FOLEY, Hon. Andrew (?1749-1818), of Newport House, Almeley, Herefs.

Unlike his scapegrace elder brothers Thomas and Edward, Foley was not disowned by his father, who settled Newport House on him when he married a wealthy kinswoman. He became a partner in a London bank.W. R. Williams, Worcs. MPs, 134-5. Nor was he such a wholehearted Foxite Whig as his brothers. With a secure seat for life on the family interest, he voted against Pitt’s Russian policy, 12 Apr. 1791, and was reckoned favourable to repeal of the Test Act in Scotland that month, but was supposed a Portland Whig in December 1792 and thought of as a possible recruit for Windham’s ‘third party’, prepared to support the ministry during the war against France, in 1793. When he next surfaced on 28 Feb. 1797, he informed the House in his first known speech that he had hitherto felt justified in giving his countenance and support to Pitt, but now agreed with Fox on the necessity of inquiry into the Bank stoppage.Senator, xvii. 676. Even so, only one minority vote is known for the rest of that Parliament, against the triple tax assessment, 4 Jan. 1798, and no further speeches are known.

Foley does not appear to have opposed Addington until he voted for Fox’s defence motion of 23 Apr. 1804. He was subsequently classified as a Foxite and confirmed it by opposing Pitt’s additional force bill in June 1804, the war with Spain, 12 Feb. 1805, the defence motions of 21 Feb. and 6 Mar. and the salt tax, which was of special interest to his constituents, 4 Mar. He was in both majorities against Melville and listed ‘Opposition’ in July 1805. He supported the Grenville ministry over the repeal of the Additional Force Act, 30 Apr. 1806, and was among the ‘staunch friends’ of the abolition of the slave trade. He voted for Brand’s motion against the Portland ministry, 9 Apr. 1807, breaking into a leave of absence to do so.

Foley’s son Thomas, his colleague for Droitwich since 1805, transferred to a seat for Herefordshire in 1807. He might have done so in 1806, according to the Duke of Norfolk, but for his father’s ‘unaccountable conduct’; probably a combination of irresolution and fear of expense. Foley voted with the Whigs in the first two divisions of the Parliament of 1807 and, apparently, on Duigenan’s appointment to the Irish privy council, 11 May 1808. He was in three minorities against the Duke of York, 15-17 Mar. 1809, and for inquiry into charges of ministerial corruption, 25 Apr. After opposing Perceval’s ministry on the address, 23 Jan. 1810, he was absent on 26 Jan.,Morning Chron. 29 Jan. 1810. but again opposed them on the Scheldt questions of 5 and 30 Mar. He was regarded as a firm adherent by the Whigs. He favoured the release of the radical Gale Jones, 16 Apr. 1810. After joining opposition on the Regency question, 29 Nov. 1810, 1 and 21 Jan. 1811, he cast only one more known vote in that Parliament, for sinecure reform, 4 May 1812.

Apart from being a less frequent attender for opposition than his son, Foley proceeded to diverge from him in opposing Catholic relief, 2 Mar., 24 May 1813. He did so again in 1817; perhaps he had paired with his son in 1815 and 1816. He opposed the continuation of the property tax and the resumption of war, 19, 28 Apr., 25 May 1815, and joined the minority on civil list questions, 8 and 31 May. Next session he voted for retrenchment, 28 Feb., 18, 20 Mar., 25 Apr., 7 May, 17 and 20 June, against the leather tax, 9 May, and against the unconstitutional use of the military, 13 May. He was in the minority on the composition of the finance committee, 7 Feb. 1817, paired in favour of retrenchment, 29 Apr., voted against Canning’s Lisbon embassy, 6 May, and for the opposition candidate for Speaker, 2 June. He paired against the suspension of habeas corpus, 23 June 1817, but no further vote is known. He died soon after his reelection, 28 July 1818.Gent. Mag. (1818), ii. 375 gives 29 July.