It is the pleasant duty of every Swiss, addressing an audience of American citizens on a subject of political science, to begin by acknowledging the debt of gratitude his country owes theirs, for the benefit it has derived from the historical example of the United States.

For over a century a continuous exchange of political ideas has been going on between our two nations. After all the flattering and gratifying commentaries on our institutions that have been made on this side of the ocean, it is but fair that we Swiss should frankly admit that in this exchange we have received more than we have given.

Throughout the United States there are provided special, though simple, forms of municipal government for villages under the various names of village, borough or town. Oddly enough the notable exceptions to this general practice are to be found in New England, the region which includes three of the most densely populated states in the Union. Moreover, it is in the two most densely populated of these that the least progress has been made toward the development of an orderly system of village government.

At one time the whole area of New England, except certain unorganized tracts in the north, was under town government and so continued until the growth of urban conditions led to city incorporation. In every case incorporation was by special act, and such is the method employed in every case to the present time. The readiness of the town government to assume the functions proper to an urban community not only retarded city incorporation, but prevented, in large measure, the growth of special forms of government for villages. It is not unusual to find towns which include within their limits many square miles of rural territory, providing all or part of its population with fire protection, water, sewers, lights, side-walks, parks and libraries. But there has grown up, sometimes under general laws though more commonly as a result of special legislation, a heterogeneous collection of municipal governments and taxing authorities variously denominated villages, fire, water, lighting, sewer, highway and improvement districts, producing a confusion comparable only to the conditions in England before the municipal reforms of recent date.

A previous article attempted a summary of the contents of the Parliament Act of 1911 and a mention of its immediate ancestry. There followed notice of some historical alleviatory suggestions regarding the composition of the House of Lords and an analysis both of the actual provisions of the Act and of proposals alternative to them with respect to the powers of the Upper House in the matter of “money bills.”

This second article, continuing the method of the first, includes at the outset the question of the powers of the House of Lords as to “general legislation,” i. e. public bills other than money bills. There follows reference to historical ancestry in these matters. Thus the consideration of the means by which the Act became law, that potential resort to the use of the royal prerogative by the temporary executive, may clear the way for speculation as to the significance of the Parliament Act as a whole.

Briefly the Act provides for a final reduction of the powers of the House of Lords as to general legislation to a suspensive veto operative against House of Commons measures only in two successive sessions; after a lapse of two years after the first introduction of the measure in the Lower House and on its third passage there the bill can become law on the royal assent being given, the Lords notwithstanding.