The Lord
Chairman.

by the chairman of a private bill committee;1 while the paid referee, on account of his large experience, had formerly some influence with the committees.2

3

But by far the most important officer of Parliament in this respect is the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords, the Lord Chairman, as he is called. Being less busy with public affairs than the House Chairman, he is able to devote much more time to private bill legislation. He examines all the bills, even reading those introduced into the House of Commons before the Speaker's Counsel sees them; and he is in constant communication with the Chairman of Ways and Means, and with the government departments. He does not, as a rule, act directly upon the private bill committees, but he confers with the promoters of the bills or their agents, and explains to them what changes he requires them to make. In such cases the promoters usually comply with his wishes. In fact they are practically obliged to do so or withdraw their bill, because the second and third readings of private bills in the House of Lords are always moved by the Lord Chairman, who would simply refuse to act if his advice were not accepted. Of course, some other peer might make the motion and carry it, but this is said to have happened only once within living memory. The Lord Chairman examines provisional orders less thoroughly, and if they contain objectionable provisions he confers with the department that is responsible for them rather than with the promoters."

The greatest obstacles which the Lord Chairman meets with come from what are known as "agreed clauses," that is, clauses agreed upon between opponents and promoters of

1 Rep. of Com. on Priv. Bill Legislation, Com. Papers, 1888, XVI., I., Qs. 348. Rep. of Com. on Municipal Trading, 1900, VII., 183, Q. 545.

2 Rep. of Com. on Municipal Trading, 1900, VII., 183, Qs. 2372, 2393, and 2399. Rep. of Com. on Priv. Business, 1902, VII., 321, Q. 248. Rep. on Municipal Trading, 1900, VII., 183, Q. 3915. Ibid., Qs. 290-91 and 3923–24.

4

6 Ibid., Qs. 284-85, 390, 3912, 3920, 3922; Rep. of Com. on Priv. Business, 1902, VII., 321, Qs. 77-80, 214-15.

'Rep. on Municipal Trading, 1900, VII., 183, Qs. 454-55 and 3917-18.

the bill. These in most cases are accepted without much examination by the private bill committees. The Lord Chairman tries to strike them out when he deems them against public policy; but this is not always easy, because it may be an injustice to one of the parties who has consented not to urge or oppose other provisions on the faith of those clauses. Moreover, even if the clauses are struck out of the bill, they may still be operative in fact, as the persons interested often feel bound in honour to carry them out. The matter has a very important bearing on the subject of municipal trading,1 that is, the supply of public utilities by companies and public bodies, and it will be noticed hereafter in that connection. It is curious that the protection of the public interest in private bill legislation should depend very largely on the action of one man, and that man not the holder of a representative office or responsible to the public, but a member of an hereditary chamber who practically holds his post as long as he pleases.

the System.

If the English system of private bill legislation has its Merits of defects, they are far more than outweighed by its merits. The curse of most representative bodies at the present day is the tendency of the members to urge the interests of their localities or their constituents. It is this more than anything else that has brought legislatures into discredit, and has made them appear to be concerned with a tangled skein of private interests rather than with the public welfare." It is this that makes possible the American boss, who draws his resources from his profession of private bill broker. Now the very essence of the English system lies in the fact that it tends to remove private and local bills from the general field of political discussion, and thus helps to rivet the attention of Parliament upon public matters. A ministry stands or falls upon its general legislative and admin

1

Cf. Rep. on Municipal Trading, 1900, VII., 183, Qs. 298, 341–44, 347, 3939-41.

2 For a careful study from this point of view of a fairly good legislative body, by one of its members well fitted to observe, see an article by Francis C. Lowell, in the Atlantic Monthly, LXXIX., 366–77, March, 1897.

It Depends

port of the

by the

House.

istrative record, and not because it has offended one member by opposing the demands of a powerful company, and another by ignoring the desires of a borough council.

Such a condition would not be possible unless Parliament on the Sup- was willing to leave private legislation in the main to small Committees impartial committees, and abide by their judgment. If this were not true and it would not be true in most other legislatures the promoters and opponents of the bill would attempt to forestall or reverse the decisions of the committees on the floor of the House, and would try to enlist the support of the members in their favour. That is, indeed, occasionally done, and has called forth no small complaint. Perhaps the most notable instance of late years was that of the bills for the organisation of companies to supply electric power in Durham and South Wales. The bills were opposed on the ground both of public policy and of local interest, and were rejected by the House of Commons in 1899 under the powerful influence of the Association of Municipal Corporations. Public feeling was, however, aroused, and the bills were passed in 1901.

In the very nature of things Parliament must have power to overrule the private bill committees, and sometimes does so, but the permanence of the system depends upon the fact that it is not done often. The question, therefore, whether there is a growing tendency to override the committees is a very interesting one. Such meagre statistics as have been collected would appear to show that there has been a slight increase in the number of bills opposed on second and third reading, and in the number of instructions to committees that have been moved,1 as well as in the amount of time spent in the House in debating these matters. It seems, also, to be the general opinion of men

1 In the five years 1891-95 the number of bills opposed on second reading averaged 17%, while from 1897-1901 they averaged 32. Rep. of Com. on Priv. Business, 1902, VII., 321, Q. 218.

2 Rep. of Com. on Priv. Business, 1902, VII., 321, App. 2. But these periods are too short to warrant any accurate conclusion. In not more than eight or nine per cent. of the cases does the opposition seem to have succeeded. Ibid., Q. 219–20.

in close touch with private bill practice, that the habit of overruling the committees has gained ground of late years, but fortunately not to any dangerous extent.1

Cf. Rep. of Com. on Priv. Bill Leg., Com. Papers, 1888, XVI., 1, Qs. 346-47, 487-88, 553, 1244. Rep. of Com. on Municipal Trading, 1900, VII., 183, Qs. 519, 523–26, 529. Com. on Priv. Business, 1902, VII., 321, Qs. 42-43. In conversation the writer found the opinion that the habit was increasing substantially universal.

When the Speaker's Counsel hears that opposition in the House is likely to be made, he sometimes tries to prevent it by arranging for a conference between the promoters and opponents in the presence of the Chairman of Ways and Means. Rep. of Com. on Priv. Bill Legislation, 1888, XVI., 1, Q. 346.

CHAPTER XXI

Composition

of the House.

The Hereditary Peers.

THE HOUSE OF LORDS

TRACING its origin to the ancient council of the magnates of the realm, the House of Lords has, in the fulness of time, undergone several changes of character.1 From a meeting of the Great Council of the King, it became an assembly of his principal vassals, the chief landholders of the Kingdom, ecclesiastical and lay; and finally it was gradually transformed into a chamber of hereditary peers, enjoying their honours by virtue of a grant from the Crown. Each phase has left a trace upon its organisation or functions, or upon the privileges of its members.

Before the Reformation the ecclesiastics in the House of Lords, including the abbots and priors, usually outnumbered the laymen; but upon the dissolution of the monasteries, and the disappearance therewith of the abbots and priors, the proportions were reversed, and the hereditary element became predominant. At present the House contains several kinds of members, for it must be remembered that every peer has not a right to sit, and all members of the House are not in every respect peers.

First there are the peers with hereditary seats. They are the peers of England, created before the union with Scotland in 1707; the peers of Great Britain created between that time and the union with Ireland in 1801; and the peers of the United Kingdom created thereafter. They rank as dukes, marquises, earls, viscounts, and barons, whose pre

The best history of the House is Pike's "Constitutional History of the House of Lords."

2 The question whether they sat by virtue of their tenure of land, or of their offices in the Church, has been a subject of some discussion. Cƒ. Pike, 151 et seq. Anson, I., 220-22.