BELASYSE, Thomas, 2nd Viscount Fauconberg (1628-1700), of Newburgh, Coxwold, Yorks.

The Belasyse family were among the greater gentry of Yorkshire, and were closely related to the Fairfaxes and the Cholmeleys. Sir Henry Belasyse† had represented Thirsk in the later Elizabethan Parliaments, and his son, Thomas†, continued the tradition through to 1627, when he was created Baron Fauconberg of Yarm by Charles I.20HP Commons 1558-1603; HP Commons 1604-1629. At the outbreak of the civil wars, the Belasyses supported the king, and Baron Fauconberg was promoted to become 1st Viscount Fauconberg in January 1643. He fought at Marston Moor in 1644, and thereafter fled to the continent, where he became a Roman Catholic. As his eldest son had died in 1647, on the 1st Viscount’s death in 1653 the title and estates passed to his grandson, Thomas, who became 2nd Viscount at the age of 25.21CP.

The details of Fauconberg’s upbringing are unclear. He may have attended Trinity College, Cambridge, and it was later said that he had travelled abroad during the first civil war.22Second Narrative of the Late Parliament (1658), 10 (E.977.3). He was in England in 1651, when he married the daughter of 2nd Viscount Castleton, and there was evident relief in government circles when it was discovered, on his grandfather’s death, that the heir was a Protestant, receiving communion and retaining a suitable chaplain. It was only with these assurances that he was allowed to inherit the family estate.23HMC Var. ii. 115. After the death of his first wife in May 1656, Fauconberg went to France, receiving a pass from the council on 7 January 1657.24CSP Dom. 1656-7, p. 239. It was while resident in Paris that he came to the attention of Oliver Cromwell’s ambassador, Sir William Lockhart*, and the secretary of state, John Thurloe*. In February 1657 Thurloe asked Lockhart to befriend Fauconberg, then resident in Paris, as he might be a useful influence in Yorkshire.25CCSP iii. 254. Lockhart’s initial efforts were delayed by Fauconberg’s departure for Italy, but he had returned to Paris by the end of March, and Lockhart was at last able to secure an interview, which left him with a very favourable impression. He told Thurloe that Fauconberg was ‘a person of extraordinary parts, and hath (appearingly) all those qualities in a high measure, that can be fit for his highness’s and country’s service, for both of which he owns a particular zeal’.26TSP vi. 134.

By this stage, it was hoped that Fauconberg might become a suitable husband of the protector’s youngest daughter, Mary; the match perhaps being initially suggested by the protector’s friend, William Pierrepont*, who had been a trustee of the marriage settlement of Fauconberg’s first wife.27C54/3696/24. Further investigations were undertaken by Lockhart, who was careful to get assurances from Fauconberg that he was not a Catholic, as well as sounding out his opinion of the kingship question under discussion with Cromwell. To the last enquiry Lockhart received the very satisfactory reply that Fauconberg ‘is of the opinion that the intended settlement will be very acceptable to all the nobility and gentry of his country’.28TSP vi. 134. In early April marriage negotiations were in full swing, with Fauconberg’s agent reporting back that the main stumbling block was no longer religion but the value of his estate, and that he had done his best to set the protector’s mind at rest on the latter account.29CCSP iii. 271; CSP Dom. 1656-7, p. 324. On 26 May Lockhart reported to Thurloe that he had waited on Fauconberg, who ‘professed much zeal in the business’.30CSP Dom. 1656-7, p. 386. Despite the apparent eagerness on both sides, the marriage did not take place until 18 November, perhaps delayed in part by the need to conclude the nuptials of Mary’s sister, Frances, who married Robert Rich a week earlier. The ceremony took place at Hampton Court, and was followed by a feast including staged pastoral ‘songs’ by Andrew Marvell*, following the tradition of the court masques of the early Stuarts. The marriage portion offered with the bride was £15,000.31HMC Var. ii. 115. Thurloe was well pleased, telling Henry Cromwell* that he thought Fauconberg ‘a person of very great parts and sobriety’, and an asset to the protector and his family.32TSP vi. 628.

According to the Venetian resident, Fauconberg’s marriage caused ‘universal amazement’ in London, as ‘not only himself but all his house have always favoured the king’. He added that as the viscount was ‘an accomplished young man of many talents and undaunted courage’, and that he was now expected to take a seat on the protector’s council and to be entrusted ‘with all the government of the north’.33CSP Ven. 1657-9, pp. 133-4. Others speculated that Fauconberg would succeed the recently drowned Sir John Reynolds* as general of the English forces in Flanders, as well as becoming president of a resurrected council of the north.34CSP Dom. 1657-8, p. 232, 259, 266. These stories proved false. Fauconberg’s only immediate rewards were a seat in the Other House, to which he was summoned in December 1657, and, a month later, the command of the horse regiment recently relinquished by John Lambert*.35HMC Lords, n.s. iv. 504; Clarke Pprs. iii. 132. Nevertheless, Fauconberg’s marriage was greeted with dismay by the royalists, with one of Edward Hyde’s* agents reporting that the match, along with the marriage of the daughter of Lord Fairfax (Sir Thomas Fairfax*) to George Villiers, 2nd duke of Buckingham, had lost ‘the two great families in the north’ to the king.36CCSP iii. 399. The opponents of the protectorate in England were equally apprehensive, seeing Fauconberg as likely to be ‘one of his council, as well as his son-in-law’, and bemoaning that, as a Member of the Other House, he enjoyed power ‘over all that advanced their lives in the cause formerly, and over all the people of these lands besides’.37Second Narrative of the Late Parliament, 10.

When the second protectorate Parliament reconvened in January 1658, Fauconberg attended the Other House as the only true peer (as traditionally defined), apart from Lord Eure.38Clarke Pprs. iv. 133. He sat every day of the brief sitting, taking the oath on 20 January, being named to the committee of privileges the following day, and to the committee on a bill for levying penalties for profaning the Lord’s Day and for swearing and drunkenness on 26 January.39HMC Lords, n.s. iv. 504-23. Until recognised by the Commons, and thus integrated within the legislative system, there was little that the Members of the Other House could achieve. Fauconberg found this frustrating, telling Lockhart on 25 January that the Commons were ‘still a little pettish, refusing, on a message sent them from the House of Lords, to own them as such’.40CSP Dom. 1657-8, p. 273. The use of the term ‘House of Lords’ reveals Fauconberg’s own views on the subject of the legitimacy, and potential, of the Other House. This was natural to a man who clearly considered himself to be a key member of the protectoral family. In January 1658 he was confident enough to reassure Lockhart (who had married the protector’s niece) that there was no ill feeling between him and Richard Cromwell*.41CSP Dom. 1657-8, p. 273. He also courted Henry Cromwell in Ireland, emphasising that he now had ‘the nearest degree of alliance with your lordship’s family’.42Henry Cromwell Corresp. 353. Henry was prepared to welcome his new brother-in-law, whom he saw as an ally against the more obstreperous elements within the army.43TSP vi. 752-3; vii. 101. There were other signs of intimacy in the next few months. Fauconberg joined Richard Cromwell as a representative of the family at the funeral of Robert Rich in March, and he repeated the performance at the obsequies for Elizabeth Claypoole in August.44Abbott, Writings and Speeches, iv. 755, 866. The Fauconbergs were also favourites of the protector. The vast quasi-regal mansion of New Hall in Essex was purchased for the viscountess as part of her jointure lands in June 1658; and she was allowed to occupy the apartments formerly belonging to James Stuart, 1st duke of Richmond, at Hampton Court.45C54/3996/17; SP18/203/41. The political influence now wielded by Fauconberg can be seen in May 1658, when he was identified as a key figure in the dispute between the duchess of Hamilton and James Hamilton, 2nd earl of Abercorn. According to the duchess’s agent, ‘our petition was given by my Lord Fauconberg as he went into the council’.46NRS, GD 406/1/2538.

This closeness to the protector and his family made Fauconberg a controversial figure. In the spring of 1658 there were further rumours that he would be granted high office – perhaps replacing General George Monck* as commander in Scotland - and one royalist agent reported that Fauconberg and another of Cromwell’s sons-in-law, John Claypoole*, were refused admittance to their commands by the army in early March.47CSP Dom. 1657-8, p. 341; CCSP iv. 19. Fauconberg’s familiarity with France made him an obvious choice as envoy to Paris at the end of May. He journeyed ‘with great pomp and a numerous suite’, even though it was said that ‘he is merely to pay his highness’s respects to his majesty’, and to deliver presents of ‘fine horses’ and hunting dogs for the French king.48CSP Ven. 1657-9, pp. 204, 208-9, 212. Fauconberg had returned to Whitehall by 8 June, when he told Henry Cromwell of his pleasure at having received ‘the honourablest reception imaginable’ during his Parisian sojourn.49TSP vii. 158.

The death of Oliver Cromwell on 3 September 1658 was a major blow, but one that Fauconberg was already prepared for. Four days earlier he had told Henry that his father was unlikely to recover, and that ‘the consideration of the miserable posture he leaves these nations in is stupendous’ – not least because the protector still had not declared his successor. He also warned of those who might challenge Richard as rightful heir, reporting that the army officers had met, but those known to be loyal Cromwellians had not been invited - ‘by which you may guess at something’.50TSP vii. 365. Fauconberg’s predictions were all too accurate, and his prominence as a supporter of Richard Cromwell as the new protector incurred the enmity of the army interest, led by Charles Fleetwood* and John Disbrowe*. On 28 September Fauconberg told Henry of his fears that ‘the cabal gets ground apace’, but that he had made use of ‘a false brother among them’ who kept him informed of the machinations among the officers at Wallingford House, ‘and tells me all, even their closest debates’.51TSP vii. 413. As yet no moves were made against Fauconberg, and he spent much of the autumn strengthening his ties with the French government, working with Edward Montagu*.52F. Guizot, History of Richard Cromwell transl. A.R. Scoble (2 vols, 1856), i. 233. In October the French ambassador wrote to Cardinal Mazarin of the success of his meetings with Fauconberg, who had ‘professed to feel real zeal for your service, and attachment to the interests of France’.53Guizot, Richard Cromwell, i. 240-1. The subsequent negotiations with the French court concerning gifts of horses for Fauconberg and jewels for his wife should be seen as part of the elaborate etiquette of diplomatic gift-giving rather than outright bribery.54Guizot, Richard Cromwell, i. 241, 246, 248, 314, 346. The traffic was clearly in both directions. In a sign of his continuing favour at Whitehall, on 26 October the council granted Fauconberg £500 to pay for a jewel he had presented to one of the French agents during his earlier embassy to Paris.55PRO31/17/33, p. 140; Add. 38854, f. 56. On 1 December Fauconberg moved the council to give a pass to his brother, Roland Belasyse, to travel to France, perhaps as an informal agent at the French court.56PRO31/17/33, p. 232.

On 23 November 1658 Fauconberg was one of the supporters of the chief mourner, Charles Fleetwood, in the funeral procession of the late protector.57Burton’s Diary, ii. 529. This was a sign of unity within the Cromwell family, but it would not last. At the end of November Fauconberg told Henry Cromwell that the ‘factious party’, headed by Disbrowe and the disgraced John Lambert, were seeking new allies among the republicans, ‘discovering themselves not strong enough to carry on designs alone’.58TSP vii. 428. In December Fleetwood accused Fauconberg, with Edward Montagu and Richard Ingoldsby*, of conspiring against him and Disbrowe.59CCSP iv. 118. The resultant row, and Richard’s support of Fauconberg (who was not present) led Disbrowe to become ‘so angry as to say he would never set foot in the council again, if Lord Fauconberg … were not excluded’.60Guizot, Richard Cromwell, i. 271, 273-4.

When the third protectorate Parliament convened on 27 January 1659, Fauconberg attended the Other House and took the oath. On 31 January he was named to the committee to consider the existing laws on the sabbath and moral failings, to see how they might be improved.61HMC Lords, n.s. iv. 524-5, 528-9. Thereafter, his attendance became irregular. He was present on 9 February, when he was named to a committee to consider how laws against the use of the Book of Common Prayer might be revised, but did not sit again until the end of February; and he disappeared again in early March, reappearing on 21 March when he was named to the committee to search the records for precedents concerning the House of Lords.62HMC Lords, n.s. iv. 534-552. The reasons for his long absences are unclear, although he may have become frustrated at the slowness of the Commons to recognise the upper chamber. If Henry, Lord Mordaunt, is to be believed, Fauconberg may also have found Richard reluctant to take his advice

The Lord Fauconberg protests that [Richard] Cromwell is so remiss a person, that he cannot play his own game, much less another man’s, and is thereby discouraged from acting in business, having also many enemies who oppose his gaining either power or interest in the army or civil government because they conceive his principles contrary to theirs. He says Thurloe governs Cromwell, and [Oliver] St John* and [William] Pierrepont govern Thurloe.63Bodl. Clarendon 60, f. 98.

The threat from Fleetwood and Disbrowe had not abated, however, and in mid-February Fauconberg warned Henry Cromwell that they were planning to increase their opposition to Richard in Parliament, encouraged by ‘the factious part of the officers here’, and in secret alliance with Lambert.64TSP vii. 612. On 29 March Fauconberg was able to report to Henry that the Commons had at last voted ‘to transact with the Other House as a House of Parliament’, and he was also encouraged by developments ‘without doors … so that all sober, honest men begin now to renew their hopes of a settlement’.65Henry Cromwell Corresp. 486. His optimism soon passed. In mid-April he joined loyal Cromwellian officers in opposing moves by the council of officers to bring a ‘representation’ before Parliament, but complained ‘we were too few to alter the whole, only with some difficulty it was amended in several places’. He was increasingly concerned that the senior officers, supported by ‘the commonwealthsmen and the dregs of the army’ were gaining in influence in the Commons.66Henry Cromwell Corresp. 499-500. The growing crisis of late April brought Fauconberg back to the Other House, and he attended every day from 18 April until the army forced the dissolution of Parliament on 22nd.67HMC Lords, n.s. iv. 561-5. On 20 April it was widely reported that Fauconberg was one of those who had counselled Richard not to give way to Fleetwood and Disbrowe, and was a leading light among the officers preparing to muster troops in defence of the protector.68CSP Dom. 1658-9, p. 335; CCSP iv. 184. When Richard gave way to pressure and dissolved Parliament, Fauconberg was vulnerable, and it was said that he left London the same day.69Bodl. Clarendon 60, f. 411v. Within the week he had been stripped of his command, and the regiment returned to Lambert’s command.70Firth and Davies, Regimental Hist. i. 259.

Following his rapid departure there were rumours that Fauconberg intended to raise a party in the north to support Richard.71CCSP iv. 191; CSP Dom. 1658-9, p. 336. These accounts are corroborated by two other sources. The first, a report of an exchange between William Goodrick, former major of Fauconberg’s regiment, and George Monck, dated 2 May, shows that Goodrick was acting as the viscount’s agent, delivering a message that received the distinctly dusty reply that ‘his highness having dissolved the Parliament, he [Monck] could not adhere to him’.72Clarke Pprs. v. 292. This fits precisely with Edmund Ludlowe II’s* account that those around Richard were attempting a counter-stroke in early May: ‘the chief instruments made use of in this design were the Lord Fauconberg and Colonel [Charles] Howard*, who … held a correspondence with Colonel Monck, who was not a little suspected by the confederated officers of Wallingford House’.73Ludlow, Mems. ii. 72. By early June, however, the protectorate had collapsed completely; and the Fauconbergs resolved to retire quietly to their Yorkshire estates.74CSP Dom. 1658-9, p. 367.

Fauconberg’s continued support for the doomed protector makes it improbable that he had any dealings with the Stuart court before the summer of 1659. Hyde later alleged that Oliver Cromwell had been suspicious of his son-in-law as early as the summer of 1658, having ‘plainly discovered that … his heart was set upon an interest destructive to his, and grew to hate him perfectly’, but there is no contemporary evidence to support this.75Clarendon, Hist. vi. 90. In October 1658 Hyde was told that Fauconberg had lost patience with the army, and had retired to his estates; and a month later it was said that the protector had excluded him from Whitehall, because of his overt royalism.76CCSP iv. 100, 111. Neither story had any basis in fact. In January 1659 there were hopes that Fauconberg’s uncle, John Belasyse*, 1st Baron Belasyse of Worlaby, could encourage him to work as a go-between with Richard Cromwell, but this was as much as the royalists could hope for.77CCSP iv. 130. During the spring the intelligence reaching Hyde confirmed that Fauconberg was a staunch supporter of his brother-in-law, and efforts to ‘turn’ him had no effect until the fall of the protectorate, when, in late June or early July, Belasyse apparently persuaded him to join a group of nobles who sent money to Charles Stuart in exile.78CCSP iv. 168, 184, 250; Mordaunt Letter-Bk. 27n, 29. This encouraged Sir John Grenvile† to ask the king for a commission to various nobles, including Fauconberg, to treat with Monck, but nothing seems to have come of this initiative.79Mordaunt Letter-Bk. 115n. There is no doubt that Fauconberg was treated with the greatest suspicion by the supporters of the restored Rump, however, and in September the council of state ordered that he should be arrested and sent to the Tower of London.80Whitelocke Diary, ed. Spalding, 532.

In the early weeks of 1660 Fauconberg was still in Yorkshire, where he joined Fairfax in greeting Monck on his march south. Thereafter he became an associate of the general, and was given command of Sir Arthur Hesilrige’s* regiment in April.81HMC Var. ii. 115.. Despite his Cromwellian connections, Fauconberg’s compliance during the months before the Restoration ensured his place at the court of Charles II. His diplomatic experience proved useful to the new regime, and he went to Italy as ambassador in 1669. On his return he was made captain of the gentlemen pensioners and a privy councillor. Fauconberg opposed James II, and was engaged in plots with Dutch agents as early as 1687. His support for William III was rewarded in April 1689, when he was made Earl Fauconberg. He died childless in 1700, and was succeeded as 3rd Viscount Fauconberg by his nephew, Thomas Belasyse. With the latter’s death the earldom became extinct.82CP; Oxford DNB.