Bury St Edmunds

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’.1PRO 30/8/133, f. 172. 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.2PRO 30/8/195, f. 132; Bury Post, 6 Apr., 1 June 1796; Leveson Gower, i. 122.

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.3Biog. Index (1808), 216; Bury Post, 13 May 1807.