The Sun.
London, England, 1854-02-10 00:00:00

FOREIGN BILLS OF EXCHANGE.

Mr. RICARDO had been requested to ask the right
lion, the Chancellor of the'Exchequer a question of some
importance to the commercial world. It appeared that
there were in circulation bills of exchange professing to
have been drawn abroad, but which, in fact, had been
drawn at home in London, and, inasmuch as they did
not bear the stamp of an inland bill, it had been held
that the bankers or other parties who had dis-
counted them could not receive the sums they
had advanced in tho event of the bill being
dishonoured. Now, he wished to ask the right hon.
gentleman whether his attention had been called to the
subject, and if so, whether it was his intention to bring
in a measure either to afford redress to what were called
the "innocent holders" in this case, or to prevent a re-
currence of such frauds.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
of course his attention had been called to the em-
harassment attending the present state of the
law in regard to bills fictitiously purporting to
have been drawn abroad, and having recently
been engaged in collecting information on the
subject, he should be much disappointed if he was not
able to make a proposal to the house about it during
the present session. (Hear, hear.)
THE MERCANTILE LAW.

Mr. R. PHILLIMORE said he had a notice on the
paper to the effect that an hnmble address be presented
to her Majesty, praying that instructions be given to the
commission issued for inquiry into the expediency of
assimilating the mercantile laws of England and
Scotland ; to inquire into and report upon
the administration of the mercantile law in England
and Scotland ; and whether increased facilities ought or
ought not to be granted for the settlement by arbitration
of mercantile disputes ; and whether or not the vari-
ous tribunals in which mercantile law is now ad-
ministered can be usefully consolidated ? He was
told, however, that the commission was an unpaid
commission, and he had been requested to post-
pone his motion until it had been ascertained if the com-
missioners were willing to undertake this new duty
which the adoption of his motion would impose upon
them. He cheerfully acceded to this request, but at the
same time he reserved to himself the right of renewing
the motion on a future occasion, no matter whether the
commissioners consented or not.
BREACH OF TREATY WITH PORTUGAL.
Mr. T. CHAMBERS moved for a se:ect committee
to investigate the claims of Yuille, Shortridge, and Co.,
against the European Government for compensation for
losses incurred by them through breach of treaty. The
hon, member entered at much length into the
particulars of those claims, which set forth that the
claimants, acting on the faith of a treaty between the
two Governments had entered largely into the wine
trade at Madeira ; but owing to an alleged breach of
that treaty, the claimants now averred that the
losses they had incurred amounted to no less than
100,0001., in fact, that they were utterly ruined.
Mr. HORSFALL seconded the motion for a select
committee, and he did so not merely out of considera-
tion for Messrs Yuille„Slaortridge, and Co., but as a
question of very great and general commercial im-
portance. Ile hoped if the committee were granted it
would be not only with a view to this particular ques-
tion, but that it would also embrace the relations of
Portugal with this country. He believed there was no
nation in the world that owed more to this country than
Portugal owed, and there was none which acted with
more ingratitude or more faithlessness to its treaties.
(Hear, hear.) Portugal, in fact, stood very inuchin the
light of a spoiled child, for no less a sum than 2,850,000/.
had been paid by this country to Portugal to induce
her to suppress the slave trade, which it was notorious
she had not done.
Mr. HATHERTON said there was no doubt this
was a proper case for investigation by a committee of
that house, and he hoped justice would be done to the
parties who had suffered so grievously.
MR. DIG-BY SEYMOUR thanked the mover and
seconder of the motion, and hoped it would have the
effect of teaching Portugal that she was amenable to
the same laws of honour and integrity as other nations.
He thought the claim of Don Pacifico sunk into insig-
nificance before this, for his was but a claim of interna-
tional law, while this was a claim founded upon immut-
able principles of justice and common right.
• Lord J. RUSSELL said he wished to call attention
not to the merits of this particular case so much as to
the course which it would be advisable for the house to
pursue in cases of this nature_ He thought if the course
now proposed by the hon. gentleman were adopted, it
would lead to very great inconvenience, as a precedent
for our interfering with the jurisprudence of
a friendly nation, and would be setting a pre-
cedent which was very dangerous, on the one-sided
statement of an individual member of the house. He
had no objection, however, to lay all the papers con-
nected with this case, which were very voluminous,
upon the table of the house. At the same time he was
not defending the conduct of the Portuguese Govern-
ment in this case or many others, for he thought that
Government had behaved unhandsomely and unjustly to
this country in many cases.
Mr. G. BUTT said he had heard the speech of the
noble lord with very great surprise, and he saw no
reason in it to deny the committee asked for in this
case.

Sir J. SHELLEY said in this case a respectable mer-
cantile house had been ruined Ey the iPortuguese Go-
vernment, and what was the remedy offered by the Go-
vernment ? The noble lord (Lord John Russell) pro-
posed to lay on the table of the house a correspondence
relating to this matter, so voluminous that he (the noble
lord) confessed he had not been able to understand it,
and he did that in the expectation that the house would
understand it. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. OLIVEIRA thought it exceedingly desirable that
they should have an investigation into this case, believing
that his hon. and learned friend (Mr. (cbambers) had
accurately quoted the treaties bearing upon it, and that
there had been a departure from the ordinary and settled
mode of adjudication in such disputes.
Mr. CHAMBERS replied, stating that when he en-
Ored the house that day lie was sure he had a good case,
and he should leave the house assured that his case was
a still better one, even upon the showing of the noble
lord (Lord J. Russell).
The house then divided, when the numbers were—
Fur the motion
Against it , 74-52
LFADERSHIP OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. CAYLEI: moved for a select committee to con-
sider the duties of the member leading the Government
in that house, and the expediency of attaching office and
salary thereto. He had been struck by the anomaly of
the prewevit practice, as illustrated in the case of Lord
John Russell, to the circumstances of whose taking
office lie adverted. Ho did
.not know what was the
sense of the house on the subject, and had even been told
his proposal, though just, was unconstitutional. He
should, however, appeal solely to the reason of those he
addressed. Drawing a picture of the incessant and im-

portant labours disenarged gratuitously by the leader of
the house, when, had he taken office, he would have re.

eeived 5,000/. a year, and paying a cordial tribute to
the admirable mode in which Sir Robert Peel had dis-

charged all his duties, Mr. Cayley deduced an argument
in favour of his proposal front the fact that, on latterly
returning to power, Sir Robert had taken one office only.

He thous' shOweci. from statistics how the work of the

house, and consequently that cf its leader, was in-
creasing, and urged that only Lord John's long and
varied experience enabled him to discharge such duty,
and therefore that it was unreasonable and ungenerous
that an attempt should not be made to meet the cir-

cumstances. It might be said that Lord John Russell was
entitled to a pension, but this the noble lord had de-
clined. He did not, he said, presume to judge this im-
portant question, but, after a cordial eulogy upon Lord
John, concluded his motion for thq committee.
A seconder (Mr. STIRLING) having been found, after
a paus.),

. -
Sir C. WOOD said that this was a motion to attach a
salary to an office which did not exist. And he was not
inclined to recta general measure on the character of an
individual, though he believed that the house would

generally concur in what had been said in— reference
to his friend beside him. lie admitted the in-

crease in the business of the house, but urged that
such increase was also felt by all who were mem-
bers of the Legislature. Sir Charles, who was inaudible
throughout the chief part of his speech, was understood
to add that it would be unconstitutional for any one to
receive salary except for official services, and to oppose
the motion.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS was sure that Lord John Rus-
sell was too high-minded to accept any salary for the
position which he occupied ; for had sa'ary been his
object he might, no doubt, have commanded any position
he pleased in the
present Cabinet.
Mr. WALPOLE quite concurred with what had
fallen from Sir C. Wood. Eut he called Lord J. Rus-
sell's attention to the inconvenient precedent set, in a
constitutional point of view, by his present anomalous