NOTE.

THE proceedings of the House of Commons in the case of Skinner and the East India Company, as they stood upon the Journals before they were expunged by the order of the King, are inserted, as follows, in the appendix to the third volume of Hatsell's Precedents, (London edition, 1818.)

Die Sabbati, 4° Decembris, 1669.

The House then, according to former order, resumed the debate of the matter concerning trials and privileges in Parliament.

The House of Commons being informed that Sir Samuel Bernardiston, a commoner of England, has been called before the House of Lords, and hath had a judgment passed upon him, and a fine imposed, and a record made thereof in the Exchequer, mentioning the fine to be paid:

Resolved, &c., That a conference be desired of the Lords upon the matter aforesaid, and other proceedings relating thereunto; and, also, upon the proceedings concerning Thomas Skinner and the East India Company.

Resolved, &c., That a Committee be appointed to prepare and draw up reasons, to be insisted upon at the conference to be had with the Lords touching the matter aforesaid, namely: Mr. Solicitor-General, Mr. Sergeant Maynard, &c.; and the special care of this matter is recommended to Mr. Solicitor-General, Sir Robert Howard, and Sir Thomas Lee.

Die Martis, 7° Decembris, 1669.

Ordered, That the report of Sir Robert Howard, from the committee appointed to prepare reasons to be used at the conference with the Lords, be heard this day, next after the report from the Committee of Elections.

Sir Robert Howard reports from the committee appointed to prepare and bring in reasons to be insisted upon at the conference to be had with the Lords, in the matter relating to the East India Company and Skinner and Sir Samuel Bernardiston, that the committee had met according to the commands of the House, and had taken deliberate consideration of the whole matter; but found they were disabled to prepare reasons without a groundwork of some particular heads agreed by the House, to the justification whereof the reasons might be applied; and that the committee had prepared some heads, drawn up into five

several resolves, which he read in his place, and tendered to the House for their approbation; and the same being again read, are as followeth, namely:

1. That it is an inherent right of every commoner of England, to prepare and present petitions to the House of Commons, in case of grievance, and the House of Commons to receive the same.

2. That it is the undoubted right and privilege of the House of Commons to judge and determine, touching the nature and matter of such petitions, how far they are fit or unfit to be received.

3. That no court whatsoever hath power to judge or censure any petition prepared for or presented to the House of Commons, and received by them, unless transmitted from thence, or the matter complained of by them.

4. Whereas a petition by the Governor and Company of Merchants trading to East India was presented to the House of Commons by Sir Samuel Bernardiston and others, complaining of grievances therein; which the Lords have censured under the notion of a scandalous paper or libel; that the said censure and proceedings of the Lords against the said Sir Samuel Bernardiston are contrary to, and in subversion of the rights and privileges of the House of Commons, and liberties of the Commons of England.

5. That the continuance upon record of the judgment given by the Lords, and complained of by the House of Commons, in the last session of this Parliament, in the case of Thomas Skinner and the East India Company, is prejudicial to the rights of the Commoners of England.

Ordered, That the report delivered in by Sir Robert Howard be taken into consideration, the first business to-morrow morning.

Die Mercurii, 8° Decembris, 1669.

The House then resumed the consideration of the report of Sir Robert Howard, of the heads and proposals brought in from the Committee appointed to draw up reasons to be insisted on at the conference to be had with the Lords in the matter concerning the East India Company and Skinner and Sir Samuel Bernardiston.

The first head was twice read, and, with the addition of the word “of,” upon the question, agreed to.

The second head was read twice; and, with the alteration of the word " retain" for "receive," upon the question, agreed.

The third proposition was twice read, and some amendments made thereto. The question being put, to agree to this proposition —

The fourth proposition was twice read; and the words "under the notion of" omitted, and the word "as" inserted in the stead of it; and the proposition thus amended, upon the question, agreed.

The fifth proposition was read twice, and, upon the question, agreed,

1. That it is an inherent right of every Commoner of England, to prepare and present petitions to the House of Commons, in case of grievance, and of the House of Commons to receive the same.

2. That it is the undoubted right and privilege of the House of Commons to judge and determine, touching the nature and matter of such petitions, how far they are fit or unfit to be retained.

3. That no court whatsoever hath power to judge or censure any petition prepared for, or presented to and received by, the House of Commons, unless transmitted from thence, or the matter is complained of by them.

4. That whereas a petition, by the Governor and Company of Merchants trading to the East Indies, was presented to the House of Commons by Sir Samuel Bernardiston and others, complaining of grievance therein, which the Lords have censured as a scandalous paper or libel; the said censure and proceedings of the Lords against the said Sir Samuel Bernardiston are contrary to, and in subversion of, the rights and privileges of the House of Commons, and liberties of the Commons of England.

5. That the continuance upon record of the judgment given by the Lords, and complained of by the House of Commons, in the last session of this Parliament, in the case of Thomas Skinner and the East India Company, is prejudicial to the rights of the Commons of England.

Resolved, That the committee formally appointed to draw up reasons to be used at the conference with the Lords, be revived, and do sit this afternoon, and prepare reasons and arguments to justify the propositions agreed to, and prepare and propose what is fit to be offered or desired of the Lords; and that these members following be added to said committee, namely: Sir Walter Gouge, Mr. Seymour, &c.

Die Veneris, 10° Decembris, 1669.

Sir Robert Howard reports from the Committee to which it was referred, to prepare and draw up reasons to be used at the conference with the Lords, in the matter of the East India Company and Skinner and Sir Samuel Bernardiston, to justify the resolves of this House; and also two propositions thereupon to be made to the Lords, which he read, and after delivered the same in at the Clerk's table; and the same being twice read, and with some amendment, upon the question, agreed, are as followeth :

To the first, second, and third, depending on one another:

1. It hath been always, time out of mind, the constant and uncontroverted usage and custom of the House of Commons to have petitions presented to them from Commoners, in case of grievance, public or private: in evidence whereof, it is one of the first works that is done by the House of Commons to appoint a Grand Committee to receive petitions and informations of grievances.

2. That in no age that we can find, ever any person, who presented any grievance, by way of petition, to the House of Commons, which was received by them, was ever censured by the Lords without complaint of the Commons.

3. That no suitors for justice, in any inferior court whatsoever, in law or equity, exhibiting their complaint for any matters proper to be proceeded upon. in that court, are therefore punishable criminally, though untrue, or suable by way of action in any other court wheresoever; but are only subject to a moderate fine or amercement by that court; unless in some cases specially provided for by act of Parliament, as appeals, or the like.

4. In case men should be punishable in other courts for preparing and presenting petitions for redress of grievances to the House of Commons, it may discourage and deter His Majesty's subjects from seeking redress of their grievances, and by that means frustrate the main and principal end for which Parliaments were ordained.

To the fourth proposition:

1. That no petition, nor any other matter depending in the House of Commons, can be taken notice of by the Lords without breach of privilege, unless communicated by the House of Commons.

2. Upon conclusion of the four first propositions, it is further to be alleged that the House of Peers (as well as all other courts) are, in all their judicial proceedings, to be guided and limited by law; but if they should give a wrong sentence, contrary to law, and the party grieved might not seek redress thereof in full Parliament, and to that end repair to the House of Commons, who are part of the legislative power, that either they may interpose with their Lordships for the reversal of such sentence, or prepare a bill for that purpose, and for the preventing the like grievance for the time to come-the consequence thereof would plainly be, both that their Lordship's judicature would be boundless, and above law, and that the party grieved should be without remedy.

As to the fifth proposition: The Committee refer to the former reasons offered against the judgment of the Lords against the East India Company, in the last session of Parliament.

THE OREGON QUESTION

AND

THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON.

A SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES, IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON THE STATE OF THE UNION, MARCH 18, 1844.

I HAVE no purpose, Mr. Chairman, of attempting a detailed reply to the honorable gentleman who has just taken his seat. I was greatly in hopes that another member of this House, and I will add, another member of the Massachusetts delegation, who has so often instructed and delighted us on these questions of foreign controversy, (Mr. J. Q. Adams,) would have taken the floor for this purpose. I would gladly yield it to him, or, indeed, to any one else who is disposed for it, feeling, as I deeply do, the want of greater preparation and longer reflection for doing justice to the occasion. I am unwilling, however, that the speech which has just been delivered should pass off without some notice. I fear, too, that if I yield to the kind suggestion of a friend near me, and ask a postponement of the debate, I may lose an opportunity altogether. Recent proceedings in this House afford me very little encouragement to try such an experiment. On more than one occasion, questions of the highest interest and importance seem to have been brought up unexpectedly, as this has been, for the purpose of allowing some member of the majority of the House to deliver an elaborate exposition of his views, and then to have been shuffled off again by the previous question, or by a motion to lay on the table, before any member