cr. 1 Jan. 1712 Bar. FOLEY.
First sat 12 Jan. 1712; last sat 14 Feb. 1733
MP Stafford 1694–1712.
b. 8 Nov. 1673, 1st s. of Thomas Foley‡ and Elizabeth Ashe; bro. of Edward‡ and Richard Foley‡. educ. Sheriffhales acad. (John Woodhouse) 1689; Utrecht 1689–93; L. Inn 1695. m. 18 June 1702 (with £30,000), Mary (d. 1735), da. and h. of Thomas Strode, serjeant-at-law, of Lincoln’s Inn and Beaminster, Dorset,1 4s. (3 d.v.p.), 3da. (2 d.v.p.).2 suc. fa. 1701. d. 22 Jan. 1733; will 22 July 1731, pr. 19 Mar. 1733.3
Commr. for taking subscriptions to land bank 1696.
Freeman, Stafford 1694, Bewdley 1706, Worcester 1721.
FRS 1696.
Associated with: Witley Court, Great Witley, Worcs.; Hanover Sq. Westminster.4
Like his kinsman and patron Robert Harley, later earl of Oxford and Mortimer, Foley came from a dissenting background. He was educated for a while at the nonconformist Sheriffhales academy, but he seems soon to have distanced himself from such allegiances. During his early career he came to be identified with the Tory party and as a strong upholder of the Church. Connected by marriage to the Harleys, he joined numerous relations from Worcestershire and other western counties to form a formidable bloc in Parliament. For the majority of his career he seems to have followed Harley’s lead in most matters of consequence.
First elected to the Commons in 1694 on his uncle’s interest, Foley retained his seat at Stafford until his elevation to the peerage 18 years later. In 1699 his quest for a rich bride may have had an effect on the way in which the influential Foley–Harley connection responded to the parliamentary assault on Edward Russell, earl of Orford. Foley was then courting Orford’s niece Letitia Harbord and, although the marriage never came to pass, his kinsmen were notable in refusing to back the Tory effort to censure Orford at that time.5 By the beginning of Queen Anne’s reign, Foley had distanced himself from the high Tory interest and allied himself closely with the new court Tory interest led by his former brother-in-law, Harley. By 1704 he was clearly identified with the court and his name was mentioned in the spring of 1705 as a possible candidate for a peerage. In the event he was forced to wait a further seven years before being advanced to a barony.6
A consistent supporter of Oxford (as Harley had since become) both in and out of government, married to a wealthy heiress and previously considered for a peerage, Foley proved an obvious candidate for one of the 12 new creations made in the winter of 1711/12 to protect Oxford’s ministry from defeat in the Lords. On 27 Dec. his name was included among 21 others on a memorandum of possible new peers drawn up by Oxford and on 1 Jan. 1712 he was elevated to the peerage as Baron Foley of Kidderminster (the last of those created on that day and thus senior in precedence only to Allen Bathurst, Baron (later earl of) Bathurst, whose creation was delayed to the next day).7 On 2 Jan. he took his seat for the first time, introduced between William North, 6th Baron North, and James Brydges, 8th Baron Chandos, after which he was present on 66 occasions (approximately 62 per cent of all sitting days).8
Absent in the second week of May, on 15 May Foley registered his proxy with Bathurst, which was vacated by his resumption of his seat towards the end of the month, on 27 May. The following day he voted with the ministry in rejecting the resolution concerning the restraining orders issued to James Butler, 2nd duke of Ormond.9 The name Foley appears in a memorandum prepared by Oxford in July 1712, in which he was noted as a possible commissioner for trade. No such appointment was forthcoming and it is clear that it was Foley’s cousin, also Thomas Foley‡, appointed to the board of trade at this time, who was the intended recipient.10 In October he attempted to exploit his local interest and wrote to Oxford to recommend one Whitcombe to succeed John Laughton as a prebend of Worcester, but was unsuccessful.11
Unsurprisingly noted a supporter of the ministry by Jonathan Swift in March 1713, Foley took his seat in the House at the opening of the new session on 9 Apr., after which he was present on over three-quarters of all sitting days. On 13 June he was listed in one forecast among 12 court supporters thought likely to desert over the French commerce bill, though Oxford’s own estimate of the same date included Foley as a probable supporter of the measure. Three days later, he reported from the committee of the whole considering the bill for explaining a clause in the act for preventing fraudulent conveyances to multiply votes in county elections.
Following the close of the session, Foley retreated to Bath. Although it was thought at the beginning of October that he would leave the city soon, he was still there towards the end of November in company with his kinsman Auditor Harley (Edward Harley‡) and (probably) Thomas Cartwright‡ and Andrew Archer‡.12 The following month, Foley and his wife were troubled by the death of their eldest daughter, which proved ‘a great affliction’ to them both.13
Early the following year, Foley’s own health was in doubt, as he was said to be suffering from a pain in his side. Although he was said to be much recovered by the beginning of February, he was absent from the opening of the new session, presumably on the grounds of ill health.14 He returned to his place on 2 Mar., after which he was present on just under three-quarters of all sitting days. On 27 May he was forecast by Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, as likely to oppose the Schism bill and on 15 June he subscribed the protest at the resolution to pass the measure. Foley’s opposition to the Schism bill caused divisions within his own family and he and Richard Foley were forced to put aside thoughts of travelling to Worcestershire together on account of their disagreement.15 Foley subscribed a further protest on 8 July at the resolution not to make a representation to the queen stating that the benefit of the Assiento had been obstructed by the efforts of certain individuals to use it to their personal advantage.
Foley was absent from London, at his seat at Witley, at the time of the queen’s death. On 2 Aug., still unaware of her demise and that Parliament had already assembled, he wrote to Oxford gloomily ‘surprised with the melancholy news of the queen’s illness’ and assuming that, ‘if it should please God to take her (if I mistake not) the Parliament is immediately to meet’.16 It was consequently not until 19 Aug. that he eventually took his seat in the House, after which he was present on just three days before the close of the session.
Foley followed Oxford into opposition and remained loyal to him during his imprisonment and the proceedings against him in Parliament. As a wealthy member of the Tory county elite, Foley remained a significant political figure although proscribed from holding office. Full details of the latter part of his career will be examined in the next part of this work. He died early in 1733, leaving a considerable fortune. To his only surviving daughter, Elizabeth, he bequeathed £15,000 to be paid to her on attaining the age of 21 or at her marriage, while he also made smaller bequests to a servant and the poor of Witley, totalling a further £130. The title descended to his sole remaining son, another Thomas Foley, who was named sole executor and who succeeded as 2nd Baron Foley.
R.D.E.E.- 1 Add. 70073–4, newsletter, 20 June 1702.
- 2 London Evening Post, 20–23 Jan. 1733.
- 3 TNA, PROB 11/657.
- 4 Grub Street Journal, 25 Jan. 1733; St James’s Evening Post, 20–23 Jan. 1733.
- 5 Cocks Diary, 165.
- 6 PH, xxiv. 16.
- 7 Add. 70332, Oxford memorandum, 27 Dec. 1711; Sainty, Peerage Creations, 27.
- 8 British Mercury, 2–4 Jan. 1712.
- 9 PH xxvi. 177–81.
- 10 Add. 70332, Oxford memo, 1 July 1712; Post Boy, 5–8 July 1712.
- 11 Add. 70227, Foley to Oxford, 13 Oct. 1712.
- 12 Bodl. Ballard 18, ff. 51–54; Add. 70227, Foley to Oxford, 23 Nov. 1713.
- 13 Add. 70147, Lady Dupplin to A. Harley, 19 Dec. 1713.
- 14 Add. 70148, Dupplin to A. Harley, 9 Feb. 1714.
- 15 Bodl. MS Eng. th. c. 25, f. 47.
- 16 Add. 70033, f. 58.