Ireland’s ‘second city’ of Cork, a county of itself, boasted an ‘almost matchless’ natural harbour, in which a vast shipbuilding and naval supply industry had developed during the Napoleonic wars, situated around the victualling yards at Cobh (Cove) on Great Island, providing local contractors with large fortunes. The impact of the navy’s gradual withdrawal during this period was countered by the growth of an ‘extensive trade in corn and flour’ and the establishment of cutlery, glass and glove manufactories.2 The Catholic inhabitants, who comprised over three-quarters of the population, continued to be excluded from its Protestant corporation of a mayor (selected annually from among the burgesses), a theoretically unlimited number of aldermen (ex-mayors) and burgesses (ex-sheriffs), and two sheriffs chosen from among the freemen, who either obtained their admission by right (birth or seven years’ servitude) or by special favour (‘grace especial’). There was no right to the freedom by marriage. Elections for the post of mayor and sheriff had originally been open, but in order to curtail the ‘heat and excitement’ of annual contests, under a by-law of 1721 the ‘right of choice’ at mayoral polls had been restricted to the names of five burgesses drawn out of a ‘hat in open court by a child’, and the candidates for sheriff limited to four freemen nominated by the chief corporation officers. (The outgoing mayor, his successor, the recorder and the common speaker selected one each.) Since the 1760s ‘complete dominion over the political opinions of the corporation’ had been exercised by an exclusively Protestant ‘Friendly Club’ of approximately ‘500 corporators’, who voted as a bloc for their favoured mayor and sheriffs, the senior of whom served thereafter as their president. The corporation had subsequently ‘assumed the exclusive right’ of admitting or refusing freemen, prompting a long running campaign to restore the city’s ‘ancient rights’, which came to nothing. (In 1831 an English ‘settler’ secured a writ of mandamus from king’s bench ordering his admission under Charles II’s ‘new rules’ of 1672, but he died before the case was heard.) The municipal corporations commissioners noted that out of 2,665 freemen, only 73 were Catholic, and that the corporation had become a ‘complete monopoly’, which ‘in no way represents the inhabitants’.3 It was ‘always an odious place to me’, observed Daniel O’Connell*.4

Cork’s representation was described by a leading local magnate, the 2nd earl of Donoughmore, as consisting of ‘two separate elections’, one involving the Catholic freeholders within the ‘liberties’ of the county and the other the Protestant freemen in the city.5 For many years the influence had been correspondingly divided between Donoughmore’s pro-Catholic family, on whose interest his quasi-radical brother Christopher Hely Hutchinson had sat, 1801-1812, 1818-20, and the anti-Catholic Mountifort Longfield of Castle Mary, Member from the Union until 1818. With the support of the corporation and the naval interest at the disposal of government, Longfield had secured the second seat for Sir Nicholas Colthurst of Ardrum in 1812, ousting Hely Hutchinson. In 1818, however, Longfield had been turned out by Hely Hutchinson and next year had died. Thereafter a number of the county’s leading magnates, most notably the earls of Bandon, Cork, Kingston and Shannon, attempted to gain a foothold, only to be opposed by a growing non-sectarian ‘commercial’ interest, centred around the Cork Merchants’ Committee and the chamber of commerce, which sought to assert the city’s ‘independence’ and challenge the trading monopolies of the corporation. With no overriding electoral interest and a large number of freemen and freeholders of the ‘lowest description’ to hand, candidates in this period increasingly resorted to bribery and incurred vast expenditure. In protest at the ‘growing extent’ of this ‘corruption’, the Hely Hutchinson family eventually abandoned their 70-year connection with the city in 1830.6

At the 1820 general election Hely Hutchinson and Colthurst offered again. A number of ‘new candidates’ were spoken of, including John Smith Barry of Fota Island, Longfield’s nephew Colonel John Longfield of Longueville and the wealthy local merchant and former Catholic Gerard Callaghan, Member for Dundalk, 1818-20. Advising the Liverpool ministry to assist Colthurst and oppose Hely Hutchinson, Charles Arbuthnot* noted that Callaghan was ‘a friend, but not very reputable’, and recommended Longfield as the ‘right person to support in conjunction with Sir Nicholas’.7 In the event, however, only Callaghan came forward, stressing his ‘perfect acquaintance’ with the ‘mercantile and trading interest’ of the city, in which he had ‘been born’ and ‘laboured and prospered’, 26 Feb.8 ‘Lord Shannon supports him, and many think the Longfield interest will go the same way’, observed a local agent.9 Three days later Colthurst, who was rumoured to lack funds, assured the electors that he did ‘not fear to enter into a competition with Callaghan, either as to having been born, or having lived among you’. ‘From Colthurst’s address, the little baronet seems both alarmed and angry’, Hely Hutchinson, who was expected to ‘ride the first horse’, informed the 1st earl of Donoughmore, 4 Mar.:

I am quite ready and willing, should you ... approve, to decline ... I never valued my seat as such two pence, and the thousands it has cost were expended ... against my wishes ... I suppose Callaghan is putting himself forward to oblige the attorneys and a few other troubled spirits, without the least chance of success ... If I am to stand I will not consent to any further expenditure.10

He continued, and a ‘most desperately fought’ six-day contest ensued, during which Hely Hutchinson, who had appealed to the Protestant freemen to contribute their ‘essential’ support to that of the Catholic freeholders, received votes from 594 freemen and 709 freeholders (respectively 36 per cent and 48 per cent of the total cast, either as a split or a plump). Colthurst secured votes from 790 freemen and 290 freeholders (48 and 19 per cent), and Callaghan from 265 and 494 (16 and 33 per cent). On the first day Callaghan objected to the appointment of a ‘partisan’ deputy polling clerk, which led to a lengthy legal dispute. On the fifth day he resigned, 138 votes behind Colthurst, citing his failure to secure a ‘considerable interest on which he certainly relied’. Fearing a petition, Colthurst insisted on keeping the polls open for another day ‘to give every freeman an opportunity of giving his vote’, boosting his lead to 321.11 On 24 Mar. Hely Hutchinson’s brother Lord Hutchinson told their brother Francis:

I am very much annoyed about this Cork election. It will cost twice more than the thing is worth. Indeed, I consider it to be of no value at all. It is a miserable thing to be connected with so corrupt and profligate a place as Cork, where you may be always led into a contest, whether you will it or not.

Callaghan later said that the ‘election cost him £7,000’.12 At the declaration, Hely Hutchinson took issue with Callaghan’s ‘offensive’ remarks about the electors assembling again ‘at no very distant period’, owing to the probability of the king’s death. Shortly afterwards, he lost a finger in a duel with Callaghan’s younger brother Patrick. ‘Callaghan put his brother in the place he was afraid to take himself’, commented an observer.13

In the House, both Members supported Catholic claims, for which a petition was presented to the Lords, 9 June 1824, and the Commons next day.14 Petitions reached the Commons for repeal of the Irish window tax, 25 Feb., 24 Apr. 1822, and the Irish coal duties, 13 Mar. 1823.15 Petitions were presented to the Commons for a reduction of Irish spirit duties, 13 Mar., 24 Apr., and against alteration of the sugar duties, 17 Mar. 1823.16 That December O’Connell boasted of ‘another triumph’ against the corporation in a case concerning their claim to exclusive ownership of all the markets, in which he ‘beat the rascals heartily’. ‘There is a great dinner getting up for me in Cork, the first compliment they paid me since I was chaired in the year 1811’, he reported in March 1824. Next month he spoke at an aggregate meeting in support of Catholic claims, at which it was resolved to enlist Hely Hutchinson’s support against the Catholic burials bill.17 Another meeting was held in October 1824 to counter attempts by various education societies ‘to subvert the Catholic faith’.18 Petitions reached the Commons in support of the corn laws, 28 Apr., and against, 3 May 1825.19 Commenting that June on the prospects for the next election, Lord Hutchinson observed:

The state of the registry and the election being entirely with the freemen, an effort on the part of Callaghan would now be ridiculous, but if the violent Protestants were to rally and could find a candidate, they would put both my brother and Colthurst to great expense.20

Petitions for the abolition of slavery were presented to the Commons, 16 Mar., 4 May, and the Lords, 28 Apr. 1826.21 Next month Colthurst was urged to settle his outstanding election debts in a court case concerning an agent’s unpaid publican bills. ‘Your purse, Master Nick, is now getting slack’, ran a local doggerel.22

At the 1826 general election the Members stood again, Hely Hutchinson explaining that poor health would prevent him leaving London. On 5 June Callaghan declined to stand at ‘the present moment’, but reiterated his opinion that Cork should be represented by a commercial Member from ‘among its own citizens’. ‘There will be no opposition’, Donoughmore informed his brother Francis next day, and ‘I do not think that it will be attended with any expense, as Colthurst says he will give nothing, and I am determined to follow his example’.23 On the 6th, however, reports emerged of a ‘young noble lord of constitutional principles’ coming forward. A meeting of ‘respectable electors’ also resolved that ‘a new candidate should be proposed’ and asked the voters to remain ‘disengaged’. At the nomination John Cotter proposed Colthurst, hoping that the rumours of an opposition would prove unfounded. John Hely Hutchinson spoke and acted on behalf of his father, whose health had continued to deteriorate. Walter Fitton, a Cork businessman, then proposed John Bennett, a local solicitor, who proceeded to give ‘a minute view’ of the city’s ‘local abuses’, including its ‘enormous amount of taxes’ and their ‘gross misapplication’. In the event, however, he declined to stand a poll, leaving the Members to be returned unopposed.24

Hely Hutchinson’s long-expected death at the end of August 1826 created a vacancy, for which his son John, whom he publicly endorsed from his death bed, came forward on the family interest, now headed by Lord Hutchinson as 2nd earl of Donoughmore, who observed:

I doubt very much whether Callaghan will come to the poll, and if he does, I calculate it will not cost more than £1,400 or £1,500. If Callaghan polls any number of the poor freemen, it will cost him £5,000 at least, and might cost double that sum ... We cannot allow ourselves to be beaten out of Cork by an impudent, rash upstart like Callaghan ... I begin it to think it a family object to have John in Parliament.25

A number of ‘high church party’ candidates had been spoken of during Hely Hutchinson’s illness, including Smith Barry and William Smyth Bernard, son of the earl of Bandon, both of whom had declined. Robert Moore, brother of the 3rd earl of Mountcashel, had commenced a campaign in England but been advised to ‘think well’ before embarking on any ‘serious attempt’ by Peel, the home secretary, who notified Goulburn, the Irish secretary, that he was ‘friendly to government but would vote for the ... Catholics, having I suppose thought that no other vote would suit the city’, and asked, ‘Is any Protestant candidate likely to start?’ On learning of the candidacy of Hely Hutchinson, also a supporter of Catholic claims, Moore retired in his favour. Rumours that Lord James O’Bryen, brother of the marquess of Thomond, and an unidentified ‘grandson of a deceased candidate for county Cork’ would offer came to nothing.26 On 7 Sept. 1826 Bennett offered again as an ‘independent’, protesting that Hely Hutchinson was too young to have ‘experience in political affairs’ and against allowing the city to become a ‘degraded borough’ and ‘an heirloom to any family, however respectable’. ‘We are threatened with the long purse of Knocklofty’, he declared in an address in the press: ‘Are rational minds to be thus humbugged? ... Shake off the trammels of this aristocratic confederacy [and] the chains that are forging to fetter the independence of this great city and consign it for ever to family compacts’. His remarks were challenged by John Boyle of Cork, leader of the county Catholics and editor of the Freeholder, who retorted that Hely Hutchinson was 32 and ‘as fit to sit in Parliament’ as anyone. Commenting on the ensuing press debate about Hely Hutchinson’s merits, Donoughmore observed, ‘Bennett is a low blackguard attorney put forward by Callaghan. He is so poor that he could not afford to pay for ... the long advertisement, which he put into the Cork newspapers’.27 At the end of the month Callaghan started as a ‘guardian of mercantile interests’, agreeing with those who had denounced Hely Hutchinson’s attempt to establish a ‘life interest’ and explaining that he was hostile to parliamentary reform and any measure of Catholic emancipation that would endanger the ‘constitutional pre-eminence of the established church’. Attacked by the Catholics as an ‘apostate’ and threatened with violent reprisals by the Catholic Association, he adopted a battle cry of ‘Independence and Protestantism’ and began to demand the immediate abolition of the Association, which had become a ‘state monster’, and the disfranchisement of the Irish 40s. freeholders, without which it would be ‘unsafe to admit Catholics into Parliament’. Urging the Protestant freemen to support him, the Tory Cork Constitution noted that he had ‘declared more openly and decidedly in favour of Protestant constitutional ascendancy than any candidate within living memory’. ‘The eye of the Protestant world’, it declared, ‘is fixed upon Cork’.28 Callaghan evidently secured the support of government, for on 13 Oct. Donoughmore reassured Hely Hutchinson’s father that ‘Goulburn can do little or nothing at Cork’, adding that Colthurst, who had declared for Hely Hutchinson, was ‘very angry’ with him and had protested to him ‘in the strongest manner’. ‘The town has been divided into districts ... of our friends, who ... canvass the whole of the city and the liberties’, he explained: ‘I never knew them do this in any election before, but the fact is that many of the principal people of Cork are greatly exasperated against Callaghan’.29 Commenting on the ‘din and preparation’ next month, Richard Sainthill noted:

Gerard’s last address has brought him a host of friends from the high [church] party, and speculations are now seriously held, that he will succeed. Smith Barry, who held aloof, has unsolicited promised his vote and interest, and is coming over from England merely to support the Protestant cause.

On 8 Dec. 1826 a meeting of clergymen established an anti-popery society and endorsed Callaghan.30 Later that month Peel wrote to ‘heartily wish’ him success, praising the ‘firmness’ with which he had avowed his public principles. On the eve of the election Donoughmore reported hearing that Lord Lansdowne’s ‘anxiety was very great, and also that of [James] Abercromby*, in that they look upon [the contest] as a struggle between the two parties’.31

At the nomination, 15 Dec., Hely Hutchinson, who had assumed the motto ‘True Protestantism’, denied allegations that he had been ‘adopted’ by the Catholic Association and reassured the freemen that emancipation would not be carried ‘without providing for the security of Protestantism’. To ‘tremendous uproar’, Callaghan denounced the Association and contended that it was ‘morally impossible’ for those professing his former religion ‘in all its principles’ to ‘be perfectly allegiant with the state’.32 Bennett did not appear. ‘John made an admirable speech of an hour’, Donoughmore commented, but ‘Callaghan’s was a complete failure ... My opinion is that [his] attempt to gain the Orange party has completely failed’.33 One of the ‘most severely contested’ elections ‘ever known to have taken place in Cork’ ensued, during which there were ‘serious riots’ and a ‘furious attack on Callaghan’s committee rooms’. Following the closure on the seventh day of the booths for freeholders, Callaghan’s committee launched an appeal to the unpolled freemen, saying, ‘Protestant Freemen come on!’ In an election duel that day John Bric, a local barrister, was fatally shot through the lungs by Callaghan’s cousin William Hayes, who had overheard him say, ‘I hope that scoundrel Callaghan will be defeated’. Three days later the contest abruptly terminated after Callaghan failed to poll the minimum number of 20 freemen in the remaining booth, owing, he complained, to intimidation by the Catholic clergy. (His attempt to poll his ‘council and agents, in the hope of making up the number required by law’, was refused.) Hely Hutchinson, who had secured 668 votes from the freemen and 351 from the freeholders (respectively 43 per cent and 79 per cent of the total polled), was returned 49 votes ahead of Callaghan, who had received support from 874 freemen and 96 freeholders (57 and 21 per cent). Too ill to attend the declaration, Hely Hutchinson was represented by his cousin and namesake, Member for Tipperary.34 Callaghan ‘lost his election by the freeholders being under the influence of the priests, who now have the return of all the Irish Members in their hands’, one of his supporters complained.35 Donoughmore, however, privately noted that ‘many things could be proved against both the candidates which would set the election aside, though it is sometimes difficult to prove bribery, however universal it may have been’, and protested that his nephews had failed to heed his advice, for ‘I told [them] twenty times over, that if the expense was considerable’ the contest ‘ought to be abandoned’. He correctly predicted that Callaghan would not petition, despite the urgings of the ‘violent Protestants’.36 On 7 Mar. 1827 he scolded Hely Hutchinson, Member for Tipperary, for not abandoning the election:

You know ... that I wished to give it up, and was prevented by ... your assurance that there was a clear election and 870 promises amongst the freemen. What turned out to be the case? ... You were deceived. I always told you, that in such a corrupt and lying place as Cork, it is quite impossible for a candidate to know how he stands, until the poll commences, but ... you would never listen to anything I said on the subject, though in truth I know Cork better than any of you. It is just the same place that it always was, except that there are thirteen times as many fellows to be had for money as formerly. They may roar Popery and Orange just as much as they please, but it is quick a place so to be corrupted ... What I blame you for is this, that ... contrary to my positive instructions ... you went on bribing, from right to left, and spending immense sums of money. I shall not comment on the immorality of such proceedings, but no human consideration would have induced me to have taken a part in them. After all, had Callaghan petitioned, he would have been Member for Cork ... The true reason why Callaghan did not ... was that he was apprehensive of a new election and ... has exhausted his resources.

Writing in similar terms to Francis, he declared that he would never again ‘assist a candidate for the city, unless in the probability of an honest election’, adding, Cork has ‘in my opinion’ become ‘a very untenable place’.37

In the House Hely Hutchinson joined Colthurst in supporting Catholic claims, for which petitions were presented to the Commons, 2, 5 Mar., 2 Apr. 1827, 21, 28 Feb. 1828, and the Lords, 7, 9 Mar. 1827.38 Hostile ones reached the Commons, 2 Mar. 1827, and the Lords, 16 May 1828.39 Petitions were presented to the Commons for repeal of the Irish coal duties, 22 Feb. 1827, 12 Mar., 9 June 1828, and for and against the introduction of poor laws, 9 Mar. 1827.40 One against the importation of foreign flour reached the Lords, 2 Mar. 1827.41 Following a disappointing registration of Catholics that month, an Association for Promoting the Registry of Freeholders was established under the leadership of James Cashman, the chairman of Hely Hutchinson’s election committee, with the support of the local Catholic Association activists Daniel Meagher and Thomas Lyons, ‘to guard against the recurrence of such scenes as occurred at the late election’ and ensure that all freeholders were properly registered by new district committees.42 Protestant petitions to prevent the sub-division of Catholic freeholds were presented to the Commons, 2 Mar., and the Lords, 27 June.43 Early in April 1827 the ‘first Brunswick Club in Ireland’ was established at Cork under the presidency of George Knapp, a leading member of the corporation, with the backing of Callaghan, who later boasted that it was ‘owing to the impulse which the Cork election imparted to the Protestant feeling of Ireland’ that the ‘noble defence’ of the Brunswickers could be attributed.44 Explaining why he had been ‘blackballed’ from joining the club the following year, Hely Hutchinson informed Donoughmore, 6 Apr. 1828:

The Catholics were not opposed to my being put up, as the feeling was that if I were admitted, it would completely break up that establishment ... I never dreamt of such a thing as forming a connection with the violent party, but I still think that much is to be done by coming into contact with those who are most violently opposed to me ... It may lead to diminish their violence and consequently the expense of any future contest.45

Ten days later Hely Hutchinson reported that the establishment of a Cork County Club for the Protestant landed gentry ‘afflicts’ Callaghan ‘greatly’ and would ‘very much destroy’ the advantages he had derived from his connection with the Cork Brunswickers.46 Petitions for repeal of the Irish Subletting and Vestry Acts were presented to the Commons, 18 Apr., 19 May 1828, 12, 16, 24 Mar., 3 June 1829, 11, 13, 21, 27 May, 3 June 1830, and the Lords, 26 Feb., 5 Mar. 1829.47 One for suppression of the Catholic Association was presented to the Commons, 28 Apr. 1828.48 Petitions for the abolition of slavery reached the Commons, 17 June, and the Lords, 11 July 1828, 7 July 1830.49 On 25 Aug. 1828 a Cork Liberal Club was launched by O’Connell, who explained that it should ‘attend strictly to the state of the representation, so as to be able to ensure the overthrow of any candidate put forward by the corporation’. By November 1828 it had over 500 members, ‘more than half’ of whom were subscribers to the public rooms of the Cork chamber of commerce, where it held its meetings.50 Reports that Colthurst would retire on account of failing health that month were dismissed by Hely Hutchinson, who assured Donoughmore that the baronet would be ‘most unwilling to give way to Gerard’, 1 Dec. 1828:

I perfectly agree with you on the subject of Cork. Events may occur which will give us the next return and therefore such a contingency ought not to be thrown away by any premature abandonment of the field. But a contest will induce an expense which it would be madness to incur for so uncertain an object.51

At a meeting of the Liberal Club chaired by James Daly and James Ludlow Stawell of Kilbrittain Castle, 7 Jan. 1829, the ‘liberal Protestants’ were urged to ‘bestir’ themselves in support of the Wellington ministry’s plan of Catholic emancipation. An aggregate meeting of the Catholics was held in support of Lord Anglesey, the recalled Irish viceroy, 16 Jan. On the 26th the Liberals met to ‘oppose’ a campaign launched by the Brunswickers, who had recently reorganized themselves, demanding the disfranchisement of borough freeholders in the event of emancipation, for which Callaghan wrote unsuccessfully to Peel, the home secretary. On the eve of emancipation a few weeks later the Liberal Club determined that ‘in the present juncture of affairs, it would be expedient to dissolve’.52 Both Members supported emancipation, for which petitions were presented to the Lords, 19, 24, 26 Feb., 13 Mar., and the Commons, 12, 16, 24, 25 Mar.53 Hostile ones reached the Lords, 18, 23 Feb., 6, 20, 31 Mar., 2 Apr., and the Commons, 6, 9, 12, 16, 31 Mar., 6 Apr. 1829.54 That month it was calculated that there were ‘about 1,700’ freemen, of whom 845 had been admitted in the last eight years (308 by birth or seven years’ servitude and 537 by special favour), 1,310 qualified freeholders (68 registered at £50, 271 at £20 and 968 at 40s.), and 16 occupiers, giving an estimated electorate of 3,036.55 (The raising of the Irish freehold franchise qualification in 1829 did not apply to county boroughs.)

The death of Colthurst on 22 June 1829 created a vacancy, for which Callaghan came forward with the support of the Brunswick Club, professing the ‘same principles’ and arguing that emancipation made it ‘more than ever necessary to guard our Protestant institutions’ and prevent ‘further encroachments’.56 On the day of Colthurst’s death Wellington, the premier, had ‘taken measures’ to ‘induce’ William Hodder of Hoddersfield to stand.57 Four days later Lord Beresford, master-general of the ordnance, arrived in Cork to launch his campaign ‘under the direction’ of the Irish primate Lord John Beresford, to whom he complained, 27 June:

Hodder was not so much alive to his business as to pay me the common compliment of being here to meet me, though he had been fully informed of my arrival ... He came in, however, that evening and I found him as I expected very adverse to undertake the business. I however ... got him at last to consent to ... write a short address. Upon this I went to Callaghan ... who began to be alarmed at having to spend his money [and] ... agree[d] to ... let us ... call together a meeting of gentlemen who both parties shall agree on, who are intimately acquainted with the borough ... and if they decide that his chance is better ... let him walk over the course.58

A meeting of ‘eight of their respective friends to consider who had the best prospect of success’ followed. On 29 June Daniel Leahy reported to Shannon:

The result of their consultation was that Callaghan had the least chance, and ... accordingly Beresford wrote to several leading interests that Callaghan had resigned and that Hodder, who from delicacy to Colthurst’s memory, has not yet appeared, would come in without a contest. Callaghan, in breach of this agreement, commenced yesterday an active canvass, on which Beresford called on him and told him his conduct was ungentlemanlike, and that he broke his word ... Hodder ... is most anxious to back out of the contest ... but Beresford is urging him on, and in short, almost without consulting him, is taking the entire responsibility on his own shoulders. He has written to Lord Beresford to ask him to supply the funds, and expects an answer tonight, which in my opinion will be in the negative, and my conviction is that Hodder will not stand. If he resigns, Callaghan is so execrated by the people [that] Lord Dungarvan would have a good prospect of being returned ... The greatest number of freemen that could be brought to the poll in a protracted contest are from 1,400 to 1,500, and of the freeholders about 800 (near 1,200 are registered). Of the former, I suppose 300 are venal, and of the latter I think 700 would support any man against Callaghan, so that calculating the number of independent freemen, including the great bulk of the non-resident aristocracy, who would support Lord Dungarvan, I think he would have a fair chance of being returned ... but the time, I fear, is too limited.59

Next day Hodder resigned, on the pretext that his opponent had ‘gained an advantage’ which he ‘could not hope to recover’.60 ‘Nothing but a large expenditure could recover the ground we lost’, Beresford explained to the primate, 30 June:

Callaghan had no chance had we continued and spent money, but his brothers, who are Catholics and on former occasions feared to appear in his favour, came forward on this occasion with both money and personal exertions, and ... though it would have cost him from £12 to £15,000, he could have obliged us to spend at least six. I therefore decided on yielding ... I hope you will not think I failed from any want of exertion or discretion ... I have great complaint against Hodder. I have reason to think his indifference was found out by a spy sent to our camp.61

The Irish secretary Lord Francis Leveson Gower informed Peel, 3 July, that Holmes, the whip, ‘will write today ... to explain ... Hodder’s strange resignation. Callaghan has behaved like himself, i.e., like a great scoundrel, but I fear there is no chance of excluding him on this occasion’.62 ‘The two returning officers are partisans of Callaghan’s, and have fixed the earliest hour the law will allow for holding it’, Holmes advised Wellington a few days later, adding, ‘I regret that I did not start for Cork the moment you ... mentioned the subject ... However, it cannot now be helped. Callaghan will come in, and I think without a contest’.63 ‘Nothing can be more perverse than the turn which the city of Cork election has taken’, Vesey Fitzgerald, president of the board of trade, complained to Wellington:

The combinations in favour of Hodder’s return were such that he would [have] walked over ... A disbursement of one, two or three hundred pounds at the outset would have prevented Callaghan from going to a poll ... If Holmes had left, none of the blunders would have occurred and there would have been a peaceful election. It is not your ... fault that so useful a public effort was not obtained.64

A number of alternative candidates were spoken of but did not offer, including Nicholas Philpot Leader*, Lord Riversdale, Charles Beamish and William Henry Worth Newenham of Coolmore, a local Protestant landowner, whom Leveson Gower considered a ‘very fit person’ on being informed that it was Kingston’s ‘intention of starting’ him. He ‘would have come forward if the election had not been so very near’, remarked Shannon.65

Two days before the election a committee of electors led by Daly, Stawell and Dr. Herbert Baldwin of Camden Place, Cork, a cousin of O’Connell, determined on nominating Sir Augustus Warren of Lisnegar, with the consent of his ‘relative’ the Rev. Somers Payne, despite his unwillingness ‘to spend’ or ‘appear in person’. ‘I hope that Warren may succeed’, Wellington observed.66 On the hustings Warren was proposed in absentia by Hodder, who, in comments aimed at Callaghan, testified to Warren’s support for the established church, ‘to which he had always belonged’, and ‘impartiality’, since ‘not being engaged in trade’ he had ‘no private objects to promote’. Callaghan was proposed by Henry Westropp, an alderman of the corporation, and seconded by Longfield, amidst widespread disorder. On securing a hearing, he protested against having to fight a campaign with the ‘ghost of Warren’, ‘the tool and instrument of others’, who had been nominated ‘without his consent’ merely to put him to expense. His address was ‘a forgery’, he contended, ‘I am the only candidate before you’. His allegations were refuted by Major Colthurst, brother of the late Member, Somers Payne and Warren’s brother, who assured the electors that he ‘was in hourly expectation’ of Warren’s arrival. After a two-day poll Callaghan, who was supported by 473 freemen and 50 freeholders (respectively 82 per cent and 60 per cent of the total polled), was returned 388 votes ahead of Warren, who secured votes from 101 freemen and 34 freeholders (18 and 40 per cent). At the declaration, Warren’s committee objected that Callaghan was ineligible to take his seat as a government contractor, which Callaghan refuted, saying that his contracts and therefore his ‘disability’ had long expired. ‘You have rescued your city from the fangs of a proud and political oligarchy’ and ‘I have at last achieved the object of my ambition’, he declared.67 Shortly after the return, Warren publicly disavowed any part in the campaign, which had been promoted by some of his ‘nearest relatives and friends’ in ‘mistaken zeal’, and declined to be seated if a ‘legal objection’ to Callaghan proved successful. ‘In the annals of electioneering the late attempt on behalf of Warren stands unique’, noted the Tory Cork Constitution, praising the ‘sacrifice’ he had ‘bound himself to make’.68

On 15 Sept. 1829 Leveson Gower privately informed Peel that if he wanted to turn Callaghan out he had ‘nothing to do but ... forward to Ireland a copy of his contract with government’. Peel, however, recommended leaving him ‘to his fate’, as ‘it will be as well that we have not stirred the inquiry’.69 On 19 Nov. it was reported to Shannon that the committee opposing Callaghan’s return had consulted with ‘two of the most eminent’ election lawyers and were ‘positively certain that he was disqualified’ and ‘that a new election must take place’.70 A petition from Meagher and other electors alleging that Callaghan was ‘incapable of being elected’ and that the returning officers had ‘ignored’ their objections was accordingly presented, 5 Feb., but discharged, 22 Feb. 1830. Another from Dr. Francis Lyons in similar terms was presented, 8 Feb., and a committee appointed, 26 Feb. On 3 Mar. they determined that Callaghan’s contractual obligations with the navy ‘had not been completed’, that he had been ‘unduly elected’, and that the election was void.71 That month the town clerk reported that the number ‘entitled to vote is supposed to be from 2,500 to 3,000’.72 At the ensuing by-election Newenham came forward with the support of Donoughmore, Kingston and Lords Carbery and Cork, stressing his attachment to the established church and ‘independence’ from any party. Rumours that Lord Dungarvan and Thomas Lefroy*, Irish first serjeant, would offer came to nothing. It was reported that Callaghan would stand again, but his bid to be released from his contractual liabilities was unsuccessful, whereupon Longfield started in his place. At an ‘extraordinary’ meeting of the Brunswick Club on 11 Mar., however, it was ‘unanimously resolved’ that Callaghan’s elder brother Daniel, a Catholic, should come forward as his locum, whereupon Longfield withdrew, adverting to the ‘expense’ of a contested election.73 On 16 Mar. Leveson Gower determined that both candidates were ‘unobjectionable’ and government should ‘decline using any influence for or against either’.74 At the nomination Newenham denied being the nominee of ‘an aristocratic party’. Callaghan, who campaigned under the banner ‘Cork shall never be made a borough’, warned of the ‘frightful prospect’ of the aristocracy nominating both Members and allowing the representation to fall into the ‘hands of an alien’. Pressed on the hustings, he denied being his brother’s locum, but acknowledged that he was supported by the same interest and would ‘retire before him rather than come into such an unnatural collision’ at the next election. ‘With regard to the established church’, he explained, ‘I will only say that ... I know too well ... its beneficial influences ... to aim at undermining its stability, or impair its strength’. ‘The Cork Brunswick Club [are] clearly putting a Catholic in for a while, in order that he may keep the seat for one of their most virulent, violent and obnoxious members’, asserted Francis Walsh, a local Catholic leader, imploring the freeholders not to be ‘hoodwinked’ or ‘entrapped’ by Callaghan’s agents, who were attempting to stir up religious opposition to Newenham. A 13-day contest of ‘unparalleled severity and duration’ ensued, during which there were reports of widespread bribery.75 ‘Both candidates have persons employed here canvassing any money for a vote’, a Dublin correspondent reported to O’Connell, 23 Mar. 1830.76 At the start of polling Newenham had protested that Callaghan was ineligible to sit as a government contractor, and on the final day, in a move probably intended to facilitate a counter-petition, Captain Clarke of the Scots Grays was put in nomination by the Callaghans and secured two votes, whereupon Edward Hoare of Factory Hill was proposed by Stawell and obtained one. Callaghan, who was supported by Lords Bandon and Doneraille, obtained votes from 866 freemen and 305 freeholders (respectively 54 per cent and 42 per cent of the total polled). Newenham was supported by 740 freemen and 415 freeholders (46 and 58 per cent), giving Callaghan a narrow lead of 16 votes. At the declaration Callaghan described his opposition ‘as the most trying that ever was offered’. Newenham, who had reputedly spent £15,000-18,000, assured his friends that on appeal to ‘another tribunal’ he would ‘displace’ his opponent.77 Petitions alleging that Callaghan was a government contractor, had obtained an ‘illegal majority’ through bribery and corrupt practices and that many votes for Newenham cast by the non-resident freemen under the terms of city’s ancient charters had been ‘illegally’ rejected, were duly presented, 26 Apr. 1830, but went no further.78

A petition for an extension of the franchise to the inhabitant ratepayers and the restoration of ‘ancient rights’ reached the Commons, 25 May 1830.79 During the preparations for the anticipated dissolution next month, Donoughmore reported hearing that Newenham would decline and that ‘young’ John Boyle, a son of the earl of Cork who had sat for county Cork as a locum for Shannon’s heir since 1827, would come forward as the ‘third man’ against Gerard Callaghan, who he believed was more likely to stand than Daniel.80 On 21 June he advised Hely Hutchinson to be wary of a ‘very impudent’ and ‘untrustworthy’ agent called Foot:

He says he wishes to be employed ‘as conducting agent in the same manner as ... by Sir Nicholas, uncontrolled by any other professional man’ ... What was his real occupation at Sir Nicholas’s election? He was employed in bribing all the freeholders and freemen he could get. I have no doubt that ... he wants to have all the bribery to himself ... In my answer ... I gave him a clear and explicit opinion that at Cork there were two elections and two sets of electors, the one the freemen and the other the freeholders [and] that the same men were not fit to manage both [as] there was such an incurable alienation between Catholics and Protestants ... He was perfectly correct in stating that all the money paid for the freeholders did not go into their pocket, but stopped in the hands of intermediate peoples. But this has always been the case and I am sure it is not to be remedied. The candidate is always fair game, everybody robs him ... I very much suspect that all men of morals and character begin to be quite sick of the Cork contests. They are so shocked by the gross immorality which accompanies them.81

At the 1830 general election Hely Hutchinson stood for re-election, stating that he was ‘unconnected with any other candidate’. Boyle came forward professing ‘totally independent principles’, insisting that he was the ‘nominee or locum tenens of no man’. These are ‘assertions amply borne out by his past conduct in the capacity of county Member’, mocked the Southern Reporter, adding that ‘the distaste to him seems almost universal from the circumstances in which he is brought forward at the decree ... of the titled aristocracy’.82 On 16 July Boyle sought treasury support, but Leveson Gower deemed his application to be ‘one of some difficulty’, as

it would not be desirable to quarrel with the Hutchinsons, at the same time Boyle would be a valuable Member. I think the best way would be to say that as long as the present Callaghan stands, we intend only to interfere actively in his favour, but that this does not apply to his brother Gerard Callaghan.83

It had been widely expected that Daniel would step aside for Gerard, whose agents had commenced a canvass, but to the dismay of the Protestants he offered again, stressing his ‘constant residence’. At a heated meeting of the Brunswick Club, 28 July, Gerard defended his brother’s decision, explaining that a committee of six family friends, with whose arbitration they had ‘agreed to abide’, had determined that Daniel had the ‘best chance of success’. James Cummins of Cork, however, insisted that Daniel’s ‘machinations for displacing’ Gerard had commenced ‘long since’ and accused him of betrayal. A few days later he started as a Brunswicker, deploring the ‘momentous change recently made in our constitution’. ‘If the gentleman who had won your confidence had not been ... induced to waive his pretensions’, he explained, ‘I should not have been tempted forward’. ‘A universal determination prevails among the Protestant electors, to make the election of Cummins the means of punishing those breaches of undertaking with the Brunswick Club, by which Gerard has been thrown out of the representation by his brother’, remarked the Cork Constitution.84 On 27 July Leveson Gower offered Daniel Callaghan government support, explaining that he had declined to assist Boyle but ‘should be sorry if your common object leads to any collision of interest’.85 Three days later, in what was described as a ‘great revolution’, Hely Hutchinson unexpectedly resigned, citing the growth of the city’s ‘corruption’ and his unwillingness to ‘expose himself to unlimited expenditure’. A last minute attempt by the Brunswick Club to induce Callaghan to make way for his brother, by offering to withdraw Cummins and allow Gerard and Boyle to come in unopposed, came to nothing. On 3 Aug. 1830 Cummins announced that his legal advisors had ‘discovered’ that he was ‘ineligible to stand’ owing to his ‘contractual liabilities’, and he stood aside.86 At the nomination next day it was expected that Callaghan and Boyle would be returned unopposed, but Stawell proposed Baldwin, who came forward as a ‘staunch friend of liberty’ on the same ‘principles which [Christopher] Hely Hutchinson and his son had advocated’, professing his support for economy and reduced taxation, the abolition of slavery, and parliamentary reform, including the secret ballot and triennial parliaments. ‘The lovers of fun have put up Dr. Baldwin for the purposes of having a field day on the hustings’, conjectured The Times. Pressed for their views, both Boyle and Callaghan denied being ‘thick and thin supporters’ of ministers and promised to back the same measures as Baldwin, though Boyle was ‘adverse to vote by ballot’ and Callaghan would only commit himself to ‘purify the system of election’. A seven-day poll ensued, accompanied by ‘little bribery’, at the close of which Boyle and Callaghan were returned with comfortable majorities and voters to spare. At the declaration Baldwin, who had unsuccessfully attempted to poll ‘settlers’ (inhabitant ratepayers), announced his intention of petitioning against Callaghan.87 A petition alleging that Callaghan was ineligible to sit as a navy contractor was duly presented, 8 Nov., and a committee appointed, 7 Dec., but it decided in Callaghan’s favour, 9 Dec. 1830.88

On 12 Oct. 1830 a dinner was held for O’Connell, at which resolutions were passed for repeal of the Union and parliamentary and municipal reform.89 A petition from the corporation against repeal reached the Commons, 25 Nov. 1830, while favourable petitions from the inhabitants were presented to the Commons, 10 Feb., 10, 16 Mar., and the Lords, 15 Feb. 1831.90 Petitions for the abolition of slavery reached the Commons, 23 Nov., 6, 8 Dec. 1830, 10, 19, 29 Mar. 1831, and the Lords, 10 Dec. 1830.91 One for an extension of the corporate franchise to inhabitant ratepayers and a restoration of their ‘ancient rights’ was presented to the Lords, 2 Dec., and the Commons, 23 Dec. 1830.92 A petition for the secret ballot, septennial parliaments, and the payment of Members reached the Lords, 1 Mar. 1831. Both Members supported the Grey ministry’s reform bill, for which petitions were presented to the Commons, 2, 21 Mar., and the Lords next day. A Protestant petition calling for an adjustment of the Irish bill to ensure the security of the established church reached the Lords, 21 Apr. 1831.93 At the ensuing general election Callaghan and Boyle offered again as supporters of reform, the former hoping that ‘ascertained’ rather than ‘assumed’ rental values would be adopted for the new Irish £10 householder franchise, so that ‘not more than 2,400 voters’ would be created in Cork. Sir William Chatterton of Castle Mahon also declared as a ‘decided’ reformer, but the ‘discretion and judiciousness’ of his candidature was questioned by the Southern Reporter, as it might allow ‘the enemies of reform’ to return a Member.94 (There had evidently been some confusion about the candidates, for on 25 Apr. Smith Stanley, the Irish secretary, was informed that Chatterton was ‘a reformer’ and the ‘late two Members were not’.)95 A number of anti-reformers were unsuccessfully solicited to stand by the Brunswick Club, which had reorganized itself as Daly’s Club, including Newenham, who declined their offer to cover expenses over £4,000, and Peel’s brother Jonathan Peel*, to whom a ‘numerous and respectfully signed’ requisition was sent on account of his stance against emancipation in 1829. Rumours that Longfield would start came to nothing. On 2 May Nathaniel Henry Charles Massey, brother of the 3rd Baron Clarina of Elm Park, county Limerick, came forward, asserting his ‘most decided opposition’ to the reform bill, which would ‘subvert’ the constitution, but his willingness to support a more ‘moderate reform’. ‘His success is certain’, declared the Cork Constitution. At a ‘great reform meeting’ next day, however, resolutions were passed calling on Chatterton to resign, with which he duly complied, and on the eve of the election two days later Massey, ‘without consulting a single member of his committee’, also retired, explaining that ‘without a severe contest, attended with considerable bribery’ he had ‘little chance of success’. A delighted Southern Reporter surmised that there was ‘no money in the chest at Charles Street’ for ‘buying and bribing in Ireland’, but his furious committee claimed to have raised £1,000 over and above his £2,000, and were ‘at a loss’ to explain his ‘unaccountable and extraordinary’ flight ‘at the eleventh hour’. ‘He would have polled 900 freemen without the outlay of a shilling, and 200 non-resident freemen upon the payment of travel expenses’, protested the mayor Joseph Garde. He ‘retired from a contest in which he could not be defeated’, lamented the Cork Constitution. Callaghan and Boyle were returned unopposed.96

A repeal petition was presented to the Lords, 24 June 1831.97 Petitions against the disestablishment of the naval depot at Cobh reached the Commons, 26 July 1831, 2 Aug. 1832.98 Petitions were presented to the Lords for a continuation of the grant to the Kildare Place Society, 8 Aug. 1831, and against the new plan of Irish education, 26 Mar. 1832. One for the reform bill, which both Members continued to support, reached the Upper House, 4 Oct. 1831.99 One for more effective measures to pacify Ireland was presented to the Commons, 20 Mar. 1832.100 That month O’Connell reported attending a ‘decisive’ repeal meeting, at which ‘respectable and considerate thousands ... shouted for it ... Protestants, Catholics and Presbyterians’.101 Petitions for a restoration of the inhabitant ratepayers’ entitlement to the corporate franchise reached the Lords, 13 Apr., and the Commons, 23 May.102 Petitions for a reform of local rates were presented to the Commons that day, 2 Aug., and the Lords, 1 June 1832.103 The boundary commissioners were ‘not authorized to propose any narrower limit’ than the existing ‘liberties’ of the county, which were ‘well known’. They estimated that by the Irish Reform Act 2,750 electors in the city and 1,000 in the liberties would qualify as £10 householders and that 1,259 non-resident freemen would be disfranchised, so that with the remaining freeholders, who as far as could be ascertained numbered 1,545 (103 qualified at £50, 360 at £20 and 1,082 at 40s.), and 1,072 resident freemen, there would be a ‘probable constituency’ of 6,367. In the event, however, the registered electorate was 4,322, of whom 2,152 were £10 householders, 833 freeholders (73 qualified at £50, 136 at £20, 16 at £10 and 608 at 40s.), 1,236 freemen and 101 leaseholders and occupiers.104 Three-thousand-six-hundred-and-ninety-six polled at the 1832 general election, when Callaghan opted to take O’Connell’s repeal pledge rather than ‘be ousted’, and stood successfully with the ‘thorough Repealer’ Baldwin against the Liberal Boyle and Conservative Newenham. The Members were defeated by two Conservatives in 1835, but seated on petition. Callaghan successfully contested the next three general elections as a Liberal.105