The Express.
London, England, 1862-07-01 00:00:00

GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION IN THE CIVIL
WAR IN AMERICA.

Mr. HOPWOOD asked the Pint Lord of the Treasury
whether, considering the great and i • distress in the
country, the patient manner in which it hitherto been
borne, and the hopelessness of the termination of hostilitiro,
the government intended to takeany steps whatever, either as
parties to intervention or otherwise, to endeavour to pat an
end to the civil war in America? The hon. member added,
that as be wished to give the government fan opportunity
of considering thin question he should oat proceed with the
motion to-morrow which stood in his name.

lord FAIME.IIBTON said her Majesty's government were
deeply sensible of the suffering which was now pre-
vailing throughout the cotton manufacturing dis-
tricts. They knew the privations were very great,
and that those who had to endure this did so
with most heroic fortitude, which did the greatest pm-
Bible credit to their understanding and their manlinces.
They knew the suffering they bad to endure was not the
result of bad legislation or any misconduct on the part of
the government of the country, but mused by circumstance.
which bed happened in another country over which they
had no control. The government knew the people had
shown most manly resignation in their privations. The
government would be most happy if it werein their power to
do anything or if they could take any steps which would be
likely to afford relief to those unhappy persoos who were
now suffering. But the home would see that anything like
interference with the war going on in America might
be that which would aggravate the suffering of those
, now under privation. (Hear, hear.) With regard
to an offer of mediation or of the good offices
of the government, there could be 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 which might appear to offer •
fair prospect of samem, bet in the preset state of the con-
test, while the two parties were animated with the most
bwiottersaf=rs sad aegry reeentmeots against each other.
any of that kind would not be well timed, sad it
hornet with rejection from both aides. (Hear, hear.))
All he could say WWI that if any opening of any sort
rear which might be likely to meet with the acquiescence
both parties, it would not only be the duty, bat it would
be the greatest pleasure of her Majesty's government to take
Wreaks, of it. (Cheers )

THE IRISH BILLS.
In 'newer to Mr. SCULLY,
Sir G. GREY mid it had been arraaged that the Dish
Poor-law Bill should be taken first at the mo • sitting
to-morrow (this day), and altar that the Drainageof Lands
Bill
MAYES EMBANKMENT.
Sir J. SHELLEY moved that a espy of all the cone-
betweee the Treasury, the Office of Works, and
rGodeoMiseicessre of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues
relating to the works under the Thames Embankment Bill,
and the plans relating thereto, be laid oa the table of the
house.

COWPER mid there was oo objection whatever to
this &weeded motion of the hon. baronet.
Lord R. MONTAGU said, as there was • motion before
the howls, he would take the opportunity of making a per-
sonal explanation which arose out of what took place on
Friday last. He would first put the house in possession of
the facts which caused the motion for adjournment on that
evening. Some members of the Thames Embankment Com-
mittee met together at four o'clock on Friday for the par
c=i,f wandering • rumour then prevalent about the
and they agreed that it should not remain unnoticed.
Theyosme to no conclusion, but agreed to meet again at a
quarter to six, and they then determined to ask whether
the rumour was true or not. They deputed him
(Lord R. Montagu) to move the adjournment of .
the house in order that he might oak the question.
Now there had appeared in the upon of that morning
three distinct charges of, he must say, a very grave nature
against him, arising oat of that carcuramatenoe. and the
letter was signed by • gentleman of the 1111014 of Matthew
Hig&ii—(eughter) —and the first statement made was, that
Mr. w. F. Higgins had written to assure him that what be
(Lord It. Montagu) had stated in the house was not the
fact—in saying that he had given to him or any one else full
leave to mention the cacumstaoce of his having opened an
envelope which was not addressed to him (Mr. W. Higgins).
The statement which he (Lord R. Montagu) made was this,
that there was a story current in the hones, which had
reached every member of the Thames Embankment Commit-
tee, sad that be thought it only fai rand just to the Chief Com-
missioner of Works that he should relate the story to the
house in order that the right hon. gentleman might have
an opportunity of explaining it, and of denying its aecunacy.
That rumour was very current, and everybody was ac-
quainted with it. The honourable member who told
him of it was the how. member for Marlow (Calomel
Knox) and be said the Mr. Higgins in question, not the
tall Mr. Higgins—(loud laughter)-did not object to have it
repeated in the house, but that oa the contrary he wished
that use might be made of it. The house would see that
that statement was confirmed by a sentence in Mr. Hig-
gins' s letter to him—
The SPEAKER—The noble lord may make any explana-
tion which he thinks necessary in reference to anything
which he has stated in this house, but he must not make
any comment, upon the language used by another person
in reference to what has taken place in the house.
Lord R. MONTAGU said he understood that he might
allude to hie own speech.
The SPEAR F.R—U the noble lord thinks that anything
which he has said in the house requires explanation he
mu make it, but that must be done within the limits I have
referred to.
Lord R. MONTAGU said he rested his statement en-
tirely on rumour, and the only words which had any
appearance of being • quotation were to this effect—that
there were marginal riderences on the papers which had
been sent, and one of them was—" I particularly direct
your attention to the answer of Mr. Hagman, numbered
so and so." It had been admitted by the Chief Commissioner
that there were those marginal references on the papers.
That was the only thing approaching to a statement of his
own. The right hon. gentleman the member for Stroud
told him of it, and he was his authority for the statement.
(Mr. Houma dissented.) (Laughter.) The right hoe.
gentleman told him that, and said, " Mind you mention
that in the house." (Loud laughter) (Mr. Horsman again
dissenting.) He (Lord R. Montagu) said he should not
oout to monism it, and it had been borne out by facia.
(Mr. 11011SMAN : Quite ridioulous.) (Loud laughter.) He
would proceed to read a letter which Mr. W. F. Higgins
had written to him :

"3, Chester-place, Chestereqnare, June 28.
"My Lord,—lt has been with feelings of eery great re-
gret that I have read in the papers of this morning a speech
of your lordship's on the question of the Thames Embank-
ment, and from what followed the public has been led to
believe that a privatelstter. sent through the post, and in-
tended for another Mr. Higgins, has fallen into my hands,
that it had leen intercepted by me, and that I bad made
public use of its contents. Now, the facts of what did occur
are simply these On evening of Monday, the 23rd inst.,
• packet addressed as follows : ' Private, W. F. Higgins,
Esq., 3, Chester-place, Chesterequare (ay correct initials
and correct address) wasleft at my house, not by the post-
man, but by • messenger. lof course opened it, and found
that itcontained oo letter wh►tever, but a memorandum re-
tarring 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 •o initials, there was, in fact, nothing to lead me to •
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, is the mean-
time, bad never been out of my possession. Ido not for •
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 authorised
the circumstance being mentioned in parliament, I must
decidedly answer in the negative. Mad any letter, private
or not private, reached my hands, that was not intended for
me, I should, of course, have returned it in the most
honourable way to its writer. I feel sure, that as your lord-
ship 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, your obedient 'errant,
" W. F. BIGGINS.
"Lord Robert Montagu, M.P."

He (Lord R. Montagu) instantly, on receiving that letter,
replied that he would inquire what the forms of the house
would permit him to do, and that be would do all he could
io justice to Mr. Higgins. Having found he could read the
correspondence to the house, be wrote on Sunday to say
that that should be done. After doing that, he had been
astonished to find in the papers of this morning grave
charges, apparently resting on the faith of Mr. W. F. Rig-
=a letter signed M. Higgins, and thereupon he ad-
to Mr. W.F. Higgins the following letter:
" Monday, June :10.
" Sir,-1 have just read a letter in the papers 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 papers of Saturday. you are aware that on
Friday I related in the Home 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. Oowpar sokeowladged to have forwarded
papers and menden of evidence, and that he ' wrote on the
papers some references to the ooevereatioe 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 cans. I assume that
the paragraph in Mr. Higgins' letter is eat (rerun. On
Saturday tonnes% immediately on the reesipt of your
, letter, I wrote to you, saying that I was serious to put the
Hoene ia peenemies of a correct version of the story, and
would *eke hew this could be done is accordance with
the rules of the Howe. On Sunday I wrote to you to say
that I was prepared to read your letter to the House.
Before I eta consent to take that 00MOT I mist know
whether you wrote to Mr. Higgins& !Morena as that which
he desatibsa, " Your obedient servant,
"14 W. MONTAGU.
"T• W. F. Higgins, Eaq."