FAGG, Sir John, 1st Bt. (1627-1701), of Wiston, nr. Steyning, Suss.

Published in The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1690-1715, ed. D. Hayton, E. Cruickshanks, S. Handley, 2002
Available from Boydell and Brewer



3 Oct. 1645 - 1653
1654 - 1655
1656 - 1658
1660 - Jan. 1681
Mar. 1681
Mar. 1681
1685 - 1687
1689 - 18 Jan. 1701

Family and Education

b. 4 Oct. 1627, o. s. of John Fagg of Rye, Suss. by Elizabeth, da. of Barnaby Hodgson of Framfield, Suss.  educ. Emmanuel, Camb. 1644; G. Inn 1644.  m. (1) 19 Mar. 1646, Mary (d. 1687), da. of Robert Morley of Glynde, Suss., 9s. (4 d.v.p.) 5da.; (2) Anne (d. 1694), da. of Philip Weston of Newbury, Berks., wid. of Thomas Henshaw of Billingshurst, Suss., s.psuc. fa. 1645; cr. Bt. 11 Dec. 1660.1

Offices Held

Commr. high ct. of justice 1649; councillor of state 31 Dec. 1659–25 Feb. 1660.2

Col. of ft. 1659, Feb.–July 1660.3

Commr. for derelict lands, Suss. and Hants 1696.4


A wealthy Sussex squire and Presbyterian, Fagg had influence in several boroughs and in 1690 had already a long parliamentary career behind him when he was returned for Steyning, where he retained a strong interest, owning property in the borough in addition to his estate at Wiston, two miles away. Indeed, Fagg was to represent the borough until the end of his career. He was classed as a Whig by Lord Carmarthen (Sir Thomas Osborne†) in March 1690, and as a doubtful but possible Country supporter by Robert Harley* in April 1691. On 29 Dec. 1691 he spoke against a bill to encourage privateers, on the grounds that it would allow trade with France. He spoke on 26 Jan. 1692 against a bill for the repair of highways, as being particularly disadvantageous to Sussex. He was granted leave of absence four times in this Parliament: for 14 days on 29 Dec. 1692; 14 days due to his brother’s illness on 22 Feb. 1693; 14 days due to his wife’s illness on 15 Mar. 1694; and an unspecified time to recover his own health on 19 Mar. 1695. It was a pattern of absence which continued for the remainder of his career. He was classed as a Court supporter by Grascome in his list of 1693–5. In the next Parliament he was forecast in January 1696 as a probable supporter of the Court on the proposed council of trade, and signed the Association promptly, but on 27 Feb. he was granted leave of absence for the recovery of his health, which must account for his absence from the division in March on the price of guineas. In the next session he voted on 25 Nov. 1696 in favour of the attainder of Sir John Fenwick†. On 24 Feb. 1697 and on 5 Apr. 1698, he was once more granted leave, again because of ill-health.

Classed, somewhat surprisingly, as a member of the Country party in about September 1698, he voted on 18 Jan. 1699 against the bill for disbanding the army, and as before was granted leave of absence for health reasons on 27 Mar. 1699. Listed as being in the Junto interest in an analysis of the House of early 1700, he was granted leave of absence on 23 Mar. 1700 to recover his health. He successfully contested Steyning in the first 1701 election but died shortly afterwards, on 18 Jan. 1701, of apoplexy.5

Ref Volumes: 1690-1715

Author: Paula Watson


  • 1. Berry, Suss. Gen. 193, 262; Glynde Par. Reg. (Suss. Rec. Soc. xxx), 18; Suss. N. and Q. xv. 21.
  • 2. CJ, vii. 799.
  • 3. CSP Dom. 1659–60, p. 562.
  • 4. Cal. Treas. Bks. xi. 281.
  • 5. Suss. Arch. Colls. liv. 52; Norfolk mss at Arundel Castle M571, Steyning original presentments; Luttrell Diary, 94, 156.