FELLOWES, Hon. Newton (1772-1854), of Eggesford, nr. Chudleigh, Devon.
Available from Boydell and Brewer
Family and Education
b. 26 June 1772, 2nd surv. s. of John Wallop, 2nd Earl of Portsmouth, by Urania, da. of Coulson Fellowes† of Eggesford; bro. of Hon. Coulson Wallop*. educ. Eton 1785; M. Temple 1789; Trinity Coll. Camb. 1790. m. (1) 30 Jan. 1795, Frances (d. 15 Mar. 1819), da. of Rev. Castell Sherard of Glatton, Hunts., 1s. 1da.; (2) 27 June 1820, Lady Catherine Fortescue, da. of Hugh Fortescue†, 1st Earl Fortescue, 1s. 3da. suc. mat. uncle Henry Arthur Fellowes to Eggesford and took name of Fellowes in place of Wallop by royal lic. 7 Aug. 1794; bro. John Charles as 4th Earl of Portsmouth 14 July 1853.
Capt. S. Devon militia 1795, E. Devon militia 1820.
Fellowes’s eldest brother, who became 3rd Earl of Portsmouth in 1797, was feeble-minded; so was his younger brother Coulson, whom he replaced as Member for Andover on the family interest in 1802, though his inheritance wafted him from Hampshire to Devon. No speech of his in the House is known before 1820 and he was not a regular attender. His conduct was, at least until 1807, unpredictable. He was in the minority against the Irish militia offer bill, 10 Apr. 1804, and when Pitt returned to power, opposed his additional force bill, June 1804. In September he was listed with a query as a supporter of Pitt, but in July following, after voting for the criminal prosecution of Melville on 12 June, as ‘Opposition’. He voted for the Grenville ministry’s repeal of Pitt’s Additional Force Act, 30 Apr. 1806, but was ‘adverse’ to their abolition of the slave trade and voted against them on the Hampshire election petition, 13 Feb. 1807. Nevertheless, he rallied to them on their dismissal on the Catholic question (he was heir presumptive to estates in Wexford) and seems to have voted for Lyttelton’s motion, 15 Apr. 1807, if not also for Brand’s on 9 Apr., when Robert Fellowes* was incorrectly listed as so doing.1
Subsequently Fellowes acted informally with opposition when present. He was in their minority on the address, 26 June 1807; likewise against the convention of Cintra, 21 Feb. 1809, and in three minorities against the Duke of York’s conduct, 15-17 Mar. He went so far as to support Madocks’s motion on ministerial corruption, 5 May 1809. He voted with opposition on the Scheldt inquiry, 26 Jan., 5 and 30 Mar. 1810, when they listed him among their following. On 21 May 1810 he voted for parliamentary reform. He opposed the Regency bill, 21 Jan. 1811. On 7 Feb. 1812 he supported regulation of offices in reversion and on 24 Apr. voted for Catholic relief, a measure he supported throughout the following Parliament, when present. On 29 Mar. 1813 he voted for the sinecure reform bill. He was in the minority against the Speaker’s conduct, 22 Apr. 1814, and for Col. Charles Palmer’s* motion, 17 Nov. 1814. No vote is known in 1815, but he voted against the military estimates, 28 Feb., 11 Mar., and in the majority against the property tax, 18 Mar. 1816. In 1817 he opposed the address, 29 Jan., and the suspension of habeas corpus, 28 Feb., 5, 23 June; voted for parliamentary reform on Burdett’s motion, 20 May, and supported the opposition candidate for the Speakership, 2 June. His only known vote in 1818 was against the revival of the secret committee on sedition, 5 Feb. At the ensuing election he was active for his future brother-in-law Viscount Ebrington in the Devon election. In the Parliament of 1818 he voted for the Bank committee, 2 Feb. 1819, but was subsequently absent until April on account of his first wife’s mortal illness. He returned to oppose the salt laws, 29 Apr., and subsequently the navy estimates, the tax proposals and the additional malt duty, 2, 7, 9 June. He once more supported Burdett’s reform motion on 1 July. In the last session he voted with opposition until 2 Dec. 1819, when he was in the minority against the seditious meetings bill.
Fellowes did not seek re-election in 1820. Since 1814 his elder brother’s conduct had been a source of anxiety to him. He had approved and encouraged the earl’s first marriage, but the second proved scandalous. Soon after it took place, fearing that the inheritance would be usurped by a supposititious child of the marriage, he attempted in vain to have his brother certified insane. He did not succeed in this aim until 1823, when he was given custody of him and the marriage dissolved.2 He did not succeed to the title until a year before his death, 9 Jan. 1854.