The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-02-29 00:00:00

ALDERSHOT CAMP BILL,

Mr. MACAATNEY asked the Clerk of the Ordnance
whether he had any objection to lay upon the table, pre-
vious to the second reading of the Aldershot Camp Bill,
a plan of the roads and ways intended to be abolished and
closed under the provisions of the bill.
Mr. MossELL said the plans had been lodged with the
clerk of the peace of the county, and if the hon. member
wished for them to be produced, he should move for
them.

Mr. MACARTNEY gave notice accordingly,
MONETARY REFORM.

Mr. MUNTZ moved for a select committee to enquire
how far the present monetary system is in accordance
with the revenue of the country, and to consider whether
it could be improved and amended. He referred to vari-
ous hazards that our monetary system had run from
railway speculations, gold discoveries, and other circum-
stances, and the difficulties arising from the fixed value
of our coinage, and moved the appointment of a well con-
stituted committee to do justice to all classes, and all
parties, and to give peace and prosperity to this country.

Mr. PEACOCK supported the mot ion. He believed that
the main object of the motion was to inquire into Sir
Robert Peel's bank charter act, the principle of which
had failed. He would support the motion with a view to
devise some method to save the Bank of England from the
effect of a monetary crisis, such as it had just passed
through.

Mr. DRUMMOND believed that it would be found impos-
sible to alter the present state of the case, or to prevent
precious metal being the sole measure of value. He
referred to the answer of Sir A. Young to the convention
of PariS, when asked what would be the best law to pass
with regard to the price of corn—" That the best advice he
could give was to order the clerk to pnt his inkstand down
the throat of the first man who talked about corn,',
and he (Mr. Drummond) recommended that the same
course should be pursued with regard to those who talked
about the monetary 'system. (laughter) The hon.
member alluded in the course of his speech to "Macaulay's
History " creatiug much amusement by speaking of it as
an amusing romance, which all had heard of called a
History of England by Mr. Macaulay.

Mr. MALINS supported the motion. He alluded to the
act of Sir R. Peel limiting the issue of bank notes to the
quantity of gold plus 14 millions, and stated that the
quantity of gold had diminished in the last six months
from 18 iillions to 10 millions, and might in the next three
months be reduced £3,000,000 more. There would then
be
of which the public could
leaving only £1,000,000
oo notes,,o 00
notledfot
withonly £le2ssi'llltt°loan".l:2oof,
unemployed ; and he wished to ask under the circum-
stance 3 what security would be provided that in three
months there would not be a national bankruptcy.
Mr. P. URQUHART, Mr. WILKINSON, and Mr. H. BA /LLIK,
opposed the motion.

Mr. GLYN supported the motion, urging that it would

-- -
be expedient to enquire whether the quantity of notes
should be limited, and on the other hand, whether it was
necessary, in all cases, to issue 414,000,000 over the sum
representable by gold.
Mr. NEADEGATE supported the motion.
Sir. W. CLAY thought the question should be left with
the Government, but if they assented to the motion for s
select committee, h 3 would not oppose it.
The hon. member was interrupted in the course of hi:
speech by a motion that the House be counted, but there
being 60 members present, the debate proceeded. , /a,
After some remarks from Mr. TAYLOR and IW'

HEY WORTH,
that
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER did not think t
a committee of fifteen members would be able to coothici
a speculative and theoretical enquiry as to the existl
monetary system, but if the question was, as it had beeo
stated by some, the appointment of a select corm/0°4140
consider the operation of the Bank Charter Act or
it should have been brought before the House With that
avowed object. This, however, he contended, was
the proper time to investigate the operation of the ac'
lira.
1844, as there had lately been great demands upon pd
bullion of the bank far shipments to foreign shoreS, an
such an inquiry could not, therefore, so early hi tile
session, come to a just conclusion. Under these citcol
stances, believing that a committee, from its length
sitting, was a very imperfect security for national credit;
if there was any danger to be :apprehended, which the,)t
was not, (the amount of bullion being on the increaso,)
he was not prepared to agree to the motion before the

House.
Mr. SPOONER defended the motion, denying that it wso
S 1;
speculative in its terms. The hon. member argued Belo
the Bank Charter Act of 1844, objecting to leave t
remedy, in case of pressure, to the Chancellor of t o
chequer, who would proceed by setting aside an 11°
E 1

of Parliament.
ph let
Sir C. WOOD followed in defence of the Bank "'"airn
Act of 1844. He did not deny, however, that incloil
its working might be beneficial, but from existing cite: be
stances, the consideration of the question could n° be
properly conducted, and no fair decisskn Wild, the
arrived at. The motion aimed at the destruction ihtbst
act of 1844; and he warned the house of the loiser9;d4
would be occasioned by] the destruction of the stall"-
value of the coinage. •• u R n the
Mr. Mururz then replied and charged every one "f( it
speakers on the question with misrepresenting hinhAg
C. Wood especially), and denied that he had said anl"h"
about the destruction of the act of 1844. Ho its Elie
simply for inquiry, and if, as the Chancellor o'e
:me
Exchequer stated, the inquiry would take a long

they had best at once set about it.
The House divided and the numbers were—
For the motion . .
Against it

Majority against the motion 47
TALROT V. TALBOT. etl
Mr.J.G. PHILLIMORE moved for a copy of the je"'":., t
of
of Mr. Justice Torrens, one of the Judges of the CaT'iboh
Common Pleas in Ireland, in the case of Talbot V. '3Dla9i'
before the High Court of Delegates of Dublin. in
atO!
1855, and other proceedings before the ConsistorY
said
Dublin, from which the appeal was made to t`l'n P
Court of Delegates. It appeared upon the evidertcpeo"
barrister of some standing and a magistrate of i',.;:501,
tability, that the learned judge had relied upon he`-citso
evidence, and had misrepresented witnesses- Tb
,„e,.the
was this—A man charged his wife with adultery I`,seu
purpose of divorcing her, because he had become P°s';oo',
'3
of property entailed, and his wife had borne him ;10'
The hon. member detailed circumstances in the 661,404
of the husband, whom he declared as a detestable' r'io
and who-e evidence ought not to have been takelit'tbo
court of justice, yet the judge had decided aga'ns sh°
woman, who was innocent, and the result was thattie
became a raving maniac. The hon. and learned /Re, to
man then proceeded at some length to quote pls°3l- the
show that the decision was given in contradiction tA°thitt
judge's own opinion of the truth of the evidence, 011'
the witnesses had been tampered with.
Mr. J. C. EWART seconded the motion. t"
Mr. WHITESIDE contended on the evidence that
decision of the judge was just, and he observed th3tmce4
Talbot would not at first believe the charge, till eeev'„d of
by his own eyesight of his wife's guilt. He campllillwrora
the course taken by hon. members in bringing fttiob'
unsupported charges against members of the b: de'
declaring that such conduct would be fatal to the jos,
pendence of the bench. and to the administration i° ;lief
tice Ina the United Kingdom. Ia the case IOW," Idt•
were considering, the judgment, was entrusted Zunot
Justice Torrens, as senior judge; and he wished i",i;v erc`i
why the attack was not made upon the Judge The d'`
bill was then in the House of Lords, and the '9"J- 000"
this motion was to forestall the discussion of a cowl)"
tribunal.
tiao

Mr. J. FITZGERALD moved a negative of the m°:' the
the
which he thought the speeches opposite to whl°
ge
House had listened, would plead his justificatio°' the
would refrain from expressing any opinion WTI that
matter at issue upon constitutional grounds, I°l.oo
House had no authority to act as an APF"
Tribunal. if 13°
Mr. PacRE would not have opposed the moti°"yous°
had not heard that the divorce was to be tried in the to
of Lords; but, that being the case, be would not 3grrei'°
remove the question from what he considered the
tribunal to decide upon it.
Mr. WALPOLE and Lord PALMERSTON opposeu
tion. Too,
After some further discussion, in which Capt3in il
egte
Mr. NAPIER, and others, took part, the motion w 99
tived.
read
/I
The Drainage Advances Act Amendment Bill Was 41
rel
third time, and passed. °
tt
The Secretary to the Poor Law Commissioners "
Bill, was read a second time.

rl [he 115°'

A , Vitie6
ANNUITES BILL.
1 The House then went intol
committee on the ..--11
Bill.
tail 0.4
On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the E:ccll-tr°lA.
a clause was inserted to the etf ct that none 01" t,"'„s')trtle-
sions of Act 22nd, George 3, chap 45, should be e° act.
to extend to any subscriber or contributor under this
The bill passed through committee. d 01
The Consolidated Fund (£1,631,005) 13111 611
Exchequer Bills bill went through committee.
The house a(journed at half-past twelve o'clock.