Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 20.pdf/175

 THE GREEN BAG of rules, who are subject to 'discipline, and who are obliged to observe those rules just as strictly as any other kind of legal practitioner. Under this system all our railways, and such other public undertakings as require statutory sanction, have been constructed and have had their legal power from time to time increased or varied. It has worked well in every respect but one. It has been costly, for where the bill has been contested the fees paid to agents and counsel sometimes mount up to huge sums. But it has been administered not only with honesty but with seldom even a suspicion; and it has relieved the two Houses of a vast mass of troublesome work, by leaving this work to judicial committees. Moreover, it has the advantage of giving every such bill the certainty of being examined on its merits. Being outside the competition for time of public bills, and treated in a different way, the pressure of public business does not prevent a private bill (except in the rare cases where a large public issue is raised) from being sent to a committee, considered there, and, if it pass the committee, being reported to the House and passed there. The committee may reject a bill, but cannot get rid of it quietly by omitting to report. Finally, it relieves members of Parliament of having to spend time and toil in advocating or opposing bills affecting their constituencies. Having, during twenty-seven years in the House of Commons, represented two great indus trial communities, I can bear witness to the enormous gain to a member in being free from local interests and local pressure. I have never yet had any solicitation what ever to trouble me from any member in regard t<5 any of those bills. It now and then happened some constituent or body of constituents wrote to me and said such and such a bill is pending in the House of Commons, or House of Lords, we are very much interested in it. I had always an answer which was easy, and which had the further merit of being correct and

true, namely, that I was not permitted by the rules of the House of Commons to endeavor to use any influence upon any member of the committee which was con sidering that bill. The most I could do was to tell the Chairman publicly, without any secrecy, that this was a bill of great importance in which my constituency was interested and to beg that it should have, the fullest and most careful attention from the committee. But as for trying to exert any influence either for or against its pass ing, I should have broken our rules had I tried to do so. Therefore, I was able to tell my constituency it was impossible for me to do so. No one who has not been a member of the Legislature can know what a relief it is to be able to free one's self from any solici tation of that kind. I dwell upon this point in order to explain to you how it is the British Parliament has been able to deal with the great mass of local legislation, necessarily imposed on it, by the principle that special statutory authority is required for undertakings which involve the compulsory taking of land or the creation of what is in itself a monopoly. Mr. Choate gave you figures of your acts; and those figures included, of course, both what we should call local and personal acts, but also general public acts. I have here the British figures for the year 1906. In the year 1906 we passed in the United Kingdom 58 public general statutes. These 58 public general statutes filled 350 pages large printed octavo. In 1906 and 1907, which I take for the purpose of comparison with the two years Mr. Choate gave you, we passed 114 public general acts; and those 114 public general acts filled about 700 pages, as compared I think with the 5000 which you had for those two years. We found Parliament had not quite time enough for all the legislation that was needed. We desired to pass a great deal more if we could have found time. But the discussion and passing of those 58 public general measures was quite enough work for