Now, my Lords, I ask, could it be believed, at the time his Majesty made this speech, that the rights of this house—­the power of deliberating and deciding independently upon such a question as this—­would be destroyed by a creation of Peers, and by a creation to an extent which could not be much less than one hundred?  If any man at the time foretold this, it would have been said he was dreaming of things that were impossible.  But to this state, my Lords, have we been brought by this measure.  When I first heard of this bill being proposed to be carried by a creation of Peers, I said it was absolutely impossible.  I could not believe that any minister of England would be led by any considerations whatsoever to recommend such a measure to his Majesty.  The first time, indeed, I heard the matter mentioned with any degree of authority, was when a Right Rev. Prelate thought proper to write upon the subject to some people in a town in the county of Sussex.  I could appeal to those sitting near me if this be not the fact—­if I did not uniformly declare that the thing was impossible—­that the very idea of it ought not to be mentioned.  That it should never be imagined that any minister could be found who would recommend such an unconstitutional—­such a ruinous—­such an unjust exercise of the prerogative of the crown; for, my Lords, I do maintain that the just exercise of the prerogative of the Crown does by no means go to the extent of enabling his Majesty to create a body of Peers with the view to carry any particular measure.  Under the circumstances, then, I think your Lordships will not think it unnatural, when I consider his Majesty’s situation, that I should endeavour to assist his Majesty to avoid the adoption of such a recommendation.  But, my Lords, when I found that in consequence of the discussions on Monday in another place,—­which by the way proved so clearly what the sentiments of the leading men then were, that Peers should not be created for such a purpose:—­when I found from these discussions that it was impossible to form a government from that house, of such a nature as would secure the confidence of the country, I felt it my duty to inform his Majesty that I could not fulfil the commission with which he was pleased to honour me, and his Majesty informed me that he would renew his communications with his former ministry.

May 17, 1832.

* * * * *

The state of Ireland under Lord Grey, a Conspiracy against Law and Government.

The noble Lords at the head of the Irish government have a most particular objection to these extraordinary measures, adopted to enable the government to afford protection to the lives and property of his Majesty’s subjects.  If I do not mistake—­and I am sure that I am in the recollection of many noble Lords present—­I myself reminded the noble Earl that the association act would terminate at the end of the session of Parliament of 1831; and the answer of the noble Earl was, that it was intended to bring in a bill to continue that act.  My Lords, Parliament was dissolved unfortunately, and the association act was not only not continued, but the convictions which had already taken place under it were not carried into execution.