in the Vote
Office, where the Secretary of the Treasury 'called Lord George aside'
and made this proposition. Lord George stated in reply, 'what he
believed to be the views of the party with whom he served,' and they
were those we have already intimated. The 'arrangement' was concluded,
and it was at the same time agreed that certain questions, of which
notice had been given by Lord John Russell, relative to the progress
of these very measures, should be allowed by the Protectionists to pass
_sub silentio_. This 'pledge,' made by the noble lord for himself and
his friends, was 'scrupulously observed.' Nevertheless, after all this,
a letter arrived from the Secretary of the Treasury, addressed to the
noble lord, stating that the secretary 'had not been authorized in
saying as much as he had said,' and requesting that the conversation
which had taken place might be considered private. Upon this, Lord
George Bentinck drew up a statement, 'setting forth all that had
passed,' and forwarded it to the secretary as his reply. Subsequently,
he met that gentleman, who admitted that 'every word in that statement,
as respected the conversation which had passed, was perfectly correct.'

This being the state of the case, on the second night of the debate
on Mr. Eliot Yorke's amendment, which we have noticed, and after the
adjournment had been moved and carried, the government proceeded with
some motions of form, which indicated their intention to secure, if
possible, the third reading of the Corn Bill before Easter. Upon
this, Lord George Bentinck, after a hurried and apparently agitated
conversation with the Secretary of the Treasury and others connected
with the government, rose to move the adjournment of the House. He then
gave as his reason the circumstances which we have briefly conveyed. A
scene of considerable confusion occurred; the Secretary of the Treasury
admitted the correctness of the statement; the First Lord of the
Treasury rejected the alleged authority of the secretary. Mr. Tuffnell,
on the part of the Whigs, intimated that public business could not be
carried on if the recognized organs were repudiated by their chief. The
feeling of all parties coincided with Mr. Tuffnell; finally, an Irish
repealer rose and announced that the government were bartering their
Corn Bill to secure coercion to Ireland. Lord George Bentinck said the
Coercion Bill was 'a second Curfew Act,' that nothing but necessity
could justify it, and