Brougham was the second son of a Westmorland squire of ‘small fortune very much burdened’, who had married a niece of the Scottish historian William Robertson. He was raised and educated in Edinburgh, where he took Hume’s course in Scottish Cuo law in 1798 and joined the Speculative Society with his maverick brother Henry, 16 months his senior. Eschewing early ambitions to become an army agent or serve in the East or West Indies, he attended the court of session as a trainee advocate, before accompanying his friends Francis Horner† and William Murray to London in 1803, where he studied English law. He acted as agent for his father’s Brougham Hall estate near Penrith and devoted himself to furthering Henry’s political and legal career, with which his own was inextricably mixed.
As Queen Caroline’s attorney-general, Henry employed him to monitor the activities of the 1819 Milan commission, and his confidential report that she and Bergami were ‘to all appearance man and wife’ and likely to agree to remain abroad in return for an annuity and her legal separation from the prince regent (George IV) was fundamental to the abortive negotiations on her behalf in 1819 and 1820. He returned to Pesaro in July 1820 to prepare witnesses in her defence when the Lords prosecuted her by means of a bill of pains and penalties.
He has been much injured by my politics and especially by election matters in these northern parts ... He is a barrister and well acquainted with business generally having been formerly a solicitor, but his particular skill has of late years been in farming and all country matters, in which I certainly never yet knew his equal.
Bessborough mss, H. Brougham to Duncannon [31 Aug. 1821].
The application failed and Brougham suffered a fresh blow in 1822 when he was implicated through prior knowledge in the fatal duel in Fife, 27 Mar., between the Tory Sir Alexander Boswell* and the Whig James Stuart, which had been provoked by political libels in the Sentinel and the Beacon. Brougham had suggested that Stuart should make the border town of Berwick-upon-Tweed the venue to avoid prosecution.
Brougham was essentially a silent Member, valued by few besides Henry, whom he briefed on ‘mischief’-making among the Whigs. He divided in their minorities on the Clarence grant, 16 Feb., the Barrackpoor mutiny, 22 Mar., and the spring guns bill, 23 Mar., and voted for Catholic relief, 6 Mar 1827. He divided for the disfranchisement of Penryn, 28 May. Financed by the Canning ministry, to which Henry had pledged support, he assisted the Blues in Carlisle at the August 1827 by-election, when his younger brother William was mooted as a candidate, but they failed to take a second seat.
Naturally counted among the Wellington ministry’s ‘foes’, he assisted his brother to host a Whig dinner, 7 Nov. 1830, briefed their Commons leader Lord Althorp on Henry’s proposed parliamentary reform motion, 12 Nov., and went to hear it announced to their friends.
Brougham paired for the reintroduced reform bill at its second reading, 6 July, and generally divided for its details with his brother William, who sat for Southwark, but his votes for the disfranchisement of Saltash, which ministers no longer pressed, 26 July, and the enfranchisement of £50 tenants-at-will, 18 Aug. 1831, were wayward ones. Drawing on his local knowledge, he defended the proposed disfranchisement of Appleby and disputed the anti-reformers’ claims that its boundaries had been misrepresented, 19 July. He divided for the reform bill’s passage, 21 Sept., the second reading of the Scottish bill, 23 Sept., and Lord Ebrington’s confidence motion, 10 Oct. He voted for the revised reform bill at its second reading, 17 Dec. 1831, consistently for its details, and for the third reading, 22 Mar. 1832. He voted for the address requesting the king to appoint only ministers who would carry it unimpaired, 10 May. ‘Being too unwell to remain all night in the House’, he only paired for the second reading of the Irish reform bill, 25 May. He voted against a Conservative amendment to the Scottish measure, 1 June.
Preparations for his return for the newly enfranchised borough of Kendal had been in train since June 1831, and his election in December 1832, when he made slavery, church rates, the East India Company’s monopoly, retrenchment and a fixed duty on foreign grains his political priorities, was uncontested.
His ... influence over ... [Lord Brougham] was as unbounded as it was miraculous, for no one ever discovered the slightest particle of talent in James of any kind. That he was his secret instrument, spy or anything else upon every occasion, I am quite sure.
Three Diaries, 377; Creevey Pprs. 613; Life of Campbell, i. 423.
To attack Lord Brougham, some of James’s early obituarists shared this view.
