HELY HUTCHINSON, Hon. Christopher (1767-1826), of Benlomond House, Downshire Hill, Hampstead, Mdx.

Published in The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1820-1832, ed. D.R. Fisher, 2009
Available from Cambridge University Press



8 Jan. 1802 - 1812
1818 - 26 Aug. 1826

Family and Education

b. 5 Apr. 1767, 5th s. of John Hely Hutchinson (formerly Hely), MP [I], provost of Trinity, Dublin (d. 1794), and Christiana, da. of Abraham Nixon of Money, co. Wicklow, h. of her gt.-uncle Richard Hutchinson of Knocklofty, co. Tipperary (cr. Baroness Donoughmore [I] 16 Oct. 1783); bro. of Hon. John Hely Hutchinson†. educ. Trinity, Dublin 1784; L. Inn 1789, called [I] 1792. m. (1) 24 Dec. 1792, Anne Wensley (d. 30 Mar. 1796), da. of Sir James Bond, 1st bt., MP [I], of Coolamber, co. Longford, 1s.; (2) 1 Oct. 1818, Anne, da. of Hon. and Very Rev. Maurice Crosbie, dean of Limerick, wid. of John Brydges Woodcock, 2s. 2da. illegit. d. 26 Aug. 1826.

Offices Held

MP [I] 1795-6.

Vol. army 1799, lt.-col. 1801.


‘Kit’ Hely Hutchinson, a ‘violent declaimer’ noted for his long speeches of ‘monotonous energy’, had in 1818 regained his seat on the family interest for Cork, where he was known locally as ‘the Papist’ on account of his support for unqualified Catholic emancipation. His elder brothers Richard, 1st earl of Donoughmore, and John, Baron Hutchinson, both inveterate placehunters, had long since abandoned any attempt to control him, it being well known that they had ‘no influence’, but still regularly came to his rescue financially, especially following his second marriage to a spendthrift mistress in 1818.1 On 6 Feb. that year he had joined Brooks’s, sponsored by Lords Hutchinson and Grey.

At the 1820 general election he offered again for Cork amidst expectation of a contest, in which, as Charles Arbuthnot* observed, he ‘must, of course, be opposed’ by the Liverpool ministry.2 (‘His conduct has been so atrociously violent in the last session and his adhesion to Catholic emancipation without modification or restriction’, that it induces ‘me to make every effort in my power against him’, remarked one elector.)3 Conscious of the ‘thousands’ already spent by his family on his seat, on 2 Mar. he told Donoughmore that he was ‘quite ready and willing’ to decline ‘should you and John ... decide that I should do so’, for

though I feel as I ought most grateful for that expenditure ... I never considered the seat for Cork worth money, but only (considering that I was an idle man) worth my own exertions, of which I have not been sparing, to recover if possible for the family, what in a great degree was lost perhaps by my own conduct in Parliament.4

He persevered, appealing to the ‘Protestant electors’ to contribute their ‘essential’ votes to those of the Catholic freeholders, and after a six-day contest was returned at the head of the poll.5 Pressed at the nomination, he declared himself ‘a friend to reform, but the decided enemy of annual parliaments and universal suffrage’. It may have been his condemnation of ‘unfortunate’ remarks made by the defeated candidate Gerard Callaghan* about the new king’s likely death causing another election that prompted a duel with Callaghan’s brother Patrick, near the Lough in Cork, 7 Apr.6 Donoughmore was informed:

After the first exchange of shots it was supposed that neither had taken effect and the pistols were again put into the hands of the parties, when Daniel Callaghan, perceiving blood dripping from Christopher’s hand, exclaimed that his brother could not fire at a wounded man. Christopher instantly replied that it was a mere scratch. He felt no pain ... and was ready to ‘go on’. Daniel Callaghan then said, ‘My brother is perfectly satisfied’. The Callaghans then left the ground and the affair terminated ... Christopher is as well as ever he was, except the great apprehension he feels lest Mrs. Hutchinson should think of coming over, which makes him not a little uneasy.7

It was later remarked that after the Callaghans had halted proceedings, Hely Hutchinson ‘held up his hand in derision, with a finger hanging to it’, and exclaimed, ‘What sir, is your ... honour satisfied by a scratch like that?’8 On 10 Apr. 1820 Daniel O’Connell’s* wife wrote to her husband:

I ... cannot divest myself of a dread that a man so delicate as Hutchinson will fall victim to the illness which must proceed from the amputation of his finger. What on earth was the cause of this unfortunate business? The stupid papers give no detail ... I hope ... your letter ... will give me a more satisfactory account of our patriot ... Hutchinson is honest and that is his fault. They would wish to put him out of the way ... I anxiously entreat of you ... to take care of yourself. I know your friendship for Hutchinson.9

A few days later The Times reported that ‘one of the fingers of the left hand ... has since been amputated, but we understand he is going on well’.10

An assiduous attender, Hely Hutchinson voted with the advanced wing of opposition on all major issues, especially economy, retrenchment and reduced taxation.11 He warned that repeal of the Irish linen duties would have the ‘worst effects’, 2 June 1820. He dismissed an army medical board’s criticism of Sir William Adams of the Opthalmic Institution that day, 10, 12 July, when, after exonerating the Morning Chronicle from a supposed ‘misrepresentation’ of his views, he was called to order for proceeding to offer another ‘high encomium’ on Adams.12 He was granted a fortnight’s leave on account of family illness, 5 June. He criticized the regulations governing the Irish spirit trade, 15, 18 July, when he unsuccessfully moved for information on Irish distillers, who were about to be driven ‘completely out of the market’, and campaigned steadily for their reform thereafter.13 In a speech in which the ‘impatience of the House ... long prevented him from being heard’, he defended the role of his brother Lord Hutchinson as the king’s envoy to Queen Caroline at St. Omer, denounced the ‘highly censurable’ conduct of ministers in the affair and argued and voted against proceeding by a select committee, 22 June. On 17 July he condemned the ‘imprudent agitation of this question’, saying that although he was ‘a sincere friend to the liberty of the press, to economy’ and ‘the reform of every abuse’, of which the ‘greatest’ was the state of the representation, he ‘would most strenuously resist any attempt made to overawe Parliament’. Lord Hutchinson and Donoughmore’s support for ministerial measures against the queen made him temporarily unpopular in Cork, from where an agent expressed a hope that his ‘conduct when Parliament meets will set all to rights’, and assured him, ‘Your Cork friends are not the men to quarrel with you because your brothers are personal favourites with a king’, 11 Dec. 1820.14 He voted with opposition in her support, 26 Jan., 6, 14 Feb. 1821. He opposed a petition for repeal of the Union duties, 16 Feb., explaining that many commercial ‘engagements’ depended on their continuation, 30 Apr. He voted for Catholic claims, 28 Feb., but denounced the accompanying securities as ‘useless, dangerous and unwarrantable’, despite the unpopularity this might cause him in Cork and the pleas of friends who had ‘deprecated his opposition as injurious to the Catholic cause’, 27, 28 Mar.15 ‘We got through all the clauses’, Joseph Phillimore informed Lord Buckingham next day

but Hutchinson opened a broadside upon us, which in the earlier stages of the bill might have sunk the whole concern, inasmuch as he characterized the second bill (now consolidated with the first) as a bill of pains, penalties, degradation, etc., imposed on the Roman Catholic clergy. The attack, however, recoiled upon the promoter of it, and the discussion was so conducted as to assist the bill.16

‘I don’t think that Hely Hutchinson will do you any harm’, Buckingham replied.17 ‘The Irish Catholics have been betrayed by their representatives and ... pretended friends in Parliament, with the exception of Kit’, who ‘has heard ... the ... protests ... of the clergy’, observed Lord Hutchinson, 29 Mar.18 On 2 Apr. Hely Hutchinson announced that he would abstain from voting on the bill’s third reading, as it had been ‘rendered almost valueless’ by the oaths required of the Catholic clergy. ‘Hutchinson and Maurice Fitzgerald, declaring their disapprobation of these regulations, and agreeing with the opinions expressed by the priests, were hardly prevailed upon by their friends to give their vote’, observed Henry Bankes* that day.19 On 15 Mar. Hely Hutchinson praised Hume’s campaign against the ‘excessive and extravagant’ estimates but disavowed any party motives for having ‘joined in’, explaining that he ‘acknowledged no leader’ except the ‘distresses of the people’.20 He remonstrated against the ‘disgraceful’ detention of Buonaparte at St. Helena, 29 Mar. He made an ‘able speech’ at the London Tavern parliamentary reform meeting, 4 Apr., and voted accordingly, 18 Apr., 9 May 1821, 25 Apr. 1822 (as a pair), 20 Feb. 1823, 24 Apr., 2 June 1823.21 On 4 May 1821 he denounced Britain’s ‘blind’ foreign policy towards the Holy Alliance, the ‘tyrants of the continent’, who were ruining the ‘liberties of the world’, and moved unsuccessfully for inquiry. In what Henry Brougham* dreaded would be a speech by ‘Kit Hutchinson upon the world in general’, he ‘launched’ into a motion and was a minority teller for an address to the king against the interference of the Holy Alliance with independent states, 20 June.22 Henry Grey Bennet* described it as:

a long set speech, very tiresome and heavy, travelling over every part of the subject and doing justice to none, the principle good and sound, although at times somewhat extravagant and rather tending to embroil us in foreign disputes ... The numbers were for the motion (which was remarkably ill drawn up, and as awkwardly worded as it could be) 28 to 117.23

Speaking in similar terms, he charged Lord Castlereagh*, the foreign secretary, with abetting the Alliance’s ‘system of tyranny’, 29 June 1821, and of lending his ‘best support to the unholy cause of slavery and injustice’, which if he ‘knew anything about foreign affairs, he must be well aware of’, 5 Feb. 1822. He demanded repeal of the ‘disgraceful and insulting’ Seditious Meetings Act, 8 May 1821. Ignoring interruptions by coughing, he defended the John Bull journalist Collier against charges of a breach of privilege, 11 May.24 He objected to the appointment of Irish revenue commissioners by the crown, 18 June 1821.

Hely Hutchinson condemned the ‘severe measures’ to suppress Irish disturbances outlined in the king’s speech, 5 Feb., and demanded inquiry into the causes of unrest, warning that ‘hanging, transporting, imprisoning or scourging those unhappy people’ would have no effect while ‘grievances existed’, 7 Feb. 1822. That day he was a minority teller against the suspension of habeas corpus and the Irish insurrection bills, against which he campaigned and voted steadily thereafter. He divided for inquiry into the Scottish royal burghs, 20 Feb. He was granted three weeks’ leave on urgent private business, 27 Mar. He demanded abolition of the ‘intolerable’ Irish potato tithes, 15 May, welcomed the appearance of the Irish tithes bill ‘without committing himself’, 14 June, but voted for Newport’s amendment to it, 19 June, when he observed that ‘a pledge of the House to reduce the calamitous abuses of the tithe system would be attended with the most beneficial results’. He praised ministers for their remission of the Irish window tax and relief of the leather tax, but regretted that there had not been further salt tax reductions, 24 May. He divided against the second reading of the Irish constables bill, 7 June. He was appointed to the select committee on the Irish linen trade, 17 June, and warned that any loss of its protection would be ‘detrimental’, 21 June. On 15 July 1822 he implored the House to condemn the ‘barbarous ferocity’ of the Turks against the Greeks and criticized ministers for their ‘degraded’ and ‘unmanly’ inaction in foreign policy. He welcomed their firmer stance in the king’s speech, 5 Feb. 1823, but believed that ‘stronger language’ would have ‘struck terror into the congregated despots of the continent’, which was ‘looking up to the conduct of this country’. ‘I am grateful that you approve of the few words I said on the address’, he informed Donoughmore, 13 Feb., adding that for the next week he had been confined to his house ‘by sore eyes and pains in the head’.25 On 12 Feb. he endorsed Hume’s motion for withholding the supplies and demanded inquiry into public expenditure. He criticized and obtained papers on the French imprisonment of John Bowring, 28 Feb. He voted for inquiry into the Irish church, 4 Mar. 1823, 6 May 1824, 14 June 1825. He refuted the allegations of a petition condemning the conduct of Irish Jesuits, 5 Mar. 1823. Next day he announced that ‘having for years maintained an angry opposition against government with respect to Irish affairs’, he ‘felt it his duty, now that he saw’ their ‘anxiety to do everything that was right and proper’, to support the Irish tithes bill. He attacked the crown’s ‘despotic’ power to dismiss officers without court martial and called for the reinstatement of his ‘dear and valued friend’ Sir Robert Wilson*, whose ‘exertions on the day of the queen’s funeral had prevented the spilling of blood’, 14 Mar. On the 28th Lord Hutchinson commented that ‘Kit, I see by the Cork paper, is on the city grand jury of Cork, though I have not heard one word from him since his arrival in Ireland’.26 Writing to Donoughmore, 4 Apr., Hely Hutchinson observed that O’Connell had ‘seemed much surprised a few days since when I asked him if he had heard that the [Catholic] question was not to come on. Since, I have not seen him’.27 On 22 Apr. his uncharacteristic absence from the House the previous week was attributed to ‘a severe feverish cold’.28 He voted for inquiry into the prosecution of the Dublin Orange rioters that day, but protested at the interference of government and unsuccessfully moved for a six-month extension, 26 May. He spoke and was a minority teller against the Irish joint tenancy bill next day. He complained that the inquiry into the conduct of chief baron O’Grady of the Irish exchequer court had heard insufficient evidence, 17 June, and was a teller for the minority of 19 against going into committee, 2 July, and for the majority of 38 to terminate proceedings against an individual whom he believed ‘to be innocent’, 9 July. He voted for inquiry into Dublin disturbances and demanded one on the state of Ireland, 24 June 1823, for which he divided, 11 May 1824. He feared that Hume’s proposal to abolish the Irish viceroy would occasion ‘great mischief’, 25 June 1823. He spoke and was in the minority to refer the Catholic petition complaining of the administration of justice in Ireland to the grand judicial committee, 26 June 1823. ‘I was ably supported by Hutchinson’, Brougham told O’Connell next day.29

Hely Hutchinson voted for information on Catholic burials, 6 Feb., and presented a petition against the Catholic burials bill, with which he disagreed, 1 Apr. 1824. He divided for returns of the number of Irish Catholic office-holders, 19 Feb. Next day he warned that without concessions, the Irish people ‘might at length’ be driven to ‘dangerous extremities’. He opposed a motion for papers on ribbon men as ‘injurious to the best interests of Ireland’, 11 Mar. He was in the minority against the grant for Protestant Irish charter schools, 15 Mar., but welcomed that to the Royal Cork Institution as a ‘great boon’, 19 Mar., and defended that given to the Kildare Place Society, 29 Mar. He warned that Irishmen engaged in coarse linen manufacture would be ‘reduced to starvation and driven to acts of outrage’ by repeal of the linen bounties, 18, 22 Mar., 3 May, and was a teller for the minority of 26 against the third reading of the related customs bill, 27 May. On 23 Mar. he defended his use of the ‘strongest language’ in ‘reprobation of the miscalled Holy Alliance’ and condemned the aliens bill as ‘unnecessary’ and part of the same ‘system of tyranny’; he complained of the bill’s ‘injustice’ to emigrants who had sought asylum in England, 5 Apr. Next day Canning, the foreign secretary, informed his wife that ‘Hutchinson announced last night that on ... the third reading he should answer my speech point by point’, but in the event he was prevented ‘by indisposition’ from speaking or voting as intended, 12 Apr.30 He argued and was in the minority of 33 for an advance of capital to Ireland, 4 May. Next day he could not see why the Irish militia should be a third more numerous than the English and was in the minority of ten for its reduction. He divided for proper use of Irish first fruits revenues, 25 May, and against Irish church pluralities, 27 May. On the 31st he defended the actions of the Catholic Association, saying that ‘if they had transgressed’ the law it was ‘the fault of government, which had driven them to such a state of madness that they were likely to injure their cause through excess of zeal’, and rebuked Sir Frederick Trench for his ‘unqualified libels’ on the Irish Catholics.31 ‘As usual I was wretchedly reported in yesterday’s papers’, he informed Donoughmore two days later, but

I was quite guarded and inoffensive to anybody and was well heard ... In reference to that part of Trench’s speech against O’Connell, I said that I desired to repeat to O’Connell what I had years before said in the House, namely that I was happy to avow him as one of my friends ... The Chronicle in its wisdom adds, ‘my dearest friend’.

Donoughmore replied that he was ‘most happy that he had taken up O’Connell’s cause so manfully’.32 On 10 June he presented a Cork petition for Catholic relief, of which he was convinced many Protestants now saw the necessity, and contrasted the Association, whose ‘proceedings were public’, with the closed Orange societies, which ‘were illegal in their constitution and purpose’. Explaining to Donoughmore why he ‘did not vote on the insurrection bill’ that month, he observed that ‘the general feeling and wish in Ireland being for it, I did not consider I should have been justified in outraging those who must judge the matter much better’, 16 June 1824.33

On 20 Jan. 1825 Lord Hutchinson complained to his brother Francis that Hely Hutchinson’s wife had ‘wanted to purchase a house in London and furniture with £3,200 ... [of] my money ... in Kit’s name’, adding

I tire of having the most disagreeable discussions with poor Kit ... He is entirely under the dominion of that terrible woman and it becomes absolutely necessary for me to endeavour to restrain her, or she would ruin by her extravagance her husband and her children.34

Hely Hutchinson deprecated the suppression of the Association, which had ‘done more than any previously constituted body to promote the tranquillity of Ireland’, 4 Feb., remonstrated against the ‘crying injustice’ of a hostile Protestant petition, 15 Feb., and presented and endorsed a supportive one from Cork, 24 Feb. 1825. He voted accordingly, 15, 21, 25 Feb., when he ignored attempts to shout him down, saying hecklers ‘would only compel him to remain ten times longer on his legs’, and questioned the wisdom of insulting seven million Irishmen in the current state of foreign affairs. On 18 Feb. he voted for allowing the Association to be heard at the bar of the House. That day O’Connell reported arriving at the Commons, ‘into which and under the gallery Kit Hutchinson conducted us with the permission of the Speaker’.35 He divided for Catholic claims, 1 Mar., 21 Apr., when he welcomed a favourable petition, but castigated the accompanying measure to disfranchise the Irish 40s. freeholders as an ‘unnecessary’ security, 22 Apr., and was a teller for the minority against it, 26 Apr., when, to ‘loud symptoms of impatience’, by which he ‘would not be silenced’, he doubted that Irish freeholders were prone to ‘more corruption’ than English ones and demanded an inquiry. He ‘rejoiced’ at the bill’s subsequent lapse, but ‘regretted’ that this was owing to the failure of emancipation, 27 May. He insisted that the distress of the Irish poor would not be alleviated by emigration schemes but by ‘finding employment for its population’, 18 Apr. Next day he was appointed to the select committee on the Irish linen trade. On 12 Sept. 1825 he apologized to Lord Hutchinson, who the previous month had succeeded as 2nd earl of Donoughmore, for what had ‘passed the other night’ between them with respect to his wife:

I am quite ashamed of myself for the violence of my conduct ... but you have not scrupled to abuse her to everyone in the most unqualified terms ... At one time the charge you brought against her was that she had bought furniture, in the intent of taking a house, in which I assured you and am still convinced, she was perfectly right ... Another charge, that of our having kept improper company and of improper scenes having passed in Bulstrode Street ... is false and barbarous ... Anne is represented as having such unbounded influence over me, that I am not responsible for anything ... I had not the most remote idea of troubling you ... but to my simple enquiry where my son had gone, you dragged me and mine before your judgement seat ... and pronounced sentence of condemnation.36

Hely Hutchinson complained of ministers’ inattention to Ireland, 3 Feb., and contended that a ‘greater degree of misery and degradation’ existed there ‘than in any other portion of the world’, 16 Feb. 1826. Replying that day to a letter from Michael Bruce* expressing concern for his health, he declined to ‘retire’ and ‘be quiet’:

Although I may continue to strut a little longer on the stage of public life as unprofitably to the community and to my family as heretofore, yet, there my lot having cast me, I think I should continue a zealous labourer, at least for a short while longer.37

He protested that the ‘system of government was too expensive’, 15 Feb., and that going into committee on the estimates without an account of the financial state of the country was ‘absurd’, 17 Feb. He was appointed to the select committees on Irish tolls, 21 Feb., and the Irish butter trade, 9 Mar. He spoke and was in the minority for the disfranchisement of Irish non-resident borough voters that day, but hoped that ‘no existing interests’ would be disturbed ‘without giving all parties concerned the fullest opportunity of being heard’. On the 10th he urged withdrawal from Sierra Leone, where the ‘deadly maladies by which it was infested’ necessitated sending two officers to each appointment, which was a ‘wanton waste of human existence’. He denied that the Catholic clergy neglected the scriptural education of their flocks, 20 Mar. On 10 Apr. 1826 he was ‘accidentally locked out’ of the division on the salary of the president of the board of trade, which he had intended to oppose.38 Next month his son John, Member for Cork, 1826-1830, attributed the ‘melancholy state’ of his ‘health’ to the ‘baneful influence of a certain person, who cares not what misery and wretchedness she may inflict on him, provided she can obtain her wild and wicked ends’, adding that ‘from the moment she perceived she could not govern Lord Donoughmore as she pleased, she resolved to bring about a rupture and ... at length affected it’.39 That June Donoughmore commented that ‘poor Kit was very ill’.40

At the 1826 general election he offered again, regretting that his health would prevent him leaving London and deputing John to act for him. Rumours of a contest came to nothing and he was returned unopposed in absentia.41 On 20 July 1826 the Southern Reporter prematurely announced his ‘long expected’ death, but in their apology two days later insisted that his ‘illness was unlikely to be conquered’.42 He lingered for another five weeks, an obituarist paying tribute to the

assiduity of his attendance in Parliament ... as attested by the record of his name in all the divisions which have taken place ... upon great questions of foreign and domestic policy ... So paramount was his sense of public duty ... that, contrary to the urgent remonstrances of his medical friends, he insisted upon quitting Brighton last spring to take an active part in the business of the Irish committees, an effort so much beyond his strength as to produce the fatal relapse which followed.43

Donoughmore privately lamented that ‘poor Kit was so wild a politician and so much under the influence of his crazy wife, that he never could have been of use either to himself or to anybody else’, and later noted that ‘Kit and his family have cost me an enormous sum, owing to his folly and the perverse wickedness of his wife’.44 Addressing the Cork electors ‘for the last time’ from his ‘deathbed’, in a letter dated two days before his demise but which appeared posthumously, Hely Hutchinson urged the claims of his son for the vacancy ‘about to be created’, hoping that it would not cause the ‘revival of party feuds’. After ‘one of the most severely contested’ elections ‘ever known to have taken place in Cork’, John was returned as his successor.45

Ref Volumes: 1820-1832

Author: Philip Salmon


  • 1. Session of Parl. 1825, p. 470; D.O. Madden, Revelations of Ireland, 201-2, 221.
  • 2. Dublin Evening Post, 26 Feb., 9 Mar. 1820; Add. 38458, f. 308.
  • 3. NLI, Vesey Fitzgerald mss 7858/14.
  • 4. TCD, Donoughmore mss D/43/45.
  • 5. I. D’Alton, Protestant Society and Politics in Cork, 134-5.
  • 6. Dublin Evening Post, 4 Apr.; The Times, 14 Apr. 1820.
  • 7. Donoughmore mss D/43/46.
  • 8. Madden, 208.
  • 9. O’Connell Corresp. ii. 836.
  • 10. The Times, 14 Apr. 1820.
  • 11. Black Bk. (1823), 166; Southern Reporter, 31 Aug. 1826.
  • 12. The Times, 13 July 1820.
  • 13. Ibid. 19 July 1820.
  • 14. Donoughmore mss D/33/49, 51, 54.
  • 15. The Times, 29 Mar. 1821.
  • 16. Buckingham, Mems. Geo. IV i. 145.
  • 17. Christ Church, Oxf. Phillimore mss, Buckingham to Phillimore, 30 Mar. 1821.
  • 18. Donoughmore mss F/13/29.
  • 19. Dorset RO D/BKL, Bankes jnl. 127.
  • 20. The Times, 16 Mar. 1821.
  • 21. Ibid. 5 Apr. 1821.
  • 22. Bessborough mss F 53, Brougham to Duncannon, 18 June 1821; Lonsdale mss, Beckett to Lowther, 20 June 1821.
  • 23. HLRO, Hist. Coll. 379, Grey Bennet diary, 102.
  • 24. The Times, 12 May 1821.
  • 25. Donoughmore mss D/43/53.
  • 26. Ibid. F/13/80.
  • 27. Ibid. D/43/55.
  • 28. The Times, 22 Apr. 1823.
  • 29. O’Connell Corresp. ii. 1035.
  • 30. Harewood mss WYL 250/8/27; The Times, 13 Apr. 1824.
  • 31. The Times, 1 June 1824.
  • 32. Donoughmore mss D/43/62.
  • 33. Ibid. D/43/64.
  • 34. Ibid. F/13/105.
  • 35. O’Connell Corresp. iii. 1169.
  • 36. Bodl. Bruce Ms. Eng. c. 5753, ff. 74-80.
  • 37. Ibid. ff. 81-84.
  • 38. The Times, 13 Apr. 1826.
  • 39. Bruce Ms. Eng. c. 5753, f. 90.
  • 40. Donoughmore mss F/13/151.
  • 41. Southern Reporter, 6, 13 June; Cork Constitution, 6, 15 June 1826.
  • 42. Southern Reporter, 20, 22 July; Cork Constitution, 27, 29 July 1826.
  • 43. The Times, 28 Aug,; Southern Reporter, 31 Aug. 1826.
  • 44. Donoughmore mss F/13/155; G/7/6.
  • 45. Southern Reporter, 31 Aug., 30 Dec. 1826; Gent. Mag. (1826), ii. 370-1.