HAY, Andrew Leith (1785-1862), of Rannes, Aberdeenshire; Leith Hall , Aberdeenshire

A Scottish country gentleman, Sir Andrew Leith Hay, as he later became, was ‘one of the most handsome and gentlemanly-looking men in the House’, being ‘tall and well-proportioned’, with dark hair and a ruddy complexion.1J. Grant, Random recollections of the House of Commons (3rd edn., 1836), 230. Although he spoke ‘very seldom’, Hay was ‘a man of considerable weight in the House’.2Ibid., 230. One Scottish newspaper commented that the knight ‘was justly regarded as the beau ideal of a faithful Scotch representative’.3Forres Gazette, qu. in Aberdeen Journal, 3 Mar. 1852. Hay himself was modest about his abilities, telling constituents that ‘I take no credit for being anything superior to the common run of representatives in the House of Commons’.4Aberdeen Journal, 16 June 1847. However, his business-like qualities and distinguished record of service in the Peninsular War secured his appointment as clerk of the ordnance in successive Whig administrations until he was made governor of Bermuda in 1838. He resumed his Commons career in 1841, but his second spell was less happy. Although he remained an energetic parliamentarian, his attempts to avert a schism in the Church of Scotland were unsuccessful and a dispute with his constituents led to his defeat in 1847.

Hay hailed from two ancient gentry families, the Hays of Rannes and the Leiths of Leith Hall, Aberdeenshire.5Elgin Courier, 17 Oct. 1862. Like his father, General Andrew Leith Hay (1758-1838), Hay pursued a military career. He served in the Iberian peninsula from 1808 and was present at the battles of Coruna, Talavera, Salamanca, Vittoria and San Sebastian.6Dod’s parliamentary companion (1833), 122. ‘Young, daring, quick in discernment and prompt in action’, Hay’s forte was intelligence-gathering and reconnaissance.7Elgin Courier, 17 Oct. 1862; Gent. Mag. (1863), i. 112. His well-received history, A narrative of the Peninsular War, was published in two volumes in 1831.8F. Boase, Modern English biography (1892), i. 1392-3; Gent. Mag. (1863), i. 112. From 1816 until 1830 Hay was resident in the Caribbean. He initially accompanied his uncle Sir James Leith (1763-1816), after his appointment as governor of Barbados in 1816, and later served as a military secretary, assistant quartermaster-general and adjutant-general.9Gent. Mag. (1863), ii. 112.

Hay was returned as a Reformer for Elgin burghs, which situated in an adjacent county to his family’s estates, at the 1832 general election, after calling for a fixed duty on corn, the opening of the East India trade, reduction of taxation and the abolition of sinecures.10Aberdeen Journal, 19 Sept. 1832. In his first session he offered general support for Grey’s ministry, but divided in favour of Thomas Attwood’s motion for an inquiry into distress, 21 Mar. 1833. Although he supported Ingilby’s proposal to reduce malt duty, 26 Apr. 1833, he absented himself when Lord Althorp successfully rescinded the vote four days later. Hay’s West Indian experience meant that while he professed to support the abolition of slavery in theory, in practice he thought that slaves ‘were not yet prepared for the gift of freedom’, 30 May 1833. He warned that ‘immediate emancipation was altogether impracticable’ and would plunge the colonies into confusion and destruction. Furthermore, he defended the slave-owners from accusations of mistreatment of their slaves.

Hay famously came to the rescue of the beleaguered Whig leader of the Commons Lord Althorp, 5 Feb. 1834. Althorp had alleged that an Irish MP had privately confessed that although he believed the Irish coercion bill to be necessary to preserve order, he publicly opposed it to appease his constituents. This led Richard Lalor Sheil, MP for Tipperary, to demand that Althorp identify his source for this claim. In a ‘generous and well-timed interposition’, Hay declared that he had received similar communications. He refused to name his authority, but was ready to ‘take upon himself any responsibility that might attach to this statement’. The parliamentary reporter James Grant described Hay’s brief interjection as ‘one of the noblest things I ever witnessed ... I never yet knew anything produce a greater effect on the House’. When MPs realised that Hay had effectively relieved Althorp from an embarrassing position, ‘a murmur of suppressed admiration .... was heard in every part of the House’.11Grant, Random recollections, 229-30. This speech as well as his ‘abilities, and his readiness with military affairs’ led to Hay’s appointment as clerk of the ordnance in June 1834, and he was returned unopposed at the resultant by-election.12Gent. Mag. (1863), i. 112. He was knighted shortly after and remained in post until the dismissal of Melbourne’s ministry that November.

Hay’s diligence in the committee rooms underlined his reputation as an effective parliamentarian. Between 1833 and 1836, he served on inquiries that recommended relaxing the relatively strict system of Scottish entails, altering the salmon fishing season and reforming the Scottish system of road-building.13PP 1833 (109), xvi. 37; 1836 (393), xviii. 2, 3, 7; 1836 (430), xviii. 400-2. He chaired an 1834 committee that proposed streamlining private bill procedure to reduce costs and in the same year was a member of the committee that recommended publishing full lists of divisions with the votes.14PP 1834 (540), xi. 334-6; 1834 (147), xi. 326, 328. His expertise was also put to good use on the 1834-5 investigation of colonial military expenditure.15PP 1834 (570), vi. 2-3; 1835 (473), vi. 2-3.

Hay was re-elected at the 1835 general election after describing his former commander the duke of Wellington as ‘one of the most ignorant, opinionated, and presumptuous [politicians], that ever ruled the country’.16Caledonian Mercury, 22 Jan. 1835. He divided with the Whigs in all the key party votes of the ensuing session and was re-appointed as clerk of the ordnance following the formation of Melbourne’s second ministry in April 1835. He was returned unopposed at the subsequent by-election in May. As the annual estimates had already been prepared by Peel’s government, Hay presented them as a bipartisan document to the House, 18 May 1835. The following year, to placate Radicals, he emphasised that the ordnance estimates had been framed with due regard to efficiency and economy. The estimates were passed ‘without observation’, 11 Apr. 1836. The next day Hay responded to criticism by sniping that Joseph Hume’s arguments for retrenchment were based on ‘very incorrect’ calculations and that heavy reductions would not be beneficial to public service.

In addition to his official duties, Hay remained active as a private member. In 1835 he introduced legislation to construct a new harbour at Leith, which was owned by the insolvent Edinburgh corporation. The bill was defeated in a thin House, 30 July 1835, but Hay served on a committee in the same session that recommended that the government place Leith harbour under harbour commissioners.17PP 1835 (370), xx. 576-9. The following year Hay became embroiled in a number of procedural difficulties after reintroducing the measure. As chairman of the private bill committee his right to make the casting vote was later disputed by the speaker, 23 Mar. 1836. Although the Leith harbour bill passed in the Commons it fell in the Lords due to errors in the drafting attributable to its promoters. Sir John Campbell, attorney-general and Whig MP for Edinburgh, alleged that ‘what had occurred must have been the result of gross neglect or of barefaced fraud’, 18 July 1836. Hay introduced another bill, but was forced to withdraw it after the speaker declared that further flaws in the bill meant that its petitioners should be indulged no more by the House, 29 July 1836.

As a private member Hay was also responsible for proposing bills to introduce elected burgh councils to burghs of barony and regality. These towns had been excluded from the scope of the 1833 Burgh Reform Act, which only applied to royal and parliamentary burghs. In 1836 Hay withdrew his first bill, while his second passed its first reading but made no further progress.18CJ, xci. 379, 390, 553, 708; Hansard, 17 May 1836, vol. 33, cc. 1030-2; PP 1836 (272), i. 485-500; 1836 (487), i. 501-36. The following year, Hay emphasised that the bill would allow ‘more substantial police regulation’ in these burghs, 26 Apr. 1837. Furthermore, the measure was permissive; towns could reject its implementation through specially convened public meetings. The bill duly passed its second reading but was defeated at the report stage, 24 June 1837.19PP 1837 (140), i. 351-410; CJ, xcii. 169, 174, 300, 377, 498.

Hay was unchallenged at the 1837 general election. He was appointed governor of Bermuda in February 1838, probably as a reward for his loyalty to the Whig leadership and service in public office. It also conveniently created a vacancy that allowed Fox Maule, a leading Scottish Whig, to return to the Commons. Although Hay apparently held the governorship until November 1839, ‘circumstances, however, arose which prevented Sir Andrew from going to Bermuda’.20Gent. Mag. (1863), i. 113. The death of Hay’s father and his succession to a heavily encumbered estate placed a great strain on his finances. He could not afford to reside at Leith Hall, and lived in Belgium for a time before returning to Scotland in 1840.21G.C. Boase, rev. K. Bagshaw, ‘Hay, Andrew Leith (1785-1862)’, www.oxforddnb.com.

Hay was re-elected for Elgin burghs at the 1841 general election, amid some grumbling about his retiring in favour of Maule in 1838. He had sold out his native burghs ‘like a drove of cattle, from the grazings of Leith Hall to the pastures of Brechin Castle’ (the seat of the Maule family), complained one elector.22‘A Conservative Elector’, letter to Aberdeen Journal, 30 June 1841. In the division lobby he followed a Whig line in all major party votes, and opposed Peel’s revised sliding scale on corn and reintroduction of income tax in 1842. He denied that Viscount Howick’s amendment to the address, calling attention to economic distress, arose from party political motives, 17 Feb. 1843. The speech was notable for describing the corn laws as ‘the most odious tax ever levied on the people’, and he confirmed his conversion to abolition by dividing in favour of Villiers’s annual motion, 15 May 1843.

The uppermost concern of Hay’s second spell in the Commons was averting a schism in the Church of Scotland between Evangelical (or Non-Intrusionist) critics of lay patronage and their opponents, the Moderates. In 1834 he had endorsed a parliamentary inquiry into the matter, without committing himself to either side.23Hansard, 27 Feb. 1834, vol. 21, cc. 929-30. After drawing the House’s attention to the deepening split within the Kirk, Hay emphasised that government legislation or action was urgently required to settle the issue, 15 Mar. 1842. The clash between the ecclesiastical authorities and the civil courts had led to a ‘disregard of the law’ and caused much rancour in Scotland.24At dispute was the validity of the 1834 Veto Act passed by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland which gave congregations the right to veto the appointment of parish ministers. After it was ruled illegal by the law courts in 1839, the Evangelical majority on the General Assembly defied the law and later suspended seven ministers from Strathbogie for obeying the decision. The broader issue was whether the Church was independent in spiritual matters, or subordinate to the civil authorities. While Hay declared that the law must be obeyed, he argued that congregations should be given some say in the appointment of the ministers as a concession to Non-Intrusionists.

However, the home secretary Sir James Graham replied that ‘he had never in his life heard an address which gave him less satisfaction’, noting that while Hay called for ‘something’ to be done he was vague on detail. Furthermore, after the rejection of Lord Aberdeen’s compromise bill of 1840, Graham, Peel and other Conservative ministers were increasingly sceptical that any measure would satisfy the demands of the Evangelicals and their leader Thomas Chalmers.25On this point see I.G.C. Hutchison, A political history of Scotland, 1832-1914 (1986), 20-5. The government therefore reaffirmed that the law must be obeyed and declared that they did not intend to introduce any legislation on the matter. Consequently, Hay supported the unsuccessful compromise bill of Alexander Campbell, MP for Argyll, and continued to pester Graham to act, 14 Apr., 27 May 1842.

Hay missed the entire 1845 session and later explained publicly that ‘in 1844 circumstances occurred with his private affairs, which appeared disastrous to him at the time, and were certainly most afflicting. He was not quite certain of the exact position in which he was then placed; but he resolved to remain passive till he was aware of the exact place he occupied’.26Elgin Courier, 18 June 1847. This was almost certainly due to the parlous financial position of the estate he had inherited from his father. It was rumoured in April 1845 that Hay was to retire in favour of Granville Loch, son of the Liberal MP for Wick burghs, after a private arrangement reminiscent of his pact with Maule.27Elgin Courier, 18 Apr. 1845.

Hay resumed his attendance at Westminster in 1846, dividing for the repeal of the corn laws and speaking in favour of a generous government annuity to Viscount Harding, former governor general of India, 18 May 1846. The following year he pressed the government to lobby foreign countries to reduce tariffs on Scottish herrings and expressed millowners’ opposition to the factory bill, which he argued would make it impossible for British manufacturers to compete with overseas rivals, 5, 17 Feb. 1847.

Hay stood his ground at the 1847 general election but was challenged by a Conservative and another Liberal. Hay’s non-attendance in 1845 and his negotiations with Loch lent credence to the critique that the ‘knight-errant’ took up and dropped the representation of the burghs when it suited him.28Banffshire Journal, qu. in Elgin Courier, 21 May 1847. Deserted by many of his former supporters, Hay was ousted after a bitter contest. His campaign was notable for a brave defence of the 1845 Maynooth College Act, which was extremely unpopular in most Scottish burghs. Hay argued that the measure was justified and politic as previous governments had only given a ‘niggardly grant’ that had prevented the seminary from being put on a ‘respectable footing’.29Aberdeen Journal, 4 Aug. 1847.

Hay contested Aberdeen at the 1852 general election, but was beaten by another Liberal, and was not helped by rumours that he was bankrupt and consequently ineligible to sit in Parliament.30‘A Supporter of Mr. Thompson’, letter, to Aberdeen Journal, 7 July 1852. Thereafter he played a ‘very useful part in the county business’, before dying suddenly in 1862, leaving a personal estae valued at £350 15s. 6d..31Aberdeen Journal, 15 Oct. 1862; Boase, ‘Hay, Andrew Leith’. Reflecting on his part in ousting Hay from Elgin burghs, Sir James Elphinstone, Conservative MP for Portsmouth, 1857-65, later wrote that it was a ‘step I have never ceased to regret, ... [as it] cost the seat of the most zealous and hard-working Member of Parliament these burghs have ever seen, and whose loss ... was a calamity to the county of Aberdeen’.32Sir J. Elphinstone, letter, Aberdeen Journal, 2 Jan. 1861. Elphinstone had been instrumental in bringing forward the Conservative candidate in the election, without whom Hay might well have been returned. Hay was succeeded by his eldest son, Alexander Sebastian Leith Hay, a soldier who fought in the Crimean War and Indian Mutiny.33Burke’s landed gentry (1886), ii. 1088.