BARCLAY, David (1784-1861), of Belgrave Square, London and Eastwich Park, Surrey

Described by his nephew, Robert Barclay Fox, as a ‘gentlemanly and kind hearted man with good sense’ who ‘lacks force of character’, David Barclay was born into a wealthy brewing family, and although raised a Quaker, left the Society of Friends in 1817.1Barclay Fox Jnl., ed. R.L. Brett (1979), 356. His father, Robert, had become joint owner of Thrale’s brewery in Southwark in 1781, and went on to establish Barclay Brothers and Company, the merchant house of which Barclay, following two spells as the director of the Bank of England, eventually became head.2HP Commons, 1820-32, iv. 161-2. In 1826 he was returned for the venal borough of Penryn, which lay close to the family homes of two of his sisters, and became a supporter of Catholic and Jewish emancipation in the unreformed parliament before retiring at the dissolution in 1830.3Ibid.

Connected to the constituency through his father-in-law, Barclay offered unsuccessfully for Sunderland in 1832 and at a by-election in April 1833, before finally securing the seat as a Liberal in 1835. He voted with the Whigs for Abercromby as speaker, 19 Feb. 1835, but then divided in the Conservative minority on the address, 26 Feb. 1835, before resuming support for the Reformers on Irish church appropriation, 2 Apr. 1835, and backing the reappointed Melbourne ministry thereafter. An infrequent speaker in his first two sessions, he confined his short contributions to local issues. He backed Sir James Graham’s bill for the registration of seamen, 17 Mar. 1835, and voiced his support for Russell’s amendments, which directly affected Sunderland, to the Municipal Corporations Act, 15 July 1837. Temporarily unpopular with local Liberals due to his support for a dock on the north bank of the river Wear, however, he lost his seat at the 1837 general election, before regaining it, without opposition, in 1841.

Thereafter, Barclay generally divided in opposition to Peel’s ministry, especially on Irish issues, although his attendance could be patchy. An opponent of Peel’s sliding scale, he moved an amendment to the corn importation bill to stop any additional towns being used to calculate average prices of corn, which was subsequently withdrawn, 5 Apr. 1842. Believing that giving specific pledges to his constituents was ‘unconstitutional’,4Newcastle Courant, 15 Dec. 1832. Barclay’s politics could be fluid, and although he initially backed Russell’s motion not to reintroduce income tax, 13 Apr. 1842, and voted against the property tax bill, 31 May 1842, he later conceded that the property tax had been administered in ‘a mild and merciful manner’ and that income tax should be imposed to effect ‘desirable objects’, 5 Mar. 1845. He was, however, sensitive to the needs of his maritime constituency, and pressed the government to lower timber duties in support of Sunderland shipbuilders, 23 Mar. 1843, and served on two select committees on British shipping.5PP 1844 (545), viii. 2; PP 1845 (583), xii. 2. He divided for the Maynooth grant, 18 Apr. 1845, and for repeal of the corn laws, 10 June 1845 and 15 May 1846.

Barclay’s service on the 1842 select committee on the West India colonies, when he had been an assiduous questioner, had indicated a keen interest in colonial matters and a desire to ensure the welfare of colonial subjects.6PP 1842 (479), xiii. 2. He argued against the equalization of sugar duties, claiming that the removal of protection would jeopardize the support of the colonies for Britain, 31 July 1846, and during a debate on customs and excises he backed the abolition of restrictions on the use of sugar in brewing and distillation, 22 Jan. 1847, a position that also reflected his family’s business interests. In his last recorded speech in the Commons, he insisted that the staple products of the colonies should not be subject to ‘capricious legislation’ as ‘the colonies were an integral part of the empire, and their fellow-subjects there were entitled to the same privileges’, 22 Jan. 1847.

Barclay successfully defended his seat at the 1847 general election, but resigned in December that year following the collapse of the family bank.7The Times, 2 Dec. 1847. A casualty of the commercial crisis, Barclay Brothers and Company had suspended payments on 13 Oct. 1847, with liabilities of nearly £390,000, and despite its considerable assets, ‘large engagements’ made for the purchase of plantations in Mauritius critically undermined its prospects for liquidation, and the firm was wound up the following month.8Ibid., 3 Nov. 1847; HP Commons, 1820-1832, iv. 162. He died in July 1861 and left the Eastwich estate in Surrey, which he had purchased in 1833, to his eldest son Hedworth, and his interest in the brewery to Hedworth and his second son Alexander, Liberal MP for Taunton, 1865-80.9HP Commons, 1820-1832, iv. 162.