the inter-colonial trade and this eventually paved the way for the total abolition of British slavery in 1833.
In February 1822, facing a parliamentary committee, Lushington explained that although “for a period of 30 years, several statutes had been enacted to promote the abolition of the Slave Trade” those laws were “much at variance with each other.” The time had come to consolidate those Bills and make them more effective.
Lushington’s anti-slavery work risked bringing him into conflict with the members of his family. There were strong links between the East India Company and the Caribbean slave economy and his brother, Sir Henry Lushington, had estates in Jamaica.11 Despite this Lushington remained true to himself and took an active role in the various groups and committees that were opposing slavery. He joined the influential Anti-Slavery Society, formed in 1823, and the Society for the Extinction of the Slave Trade and the Civilization of Africa, formed in 1839. One of his contemporaries in the movement, George Stephen, wrote that Lushington’s characteristic qualities were “spirit, decision, and singular quickness of perception” with “a particular tact in seeing at a glance the gearings of a case, and indefatigable perseverance in working it out to the very bottom.”12
Lushington used his legal skills to represent the noted free-born Jamaican anti-slavery activist Louis/Lewis Celeste Lecesne who was unlawfully arrested twice and transported for life from Jamaica together with a fellow activist John Escoffery. Lushington raised their case in the House of Commons and, as a result, Lecesne came to London and joined the board of the Anti-Slavery Society and later attended the first World Anti-Slavery Convention in London. He demonstrated his gratitude to Lushington by naming his son Stephen Lushington Macaulay Lecesne.
Success came to the abolitionistst in 1833 when the historic Act was passed to end the slave trade. This passing of this Act was one of Lushington’s greatest successes both within Parliament and outside. Charles Buxton, son of Lushington’s old friend and fellow campaigner, Thomas Fowell Buxton, believed that if any credit were to be awarded to his father in the conduct of the anti-slavery campaign, an “equal share must be awarded to Dr Lushington.”13 Another contemporary writer commented in 1854 “that Lushington has never been done full justice by anti-slavery writers.”14
After the passing of the 1833 Act, the abolitionists decided that a successor organization was required to tackle slavery worldwide and, in June 1840, the first World Anti-Slavery Convention was held in London’s Exeter Hall. Both Lushington and Lady Byron attended this event and can be seen in Benjamin Hayden’s painting (figure 4). A few years earlier, in 1834, Lushington was appointed as one of the original trustees of a charity created to establish schools in the West Indies for Africans who had been released from slavery into apprenticeship.15
After their success in the passing of the 1833 Act, the abolitionists turned their attention to slavery in the United States.16 In 1838, Lushington met the American lawyer, and later Senator, Charles Sumner, a major leader of the American anti-slavery movement, during his visit to England. The two men got on well and quickly became good friends. During a further visit to England in 1857, Sumner visited the Lushingtons at Ockham Park.17 Letters exchanged between the two between 1857 and 1859 reveal how their relationship quickly developed from the formality of “My dear Sir” to the less formal “My dear Friend”.18 Sumner was Ockham again in 1859 when another guest, Charles Buxton, described the American as “a noble fellow, with a fine vigorous original head & sweet expression.”19
Parliamentary Reform
As with the abolition of slavery, Lushington also played a role in the passing of the Parliamentary Reform Act in 1832. This abolished fifty-six nomination boroughs (one where Parliamentary representation was controlled by a small number of people), created new seats in populous areas, and enlarged the electorate. Lushington whole-heartedly supported the Act, arguing that “the English nation will never be contented so long as the House of Commons is not constituted by their virtual representatives.”20 The Act was “a measure on which depends the safety of the country, and perhaps the stability of the throne.” Lushington described the system of nomination boroughs, by which he himself had earlier entered Parliament, as “the mockery of representation.”21
Despite his alignment with the Whigs, Lushington was a moderate reformer. Surprisingly, he did not favour universal suffrage, although he was a great supporter of the secret ballot. His sentiments led him to support many other liberal reforms of his era including Catholic emancipation, full civil rights for Jews and Dissenters, and reform of the criminal law. In 1840, Lushington unsuccessfully brought in a Bill to abolish capital punishment.
Lushington believed that as a Member of Parliament, on accepting government office, should resign, and stand for re-election Thus, in 1838, when offered the judgeship of the Admiralty Court, he accepted it on the basis that he would give up his parliamentary seat and stand for re-election—which he did. However, in 1841, when it was proposed that judges should be excluded from Parliament, Lushington’s political career came to an end. He was offered an opportunity to re-enter Parliament yet again ten years later as a life peer in the House of Lords, but declined despite Queen Victoria’s approval. He was re-offered a life peerage in 1851, and again in 1856, but he declined because of the political controversy he believed would ensue.
The Law
Lushington not only distinguished himself in Parliament he also had a noted career as a civilian lawyer. In 1828, he was appointed judge of the most important diocesan court (the Consistory Court of London). Ten years later, he became a judge of the High Court of Admiralty. In this capacity, in 1861, Lushington was drawn into a diplomatic crisis that took place between the United States and Great Britain in 1861 during the American Civil War and which might have affected the outcome of the war.
A British mail and passenger steamer, The Trent, was stopped by a U.S. warship, and two envoys of the Southern states, Mason and Sidell, traveling to England and France to lobby for recognition of the Confederacy, were removed by force. Britain demanded reparation to the government and turned to the Admiralty Court for advice. Lushington, whose anti-slavery views made him strongly sympathetic to the Union cause, met with Prime Minister Palmerston and advised that a nation at war had the right to stop and search a neutral merchant ship if it suspected the ship of carrying enemy dispatches. It was argued that Mason and Sidell were in effect Confederate dispatches. Despite Lushington’s opinion, this violation of British neutral rights triggered an uproar in Britain and the country began preparing for war. A note was sent to Washington demanding the return of the prisoners and an apology. Abraham Lincoln chose not to push the issue and, adopting a policy of, “one war at a time,” ordered the release of the prisoners thereby adverting armed conflict with Great Britain.22
In 1858, Lushington was also made judge of the Court of Arches. As “dean of the arches” he became president of Doctors’ Commons only to preside over its dissolution when matrimonial and probate cases were transferred to secular courts and the profession of civil lawyer came to an end. This position was not full-time and so Lushington was able to manage court sittings with his parliamentary commitments.
It is possible that John Ruskin’s wife consulted Lushington concerning the non-consummation of her marriage, although no papers have survived confirming this. Although Lushington’s religious beliefs did not wholly agree with the notion of marriage as a “sacrament”, he still referred it as part of “the evident design of Divine Providence” and he spoke of adultery as able to “sever the strongest ties by which God and man can consecrate.” He is said to have shown himself, on many occasions, sensitive to the plight of individual litigants, particularly women.
In the matter of wills and probate, Lushington favored the reforms of 1837 which dealt with the way in which wills should be signed and the necessity
