The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1854-02-14 00:00:00

DEFEAT OF MINISTERS.

Mr. T. CKAMBERS moved for a select committee to in-
vestigate the claims of Yuille, Shortridge, and Co. against
the Portuguese government for compensation for losses
incurred by them through breach of treaty. He detailed
the circumstances under which the firm in question
(British subjects), who had formed an establishment at
Madeira, and carried on their business on that island,
upon the faith of the treaty of 1654, asked the interposi-
tion of the House to enable them to obtain redress for
wrongs which they alleged they had suffered under colour
of judicial proceedings in Portuguese tribunals.
Mr. HORSFALL seconded the motion, observing that the
question was one of considerable commercial interest. A
very clear case of breach of treaty had been established
against Portugal, and the injury and inconvenience which
would result to British merchants in their dealings in
that country would be very great if such things were
allowed to pass without comment. There was no country
in Europe which had received greater benefits from Eng-
land than Portugal, and no country had requited them
with greater ingratitude. She had received nearly three
millions from this country to engage their co-operation
in the suppression of the slave trade, and yet there was
reason to suspect that she was herself engaged in the
infamous traffic.

Lord J. RUSSELL, without justifying the conduct of the
Portuguese Government, still less its tribunals, observed
that, if the course proposed by Mr. Chambers were
adopted, a precedent would be set for a course of proceed-
ing different from the ordinary modes in which these
cases were reviewed and adjusted, and which would im-
pose upon Parliament a very inconvenient and almost
impracticable task. He must therefore oppose the motion.
On a division the numbers were
For the motion ... 128
Against it ... 76
Majority against Ministers ... —52

LORD JOHN RUSSELL'S POSITION.-Mr. CAYLEY
moved for a select committee to consider the duties of the
member leading the Government in that House, and the
expediency of attaching office and salary thereto.
Sir C. WOOD said theleadership of the House was generally
held in conjunction with some high office of the Govern-
ment, and it was not consonant with constitutional prin-
ciples to affix a salary to the discharge of the former
functions. He hoped the House would reject the motion.
Mr. WALPOLE took occasion to suggest, as a constitu-
tional question, thht the peculiar and almost unprece-
dented position of Lord J. Russell as the organ of the
Government in that house, without any official responsi-
bility other than that of being a Privy Councillor (which
was imperfect), was inconvenient, if the precedent should
be followed, since the country would be debarred from
knowing who were the responsible advisers of the Crown,
for he could conceive cases in which advice might be given
and adopted when the real adviser was in the background.
Lord J. RUSSELL briefly replied to the objection suggested
by Mr. Walpole.
Mr. CAYLEY withdrew his motion, and the House
adjourned at a quarter to 8 o'clock.