t present exists, a Second Chamber *constituted on a
popular instead of hereditary basis,* but such substitution cannot be
immediately brought into operation": therefore "it is expedient oto
make such provision as in this Act appears for restricting the
existing powers of the House of Lords" (i.e. the power of the Lords to
veto bills sent them by the Commons).

1. If a Money Bill--that is, a Public Bill concerning taxation or the
appropriation of money or the raising of a loan, etc.--shall be passed
byy the House of Commons, but shall not be passed by the House of
Lords, within one month, then it shall become law without the consent
of the Lords.

2. If any Public Bill (other than a Money Bill or a bill providing for
the extension of the maximum duration of Parliament beyond five years)
shall be passed by the House of Commons in three successive sessions
(whether of the same Parliament or not) and shall be rejected by the
House of Lords in each of those sessions, "that Bill shall on its
rejection for the third time by the House of Lords, unless the House
of Commons direct to the contrary, become an Act of Parliament,
without the consent of the Lords, provided that two years have elapsed
since the Bill was introduced and passed by the House of Commons."

7. Five years shall be substituted for seven years as the time fixed
for the maximum duration of Parliament under the Septennial Act of
1715[1] (S535).

See "The Public General Statutes," of Great Britain and Ireland, for
1911; Chapter 13, pp. 38-40.

[1] This date is usually given 1716.

VI. William the Conqueror's Charter to London (S107).

"William, the King, greets William the Bishop, and Gosfrith the
Port-reeve [or chief officer of the city] and all the burghers [or
citizens] within London, French and English, friendly: and I do you to
wit that I will that ye twain be worthy of all the law that ye were
worthy of in King Edward's day. And I will not endure that any man
offer any wrong to you. God keep you."

Taswell-Langmead's "English Constitutional History," Chapter 1, p.18.
E.A. Freeman, in his "Norman Conquest," IV, 29, says that William
signed this charter with a cross (in addition to his seal, which was
attached to the document), but Dr. R.R. Sharpe, in his "History of
London and the Kingdom," I, 34, note 1, states that "this appears to
be a mistake." Dr. Sharpe is the "Records Clerk" of the City, and he
shows that there is no trace of any cross on