CLIVE, Henry (?1777-1848), of Barkham, Berks.
Available from Boydell and Brewer
Family and Education
b. ?1777, 3rd s. of George Clive† of Whitfield, Herefs. and Arlington Street, Piccadilly, Mdx. by Sydney, da. and h. of Thomas Bolton of Knock, co. Louth. educ. Westminster; Christ Church, Oxf. 3 Feb. 1795, aged 17; L. Inn 1794, called 1802. m. 27 Nov. 1809, Charlotte Jane, da. of John Buller† of Morval, Cornw., s.p.
Under-sec. of state for Home affairs Apr. 1818-Jan. 1822.
Capt. S. Salop militia 1809.
Clive, a barrister on the Oxford circuit, was brought in for Ludlow in 1807 by his kinsman Edward Earl of Powis, whose brother Robert had retired. Clive’s father and Powis’s father (Clive of India) were cousins german. As was expected of him, he steadily supported government, voting with them in all critical divisions; the Whigs were ‘doubtful’ of him in 1810. He voted against parliamentary reform, 21 May 1810. After his re-election in 1812 he appeared on the Treasury list as a friend of government. He opposed Catholic relief throughout. He voted against the Marriage Act amendment bill, 26 Apr. 1819.
He never figured in debate before becoming, in April 1818, under-secretary to Lord Sidmouth at the Home Office, in succession to the latter’s brother.1 Thereafter he spoke frequently in defence of departmental policy, not always happily; he clashed with Brougham, 22 May 1818, over the aliens bill, with James Macdonald over the execution of the Liverpool forgets, 21 Jan. 1819, with Bennet over conditions on convict ships, 25 Jan., and was given a rough time over the seizure of arms bill, 10 Dec. 1819. He was considered not particularly competent and resigned in January 1822, with Sidmouth.2 He retained his seat for Montgomery, to which Powis had transferred him in 1818, until 1832.
Clive died 16 Mar. 1848, aged 70. An obituary commended his ‘unwearied application’ to local affairs and the ‘hearty kindness of his manner. Disguise and duplicity seemed foreign to his nature, nor did he ever compromise an opinion, although kindness and delicacy of feeling may have often prevented the expression of it.’3