HERVEY, Frederick William John, Earl Jermyn II (1834-1907), of 6 James’s Square, London and Ickworth, Suffolk

A descendant of a family known as much for its history of scandal and eccentricity as its political pedigree, Hervey had a perfunctory parliamentary career as Conservative Member for the western division of his native Suffolk.1M. De-la-Noy, House of Hervey: tainted talent (2001); G. O’Brien, ‘Hervey, Frederick Augustus, fourth earl of Bristol (1730-1803)’, Oxf. DNB, www.oxforddnb.com; R. Browning, ‘Hervey John, second Baron Hervey of Ickworth (1696-1743)’, Oxf. DNB, www.oxforddnb.com. His grandfather, Frederick William Hervey, had sat for Bury St. Edmunds as a silent supporter of Pitt’s ministry from 1796 until 1803, when he succeeded as 5^th earl of Bristol. In the Lords he had remained close to his brother-in-law Lord Liverpool, who, as premier, secured him a United Kingdom marquessate in June 1826.2HP Commons, 1790-1820, iv. 191-2. Hervey’s father, also Frederick William, who assumed the courtesy title Earl Jermyn upon his father’s elevation to a marquessate, had been returned for Bury St. Edmunds in 1826 and was a self-styled ‘liberal reformer opposed to parliamentary reform’.3HP Commons, 1820-1832, v. 608-11. He sat for Bury St. Edmunds until his succession as second marquess in February 1859, when Hervey, who three years earlier had graduated from Trinity College, Cambridge, became styled Earl Jermyn. Hervey’s uncle, Lord Alfred Hervey, a staunch Peelite, sat for Brighton, 1842-57, and Bury St. Edmunds, 1859-65.

Following the retirement of Harry Waddington, Suffolk West’s long-serving Conservative Member, at the 1859 dissolution, Jermyn’s supporters put his name forward as a prospective replacement at a meeting of Conservative electors, only for a majority to decide in favour of Major William Parker.4Ipswich Journal, 26 Mar. 1859. Undeterred, Jermyn came forward as ‘a Conservative in feeling’ who promised to ‘be a Conservative in action’, though his opposition to aspects of the Derby ministry’s reform bill led the press to label him ‘Liberal-Conservative’.5Bury and Norwich Post, 29 Mar. 1859; Essex Standard, 8 Apr. 1859. At the nomination he refuted suggestions that, aged twenty-four, he was too young and explained his dissatisfaction at the Derby ministry’s reform bill: he opposed the proposal to strip borough freeholders of their county vote and argued that the ‘fancy franchise’ of £60 in savings was too high. Nevertheless, he insisted that he would give ‘independent support’ to Derby, and following a fractious contest, he defeated his two Conservative opponents and was returned in first place by a commanding majority, helped in no small part by Liberal votes.6Bury and Norwich Post, 3, 10 May 1859.

A frequent attender, who divided against the Liberal amendment to the address, 10 June 1859, Jermyn’s voting record did little to suggest that he was a ‘Liberal-Conservative’. He did vote with Gladstone in opposition to Du Cane’s motion criticising the commercial treaty with France, 24 Feb. 1860, but thereafter he consistently followed Disraeli into the division lobby on financial questions. He opposed Gladstone’s resolution to equalise the customs and excise duty on paper, 6 Aug. 1860, and backed Horsfall’s amendment to the tea and paper duties in the Liberal government’s budget, 6 May 1862. He voted against church rate abolition, 14 May 1862, and the tests abolition (Oxford) bill, 16 Mar. 1864, and repeatedly opposed Radical motions to extend the franchise. On foreign policy questions he believed that Britain should maintain ‘a dignified neutrality’ and backed Disraeli’s censure of government policy during the Danish war, 8 July 1864.7Ibid., 3 May 1859.

Like his father, Jermyn rarely spoke in debate. His most noteworthy contribution was his amendment to the appropriation of seats (Sudbury and St. Albans) bill, in which he argued that Sudbury, which had been disenfranchised in 1844, had been ‘made the scapegoat to bear the burden’ of the rest of the country’s ‘electoral sins’. Declaring that bribery still flourished, he argued that Sudbury’s abolition had been ‘an act of isolated severity’ and that the present government had no viable scheme for dealing with corrupt small boroughs. His amendment, however, was criticised as a blatant attempt to ‘resuscitate the defunct borough’ and was heavily defeated by 338 votes to 44.8Hansard, 10 June 1861, vol. 163, cc. 842-6. His other known contributions to debate were questions to secretaries of state on minor issues, such as the salaries of district registrars, 11 June 1861, and the amalgamation of the late East India Company’s medical service with the British army’s medical corps, 4 June 1863. He is not known to have sat on any select committees.

Jermyn’s brief tenure as Member for Suffolk West ended when he succeeded his father as third marquess of Bristol in October 1864. He spoke occasionally in the Lords, where he earned a reputation as a committed advocate of the establishment of an international tribunal to arbitrate in national disputes.9Ibid., 8 June 1883, vol. 280, cc. 8-9; 25 July 1887, vol. 317, cc. 1830-1. He also took a great interest in agricultural matters and established the breed of sheep known as black-faced Suffolk Downs.10The Times, 8 Aug. 1907. In later life he suffered a series of financial setbacks and was forced to mortgage and rent out the family estate at Ickworth, Suffolk.11http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/wra-1356316741039/419225/

Bristol died at Ickworth in August 1907, having been unwell with a chill since Easter.12The Times, 8 Aug. 1907. He left effects valued at £20,830 10s. 7d.13England and Wales, National Probate Calendar, 17 Oct. 1907. Having left no male issue, he was succeeded in his title and estates by his nephew, Frederick William Fane Hervey (1863-1951), a rear-admiral in the royal navy and Conservative MP for Bury St. Edmunds, 1906-7. Bristol’s correspondence is held by the Suffolk Record Office.14Suff. RO, 941/65/1-4.