inance and of legislation which it is proposed to enact into law,
and there is still nothing save a certain measure of custom to prevent
the introduction of even the most important of non-financial measures
first of all in that house. But a single presentation of any money
bill fulfills the legal requirement and ensures that the measure will
become law. For such a bill will not be presented until it has been
passed by the Commons, and, emanating from the cabinet, it will not be
introduced in that chamber until the assent of the executive is
assured. The upper house is allowed one month in which to approve or
to reject, but, so far as the enactment of the bill is concerned, the
result is the same in any case. Upon ordinary legislation the House of
Lords possesses still a veto--a veto, however, which is no longer
absolute but only suspensive. The conditions which are required for
the enactment of non-fiscal legislation without the concurrence of the
Lords are not easy to bring about, but their realization is not at all
an impossibility. By the repeated rejection of proposed measures the
Lords may influence public sentiment or bring about otherwise a change
of circumstances and thus compass the defeat of the original intent of
the Commons, and this is the more possible since a minimum period of
two years is required to elapse before a non-fiscal measure can be (p. 114)
carried over the Lords' veto. But the continuity of political
alignments and of legislative policy is normally such in Great Britain
that the remarkable legislative precedence which has been accorded the
Commons must mean in effect little less than absolute law-making
authority.

*118. Possible Further Changes and the Difficulties Involved.*--What the
future holds in store for the House of Lords cannot be discerned. The
Parliament Act, as has been pointed out, promises further legislation
which will define both the composition and the powers of a second
chamber constituted on a popular instead of an hereditary basis; but
no steps have as yet (1912) been taken publicly in this direction, nor
has any authoritative announcement of purpose been made.[162] Many
Englishmen to-day are of the opinion that, as John Bright declared, "a
hereditary House of Lords is not and cannot be perpetual in a free
country." None the less, it is recognized that the chamber as it is at
present constituted contains a large number of conscientious, eminent,
and able men, that upon num