But, my Lords, if I wanted an example of the value of the House of Commons, I should find it in the opinion of the noble Earl (Grey) the last time, I believe, the last time that he spoke of the House of Commons.  In the month of February, 1817, the noble Lord said, “constituted as it now was, he, in his conscience, believed that the House of Commons was, of all other institutions, in all the other countries of the world, the institution best calculated for the general protection of the subject.  Supported by the people, in temperate and firm claims for redress, it was not only able, but certain to remedy every wrong.  It was capable of acting as the most efficient control upon the executive, by diminishing the means of consumption, and reducing the pressure of a severe and grinding taxation.”  That was the opinion of the noble Earl himself, in 1817; and what, I would ask, has the Parliament done, subsequently, to deserve the disapprobation of the noble Earl?  What had it done between 1817 and the moment when I pronounced that approbation of Parliament, of which my noble friend (Earl Winchelsea) and the noble Earl (Grey) have so much disapproved?  When the noble Earl quoted what I said not quite a twelvemonth ago, he might, I think, quote it correctly.  What I said was, that Parliament had done its duty by the country, and enjoyed its confidence.  I said, that if I had to create a constitution of Parliament, I could not create that which now existed, because I did not believe the art of one man could invent such a system; but I said, that I would do my endeavour to establish one like it, in which property in land should be preponderant.  That was what I said; and I afterwards had the satisfaction to hear the noble Marquis (Lansdowne) deliver a similar opinion.  He stated that, in any system of representation which he could support, property and learning must be preponderant.  I said that I should consider it my duty to resist the adopting of any plan of reform that should be brought forward.  I spoke as a minister of the Crown; I meant to resist reform.  The noble Lords say, that this statement of mine caused great enmity to me, and created that spirit of reform which has since pervaded the whole country.  I beg the noble Earl’s pardon; but the spirit of reform in this country was the consequence of the French revolution.  It is true, that ever since the American war, a desire for Parliamentary Reform has been manifested, particularly when any disturbance or insurrection has occurred in any of the neighbouring foreign countries—­above all, since the French revolution; and when there has been any extraordinary distress or difficulty in the country.  At the same time, I believe that, from year to year, the manifestations of such a desire have been less frequent.  I have, indeed, the authority of those most friendly to reform for saying that the manifestations of the desire for reform were less frequent, till the period of the revolution of July, 1830, than they had formerly been for a number of years.