Lynchburg Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1829-185?, 1836-05-05
CONVERSATIONAL.
SPEECH OF Mn. LEIGH, tor \Roi>tNl
On N. Bcnton's Etpuneins Resolutions.
MONDAY, Arm l. CONTINUED.

Company, which was the precedent icierred 10
b, my colleague, (aS in instance OF cxpuncing even
"A judicial dec>ion,) has been considered lmpor-
tant IN England, only because il resulted in eff
icotnal settlement of disputed point of the urls
diction of the House OF Lords asa court of civil
ludicature. Skinner had gone To the East Indies up
ON mercantile adventure, bu, he purchased IN is
land and cndcavorcd to establish himself upon ii
. rs his own domain The East India Company
thought this an invasion of their rights, and they
took away his goods, and drove him from his is
land. Skinner preferred his petition Ia klnc
Charles II. Tor redress. The kIng referred The
first 10 two members OF lbs council and, after
Ion. DELAY sent II 10 the House of Lords, that it
might ldminlNtc, Justice. The Lords assumed orr
yinal cogn2ancc ii the east, cltcd the East India
Compan, 10 answer SINNERS petition, o>cnulcd
Il plea put in hv the Company 10 the jurisdiction,
and finally gave Judgment toi Skinner tor 10000
Meanwhile, the COMPANY presented a memorial to
the House Of Commons, complaining of the pro-
ccr1ngS al the lords, rs an understandable a>sdmp-
ton aboriginal jurisdiction IN civil eausr, which
deprived the Company OF its right TO trial arcor-
ding To the due course Of law. The Commons rcmon-
>trated against the jurisdiction claimed hv the
Loid>, rs unjust, oppressive, Illegal, and u ainNt
common right and the Lords on their part re-
n,onsiracd against the, conduct of tho Commons
ii, receiving Il lihelouS complain, against them aud
their proceeding long and angry controversy
cnsued between the two Houses. The Commons
rcsouclv iorbore 10 act on the bills of supply the
Government. The King, hoping to put an end to
the quarrel in Dcccmhcr 1000, prorooiIed the
Parliament To the February following But, when
Parliament met again, the Commons renewed the
quarrel " it'll increased warmth. The kinc, find
mo that he was 10 pet no supply (Which WAS all he
| cared ahonD till the controversy between the two
Houses should be terminated, made speech to
| tlrm, in which he proposed and recommended that
each should cNpunec from its Journals every entry
relating To the subject, 50 that no memorial should
| be preserved of the proceedings OF the Lords n
oansi the East India Company, or of tho coniio-
vc,s, hrtnecn the two Houses that grew out ol it,
Both Houses saw the wisdom and even the ncccs-
Sitv OF compliance. The Lords expunped all, with
out exception the Commons entered the kne'S
speech on tlcir Journal and cxpungcd all the rest,
The House Of Lords have never since attempted
to exercise original jurisdiction in any civil cal,c
\ow in fact, here was an c>pungine of entries
from the journals by the concurrent ACT OF the three
estates, kine, Lords, aud Commons though il was
not effected by a formal act ri Parliament and
whoever will aitenlivcy examine til history q" the
transaction, Gas II is reported in the sixth volume of
the State IrInlS) will see that there no 9th
cr way in which the object could have been &C.
complished Tor had a bill been introduced for the
purpose, that would have cngcndcrcd n dispute
concerning other kindred points OF jurisdiction
claimed by the Lords, and the quarrel between the
two Houses would have been renewed
But thus case serves 10 show how ami why the
process OF cNpuncton WAS originally introduced,
and lis meaning, purpose and elect 1t began at
Il time when the two Houses oi Parliament were
not IN the habit OF printing and puhlIshn" then
Journals promptly after each session, and when, OF
COURSE the expunging of an entry from the lonl-
nal had the effect OF preventing the entry from APP
pcaring on the journal AT all when II should be
printed aud published. 1hcyr>pnnrcd in the SENSE
in which Suil, speaks of the espuneing made by
great authors IN those lrca,i>cS They prepare for
publications." They did the very reverse Of that
which is proposed shall now do. Ii will be
found by an examination oi the printed journals Of
Parliament for the time (ihcv are in our library
that no trace OF the proceedings in concerning
this OF Skinner against the East India Com
panv is to be found in them. The same remarks
are probably applicable To the cxpuacing Of the
protest of the tory Lords in 1000, which WAS the
next precedent referred 10 by my colleague.
In the FIRST Parliament regularly called, after
the expulsion OF James IL. and the accession OF
W am and Mary Ia the throne, bill was intro
dnced in the House of Lords Tor recognising the
title of the king and Queen 10 the Grown, in which
u clause WIS inserted, declaring that the acts pas
scd by the Convention Parliament "wrrc, aud
are, laws" The tory Lords, IN the progress of
The bill, succeeded, by small majority, IN having
this clause struck out and the why Lords pro-
the bill by majority of Sly votes; and iho tory
I -. Il.