FAZAKERLEY, John Nicholas (1787-1852), of Stoodleigh, nr. Tiverton, Devon and 27 Upper Brook Street, Mdx.

Published in The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1820-1832, ed. D.R. Fisher, 2009
Available from Cambridge University Press



1812 - 1818
1818 - 1820
1820 - 12 May 1820
1826 - 1830
24 Nov. 1830 - 1841

Family and Education

bap. 19 Feb. 1787,1 1st s. of John Fazakerley (formerly Radcliffe) of Prescot, nr. Liverpool, Lancs. and Wasing, Berks. and w. Catherine. educ. Eton 1799-1802; Christ Church, Oxf. 1805; Edinburgh Univ. 1807-8; European tour. m. 5 June 1822,2 Eleanor, da. of Matthew Montagu† of Sandleford Priory, nr. Newbury, Berks., 2s. (1 d.v.p.) 3da. (1 d.v.p.). suc. fa. 1796. d. 14 July 1852.3

Offices Held


‘Nobody to me [is] more agreeable than Fazakerley’, Sydney Smith told Lady Holland in 1832.4 Earlier that year Edward Littleton*, a fellow member of Grillion’s Club, had described him as

a man of more literary information, more acuteness, and power of argument, and withal of more extended and comprehensive views than most I know. Hence it is he [is] the intimate friend and correspondent of Lords Lansdowne and Holland, and most of the eminent men of that class of this day.5

Fazakerley, who had joined Brooks’s in 1812, was a popular figure in Whig society. He was steadfast in his attachment to the tenets of mainstream Whiggery (for example, he applauded the choice of Tierney as leader in the Commons in 1818 as ‘a rebuke to the Mountain’);6 but he was no man of action and made little mark in politics. At the general election of 1820 he would ‘have nothing to do’ with Great Grimsby, where his seat on Lord Yarborough’s interest in the 1818 Parliament had cost him over £6,000.7 He was returned by the 6th duke of Bedford, with whose son Lord John Russell* he was friendly, for Tavistock, to the surprise of Lord Morpeth†, who thought he might have preferred ‘a more independent seat, for he is by no means a violent Whig, nor to the level of the Russells’.8 Within weeks, however, he was, as he told his Parisian correspondent Mrs. Pauline Graham of Drynie, ‘libre et vagabond’, for Bedford was reluctantly obliged to turn out ‘poor dear Faz’ in order to accommodate Lord Ebrington, a rising star of opposition, who had lost his seat for Devon.9

Soon afterwards Fazakerley, whose health was indifferent at this time, sold his property at West Hill on the Isle of Wight, though ‘not at half its value’, as he told George Graham, 25 July 1820:

One can’t quite easily part with the old walls and trees and views to which one has been so long accustomed ... And now I meditate a scheme for seeing Italy and hearing some debates in the Parliament of Naples next winter.

He welcomed the rebellion there and the consequent ‘discomfiture of the legitimates’ of Europe, whom he wished ‘no greater harm than to be obliged to govern by laws which secure the lives and properties of their subjects’. He reported that Queen Caroline was

still a great favourite with the people, and even with those who have no doubt of her guilt she finds some mercy, for they say she was so ill used that she could not help it ... I have little doubt of her conviction. There is an end to economy and reform of all sorts till this question is disposed of. No one will listen to any other subject.10

Fazakerley, who had acquired a Devon estate at Stoodleigh, did not in the event winter in Italy; he was at Bowood and Althorp at the turn of the year.11

In January 1822 he was at Nice, where he became engaged to the dwarfish and myopic Eleanor Montagu, ‘one of the Portman Square constellation’ of Tories with intellectual pretensions, whose sister Jane was married to Henry Goulburn*, the Irish secretary. He wrote ‘jokingly’ of the business to Graham:

The sun of Nice has melted two obdurate hearts and instead of going on as a bachelor into Italy as I intended I shall have to return to England to make preparations for submitting to the yoke of a little lady rather more diminutive even than your esteemed rib ... there is no great beauty and no money, so that at least I have proceeded on the hope of having discovered other excellent reasons for my choice ... it will take six or eight months at least to get money matters and my cursed estate put into proper order and in the meantime we wish to be as quiet as possible.12

Sir James Mackintosh* wrote sourly of this ‘singular piece of news’:

He is fastidious, indulgent to his own peculiarities and extremely susceptible to annoyance from disagreeable companions, and in short seemed a predetermined bachelor. He is to marry the daughter of a renowned bore and a member of a family so disagreeable that it seems needless to examine the character of any individual of it.13

George Agar Ellis* thought it a ‘foolish’ enterprise.14 After making his way through France to ‘settle my disorderly patrimony in preparation for matrimony’, he arrived in London in early March, ‘high in health and spirits, though somewhat thinner’, according to Lady Holland, whose misgivings over the match proved to be unfounded: it was a happy one, and Eleanor Fazakerley, ‘an amiable, pleasing little woman’, in the words of Henry Edward Fox*, soon became a firm favourite in Whig circles.15 Russell would have liked the vacant seat for the 2nd Earl Fitzwilliam’s borough of Higham Ferrers which went to Lord Normanby in February 1822 to have been assigned to Fazakerley.16 In March the Hollands pressed his pretensions to a vacancy at Lincoln, one of his former seats, on Brougham; but he, who had already encouraged his protégé John Williams* to start and complained to Lord Duncannon* that Lady Holland was ‘working mischief’, dismissed the idea as ‘ridiculous’.17

In the late summer of 1822 Fazakerley, who observed to his friend Edward Davies Davenport* that he longed to see ‘a great republic ... solidly established’ in place of the Austrian monarchy, reluctantly tore himself away from ‘ses bois et ses champs’ at Stoodleigh, as his wife told Mrs. Graham, to go abroad with her.18 They wintered at Nice, from where Fazakerley wrote to Lady Holland, 19 Feb. 1823, that he would be ‘most unhappy if indignation against’ the Franco-Spanish war ‘does not break out in all possible ways in England’, though he supposed that there was ‘no chance of sweeping away the worst of our own Ultras in the storm’.19 The Fazakerleys were in Switzerland in the summer and autumn of 1824, before moving to Rome for the winter. They made an excursion to Naples in the spring of 1825 and then travelled via Florence, Vienna, Salzburg and Prague to Germany, where they visited Berlin, Frankfort, Heidelburg and Baden Baden: Fazakerley, like his wife, had reservations about Germany, being ‘glad to have seen it and to have done with it’. They returned to England by way of Strasbourg and Paris, where Mrs. Fazakerley fell temporarily ill, in August 1825.20 Fazakerley, tempted by the notion of setting up as a gentleman farmer, was considering the purchase of another Devon estate at Courtlands, near Exmouth, which, unlike Stoodleigh, would be inhabitable in winter. His wife, whose tastes were essentially metropolitan, did not relish the prospect of rural immurement so far from her family in London, though she was ultimately ready to fall in with his wishes, as she told Fox:

He is a little out with me about my love of society and towns, which is only natural, as he cannot tell till he tries me whether I shall take to a life so different from what I was made for ... I am not afraid of his continuing dissatisfied with me, for I mean when once the die is cast to take to making butter and feeding chickens in good earnest. It would be too foolish with every essential happiness to throw it away because I do not exactly lead the life that suits my fancy.21

In late October, to the great relief of Eleanor, who perceived that it was ‘a considerable privation to Faz, though the united opinions of all his friends had made him submit to think that it would not be a wise measure’, he gave up the idea of buying Courtlands. They had already settled on Sidmouth for their winter quarters, and were resolved to wait a year or two before deciding what to do with the Stoodleigh estate, which was proving profitable, and where to settle permanently. There was, Mrs. Fazakerley told Fox, ‘some chance of Faz’s coming into Parliament, which delights me for many reasons’; and various unspecified schemes were considered during the following six months.22 At the general election of 1826 he came forward for Lincoln on the Monson interest, under the aegis of Fitzwilliam, and after a sharp contest, in which national political issues seem to have played little part, he was returned with a Tory.23

Fazakerley, writing from Stoodleigh, his summer base, in August 1826, admitted to Lady Holland that ‘I begin to acknowledge the inconvenience of the distance of Devonshire, and I should not be surprised if I made up my mind to sell what I have here, though it would cost me a pang’. Bedford commented to her two months later that ‘the account of Faz is melancholy. He is wholly unfitted to be a country gentleman, and much as I should like to have him for a neighbour in Devon, I heartily wish for his own sake he would sell that estate’.24 Despite suffering from what his wife described as ‘the most abominable cold I almost ever knew him to have’ and subjecting himself to a purgative ‘calomel discipline’, he went to London for the opening of Parliament in November.25 He voted against the duke of Clarence’s grant, 16 Feb., and for inquiry into the conduct of Leicester corporation, 15 Mar., and information on the Orange procession at Lisburn, 29 Mar. 1827. He divided for Catholic relief, 6 Mar. He was in the opposition minorities in the divisions on going into committee of supply, 30 Mar., and the Irish miscellaneous estimates and chancery delays, 5 Apr. Soon afterwards he went to Stoodleigh, but he was back in London by 28 Apr., when Lord Auckland told Lansdowne, who was contemplating throwing in his lot with Canning’s administration, that Fazakerley had ‘just been here with tears in his eyes entreating me to encourage you forward’.26 He voted for the disfranchisement of Penryn, 28 May, but was in the government majority on Canadian water defences, 12 June. He presented petitions for repeal of the Test Acts, 30 May, 7, 15 June 1827.27 At the end of the month he went with his wife to ‘rusticate at Stoodleigh until October’.28 He was thrown into despair by Canning’s death, as he told John Evelyn Denison* in August:

I scarcely knew him ... but ever since the late struggle, all the opinions and principles which I value have been so bound up with Canning’s existence and his power, that certainly no public event ever made me feel so comfortless and despondent. Indeed I cannot see hope in any direction, for if the king were to send for the best of the present men and desire them to form a government, I don’t see how they could manage matters in the House of Commons. Wellington and Peel hang over me like a nightmare. I see no chance of escape. And then what is to become of Ireland and the whole of our foreign policy? All this and the mortification which one feels at the triumph of those base people, his former colleagues.29

A few weeks later, rejoicing that ‘the apolitical are still without the walls’, he congratulated Thomas Frankland Lewis* on his appointment as financial secretary to the treasury in the Goderich ministry and exhorted him to ‘be honest, and to use your influence ... to accomplish every practicable degree of retrenchment, and not to join the senseless and wicked cry of those who say there is no use in small savings’:

The principle on which Canning professed to proceed, and on which Lord Lansdowne joined him, was that the old Tory fortress was not to be taken by storm, but that it was to be gradually and silently undermined by the effect of placing good men in situations of influence ... I think and from the beginning thought them so right in this that I believe no other system would have succeeded and that under any other mode of operating the church and king [party] would have scattered them to the winds.30

He had, however, no faith in Goderich’s competence as premier and placed his ‘hope, and confidence and comfort of every sort’ in Huskisson, despite fears for his health.31 The Fazakerleys left Devon at the end of October, visited Lansdowne at Bowood and moved on by way of Lymington to Brighton, where in December 1827 they were installed, as Lady Holland reported, in ‘a sheltered spot beyond the Pavilion. They both dislike the roar of the sea and howl of the wind’.32

Fazakerley presented Lincoln petitions for repeal of the Malt Act, 8 Feb., and of the stamp duty on receipts, 25 Feb. 1828. He brought up petitions for repeal of the Test Acts, 21, 25, 26 Feb., when he voted for that measure. On 6 Mar. he presented a petition from the freeholders of Lincoln seeking the right to vote for the county. He voted against the proposal to sluice the delinquent borough of East Retford with the freeholders of Bassetlaw, 21 Mar. He voted for Catholic relief, 12 May. He divided against the Wellington ministry on civil list pensions, 20 May, the Irish assessment of lessors bill, 12 June, the archbishop of Canterbury’s bill, 16 June, the garrisons grant, 20 June, the refurbishment of Buckingham House, 23 June, the additional churches bill, 30 June, and the ordnance estimates, 4 and 7 July. He presented a Lincoln petition for repeal of the Act restricting the circulation of one pound notes, 9 June, and one from Calne for the abolition of colonial slavery, 25 July 1828.

Fazakerley, who predicted to Littleton, 20 Sept., that ‘these Brunswick clubs will drive the government to some decision’ on the Catholic question, ‘and as no government is likely to listen to their calls for blood, the decision can hardly fail to be right’, took Sunning Hill, Berkshire as a winter residence that year.33 Eleanor told Fox, 6 Dec. 1828, that

we have no wandering plans at present and shall scarcely form any even of the most limited kind whilst Faz is in Parliament. A dissolution, however, from the king’s health cannot be far off and then perhaps we may go abroad for a few months or a year.34

Fazakerley urged James Abercromby* to use his influence to try to restrain Sir James Graham* and Lord Althorp*, who had been speaking of ‘open war if the duke [of Wellington] does not produce a measure‘ of Catholic emancipation. He subsequently expressed his hope that

all the friends of civil and religious liberty will drop their differences and unite to press for measures of concession. It ought to be agreed to do this in an amendment [to the address] and to take a vote upon the first night, unless ministers announce their intention to do something, and I am ... anxious that this ground should be taken at once, and firm opposition proclaimed to any government that will not settle the question. If Althorp agrees in this view, and acts upon it stoutly from the first, everyone will rally behind him.35

He voted for emancipation, 6, 30 Mar., and presented a constituent’s petition in its favour, 11 Mar. 1829. He brought up a Lincoln petition for repeal of the assessed taxes, 10 Apr. He voted for the transfer of East Retford’s seats to Birmingham, 5 May, but was shut out of the division on Lord Blandford’s reform motion, 2 June. He voted against the grant for the Marble Arch, 25 May, and to reduce the hemp duties, 1 June. He told Stratford Canning*, 10 May 1829, that after the passage of emancipation ‘a languor and a want of interest’ had overcome politicians: ‘The Tories are gradually returning to their natural allegiance and the Whigs would require great provocation to act against ministers’, especially as Peel as home secretary was ‘as liberal on almost all subjects as he dares to be’.36

Fazakerley voted for the amendment to the address, 4 Feb., and on 12 Feb. 1830, expressing his ‘entire concurrence’ in the prayer of the Lincoln petition, presented by his colleague Sibthorp, for repeal of the assessed taxes and the malt duty to help relieve distress, called on ministers to reduce expenditure across the board. He voted with Hume for a remission of taxes, 15 Feb., and was in the opposition minorities on the estimates, 19 Feb., 1 Mar. He voted for the transfer of East Retford’s seats to Birmingham, 11 Feb., 5, 15 Mar., and the enfranchisement of Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester, 23 Feb., but not for Blandford’s reform scheme, 18 Feb. He was one of the 27 opposition Members (he and Russell were examples of the ‘wisest’ among them, in the view of Graham) who met at the Albany, 3 Mar., and agreed to act under Althorp’s leadership to seek reductions in expenditure and taxation.37 He voted assiduously in support of the ensuing parliamentary campaign for economies, and was also in the opposition minority on British interference in the affairs of Portugal, 10 Mar. He voted for Jewish emancipation, 5 Apr., 17 May. He presented petitions against the Tiverton roads bill, 1, 2, 26 Apr., 3 May. ‘Rather tired with the late sittings of the House’, as his wife reported, he went to Stoodleigh ‘to refresh himself in his woods’ during the Easter recess.38 When the House reconvened, he continued to divide steadily with the reviving Whig opposition on most major issues. He voted with O’Connell for revision of the Irish vestry laws, 27 Apr., and with Hume on the four-and-a-half per cent duties, 21 May, but was one of the handful of Whigs who divided with Fitzwilliam’s son Lord Milton against repeal of the Irish coal duties, 13 May.39 He voted for Russell’s reform motion, 28 May, and for abolition of the death penalty for forgery, 7 June 1830.

At the general election a few weeks later Fazakerley abandoned Lincoln and canvassed Arundel on the interest of the 12th duke of Norfolk. His prospects initially appeared promising, but the intervention of a second Whig, which, as he explained to Milton, ‘would have added both to the trouble and expense of the election’, prompted him to withdraw, convinced that he had made the ‘right decision’. He could not ‘summon up courage’ to stand for Pontefract, as Milton apparently suggested, and, writing from Stoodleigh, 24 July 1830, he observed:

It is naturally very painful to me to separate from friends with whom I have so long engaged in the most interesting of all pursuits ... But the best things must have an end, and I shall content myself with observing from these remote fastnesses the progress which you all make in promoting the public good. In this almost unexampled relaxation of public morals, and I am sorry to think indifference in the constituent body, you will have a task more difficult than ever. The difficulties too of the country are becoming greater every day.40

Milton was not alone in regretting Fazakerley’s absence from the next Parliament, reflecting that he and his father had ‘the will, but not the means’ to assist him. Charles Poulett Thomson* told him that ‘I know of no one in the House amongst our common friends whose opinion I ranked so highly or on whose judgement I could so much rely as yours, and I shall badly miss the support I found in them’.41 Fazakerley, who made a brief visit to Rouen in early August, welcomed the successful revolution in France.42 A few weeks later his wife reported his retirement from Parliament to Fox:

I am sorry ... but I think his decision was only prudent under the circumstances ... This country (that is London) is abominably expensive, and we found that our income was not at all more than was absolutely necessary to live (though comfortably) yet very quietly, five months of the year in London; and therefore, when it was a question of sinking a considerable sum of money to come into Parliament, with no reasonable prospect of our common and unavoidable expenses doing anything but increase, we thought it high time to retreat and make the sacrifice in time. Faz dislikes London so much, that though of course sorry to lose the interest of politics and drop his intercourse with many friends whom he saw principally in the House, he does not much care about the matter, and I have already ceased to think about it.

They were undecided, she went on, whether to remain at Stoodleigh for the winter and spring, to take a house at Torquay or to go to Paris.43 In the event, when Milton decided to retire from the House soon after the meeting of Parliament, he brought Fazakerley in for Peterborough in his room, to the pleasure of Althorp, who had considered his exclusion ‘a great grievance’ and regarded him as ‘a very honest man and honest on the best principles’, as well as ‘a well judging man and one whose advice is of great value’.44

Fazakerley, whom Maria Edgeworth met and described as ‘most agreeable’ at about this time,45 told Milton a week after his return that he believed that while the Grey ministry ‘sets out with unexampled difficulties surrounding it on all sides’, it was ‘honestly and seriously intent on surmounting them’: ‘if ... [their] measures are as good as the promises which they have made, they may defy any opposition in Parliament, or appeal with confidence to the country’. Addressing the paramount question of reform, he admitted that he had not been ‘hitherto, or rather I was not till within a few months, a strong reformer’, but that

the last election, and the manner in which several counties broke loose from the old influence of aristocracy and property, convinced me of the necessity of dealing largely with this question: otherwise it was, I thought, clear that if the excitement went on at the next election, the 40s. freeholders throughout England would take the game into their own hands, return Members of extreme popular opinions for every county, and throw such a body into Parliament as would deprive any government of the power of controlling or shaping any measure of reform. Had the late House of Commons acted differently on the questions of East Retford and the great towns, had the counties not acted as they did in many instances at the late election, and, to crown all, had ... Wellington not made so extravagant a declaration on the subject, the case might have been far different; but all these things together have produced a state of feeling with which, added to the real merit of the argument, it would be madness and folly to contend. The new government therefore very wisely at once announce a reform; and every one is very anxious to know what they will do.

For his own part, conceiving that ‘the question concerns less the composition of the House of Commons, than the character and composition of the elective body’, and that the principal object was ‘to reconcile the middling classes to the parliamentary constitution’, he favoured the abolition of ‘decayed boroughs and transferring their rights to populous towns, fixing the right of voting at a reasonable amount of qualification’; opening ‘close corporations’ to ‘resident householders rated at a certain sum’; disfranchising non-resident voters and ‘the lowest of the scot and lot and potwallopers who are the people most open to bribery and profligate corruption’, and making practical arrangements to reduce the cost of elections for counties, where he would raise the freeholders’ qualification and give the vote to respectable copyholders and leaseholders.46 Milton was in broad agreement with him, though he argued strongly against disfranchising all ‘the lower orders’.47 In reply, 10 Jan. 1831, Fazakerley confessed that, on the contrary, he would ‘despair of any system which left a large part of the franchise in the hands of quite the lower orders’, and argued that ‘ballot will not prevent bribery and still less drunkenness’. At the same time, he hoped that Milton would

agree with me in thinking that almost any plan brought forward by this government ought to be supported by persons of our opinions. It is pretty certain to be a great improvement on the present state of things, and any government who will undertake such a measure has in my eyes so much merit and is sure to meet with so many difficulties, that it would require a very strong case to give me courage to vote against them. I feel this not only on the reform question, but generally, that we in our lives have never seen an administration so likely to do good and to act virtuously. Their own characters and the times are guarantees for their good conduct, so I shall go to London with a disposition to be among the most submissive of their adherents. It would indeed be most painful to find myself obliged to think even of acting otherwise.

He was in a dilemma over the recently revealed and ‘frightful’ list of sinecures and pensions: though reluctant to interfere with legal rights, he acknowledged that ‘the proof of corruption here is so flagrant and the amount so enormous, and the whole system so flagitious, that I long to find in my own mind a plea for attacking them’.48 Fazakerley, who was named to the select committee on the East India Company, 4 Feb. (and again, 28 June), was pleased with what Lansdowne, a member of the cabinet, hinted about the scope of their reform scheme.49 He attended the debates on the English reform bill and voted silently for the second reading, 22 Mar., and against Gascoyne’s wrecking amendment, 19 Apr.50 Ludicrously, Holland had suggested to Grey, 4 Mar. 1831. that he ‘might possibly do well as secretary at war’ in the room of Williams Wynn; he was not appointed.51

Fazakerley was returned unopposed for Peterborough at the 1831 general election, but appears to have been an absentee, probably because of poor health, for most of the first session of the new Parliament, when the only known traces of his activity are his pairings on the ministerial side for the divisions on the second reading of the re-introduced reform bill, 6 July, and on details of the measure, 5, 9, 17 Aug. His friend Sir James Macdonald* told him, 14 Sept., that he ‘ought not to hesitate’ to go up for the third reading, and he was present to vote for the passage of the bill, 21 Sept.52 The following day he was granted three weeks’ leave on account of his daughter’s illness. He went up from Stoodleigh to vote for the motion of confidence in the Grey ministry after the bill’s defeat in the Lords, 10 Oct. A fortnight later he expressed to Milton his hope that the peers, having made their point, would be ‘more tractable’, especially if public opinion continued to run strongly in support of reform. Although he was a little concerned at the evidence furnished by the Dorset and Cambridgeshire by-elections of disaffection among the agricultural interest, despite its generous treatment under the reform bill, he attributed it largely to ‘the fear of free corn’.53 He developed a worry that there was ‘some hitch with the king about the reform bill’, on which Littleton reassured him.54 He made the journey from Devon to vote for the second reading of the revised bill, 17 Dec. 1831. At the close of the year his wife, writing from Bowood, told Fox that their child was improving and that Fazakerley was ‘quite well, though he still coughs’.55

He was much more assiduous in his attendance in the 1832 session, when he voted generally for the details of the reform bill, though he was one of the minority of 32 who opposed ratification of the £50 tenants-at-will franchise, 1 Feb. He divided for the third reading, 22 Mar. He voted with government on the Russian-Dutch loan, 27 Jan., their policy on Portugal, 9 Feb., and the navy civil departments bill, 6 Apr. He presented a Peterborough petition against the general register bill, 31 Jan. He was added to the East India committee, 1 Feb., and named to that on slavery, 30 May. Kept in London during April by his wife’s advanced state of pregnancy, he continued to fret about the reform bill’s prospects in the Lords.56 He voted for the address calling on the king to appoint only ministers who would carry it unimpaired, 10 May, the Irish bill, 25 May, and the Scottish measure, 1 June. He was in the majority in favour of making coroner’s inquests public, 20 June. On 29 June 1832 he was given a month’s leave to attend to urgent private business.

Fazakerley resisted attempts to get him to stand for the Northern division of Devon at the general election of 1832, when he came in again unopposed for Peterborough.57 He headed the poll there in 1835 and 1837 and retired from Parliament at the dissolution of 1841, his last four years as a Member having been marred by wretched health, which drove him abroad.58 He became something of a pundit on the poor laws and, as ‘a sensible man and moderate Whig’, in the words of Greville, supported the Grey and Melbourne administrations.59 From the latter in 1835 he turned down offers of the government of Canada and, ‘after a good deal of doubt’, a special mission to Brussels, concluding that he was ‘almost too old to begin so completely new a course of life’.60 Widowed in 1847, he sold Stoodleigh and acquired a property at Burwood House, near Walton-on-Thames, Surrey, where he died in July 1852.61 By his will of 4 Apr. 1845, amended after his wife’s death by four codicils, he created a trust fund to provide for his daughters, his only surviving son and namesake, who entered University College, Oxford in 1852, aged 18, having been catered for by the terms of his marriage settlement. His personalty was sworn under £50,000, with a taxable residue of £42,872.62

Ref Volumes: 1820-1832

Author: David R. Fisher


  • 1. At Wasing (IGI, Berks.). His younger brother William, who entered Christ Church in 1807, was bap. at Wasing 1 Oct. 1788.
  • 2. Add. 48215, f. 25.
  • 3. Not 16 July as stated in HP Commons, 1790-1820, iii. 733.
  • 4. Smith Letters, ii. 565.
  • 5. Hatherton diary, 18 Jan. [1832].
  • 6. JRL, Bromley Davenport mss, Fazakerley to E.D. Davenport, 6 Oct. 1818.
  • 7. Wentworth Woodhouse mun. F48/161.
  • 8. Castle Howard mss, Morpeth to wife [13 Mar. 1820].
  • 9. Add. 48215, f. 11; 51654, Lady Holland to Mackintosh [3 Apr.]; 51667, Bedford to Lady Holland, 22 May [1820].
  • 10. Bromley Davenport mss, Fazakerley to Davenport, 4 Apr. 1820; Add. 48215, ff. 11, 13, 15.
  • 11. Edgeworth Letters, 225, 228-9; Lady Lyttelton Corresp. 233.
  • 12. Add. 48215, f. 19; 51576, Fazakerley to Lady Holland, 4 Jan.; 51687, Lansdowne to Holland, 21 Jan. 1822.
  • 13. Add. 52445, f. 37.
  • 14. Northants. RO, Agar Ellis diary, 20 Jan. [1822].
  • 15. Bromley Davenport mss, Fazakerley to Davenport, 25 Feb. 1822; Lady Holland to Son, 10; Fox Jnl. 100, 122, 157, 194; Add. 48215, ff. 21, 25.
  • 16. Add. 51679, Russell to Lady Holland [Jan. 1822].
  • 17. Add. 51562, Brougham to Holland [14 Mar.]; Bessborough mss, same to Duncannon [14 Mar. 1822].
  • 18. Bromley Davenport mss, Fazakerley to Davenport, 24 July, 28 Sept. 1822; Add. 48215, f. 27.
  • 19. Bromley Davenport mss, Fazakerley to Davenport, 16 Nov. 1822; Add. 51576.
  • 20. Fox Jnl. 194-5; Add. 52011, Mrs. Fazakerley to Fox, 1 Oct. [1824], 1, 12, 21 Feb. 1825; Bromley Davenport mss, Fazakerley to Davenport, 25 July 1825.
  • 21. Add. 52011, Mrs. Fazakerley to Fox, 21 Feb., 7, 19, 29 Aug., 16 Sept.; 52017, Townshend to same, 30 Aug. 1825.
  • 22. Add. 52011, Mrs. Fazakerley to Fox, 25, 31 Oct., 8, 11 Dec. 1825, 4, 8 Apr. 1826; 52017, Townshend to same, 30 Oct. 1825; Lansdowne mss, Lansdowne to Spring Rice, 27 Oct. 1825.
  • 23. Lincoln, Rutland and Stamford Mercury, 5 May, 2, 9, 16 June; The Times, 2, 3, 5, 10, 12, 13 June 1826.
  • 24. Add. 51576, Fazakerley to Lady Holland, 12 Aug.; 51669, Bedford to same, 15 Oct. [1826].
  • 25. Add. 52011, Mrs. Fazakerley to Fox, 24 Nov.; Surr. Hist. Cent. Goulburn mss Acc 304/67A, Goulburn to wife, 27 Nov. 1826.
  • 26. Add. 52011, Mrs. Fazakerley to Fox [15 Apr. 1827]; Canning’s Ministry, 267.
  • 27. The Times, 31 May, 8, 16 June 1827.
  • 28. Add. 52011, Mrs. Fazakerley to Fox, 2 July 1827.
  • 29. Nottingham Univ. Lib. Ossington mss OsC 47.
  • 30. NLW, Harpton Court mss C/416.
  • 31. Hatherton mss, Fazakerley to Littleton, 29 Sept. 1827.
  • 32. Add. 52011, Mrs. Fazakerley to Fox, 3 Nov. 1827; Lady Holland to Son, 72.
  • 33. Hatherton mss.
  • 34. Add. 52011.
  • 35. NLS mss 24770, ff. 23, 29.
  • 36. TNA FO352/10B/7.
  • 37. Castle Howard mss, Graham to Morpeth [3 Mar. 1830].
  • 38. Add. 52011, Mrs. Fazakerley to Fox, 14 Apr. 1830.
  • 39. Grey mss, Howick jnl. 13 May [1830].
  • 40. Brighton Guardian, 7, 14 July; Lincoln, Rutland and Stamford Mercury, 9 July; Add. 51813, Phillimore to Holland, 14 July 1830; Wentworth Woodhouse mun. G2/11, 18.
  • 41. Castle Howard mss, Milton to Lady Carlisle, 25 July 1830; Add. 61937, f. 116.
  • 42. Add. 51576, Fazakerley to Lady Holland, 11 Aug. [1830]; 61937, f. 114.
  • 43. Add. 52011, Mrs. Fazakerley to Fox, 22 Aug. 1830.
  • 44. Add. 61937, f. 120; Fitzwilliam mss, Althorp to Milton [14 Nov. 1830].
  • 45. Edgeworth Letters, 439.
  • 46. Fitzwilliam mss, Fazakerley to Milton, 3 Dec. 1830.
  • 47. Add. 61937, f. 120.
  • 48. Fitzwilliam mss.
  • 49. Lansdowne mss, Fazakerley to Lansdowne, 28 Jan. 1831.
  • 50. Add. 51576, Fazakerley to Holland [4 Mar., 17, 19 Apr. 1831].
  • 51. Grey mss.
  • 52. Add. 61937, f. 125.
  • 53. Wentworth Woodhouse mun. G83/142.
  • 54. Hatherton diary, 18 Nov. [1831].
  • 55. Add. 52011, Mrs. Fazakerley to Fox, 29 Dec. [1831].
  • 56. Wentworth Woodhouse mun. G83/149-52.
  • 57. Duke Univ. Lib. Fazakerley mss, N. Fellowes to Fazakerley, 6 Sept. 1832.
  • 58. Add. 52011, Mrs. Fazakerley to Fox, 3, 11, 23 Oct. 1839, 18 Dec. 1840, 6 Feb. 1842, 15 Sept. 1845; Bromley Davenport mss, Fazakerley to Davenport, 18 Mar., 14 July 1846.
  • 59. Fazakerley mss, Sturges Bourne to Fazakerley, 4 Oct. 1832; Three Diaries, 319, 327; Add. 48215, ff. 47, 63; Greville Mems. iv. 23.
  • 60. Holland House Diaries, 323; Add. 48215, f. 63; 61937, ff. 134, 135.
  • 61. The Times, 16, 19 July 1852.
  • 62. PROB 11/2157/629; IR26/1931/439.