PAKLIAMENT 115 a tax upon the public for any purpose or in any mode. All other bills of whatever nature may originate in either house indifferently. In practice, each house appropriates to itself peculiar cognizance of those matters of which, from its experience and constitution, it is the most competent judge. For example, bills which concern the settlement of peerages be- gin naturally with the lords; while bills for regulating elections originate as naturally with the commons. The commons have not final appellate jurisdiction like the lords; yet in certain cases they exercise judicial functions, and when proceeding in such cases they are a court of record, and their journals bear the credit of public records. Examples of these functions are the consideration of cases of con- tested elections and returns, and the hearing and punishing of contempts. Acting in con- currence with the lords, they exercise higher powers of judicature, as in matters of attain- der and pardon, and until lately of divorce. The house of commons consists at present of 658 members. Of these England and Wales send from counties 187, from the universities 5, and from the towns 308. Of the Scottish members, 30 come from counties and 23 from towns. Ireland returns 64 members for coun- ties, 39 for towns, and 2 for the university of Dublin. Although the ordinary cost of an election to parliament is considerable, and im- mense sums are sometimes spent in a close contest, the members receive no salary. For- merly they were paid a prescribed amount by their constituencies, the poorer of which some- times got excused from electing members to avoid the expense. The religious disqualifica- tions which formerly excluded some persons from parliament were removed, partly by the repeal of the test act in 1828, and partly by the Catholic emancipation act of 1829. Un- til 1858 Jews were shut out from both houses by that clause which required the oath to be taken " on the true faith of a Christian." This disabling clause has not been stricken from the formulas of the oaths, but in the year just named a statute was passed which permits either house to dispense with it at its plea- sure in the administration of them. No peer of parliament is eligible to the commons ; yet any Irish peer, not of the number of the 28 representatives, may sit in the lower house. This rule is not true of the same class of Scot- tish peers. No person officially employed about duties or taxes created since 1692 (ex- cept commissioners of the treasury), no officer of excise, customs, stamps, &c., no pensioner of the crown, no contractor with govern- ment, no judge of the king's bench, common pleas, or exchequer, no chancellor or vice chancellor (it is otherwise with the master of the rolls), and no police justice of London, is eligible ; and by statute 6 Anne, c. 27, it is pro- vided that no person holding any new office under the crown created since 1705 is eligible. If any member of the house of commons accept any office of profit under the crown while he is a member, his seat becomes vacant, but he may be again elected. The house of commons has given various constructions of this statute, and expressly excepted from it a large number of offices. The clergy of the church of England and Ireland are ineligible. Sheriffs of counties, mayors, and bailiffs of boroughs, as returning officers, are also incapacitated. Ministers of the crown, however, are required to hold seats in one house or the other ; and members of the lower house, on receiving a cabinet appoint- ment, resign their seats and appeal to their constituents for reelection, as an indication of confidence in the ministry. Until it was re- modelled in 1832 by the reform act, the parlia- mentary franchise remained as it had been fixed by statutes of the time of Henry VI. It had been narrowly restricted by these statutes, both in the counties and in the boroughs, and the necessity of a thorough change had long been insisted on. The tory ministry of the duke of Wellington in 1830 was brought to an end by the determined opposition of the premier to any change in the representation and suffrage, and was succeeded by a ministry headed by Earl Grey, who had been the steady advocate of parliamentary reform for 40 years, and who then stood at the head of the whig aristocra- cy. The first reform bill was introduced into the house of commons, March 1, 1831, by Lord John Eussell, and was carried on the second reading after great debates, by a vote of 302 to 301. Subsequently the ministers were defeated on several questions, and parliament was dis- solved, April 22. The new house of commons was chosen under great popular excitement, and in a full house the ministerial majority was about 130. Another reform bill was brought forward, and after a discussion of many weeks was passed, 345 to 236. The house of lords threw out the bill by 41 majority. This caused great indignation. Immense popular meetings were held, and there were riots at Derby, Not- tingham, and Bristol. On Dec. 12 a third re- form bill was brought forward, which passed to a second reading by 162 majority. The lords passed it to a second reading by 9 majority, April 14, 1832 ; but on May 7, in committee, they defeated the ministry by a majority of 35. The court was almost entirely opposed to re- form, and the king's mind had been acted on by most persons who surrounded him adverse- ly to the popular cause. He had been averse to the creation of peers, and it was understood that the peers should allow the bill to pass. This understanding having been departed from, the ministry demanded a creation of peers from the king. He refused, and they resigned. Wellington undertook to form a government, but the house of commons set itself in resolute opposition to the duke, and advised the king to create as many peers as should be necessary to carry the bill through the upper house. On May 15 the whigs announced their return to power, and in June the lords passed the reform
