Wallace came from a Northumberland family, though it was in Brampton, Cumberland, where his grandfather and namesake was an attorney, that he was said to have been born, probably in 1768.
an honest man and very industrious, and has shown what may be done by these good qualities without any considerable talents. His connections enabled him to get into Parliament, and his political opinions (or rather those of his great friends Lord Melville, etc.) made him steady to that party.
Diaries and Corresp. of James Losh ed. E. Hughes (Surtees Soc. clxxxiv), 34-35.
The prime minister Lord Liverpool, who like Canning was a friend from university, thought that Wallace, a petulant and unashamedly ambitious colleague, overrated his own abilities and, being a reluctant speaker, made little contribution to the standing of the government in the Commons. Despite being several times passed over for more senior positions, he was appointed vice-president of the board of trade, with a salary of £1,500, in 1818.
At the general election that year he was returned after a contest for Weymouth, where he had sat briefly in the previous Parliament. This was on the Johnstone family interest, which, during the minority of the 7th baronet, was managed by the principal trustee, and Wallace’s ministerial colleague there, Masterton Ure. On the eve of another dissolution, he wrote to his friend, Sir Charles Monck of Belsay, 10 Feb. 1820, deploring his decision to retire from Parliament and admitting that ‘I believe I should not be sorry to follow your example’.
In the House, Wallace continued to divide, for the most part silently, with his ministerial colleagues. In May 1820 he was asked by Horsford to give advice on the Weymouth bridge bill.
He was chairman of the foreign trade committee during the following four sessions, and much of his parliamentary work was concerned with sponsoring the ensuing legislation.
He commented on an alleged breach of privilege, 9 Mar. 1821. He moved for the reappointment of the select committee on foreign trade, 6 Feb., when he indicated that government would take the inquiry in hand and bring forward measures for relief. Having answered questions about the future of the timber duties, 14, 16 Feb., 27 Mar., he moved resolutions to repeal them, 29 Mar., on the ground that it was more economic to import timber from northern Europe than to rely on uncompetitive colonial produce, and spoke in favour of the timber duties bill, 5, 12, 16, 19 Apr.
it is clear to me from what passed [in conversation with Liverpool] that a great deal is expected from us and if we fulfil the intentions and wishes of government we must be prepared to cut very deep, in fact that we are to be the instruments of changing completely the actual system of governing Ireland by patronage.
Add. 57401.
He spent the autumn taking evidence in Dublin, from where he reported to Liverpool, 3 Dec., and to Gladstone, 5 Dec. 1821, that he and his colleagues were unanimous in their recommendations, which included abolition of the separate Irish customs and repeal of many of the duties on Irish trade.
Wallace agreed with Gladstone, 7 Jan. 1822, that government had ‘purchased’ the Grenvillites ‘at a price much beyond the value of any strength or credit they bring to our support’, and although he approved of most of the ministerial changes that month, he added that ‘I hope it will answer, but I cannot help having my fears’. Anticipating some busy months of legislative activity for himself, he admitted in another letter, 21 Jan., that ministers’ ‘great difficulty in the ensuing session will arise from the agriculturists, who I suspect will make a violent assault upon our taxation, with what success it is in these times impossible to say’.
In December 1822 Frederick Robinson, the president of the board of trade, accepted Liverpool’s invitation to succeed Nicholas Vansittart as chancellor, but warned the prime minister that Wallace considered that his services entitled him to take over the department (which was to go to Huskisson), and ‘may therefore require a little soothing, when it comes to the point’. Canning and Arbuthnot agreed, and suggested that Liverpool take the chance to express ministers’ gratitude for his useful work before broaching the new arrangements. Liverpool finally informed Wallace of the changes by letter, 8 Jan. 1823, stressing that Huskisson was the only commoner he would consider placing over his head. As expected, Wallace, who was described as being ‘most indignant’, was extremely disappointed, and reacted (as he had in 1816) by resigning. He did offer to take the presidency without a salary, when that was raised as a sticking point, and urged Liverpool to consider
my situation fairly, consider my time of life and that my political views are drawing very fast to a close. Am I never to have the gratification of anything but a subordinate office? Is nothing more due to me? If so it is time for me to retire.
Liverpool, who was acutely sensitive to his friend’s distress, endeavoured to dissuade him, and even proposed that Wallace and Arbuthnot, who was to go to the department of woods and forests, should exchange places. This was much to the discomfiture of Arbuthnot, whose wife believed the problem to be that ‘Lady Melville will not allow Mr. Wallace to remain where he is’. Other solutions were suggested, the most feasible being that Wallace should succeed Lord Maryborough as master of the mint, but in the end all that could be held out to him was the vague promise of a future office.
I own to you I did it with great reluctance because it gave me advantages in prosecuting my views in opening and relieving the commerce of the country, but I really was placed by the new arrangement in a situation in which, consistently with my honour and character, I could not hesitate.
Glynne-Gladstone mss 319.
Despite his low profile in government, his departure was regretted by his constituents, who voted him an address of thanks for his services, 8 Feb. 1823, and this was matched by others, notably from several hundred London merchants.
Wallace in this respect, had he consented to remain, would have had an advantage which I possess not. He had laboured so well and so zealously that Robinson had become the cypher; and so fair has been the fame that he has acquired, that not even Huskisson himself would eclipse him.
Arbuthnot Corresp. 36.
When he moved for the reappointment of his committee and commented on the improved economic situation, 12 Feb., Wallace was complimented on his efforts by Ricardo, Hume and Canning; and Peel privately congratulated him ‘on the just and most gratifying testimonies which you received’.
in the course of my political life has given me more satisfaction than to have found in him a colleague, imbued with the same principles upon all these subjects, as those which I have at all times advocated, and upon which I have endeavoured to act.
Wallace, who continued to give ministers largely silent support, voted against parliamentary reform, 20 Feb., and alteration of the Scottish representative system, 2 June. He divided against repeal of the assessed taxes, 18 Mar., and the production of information on the plot to murder the Irish lord lieutenant, 24 Mar. He spoke for the warehousing bill, 21 Mar. (when he was teller for the majority in its favour), 24 Mar., 21 Apr. He voted against repeal of the Foreign Enlistment Act, 16 Apr., and inquiry into the legal proceedings against the Dublin Orange rioters, 22 Apr. He defended the reduction of duties on Irish cloth, 2 May. He called the Spitalfields Acts ‘a disgrace to the statute book’, 9 May, and supported the silk bill, 21 May. He spoke in defence of the reciprocity of duties bill, 6 June, 4 July, and the distilleries bill, 30 June, 8 July 1823.
The death of Lord Cornwallis later that year allowed a relieved Liverpool to make Maryborough master of the buckhounds and so ‘reward the indefatigable labours of Mr. Wallace as chairman of the parliamentary commission, and repair in some degree the injury he thought he received’; however, the king was reportedly displeased ‘that a place in his household should be made subservient to an accommodation for Wallace’. He welcomed his appointment to the undemanding office of master of the mint, and acquiesced in the decision to deny him a seat in the cabinet, although admitting privately that he still thought his claim was ‘full as good a one as Huskisson’s’.
Wallace supported the St. Katharine’s Docks bill, 22 Feb. 1825. As he had on 28 Feb. 1821 and 30 Apr. 1822, he voted against Catholic relief, 1 Mar., 21 Apr., when he spoke at length on the issue, and 10 May, and presented an anti-Catholic petition from Weymouth, 18 Apr. 1825.
he was a man singularly well qualified for his office, conversant with parliamentary business, not too wise for the purposes of his masters, but more than sufficiently conceited with his own wisdom and his own importance. In many ways he was perhaps the most unmanageable man that could have been pitched upon. He had a purpose to accomplish, and would attend to no suggestions from those who were opposed to him. The committee was informed that about half-a-dozen gentlemen would be examined, and then a bill would be submitted to the committee to remedy the evils complained of.
G. Wallas, Life of Place, 229.
Insisting that some level of protection against combinations should be retained, he spoke in favour of the committee’s recommendations for a bill to abolish the Combination Acts, 16, 23, 27, 29 June, when he was a teller for the majority in its favour.
In February 1826 Wallace was said ‘to be dying’,
Although disappointed at being again passed over for high office, he decided not to impede the formation of the government in January 1828, and so acquiesced in the duke of Wellington’s offer of a peerage. He merely stipulated that it should be announced at the same time as the cabinet in order to ‘produce the impression I am anxious should be generally received that although not holding an official situation I am identified with your grace’s administration’.