FORSTER, Matthew (1786-1869), of Bellsise House, Hampstead, London, Mdx.

Born in county Durham, Forster was the grandson of Roger Forster (b. 1700), who had established the family’s interests in the south Durham coal industry in the mid-eighteenth century. His father, John Forster, moved to London at the beginning of the nineteenth century to form the merchant house of Forster’s, trading in Baltic timber.1Berwick in Parliament: a history of the representation of Berwick in the House of Commons, 1529-2001 (2001), 102-3. After the Napoleonic wars, Matthew Forster entered into trading a variety of produce with the west coast of Africa, established the merchant house of Forster and Smith in 1826, and, with a strong base in the Gambia, went on to become a major figure in the opening up of British trade in that region.2M. Lynn, Commerce and economic change in West Africa: the palm oil trade in the nineteenth century (2002), 87. By the late 1830s, he was regarded by the colonial office as a prominent mercantile spokesman, and his correspondence with the leading abolitionist Thomas Fowell Buxton MP revealed a distaste for the slave trade.3R. Braithwaite, Palmerston and Africa. The Rio Nunez affair: competition, diplomacy and justice (1996), 71-9. Forster’s correspondence with Buxton is located at Rhodes House, Oxford. See the Buxton Archives, vols. 30, 31, and 33. He also extended his family’s local business interests, becoming a partner in the South Hetton Colliery, county Durham, and a shareholder in the Hartlepool Docks.4Ibid., 80.

At the 1841 general election, Forster offered as a Liberal for Berwick-upon-Tweed, where his family held property, advocating free trade and a reduction of the sugar and timber duties. The only Liberal in the field, he was returned at the top of the poll, a position which he also maintained at the 1847 and 1852 general elections.5Berwick in parliament, 103. A steady attender, Forster generally divided with the Liberals on most major issues, and consistently voted with Russell on motions to consider the state of Ireland, 12 July 1843, 23 Feb. 1844, 12 June 1844, but his support for direct taxation in preference to excise duties led him to speak out in favour of the Peel ministry’s property tax bill, 5 Mar. 1845.6Forster was present for 108 out of 219 divisions in 1849, and 85 out of 197 divisions in 1853. Hampshire Telegraph and Sussex Chronicle, 20 Oct. 1849; Daily News, 21 Sept. 1853. A staunch free trader, he was for Villiers’ anti-corn law motion, 15 May 1843, and voted for repeal, 15 May 1846. He also backed Locke King’s motions to equalise the county and borough franchise, dividing against Russell, 20 Feb. 1851 and 27 Apr. 1852.

In his first parliamentary session, he was appointed to the 1842 select committee on British possessions on the West Coast of Africa, which was formed in response to the report of Dr Richard Madden, who had been sent to the region by the late Melbourne ministry. (His report had concluded that British traders were complicit in the slave trade.7PP 1842 (551), xi. 2; Braithwaite, Palmerston and Africa, 82.) Forster, who was both an expert member and witness, was the most assiduous attender. He used the committee to make an outspoken defence of British traders, pressing for an understanding of the complex way in which legitimate trade and the slave trade intertwined, but he often divided in a minority of one.8For a good example of his arguments, see PP 1842 (551), xi. 627; Braithwaite, Palmerston and Africa, 82-3. He continued this defence in the House the following year, while opposing individual clauses of the subsequent slave trade suppression bill, insisting that there were limits to the trader’s responsibility for the final destination of the goods sold.9Hansard, 18 Aug. 1843, vol. 71, cc. 930-2, 947, 948-50; 21 Aug. 1843, vol. 71, cc. 983-5. His interventions were often controversial though, and his defence of the pawning system, whereby natives obtained goods to traffic by pawning themselves to creditors, was attacked by Lord Stanley, then colonial secretary, who stated that pawning was essentially slavery.10Hansard, 18 Aug. 1843, vol. 71, c. 950.

A persistent questioner of ministers on mercantile issues, Forster’s contributions in the Commons reflected his interests in the shipping and coal industries. An opponent of government interference in commercial matters, he objected to the merchant seaman’s bill, 29 July 1844, duties on marine insurance, 19 July 1847, and denounced the collieries bill as ‘the most absurd and useless bill that ever was laid upon the table of the House’, 14 July 1847. He maintained his defence of British traders on the coast of Africa, 7 Aug. 1844 and 13 June 1845, and, supporting the Russell ministry’s plans to purchase Danish settlements on the Gold Coast, he rejected Richard Cobden’s concerns, dismissing him as ‘exceedingly ignorant on the subject’, 19 July 1850. He was also a prominent protagonist for the British traders Joseph Braithwaite and George Martin, whose trading station at Boke, Guinea, was destroyed by a French and Belgian naval force in March 1849, and pressed the foreign office for redress, although his efforts eventually came to nothing.11Braithwaite, Palmerston and Africa, 194-231.

Although Forster was re-elected at the 1852 general election, his Conservative opponent, Richard Hodgson, petitioned against his return, 24 Nov. 1852, and he was found guilty, by his agents, of ‘gross, open and systematic bribery and corruption’, 23 Apr. 1853, and his election declared void. Forster launched a counter-petition, 6 May 1853, denying that he had attempted to see off Hodgson’s petition by offering him ‘a large sum of money’, and a select committee into the prosecution of the petition subsequently exonerated him on this issue, 13 June 1853.12W.W. Bean, The Parliamentary representation of the six northern counties of England (1890), 514-5; PP 1852-3 (604), viii. 254. In the ensuing by-election of May 1853, his son, John, successfully took his place and sat in Parliament until the 1857 general election, when he stood down to allow Forster to attempt to regain his seat. His credibility, however, had not recovered since his ejection from the Commons, and he finished bottom of the poll.13McCalmont’s parliamentary poll book, 1832-1918, ed. J. Vincent and M. Stenton, 22, incorrectly states that John Forster stood at the 1857 general election. For a brief overview of Matthew Forster’s unsuccessful campaign at the 1857 general election, see M.J. Wickham, ‘Electoral politics in Berwick-upon-Tweed, 1832-1885’, unpublished MPhil thesis, University of Durham (2002),58. His remaining years were spent focusing on his commercial interests: by the 1860s the merchant house of Forster and Smith was in decline, due to competition from steamships based at Liverpool and London.14Braithwaite, ‘Matthew Forster of Bellsise’, 16. Forster died at his home in Bellsise park, Hampstead in September 1869. He was succeeded by his eldest son, John, Liberal member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, 1853-57.