BENTINCK, Lord George (1715-59), of Hall Place, Heston, Mdx.

Published in The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1754-1790, ed. L. Namier, J. Brooke., 1964
Available from Boydell and Brewer



4 Jan. 1742 - 1747
1747 - 1754
1754 - 1 Mar. 1759

Family and Education

b. 24 Dec. 1715, 2nd s. of Henry, 1st Duke of Portland, by Lady Elizabeth Noel, da. and coh. of Wriothesley Baptist, 2nd Earl of Gainsborough. educ. Eton 1725-8. m. 29 June 1753, Mary Davies, s.p.

Offices Held

Ensign 1 Ft. Gds. 1735, capt.-lt. and lt.-col. 1743, col. 1752; col. 5 Ft. 1754- d.


Bentinck was a regular Government supporter. In 1754, on Newcastle’s recommendation,1 he was returned for Malmesbury by Henry Fox who had the management of the borough and £1,000 of secret service money for the purpose, part of which ‘H.M. need not, but chose to allow the candidates towards the election’.2 Bentinck died 1 Mar. 1759; and on the 23rd his aunt Lady Sophia Egerton, sister of the 1st Duke of Portland and wife of the bishop of Durham, wrote about Lord George’s widow to their Dutch cousin, Count William Bentinck:3

I never heard that Lord George Bentinck had any children by this woman, who after having been quite common about town he took into his keeping, and of late years has married. The Duke and Duchess of Portland would never pretend to credit the match, on which Lord George disgusted, seldom, if ever, visited at the Duke’s his brother—and neither he, or his matrimonialised mistress have ever been taken notice of in the family. It is reported that Lord George’s grief on this account contributed as much, if not more, to his death than the gout, and that he has left £40,000 (the whole of his fortune) to the present Lady George Bentinck.

She married within four months on 24 June 1759.4

Ref Volumes: 1754-1790

Author: Sir Lewis Namier


  • 1. Add. 32999, f. 119.
  • 2. Fox to the Duke of Devonshire, 1 June 1758, Devonshire ms 330.225. But Newcastle’s notes of 20 Mar. 1754, Add. 32995, f. 104, contain the entry: ‘Lord George Bentinck £1,500.’ It is not clear whether this is the entire cost or his contribution. See Namier, Structure, 444, n. 4.
  • 3. Egerton 1719, f. 34.
  • 4. Gent. Mag. 1759, p. 293.