Londonderry, a ‘very grand’ and ‘extremely imposing’ city on the west bank of the Foyle, was a thriving port and expanding commercial centre, which had a lively populace and in this period boasted three newspapers, the Chronicle, Journal and Sentinel.2 The Presbyterians outnumbered the Catholics, but the majority of the upper and middle classes were Protestant, and religious processions caused divisive sectarianism: in addition to the anniversary of the battle of the Boyne on 12 July, the Orangemen each year celebrated the closing of the gates of Derry on 18 (7th, old style) Dec. and the raising of the siege on 12 (1st) Aug., while the Catholics marked St. Patrick’s Day (17 Mar.).3 As the principal landlords, the Irish Society of London held considerable sway in local affairs, as was seen in their visitations in 1814 and 1819, but in the early nineteenth century they played little role in parliamentary elections.4 Instead, and in default of the interest of the Alexanders, earls of Caledon, who had been joint proprietors before the Union, the Beresfords continued to exercise the electoral patronage. The head of the family was the 2nd marquess of Waterford of Curraghmore, county Waterford, but it was his cousin, John Claudius Beresford† of Glenmoyle, agent to the Society, who was usually named as the patron in radical sources. In fact, Beresford’s brother-in-law Sir George Hill of Brook Hall, the recorder and the active mercantile and Protestant representative since 1802, was effectively the manager of the interest.5 As vice-treasurer of Ireland, Hill had close links with the Liverpool administration and, according to one contemporary, he ‘has the patronage of all the places about the customs house in Derry and at least it is so understood that with the power of his brother the collector [Marcus Samuel Hill] can exercise over the merchants ensures his election [sic]’.6

Londonderry’s two sheriffs, one of whom was usually a citizen and the other a country gentleman, acted jointly for the borough and the county, whose jurisdiction overlapped in this and other ways.7 They had to be members of the corporation, which otherwise comprised the mayor (who served as returning officer), 11 other aldermen and 24 burgesses, about half of whom were non-residents. Waterford’s relatives and friends dominated its proceedings. In July 1825 it co-opted the five sons of the military governor of Londonderry and Culmore, General George Vaughan Hart, Member for county Donegal, and in September that year Waterford proposed that Hill’s namesake, his nephew and heir, should be brought in.8 Unlike at Coleraine, which in most respects Londonderry otherwise resembled, the parliamentary franchise genuinely lay in the freemen as well as the corporation. Although citizens were not admitted as of right, freemen could be elected on the basis of apprenticeship, birth, marriage and special grace, on the payment of the necessary fees, and they were not required to be resident.9 Ninety-seven freemen were created between 1795 and 1823, and 139 in the eight years to 1829, nearly half of whom were honorary. In the parliamentary returns, James Gregg, the chamberlain and town clerk, gave the number of electors, ‘as far as can be made out’, as 650, of whom 380 were residents and 270 non-residents. However, further inquiry in 1831 established that the true figure was about 450, consisting of 35 corporators and 415 freemen.10

Although the Beresford interest was paramount, the borough was reckoned by Thomas Oldfield in 1816 to be ‘open to a strong contest’.11 Hill was nearly challenged by Sir Robert Alexander Ferguson, who was a kinsman of the 2nd earl of Caledon and lived locally at The Farm, at the general election of 1818. Nothing came of rumours that he or Conolly McClausland Lecky of nearby Castle Lecky, whose father William Lecky had sat for Londonderry in the Irish Commons, would contest the seat in 1820, when Hill was re-elected unopposed.12 On the occasion of his being made an honorary freeman, 15 Sept. 1820, a dinner was held for the lord lieutenant Lord Talbot, who described the city as a place ‘where indeed genuine Protestantism and loyal attachment to the king and constitution flourish in great vigour’.13 Hill moved the loyal address to George IV at a city meeting, 4 Jan. 1821, when John Acheson Smyth of Ardmore objected and the radical merchant Francis Horner criticized ministers, but Lecky’s hostile amendment was overwhelmingly defeated. A dinner was held in Hill’s honour, 28 Dec. 1821.14

In the Commons, the merchants’ petition for an additional duty on the importation of foreign butter was brought up by Hill, 24 Apr., and a return was ordered of the papers relating to the government loan of 1814, 4 July 1822.15 As the new head of the Stewarts, rivals to the Beresfords in the county, the 3rd marquess of Londonderry was mortified by Hill’s appointment that autumn to the colonelcy of the county militia and, threatening retribution, he observed to one relation that

I cannot but think that a stir can be made by us in the city against him, if we think it prudent to do so, with the Ferguson, Lecky and other interests, and although we may not succeed, we might put him to a good deal of expense.16

In early February 1823 Lord Wellesley, Talbot’s successor, received an address condemning the Dublin Orange theatre riot from the Catholic clergy, gentry and inhabitants of Derry, where a branch of the Catholic Association became firmly established that year.17 In 1824 a gas light bill was secured for the city, but it proved so unpopular that it had to be amended the following year.18 Writing to his friend, the county Londonderry Member and junior minister George Dawson, Hill suggested himself for the vacant Indian governorship in late 1824, commenting that ‘we will give you a good Protestant Member for Derry’ as his replacement.19

As Hill reported to Peel, the home secretary, ‘the Roman rent once attempted here nothing could prevent a public meeting’. This city and county gathering took place on 10 Jan. 1825, when Ferguson, Thomas Scott of Willsborough (the son of the late Londonderry Member William Scott) and Hill junior secured resolutions condemning the Catholic Association, despite Horner’s attempt to move amendments in its favour.20 The ensuing petition, in the name of the mayor, commonalty and citizens, was presented to the House, presumably by Hill, 10 Feb.21 Although the 12th of July passed off, according to Hill, ‘with total abstinence from parade or manifestation of any description’, the Protestants were out in force on 18 Dec. 1825.22 Dawson, who belittled the prospects of Catholic relief and was given dinners by the Apprentice Boys on the 23rd and the local gentry on the 28th, claimed in writing to Peel, his brother-in-law, that he had only attempted ‘to cheer up the Protestant spirit in as warm a manner as I could’, but he was rebuked for appearing to speak on behalf of government.23 Hill, Dawson, Hart and others signed the corporation and citizens’ anti-Catholic address, which was presented to the duke of York, 23 Feb., and mercantile petitions relating to the trade in butter and flax were brought up in the House by Hill, 7 Apr. 1826.24 Hill was returned again at the general election that summer, after which a painting of him was presented to the corporation for the new town hall, which had cost £5,500.25

The common council agreed an anti-Catholic petition, 2 Nov. 1826, and it and another from the freemen, freeholders and inhabitants were presented to the Commons, perhaps by Hill, 2 Mar. 1827.26 Partly in response to a more assertive Protestantism, such as was displayed on 18 Dec. 1827, the Catholics were increasingly active that year and the next.27 Their petition for relief was presented to the Lords by Londonderry, 19 Feb., and to the Commons by Charles Brownlow, Member for county Armagh, 10 Mar., and one complaining of the Subletting and Vestry Acts was brought up by the radical Joseph Hume, 25 Feb. 1828.28 Nothing came of the petition presented on 18 Feb. for a local improvement bill and Hill, who brought up the merchants’ petition for repeal of the coal duties on 8 July, again failed to secure the introduction of another bill in the following session.29 On 12 Aug., when the statue to the Protestant hero Dr. George Walker was unveiled, Dawson’s apparent declaration in favour of Catholic emancipation unleashed a torrent of Protestant fury.30 With some understatement, Hill commented that Dawson, who was understood to have revealed government policy, ‘did not select a propitious day or occasion’ to make his sentiments plain. However, Dawson, writing in explanation to Peel, insisted that the rabid anti-Catholic sentiments had come only from the lower class inhabitants of the city, who were in a minority at what was effectively a county gathering.31 A Brunswick Club, under Ferguson’s presidency, was established in the city on 4 Oct., but anti-Catholic fervour cooled and the proceedings on 18 Dec. 1828 passed off without incident.32

Anti-Catholic petitions from the corporation and the Apprentice Boys were presented to the Commons by Hill, 16 Mar., and the Lords by the duke of Cumberland, 26 Mar. 1829. The Catholics, who met to criticize the exclusive Protestant character of the franchise on the 8th, had petitions for emancipation brought up in the Lords by Londonderry, 19 Mar., and the Commons by Dawson, 24 Mar.33 The Irish secretary Lord Francis Leveson Gower, who was concerned about the possibility of Protestant reprisals on the 12th of August, thanked the mayor for banning the customary processions that month, when the corporation gave a dinner to Hill and Dawson, who had both supported the Wellington ministry’s emancipation bill.34 That the Catholics still had further aspirations was seen in the lively activity they displayed on 17 Mar. 1830.35 The editor of the Chronicle John Sheehan, who reported to Daniel O’Connell* that the corporation, ‘as a mass of ignorance, intolerance and corruption, surpasses anything you could have imagined’, prepared two petitions critical of the borough’s financial management. These were brought up by Hume, 23 Mar., and Otway Cave, Member for Leicester, 21 May; an account of the sums expended by the corporation since 1814 was ordered, 23 Mar., and the issue was again raised in the House, 23 June.36 Petitions against the increased stamp and spirit duties were presented from the printers (by Hart), 6 May, the chamber of commerce (by Hill, who also brought up Londonderry petitions against the renewal of the East India Company’s charter and for repeal of the coal duties that day), 8 June, and the mayor on behalf of the inhabitants’ meeting on 4 June (by Hart), 14 June 1830.37

The Beresfords, who in late 1829 were determined to retain the borough influence ‘all for us’, ruled out any possibility that Dawson, whose reputation was in tatters, might take refuge there at the following election.38 In April 1830, when it was announced that Hill would retire to become governor of St. Vincent, Ferguson controversially resigned the mayoralty in order to be free to stand, and he was opposed by Hart’s eldest son, Captain John Hart of Ballynagard.39 Both candidates were active in city affairs and had opposed emancipation, yet, as at Coleraine, the Irish Society were actively trying to open the borough and Dawson warned that ‘we shall have Brunswicker against Liberal in the city of Derry, but the latter will carry it’.40 Ferguson, who was bequeathed Hill’s interest and had the support of the Beresfords, led throughout the six-day poll at the general election in August, when Hart, who portrayed himself as an independent, came a poor second. According to an election squib, of the 21 corporators present, 14 voted for Ferguson, six for Hart, and Ferguson himself (alone) for his brother-in-law John Montgomery of Benvarden, county Antrim, who was nominated as a safeguard against the expected petition.41 The 351 voters presumably included some of the 30 new freemen elected on 12 Aug., but 67 claimants were rejected by the assessor at the election, and the corporation was forced to reconsider the issue of admitting others at this time.42 At his celebratory dinner, 19 Aug. 1830, Ferguson, who acceded to a public request to omit the chairing ceremony, stated that his opponent ‘had taunted him with having the clergy, the banking and mercantile interest with him, and he could now thankfully rejoice that that had been the case’.43 One inhabitant, who reckoned that there were not more than 150 freemen, complained to O’Connell that

the shopkeepers and traders of Derry stood with their mouths open unable to give a vote while the Member for Old Sarum [one of the Alexander brothers] and Sir Abraham Bradley King ... were both lending their ‘sweet voices’ to appoint the Member for Derry.44

Despite having to surrender their records for inspection, the corporation came to an amicable accommodation with a deputation from the Irish Society later that month.45

A petition in the names of Adam Schoales and three other merchants against Ferguson’s return was brought up in the Commons, 15 Nov. 1830. It alleged that Ferguson was still the legal mayor, that his successor had foiled a king’s bench judgment against him and that legal protests against the conduct of the election had been ignored. Complaints were also made that Horner had been refused permission to nominate a third candidate as an ally of Hart and that Hart’s supporters had had their votes rejected. Similar petitions from Hart were presented, 16, 22 Nov., but because of high costs, the recognizances were entered into only for the second of these three petitions.46 After the mayor had refused a requisition for a meeting, the reformers, who included Horner and Captain Hart, approved a petition for parliamentary reform and the ballot, 14 Dec. 1830, when the chamber of commerce agreed a separate petition, moderately critical of the conduct of the corporation.47 These were brought up in the Commons by the county Londonderry Member Bateson, 28 Feb., 18 Mar., when he also presented the traders and scot and lot payers’ petition complaining of financial abuses (prepared at a gathering on 31 Jan.), and in the Lords by Lord Brougham and Londonderry, 28 Feb., 17 Mar. 1831.48 A meeting of the Apprentice Boys passed resolutions against repeal of the Union, 26 Jan., and although doubts were raised about his survival as their Member, the ensuing petition was entrusted to Ferguson, who presented it to the Commons, 4 Mar.; a meeting of merchants issued an address to the lord lieutenant on the same subject, 28 Jan.49 Another abortive petition calling for a local improvement bill was presented, 22 Feb.50 The inhabitants met to petition for the Grey ministry’s reform bill, 12 Mar., and this, signed by Ferguson and Captain Hart, was brought up by Bateson, 29 Mar., when two Londonderry anti-slavery petitions were also presented.51 On 14 Mar. 1831 the committee voided the previous election by six votes to five, Thomas Gladstone recording that he divided in the majority because he ‘thought the whole resignation of the mayoralty a complete farce and evasion of the law’.52

Although Horner, a self-proclaimed ‘man of the people’, declared in March 1831 that he would offer once the reform bill had been passed, it was Captain Hart who stood as a reformer at the by-election on the 28th.53 As the prime minister’s eldest son Lord Howick* informed his brother Charles Grey*, 4 Apr., Ferguson was ‘obliged to pledge himself to vote with us to give himself a chance of success’, while Hart’s cause was injured by the perception that his father was hostile to the bill (General Hart having abstained on the second reading on 22 Mar.).54 After another six-day contest, which saw objections raised against several hundred voters and the usual panoply of circulating squibs and public disturbances, Ferguson was elected with a majority of 140 out of the 264 polled. Hart immediately sought redress in the Commons, and Ferguson’s position was thought to be weakened by Lecky’s announcement that he would stand in the event of a further election.55 By petitions lodged on 12 and 18 Apr. Hart argued that Ferguson was still the incumbent mayor, since the election on 2 Nov. 1830 had been overruled by the lord lieutenant under the ‘new rules’ of 1672 and that the following election on 17 Dec. had also been illegal. The case lapsed at the dissolution following the government defeat on Gascoyne’s wrecking amendment to the reform bill, 19 Apr. 1831, when Ferguson sided with ministers. Hart, who unsuccessfully contested county Londonderry at the general election, spent a total of £4,119 in these three contests.56

Lieutenant-Colonel Cairnes of Port Stewart declined a requisition to stand as an opponent of reform. Both Ferguson and Lecky refused to pledge themselves to oppose the bill, although Horner and the barrister Thomas Thornton Macklin, who did much to organize the reformers’ campaign, denounced Ferguson on the hustings for failing to commit himself to the details of the measure, 9 May 1831. After the platform had given way with a ‘frightful crash’, the poll was adjourned to the crown court and four days later Ferguson was again declared elected with a sizeable lead.57 He brought up the Catholics’ petition complaining that they had been deprived of their votes at the recent elections because they were still required to take a religious test on being admitted to the freedom, 8 July. Mercantile petitions for abolition of the stamp duty on marine insurance and alteration of the flax duties were presented, 8 July (by Ewart, Member for Liverpool), 11 Oct. (by Ferguson).58 The corporation meeting being inquorate, 2 Nov., no mayor was elected and a writ of mandamus had to be applied for early the following year. Addresses to the king were approved by a meeting of inhabitants in favour of reform, 28 Nov. 1831, and by the Apprentice Boys in defence of the Protestant interest, 18 Jan.; the latter was presented by Londonderry on 29 Feb. 1832.59 Such was the fear of religious unrest that winter that an attempt was made to prohibit public demonstrations, but ugly disturbances marred St. Patrick’s Day and legislation had to be introduced to ban further sectarian parades for five years.60 The inhabitants’ petitions complaining of heavy county rates and against the death penalty for forgery were brought up, 5 Mar. (by Bateson), 9 July 1832 (by Ferguson).61

By 1831 it had become obvious that the corporation was heading for a financial crisis, with debts dating back to the 1790s which now amounted to about £80,000. The officers had clearly acted negligently, if not fraudulently - the municipal corporations report noted that £150,000 remained unaccounted for - and the affair called into question the whole management of the borough. In 1828 the Irish Society had brought proceedings to oblige the corporation to collect its monies, but the immediate problem arose when the new Irish secretary, Edward Smith Stanley, insisted on the repayment of the loan taken out in 1814 for the bridge, which in fact had still to be rebuilt. To meet the demands of its anxious creditors, the corporation was obliged to sell almost all its properties, with the result that its annual income fell from over £7,000 to almost nothing. The Society, whose attitude was largely unsympathetic, provided £750 in 1831 to cover essential administrative costs, but thereafter refused to bail out the corporation.62 As a result, another petition was brought up for an improvement bill, 12 Dec. 1831, and Ferguson and Theobald Jones, the other county Member, sponsored a measure to provide the means of repaying the government loan and improving the city’s administration. O’Connell presented the householders’ petition against this unpopular plan, 1 June, when the case was discussed in the House, but the bill received royal assent, 4 July 1832. Following the death of General Hart in June, it was proposed by another petition, brought up and endorsed by Dawson on 18 July 1832, that the salary of his governorship should thereafter be applied to a fund for the new bridge. This was condemned by one radical as a ‘high Tory production’ which nevertheless ‘excited a lively and almost universal feeling of disgust’, and the idea was therefore dropped, the office being awarded to Sir John Byng*.63

With 568 £10 occupiers (another 167 of the £10 houses being disqualified), ten £10 rent-payers and 97 reserved rights burgesses and freemen, the populous borough, which lay well within the largely rural liberties, was expected to have 675 electors under the Irish Reform Act.64 In fact, there were 611 registered electors at the general election of 1832, when the sitting Member was opposed by the Conservative Dawson, who was in hopes of revived popularity on account of fears about the safety of the established church and complaints about increased local taxes under the recent Act. He had the support of the Independent Club, which had been established earlier in the year and was implicated in extensive bribery, but his opponent, who survived a petition, triumphed by 308 votes to 226. Ferguson made Londonderry his personal power base and except in 1837, when he again defeated Dawson, he sat unchallenged as a Liberal until his death in 1860.65