the anti-reformers in carrying the amendment of the Marquis of Chandos giving an occupation franchise to farmers renting at not less than 50l. a year. He also refused to vote for Lord Ehnngton's resolution in 1832. When, in 1834, Mr. Stanley (Lord Derby) and others seceded from the mmistry on the question of the appropriation of the funds of the church in Ireland to secular purposes, Liord George, who had a strong personal as well as political attachment to Mr. Stanley, ceased to support the whigs, and soon became a member of the conservative opposition. On the overthrow of the Melbourne adminis- tration in 1841, he was again offered an administrative post, and, in order to make the offer especially acceptable, Sir R. Peel caused it to be conveyed to him through his friend Lord Stanley. Lord George, however, declined the oner, because he was unwilling to spare the time he devoted to the turf. Up to the end of the session of 1846 he warmly upheld the ministry of Sir R. Peel.
In the last weeks of 1846 Lord George Bentinck entered on a new life. The proposal of Sir R. Peel to meet the failure of the potato crop in Ireland, and the danger of an insufficient supply of com in this country, by an order in council suspending the restrictions placed upon the importation of com, and the avowal of his opinion that after such a suspension it would be inexpedient to re-enact the existing laws, the secession of Lord Stanley from the cabinet, and the ministerial crisis which followed Lord J. Russell's Edinburgh letter, deeply moved him. Believing that Sir R. Peel was basely betraying the confidence placed in him. Lord George resolved to make a fight for the maintenance of protective duties. His indignation at finding his party betrayed, as he thought, by the leaaer he once used to follow, had at least as much effect in first rousing him to active opposition as any well-founded political convictions. As he walked from the house one night in company with a member of the league, his companion said that he wondered that he was amiid of the consequences of free trade. 'Well,' he returned, 'I keep horses in three counties, and they tell me that I shall save 1,500l. a year by free trade. I don't care for that. What I cannot bear is being sold' (Moblet's Life of Cobden, i. 368). The answer exhibits somewhat of the same spirit that led him to sue Connop. Unskilled as he was in party tactics, he had an able adviser in Mr. Disraeli ; and though there was little likeness between the characters of Lord George and of his ally and future panegyrist, each supplied the other with what he lacked, and the connection between them was not without its influence on the career of the more famous statesman. If Lord George took up the cause of protection lightly, he did so honestly, believing that the ministerial policy would injure the country. He worked diligently at the materials for his case, applying to economic statistics those mental powers which had done him good service in the calculations of the turf. Early in the next year he took an active share in organising the protectionist as a third political party. For a while it was a party without a head. Lord George had no desire to accept the leadership. 'I think,' he said, 'we have had enough of leaders ; it is not my way ; I shall remain the last of the rank and file.' So far was he from wishing to put himself forward, that he tried to prevail on a barrister to become a member of the house in order to speak for him, using the materials he had put together. It was advisable for party purposes to prolong the debate on the order, read 9 Feb., for going into committee on the corn laws, and on 27 Feb. Lord George for the first time addressed the house in a great debate. Although before this he had taken little part in public business, his personal qualities, his family, and, not least, his preeminence in sport, gave him considerable influence in the house. His early manner of speaking was unattractive, his voice was forced, his action was overdone, and his sentences were often repeated ; and, though he succeeded to some extent in improving his style, he did not become a first-rate speaker. If, however, his speeches sometimes sounded ill, they were excellent when read. Full of figures and calculations, given out, as we are assured by his biographer Lord Beaconsfield, without the help of notes, his argruments needed to be read rather than to be heard, and therefore appealed to the country rather than to the house. He was strong in adverse criticism, in the power of making 'damaging speeches.' In this his first great speech, he astonished the house by a calculation of the extent to which the agricultural productions of the country might be increasea. He also reproached Sir R. Peel with the presence of Prince Albert in the house on the first night of the discussion. It was no small encouragement to him to find on the close of the debate that as many as 242 out of 681 voted with him — 'proud,' as he said, 'in the chastity of their honour.' By every means in their power Lord George and the protectionists delayed the further progress of the bill. The disturbed state of Ireland seemed to promise the success of their policy of obstmction, as it necessitated the introduction of a Coercion
