Page images
PDF
EPUB

£20,000; making altogether £45,000 a year from the letting of the moors alone. Then there was another point. The present number of persons employed directly in the preservation of game in the United Kingdom could not be less than 20,000, and indirectly there were probably not less than twice as many, making 60,000 altogether. The expense of prosecuting poachers had been referred to; but from a Return which was issued some time ago, it appeared that the taxes alone for game certificates and licences for the sale of game, and other things connected with game, amounted to something like £370,000 a year, which he thought was more than a fair compensation for any addition to the county rates from prosecutions for poaching. He hoped the noble Lord would proceed with the Bill, and that their Lordships would assent to the second reading; but he thought that time would be lost in sending it to a Committee upstairs.

LORD LYVEDEN explained, that he had not said that this was a measure for the revision of the Game Laws, but that it was a very stringent game-preserving Bill. Nor had he said that poaching was popular, but that in prosecuting poachers they had not the same moral support from the lower classes that they had in prosecuting other offenders.

LORD POLWARTH said, that in his part of Scotland the police were employed in bringing poachers to justice. The people rendered every assistance to the police, and the poachers, finding their occupation insecure, were induced in many cases to

abandon it.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR suggested, that the object of the noble Lord who introduced the Bill would be better promoted by withdrawing the Bill altogether and introducing another, omitting the clauses which were calculated to give rise to obloquy and misrepresentation, and limited entirely to those which were likely to receive the assent of noble Lords on both sides of the House. Such a measure might be introduced to-morrow, and so far from such a step impeding the passing of such a measure, it would in all probability facilitate its passing.

After a few words from the Earl of STRADBROKE,

THE EARL OF DERBY said, that if it were understood that such a measure as had been suggested by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would receive the support of Her Majesty's Government, and

that no impediment would be placed in the way of its passage through the House, he would recommend his noble Friend to withdraw his Bill and introduce a more limited one. If no assurance of that kind were given, he would recommend him to persevere with this measure, introducing in Committee such alterations as might make the Bill accord with the general feeling of the House.

EARL GRANVILLE said, that if the noble Baron would introduce a measure in the simpler form which had been suggested, he would offer no opposition to its being read a second time; but he must reserve to himself the right of proposing that it should be referred to a Select Committee. When they saw in what shape it was returned from the Select Committee, they would be better able to determine whether the Government would give it their support.

THE EARL OF DERBY said, that there might be no objection to referring the Bill to a Select Committee; but if the whole question of the Game Laws were referred to such a Committee, no Bill could be passed this year.

EARL GRANVILLE should have preferred a more general inquiry; but, in deference to the feeling of their Lordships, he would only propose that the Bill should be referred to the Committee. At the same time, he hoped that the adoption of that course would not be understood to preclude the proposition of Amendments such as those which had been suggested by the noble Lord on the cross benches and

other noble Lords.

[blocks in formation]

this question, as he should not proceed LAW RELATIVE TO NIGHT POACHING, with the Motion to-morrow which stood

[blocks in formation]

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON : Sir, I trust I need not assure the hon. Member and the House that Her Majesty's Government are deeply sensible of the sufferings now existing in the cotton-manufacturing dis

SIR WILLIAM GALLWEY said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will consent to refer the question of the expediency of altering the Laws relative to Night Poaching to a Select Com-tricts. We know that the privations in mittee?

SIR GEORGE GREY said, in the course of the next Session, if a Motion should be made for inquiry into the operation of the existing Law on the subject of Night Poaching he should consent to it. From the Bills which he had seen on the subject he thought it essential that some inquiry should precede any alteration of

the Law.

CANADA-NEW ZEALAND.-QUESTION. MR. ARTHUR MILLS said, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether there will be any objection to lay upon the table of the House the correspondence which has passed between the Home Government and the Governor of Canada with reference to the Militia Bill; and whether the Despatches which have been recently received from the Governor of New Zealand respecting the Native Land question in that Colony will be presented to Par

liament ?

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE said, the Correspondence with respect to the Canada Militia Bill was of very small amount, and there was no objection to produce it. The Correspondence upon the New Zealand question was still in progress, and he hoped it would be laid upon the table before the end of the Session.

UNITED STATES-THE CIVIL WAR.

QUESTION.

MR. HOPWOOD said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, considering the great and increasing distress in the country, the patient manner in which it has hitherto been borne, and the hopelessness of the termination of hostilities, the Government intend to take any steps whatever, either as parties to intervention or otherwise, to endeavour to put an end to the Civil War in America? He wished to give the Government full opportunity of considering

those districts are great, and also that
those who suffer them have endured them
with the most heroic fortitude and pa-
tience, thus doing the greatest possible
credit to their understanding and intelli-
gence. They know that the sufferings
which they endure have not resulted from
any bad legislation or any misconduct
on the part of the Government of the
country. They know they are caused by
circumstances in other countries over
which we have no control. Her Ma-
jesty's Government would be most happy,
if it were in their power, to do anything
which would be likely to afford relief to
those unhappy classes of the population.
But I am sure the House will see that
anything like interference with the war
now going on would only aggravate still
more the sufferings of those now under
privation. With respect to mediation and
good offices, there is no doubt whatever
that both Her Majesty's Government and
the Government of the Emperor of the
French would be delighted to avail them-
selves of any opportunity that appeared
to offer a fair prospect that such a step
But in
would be attended with success.
the present state of the contest, while the
two parties seem animated with the most
bitter feelings and angry resentment
against each other, I am afraid that any
proposal of that kind would not be well
timed, and would be sure to meet with re-
jection on both sides. If, however, at any
time, a different state of things should
arise, and a fair opening appear for any
step which might be likely to meet with
the acquiescence of the two parties, it
services, but would afford Her Majesty's
would be not only our duty to offer our
Government the greatest possible pleasure

to do so.

THAMES EMBANKMENT. PAPERS MOVED FOR-EXPLANATION.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY said, he wished to put a Question to the First Commis. sioner of Works, with regard to a Motion which stood in his (Sir John Shelley's)

name, for the production of Correspond- | the name of Matthew Higgins. The first ence which had been alluded to on Fri- statement is that "Mr. W. F. Higgins day evening, and which the Committee has written to assure me that Lord Robert on the Thames Embankment Bill had Montagu has stated what is not the fact, unanimously voted should be produced. in saying that he had given to his LordHe observed that the Resolution had that ship full leave of mentioning the circummorning been delivered to Members as a stance of having opened an envelope not fly-sheet to the ordinary printed papers. intended for him." Now, I beg the He wished to know whether he should be House to bear in mind the statement which permitted to take that Correspondence as I made. It was in these words:-"There an unopposed Return? is a story current in the House❞—I made no statement whatever for myself -I merely alluded to a story which was current in the House-and which has reached every member of the Embankment Committee. I think it only fair and just to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner of Works to relate that story in order that he may have the opportunity of explaining it and, I trust, of denying its accuracy. Now, Sir, that rumour was current, and was related to me by the hon. Member for Marlow (Colonel Knox), and he said, "I need not tell you that Mr. Higgins does not object to have it repeated. On the contrary, he wishes use to be made of it," and that the House will see is confirmed by a sentence in Mr. Higgins's letter to me.

MR. COWPER said, there was no objection whatever to the Motion of the hon. Baronet; he only hoped the hon. Baronet understood that there was no ambiguity under the name of works-that under "works" were not included the proceedings relating to Bills and Reports which were in his previous notice. To the amended notice there was no objection

whatever.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY said, he begged to move, as as an unopposed Return, for copy of all Correspondence between the Treasury, the Office of Works, and the Commissioners of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, relating to the Works under the Thames Embankment Bill, and the Plans relating thereto.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: Sir, as there is a Motion before the House, I wish to take this opportunity of addressing a few words of personal explanation to the House, and I hope it will accord to me that customary indulgence which, whether there be a Motion before it or not, is invariably accorded to hon. Gentlemen who have been made subject to attack, or who desire to correct any erroneous impression. The matter that I wish to bring before the House arises out of what took place on Friday last, and I must first put the House in possession of facts which caused me to make the Motion for the adjournment on that evening. On that evening some of the Members of the Thames Embankment Committee met together a little before four o'clock, in order that a rumour, inexplicit in its form, should not remain unnoticed. At that meeting we came to no decision as to our course of action; but at a quarter to six we met again, and it was then agreed that some hon. Gentleman should move the adjournment of the House in order to obtain such explanations as were considered to be necessary, and I was requested to make that Motion. Now, Sir, in the papers of this morning there are three distinct charges brought against me in a letter signed by a gentleman of

MR. SPEAKER: The noble Lord is permitted to make any explanation that he thinks necessary in reference to anything which he has stated in this House and which he thinks necessary for his own vindication, but he is not at liberty to make any comments upon the language used by another person in reference to what has taken place in this House.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: I understood that I might allude to my own speech.

MR. SPEAKER: If the noble Lord thinks that anything which he has said in this House requires explanation, he may give that explanation, but he must confine himself within that limit.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: I rested my statement entirely on general rumour. The only words that had the appearance of being a quotation were to this effect, that there were marginal references on the papers forwarded to Mr. Higgins, and one of them was "I particularly direct your attention to the answer of Mr. Horsman to Question so-and-so." It has been admitted by the Chief Commissioner of Works that there were such marginal references, and that is the only thing approaching to a statement of my own; and that I made because the right hon. Mem

[ocr errors]

ber for Stroud told me of it, and that |ing I instantly replied that I would inright hon. Gentleman is my authority for quire what the forms of the House would the statement [Mr. HORSMAN made a permit me to do. I found that I might gesture of denial.] The right hon. Gen- read the correspondence to the House, and tleman certainly told me that, and said, I wrote on Sunday to say that this should "Mind you mention that in the House.' be done. After writing this I was asto[Mr. HORSMAN again denied the statement nished to find the grave charges made by gesture.] I told the right hon. Gen- against me resting on the faith of Mr. tleman I would not omit to mention it, W. F. Higgins, in the letter signed by and it has been borne out by facts. [Mr. Mr. M. Higgins; and thereupon I wrote HORSMAN: Quite ridiculous!] I will now the following letter:— read to the House the letter which Mr. W. F. Higgins has written to me— '3, Chester Place, Chester Square,

[ocr errors]

"June 28.

[ocr errors]

"Monday, June 30.

Sir, I have just read a letter in The Times, signed M. Higgins,' and request you to inform me whether the last paragraph of that letter be true. As you say you read the report in The Times of Saturday, you are aware that on Friday I related in the Ilouse of Commons merely a story current in the Ilouse,' which I thought it fair and just' to do, in order that Mr. Cowper might explain it or deny the accuracy of it.' You were also informed by the same report that Mr. Cowper acknowledged to have forwarded papers and minutes of evidence, and that he wrote on the papers some references to the conversation which he already had with Mr. Iliggins.' You must therefore perceive that Mr. Higgins has written to say that you assured' him of that which you were aware was not the case. I assume that the paragraph in Mr. Higgins's letter is not correct. On Saturday forenoon, immediately on the receipt of your letter, I wrote to you, saying that I was anxious to put the House in possession of a correct version of the story, and would inquire how this could be done in accordance with the rules of the Ilouse. On Sunday I wrote to you to say that I was prepared to read your letter to the House. Before I can consent to take that course I must know whether you wrote to Mr. Higgins a letter such as that which he describes. Your obedient servant, "R. W. MONTAGU.

"My Lord,-It has been with feelings of very great regret that I have read in The Times of this morning a speech of your Lordship's on the question of the Thames Embankment; and from what followed the public has been led to believe that a private letter, sent through the post, and intended for another Mr. Higgins, has fallen into my hands, that it had been intercepted by me, and that I had made public use of its contents. Now, the facts of what did occur are simply these-On the evening of Monday, the 23rd inst., a packet addressed as follows:- Private, W. F. Higgins, Esq., 3, Chester Place, Chester Square' (my correct initials and correct address), was left at my house, not by the postman, but by a messenger. I, of course, opened it, and found that it contained no letter whatever, but a memorandum referring to certain questions and answers in the evidence taken before the Embankment Committee; copies of which were enclosed. There was no signature in the corner of the envelope; there was no signature to the memorandum; there were no initials; there was, in fact, nothing to lead me to a knowledge of the writer of it, and the only clue I had to the source from whence the packet came was the official seal, which bore the impression of the Board of Works. To that office I accordingly went on the next day, and there learnt from the messenger in the hall, to whom I put the question, that the packet was addressed to me in the handwriting of Mr. Cowper. I asked to see Mr. Cowper, and handed back to him the packet, which, in the mean time, had never been out of my possession. I do not for a moment deny that I mentioned the circumstance to many friends, both in and out of the House, and I certainly never bound them to silence. I never showed the contents of the packet to anybody; and if I am asked if I ever authorized the circumstance As to the marginal references,' I canbeing mentioned in Parliament, I must decidedly not really say whether they existed or not, as, answer in the negative. Had any letter, private when I found that the documents were not intendor not private, reached my hands, that was not ed for me, I paid no attention to what they conintended for me, I should, of course, have re-tained. From the terms of your letter, I am sure turned it in the most honourable way to its you had a wrong impression of the note which I writer. I feel sure, that as your Lordship in-wrote to Mr. Higgins. troduced my name into this discussion, you will, in justice to me, avail yourself of the earliest opportunity of publicly reading my explanation of the facts.

"I have the honour to be, my Lord,
"Your obedient servant,
"W. F. HIGGINS.

"Lord Robert Montagu, M.P."
On receiving that letter on Saturday morn-
VOL. CLXVII. [THIRD SERIES.]

[ocr errors]

"To W. F. Higgins, Esq."

Just before going to the House that evening I received the following answer:—

[ocr errors]

Monday, June 30. "My Lord,-In reply to the letter which I have this morning received, I beg at once to inform your Lordship that I am quite convinced that your statement was based merely on a 'story current in the House,' and that, as you professed to have no information from me, you cannot, of course, be accused of having 'stated what was not the fact.'

"I have the honour to be, my Lord, "Your obedient servant, "W. F. HIGGINS. "To Lord Robert Montagu, M.P.” I must conclude by stating that I should regret exceedingly if I have used any words calculated to give pain to Mr. Higgins-I mean Mr. W. F. Higgins, and not

2 R

the tall gentleman; but I should like to | Commissioner of Works to give him notice know how the tall Mr. Higgins could pro- of his intention to do so; so that before he fess to know anything about a letter which met the noble Lord a meeting had been he never saw. held, and the determination to bring the matter before the House had been taken. Just as he parted from the noble Lord at the door of the Woods and Works, he understood from him that there was to be a further meeting of hon. Members at a quarter past five o'clock that evening to consider the subject. He had nothing to do with that meeting, and he avoided attending it; but when he came down to the House at six o'clock he went to the library, and found some of the Members still assembled. He said he had heard that his name, among others, had been mentioned in the matter. He gave the statement afterwards made by the noble Lord as a rumour. But he was so far from saying that the noble Lord should mention the matter that he never was so amazed as when he heard a private remark repeated to the House. As to his desire that the noble Lord should mention his name as occurring in the document, he could have had no possible motive for such a desire, and was amazed to hear it repeated to the House. He certainly came into the House on Friday evening and took part in the discussion, but the original determination of hon. Members to bring the matter before the House was taken before he heard of the matter.

COLONEL KNOX said, that as the noble Lord had alluded to him as the person who had made the communication respecting the letter to Mr. Higgins, he wished to say, that having heard the rumour, he came down to the House, but was accidentally too late to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he had written a certain letter to Mr. Higgins. He had no further knowledge of the circumstance than that he was called out of a club by Mr. Higgins, who waited to see him, and who stated that he had received the letter in question, containing enclosures, with the seal of the Woods and Works, and that he thought the members of the Committee ought to be made acquainted with the circumstance. He (Colonel Knox) thereupon told it to the noble Lord (Lord R. Montagu). As the noble Lord had stated that there was a meeting of gentlemen at six o'clock on Friday evening to determine what to do in the matter, he had only to state that he was not invited, although, under the circumstances, it would only perhaps have been fair if he had been asked to attend. As the noble Lord had mentioned his name as his authority, he begged to say that he could not endorse the statement he had made as being accurate in any way. He thought that the noble Lord after what had taken place might have done him the honour to communicate with him before he used his name. Mr. Higgins had sought him (Colonel Knox); he had not sought Mr. Higgins. He had told the noble Lord the story because it had been related to him without any conditions of secrecy.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: There is nothing in the world more calculated to lead to no result than a discussion about what "I said" and "you said," and somebody else said, because it is quite certain that no two individuals will agree as to what was said by either party. I should hope, that the noble Lord having disburdened himself by-I will not say a LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: I did recantation, but an explanation-this connot allude to the hon. and gallant Gentle-versation may be allowed to drop. The man the other day.

MR. HORSMAN said, that as his name had been used by the noble Lord-somewhat unwarrantably-he wished to state exactly what had occurred, and leave the House to form its own opinion. He was walking home along Whitehall between four and five o'clock on Friday evening, when he met the noble Lord near the office of Woods and Works. The noble Lord told him what had occurred, and said it had been determined to bring the matter before the House at six o'clock. He said he was deputed to bring it on, and that he was on his way to the Chief

noble Lord, if he will allow me to say so,
is in the position of having found a mare's
nest. He thought he had made a great
discovery, but it amounted only to this-
that my right hon. Friend did what every
member of a Committee considers himself
at liberty to do, when the Committee have
ended their labours, and sent one or two
sheets of the evidence to a private friend.
["No, no!"] From what has been said,
one might suppose that the Committee
was a secret Committee, and that its pro-
ceedings ought to be known to no one but
the Members; whereas the Committee was
in fact attended by fifty or sixty persons

« PreviousContinue »