LUBBOCK, John (1744-1816), of St. James’s Place, Mdx.

In 1772 Lubbock became a partner in the London bank of Lemon, Buller, Finlay and Lubbock of Mansion House Street; in 1785 the partnership changed to Forster, Lubbock and Bosanquet and in 1801 to Forster, Lubbock, Forster and Clarke. Finally in 1814 it was Sir John Lubbock, Lubbock & Co., the second partner being John William Lubbock, the principal’s nephew and heir.Hilton Price, London Bankers, 142-3.

Lubbock was an unsuccessful candidate at Devizes in 1784. In November 1795 he was one of the sponsors of the London merchants’ and bankers’ loyal declaration of support for Pitt’s government. At the ensuing election he was returned for Bossiney as a guest of Lord Mount Edgcumbe. He was granted a fortnight’s leave on 15 Dec. 1796. On 9 Mar. 1797 he met with the ‘armed neutrality’ under Sir John Sinclair, and on 13 Mar., in accordance with their aims, joined the minority in favour of Harrison’s motion for retrenchment. On 24 Mar. 1797, however, he denied that there was a shortage of specie and said that he was content to leave it to the discretion of the Bank directors to resume cash payments. In June he was one of the London businessmen who met to condemn the naval mutiny.Morning Chron. 28 Nov. 1795; PRO 30/9/32, Abbot diary, 9 Mar.; Morning Chron. 14 Mar.; Oracle, 8 June 1797. He had subscribed £20,000 for himself and £20,000 for his bank to the loyalty loan, and on 1 June 1797 voted for the bonus to subscribers. He also invested in East India Company stock. He voted for Pitt’s triple tax assessment, 4 Jan. 1798. On 4 Mar. 1800 he presented a petition against the bill for widening the streets adjoining Temple Bar. His only known minority vote during the remainder of that Parliament was for inquiry into the Prince of Wales’s financial claims, 31 Mar. 1802.

Lubbock appeared as a candidate for Leominster in January 1802The Times, 25 Jan. 1802. and secured his election. Apart from another vote for the Prince’s financial claims, 4 Mar. 1803, he did not oppose Addington’s ministry. In September 1804, under Pitt’s second ministry, he was listed first ‘Prince’, then among the Prince’s friends ‘on whom some impression might be made’ and finally ‘doubtful Pitt’. After voting in both majorities against Melville, 8 Apr. and 12 June 1805, he remained ‘doubtful Pitt’ in July. He was well disposed to the Grenville ministry, which made him a baronet. According to Fox, he was the only parvenu in the batch.Geo. III Corresp. v. 3219; HMC Fortescue, viii. 49, 71. He voted for the repeal of Pitt’s Additional Force Act, 30 Apr. 1806, and was listed among the ‘staunch friends’ of the abolition of the slave trade. After voting for Brand’s motion against the Portland ministry, 9 Apr. 1807, he took a fortnight’s leave for bereavement on 15 Apr. At the ensuing election he described himself as a friend of the constitution in church and state.Hereford Jnl. 13 May 1807. A Leominster agent asked Lord Grenville whether Lubbock was ‘a sure man’ and offered to have him opposed if he was not; but a contest was averted. Nevertheless Grenville’s brother thought that Lubbock should be classed ‘decidedly hostile’ rather than ‘doubtful’.Fortescue mss, Davies to Williams Wynn, 29 Apr., Williams Wynn to Grenville, Wed. [29 Apr.]; Fremantle mss, box 46, Buckingham to Fremantle, 16 June [1807].

Lubbock followed his own line in the ensuing Parliament. He was in the minority against the Irish arms bill, 7 Aug. 1807, voted for Turton’s address critical of the Duke of York’s conduct, 17 Mar. 1809, and for inquiry into charges of ministerial corruption, 25 Mar. He went on to vote against the address, 23 Jan. 1810, and against ministers on the Scheldt inquiry, 26 Jan. and 5 Mar. The Whigs ventured to list him among their adherents. He was absent, supposed favourable to opposition, at the conclusion of the Scheldt inquiry, 30 Mar. 1810, and no further votes are known. He took a month’s sick leave on 18 Jan. 1811. He retired in 1812 in favour of his nephew and died 24 Feb. 1816.Gent. Mag. (1816), i. 283. His effects were valued under £120,000.