replied from Little Holland House, “I take the opportunity of repeating what I told your brother, that it is not possible for me to paint the picture at Ockham—if it were I would do so with the greatest pleasure as of course it would be much more agreeable to Dr Lushington, but I will endeavour in every way to make the sittings here convenient & agreeable to Dr. Lushington.” G. F. Watts to Alice Lushington, 15 August 1866. Private Collection. This portrait appears to have been the one presented to the Trinity House, London, which was destroyed by bombing during the World War II.
45. William Holman Hunt to Thomas Combe, September 28, 1862. The John Rylands Library University of Manchester, Eng. MS. 1213/4.
46. W. Holman Hunt, Pre-Raphaelitism and the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood (Macmillan & Co., 1905), p. 219.
47. William Holman Hunt to Thomas Combe, September 28, 1862. John Rylands University Library of Manchester, Eng. MS. 1213/4.
48. In August 1898, when a Bill to make smallpox vaccination compulsory was going through Parliament, Hunt wrote to The Times, “About the year 1862 I was conversing with the veteran Judge, the Rt. Hon. Stephen Lushington, and, as his memory was at the time taking us back to the last decade of the eighteenth century, I asked not withstanding some served resignation of the prejudice that lies ever in aged breasts for the glory of the days of youth—what his view was of the relative beauties of ladies ‘seventy years ago’ and in the passing day. His warmth in answering was astonishing. ‘Well,’ he exclaimed, ‘you can have no idea how it was that not more than one person in twenty was undisfigured by the traces of smallpox, and this generally to such a degree that whatever beauty there had been was very seriously marred . . . The difference I see now is that every lady we meet would have been a beauty in my early days.’” The Times, August 4, 1898.
49. On August 25, 1863, Hunt wrote to Stephens, “Before I left town I worked for about three days on Dr Lushington’s portrait and made it at last really a creditable work. I think it is the best painted portrait of modern times.”
50. Following Stephen Lushington’s death, Hunt wrote to Vernon Lushington, “My dear Vernon, It is a real loss to me—in its degree—as to you and all your family, that the dear and noble old man is dead, but it is impossible to overlook that all that can remain in men’s mind of good for is his still.” Hunt to Lushington, January 22, 1873. Private Collection.
51. “Poor Lord B—I think you very hard upon him. You would not have every man made of Lushington mettle. What would become of rogues then?” Lady Byron to Sarah Lushington, 14 February [no year], Bodleian Library, Dept. Lovelace Byron 91, 43–44.
52. Quoted in Astarte: A Fragment of Truth concerning George Gordon Byron, Sixth Lord Byron. Recorded by his Grandson, Ralph Millbanke, Earl of Lovelace (1905). In this book the author explains how, in 1849, Lady Byron had consigned to Frances Carr a box containing a large number of the most important Byron papers. Francis was instructed that the box should remain unopened for thirty years, and should be left to three trustees, one of whom should be her nephew William Lushington.
Stephen Lushington’s long active life and career spanned a period of British history marked by a series of major political, social, and economic reforms. He had been born toward the close of the “glorious eighteenth century” when, despite the loss of the American colonies, the Empire upon which the sun would never set was in its ascendancy. In particular, British interests were being established in India through the East India Company. By the time of Lushington’s death, the British Empire was at its zenith and, in so many aspects, the nation had changed beyond recognition with the franchise extended to include many working-class men and much of the balance of national wealth transferred from the countryside to the new industrial centers of the North of England.
The industrial revolution, in its infancy when Lushington was born, gained momentum through the nineteenth century and resulted in enormous social and economic upheavals. Machinery replaced centuries old cottage industries, and men and women whose work and services had previously tied them to the land, suddenly found a freedom to migrate from the countryside to work in factories in cities such as Manchester, Liverpool, and Leeds.
While the wealthy entrepreneurs lined their pockets with new money, the living conditions of so many of those they employed in factories and other places of manufacture were appalling. Although Great Britain avoided the violent political upheavals and revolutions of many of her neighbors in mainland Europe, the possibility of such events was always close at hand. Frustration and anger were demonstrated in the countryside by the “Swing Riots,” which sometimes led to the destruction of agricultural machinery. This was followed by the Chartist demonstrations of the 1840s, which brought the demands of the disenfranchised to London.
There were some among the ruling classes who carried a genuine sense of conviction that their wealth and place in society was God-given, carrying with it responsibilities and duties not just to those in their employment but also to those living in the villages and hamlets on the great landed estates they owned. However, such individual philanthropic acts and enlightened responses could never be enough to address the national problem. Parliament would need to act.
Lushington’s legal and parliamentary career has been comprehensively covered elsewhere, and it is not intended to cover that ground again in such detail.1 Instead, what follows is an overview of his pursuit of reform, both in Parliament and the courts, highlighting his more significant contributions in both arenas.
Parliament
After his mother’s failure to obtain for him a government appointment, Lushington turned his eyes to the House of Commons. He sought help from the family of his university friend, Edward Harbord whose father Lord Suffield, was keen to establish an “interest” in the County of Norfolk where he had property. The parliamentary system at this time was unreformed. The franchise was limited and voting rights were restricted to “forty-shilling freeholders.”2 Moreover, the growing migration from country to town and city, resulting from the industrial revolution, led to disproportional representation in Parliament from “rotten boroughs” in which a very small electorate could be used by a patron to gain unrepresentative influence in the House of Commons.
Lord Suffield was one of many wealthy and powerful landowners who used their power to have a controlling influence in Parliament by nominating and supporting a man of his choice as the local member. Thus, it was that, in 1806, his son and Lushington were elected as the two members for Great Yarmouth. There had been some question regarding the conduct of their election campaign, and the matter was referred to a parliamentary committee. No irregularity was found, and the two men duly took their seats in the House of Commons in March 1807. Edward wrote to his father, “Lushington and myself received the warmest congratulations from every side; a hundred hands were held out to us.”3 Of course, under Suffield’s watchful eye, the two men were expected to support the Tory government. However, it was not long before both men each experienced a growing awakening of their individual political consciences. This led Harbord to declare that, were he to have the opportunity to represent another constituency, he would do so, “upon terms which will not render me amenable to any one for my political conduct.”4 Despite their differences, Lushington and Lord Suffield remained on good terms until the latter’s death in 1835.5
Like his forebears, Lushington found that his political leanings were more toward the opposition—the Whigs. The Whigs were still not a party as such at this time and had no definite program or policy. Generally, they were against crown patronage; sympathetic
