County Roscommon

CO. ROSCOMMON – 90%, [40,000] [?] c. 1,500–1,600 [c. 6,000 (1815)]
BOROUGH	TYPE	PATRON	ELECTORATE
Boyle	Corporation	Earl of Kingston	13 burgesses, mostly non-resident
Roscommon	Corporation	Henry Sandford (Mt Sandford)	13 burgesses
Tulsk	Corporation	Sir George Caulfeild and heirs	13 burgesses, all non-resident

Co. Roscommon - Constituency

In the early part of the century the St George family exercised considerable political influence in Roscommon, but through a failure of male heirs in successive generations the family property eventually passed to the Dukes of Leinster by the marriage in 1775 of Olivia Emily Ussher-St George to William, 2nd Duke of Leinster (0745). The Mahons, Frenches, Croftons and Kings disputed the representation of the county throughout the period, and at least six disputed county elections came before parliament. Roscommon was a very Catholic county and its electorate was probably about 1,500–1,600 before the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1793, but by 1815 it had climbed to about 6,000.

The families remained very much the same throughout the century, and the interests were evenly enough divided for elections to be hard fought and often violent. For instance, in 1768 the minor sins of impersonation and perjury were added to the major crimes of riot, destruction, bribery and theft. Following the 1768 election for Co. Roscommon: ‘Anthony Broderick was tried at Roscommon and is to be pilloried for wilful and corrupt perjury at the late election for the county, where he voted for two of the candidates’ (i.e. used his double vote twice). Edward Crofton, one of the candidates, was accused of provoking a riot and the House declared that he was not duly elected. However, after the House had been prorogued in December 1769 following the rejection of the army augmentation, the Dublin Journal reported in March 1770 that:

We hear from Roscommon, that on Wednesday last the trial of Edward Crofton, Esq.; on a traverse to an indictment for a riot at the last Election for that county came on; the prosecution was carried on with every token of virulence. The trial lasted seven hours, and Mr Crofton was honourably acquitted by the jury without even leaving the box, so that the prosecution carried the entire air of being malicious.

It would be interesting to know a little more about the judge, defence and prosecution, and especially the jury. John French was returned in place of Edward Crofton. He died in October 1775 and Crofton replaced him and subsequently sat for Co. Roscommon until his death in 1797.

The 1776 election threw more light on the conduct of county elections in Roscommon. When the poll closed, the numbers stood as follows: Mr Mahon 510, Mr Crofton 419, Mr French 361. Mahon and Crofton were returned. Mahon, who sat for the county from 1761 until his death in 1782, ‘came in by his own interest which is very great.

All his relations residing in this county and marrying through one another.’ Arthur French (nephew of John French) then challenged Crofton’s election on the grounds of excessive entertainment and the lack of qualification of some of his voters.

The case came before a Select Committee of the House on 10 October 1777. The question of bribery came up, but as it had not been one of the original complaints it was negatived. One of the witnesses alleged that Crofton used Edmond Giraughty, an innkeeper, as his agent (he did not know about what!). Another witness was more explicit and said that freeholders were lodged and fed free at Giraughty’s – he and others drank wine and did not pay for it. The first witness gave details of the entertainment of freeholders Dawson, Simpson and White, some of whom were sober and others drunk, who voted for Mr Crofton and were entertained in the kitchen of Moate House, Mr Crofton’s residence, during the election.

Regarding the freeholders’ qualifications, witnesses declared that Michael Byrne, No. 97 on the Sheriff’s book, was a Roman Catholic, although he had conformed 16 years ago, while No. 76, Robert Codner, was a Protestant born but had married a Roman Catholic; similar claims were made against a number of voters.

Another issue was the validity of the freehold. The minutes of evidence taken by the committee amounted to 103 pages. The election was declared void. The leading counsel for the petitioner was the young John Fitzgibbon (0749). Crofton was returned on re-election. In 1783 Sir Edward Crofton and Arthur French were returned, and French sat for Co. Roscommon in both the Irish and united parliaments until his death in 1820.

In 1790 it was said that:

All election contests here have been for the support of Frenches or Mahons, of Croftons or Sandfords and not for the encouragement of genius or the reward of ability. The number of electors is, in truth, very small, as this district, though spacious in extent, is limited in population and of the scanty number of inhabitants a large majority are of that religious faith that excludes from the possession of a freehold. But did the Freeholders bear ever so great a proportion to the surface of the County, unless the true spirit of a manly yeomanry actuated their bosoms, their numbers would contribute nothing to independence of choice.

ID	County	Year	Type	Ref. No.	Name
1	Co. Roscommon	1692	Election	1164	Sir Robert King
2	Co. Roscommon	1692	Election	1837	Sir George St George
3	Co. Roscommon	1695	Election	1164	Sir Robert King
4	Co. Roscommon	1695	Election	1837	Sir George St George
5	Co. Roscommon	1703	Election	521	Sir Edward Crofton
6	Co. Roscommon	1703	Election	1837	Sir George St George
7	Co. Roscommon	1713	Election	521	Sir Edward Crofton
8	Co. Roscommon	1713	Election	1837	Sir George St George
9	Co. Roscommon	1715	Election	521	Sir Edward Crofton
10	Co. Roscommon	1715	Election	1159	Sir John King
11	Co. Roscommon	1721	By Election	827	Arthur French
12	Co. Roscommon	1727	Election	521	Sir Edward Crofton
13	Co. Roscommon	1727	Election	1157	Sir Henry King
14	Co. Roscommon	1730	By Election	1331	Nicholas Mahon
15	Co. Roscommon	1735	By Election	523	Sir Edward Crofton
16	Co. Roscommon	1741	By Election	1868	Henry Sandford
17	Co. Roscommon	1745	By Election	831	John French
18	Co. Roscommon	1761	Election	831	John French
19	Co. Roscommon	1761	Election	1334	Thomas Mahon
20	Co. Roscommon	1768	Election	831	(Sir Edward Crofton (0524) n.d.e.) John French
21	Co. Roscommon	1768	Election	1334	(Sir Richard St George (1846) n.d.e.) Thomas Mahon
22	Co. Roscommon	1775	By Election	524	Sir Edward Crofton
23	Co. Roscommon	1776	Election	524	Sir Edward Crofton
24	Co. Roscommon	1776	Election	1334	Thomas Mahon
25	Co. Roscommon	1782	By Election	1330	Maurice Mahon
26	Co. Roscommon	1783	Election	828	Arthur French
27	Co. Roscommon	1783	Election	524	Sir Edward Crofton
28	Co. Roscommon	1790	Election	828	Arthur French
29	Co. Roscommon	1790	Election	524	Sir Edward Crofton
30	Co. Roscommon	1797	Election	1153	George King
31	Co. Roscommon	1797	Election	828	Arthur French
32	Co. Roscommon	1799	By Election	1335	Thomas Mahon
33	Co. Roscommon	1801	UK	828	Arthur French
34	Co. Roscommon	1801	UK	1335	Thomas Mahon
35	Co. Roscommon	1802	Election	828	Arthur French
36	Co. Roscommon	1802	Election		Edward King

Co. Roscommon - Boroughs

Boyle was incorporated by a charter of 1614, 11 James I. A charter was also granted by James II in March 1789/90, but it was never used. The corporation consisted of a burgomaster, 12 free burgesses and a commonalty of unspecified numbers. The King family, who arrived in Ireland during the reign of Elizabeth I, controlled the borough throughout the period: Sir John King (1159) sat in the 1695 parliament of William III and they sat in the parliaments of Anne, George I, George II and George III. By the end of the century they were Earls of Kingston. In 1783 Boyle consisted of c. 2,000 inhabitants, about 300 of whom were Protestants, and it had some resident freemen. In 1790 it was reported that:

This Borough has long been under the influence of the King family, the head of which, the Earl of Kingston (1150), is its present proprietor and private property it may very justly be called, as its sole electors are an inconsiderable number of burgesses, who are chosen into office by the mandate of the noble Earl, whose patronage is, of course, omnipotent in the choice of its representatives.

From his rank and fortune we should naturally expect that it would never be exposed to sale, but that some of his own family and connections would always represent it. But the reverse is the fact and at this present moment Mr Robert Boyd (0199) sits as Member for it in the House of Commons, the representative of his own money, and not the selected trustee of the Earl's confidence.

Actually members of the King family did very often represent it. Boyd was an ambitious lawyer who was elevated to the bench in 1791, so he sat only for the 1783–90 parliament, and the other MP was a King. One of the family also sat in the following parliament. It was disfranchised by the Act of Union; the £15,000 compensation was paid to the Earl of Kingston.

Roscommon was a medieval borough – its first charter was granted by Edward I and in 1310 the inhabitants petitioned Edward II to confirm it, which he did by writ enrolled in the Exchequer. The modern corporation was founded on a 1613 charter of 10 James I. It was to comprise a portreeve or provost, 12 free burgesses and a commonalty, and all the inhabitants were to form part of the corporation. In 1783 the town of Roscommon had about 350 inhabitants and its electors were the sovereign and burgesses only. In 1790 it was said that:

This, which is a close Borough, whose electors consist of twelve Burgesses only, has for the last sixty years been entirely under the dominion of the Sandford family, whose pleasure has been all-powerful in the creation both of the electors and the elected. But a stubborn competitor to them, not long since, sprung up in the person of Sir Edward Crofton (0524) who, on the foundation of some ancient claims, asserted his right to one-half of the representation. To avoid legal or personal contest, the claim was, by common consent, referred to the decision of Denis Bowes Daly (0571), Esq. a gentleman of unquestionable integrity and honour who, on investigation determined against it.

Such a determination ought to have been decisive, but self-interest discovers a strength of right where reason can perceive none. In consequence of this, Sir Edward still adheres to his first purpose and seems inclined to try whether he can not effectuate by force what the free consent of his opponent is ill disposed to grant. What the event of this dispute will be, it is difficult to say, nor is it of any consequence to the community to know. It is a mere private contest and let it end as it will, one seat for the Borough will be sold and the other filled by a little dabbler in the ministerial lottery of places and pensions.

In fact one Sandford sat for Roscommon in the 1783–90 parliament and two in the 1790–97 parliament. Crofton's attack was unsuccessful. Roscommon was disfranchised by the Act of Union and the £15,000 compensation was paid to its recent MP Henry Moore Sandford (1869), who was then Lord Mount Sandford.

Tulsk was incorporated by Charles II in 1663. The corporation comprised a portreeve, 15 free burgesses and a commonalty. It was empowered to send two MPs to parliament. It appears always to have belonged to the Roscommon branch of the Caulfeild family, seven members of which represented it during the period 1692–1786.

In the mid-eighteenth century it belonged to St George Caulfeild (0371), Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench 1751 to 1760, when he retired. He was unmarried and did not die until 1778, when he left his sister, Mrs Walcott, a life interest in his estate and the borough. His residuary heir was his nephew William Caulfeild (0377), who sat for Tulsk from 1769 to 1786, when he died in Mrs Walcott's lifetime. The owner of the village of Tulsk was Mr Fox Lane, but the Caulfeilds owned the corporation. Mrs Walcott, who was well known for her independent spirit, did not die until 1797. In 1790 it was said that:

This private Borough, whose electors are now reduced to a small number of dependant Burgesses, has been for some time under the influence and control of that branch of the Caulfeild family of which the late Lord Chief Justice Caulfeild was the head and is at present the sole property of Mrs Walcot, his surviving sister and one of the richest females in the Empire.

Tulsk was disfranchised in 1800 by the Act of Union; the £15,000 compensation was paid to James Caulfeild, the guardian of St George Caulfield, a minor, under the terms of the will of Lord Chief Justice Caulfeild, a copy of which was requested by the Commissioners.

Constituencies and Elections

County Roscommon

Co. Roscommon - Constituency

Co. Roscommon - Boroughs