LUSHINGTON, Stephen Rumbold (1776-1868), of Norton Court, nr. Faversham, Kent

Lushington was appointed financial secretary to the treasury in 1814 and became an established, if unimpressive, second-ranking official in the Liverpool administration. Firmly entrenched at Canterbury, he offered again at the general election of 1820 and, ‘animated in my loyalty to the crown’, as he put it, was returned just ahead of the leading Whig candidate, Lord Clifton, after a contest. Kentish Gazette, 25, 29 Feb., 3, 10 Mar.; Kentish Chron. 10 Mar. 1820. He continued to fulfil several basic managerial functions in the House and, of course, voted with his colleagues on all major issues, and was frequently a ministerial teller and committeeman, especially on matters relating to finance and economic policy. He was not an able speaker and was sometimes inaudible in the reporters’ gallery. For example, Geo. IV Letters, ii. 895; The Times, 27 June 1820, 16 June 1821. He rarely spoke at any length, limiting his contributions to attempts to parry embarrassing opposition motions and questions, or postponing business in the absence of the chancellor or other ministers. For example, The Times, 8 Mar., 8, 9 May, 6 Aug. 1822, 10 Mar. 1826. Much of his time was taken up with routine departmental affairs, though he was sometimes also involved with the patronage and whipping functions of his office. Add. 38299, f. 80; 40379, ff. 190, 320-1; 40382, ff. 248, 285; 40392, f. 72; Wellington mss WP1/768/5; 773/12; 789/18; 830/6; Lonsdale mss, Lowther to Lonsdale, 19 Dec. 1823. He counted his fellow treasury secretary as the chief architect of his good fortune. As he wrote to his father-in-law Lord Harris in 1821:

I should be very sorry that you did any thing harsh towards [Charles] Arbuthnot*: he is irregular, but has many excellent qualities. When thinking of him you should always bear this in your remembrance - that the very particulars of which you complain led to my intimacy with him, to my appointment to the treasury, and to any other person of the family in whose prosperity or fame I have been in any shape instrumental, or may hereafter succeed in being so. Cent. Kent. Stud. Harris mss U624 C67/120.

He was also connected with Robert Peel* and wanted to see him return to the cabinet in 1820. Add. 40406, f. 205. For his part Peel enjoyed what he described in 1835 as ‘those friendly and confidential habits of intercourse in which we so long lived’. Add. 40344, f. 75. Lushington’s relations with his senior colleagues were cordial, but he was viewed as merely adequate in the execution of his duties. Add. 38743, f. 262.

He spoke against Hume’s resolutions on revenue collection, 4 July 1820, condemning them as unnecessary and statistically inaccurate. He objected to the reception of a petition criticizing the role of peers in elections, 15 July. The Times, 17 July 1820. In August he refused to present a laudatory address from Canterbury to the queen. Kentish Chron. 8, 11 Aug. 1820. He was named to a select committee appointed to examine the Lords Journals on the bill of pains and penalties against her, 18 Sept., and privately commented that ‘we had as stupid a night of it as could be wished in our House’, 17 Oct. 1820, owing to the partisan proceedings on this in the Lords that evening. Northumb. RO, Middleton mss ZMI/S76/31/11. He opposed printing the Nottingham petition for the impeachment of ministers over the affair, 20 Feb. 1821. On 6 Mar. he made a long intervention in defence of the inhabited house and window taxes, which Ricardo wanted abolished, arguing that the opposition plan would disrupt the chancellor’s budget, fail to relieve agricultural distress and endanger public credit. He spoke against Hume’s motion for reducing expense and maladministration in the system of revenue collection, 22 Mar., and defended the corn bill, which he claimed was designed only to prevent fraud, not to raise prices, 29 Mar. The Times, 23, 30 Mar. 1821. He voted against Mackintosh’s forgery punishment mitigation bill, 23 May, and spoke in favour of the unlawful associations bill, 6 June 1821. Ibid. 7 June 1821.

Lushington maintained a close connection with Harris, and encouraged him to support the government by sending in a proxy, 3 Jan. 1822. Harris mss C67/121. He spoke against tax reductions, which would damage public credit, 7 Feb., and defended the administration of hackney coaches, 27 Feb. The Times, 28 Feb. 1822. He rebutted Davies’s allegations about the enormous expense of collecting revenues, 12 Mar., and justified the system of laying public accounts before Parliament, 14 Mar. Ibid. 13 Mar. 1822. Writing to Henry Goulburn* in March, he insisted that smugglers be given exemplary punishments in order to ensure the successful protection of the revenue; in the House he claimed that receipts had been increased and smuggling diminished, 12 June. Add. 37298, f. 324; The Times, 13 June 1822. He spoke against leniency towards the imprisoned Henry Hunt*, 22 Apr. He moved the third reading of the malt duties repeal bill and assured the House that the chancellor intended to equalize the duties on Irish and English distilleries, 18 May, but he opposed further changes in the laws relating to hop-bags, 13 June. The Times, 20 May, 14 June 1822. He spoke against repeal of the salt duties, 28 June, stating that a diminution of the coal or candle taxes would be preferable. Ibid. 29 June 1822. He defended the system of receivers-general against Hume’s criticisms, 9 July, and recommended to him ‘the consideration of a passage in Mr. Burke’s writings, in which he points out the danger and folly of crude and clumsy reforms in such subjects as this’. Ibid. 10 July 1822. He managed to raise a laugh in the House when he supported the receivers-general bill, 18 July, and asked - by way of a rider - that no more than three of them be obliged to travel together. Ibid. 19 July 1822. He proposed paying off the late queen’s debts, 24 July, but only those owing to British creditors, 31 July 1822. Ibid. 25 July, 1 Aug. 1822.

During the discussions of ministerial changes in late 1822 Liverpool objected to Lushington replacing Arbuthnot as patronage secretary to the treasury. The new foreign secretary George Canning*, Arbuthnot reported to William Huskisson*, also disliked the idea ‘for various reasons and particularly because he considers him as not having his heart in the cause’. Arbuthnot Jnl. i. 195; Add. 38743, f. 262. However, while Lushington continued to carry out much the same role in the government, he replaced Arbuthnot as senior secretary, and John Charles Herries* became the junior, 7 Feb. 1823. He was immensely busy at the start of the 1823 session because of the absence of both his colleagues with gout, the Deccan prize case and the problem of the kelp manufacturers of Scotland. Harris mss C249, Lushington to Harris, 11, 16 Jan. 1823; Add. 40354, ff. 101-3. In addition, he oversaw the passage of financial measures and boasted to Harris that

we have done an immense quantity of public business since we met. I have actually completed what Arbuthnot had not done last year in the month of July. This is no disparagement on him, but it shows how the temper of the House is altered from the expectation of European war, and at least we have this credit of having taken advantage of this tide as it flowed. Harris mss C249, Lushington to Harris, 26 Mar. 1823.

Apart from dealing with the inevitable departmental business, Lushington was less active in the Commons from this time onwards. He was mistakenly thought to have intrigued for his son to replace Robert Ward as Member for Lord Lonsdale’s borough of Haslemere in March 1823, but was later acquitted of the allegation. Lonsdale mss, Ward to Lonsdale, 26 Mar., 1 Apr. 1823. He was, however, involved in suggesting candidates for the by-election at Eye that summer. Add. 38296, f. 68; 40357, f. 305. He took the opportunity of a debate on colonial supplies to point out the extent of government economies, 12 Mar. 1824. The Times, 13 Mar. 1824. Ever active on local affairs, he moved for leave to introduce a bill to repeal the hides and skins duties, 14 Apr., spoke and was a teller for this, 3, 31 May, chaired it in committee in early May, and was praised in Canterbury as the principal architect of its success. Ibid. 4 May; Kentish Chron. 2, 16 Apr.; Kent Herald, 3 June 1824; PP (1824), vii. 183-301. He introduced a bill for the erection of a new corn and hop market in Canterbury, 4 May, but was unable to attend the ceremony of laying the foundation stone on 29 July 1824 because of the illness of one of his sons. Kentish Gazette, 7 May, 30 July; Kent Herald, 29 July, 5 Aug.; Kentish Chron. 30 July 1824.

Lushington had previously served in the East India Company and still cherished his early ambition of a lucrative Indian appointment. In January 1824 the government received the news that Sir Thomas Munro intended to resign the governorship of Madras, which would create a vacancy there, or at Bombay if Mountstuart Elphinstone was promoted to Madras. Lushington began canvassing the opinion of the directors about his going to Madras, but was not encouraged by the result. BL OIOC Robinson mss Eur.F.142.26, Lushington to Robinson, 15, 25, 28 Mar. 1824. William Wigram*, the chairman, was not personally hostile to Lushington, but was invincibly opposed to the appointment of someone connected with government. Lushington also thought him embittered by the disappointed aspirations of his family to a peerage, and by the new silk and wool arrangements. Add. 38411, f. 233. Although Charles Williams Wynn*, the president of the India board, opined that ridding the government of ‘a bad secretary to the treasury’ would be worth the appearance of ‘a job’, he doubted the directors would ultimately swallow what was hardly a ‘dainty’ pill. Buckingham, Mems. Geo. IV, ii. 48, 66. Liverpool threw his weight behind Lushington, but thought the climate of Bombay was preferable and that allowing the directors’ choice for the Madras posting would make them more likely to accept a former government official for Bombay. Robinson mss Eur.F.142.26, Liverpool to Lushington, 19 Mar. 1824. He also wanted to prevent the Company having the nomination to both positions and was in any case unimpressed with the directors’ preference for Sir John Malcolm*. Ibid. Lushington to Robinson, 30 Mar. 1824; Wellington mss WP1/791/2; Arbuthnot Jnl. i. 297. Meanwhile, Canning was in favour of Lushington leaving the treasury so that he could be replaced by his own protégé Joseph Planta*: ‘Lushington has behaved perfectly well, but his connections are ultra and he is no way mine. Planta will be wholly so and will make the House of Commons much easier and pleasanter than it is’. Harewood mss, Canning to his wife, 4, 6 Apr. 1824. Lushington was in doubts whether to push it to a contest, and thus first became reconciled to the idea of Bombay rather than Madras and then declined the attempt altogether in mid-May. Harris mss C67/123; Add. 40365, ff. 152-4; TNA, Granville mss, Howard de Walden to Granville, 14 May; Kent Herald, 17, 24 June 1824. However, against the views of several of his colleagues, Liverpool twice asked the king to veto Malcolm’s nomination by the Company, and so the speculation continued that Lushington might be appointed. C.H. Philips, E.I. Co. 251-2. With both directors and ministers split and the prime minister indecisive, the duke of Wellington and the king, who certainly favoured Lushington staying at the treasury in order to keep out Planta, insisted on Malcolm, while Arbuthnot thought that the government was committed to sending Lushington to Bombay. Buckingham, ii. 112, 114-16, 120-3; Wellington mss, Wellington to Mrs. Arbuthnot, 1 Sept. 1824; Add. 38746, f. 32.

Everything changed when it became clear that Sir Charles Stuart required the governorship as compensation for leaving the embassy in Paris. Canning and Liverpool jumped at the chance to appease him, although, according to Williams Wynn, the premier was affronted that Wigram had not considered Lushington to be ‘of a rank of sufficient calliber (to use his phrase)’. Add. 38193, f. 200; 38411, f. 240; Arbuthnot Jnl. i. 360-1; Philips, 253; Buckingham, ii. 133, 145. Liverpool therefore wrote to Lushington, lamenting that the hoped for support from the directors had not been forthcoming and that the king was antagonistic to the move. The communication left him to understand, inter alia, that the government would no longer support his pretensions. Lushington made a bland reply, pledging his ‘anxious desire to act in entire conformity to your wishes’. Add. 38411, ff. 238, 247. But in private he revealed his knowledge of, and anger at, Liverpool’s abrupt about face:

In his letter of the 15th of October, after my friends have shown their firmness and attachment to me by rejecting Malcolm and are prepared to propose me substantively and without a doubt of succeeding, he (the said lord) turns suddenly around, and thinks they (the government) have done enough and ought not to force upon the directors a person they are unwilling to receive. Since I came to town I have found out that this is all humbug. He and Canning wish to avoid two things. He will not consent to make Sir Charles Stuart, the Paris ambassador, a peer because his profligate private character would make him a disgrace to the peerage, and Canning having turned him out of the embassy at Paris will not consent to employ him (as the king wishes) at The Hague.

However, apart from insisting upon a pension for himself and his son, Lushington was prepared to be placatory towards Liverpool:

I feel conscious of nothing but honourable feelings and useful co-operation in all the measures of his administration during the ten years in which I have acted under him, and though he has never said ‘thank you’ or shown the least particle of interest in any one of my family, I shall go on in the strict discharge of my duty and leave the rest to Providence, not suffering myself hereafter to be annoyed by that coldness of heart which freezes almost every object that approaches it. Harris mss C67/120.

In the end he was glad to be rid of the constant anxiety that the months of negotiations had occasioned. Add. 40368, f. 304; 40369, ff. 105-6, 240. The outbreak of the Burmese war delayed the retirement of Munro and allowed the government to put the whole embarrassing episode on ice. Indian employment would, however, have cured Lushington’s recurring financial problems. He had an official salary of £4,000, and now received a pension of £1,500, but by the beginning of 1825 he was in debt to Harris to the tune of £8,000, with no prospect of any improvement. Black Bk. (1832), 551; Harris mss C67/133. For Lushington’s financial problems, see Harris mss C67/125, 127, 128; C242; C257. Perhaps this was one reason for the speculation that he might move to the pay office. Grey mss, Tierney to Grey, 31 Jan. 1825.

Lushington voted against Catholic relief, 28 Feb., was involved in the promotion of an anti-Catholic petition from Canterbury to the Lords in early April, and was a teller for the majority against allowing Catholics to hold the offices of governor and director of the Bank of Ireland, 13 June 1821. Kentish Chron. 10 Apr. 1821. He was a teller against allowing Catholic peers to sit in the Lords, 30 Apr., 10 May, when he declared that he would rather vote for emancipation in full than this small measure of it; he presented a petition from Canterbury against the proposal, 16 May 1822. The Times, 11, 17 May 1822. He was heavily committed to the government’s policy of putting down the Catholic Association at the start of the 1825 session. Harris mss C67/126. He voted for repeal of the usury laws, 8 Feb., and the following day, in a rare example of drawing attention to himself in debate, mentioned the merits of an infamous book by the prostitute Harriette Wilson. Arbuthnot Jnl. i. 378. In late February he was not sure that the government would succeed in thwarting Catholic relief, but described to Harris how the previously divided Canning and Liverpool had become united on the necessity of paying the Catholic clergy. He added:

For my own part I would rather see 50 Catholic laymen sitting in Parliament after the priests are in the pay of the state, than five of them coming amongst us as the bearers of all the just complaints of the priesthood and the ready instruments of a factious opposition, or of a weak government, or the subversion of the titles of property in Ireland. Harris mss C67/129.

He voted against relief, 1 Mar., 21 Apr. He was unable to leave London while the question was undecided, because Liverpool was so anxious about the outcome, and he wrote:

I own that I agree with Lord L. in thinking that after 150 years of religious calm, we are about to enter upon a revival of religious warfare by concession to this mockery of worship. Ibid. C242, Lushington to Harris, 15, 16 Apr. 1825.

He presented a petition from St. Andrew’s, Canterbury, against relief, 26 Apr., when he voted against the Irish franchise bill, and was a teller for the minority against the third reading of the relief bill, 10 May 1825.

Lushington received the freedom of Sandwich for his assistance in the passage of the Stour Navigation and Sandwich Harbour bill, 28 June 1825. Kentish Chron. 1 July 1825. In May he had complained to Mrs. Arbuthnot of Huskisson’s rashness and ‘said he thought he had put Mr. [Frederick John] Robinson* up to stop him in his career; for really, with his resolutions and his trade regulations, he was setting all law at defiance and all the merchants were expecting to be bankrupts’. Arbuthnot Jnl. i. 392. He told Lord Darlington in September 1825 that ‘Lady Anne threw herself, husband and child over in an open carriage, but no essential harm except her miscarriage’. Grey mss GRE/B10/9/25. He was inclined to blame the Bank of England for the financial crisis late that year, and he wrote to Peel in February 1826 that it was

vain to argue against the non-existence of a great and growing pressure upon all classes of the community, and however induced, the evil will gather hourly strength until confidence between the bankers, the merchants, and the manufacturers be re-established. Add. 40385, f. 271.

In one of his few speeches that session, he defended Haileybury College as a training school for the East India Company, 28 Apr. He had been involved in preparations for a general election the previous autumn, when his own position at Canterbury was considered secure, as he was generally well regarded. Arbuthnot Corresp. 70; Kentish Chron. 12 July, 9 Aug., 23 Sept., 1 Nov. 1825. However, criticisms were now voiced among the electors that he had voted against repeal of the corn laws, was a placeman and held a pension. Ibid. 3, 14 Mar., 2 June; Kentish Gazette, 2 June 1826. He canvassed actively in the city in May and received the support of many of the Canterbury freemen in London. Kentish Chron. 16, 19, 23, 26 May; Kentish Gazette, 16, 19 May 1826. Having given the customary pledges to uphold the constitution in church and state, and ‘to watch over the local interests of the city of Canterbury, with the utmost attention and kindness’, he easily headed the poll, being more than 200 votes in front of Clifton. Kentish Chron. 13 June; Kentish Gazette, 13 June 1826. As on former occasions, his official involvement in elections elsewhere was not wholly admired; for example, he treated John Norman Macleod*, who had hopes of a Scottish burgh, with appalling incivility. Macleod mss 1055/1, 1061/2. According to the anti-Catholic Mrs. Arbuthnot, he ‘uses the influence of government any way Mr. Canning pleases; and that, in many instances, has been in favour of the opposition candidates’. Arbuthnot Jnl. ii. 31. Yet Sir Robert Heron* afterwards complained that ‘this experienced jobber spared no exertions to expel from the treasury boroughs, or any others where government had influence, every man who would not declare himself’ against Catholic relief. Heron, Notes, 164. He helped John Evelyn Denison*, who had been promised Hastings by the government, though in the event he withdrew and was not returned until an arrangement was made in November. Nottingham Univ. Lib. Ossington mss, Denison diary, 6 June, 15, 17 Nov. 1826. One major embarrassment was the loss of the safe treasury seat at Queenborough, despite Wellington’s repeated warnings about the decline of the government’s interest there. Wellington mss WP1/822/20; 825/12; 826/11; 857/9.

During July 1826 speculation began again that Lushington would be appointed to one of the Indian governorships, ‘the directors having shown a disposition to change their opinions upon that question’. Lonsdale mss, Ward to Lonsdale, 25 July 1826; Philips, 260. Rumours circulated in the Canterbury papers to this effect, and once the nomination was provisionally confirmed in January 1827 there was a general expectation that he would soon have to resign his seat. Kentish Chron. 17 Nov. 1826, 16, 30 Jan., 13 Feb., 27 Mar., 3, 6, 10, 20, 27 Apr., 4 May; Kentish Gazette, 26 Jan., 3, 20 Apr., 4 May 1827. Mrs. Arbuthnot noted in February that Lushington had found the treasury odious and was glad to escape to Madras, but the appointment only officially began in the autumn, leaving him to play a limited role within the government until his resignation in July. Arbuthnot Jnl. ii. 75-76. In late February he acted as a conduit between Canning and members of opposition over the timing of motions. Canning’s Ministry, 12, 27. He gave a silent vote against Catholic relief, 6 Mar., after which he and his likeminded colleague Herries were blamed for the narrow defeat of the question. G.I.T. Machin, Catholic Question in English Politics, 92. Although differing with Canning over this, he enthusiastically supported his claim to take over the premiership after Liverpool’s stroke, rather than face the alternative of a ‘Protestant’ cabinet under Wellington or Peel. As he wrote to the king’s secretary Sir William Knighton:

Of the rejection of the Catholic claims I felt the fullest confidence, and that there would be no immediate conflict in the cabinet; whilst the plan for altering the corn laws seemed so manifestly advantageous to the landed interest, without pressing unjustly upon other classes of the community, that I contemplated no feelings but those of restored contentment and satisfaction towards Mr. Canning on the part of the landed interest. To him I looked as the person who would be selected by the king as Lord Liverpool’s successor and every act and every thought of mine has had this object in view. Geo. IV Letters, iii. 1296.

In June 1827 he was made a privy councillor, but (as was made clear to Malcolm, who had similar pretensions as the new governor of Bombay) this was not because of his promotion, but as a reward for his services at the treasury. Wellington mss WP1/893/3.

A Canterbury petition to enforce his resignation from Parliament was presented by Clifton, 12 June 1827. In the debate that followed, Lushington claimed that all its 54 signatories were political opponents, that they represented less than one-fortieth of his constituents and that he would resign if so requested by a sufficient number of his supporters. He added that his absence from Parliament had been occasioned by his wife’s serious illness and not by any hostility to Canning’s ministry, of which he approved. The Times, 13 June; Kentish Chron. 12 June; Kentish Gazette, 15 June 1827, 6 Mar. 1829. As the time approached for him to sail to India, even his friends began to realize that he had no intention of giving up his seat. An excuse was circulated that he intended to test the climate of Madras before deciding whether or not to stay for any length of time, but the atmosphere was evidently too tense for him to risk attending a public dinner in Canterbury which was to have been given in his honour. Kentish Chron. 8, 26 June, 3 July; Kentish Gazette, 3, 13 July 1827. Perhaps his financial problems were partly behind his decision to go to India. At the mayor’s dinner in September 1827 his son William commented that Lushington, ‘compelled as he had been from prudential reasons to quit for a time his native shore’, yet retained his affection for his constituents. Kentish Gazette, 2 Oct. 1827. Once the 1828 session began, there were renewed attempts by the Canterbury freemen to secure Lushington’s removal. It was argued that it was illegal for him to continue to serve as Member whilst he was absent at such a distance, and he was also attacked for allegedly siphoning off £140,000 of public money to his own purse and for having taken ‘French leave’ of his constituents. A petition calling for his removal was brought up, 27 Mar., but stalemate was reached in June 1828 when Clifton refused to move a new writ because legally Lushington was under no obligation to resign. Ibid. 22 Feb., 11, 18 Mar., 15 Apr., 10 June; Kentish Chron. 26 Feb., 11, 18 Mar., 1, 8, 15 Apr., 10 June 1828; see CANTERBURY. Further meetings followed to formulate other petitions for redress the following year, but his brother James Law Lushington defended his conduct in the Commons, 6 May 1829, stating that he would have resigned had his constituents wished it and had he been approached in a reasonable and amicable manner, and he escaped legislative sanction. Kentish Chron. 6, 20, 24 Feb., 3, 24 Mar., 12, 19, 26 May, 9 June; Kentish Gazette, 10, 24 Feb., 3, 13, 24 Mar., 8, 12, 15, 19, 22, 26 May, 5, 9 June 1829. As the next general election approached, increasing criticisms were voiced of Lushington in Canterbury, where two Whig candidates were eventually elected. Kentish Chron. 29 June, 6, 13 July; Kentish Gazette, 25, 29 June, 2, 6, 13 July 1830.

In late 1828 the president of the India board Lord Ellenborough, who was a first cousin of Lushington’s half-brother Edmund, was disgusted to learn that Lushington had stupidly written to Williams Wynn ‘that he could not express his anxiety for the success of the Goderich government’, the continuation of Canning’s administration, but had later congratulated the pro-Catholic Lord Melville on ‘the retreat of the Whigs and the establishment of a Protestant government, which he hopes will last forever’, under Wellington. Ellenborough Diary, i. 278-80. His administration of Madras was not satisfactory to the government at home, especially because he dismissed an official who had to be re-instated and spent too much of his time trying to establish a British colony in the Neilgherry Hills. Ibid. i. 222-3; ii. 181-2; Wellington mss WP1/937/18; 964/17; 974/32; Bentinck Corresp. ed. C.H. Philips, 30-31, 34-35, 50-53, 66, 108, 156, 434, 539-40, 641-5, 649-50; Government of Madras under Lushington (1831). His unpopularity among the Indian population led to an assassination attempt by a disaffected Indian soldier: he was grazed on the head by a shot from close range as he returned home in his carriage from the New Year’s Day festivities in January 1831. Kentish Gazette, 25 Mar. 1831. He unsuccessfully contested Canterbury as a Conservative in 1835, but was seated on petition and sat until his retirement in 1837. He wrote a laudatory account of the Life and Services of General Lord Harris (1840), was embroiled in a controversy over his refusal to pay church rates and enjoyed ‘a green old age’. Account of Refusal of Church Rates by Lushington (1841); The Times, 8 Aug. 1868; DNB; Oxford DNB. He died in August 1868, outliving all his sons, including Charles Manners (1819-64), Member for Canterbury, 1854-7, except for Richard Henry, who inherited his annuity, while the rest of his estate was bequeathed in trust to his grandson James Lushington Wildman (1825-78), the son of his daughter Mary Ann and James Beckford Wildman*.