Bury St. Edmunds

Borough

Published in The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1790-1820, ed. R. Thorne, 1986
Available from Boydell and Brewer

Background Information

Right of Election:

in the corporation

Number of voters:

37

Population:

(1801): 7,655

Elections

DateCandidateVotes
18 June 1790LORD CHARLES FITZROY I 
 SIR CHARLES DAVERS, Bt. 
27 May 1796SIR CHARLES DAVERS, Bt.23
 FREDERICK WILLIAM HERVEY, Lord Hervey17
 Lord Charles Fitzroy I14
9 July 1802LORD CHARLES FITZROY I 
 FREDERICK WILLIAM HERVEY, Lord Hervey 
15 Aug. 1803 JOHN HENRY UPTON, Baron Templetown [I] vice Hervey, called to the Upper House 
31 Oct. 1806LORD CHARLES FITZROY I 
 JOHN HENRY UPTON, Visct. Templetown [I] 
8 May 1807LORD CHARLES FITZROY I 
 JOHN HENRY UPTON , Visct. Templetown [I] 
6 Oct. 1812LORD CHARLES FITZROY I 
 FREDERICK THOMAS HERVEY FOSTER 
19 June 1818HENRY FITZROY, Earl of Euston 
 HON. ARTHUR PERCY UPTON 

Main Article

In 1747 the Herveys, earls of Bristol and hereditary recorders of the borough, had lost one seat to the Fitzroys, dukes of Grafton. A compromise between the two families was not reached until 1802. A schism in the Hervey family, encouraged by the 3rd Duke of Grafton, prevented it; and after 1774, in alliance with the 4th Earl of Bristol’s brother-in-law Sir Charles Davers, he was able to exclude the Herveys from the representation. After 1780 they had no candidate ready. There was no change in 1790, but the borough remained open. The Grafton interest was on the wane and on 29 Jan. 1795 Grafton’s heir admitted to Pitt that the borough had ‘for some time been in a ticklish state’.1 At this point, Bristol’s eldest son having died, his surviving son stepped in and revived the family interest. As he was ‘friendly to government and nearly connected with parts of it’, there were limits to what Pitt could do to sway votes as requested by Lord Euston and in the ensuing contest he defeated Grafton’s son.2

The retirement of Davers in 1802 enabled a peaceful compromise to operate for the rest of this period. He left his property to Lord Bristol in 1806. Only members of the two families were returned. The allegation of a contest in 1807 in which Charles Bloomfield received ten to his opponents’ 23 votes, made by Joshua Wilson and repeated by Stooks Smith in his Register of Contested Elections, was not corroborated by the Bury Post which reported a unanimous election.3

Author: Winifred Stokes

Notes

  • 1. PRO 30/8/133, f. 172.
  • 2. PRO 30/8/195, f. 132; Bury Post, 6 Apr., 1 June 1796; Leveson Gower, i. 122.
  • 3. Biog. Index (1808), 216; Bury Post, 13 May 1807.