Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 04.djvu/304

 Bill. Lord George saw the advantage to be gained from this measure. If the ministers pressed their Coercion Bill, they would be forced to relax their effort to pass the Corn Bill. If, on the other hand, they made the free-trade question of the first importance, then, he argued, they would show that they believed that Irish affairs were not urgent, and would declare by their own conduct that their Coercion Bill was needless. On behalf of his party he agreed with the secretary of the treasury that he would support the new bill on the understanding that the repeal of the corn laws should be put off until after Easter. Sir R. Peel disavowed this compact, and refused to give up the attempt to advance both bills before the holidays. Lord George protested against the connection established by the government between the question of the corn laws and the Irish outrages, and, as he opposed the Corn Bill and the Irish members the Coercion Bill, business was for some time brought to what Sir Robert called 'a dead lock.' On 1 May, however, the first reading of the Coercion Bill passed, Lord George and a large number of protectionists voting for it. During the Easter recess Lord George accepted the leadership of the protectionist party on condition that he should relinquish it whenever he discovered a better man for the post, and that he should be free to act as he thought right on religious questions, When parliament reassembled, Sir R. Peel devoted all his strength to pressing on the repeal of the corn laws. Lord George, however, was still able to delay for a while the final decision of the commons. Warning the house on 4 May against believing that English free trade would be met by reciprocity, and quoting the opinion of M. Guizot against our new policy, he declared that there was at that time no potato famine in Ireland, and that no reason existed for doing away with protective duties. The next night he moved the omission of the word 'oats' from the bill, on the ground that 558,000 Irish occupiers were engaged in growing oats, and that the removal of protective duty from that species of grain would 'undo the work of Mr. Pitt and Mr. Burke,' that it would be 'to cast off Ireland and practically preclude her from our markets.' The third reading of the bill was carried on 15 May. Even before that day Lord George made a fresh attack on the government on the subject of the effect of the new commercial policy on our relations with Canada, laying down the axioms that excise duties should be remitted before customs, and that our commercial policy should be regulated by reciprocity. The position of Sir R. Peel was weakened by repeated attacks, and, though their defeat was complete, the protectionists hoped for vengeance. Any schemes for a new cabinet on a broad basis were rendered futile by the refusal of Lord J. Russell to retreat from the Edinburgh letter, and of Lord George Bentinck to enter a government pledged to free trade in corn. Nor was it easy to find a common basis for attack. At last Lord George decided on joining the whigs in opposing the second reading of the Coercion Bill. On the motion, made on 8 June, that the bill be read a second time, he explained his opposition by declaring that if the government had thought the bill really necessary, they would not have postponed the second reading, and compared their slackness in this matter with the earnestness with which they had pressed on the Corn Bill. From this defence of the change in his own conduct he passed to a violent attack on Sir Robert Peel. He taunted him with being 'a minister on sufferance, supported by none but his forty paid janissaries and seventy other renegades.' And then, probably inspired by those near both to himself and to Mr. Canning, he accused Sir Robert of having 'chased and hunted his illustrious relative to death,' because he had, in 1827, refused to join Mr. Canning's cabinet on the ground of the part it would take in the catholic question, although in 1829 he declared in a letter to Lord Liverpool that he had changed his mind on the question as early as 1825. On the 10th Sir Robert was able triumphantly to rebut this charge, which was founded on an incorrect report of one of his speeches. Nevertheless the coalition was triumphant, and the ministry was defeated.

The new minister, Lord .T. Russell, lost no time in bringing forward a proposal to do away with the protective duty on sugar. On 27 July Lord George met this proposal by an amendment condemning the proposed reduction as impolitic and calculated to check the advance of the production of sugar by British free labour in favour of foreign slave-grown sugar. This amendment was lost by 130 votes. For the second time in this session Lord George, without having previously ascertained the rights of the case, indulged in a personal attack, charging Lord Chancellor Lyndhurst with an abuse of patronage in an appointment fully justified by the circumstances attending it. During the recess he attended various protectionist banquets at King's Lynn, in North Warwickshire, and in Leicestershire, and took some much-needed rest at Welbeck. At this time, determined to let nothing come between him and the public service, Lord George sold the whole