with one another because all shall be parts of a consistent whole. This task Bentham undertook, and he brought to it a mind absolutely free from professional or class feeling, or any other species of prejudice. He mapped out the whole subject, dividing and subdividing it in accordance with the principle of “dichotomy.” Having reached his ultimate subdivisions he subjects each to the most thorough and ingenious discussion. His earlier writings exhibit a lively and easy style, which gives place in his later treatises to sentences which are awkward from their effort after unattainable accuracy, and from the newly-invented technical nomenclature in which they are expressed. Many of Bentham’s phrases, such as “international,” “utilitarian,” “codification,” are valuable additions to our language; but the majority of them, especially those of Greek derivation, have taken no root in it. His neology is one among many instances of his contempt for the past and his wish to be clear of all association with it. His was, indeed, a typically logical, as opposed to a historical, mind. For the history of institutions which, thanks largely to the writings of Sir Henry Maine, has become a new and interesting branch of science, Bentham cared nothing. Had he possessed such a knowledge of Roman law as is now not uncommon in England, he must doubtless have taken a different view of many subjects. The logical and historical methods can, however, seldom be combined without confusion; and it is perhaps fortunate that Bentham devoted his long life to showing how much may be done by pursuing the former method exclusively. His writings have been and remain a storehouse of instruction for statesmen, an armoury for legal reformers. “Pillé par tout le monde,” as Talleyrand said of him, “il est toujours riche.” To trace the results of his teaching in England alone would be to write a history of the legislation of half a century. Upon the whole administrative machinery of government, upon criminal law and upon procedure, both criminal and civil, his influence has been most salutary; and the great legal revolution which in 1873 purported to accomplish the fusion of law and equity is not obscurely traceable to the same source. Those of Bentham’s suggestions which have hitherto been carried out have affected the matter or contents of the law. The hopes which have been from time to time entertained, that his suggestions for the improvement of its form and expression were about to receive the attention which they deserved, have hitherto been disappointed. The services rendered by Bentham to the world would not, however, be exhausted even by the practical adoption of every one of his recommendations. There are no limits to the good results of his introduction of a true method of reasoning into the moral and political sciences.
Bentham’s Works, together with an Introduction by J. Hill Burton, selections from his correspondence and a biography, were published by Dr Bowring, in eleven closely printed volumes (1838–1843). This edition does not include the Deontology, which, much rewritten, had been published by Bowring in 1834. Translations of the Works or of separate treatises have appeared in most European languages. Large masses of Bentham’s MSS., mostly unpublished, are preserved at University College, London (see T. Whittaker’s Report, 1892, on these MSS., as newly catalogued and reclassified by him in 155 parcels); also in the British Museum (see E. Nys, Études de droit international et de droit politique, 1901, pp. 291-333). See farther on the life and writings of Bentham: J. H. Burton, Benthamiana (1843); R. von Mohl, Geschichte und Literatur der Staatswissenschaften, bk. iii. (1858), pp. 595-635; R. K. Wilson, History of Modern English Law (1875), pp. 133-170; J. S. Mill, Dissertations (1859), vol. i. pp. 330-392; L. Stephen, The English Utilitarians (1900), vol. i.; A Fragment on Government, edited by F. C. Montague (1891); The Law Quarterly Review (1895), two articles on Bentham’s influence in Spain; A. V. Dicey, Law and Opinion in England (1905), pp. 125-209; C. M. Atkinson, Jeremy Bentham (1905). (T. E. H.)
BENTINCK, LORD WILLIAM (1774–1839), governor-general of India, was the second son of the 3rd duke of Portland and was born on the 14th of September 1774. He entered the army, rose to the rank of lieutenant-colonel and was present at Marengo. In 1803 he was nominated governor of Madras, where he quarrelled with the chief justice, Sir Henry Gwillim, and several members of his council. The sepoy mutiny at Vellore in 1807 led to his recall. His name was considered at this time for the post of governor-general, but Lord Minto was selected instead; and it was not until twenty years later that he succeeded Lord Amherst in that office. His governor-generalship (1827–1835) was notable for many reforms, chief among which were the suppression of the Thugs (q.v.), the abolition of suttee, and the making of the English language the basis of education in India. It was on this last subject that Lord Macaulay’s famous minute was written. Lord William’s administration was essentially peaceful, but progressive and successful. He died at Paris on the 17th of June 1839.
See Demetrius C. Boulger, Lord William Bentinck, in the “Rulers of India” series (1892).
BENTINCK, LORD WILLIAM GEORGE FREDERICK CAVENDISH, better known as Lord George Bentinck (1802–1848), British politician, was the second surviving son of the fourth duke of Portland, by Henrietta, sister of Viscountess Canning, and was born on the 27th of February 1802. He was educated at home until he obtained his commission as cornet in the 10th hussars at the age of seventeen. He practically retired from the army in 1822 and acted for some time as private secretary to his uncle George Canning. In 1828 he succeeded his uncle Lord William Bentinck as member for Lynn-Regis, and continued to represent that constituency during the remaining twenty years of his life. His failures as a speaker in parliament seem to have discouraged him from the attempt to acquire reputation as a politician, and till within three years of his death he was little known out of the sporting world. As one of the leaders on “the turf,” however, he was distinguished by that integrity, judgment and indomitable determination which, when brought to bear upon weightier matters, quickly gave him a position of first-rate importance in the political world. On his first entrance into parliament he belonged to the moderate Whig party, and voted in favour of Catholic emancipation, as also for the Reform Bill, though he opposed some of its principal details. Soon after, however, he joined the ranks of the opposition, with whom he sided up to the important era of 1846. When, in that year, Sir Robert Peel openly declared in favour of free trade, the advocates of the corn-laws, then without a leader, after several ineffectual attempts at organization, discovered that Lord George Bentinck was the only man of position and family (for Disraeli’s time was not yet come) around whom the several sections of the opposition could be brought to rally. His sudden elevation took the public by surprise; but he soon gave convincing evidence of powers so formidable that the Protectionist party under his leadership was at once stiffened into real importance. Towards Peel, in particular, his hostility was uncompromising. Believing, as he himself expressed it, that that statesman and his colleagues had “hounded to the death his illustrious relative” Canning, he combined with his political opposition a degree of personal animosity that gave additional force to his invective. On entering on his new position, he at once abandoned his connexion with the turf, disposed of his magnificent stud and devoted his whole energies to the laborious duties of a parliamentary leader. Apart from the question of the corn-laws, however, his politics were decidedly independent. In opposition to the rest of his party, he supported the bill for removing the Jewish disabilities, and was favourable to the scheme for the payment of the Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland by the landowners. The result was that on December 23rd, 1847, he wrote a letter resigning the Protectionist leadership, though he still remained active in politics. But his positive abilities as a constructive statesman were not to be tested, for he died suddenly at Welbeck on the 21st of September 1848. It was to be left to Disraeli to bring the Conservative party into power, with Protection outside its programme.
See Lord George Bentinck: a Political Biography (1851), by B. Disraeli (Lord Beaconsfield).
BENTIVOGLIO, GIOVANNI (1443–1508), tyrant of Bologna, descended from a powerful family which exercised great influence in Bologna during the 15th century, was born after the murder of his father, then chief magistrate of the commune. In 1462 Giovanni contrived to make himself master of the city, although it was nominally a fief of the church under a papal legate. He ruled with a stern sway for nearly half a century, but the brilliance of his court, his encouragement of the fine arts and his
