FITZROY, Henry, earl of Euston (I) (1790-1863), of 7 Grosvenor Place, London; Euston Hall, Suffolk and Salsay, Northamptonshire

Fitzroy, known by the courtesy title of the earl of Euston, was the eldest son of the fourth duke of Grafton, owner of extensive estates in Norfolk, Suffolk and Northamptonshire.1B. Falk, The royal Fitzroys: dukes of Grafton through four centuries (1950), 7, 236. The fourth duke had briefly represented Thetford before coming for Cambridge University in 1784, and though initially a Tory, had become a steadfast supporter of the Whigs by the time he succeeded to the dukedom in 1811.2HP Commons, 1790-1820, iii. 767-8. Unlike his father, who had been a successful racehorse owner, Euston cared little for the turf and even less for gambling, a favourite pastime of his younger brothers.3Baily’s Magazine of sports and pastimes (1863), 159. A deeply committed Anglican, Euston instead devoted his whole life to church-going. He was also a staunch opponent of alcohol consumption.4Falk, Royal Fitzroys, 236.

Euston had been returned to the Commons by his father for Bury St. Edmunds in 1818 and again in 1826. He generally supported the Whigs and in 1830 had voted steadily for various parliamentary reform proposals.5HP Commons, 1820-1832, v. 143-5. In 1831, however, he declared his opposition to the Grey ministry’s reform bill on the grounds that he had ‘never been for wholesale disenfranchisement as a means of achieving reform’, and retired at the dissolution.6Bury and Norwich Post, 6 Apr. 1831; The Times, 8 Apr. 1831. Despite his hostility to the reform bill, he remained sympathetic to the Whig cause, though, as was later noted, ‘he was of too independent a character to be considered a very decided partisan’.7Gent. Mag. (1863), i. 657.

Euston sought a return to the Commons in August 1834 when he offered as a Reformer for a vacancy at Thetford caused by the death of his youngest brother Lord James Henry Fitzroy. Although the Grafton interest was strong enough to return one member, a group of local tradesmen, dismayed at the family’s lack of financial outlay in the borough, sought to bring forward their own candidate, but a requisition asking a local barrister to stand against them eventually came to nothing, leaving Euston to be elected unopposed.8Morning Chronicle, 7 Aug. 1834; The Times, 7 Aug. 1834. He was also returned without opposition at the 1835 general election, when he declared himself ‘a steady friend to reform’.9Parliamentary test book (1835), 55.

Despite such statements, Euston again deserted his party on a major issue when he voted for the Conservative Charles Manners Sutton for speaker, 19 Feb. 1835. However, he immediately returned to the Whig fold, dividing in opposition to Peel on the address, 26 Feb. 1835, and for Irish church appropriation, 2 Apr. 1835. Thereafter he steadily supported the Melbourne ministry’s Irish policy, though his attendance was generally poor. Like his father, he made little impact in the Commons and is not known to have spoken in the post-Reform era. His select committee work appears to have been limited to that on the handloom weavers’ petition.10PP 1835 (341), xiii. 2.

Re-elected without opposition in 1837, Euston, on the rare occasions when he troubled the division lobbies, continued to give silent support to the Whig government. Although a devout Anglican, he voted against John Plumptree’s motion condemning the Maynooth grant, 23 June 1840. He opposed Peel’s motion of no confidence in the Whig ministry, 4 June 1841.

At the 1841 general election Euston was opposed for the first time by a second Conservative candidate. The last to begin a canvass, Euston ran a lacklustre campaign and was repeatedly attacked with the accusation that his family did not represent the best interests of the Thetford’s ‘independent’ electors.11Norfolk Chronicle, 12 June 1841; Bury and Norwich Post, 7 July 1841. Yet, despite a sustained and coordinated opposition from the two Conservative candidates, Euston tied with Sir James Flower for second place. The mayor declared a double return and all three candidates were gazetted as MPs.12Bury and Norwich Post, 30 June 1841; Norfolk Chronicle, 3 July 1841; London Gazette, 23 July 1841. However, after Flower petitioned against the result, 26 Aug. 1841, the election committee struck off a bad vote for Euston, who was unseated, 4 May 1842.13PP 1842 (548), v. 25. He does not appear to have attended the Commons in the interim.

Euston succeeded as the fifth duke of Grafton on his father’s death in September 1844. In the Lords he made occasional and brief interventions on some of the main issues of the day, including railway legislation and distress in Ireland. Hitherto, the dukes of Grafton had been hereditary receivers-general of the profits of the seals in the courts of the queen’s bench and common pleas, but in 1845 the office was abolished and substituted with a pension of £843 per annum by an Act of Parliament (7 & 8 Vict. c. 34).14Gent. Mag. (1863), i. 657. In the final years of his life, Grafton became increasingly eccentric. He resided mainly at the family seat at Wakefield Lodge, Northamptonshire, where he kept entirely to one room, which he insisted on cleaning himself.15Falk, Royal Fitzroys, 236.

Grafton died at Wakefield Lodge in March 1863.16Bury and Norwich Post, 31 Mar. 1863. He was succeeded by his eldest son, William, who had been the Liberal Member for Thetford since 1847. Unlike Grafton, William, with his passion for horseracing and gambling, was a typical Fitzroy.17Falk, Royal Fitzroys, 236. The family papers and correspondence are held by the Suffolk Record Office.18Suffolk RO, Grafton Mss.