[62] The principles laid down by Hatsell are: 1. That in bills of supply, the Lords can make no alteration but to correct verbal mistakes. 2. That in bills, not of absolute supply, yet imposing burthens, as turnpike acts, etc., the Lords cannot alter the quantum of the toll, the persons to manage it, etc.; but in other clauses they may make amendments. 3. That, where a charge may indirectly be thrown on the people by a bill, the Commons object to the Lords making amendments. 4. That the Lords cannot insert pecuniary penalties in a bill, or alter those inserted by the Commons, iii. 137. He seems to boast that the Lords during the last century have very faintly opposed the claim of the Commons. But surely they have sometimes done so in practice, by returning a money-bill, or what the lower house call one, amended; and the Commons have had recourse to the evasion of throwing out such bill and bringing in another with the amendments inserted in it; which does not look very triumphant. [63] The last instance mentioned by Hatsell is in 1790, when the Lords had amended a bill for regulating Warwick gaol by changing the rate to be imposed from the landowners to the occupiers, iii. 131. I am not at present aware of any subsequent case, but rather suspect that such might be found. [64] See the case of the Earl of Arundel in parliament in 1626. In one instance the house took notice that a writ of summons had been issued to the Earl of Mulgrave, he being under age, and addressed the king that he would be pleased to be sparing of writs of this nature for the future. 20th Oct. 1667. The king made an excuse that he did not know the earl was much under age, and would be careful for the future. 29th Oct. [65] Though the proposition in the text is, I believe, generally true, it has occurred to me since, that there are some exceptions in the northern parts of England; and that both Sheffield and Manchester are among them. [66] It is doubted by Mr. Merewether (_arguendo_) whether Edward and Mary created so many new boroughs as appears; because the returns under Henry VII. and Henry VIII. are lost. But the motive operated more strongly in the latter reigns. _West Looe Case_, 80. [67] 25 Car. 2, c. 9. A bill had passed the Commons in 1624 for the same effect, but failed through the dissolution. [68] Journals, 26th Feb. and 20th March 1676-7. [69] _Madox Firma, Burgi_, p. 270 _et post_.