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 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 by gesture.] I told the right hon. Gentleman I would not omit to mention it, and it has been borne out by facts. [Mr. HORSMAN: Quite ridiculous!] I will now read to the House the letter which Mr. W. F. Higgins has written to me"3, Chester Place, Chester Square, "June 28. nished to find the grave charges made against me resting on the faith of Mr. W. F. Higgins, in the letter signed by Mr. M. Higgins; and thereupon I wrote the following letter: "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 House of Commons merely a story current in the House,' 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. Higgins.' 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. sume 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 House. 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. I as 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, "My Lord,-In reply to the letter which I which, in the mean time, had never been out of have this morning received, I beg at once to inmy possession. I do not for a moment deny that form your Lordship that I am quite convinced that I mentioned the circumstance to many friends, your statement was based merely on a story curboth in and out of the House, and I certainly rent in the House,' and that, as you professed to never bound them to silence. I never showed have no information from me, you cannot, of the contents of the packet to anybody; and if I course, be accused of having stated what was not am asked if I ever authorized the circumstance the fact.' 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 noted for me, I paid no attention to what they conintended for me, I should, of course, have returned it in the most honourable way to its writer. I feel sure, that as your Lordship introduced 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, 66 "To W. F. Higgins, Esq." Just before going to the House that evening I received the following answer: "Monday, June 30. tained. From the terms of your letter, I am sure you had a wrong impression of the note which I wrote to Mr. Higgins. "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. HigOn receiving that letter on Saturday morn-gins-I mean Mr. W. F. Higgins, and not "Lord Robert Montagu, M.P." VOL. CLXVII. [THIRD SERIES.] 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 he never saw. 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. met the noble Lord a meeting had been 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. 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, every day, and every word that passed in the Committee was known all over London by all persons whose interest or desire it was to be acquainted with what occurred. If there has been a breach of confidence, the House would be best able to judge who committed it; but as to accusing my right hon. Friend of a breach of confidence, you might as well say that it was a breach of confidence to send to a person, not being a Member of the House, a statement at seven o'clock on the Wednesday evening of what passed in the House in the morning, because by so doing you would anticipate The Times of next day. SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE said, he did not wish to enter into details as to what had taken place in the Committee; but as the noble Lord had entered into various statements, he was sure the House would feel that full justice ought to be done to the members of the Committee. For himself he could say that he had entered on the duties cast on him by the House free from any bias, and with the determination to discharge them to the best of his ability, and he had heard with great pain["Order!"] MR. SPEAKER informed the right hon. Member that it was competent for him to make a personal explanation as to words spoken in that House, but not to enter upon the general substance of the proceedings of the Committee. FORTIFICATIONS (PROVISION FOR SECOND READING. Order for Second Reading read. GEORGE LEWIS moved the second reading of this Bill. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time." SIR FREDERIC SMITH moved, as an Amendment "That there be laid before this House a Return showing the original and every subsequent Estimate for each work recommended by the Defences Commissioners; the amount of any Contract for each work; what proportion of each work is completed; and what inconvenience or injury, if any, to the Public Service would result from the postponement of any of the projected works." Several Returns, bearing on this subject, had already been laid before the House; and he begged to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War for the Return which had just been presented, and which contained much of the information that he had desired to obtain, and had moved for. Some of the works proposed to be constructed were far advanced, but some were not yet commenced; surely, then, they ought, at any rate, to inquire into the progress of those in hand. One was a work, or rather a series of works, of very great cost, for the defence of Plymouth, with respect to which no contract SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE said, he had been entered into, and no money exwould confine himself to personal explana-pended; the question as regards this tion. He had heard for the first time that night of certain meetings held by members of the Committee, but he did not attend them. On one occasion he went into the library a little before six o'clock, without knowing that there was a meeting, and he found several members of the Committee there. He supposed he was behind the rest of the world; for when on Friday night he addressed the House, he had never heard anything of what had occurred, nor of the gossip that was flying about. He did not allude to it; he merely alluded to a suppression which by accident or some means had been made in the report of the proceedings of the Committee. proposition was therefore fairly open to discussion. The work was, in his mind, of a very questionable character, and might be very well dispensed with. This bore upon the subject of invasion. Now, this country could only be invaded in the event of the British fleet being defeated at sea, or the British commanders at sea being eluded by the enemy; but since, in the last war, when they were opposed by the French, Spanish, Russian, Swedish, Danish, and Dutch fleets, forming an array well-nigh overwhelming, this country was not invaded, why were they to expect an invasion now? No doubt, a few years ago the relations of this country with France were critical, the English army was then, numerically, in a low state, and the navy was still lower; the artillery was only an artillery in nameso much had it been reduced in the long peace. Such was not the case at present. The artillery was now the pride of the nation-nothing could be finer or bet- | the field. It had been said by a high ter appointed; the ships of the navy were military authority, that in the event of an admirable, and the army was of the best enemy landing on the coast of Kent, and description, though not numerous enough marching on to the attack of the metroto provide garrisons for the extensive polis, we should have the garrisons of defensive works now projected. He pro- Dover and Portsmouth, which, be it rememtested most strongly against the policy bered, are proposed to consist chiefly of of locking up a number of men in fortifi- raw troops, marching on the rear of the cations where they would be almost use- enemy, and harassing his rear and flank. less, instead of being enabled to act in But good results could, in his opinion, the open field. If the best troops were to hardly be expected to follow from their be locked up in fortresses, it was quite attack under those circumstances, upon clear, that in the event of an enemy obtain- valiant and, at the same time, highly dising command of the Channel for three ciplined soldiers. Again, it was alleged weeks or longer, and making a descent on that Dover was to be an intrenched camp, the coast, the capital of the country would and that in the event of an enemy be in danger, and it would be also pe- landing an army on the coast of Kent, rilous to leave the defence of forts to inex- troops might issue from Dover to attack perienced troops. He might also observe it; but if an enemy were so to land, that the other day he was present in it would march forward at once, and another place, when a high authority upon knowing that there were 6,000 men in this subject informed his hearers that the Dover, it would leave a corresponding effect of enormous guns upon iron-plated force to hold them in check. But, be ships would be so to shake the plates that that as it might, there were some works they would come off bodily from the ship; with respect to which the most complete and in such a case an iron-plated ship Returns had been furnished, and which, would be inferior to a wooden one. This with the fullest consideration he could was an alarming statement, and one which give the subject, might, he thought, be called for close investigation before they suspended without any injury to the proceeded to lay out more money on iron- public service. There were, in the first cased ships on the present system. What, place, the gigantic works on Portsdown he would ask, was the Government about Hill, which were stated to have cost, or to leave such a vital point in doubt? He which would cost by the end of July, had been accused in another place of being about £10,000 each. Now, the number opposed to fortifications; but no one had and extent of those works were, in his a higher appreciation of the science of en- opinion, too great to admit of our ever gineering properly applied. If they had being able to man them, and he would the money to complete these works, and therefore strongly urge on the Government skilful troops to defend them when com- the expediency of not being in a hurry to pleted, he should be the last man to construct the whole of them. It was said hold up his hand against them; but, in- that Portsdown was the key to Portsdependent of the want of funds, he denied mouth; but he knew that the opinion of that they had troops enough to man the the late Duke of Wellington was, that proposed forts; and to construct fortifica- the true defence of Portsmouth was the tions without the means of manning them line of forts in front of Gosport; and cerwas to create a source of weakness rather tainly he never contemplated such fortifithan of strength, and an absolute folly. cations as were now being erected round We were not in a position, he believed, to Portsmouth. They might depend upon it man all those works, if constructed. It that a very limited number of works upon was said, indeed, that we should be able Portsdown Hill would be sufficient; and to garrison Portsmouth, Plymouth, Chat- an enemy landing at Christchurch, or on ham, and other large fortresses in a very the south-eastern coast, would not stop to great degree, if not entirely, with raw attack Portsmouth, but would march on at troops and Volunteers, and there was no once to the capital. Those persons who doubt that untrained troops, generally talked of an invading force, calculated to speaking, fought better behind fortifica- besiege Portsmouth, effecting a landing in tions than in the open field; but, know- Chichester harbour, let it be said with due ing the valour of Englishmen, nine out of respect for their high authority in other ten of the Volunteers would, he thought, matters, knew little of this subject, for prefer meeting the enemy in fair fight in the thing was simply impossible. Those |