is that instance.  And when I came to give my advice to his Majesty, instead of advising him with a view to objects of personal ambition, as I have been accused of doing upon high authority,—­I gave that advice which I thought would best lead to another arrangement, and I stated that I was ready to serve his Majesty in any or in no capacity, so as best to assist him in carrying on a government to resist the advice which had been given him by his late ministers.  And here, my Lords, I beg your Lordships to examine a little what was the nature of the advice which was tendered by his Majesty’s ministers to his Majesty, which his Majesty thought proper not to follow, and which I considered it my bounden duty to enable his Majesty to resist.  I do not ask any man to seek any further explanation of this advice, than that which was given by the ministers themselves.  It was neither more nor less than this.  The Government, feeling some difficulty in carrying the Reform Bill through this House, were induced to advise his Majesty to do—­what?—­to create a sufficient number of peers to enable them to carry their measure, to force it through this House of Parliament.  Now, my Lords, before I go further, let me beg you to consider what is the nature of that proposition?  Ministers found, in the course of last session, that there was a large majority in this House against the principle of the bill.  Now, my Lords, what is the ordinary course for a minister, under such circumstances, to pursue?  My Lords, it is to alter the measure, to endeavour to make it more palatable to that branch of the legislature which was opposed to it.  Such is the usual course; but, in this case, the minister says “no.  I will next session bring in a bill as efficient as that which has been rejected.”  And what did he do?  My Lords, I have no hesitation in saying that, notwithstanding the opposition of this House, he brought in a measure stronger and worse than any of the measures before introduced; and this measure he wishes to force upon the House by a large creation of peers.  How many peers, it is not necessary to state—­it has not even been stated, by the noble Lords opposite:  it is enough to say, a sufficient number to force the Reform Bill through the House.  It is only necessary for me to state the proposition.  If this be a legal and constitutional course of conduct—­if such projects can be carried into execution by a minister of the crown with impunity—­there is no doubt that the constitution of this House and of this country is at an end.  I ask, my Lords, is there any body blind enough not to see that if a minister can, with impunity, advise his Sovereign to such an unconstitutional exercise of his prerogative as to thereby decide all questions in this House, there is absolutely an end put to the power and objects of deliberation in this House—­an end to all means of decision; I say, then, my Lords, thinking as I do, it was my duty to counsel his Majesty to resist the following of this advice; and, my Lords,