HAY, George (1689-1758)

Hay’s father had succeeded a kinsman as earl of Kinnoull in May 1709 by virtue of a regrant of 1704. From then until his own succession to the earldom, Hay was known to his contemporaries by his courtesy title of Viscount Dupplin. His father was described in 1710 as a ‘court Tory’ with an income of nearly £4,000 per annum. Christ Church Lib. Oxf., Wake mss 17, ff. 268-69.

News of an impending match between Dupplin and the daughter of Robert Harley was being reported in London at the start of July 1709. Thomas Bateman added on 5 July that Dupplin was to have £6,000, ‘but what estate the gent. has I know not, however ’tis like to be much better by the death of the late Lord Kinnoull. This has been talked of for some time’. Add. 72494, f. 123; 72499, ff. 46-47. The marriage had important ramifications. Almost immediately James Douglas, 2nd duke of Queensberry [S], went to see Arthur Maynwaring^‡ in some concern ‘that there was some jealousy’ of himself, John Erskine, 22nd earl of Mar, and his other friends, ‘occasioned by the late marriage with Mr Harley’s daughter’. Queensberry claimed that Mar had attempted to scupper the match by persuading Kinnoull

to carry his son into Scotland; but that he liked the woman and would not be governed. That it was a match purely of interest, and projected when it was thought Mr Harley had power with the lord treasurer [Sidney Godolphin, earl of Godolphin], in order to get an arrear that they claim upon the customs.

The gist of this had been confirmed to Maynwaring by Auditor Edward Harley^‡, who had added that the marriage articles

were ready to be signed the day before Mr Harley was turned out; and that he had fairly told his client that his brother would be out of his employment the next day; upon which there was some stop; but the young man had a liking to his mistress, and would not leave her. Add. 61460, ff. 19-22.

As John Ker, duke of Roxburghe [S], wrote to James Graham, duke of Montrose [S], that the marriage ‘has done more than anything we could have done or said ourselves’. NAS, GD 220/5/206/3. It certainly made for better communications between Harley and the Scottish Tories, and no doubt facilitated better relations between Mar, who had married Dupplin’s sister, Margaret (d. 1707), and Harley. Riley, Eng. ministers and Scot., 145-46.

Dupplin and his wife intended, initially at least, to reside in Scotland and on 19 Oct. 1709 Bateman reported that they had left Herefordshire for Scotland. By the 21st they had arrived at Dupplin Castle. Add. 72499, ff. 79-80; 70147, Lady Dupplin to A. Harley, 21 Oct. 1709. Dupplin was in Edinburgh in January 1710 for the funeral of the brother of Charles Hay, 13th earl of Erroll [S], and, he told Harley, ‘since I’m here I intend to make an end of any law business my father has before the judges in this place.’ Add. 70241, Dupplin to R. Harley, 17 Jan. 1710; Add. 70026, f. 2. Thus it was from Scotland that he viewed the Sacheverell affair, noting on 15 Mar. that ‘I think that gentleman in the right who thought it would have set the Dr and his sermon much better to have been examined in Westminster School and I don’t doubt but he had got his payment there for an impudent, hot headed gentleman.’ He remained in Scotland awaiting the birth of his first child, a son born on 4 July. Add. 70148, Dupplin to A. Harley, 15 Mar. 1710; Add. 70241, Dupplin to R. Harley, 27 Apr. 1710; Add. 70148, Dupplin to A. Harley, 4 July 1710. One particular patronage request was for Sir William Calderwood, ‘he being the only man my father employs in all his business’, who was being touted in August by Dupplin as a successor to the recently deceased John Maitland, 5th earl of Lauderdale [S], as a lord of session. HMC Portland, iv. 558, 566; Add. 70241, Dupplin to Harley, 27 June 1710. In the event he secured the next vacancy in November 1711. With a change of ministry expected, on 26 July Dupplin wrote to Harley hoping that ‘when a dissolution comes it will be easily managed to get our Scotch elections to your mind’. Add. 70026, f. 51. He wrote again on 8 Aug. in response to a letter ‘which my father takes to be written by your direction’, which promised Dupplin an English seat ‘if my father and I desire it’. Both Dupplin and his father were agreed that he could ‘spend my time nowhere so well as in the House of Commons’.

Parliament was finally dissolved on 21 Sept. 1710, and Dupplin returned to England, where he was found a seat at Fowey. He carried a letter from John Murray, duke of Atholl [S] (of 19 Sept.) informing Harley that he and Kinnoull were ‘taking measures to support the queen at this juncture in Scotland’, and one from Kinnoull (upon Dupplin’s departure on 27 Sept.) in which the earl explained that ‘finding that my son had so great a mind to be in the House of Commons and that he was impatient to be with you, your daughter and I have parted with him’. On 4 Oct. Dr William Stratford expressed surprise that Dupplin could ‘be spared at this time in Scotland’ given the need for ‘one of his interest and authority to countenance the elections there’. HMC Portland, iv. 597, 601, vii. 19. Dupplin was expected in London early in October, ‘I suppose upon some earnest business’, leaving his wife to journey from Scotland later with Kinnoull. Add. 70144, E. Harley to A. Harley, 30 Sept. 1710. Stratford need not have worried for Dupplin in London was involved in the organization of proxy votes for the Scottish peerage elections. HMC Portland, x. 348.

With Dupplin’s election to the Commons and Kinnoull’s to the Lords, both men were bound to play a role in Harley’s management of the Scottish members at Westminster. Dupplin’s role was to supply information, which allowed Harley to neutralize the influence of Queensberry, the Scottish secretary. Riley, Eng. ministers and Scot., 157, 165. Indeed, on 9 Dec. Dupplin was described as ‘such an attender on public business that he is not to be seen’. HMC Portland, v. 128 (misdated 1711). In April 1711, Dupplin and Kinnoull tried to secure the viscountcy of Strathallan [S] for Dupplin’s brother, seeking Harley’s assistance for a surrender of the peerage by the consumptive James Drummond, 3rd Viscount Strathallan [S]. Strathallan signed the surrender at Mar’s residence in the presence of Dupplin, Kinnoull and David Leslie, 5th earl of Leven [S]. George Baillie^‡, who was also present, noted that ‘the persons concerned have a considerable interest at court’, which would be used to obtain the queen’s agreement to a regrant. Haddington mss, Mellerstain letters IV, Baillie to wife, 10 Apr. 1711; Add. 70241, Kinnoull to Harley, 19 Apr. 1711. The attempt was unsuccessful because the Act of Union had made such regrants impossible after the loss of the great seal of Scotland.

Well integrated into Harleyite circles, Dupplin played a significant role as a mediator between Harley and his allies. In May 1711, he joined in the celebrations in London for Harley’s promotion to an earldom and the lord treasurership. On 30 June he wrote to Oxford from York Buildings relating to Atholl’s demands for recompense after Dupplin had sought his help in the 1710 elections. He then went into Herefordshire. HMC Portland, v. 25; vii. 38. On 10 July Dupplin wrote Oxford a long letter from Eywood, Herefordshire, residence of Auditor Harley, where he was attending Lord Harley’s (Edward Harley* , later 2nd earl of Oxford) election to the Commons in place of his father. The letter dealt with the management of Scottish affairs and his father’s role in it. Add. 70028, ff. 30-33. Dupplin was a member of the Tory ‘society of brothers’, an exclusive club founded in June 1711 by Henry St. John* [355], the future Viscount Bolingbroke, serving as president on at least one occasion. He was also a member of the October Club. At the end of July 1711, Stratford had heard that Dupplin had been named a teller of the exchequer, and on 4 Aug. his appointment was announced in the press. Jnl. to Stella, 454, 505; HP Commons, 1690-1715, i. 761; HMC Portland, vii. 41; NAS, Scots Courant, 8-10 Aug. 1711. Responding to the news, Speaker William Bromley^‡, described him as ‘so pretty a gentleman, so generally well beloved’. His tellership dated from 3 September. On 7 Sept. he attended the christening of Abigail Masham’s son, a select gathering which included Oxford and Jonathan Swift. HMC Portland, v. 72; Jnl. to Stella, 352. Dupplin was in England in October and November, awaiting the birth of another child and receiving advice of Scottish affairs from his father, which he passed on to Oxford. Add. 70241, Kinnoull to Dupplin, 27 Oct. 1711; HMC Portland, vii. 71, 77. Dupplin recommended Alexander Murray^‡ for a place on the commission of chamberlainry and trade for Scotland. This was a subtle manoeuvre designed to undermine the Squadrone stalwart, Baillie, Murray’s father-in-law, by associating him with the commission, which had lost credit in Scotland. A similar tactic was used on Montrose, the ultimate aim being the removal of these Whigs from office. HMC Portland, x. 227; HP Commons, 1690-1715, iii. 114-15.

On 22 Nov. Dupplin informed Oxford that he had summoned to London the Scottish peers including his father, following Mar’s strategy of writing to ‘a great many of our sixteen and to those of the Commoners he has influence with to come up immediately’. Add. 70241, Dupplin to Oxford, ‘Monday afternoon’ [?22 Nov. 1711]. Three days later Dupplin wrote to Oxford of Mar’s concern that the Scottish peers had not received more notice that they were required in London by 7 Dec., and that by his calculation the Scottish peers would not be in London before the 12th. To Kinnoull in Edinburgh, Dupplin was at fault. As he wrote on 3 Dec., ‘George, you sit in London and prescribe impossibilities to we poor worms in Scotland’, including settling the commission of trade, ‘and be at London against the seventh day of this month and behold if I had not been here your letters could not have been at Dupplin till the 26th of the last month, so that I had only twelve days to do all this.’ Kinnoull told Oxford the same day that he had collected ‘as many proxies as could be got ready’ from the Scottish representative peers and sent them express to London.’ HMC Portland, v. 115, 121-2.

The new parliamentary session began on 7 Dec. 1711 with ministerial benches in the Lords depleted by the delayed Scots (only five were present), and a ministerial defeat on an amendment to the address in the Lords over the question of ‘no Peace without Spain’. In the meantime Dupplin was returned unopposed on 18 Dec. at a by-election at Fowey after accepting government office. The creation of James Hamilton, duke of Hamilton [S], as duke of Brandon in the British peerage, and the loss of the question in the Lords on 20 Dec. over Hamilton’s right to sit in the Lords under his new title, saw discussions involving Scottish peers on how they should respond, one of which took place at Kinnoull’s residence in London. Eventually their call for a petition to the queen asking for redress was signed by the representative peers present in London and by the Scottish commoners, including Dupplin. Scot. Hist. Misc. xii. 149; HMC Polwarth, i. 5.

Oxford’s response to his faltering majority in the Lords was to strengthen the ministry by persuading the queen to create 12 new peers on whom he could rely (and incidentally reduce his dependence on the Scottish representative peers). Dupplin was one such ally, and on 31 Dec. he was created Baron Hay in the British peerage, although he was almost universally referred to outside the House as Dupplin until he succeeded to the earldom of Kinnoull. Significantly perhaps, the other 11 creations were dated the following day, giving him precedence. Certainly Lady Strafford felt it worth noting on 1 Jan. 1712 that, ‘I find Lord [Windsor Thomas Windsor, Viscount Windsor [I], created Baron Mountjoy] expected to have been the first but Lord Dupplin is before him’, Windsor being an Irish viscount, while Dupplin was the heir to a Scottish earl. Add. 22226, f. 60. On 2 Jan. Dupplin was the last of the 12 to take his seat in the Lords, being introduced by Charles Butler, Baron Butler of Weston, better known as earl of Arran [I], and Charles Boyle, Baron Boyle. According to Peter Wentworth there was some concern that Dupplin’s patent would be challenged as a consequence of the Hamilton ruling, on the grounds that as he was heir to a Scots earldom it would be seen as breaking the spirit, if not the letter, of the resolution that no Scottish peer given a British peerage could sit in the Lords under that title. In the event, the Lords seem to have accepted their new member without opposition, and on 17 Jan. Mar wrote that ‘Lord Dupplin being made a peer in my opinion is of service to us, for it makes a jest of the argument against us’. Wentworth pprs. 237-38; PH, xxiv. (supplement), 29; NAS, GD 124/15/1047/3.

In his first session in the Lords, Dupplin attended just over three quarters of the available sittings after he had taken his seat and was named to 13 committees. On 26 Feb. 1712 he gave his proxy to Samuel Masham, Baron Masham, vacated by his next attendance on 7 March. On 25 Mar. Masham returned the compliment, and on 31 Mar. Dupplin again gave his proxy to Masham, although he was present on the following day. On 3 May he received Boyle’s proxy (vacated on the 12th); on 7 May that of John Campbell, 2nd duke of Argyll [S] (vacated on the 19th) and on 20 May that of William Ferdinand Carey, 8th Baron Hunsdon (vacated on the 22nd). He was recorded as present on the attendance list for 28 May but was recorded as absent in the printed division list on the ‘restraining orders’ given to James Butler, 2nd duke of Ormond. A Collection of Papers (1712). He attended the House on 21 June for the adjournment and on 8 July when the House was prorogued.

Dupplin continued to be heavily involved in Scottish political affairs, presenting to the queen an address from the burgh of Inverness in October 1712. NAS, Scots Courant, 15-17 Oct. 1712. When David Carnegie, 4th earl of Northesk [S], repaired to Scotland in August 1712 he left some papers with Mar, who in turn left them with Dupplin, for Oxford’s attention. On 11 Nov. Dupplin wrote to Oxford, ‘I had a letter from my Lord Northesk on Friday desiring I would let him know what was to be done with his money. I suppose your Lordship will not do anything in that till you take the whole Scotch affair into your consideration’. Add. 70215, Northesk to Oxford, 15 Aug., 24 Oct. 1712; Add. 70030, f. 79. The same day Dupplin and Lord Harley were at Old Windsor and thus unable to dine in Wimbledon with Peregrine Osborne, styled marquess of Carmarthen (later 2nd duke of Leeds)—husband of another of Oxford’s daughters—to celebrate his 21st birthday, although he promised to be in London in two or three days. In about December Dupplin moved from Queen’s Square to Poland Street. Eg. 3385 A, ff. 84-85; HMC Portland, vii. 120.

The central position of Dupplin in the network governing Scotland was made clear by letters written by Mar, such as that of 13 Jan. 1713 from Edinburgh, in which he informed Oxford that ‘I desired Lord Dupplin last post to let you know that I had yours of the 6th and the proxies safe’ for the by-election for a Scottish representative peer. On 27 Jan. Dupplin’s daughter was christened, with both Oxford and Swift in attendance. Early in February he presented an address to the queen from the burgh of Perth. HMC Portland, x. 286; Jnl. to Stella, 609; NAS, Scots Courant, 4-6 Feb. 1713. With the next parliamentary session delayed because of the peace, Dupplin attended six prorogations, on 3 and 17 Feb., 3, 10, 17 and 26 March. At the prorogation on 3 Mar. he and Masham introduced his brother-in-law Carmarthen into the House as Baron Osborne. On 24 Mar. Dupplin was one of a party, including Oxford, Lord Harley, Sir Thomas Hanmer^‡ and Swift, who assembled at Dr Friend’s, whereupon they ‘went to the college [Westminster] and saw Ignoramus acted by the Queen’s scholars’. SCLA, DR 671/89, Henry Brydges diary, 24 Mar. 1713; Jnl. to Stella, 644. Before the session began a list in Swift’s hand, amended by Oxford, classed Dupplin as expected to support the court.

On 9 Apr. Dupplin was present in the Lords for the start of the new parliamentary session. He attended on 37 days, 56 per cent of the total, and was named to six committees. Bateman noted that Dupplin was not in the House on 19 May when the ‘duchess of Newcastle’s appeal from an order of the court of chancery’ was heard against Thomas Pelham Holles, 2nd Baron Pelham (later duke of Newcastle), a matter of some interest to the Harleys, given the prospective alliance between Oxford’s heir and the duchess’s daughter. Add. 72500, f.170. Following the passage of the malt tax bill on 22 May by the Commons, on 26 May, a meeting took place of all the Scottish Lords and commoners currently in England with the exception of Dupplin, Kinnoull and George Hamilton, earl of Orkney [S], all of whom were ‘out of town’, which surprised many people ‘since the meeting was known of before they went’. NAS, Hamilton mss at Lennoxlove, C3/1324. At this meeting it was decided to press for a bill to dissolve the Union. The Whigs were prepared to support the Scottish peers in airing their grievances, but would not back the substantive motion. Thus, when the Lords debated the motion on 1 June, the first vote was on whether to put the question for leave to bring in a bill, Dupplin being the only Scot to support Oxford and the ministry and to vote in the affirmative. Having seen this motion passed by four votes the court was then able to secure the rejection without a division on the motion for the bill itself. Holmes, Pols. Relig. and Soc. 123. However, the Whigs were prepared to back the attempt of the Scottish peers to derail the malt tax. On 5 June the Lords debated the second reading of the malt bill and the ministry won a division for an immediate reading rather than a delay by only two votes, with Dupplin voting with the ministry. Ibid. 125-26. As Argyll observed to John Elphinstone, 4th Baron Balmerinoch [S], ‘we had lost it by Lord Dupplin’s being with the court for his vote would have made us equal, and we being for the negative (not a second reading) we had carried it’. Scot. Hist. Soc. Misc. xii. 158. Baillie concurred ‘had not Dupplin voted for the reading and [Hume Alexander Home, 7th earl of Home [S]] been out of the house, we should have been free of it till the Commons had passed a new bill which they could not have entered upon without a prorogation’. Haddington mss, Mellerstain letters V, Baillie to wife, 6 June 1713. A further division on 8 June on the passage of the bill was again carried by the ministry (64-56), presumably with Dupplin’s assistance. About 13 June Dupplin was forecast as a supporter of the bill confirming the eighth and ninth articles of the French commercial treaty. Oxford’s papers contain several lists in Dupplin’s hand from July 1713 appertaining to the forthcoming Scottish peerage elections, including one relating to their ‘pretensions to be dispatched before they go to Scotland’ and a ‘list of lords to whom it is proposed to give pensions’. HMC Portland, v. 313-14. He attended the House for prorogations on 16 July and 12 Nov. 1713 and 12 Jan. 1714.

When in late September 1713 the recently married Lord Harley and his wife (Henrietta Cavendish Holles) went to Wimpole, a seat that had passed to Lady Harley on her father’s death, Dupplin went with them. This it would seem was mainly because ‘they have no company that comes near ’em’, and none of Lady Harley’s relatives ‘took any notice of her’, given the dispute with her mother. On 8 Oct. Dupplin wrote to Oxford from Wimpole, putting him ‘in mind’ of James Livingston, 5th earl of Linlithgow [S]: ‘I told him by your order that he was to have £900 at three payments at Edinburgh which I suppose he’ll expect to hear of from the earl of Mar, when he comes there. I hope you will have good news from my Lord Mar the beginning of the week’, a reference to the forthcoming election of representative peers at Holyrood. Dupplin was expected in Old Windsor on the 15th. While his wife stayed in London with her sister, the marchioness of Carmarthen, who was expecting her first child, Dupplin returned to Wimpole on the 26th, leaving his wife to comment ‘when he returns I know not’. Add. 70147, Lady Dupplin to A. Harley, 26 Sept., 14, 26 Oct. 1713; Add. 70241, Dupplin to Oxford, 8 Oct. 1713. He was still at Wimpole on 7 Nov. when he received news of the birth of Thomas Osborne* , the future 4th duke of Leeds. Eg. 3385 A, ff. 94-95. Following the death of the marchioness of Carmarthen on 20 Nov. Dupplin’s residence in Poland Street became a refuge for Oxford. Add. 72501, ff. 65-66. On 12 Dec. Dupplin delayed a visit to Windsor on account of his wife, after the death of her sister. He was back to shuttling around a week later. On 19 Dec. he was reported to have ‘gone today to Windsor returns on Tuesday morning’ (21st). Add. 70148, Dupplin to A. Harley, 12 Dec. 1713; Add. 70147, Lady Dupplin to A. Harley, 19 Dec. 1713. On 3 Feb. 1714 Lady Dupplin gave birth to a daughter. Meanwhile, on 4 Feb. Dupplin’s sister, Elizabeth, married James Ogilvy* , Lord Deskford, the future 5th earl of Findlater [S], the groom having informed Oxford of it via Dupplin, as being more dutiful than a direct approach. Add. 70148, Lady Dupplin to A. Harley, 4 Feb. 1714; Add. 72501, f. 92; 70250, Findlater to Oxford, 30 Jan. 1714.

Dupplin was present in the House on 16 Feb. 1714 for the start of the session. Thereafter he attended on 59 days, 78 per cent of the total, and was named to four committees. He attended for the vote of 5 Apr. on the danger to the succession, but on 12 Apr. registered his proxy in favour of Thomas Mansell, Baron Mansell (vacated the following day). This was almost certainly for anticipated close divisions on the response to be given to the queen’s reply to the address on dangers posed by the Pretender, which was carried by two proxy votes. On 20 Apr. he again assigned his proxy to Mansell (vacated by his return on the 23rd). On 24 Apr. his wife noted that he had gone to Old Windsor and would return on the following Monday (26th), a regular occurrence at this time. Add. 70147, Lady Dupplin to A. Harley, 24 Apr., 3 June, 5 July 1714. At the end of May or beginning of June, Dupplin was forecast by Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, as a supporter of the schism bill. With the House not sitting between 13 and 26 May, Dupplin appears to have retreated into the country with his family. Add. 70144, Ld. Harley to A. Harley, 18 May 1714. He returned to the House on 28 May. He missed only four days in June and on the 3rd he received the proxy of Robert Benson, Baron Bingley (vacated on the 7th). He was also present on each sitting in July, bar the 9th when Parliament was prorogued.

Oxford lost office on 27 July 1714, but with the queen falling dangerously ill almost immediately, on 30 July George Granville, Baron Lansdown, suggested to Oxford through Dupplin that he should attend the council meeting that had been adjourned until the following day. HMC Portland, v. 477. Dupplin was present on the first day of the session called on the demise of the queen on 1 Aug. and attended four sittings in total (three of the first five). On 5 Aug. Bingley registered his proxy with Dupplin. Parliament was prorogued on 25 Aug. but Dupplin remained in London in September. Add. 70033, f. 104. It was clearly expected that Dupplin would lose his office under the new regime as on 23 Sept. Oxford wrote ‘I suppose that Dupplin and Mansell must quickly make way’, in other words give up their tellerships. HMC Portland, v. 496. On 25 Oct. Bateman reported Dupplin and Mansell’s removal and replacement by John Smith^‡ and Sir Roger Mostyn^‡, Nottingham’s son-in-law. Add. 72502, f. 14. The following day, Stratford reported that warrants had been sent to the attorney-general to effect this alteration, but this seems to have been incorrect as on 4 Nov. it was Mansell and Russell Robartes^‡, who were replaced by Smith and John West, 6th Baron De la Warr. Basil Feilding, 4th earl of Denbigh, was given a regrant of his tellership. Perhaps this may account for Oxford’s letter of thanks of 11 Nov. to Charles Montagu, earl of Halifax, the leading treasury minister, for ‘your favours to Lord Dupplin’. Even so, on 1 Nov., Stratford reported that Dupplin and his wife were ‘resolving to suit their expenses to their circumstances, they are going to part with their house in town, and to retire wholly to the country’. HMC Portland, vii. 205, 206; Add. 70249, Oxford to Halifax, 10 Nov. 1714. Dupplin was eventually replaced by Mostyn as teller of the exchequer early in January 1715. During that year Dupplin came under suspicion of Jacobite plotting and on 21 Sept. he was taken into custody and later incarcerated in the Tower, although he was later released. HMC 7th Rep. 239; Add. 72502, f. 88.

Dupplin died at Ashford, Yorkshire on 29 July 1758. He was succeeded by his son Thomas Hay* [1851], as 2nd Baron Hay and 9th earl of Kinnoull [S], who had also served as Member for Cambridge, 1741-58. His second son Robert Hay Drummond, became archbishop of York.