Foster Barham inherited Jamaican plantations from his father, a Moravian by religion, who settled at Bedford. He at once sent instructions to the West Indies to continue payments to missionaries and to treat his slaves well. At his marriage his plantations were worth p. £2,000 p.a., but by his death brought in about £1,200 p.a. He inherited a partnership in a West Indies merchant firm, Barham and (Thomas) Plummer,in which his next brother replaced him, in 1815, as a principal.
Foster Barham’s maiden speech was in opposition to the Stockbridge disfranchisement bill, 27 May 1793. Its defeat left him with a secure seat, though he had voted for the reception of the Sheffield petition for reform on Fox’s motion, 2 May. He voted against the transportation of the radical Palmer, 24 Feb. 1794, and apparently against the enlistment of French émigrés, 14 Apr. In the next session he voted for peace negotiations, 30 Dec. 1794, 26 Jan., 24 Mar., 27 May 1795. Having on 25 Feb. 1794 supported Wilberforce’s motion to prevent the traffic in African slaves in British vessels, he called for the postponement of the abolition of the trade, 26 Feb. 1795. ‘Local considerations’ swayed him: the ‘complete ruin’ of the planters and the danger of rebellion were foremost. He preferred regulation to prohibition of the trade. In the same speech he expressed his alarm at the news of the proclamations issued by Sir John Jervis and Sir Charles Grey in Martinique, lest the French follow their example. After securing what particulars he could of them (they were never executed), he brought in a critical motion against the two commanders, 2 June 1795. It was lost by 57 votes to 14. He rebuked William Windham for his defence of John Reeves’s ultra-monarchist pamphlet, 23 Nov. 1795, but a week later approved the bills against sedition, provided they were temporary. Presumably he was in the minority of six who voted for a three-year duration, 30 Nov. In the ensuing session, for the reasons that he had explained, he opposed the abolition of the slave trade at present, 18 Feb., 8, 15 Mar., 27 Apr. 1796, and answered critics of the campaign against the Maroons in Jamaica, 20 Mar.
The Treasury was by now hopeful of Foster Barham’s support, despite his past hostility, but they did not obtain it. On 10 Mar. 1797 he criticized the packing of the finance committee, having the day before met with the ‘armed neutrality’. As one of them he was a signatory to an appeal to the Earl of Moira in May to lobby the King for a change of ministry.
Foster Barham resumed his seat in 1802, after an abortive attempt to come in for Haverfordwest. He pleaded for the protection of the West India planters, 20 Dec. 1802, and opposed additional sugar duties on their behalf, 17 June, 26 July 1803. He remained critical on Irish questions, 21, 28 July. On 2 Aug., in support of Fox’s motion for a council of generals, he was an advocate of a military command for the Prince of Wales. He later reminded the Prince that he had been so at his express request. He did not otherwise oppose Addington’s ministry until April 1804, when he supported the payment of the Irish civil officials at par, 12 Apr., and voted in the minorities on defence that brought the ministry down, 23 and 25 Apr. Listed ‘Fox’ in May 1804, he voted against Pitt’s additional force bill in June, but was preoccupied rather by Wilberforce’s fresh bid to abolish the slave trade, for which he announced his support, 30 May, and acted as teller. He admitted that events in St. Domingo had swayed him, as had the removal of his fears that unilateral abolition by Britain would merely transfer the trade to the sphere of contraband. He insisted, however, on compensation for the planters, whose profits were ‘not a third’ of what they had been, 12, 27 June. On 28 Feb. 1805, in a further plea for abolition, he argued that it would now be dangerous to continue the trade and referred to a suggestion of his that Indian sepoys should be planted in the West Indies to propagate free labour. On 5 Apr. he questioned Pitt on the security of the West Indies against enemy attack. His attitude to the ministry had remained critical. Listed in September 1804 ‘Fox and Grenville’, then under ‘The persons in opposition not quite certain’, he was pressed by John Calcraft to attend. Accordingly he voted against government on defence, 21 Feb. 1805, for the continuation of the naval commission of inquiry, 1 Mar., and for the censure on Melville, 8 Apr., which he condoned in a speech of 10 Apr. (He paired in favour of criminal prosecution on 12 June.) He also steadfastly opposed the stipendiary curates bill, as a subversive attack on ‘the purest church in Christendom’, 21, 30 May 1805 and thereafter. But he was in favour of the Duke of Atholl’s compensation bill, 19 June, 1 July. On 3 July he led the opposition to the delay in the southern whale fishery bill, as a spokesman for the American whalers settled at Milford Haven. He was listed ‘Opposition’ in July, and in January 1806 Calcraft was still whipping him in.
Foster Barham applied to the Prince of Wales when he was overlooked on the formation of the Grenville ministry:
At the ensuing election, Foster Barham, whose indifferent health made him think of giving up Parliament, was chosen both for Stockbridge and Okehampton and sat for the latter. This was by arrangement with Tyrwhitt, who thereby liquidated the ‘disagreeable sort of debt’ he owed, and was at the same time permitted to nominate a paying guest for Stockbridge for that session, provided he could keep Foster Barham in good humour (‘no easy matter’). It would appear, however, that Tyrwhitt did not fulfil his part of the bargain which included the payment of the exact amount (£4,000) his seat for Portarlington had cost, and after they had submitted their dispute to William Adam for arbitration, Foster Barham issued an ultimatum to Tyrwhitt, 13 Mar. 1807, requiring the resignation of his nominee for Stockbridge a week before Easter, according to a previous stipulation. The fall of the ministry doubtless dissipated the quarrel and Tyrwhitt advised him to offer Stockbridge to the new premier. Foster Barham resumed his seat for Stockbridge, though he informed Lord Grenville, 3 Aug. 1807, of overtures made to him to sell his interest there, which he would not consider unless it fell into Whig hands. Relations with his co-patron on the spot, Porter, were often strained but Foster Barham ridiculed a subsequent bid by Porter to buy him out and they remained in tandem.
Foster Barham had meanwhile resumed his role in the abolition of the slave trade. Having on 10 June 1806 pledged himself again to support abolition, with compensation, he was listed among ‘staunch friends’ of the measure. Wilberforce wrote: ‘He really is a generous fellow, and he seems to be actuated by a warm spirit of patriotism and philanthropy ... such an honourable exception to the conduct of his brother planters’.
Foster Barham, after leave of absence for illness, would appear to have supported Lyttelton’s motion critical of the Portland ministry, 15 Apr. 1807. At the ensuing election he claimed, ‘I wish to be out’ and lamented a further rebuff of his claims to the Haverfordwest seat ‘only ... on Windham’s account’, Windham being without a seat.
My friend and cousin Barham made an excellent speech, far superior in argument to Perceval. He attacked both parties, especially the opposition for making it a party question. He was interrupted and assured by Mr Ponsonby that it was not so, when in corroboration of his assertion he drew forth a circular note from his pocket. All persons disclaimed having any knowledge that such notes had been issued, when upon enquiry the transaction was traced to Sir John Sinclair who had underhand engaged the person usually employed (information he obtained from [Thomas] Creevey) to distribute them to the opposition Members.
Add. 51549, Lady Holland to Grey [May 1808].
It was in vain that Foster Barham moved an inquiry by the House into the claims of the planters for protection, 24 June 1808. Nor could he procure the inclusion of Ireland in the prohibition of distillation from grain, 23 Feb. 1809. He voted against ministers on the convention of Cintra, 21 Feb. He was dissatisfied with all the resolutions proposed on the Duke of York’s conduct, 17 Mar., and abstained after proposing one of his own that eschewed flattery, and, while exonerating the duke of misconduct of army patronage, charged him with making it possible by his association with Mary Anne Clarke and offered him the loophole of resignation. He advocated a reduction of the duties on spirits, 21 Mar., 13 Apr. After voting against ministers on the charges of corruption alleged against them, 25 Apr., he was disgusted when they resisted the charges against the Dutch commissioners, 1 May, thinking they had already flouted public opinion sufficiently that session. He went on to support Madocks’s motion against ministerial corruption, 11 May, and, although he indicated that he had no time for Wardle’s wilder allegations, 26 May, he denounced abuses in the Irish revenue service, 30 May, and voted with the rump against the distortion of Curwen’s reform bill, 12 June. He did not think public opinion was anxious for reform, but gave credit to Burdett for his moderate views, 15 June.
The Whigs failed to secure Foster Barham’s attendance for the opening of the session of 1810.
Foster Barham was absent until March 1812, when he supported inquiry into outstanding demands on the Bank, 17 Mar. On 23 Mar. he asked why provision was made for the royal princesses, but not for the Princess of Wales. He voted for Williams Wynn’s motion questioning the constitutionality of McMahon’s appointment as secretary to the Regent, 14 Apr., but was too disgusted by Burdett’s speech to join the minority on the barracks estimates, 1 May.
Foster Barham, whose disillusionment with the Prince Regent was apparent, remained in opposition in the Parliament of 1812. On 26 Feb. 1813 he was a spokesman for the Pembrokeshire Whigs against Sir John Owen over their election petition. Objecting to suppositions that the West India planters were ‘a wealthy set of men’, 13 May, he went on to assure Alexander Baring sarcastically that he would prefer the profits of Baring & Co. to the whole of the West Indies, 21 June. He ridiculed the limitation of furlough for colonial officials to a year, 18 Apr. 1814. On 27 June and I July he protested at the ministerial habit of ignoring questions posed by opposition Members. He called for an immediate renunciation by France of the slave trade, 27 June. (On 18 Apr. 1815 he proposed a bill to prevent British subjects from assisting the foreign slave trade, which he ably defended, 5 May.) Believing that Lord Cochrane’s guilt on the charge of fraud against him was doubtful, he espoused his cause and opposed his expulsion from the House, 5, 19 July 1814. He voted against the continuation of the militia, 28 Nov. 1814, and the transfer of Genoa, 21 Feb. 1815. He did not appear in the minorities against the resumption of hostilities against Buonaparte, who had left a relative of his on Elba out of pocket, but favoured the reception of the London petition for peace and retrenchment, 1 May 1815. He himself steadily opposed ministers on civil list questions and legislation on aliens, and from 27 Mar. 1816 (after a month’s leave) regularly supported retrenchment. He had been prepared to protect the corngrowers, 21 June 1813, but suggested that the House ‘dared not’ refer petitions against it to a committee, 6 June 1814, and concluded, 28 Mar. 1816, that he wished to prevent the importation of foreign grain, but also to oppose any bounties on exporting it. He vouched for the distress of agriculture in Pembrokeshire, 4 Apr., having returned from there recently after acting on behalf of the Whigs in their compromise with Sir John Owen.
Foster Barham returned from Geneva in April 1817
Foster Barham signed the requisition to Tierney to lead opposition in the House after the election of 1818. He supported Tierney’s motion on the Bank and Brougham’s membership of the committee on it, 2, 8 Feb. 1819. On 17 Feb. he informed the House that boy chimney sweeps were unknown in the part of the country where he resided and that he had been resisted when he attempted to introduce them. He voted for criminal law reform, 2 Mar. After a period of absence (his being taken into custody was debated on 22 Apr.) he returned to support burgh reform on 6 May, but said he would abstain on the Barnstaple bribery bill, since the House had not adopted a consistent line of conduct in the disfranchisement of electors, as also on the Penryn bribery bill, 10, 12 May. He supported Tierney’s censure motion, 18 May. On 21 May he advocated the reform of the Welsh judicature. He voted for Brougham’s motion for inquiry into the abuse of charitable foundations, 23 June, but, as in 1817, did not support Burdett’s reform motion on 1 July.
Foster Barham travelled from Wales to Hampshire to be present at the county meeting requisitioned by the Whigs, though he informed Palmerston, who hoped to woo him to the other side, that he had no wish for a meeting, being keen to prevent violent measures. He was an opponent of radicalism, but objected to government suppression of public opinion and prejudgment of the Peterloo incident, which in his view merited inquiry.