but to hear "the sleek, smooth contractors" come to the Bar, and declare that they and they only could frame a Money Bill and could alone dispose of the property of the Peers of Great Britain.[1] The first half of the above doctrine is undoubtedly correct. "The Lords," said Selden, "sit for the Commonwealth,"[2] and the truth of this maxim though frequently forgotten can be easily supported by reference to the historical origin of the Upper House. In the Thoughts on the Causes of the present Discontents, Burke himself had formerly set the example of appealing to the people against a corrupt House of Commons, though in 1784 he forswore his own doctrine, and to a certain extent it would appear for no better reason than that Shelburne had since enunciated it.[3] Returning to the question Shelburne now said that he had no objection to the King having an opinion of his own, and feeling an interest in the management of the affairs of the realm, and in that sense being his own minister and unlike the King of the Mahrattas, a nominal monarch, with a Peishwa or efficient Cabinet holding the reins of Government and keeping the King locked up. He also desired to see a free and independent House of Commons. They now however had a high-toned prerogative Prince, and a servile and corrupt Parliament; the strongest symptoms of despotism and tyranny. He could not therefore but anxiously wish to see a perfect representation of the people, and when that happy time arrived he should be justified in entertaining a reasonable expectation of better prospects. Meanwhile, he asserted, the House of Peers held the balance between the Crown and the other House, and had the power to resist extraordinary stretches of the prerogative.[4] In its real constitutional point of view no man thought more highly of the House of Commons than he did; but when sunk in corruption, when it became the mere creature of the minister
