HC Deb 30 September 1841 vol 59 cc1011-2
Sir T. Fremantle

moved, that a new writ be issued for the borough of Wilton, in the room of Viscount Fitzharris, who has been called to the House of Peers as the Earl of Malmesbury.

Sir James Graham

begged for the indulgence of the House, which had before been given on a similar occasion, whilst he gave an explanation of a remark of his in a former debate, which bad been hurtful to the feelings of a noble Lord. An observation that had fallen from him in the course of the debate on the Administration of Justice (No. 2.) Bill had given great pain to the feelings of a noble Lord, inasmuch as it touched the memory of a departed brother, and as he (Sir James Graham) was a Friend of that Gentleman he felt hurt by the same allusion. Nothing generally could be more accurate than the reports of what passed in that House, and therefore, if the expressions which were reported to have fallen from him were inaccurate, he would take the inaccuracy upon himself rather than impute it to any misrepresentation in the report. The hon. Member for Sheffield had asked, with reference to the compensation to be given to Mr. Scarlett for the loss of an office in the Court of Exchequer, whether that appointment was not of the same character as that given to Mr. W. Brougham who received an appointment to an office in the Court of Chancery in 1832, which the Lord Chancellor intended to abolish at the time of the appointment. The hon. Member for Sheffield said, the cases were strictly analogous; and he rose after that, and contended that there was a striking difference between them. He had stated on the allusion made to the case of Mr. Brougham, that the Lord Chancellor, the author of the Reform of the Court of Chancery, had at the time he made the appointment contemplated the abolition of the office, and therefore, that his brother was not entitled to the compensation. He was reported to have said, "The question arose, was he entitled to compensation?" and that mode of expression would give rise to the opinion that the question of compensation was raised, and that he as a colleague of Lord Brougham, was aware of that being the case. Nothing, however, was further from his intention than to state this, and it was entirely inconsistent with the fact. The question never was raised. Nothing could be more honourable or generous than the conduct of Mr. Brougham. Nothing like pressing for compensation had entered his head, the Lord Chancellor having forewarned him that no such compensation would be given. He hoped the House would pardon him if he had said anything which had been inconsistent in the slightest degree with the honourable memory of a departed friend, or anything which should wound the feelings of a nobleman.

Subject at an end.

Back to