AMENDMENTS IMPROPERLY MADE IN BILLS. (Hansard, 16 June 1841)

§ Lord J. Russell
having moved the third reading of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners' Bill; on the question being put,

§ Sir E. Sugden
said, he would take that opportunity to protest against the practice of introducing important alterations into bills at the third reading without notice to the House. Nothing could be more inconvenient. An instance had occurred the other night, in the case of the Bribery at Elections Bill, into the first clause of which words had been introduced by a member of the Government without notice, for giving the unheard-of power to the chairman of an election committee to issue his warrant to the sergeant-at-arms to commit any Member of the House to the custody of the said sergeant without bail or mainprise for any time not exceeding twenty-four hours, if the House shall be then sitting; and if not, then for a time not exceeding twenty-four hours after the hour to which the House shall then be adjourned. The words which had been introduced wholly altered the nature of the clause, and he was sure that a provision so completely objectionable could not have met the eye of the right hon. Gentleman in the chair, or he would have felt it his duty to point out to the House 1547 the impropriety of it. However, this not having been done, the bill with the clause, objectionable as it was, was now in the House of Lords. It was only this morning that the matter had come to his knowledge, and he had felt that it was his duty to call the attention of the House to the subject.

§ Dr. Nicholl
said, that he had thought, upon looking into the bill, on coming into the House on the evening it was to be read a third time, that the words were not extensive enough as they stood, and he had mentioned his doubt to the Solicitor-general, who undertook to introduce some words which he (Dr. Nicholl) suggested. But the Solicitor-general was in no way responsible for the alteration, of which he was afraid he was innocently the cause.

§ Lord J. Russell
said, that when the Solicitor-general got up to move this alteration, he (Lord J. Russell) was not aware that any such amendment was to be made. However, from the Solicitor-general's explanation, he gathered that it was merely one of those technical amendments which might very well be made in bills at the third reading. The right hon. Gentleman would, therefore, see, that he (Lord J. Russell) was not to blame in the matter.