The Versatility of Lord George Bentinck

THOSE who throw their eye over the debates of the session of ’47, cannot fail to be struck by the variety of important questions in the discussion of which Lord George Bentinck took a leading or prominent part.  And it must be borne in mind that he never offered his opinion on any subject which he had not diligently investigated and attempted to comprehend in all its bearings.  His opponents might object to his principles or challenge his conclusions, but no one could deny that his conclusions were drawn from extensive information and that his principles were clear and distinct.  He spared no pains to acquire by reading, correspondence, and personal research, the most authentic intelligence on every subject in debate.  He never chattered.  He never uttered a sentence in the House of Commons which did not convey a conviction or a fact.  He was too profuse indeed with his facts:  he had not the art of condensation.  But those who have occasion to refer to his speeches and calmly to examine them, will be struck by the amplitude and the freshness of his knowledge, the clearness of his views, the coherence in all his efforts, and often ­a point for which he never had sufficient credit ­by his graphic idiom.

The best speech on the affairs of Cracow, for example, the most vigorous and the best informed, touching all the points with a thorough acquaintance, was that of Lord George Bentinck.  The discussion on Cracow, which lasted several nights and followed very shortly after the defeat of his Irish bill, appeared to relate to a class of subjects which would not have engaged his attention; but on the contrary, he had given days and nights to this theme, had critically examined all the documents, and conferred with those qualified to supply him with any supplementary information requisite.  He spoke several times this session on questions connected with our foreign affairs, and always impressed the House with a conviction that he was addressing it after a due study of his subject:  as for example, his speech against our interference in Portugal, and the statement in which he brought forward the claims of the holders of Spanish bonds on the government of Spain before the House of Commons.  In the instance of Portugal, a motion of censure on the conduct of ministers had been introduced by Mr. Hume, and the government were only saved from a minority by the friendly interposition of Mr. Duncombe, who proposed an amendment to the motion of Mr. Hume which broke the line of the liberal force.  Lord George Bentinck in this case followed Mr. Macaulay, whose speech, as was his wont, had been rich in historical illustration.  ’The right honourable and learned member for Edinburgh,’ Lord George replied, ’had entered into a very interesting history of various interferences which had taken place in the affairs of Portugal; but in making that statement he forgot to mention one circumstance which had occurred in that history, and it was this

­that when Philip II. of Spain sought to conquer Portugal, the method he had recourse to for that purpose was one which he thought her Majesty’s ministers had successfully practised on the present occasion

­he persuaded the leaders in Portugal to mix sand with the powder of their troops.  And so, on this occasion, her Majesty’s ministers had prevailed on the member for Finsbury, and those other members who were so ready to profess a love of liberty, to mix sand with their powder.’

In a previous chapter we have treated at some length of the means proposed or adopted by the Parliament for the sustenance and relief of the people of Ireland.  The new poor law for that country also much engaged the attention of both Houses this session.  Lord George Bentinck took a very active part in these transactions, and moved the most important of all the amendments to the government measure, namely, an attempt to assimilate the poor law of Ireland as much as possible to that of England, and make the entire rates be paid by the occupying tenant.  His object, he said, was to ’prevent lavish expenditure and encourage profitable employment to the people.’  This amendment was only lost by a majority of four.

On the 26th of March, on the government bringing forward their bill on the rum duties, Lord George Bentinck brought before the House the case of the British and Irish distillers, not with any preference or partiality towards English, Scotch, or Irish distillers over the colonial producer.  ’I am no advocate of any monopoly whatever.  I desire only equal and exact justice between both parties; and the only way in which that end can, in my opinion, be properly attained, is in a select committee upstairs, consisting of impartial members of this house.’

He often used to say that no subject ever gave him more trouble thoroughly to master than the spirit duties; and he noticed the character of the theme at the beginning of his speech.  He said he required, not only the most especial indulgence, but even the toleration of the House, ’for of all the dry and dull subjects which could possibly be introduced, the question which it is now my misfortune to bring under the consideration of the House is the driest and the dullest.  If this question had been one merely of pounds, shillings, and pence, it would have been dull and complicated enough; but this is a question in which are concerned not pounds and shillings, but pence, and halfpence, and farthings.’

The Whitsuntide holidays occurred at the end of May.  It had originally been the intention of Lord George Bentinck, at the request of leading merchants and manufacturers of all parties and opinions, to have brought forward the question of the Bank Act after these holidays, and to move a resolution that some discretionary power should be established as to the issue of notes.  He thus alludes to this point in a letter to Mr. Wright, of the 24th of May: ­

‘I return you N, of the “Bankers’ Circular,” with many thanks.

’This delightful and timely change in the weather will do wonders for the country, and by producing an abundant and seasonable harvest, will save the country, and may save the Bank Charter Act; but it is pretty well settled that I am to give notice immediately after the holidays, of a resolution very much in the spirit of the memorial contained in the paper I am returning to you.

’Things are better in the City and at Liverpool, and with this weather will continue to improve; but it seems to me any reverse in the weather, such as would occasion a late and deficient harvest, could not fail to bring the commerce of the country to a dead lock.

’The opinion is gaining ground, that in the present state not only of Ireland, but of many districts in England, the government will not venture upon a general election till after the harvest, and not then, unless the harvest should prove favourable.

’I am glad to read your opinion in opposition to Lord Ashburton’s, that railways keep the gold in the country, and do not send it out.  Glyn gave strong evidence last year to this effect before the railway committee.’

Neither of the prospects in this letter was realised.  The commercial and manufacturing interest, after the Whitsun recess, thought it advisable for reasons of great weight that Lord George Bentinck should postpone for a month or six weeks his intended motion on the Bank Charter, and the ministers resolved to dissolve Parliament before the harvest:  thus it happened that the merchants and manufacturers lost their chance of relief from the yoke, and experienced the reign of terror in the autumn, the terrible events of which ultimately occasioned the assembling of the new Parliament in November.

Anticipating the immediate dissolution of Parliament, Sir Robert Peel had issued an address to the electors of Tamworth, justifying his commercial policy.  In the opinion of Lord George Bentinck it set forth a statement as to the effect and operation of those financial measures which had taken place in the course of the last six years, which, if left altogether unrefuted, might have a dangerous tendency at the coming elections.  The general effect of that statement was, that by the reduction of duties to a large extent, it was possible to relieve the people of this country of burdens amounting to more than seven millions and a half sterling with little or no loss whatever to the revenue.  But the truth was, Sir Robert Peel in his reductions had dealt only with little more than ten millions sterling of the revenue of the country, and had left the remaining thirty-seven millions untouched.  Now on that portion of the revenue with which alone he had dealt, there was a deficiency, through his changes, to the amount of five millions sterling, which loss was compensated by the increase on those very articles which Sir Robert had left untouched.  It was the opinion of Lord George Bentinck that the conclusion which Sir Robert Peel had drawn from the comparatively barren results of the increased duties on imports carried by the Whigs in 1840, viz., that indirect taxation had reached its limit, and which was indeed the basis of his new system, was a fallacy, and that the anticipated increase of import duties had not accrued in 1840 in consequence of our having had three successive bad harvests, ‘and a bad cotton crop to boot,’ all of which had checked the consuming power of the community.  Sir Robert Peel had been favoured by three successive good harvests and nearly L100,000,000 invested in six years in domestic enterprise.  ‘The interposition of Providence,’ said Lord George, ‘is never a part of our debates.’

Under these circumstances, Lord George took occasion to review the commercial policy of Sir Robert Peel, on the 20th July, in the House of Commons, only three days before the prorogation, and in one of his most successful speeches.  He was much assisted by the fact that the exports of all our staple manufactures had then greatly diminished, and of course he urged this point triumphantly.  ’If we had been indemnified for the dead loss of L650,000 on cotton wool by any great impulse given to our manufacturers, it would be a consolation which unfortunately we could not enjoy.’  He traced all the consumption to railway enterprise, and showed that it alone had compensated for the fruitless loss of revenue which we had incurred in vainly stimulating the exports of our manufactures, which had actually diminished.  He was so impressed with the importance that, ’on the eve of a dissolution, such a statement as that of Sir Robert Peel should not go forth to the country uncontroverted, as in that case the necessary result would be that the people would come to the opinion that they might abolish taxes altogether and yet maintain the revenue,’ that he sat up all night writing an address to his constituents, the electors of King’s Lynn, which took up nearly two columns of the newspapers, in which he presented his refutation to the public of the commercial manifesto of Tamworth, illustrated by the necessary tables and documents.

There is a sentence in this speech which, as a distinct expression of policy, should perhaps be quoted: 

’Sir, I am one of those who seek for the repeal of the malt tax and the hop duties.  I am one of those who think that the excise duties ought to be taken off.  But, sir, I do not pretend that you can repeal the malt tax or the hop duties, or remove the soap tax without commutation for other taxes.  I will not delude the people by pretending that I could take off more than seven millions and a half of taxes without replacing them by others, and not leave the nation bankrupt.  But I think these reforms of Sir Robert Peel have been in a mistaken direction; I think that revenue duties on all foreign imports ought to be maintained, and that a revenue equal to those excise duties which I have mentioned can be levied upon the produce of foreign countries and foreign industry, without imposing any greater tax than one which shall fall far short of Mr. Walker’s “perfect revenue standard of 20 per cent.”  I say that by imposing a tax far less than 20 per cent. upon all articles of foreign import, a revenue might be derived far less burdensome to this country than that of excise, a revenue of which the burden would be largely shared in by foreign countries, and in many cases paid altogether by foreign countries.’

Lord George at this time watched with great interest a novel feature in our commercial transactions.  He wrote on the 29th May (1847), to Mr. Burn, the editor of the ‘Commercial Glance,’ and an individual of whose intelligence, accuracy, and zeal he had a high and just opinion, ’Can you inform me how the raw cotton purchased for exportation stands in the first three weeks of the present month of May, as compared with the corresponding periods of ’46 ­5 ­4 ­3?

’I observe from a cotton circular sent to me the other day, that seven thousand five hundred bags of cotton had been purchased for exportation between the 1st and 21st of May.  If with reduced stocks of raw cotton we are commencing a career of increased exportation, it appears to me to involve very serious consequences for our cotton manufactures as growing out of the existing monetary difficulties of the manufacturers.

’If you could answer me these queries within the next three or four days, I should feel greatly obliged to you.’

Again, on the 22d of July, on the point of going down to his constituents, he was still pursuing his inquiries in the same quarter.’  I want particularly to compare,’ he says to Mr. Burn, ’the export of the last ten weeks of raw cotton with the corresponding ten weeks of ’46 and ’45, and at the same time to compare the importations and deliveries into the hands of the manufacturers during these same periods.

’Pray address me, Lynn, Norfolk, where I go on Saturday, and shall remain till after my election on Thursday.’

He writes again from Lynn, with great thanks for the information which had been accordingly forwarded to him there.  ’Might I ask you to give me an account of the cotton wool imported weekly into Liverpool, and also the quantity sold to dealers, exporters, and speculators, in the three corresponding weeks of ’45-46.

‘This information by return of post would greatly oblige me.’

On the 23d of July, 1847, the last day of the second Parliament of Queen Victoria, Lord George went down to the House of Commons early, and took the opportunity of making a statement respecting the condition of our sugar-producing colonies, which were now experiencing the consequences of the unjustifiable legislation of the preceding year.  He said there were appearances in the political horizon which betokened that he should not be able to obtain a select committee in the present session, and therefore, if he had the honour of a seat in the next Parliament, he begged to announce that he would take the earliest occasion to move for a committee to inquire into the present power of our colonies to compete with those countries which have still the advantage of the enforced labour of slaves.  The returns just laid upon the table of the House could leave no doubt, he thought, on any man’s mind on that point.  Since the emancipation, the produce of sugar by the colonies, from ’31 to ’46, had been reduced one half, and of rum and coffee had been reduced to one fourth.  When the act of last year which admitted slave-grown sugar was introduced, the allegation of the English colonies, that they could not compete with the labour of slaves, was denied.  The proof of that allegation was, that they were already overwhelmed.

When one recalls all to which this speech led, the most memorable effort of that ardent, energetic life to which it was perhaps fatal, one can scarcely observe the origin of such vast exertions without emotion.

The Under Secretary of State replied to Lord George, making a cry of cheap sugar for the hustings which were before everybody’s eyes, but making also this remarkable declaration, that ’the Island of Mauritius was in a state of the greatest prosperity.’  While Lord George was speaking, the cannon were heard that announced the departure of her majesty from the palace.

Then followed a motion of Mr. Bankes about the sale of bread, which led to some discussion.  Mr. Bankes threatened a division.  Lord Palmerston, who on this occasion was leading the House, said it would be acting like a set of schoolboys, if when Black Rod appeared they should be in the lobby instead of attending the Speaker to the other House.  But as the members seemed very much inclined to act like schoolboys, the Secretary of State had to speak against time on the subject of baking.  He analyzed the petition, which he said he would not read through, but the last paragraph was of great importance.

At these words, Black Rod knocked at the door, and duly making his appearance, summoned the House to attend the Queen in the House of Lords, and Mr. Speaker, followed by a crowd of members, duly obeyed the summons.

In about a quarter of an hour, Mr. Speaker returned without the mace, and standing at the table read her Majesty’s speech to the members around, after which they retired, the Parliament being prorogued.  In the course of the afternoon, the Parliament was dissolved by proclamation.