 'If,' he said, 'the insurgents come to my place and ask for horses, carts, and corn, I must give them what they want or they will hang me. If, on the other hand, I let them have anything more than I am actually forced to give, you will hang me. However, if they hang me, my son will never find a wife in Poland, or my daughter a husband, and fifty years after my death people will turn their backs upon my children; whereas, if you hang me, I shall have monuments erected to my memory. On the whole, then, as a mere matter of calculation, I cannot refuse assistance to the insurgents.' I believe that in this particular in-stance the General was satisfied with the explanation given by the proprietor, who, perhaps, might have added that before long all his class will be drawn into active co-operation with the national movement. Hitherto they, the actual owners of the estates, have left their sons to represent them in the field, though they have supported the insurrection indirectly in a variety of ways, and directly by means of money contributions."
He believed that to be really a faithful picture of the horrible state of Poland at the present moment. The patriotism of the Polish ladies was well known. Dressed in the deepest mourning, they would tell you, if you asked the cause, that they were mourning for their country; but how many of them were now in mourning, not only for their country, but for some father, or husband, or brother, or son? He implored their Lordships, not by a morbid sentimentality and a feeble feeling towards the Poles, or by an uncertain and unmeaning diplomacy, to rivet those fetters which they all desired to see broken from the Poles, and by not countenancing with their support this dreadful insurrection, to give the opportunity to the Emperor of Russia of carrying out those reforms which he (the Duke of Rutland) believed in his heart he was anxious to do, and of granting a constitution to Poland that would enable

491
the Polish people to live happily and in peace.
LORD BROUGHAMagreed, that as to the conduct of the Emperor of Russia, they ought not to indulge unnecessarily in acrimonious invective. That sovereign had many great and good personal qualities. When he was in this country, every one who was brought into communication with him was impressed with his amiable and just disposition. But unhappily he succeeded to that which most short-sighted men thought the greatest blessing, but which was in reality the greatest curse both to others and to themselves—namely, to absolute despotic power. And, no doubt, they had seen him in his great and exalted vocation employ that great power most beneficially and most honestly to a great operation—the emancipation of 20,000,000 of his peasantry. But, unhappily, despotism had not only a corrupting tendency on those who exercised it, but it had this misfortune, that it communicated the caprices of despotism to all employed in carrying out its orders. He did not believe that the Emperor of Russia himself instigated these proceedings which had goaded the Poles to this insurrection; but he could not go along with his noble Friend (the Duke of Rutland), in thinking that the object of the conscription, which had most justly been called a proscription, and of all the cruelties exercised under it, was to enable the Emperor to give a constitution to Poland. He could not go so far as that: but this he would say, that it was the persons employed by the Emperor who were to blame for that proscription, and for the fraud and cruelty under which it was carried into effect—its real object being, under the pretext of a conscription, to get rid of a body of the people of the most important and worthy character. That was done by those who were employed by the Emperor; and no doubt he was bound, as soon as the fact was communicated to him, to put an end to it. Having, however, given his sanction to it, he must now bear the shame of that proceeding. He entirely agreed with the noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough) in the advice he had given to the Poles. He also agreed in considering that an armistice, from the nature of the case, was out of the question. He was grieved to hear the statement of his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary, that he could not at present explain the progress of the negotiations—he hoped and trusted that in a few days he would find himself at
492
liberty to give a satisfactory account. He agreed with the noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough) that it was most important if, by good fortune—by the wisdom of Russia, and by the prudence of Prussia—for Prussia was deeply interested—it was possible to give a constitution to Poland—not at all the constitution which they claimed, and which had been taken from them for so many years, but a constitution forming a separate country of Poland; and though that country might be under a Russian sovereign, yet one independent of Russia, and having a Government of its own; he hoped and trusted the people would listen to the advice of his noble Friend the noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough) and accept it. It was now half a century since he espoused the cause of the Poles, in concert with his lamented friend Prince Czartoryski, who was then in this country. He had not at that time, from accidental circumstances, a seat in Parliament, and could not therefore address the House of Commons in their behalf; but he addressed to the public what was called an "Appeal for Poland;" and that appeal was, he believed, not wholly without effect in their favour. He trusted, therefore, they would receive from their ancient ally the advice which he now gave, in common with his noble Friend on the bench behind him—to be satisfied with any such arrangement as that to which he had referred—namely, the establishment of an independent Kingdom of Poland, although under a Russian and not under a Polish Sovereign. That would be true wisdom on the part of the Poles; and he hoped—he perhaps rather wished than expected—that such a result might be attained.
LORD STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFEsaid, that having been absent unavoidably during the early part of the Session, he hoped to be excused if he took that opportunity of offering a few words on the important subject which the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Ellenborough) had brought under the notice of the House with his usual felicity and effect. If any gentleman from Poland had been present at that discussion, it would doubtless have afforded him the greatest pleasure to observe that every one of their Lordships who had taken part in it, though differing on some points of opinion, had expressed a cordial sympathy with the unhappy condition of the Poles, and a desire to rescue them from the cruel treatment which they had so long expe-

493
rienced at the hands of Russia. More than one noble Lord had placed no small degree of reliance on the personal character of the reigning Emperor; and, in truth, there was reason to believe that his sentiments were those of humanity and his intentions benevolent. But he would ask if those sentiments were attended with any practical effect in favour of his Polish subjects—if those intentions were carried out to any degree commensurate with the wants of Poland and its just claims to redress? If, on the contrary, as they had heard that night, and not unfrequently before, the Emperor's humanity was counteracted by those who surrounded him, and that even his irresponsible position and absolute power did not secure him from the evil influences of those who substituted their own prejudices for his benevolent views, what was the value of such idle unproductive virtues, and how could the Poles be expected to fix their trust on such unstable foundations? They naturally looked elsewhere for guarantees—they could not lose sight of the bitter experience which they had found in so many years of illusion, disappointment and suffering—they gave way to feelings of despair—they appealed to the sympathies of Europe, and found no solace except in the idea of national independence and emancipation from an intolerable yoke. These hopes, however difficult to realize, seemed to be justified, not only by the necessities of the case, but more especially by the principles which were more or less adopted by the leading Powers at Vienna nearly half a century ago, and which were distinctly pressed on the consideration of Russia by the representative of the British Government. He purposely abstained from repeating arguments which had been so eloquently urged by the noble and learned Lord who had preceded him in that discussion. It was probable that the Session would not close without offering other opportunities of debating this momentous question, and the state of the pending negotiations, as described by the noble Earl at the head of the Foreign Department, whatever might be the amount of hope which it held out, seem ed, he confessed, to recommend the suspension of any further discussion on the subject in their Lordships' House until a stronger light could be thrown by Her Majesty's Government on the prospects of a diplomatic result. The present cir-
494
cumstances of Europe, and indeed of the world at large, called loudly for the earliest practicable settlement of a question so vast in its range, so dangerous in its consequences. It would be difficult to find a period when so many elements of confusion had been let loose. On the Continent, as in this country, there was a prevailing anxiety as to what is to be the issue of such an extraordinary and menacing state of things. It was impossible to converse with any man of political observation without finding an echo to the anxious and painful thoughts engendered by so many causes of dispute and chances of collision. But a few days ago in Paris one of the ablest statesmen in France demanded of him whether he had ever known a more confused and disjointed state of things? It really looked as if we had lost sight of our old principles in matters of international concern, without supplying their place by others worthy of reliance. The sources of this confusion might be supposed to lie beyond the reach of individual policy, and it was far from his meaning to throw blame on any one invested with responsible power under such critical circumstances; but what he wished to inculate was the importance of not unnecessarily delaying any assistance that might be given to the settlement of the Polish question, and not leaving Europe exposed to the additional danger which could not but spring out of the prolonged continuance of a war so barbarous in its character as that which was now spreading slaughter and devastation over so extensive a theatre.
LORD DENMANwould not have addressed their Lordships if the noble Viscount (once an ambassador) had not spoken; but as the noble Duke on the bench above him had remarked that diplomacy was unavailing, and as a relative of his own had attended a meeting in the City of London in which it was resolved that all diplomatic intercourse with Russia should cease, he could not refrain from saying that he hoped that diplomacy and a congress might Yet lead to useful results. That it had hitherto been powerless, had been caused by the part taken in 1836 by the noble Lord now First Lord of the Treasury, and the noble Earl now Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. It was on a subject which he would not name, as it had ended well for Poland; but the course taken by the late hon. Baronet, Sir Robert Inglis, was far better. That hon. Baronet, who so care-

495
fully guarded the constitution of this country, said, if you remonstrate, do not deprecate war in the first instance, but come down for a Vote of ten or twenty millions, for which he would vote to be ready to support diplomacy; and he (Lord Denman) really thought that the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, should respect and not unsettle the constitution of this country, and not dictate a constitution to Poland. His (Lord Denman's) noble and lamented Father had, on one occasion, described the Potentates of Europe as "miscreants," but then he believed that armed, unjustifiable aggression was intended in aid of tyranny at Naples; but now almost all the crowned heads of Europe were anxious for the happiness of all their subjects, and Englishment ought to re-establish confidence between them and their peoples.
"Superest componere fluctus."
He was not addressing their Lordships for the sake of being reported in The Times, but wished to make an impression on their Lordships' minds, and he hoped that people abroad would not place implicit reliance on the reports of newspapers, nor on the opinions of those who made reconciliation almost impossible. He was sorry to observe that subscriptions were being raised to put arms into the hands of insurgents, instead of money being found for the relief of the wounded. He knew of certain foreign gentlemen who might be in the House of Lords to hear this debate, and he hoped that they would carry away the impression that there was a large party in the country who were anxious that strife should cease, and order and happiness prevail.
EARL GREYsaid, that although he could not but concur in the general feeling of the House that this was a subject which they could not now discuss with advantage, still, after what had fallen from noble Lords who had preceded him, and particularly from the noble Viscount (Viscount Stratford de Redcliffe), he could not allow the debate to close without saying a few words. He must own that he had heard with some alarm that negotiations were still going on. The more they considered the lamentable condition of Poland—the more they heard of the dreadful contest there raging, the more doubtful it appeared to him that any diplomatic interference would be beneficial. His noble Friend the Foreign Secretary had told them—and he entirely agreed in that opinion.—that he thought this country ought not to take up arms on behalf of Poland. If, then, our
496
policy was to abstain from taking any part in the contest there raging, it seemed to him that diplomatic interference, however well meant, was far more likely to aggravate than to lessen all the evils which we deplored. He was sure that in the present state of both parties, and looking at the violence of feeling and action which prevailed on both sides, an accommodation between them was hardly to be anticipated; and he feared that the only effect of interference might be to postpone the time when one party or the other might think that the struggle had been carried far enough. The noble Duke (the Duke of Rutland) had spoken of what he called mischievous and unmeaning diplomacy. He confessed that he shared in the noble Duke's fears in regard to unmeaning diplomacy. He believed it was true, as their Lordships had been told, that Europe was now in a state of unexampled confusion, and he attributed that unfortunate condition of things to too much unmeaning diplomacy. We were too apt to interfere and give advice which could lead to nothing. But he would not further pursue the subject, and all he had to add was the expression of his strong opinion, that as we do not contemplate interference by arms, the less we interfered with advice the better we should stand with both parties.

PRISON MINISTERS BILL—(No. 109.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSET, in moving the second reading of the Bill, said, that although questions connected with religion usually excited feelings of jealousy, he hoped this measure would be discussed with calmness and moderation. The object of the Bill was to amend the law relating to prisons in England and Scotland with respect to the religious instruction of the prisoners therein. The law, as it at present stood, was settled by the Act of Geo. IV., c. 64, which required justices in quarter sessions to appoint chaplains—priests of the Established Church—to the prisons within their jurisdiction, and to pay them certain stipends out of the poor rates. The justices were also empowered to allow ministers of other denominations to attend upon prisoners, if a request were made for that purpose; but unless prisoners made such request, ministers other than those of

  497
  the Established Church could not visit them, except in cases where they were under sentence of condemnation. The direct object of the Bill, therefore, was to provide for the religious instruction of prisoners not belonging to the Established Church; and although it applied to persons of all denominations, it was in fact chiefly required for Roman Catholics. There were a great number of Roman Catholics belonging to the labouring classes of the people; and it appeared from the Returns, there were in the county and borough gaols of this country a large number of Roman Catholic prisoners—in some years as many as 3,000 or 4,000. Their Lordships would feel that these unfortunate persons, many of them brought up in ignorance and vice, ought to have an opportunity afforded to them of obtaining religious instruction; but this, as the law at present stood, they could not do without making a special application to the justices; and this was well-nigh hopeless, because it was obvious that those who most needed religious instruction were the least likely to make a request to see a minister of religion. It might be observed that by the Act of George IV., which regulated the prisons of Ireland, and provided that grand juries should appoint chaplains, they were enabled to appoint Roman Catholic clergymen if they should think fit, and such chaplains were almost universally appointed in that country, in addition to Protestant chaplains. Yet it appeared by the Returns that in Ireland the Protestant prisoners were very few. For example, in the gaol of Galway there were five prisoners belonging to the Established Church and seventy who were Roman Catholics; and in Cork gaol there were eight prisoners belonging to the Established Church and above a hundred Roman Catholics. Yet in every gaol in Ireland ample provision was made for the religious instruction of the Protestants, and chaplains were appointed to visit them at the same rate of remuneration as was paid to the Roman Catholic chaplains. From that statement their Lordships would feel it would he only reasonable that in this country, where many Roman Catholic prisoners were undergoing punishment, some means of affording religious instruction should be found for them; and accordingly this Bill sought to provide those means. The measure, their Lordships would probably be of opinion, did not go beyond the necessity of the case, and that to a practical grievance it applied a practical remedy The Bill provided, that
  498
  where the number of prisoners confined in any prison belonging to any religious denomination other than the Church of England in England, and the Church of Scotland in Scotland, was so great as in the opinion of the justices or other persons having the appointment of chaplain to require the ministrations of a minister of their own persuasion, the justices may appoint such minister to attend upon the prisoners of his own persuasion, and might award to him a reasonable sum for his services, to be paid out of the fund legally applicable to the expenses of the prison. This minister was to hold his appointment at the pleasure of the authority by whom he was appointed, and was bound to conform in all respects to the prison regulations. The clause further provided, that where no such minister was specially appointed, the visiting justices might, without any special request from a prisoner, permit a minister of the particular denomination to which a prisoner belonged to visit such prisoner at seasonable hours. Practically, this Bill would apply to only a few prisons in England and Wales—he believed to not more than sixteen in the whole, and amongst them would be those of Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow, and Birmingham. In some of those prisons the number of Roman Catholics was so large that the magistrates would be justified in appointing regular chaplains to visit them. The objections which had been raised to the Bill did not appear to him to be of great weight. First, it was said that there would be an addition to the poor rates; but he thought their Lordships would set aside such a ground, and say that while the whole of the people of Ireland were rated for the religious instruction of Protestant prisoners, they ought not to grudge the small provision which would be necessary for Roman Catholic prisoners in England. It was next said that the Bill would create dissensions amongst the visiting justices; but he did not think those gentlemen would act so unreasonably as to seek to withhold from the most wretched class of their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects the means of religious instruction. He thought the Bill had been well arranged for the purpose of meeting a practical grievance, and it would in addition relieve Protestant chaplains from the necessity of visiting those who never liked to see them. In truth, the Bill was not of a religious character at all—it was a measure of prison discipline. He had stated generally the grounds why this Bill should be read a second time, and he felt

  499
  confident that their Lordships would agree with him that they ought not to withhold from any portion of the people that religious instruction which, if afforded, might make them better citizens.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  LORD BERNERSsaid, he rose to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. He did so on three grounds:—1st. That he considered it wrong to pay for the propagation of error. 2nd. That it was unnecessary. 3rd. That the results would be mischievous and injurious to the interests of the Established Church. The Protestant religion was established by law, and the Protestant Church was connected with the State in this country, and therefore they were bound not only to maintain them, but to refrain from encouraging any other creed that was hostile to them; and he believed that to subsidize the ministers of other denominations was an act of hostility to the Church of England. He loved religious liberty, and considered that the true principle of toleration was to allow every man to worship God in the way in which he might think fit; but he did not think it required him to give legislative sanction to the interference of ministers of other denominations, or to set up antagonists to the ministers of the Gospel appointed to give religious consolation to prisoners by the justices of the peace. That the Bill was not necessary was clear from the fact that the justices already possessed a permissive power, where there was a large number of prisoners not of the Established Church, to allow ministers of their own denomination to visit them. That power, so far as Roman Catholics were concerned, had worked well. But in many cases Roman Catholic prisoners attended the ministrations of the Protestant chaplains; and if this Bill passed, that privilege would be denied to them. By Returns to Parliament it appeared, that in eleven prisons, of 1,515 Roman Catholic prisoners only 317 had availed themselves of the permission to be visited by priests of their own faith. One of the greatest objections to this Bill was, that it would give a status to Roman Catholic priests which at present they did not possess, and they would be put upon an equality with clergymen of the Established Church. Further, if it was conceded that Roman Catholic or Dissenting chaplains might be appointed to gaols, he did not see how they could withhold them from union work-
  500
  houses and other public institutions. He objected to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, and their doctrine that some sins were venial and some mortal: such doctrines could only have a tendency to create a confusion between right and wrong in the minds of the prisoners, and could not lead to improvement. Their Lordships should also remember, that as Roman Catholic priests were above the law, and held authority of those who were superior to the law, the justices would have no power over them. The case of the Rev. Mr. Fox and the guardians of the South Dublin Union was a case in point; and after reading the correspondence in that case, and quoting the Returns of the Inspectors of Prisons, proving the proportion of criminals to population, those of the Romish Church was double that of the Protestant, and arguing that the teaching, the doctrine, and discipline of Romish priests were not such as to promote the reclamation or improvement of criminals, he said, he felt it to be his duty to move that this Bill be read a second time that day six months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and insert ("this Day Six Months").
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, it is with the most sincere regret that I feel it my painful duty to express opinions opposed to those entertained by my noble Friend who has just spoken; and, I fear, to those of other noble Friends in this House. My Lords, so great is my respect for the religious scruples of my noble Friend, and for every statement he has made, and so firmly am I convinced of the honesty of his objections, and so highly do I value the unity of action, that if this were a matter of minor importance, or if it were a question upon which I myself had a shadow of doubt or hesitation, I should infinitely prefer to waive my own opinions and yield to objections the force of which I do not feel, and obey scruples which I do not myself entertain. But I do 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 decided, that painful as it is for me to differ from my noble Friend, and from others, I cannot refrain from giving that vote in support of this measure which I believe I am called to give by justice. My noble Friend objects to this Bill, that it lowers the status of the Church of England, and puts other denominations of Christians upon the same

  501
  footing as the Church of England. I think I may appeal with tolerable confidence to a public life of more than forty years to obtain for me the credit of refusing to consent to any measure which, in my judgment, would be injurious to the interests or derogatory to the position of the Church of England in this country. It is nearly forty years since, in one of my first addresses to Parliament, I opposed a measure brought forward by the late Mr. Hume, calculated as I believed to injure the interests of the Established Church in Ireland. Ten years later, rather than consent to a measure which I conceived was likely to injure that branch of our Established Church, I seceded from a Government presided over by a man to whose memory I can never look back but with the utmost respect, regard, and affection, and from a Cabinet with which I had no other cause of difference, and with many of the Members of which I have always continued on the terms of intimate friendship. I appeal to the recollections of your Lordships, whether from that time down to the present moment, when any measure was brought forward threatening, as I thought, the independence and integrity of the Church of England, I have not been one of the foremost to oppose it; and whether, when any measure was brought forward calculated, in my opinion, to secure the position and to augment the influence of that Church, my voice has not been raised, and raised energetically, in its favour. I say this in answer by anticipation to those who might he disposed to say that in this matter I had allowed myself to be overruled by the opinions of others to consent to a measure which I deemed to be unfavourable to the position of the Established Church.
  My Lords, in discussing this measure I shall deal with it as one which specially affects the 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 (Lord Berners) says that the Bill places the Roman Catholic Church upon a footing of equality with the Church of England; but I think my noble Friend 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 misconceive entirely the essential character of
  502
  an endowment. I hold it to be essential to an endowment that the possession of it should be permanent and certain; that it should not depend on the voluntary action or caprice of any party; that it should not only be the property of the individual possessor, but that it should be capable of being secured to his successors, and that it should be maintainable at law as a positive and substantial right, and should only be withdrawn by the omnipotence of Parliament. But is that the case with the concession which the present measure will extend to the Roman Catholics in this country? What does this Bill do? It provides, that in any case in which it is the opinion of the justices that the number of prisoners differing from the Church of England in any prison is so great as in their judgment to require the ministrations of a clergyman of any other religious persuasion, the said justices may appoint a minister 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 minister shall hold his appointment at the pleasure of the justices, and shall be subject to all the rules and regulations of the prisons they may attend. Now, I appeal to your Lordships whether every one of the essentials of an endowment are not only studiously omitted here, but absolutely contradicted. It is left entirely to the justices to appoint if they think fit; they may refuse to pay the minister; they may pay him just what sum they 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 existing law is perfectly sufficient for all the purposes of the spiritual instruction of Roman Catholic prisoners. I regret to have to state that I differ from my noble Friend upon that point altogether. I do not think that the provisions of the law as it stands are satisfactory, or that they are founded in justice. The law is, indeed, so manifestly unjust that in all the principal prisons, I believe, the magistrates depart from its strict letter. The law is that every prisoner shall, without any distinction, be visited by the chaplain of the gaol, who, of course, must be a clergyman of the Church of England. Now, I know well the honesty and the love of fair play of my noble Friend, and I ask him to reverse this position. I ask him whether, if this were a

  503
  Roman Catholic country containing a considerable number of Protestant prisoners, and if they were compelled to receive, whether they would or, not, the visits 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? My noble Friend Bays that this restriction does not apply to the case of prisoners who desire to see a minister of their own persuasion. But the law makes no such provision. 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 persuasion, 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 forward and ask for the services of a minister of their own persuasion? It is to be said—and to be said to the great credit of the Roman Catholic prisoners—that a very considerable number of them do request to receive the ministrations of one of their own clergymen; and it was also greatly to the credit of the clergy of the Roman Catholic persuasion that in no case do they neglect the call so made upon them. 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 instruction from the ministers of the other; and Dissenting ministers do not object to prisoners of their persuasion receiving the ministrations of the Church of England chaplain. The case of Roman Catholics, however, is widely different. They have been instructed that even 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 deprecate 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 more authority and responsibility than he would to the minister of any other persuasion.
  504
  My noble Friend says he does not desire that Roman Catholic prisoners should be deprived of the offices of their religion. But was it right that they should only receive them in those cases in which they have made an express request for that purpose? We have been led to believe that reformation is the great object of punishment. I am afraid it does not follow as frequently as philanthropists would wish; 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 instruction and consolation. It must not be forgotten that we have here to deal with a very considerable class. I do not know whether my noble Friend has seen a Return moved for in the House of Commons by Lord Edward Howard. From this Return it appears that there is a very large number of Roman Catholics in the various gaols of England. In the eleven convict prisons of the country there are 1,388 Roman Catholics, being an average of 126 to each prison. In fourteen of the other prisons the average number is 133, the number in each of the fourteen exceeding 50. Now, I am as sincerely opposed as any one can be to the doctrines and practices of the Roman Catholic Church. I believe it has encumbered the simplicity of public worship with a vast amount of unnecessary forms and ceremonies, in which the spiritual character of religion is overloaded with that which is merely external and apparent to the senses. I think that many of its doctrines are not only not supported by, but are absolutely repugnant to the written Word of God. I think that some points to which it attaches the greatest importance are points in which it derogates from the worship to be paid to the Almighty alone, and from the merits of the only Mediator in whom Protestants are taught to place their only trust. But whatever I may think of the mode in which the Roman Catholic Church overloads the foundations of scriptural truth, yet I cannot shut my eyes to the fact that those foundations are at least the same with its members as with us—that we both acknowledge the same God and the same Saviour, that we look to the same Mediator for the remission of sins, and that we derive our religious and moral teachings from that same source to which alone Christians can look for the foundation of their religious belief and moral practice. Therefore, although the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church may he mingled with much of

  505
  error, I cannot assent to the position of my noble Friend, and deny that the influence of the priests of that Church must have a most powerful tendency to guide the minds of prisoners of their own persuasion, and to awaken those prisoners to a sense of their former evil life. Prisoners are persons who stand peculiarly in need of religious instruction. Either it is desirable that Roman Catholic prisoners should have the teaching of their own Church, or it is not. If it is desirable, we are hound to give it to them, in order to accomplish the main object 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, and rightly given. The only point in dispute is whether it should be given gratuitously, or should he 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 impossible, and seldom difficult, to procure the attendance of a Roman Catholic clergyman; but there are many prisons in which it would be unjust and impossible to call on the Roman 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. 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; and this circumstance may, perhaps, have influenced us in forming the opposite conclusions at which we have arrived. I find that in the borough gaol of Liver pool there are about 350 or 360 prisoners who are members of the Church of England. The Protestant chaplain of that prison receives a sum of £400 a year for his services. In the same gaol there are 460 Roman Catholic prisoners. The Ro man Catholic priest attends twice a week, and the remuneration for his services to about a hundred more prisoners than are
  506
  attended by the Protestant chaplain is just nil, as against the £400 paid to the latter gentleman. My Lords, it is impossible to look at those Returns, and to argue in the face of the facts which they disclose that you are dealing justly and equitably as between the ministers of the two Churches. My noble Friend objects to any payment being made to a Roman Catholic priest. Why does not my noble Friend object to the payment of Roman Catholic Chaplains in Ireland? [Lord BERNERS: I think it wrong in Ireland.] In Ireland the system is compulsory. The law compels the appointment of Roman Catholic chaplains in the gaols of that country, and provides for their payment out of the county rates. 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. 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. It may be said that there is a much larger number of Roman Catholics in Ireland than in this country. But this Bill merely provides that the magistrates shall have the power of appointing Roman Catholic chaplains in those prisons in which the number of Roman Catholics is so great as to render it desirable, in their opinion, that such a course should be adopted. I think it a matter of great importance that the magistrates are to have the power of dismissing the Roman Catholic chaplain, so that he should feel that he is under their jurisdiction, and is responsible to them for the manner in which he discharges his duties. My noble Friend apprehends that this provision may be overridden, and that, while nominally in the hands of the magistrates, the appointment of the priest may in reality be in the hands of the Roman Catholic bishop; and my noble Friend referred to a case in which he says Archbishop Cullen insisted on a particular appointment, and in which the Irish Poor Law Commissioners—as I think very unwisely—yielded; but I feel persuaded that there is not much fear of magistrates in this country allowing themselves to be brow-beaten or unduly influenced by an imprudent Roman Catholic bishop. I am sure they would maintain their authority if any attempt were made

  507
  to set it at defiance. No doubt, there are imprudent and ill-judging bishops in the Roman Catholic Church, as I am afraid there are in all other Churches; but, though the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church may be that the Church and bishops are superior to the law, that happily is not a doctrine which prevails in this country, and magistrates would take care to let their authority be felt, and to show that no man was superior to the law. It is true that the Roman Catholic bishop might prohibit the clergyman from acting; but in that case the deprivation of religious instruction would lie not at the magistrate's, but at the bishop's door. I think that consideration will weigh with Roman Catholic bishops in this country, and I am not apprehensive that any result of this kind will ensue. It appears to me that the Bill is one which meets the justice and the equity of the case, and does not go beyond it. It does not place the Roman Catholic Church in a position different from that of other denominations. 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 performance without remuneration; that you shall make a fair return for services which you may deem valuable in carrying out the great work of prison reformation.
  My Lords, I am well aware not only that in the course I feel called upon to take I differ from several of my noble Friends around me, but that this measure has met with much misapprehension and prejudice—honest prejudice, no doubt—and that it is not likely to be popular in the 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 make a much greater sacrifice than in taking a course which may subject me to unpopularity out of doors, when I find myself differing on this question from so many of my noble Friends around me, with whom, on most 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
  508
  principle of Christian charity and religion, I deem it my duty to give a conscientious and a cordial vote in favour of the second reading.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, that no declaration on the part of his noble Friend who had just sat down was required to free him from the slightest suspicion of doing anything which, in his opinion, could tend to injure the Established Church. Nevertheless, while he gave his noble Friend the fullest credit for being actuated by the most perfect sincerity of feeling, he could not but think he had arrived at a most erroneous conclusion; though the question was certainly not without its difficulties. His noble Friend had taken much pains to show that the Bill proposed no endowment in the case of the Roman Catholics. No doubt, it was not an endowment in the strict sense; but Roman Catholic priests were to be paid for their services out of the rates, and the difference between that and endowment was rather one of words than of substance. Hitherto, the duty of attending to the spiritual wants of the Roman Catholic or Dissenting prisoners had been left to be performed by voluntary effort, and he did not see why these denominations should be assisted in this duty any more than in the duty of attending to their sick, or of carrying on other works of charity, to which they were found fully equal. Great inconvenience would be occasioned when a Roman Catholic priest was introduced into our prisons as a kind of rival chaplain to the chaplain of the Established Church, and dissensions would arise which could not but be mischievous. The new principle which it was now sought to introduce was not called for by toleration or by necessity; for by the existing law prisoners could be visited alike by the Romish priest and the Dissenting minister. The Dissenters were not asking for such a measure; they did not call upon the State to endow their ministers, and decidedly objected to an endowment of Roman Catholic priests. Moreover, the Bill would introduce a new subject of discord all over England without any adequate advantage. Questions of a most invidious character would arise; the church rate question had created nothing comparable to the discord which would be occasioned by such a measure. On all these grounds, he felt bound to oppose the second reading.
  THE EARL OF CHICHESTERthought it his duty to vote for the second reading, but at the same time he felt strong object-

  509
  tions to some of the provisions of the Bill. With its professed principle he agreed—namely, that of enabling a better provision to be made for the religious instruction of the Roman Catholic prisoners. It was quite necessary that the present state of the law should be amended. As the House had been reminded, Roman Catholic chaplains were regularly appointed and paid in Irish gaols; and in the great convict establishments in this country the same system existed. His principal objection to the Bill was, that the appointment of Roman Catholic chaplains was loft discretionary with the Courts of Quarter Sessions. He thought Parliament ought to define the class of prisons to which Roman Catholic chaplains should he appointed, and also ought to lay down the limits of the salaries to be paid to them. From his experience, he could not believe that in his part of England any Roman Catholic chap lain was at all likely to be appointed. Under the existing law, Roman Catholic prisoners were entitled to the ministrations of priests of their own faith, if they chose to ask for them; but under this Bill those ministrations might be forced upon them, and this appeared to him very objection able. He should support the second reading, but only in the hope that Amendments would be introduced in Committee.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, that after the appeal that had been made to their Lordships in support of the Bill upon the ground of justice, he would have been unwilling to vote against it, had not a careful consideration of the subject, and an attentive hearing of the speeches that had been delivered, led him to believe that no injustice would be done by rejecting the measure. The noble Earl who spoke last (the Earl of Chichester) had told them that there was little probability that in his part of the country any bench of magistrates would be found to consider a Roman Catholic chaplain a necessary officer in their prisons. If that were likely to be practically the result of this Bill, the question of the justice of the claim was scarcely involved in their decision; and an important principle was involved—namely, whether it was right or not that in this country now for the first time steps should be token to appoint Roman Catholic chaplains to great public institutions. One main difficulty which had been forced upon him in considering this question was, that he could find nothing to point out definitively where
  510
  that principle was to stop. The noble Lord who moved the Amendment alluded to the union workhouses, and no doubt, if this measure were adopted, great difficulties would arise with regard to workhouses. Poverty was no crime; many were forced into the workhouses from sheer destitution, and it was well known that in the poorer districts a large proportion of the inmates of the workhouses were Roman Catholics. No doubt some persons might say that it was desirable to have Roman Catholic chaplains appointed for these workhouses; but he was not persuaded that the country was prepared for such a step. He thought it was right that every Roman Catholic prisoner should have free access to his spiritual advisers, as he thought the instruction they would receive, however imperfect it might be, was likely to do good; but he did not see that it was therefore necessary that in every prison there should be a Roman Catholic priest invested with the status of a prison chaplain. He was told that there was no difficulty—all honour to our Roman Catholic brethren for it—in obtaining religious instruction to Roman Catholic prisoners by voluntary exertions. It might be hard to accept those services without payment; but he was not there-fore prepared to sacrifice a principle, and to go out of the way to pass a measure which must lead to great difficulties hereafter, He was almost of opinion, that after all, if, as was stated, this measure was not likely to lead to the appointment of Roman Catholic chaplains, it was quite possible there might be a party in the country whom it was thought desirable, for various political reasons, to conciliate, without any great regard to sacred principles; and this Bill might have been introduced to conciliate these persons rather than from any desire to do justice and secure instruction to Roman Catholic prisoners. Under any circumstances, he could not think that the country was prepared to see Roman Catholic priests occupying the same status in our prisons and workhouses as the clergy of the Church of England. If the measure were practicable, if there should be no difficulty with regard to the appointments at the quarter sessions, he was afraid, that when the principle was extended to workhouses, such dissensions would arise as would make us very sorry we had ever touched the question. The noble Earl opposite had stated that the Roman Catholic bishops might be restrained from interference in the appoint-

  511
  ment of these chaplains; but every one was aware of the great difficulties which had arisen all over Europe from a collision with Roman Catholic bishops. For some reason or other Roman Catholic bishops were a difficult set of persons to deal with; and his advice to their Lordships would be not to step out of their way to give these bishops a stronger position than they now occupy.
  THE EARL OF CORKregretted the speech of the right rev. Prelate, which contained at least two fallacies. This was no innovation, because there were already Roman Catholic chaplains bearing the Queen's commission; and surely there could be no greater danger in allowing their ministration to prisoners in gaols than to soldiers dying on the field of battle. There was also a necessity for the Bill, because Returns showed that there were hundreds of Roman Catholic prisoners who did not obtain religious instruction. Under the existing law, although a prisoner might ask for the services of a priest of his own Church, yet he was forced to receive the visits of the Protestant chaplain, who frequently presented him with tracts questioning the validity of the religious instruction afforded by his own priest. In Scotland recently it appeared that a Scripture reader visited the Roman Catholics confined in a gaol; and when appeal was made to the Secretary of State, an order was given that the instruction should be confined to secular subjects; but, notwithstanding that instruction, the Scripture reader was allowed to continue his visits. He only regretted that the Bill was not made compulsory. It was said this Bill would lead to unpleasantness at quarter sessions; but the whole of his experience convinced him that the good sense of the majority of magistrates would never allow them to act otherwise than as their sense of justice dictated. He could not agree that the adoption of the Bill would be a source of danger to the Established Church. He should be sorry to think that the foundations of that Church were so weak as to be endangered by so simple a measure as this. For these reasons, he should support the second reading of this Bill.
  LORD ARUNDELL OF WARDOUR, who was imperfectly heard, supported the Bill. He considered that Roman Catholic prisoners were entitled, on the principles of religious toleration, to receive instruction from the ministers of their own persuasion;
  512
  and the Roman Catholic community, paying the same taxes with members of the Established Church, were entitled, as a matter of justice, to see that their fellow religionists shared the advantages secured to other prisoners. He contended that no status was conceded by this Bill to Roman Catholic priests to which they were not fairly entitled. He thanked Her Majesty's Government for having brought forward this measure, and he did so the more readily that he agreed with them on so few other questions; and he also desired to express his thanks to the noble Earl below him (the Earl of Derby) and the leader of the Conservative party in the other House of Parliament for their manly advocacy of this measure.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREregretted that the speech of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London) should have contained an insinuation, and a very offensive insinuation. His language implied that those on that (the Opposition) side of the House who advocated this Bill did so, not on the ground of the inherent justice of the claim on which it was based, but for the sake of gaining political support.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONexplained: Referring to the observation of a noble Earl, that the measure would lead to no practical result, because no Roman Catholic prison chaplains would be appointed under it, he had said that the argument founded on justice was not very strong, and that it might be supposed there was some other motive for the support given to the Bill.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, he thought the present imputation of the right rev. Prelate was equally unjustifiable. He totally repudiated any other motive for supporting the measure except a belief in its justice. In all the prisons of Ireland they had Roman Catholic chaplains, their appointment not being a matter left in the discretion of the magistrates, but being made compulsory, and their right to enter the prisons was one that he had never heard questioned by any political party. He maintained that the opponents of this Bill, if they were consistent men, were bound to move the repeal of the present law in Ireland. There was no difference of status between a Roman Catholic prisoner in England and a Roman Catholic prisoner in Ireland. In each case the man was a British subject under temporary restraint, and there was no reason on earth why he should be treated differently in this matter

  513
  in different parts of the United Kingdom. He wished there were a simple clause in this measure enacting, that whenever the number of Roman Catholics in a prison exceeded a certain minimum, then the governing body of the prison should be required to appoint and pay a Roman Catholic chaplain. It was said, that if this Bill were passed, Scottish magistrates would refuse to act upon it; but such a clause as he suggested would prevent their deliberately setting themselves up against the law. It was a question of policy whether they ought or ought not to have Roman Catholic prison chaplains. He thought that they ought, and the right rev. Prelate thought they ought not; but having once decided that there should be such chaplains, Parliament ought to take measures to insure that they should be appointed in a given case, and not leave it in the discretion of the various governing bodies of prisons to appoint or not appoint them as they thought fit. To leave the matter optional would create great religious excitement all over the country, and in Scotland might cause the intention of the Legislature to be wholly defeated.
  VISCOUNT MELVILLEsaid, he did not think the Bill as it stood would lead to the appointment of any Roman Catholic chaplains in Scotland; while he believed, on the other hand, it would engender contests between members of the Established Church and the Free Kirk for the nomination of a minister of their own denomination. The provisions of the measure ought to be more definite and explicit.
  THE BISHOP OF CASHELsaid, he regarded this as a question of principle, which was not to be disposed of by merely appealing to the practice existing in the prisons of Ireland or elsewhere. He would give the most thorough toleration to all religious persuasions, but he held it to be a very erroneous principle to encourage and pay people to teach that which we believe to be false.
  On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? their Lordships divided:—Contents, 65; Not-Contents, 30: Majority 35.
  Resolved in the Affirmative: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  CONTENTS.

  Westbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Devonshire, D.

  Newcastle, D.

  Grafton, D.

  514

  Somerset, D.

  Bolton, L.

  Bristol, M.

  Boyle, L. (E Cork and Orrery.)

  Normanby, M.

  Camoys, L.

  Abingdon, E.

  Carew, L.

  Airlie, E.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Belmore, E.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Cranworth, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Dartrey, L. (L. Cre-morne.)

  Chichester, E.

  Dormer, L.

  Cowper, E.

  Ebury, L.

  De Grey, E.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Derby, E.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  Ducie, E.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Granville, E.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Grey. E.

  Leigh, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Lovat, L.

  Powis, E.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  Sommers, E.

  Manners, L.

  Wicklow, E.

  Mostyn, L.

  Yarborough, E.

  Overstone, L.

  Eversley, V.

  Petre, L.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bess-borough.) [Teller.]

  Sydney, V.

  Portman, L.

  Bath and Wells, Bp.

  Rivers, L.

  Worcester, Bp.

  Saltoun, L.

  Abercromby, L.

  Stafford, L.

  Arundell of Wardour, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Belper, L.

  Stourton, L.

  Blantyre, L.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Wodehouse, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Marlborough, D.

  London, Bp.

  Cholmondeley, M.

  Ripon, Bp.

  Westmeath, M.

  Salisbury, Bp.

  Amherst, E.

  Berners, L. [Teller.]

  Bandon, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Desart, E. [Teller.]

  Castlemaine, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Congleton, L.

  Mayo, E.

  Denman, L.

  Tankerville, E.

  Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

  Melville, V.

  Egerton, L.

  Carlisle, Bp.

  Feversham, L.

  Cashel, &c. Bp.

  Polwarth, L.

  Chichester, Bp.

  Rayleigh, L.

  Lichfield, Bp.

  Redesdale, L.

  Llandaff, Bp.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  House adjourned at a quarter before Nine o'clock, till To-morrow Twelve o'clock.