Dungarvan was the largest and least easily controlled of the Co. Waterford boroughs. It was originally a Boyle borough, but as early as 1713 it required more attention than it was receiving, as ‘Cary of Wexford has half the town’. Its first charter was one of 1609/10, 7 James I; originally it was to be a free borough with a sovereign, 12 brethren and free burgesses, but the right of election passed to the freeholders and householders of the Manor of Dungarvan. In the seventeenth century the Manor of Dungarvan was granted to Sir George Thornton and from him it passed to the Earl of Cork, and then in the mid-eighteenth century to the Duke of Devonshire.

The electorate was large, and in the period 1703–97 there were at least nine controverted elections. In 1703 William Hubert and Robert Carew unsuccessfully challenged the election of James Barry (0091) and Roger Power (1719). The sub-committee of the Committee on Privileges and Elections before which the petition came was presided over by Sir Richard Levinge (1230), who reported to the House that a militia troop had been brought from outside the borough to vote. The High Sheriff, Mr Carew, antedated the precept for the election to 30 August, whereas he had signed it on 7 September, when he posted the notices, to surprise the sitting MPs and with the intention of returning his son.

When the poll closed the numbers were as follows: Barry 386, Power 384, Carew 140, Hubbert 130. The inhabitants of the Manor of Dungarvan were supposed to amount to about 500, but 520 double votes had been cast. The committee concluded that the sitting MPs were duly elected, and the House endorsed their view.

In 1713 Brettridge Badham (0070) unsuccessfully challenged the return of James Barry (0093), the son of 0091, and in 1727 three members were returned – Benjamin Parry (1634), Thomas Carter (0360) and Robert Dillon (0636) – which was resolved by Carter being returned for Hillsborough, but not before a successful petition had been lodged. In this case the Sheriff, Thomas Uniacke (5029), had returned himself by illegally annexing an indenture to the return of the Returning Officer. In 1758, following the death of Robert Roberts (1794), Robert Boyle-Walsingham (0217) was returned to be unsuccessfully challenged by Sir William Osborne (1615), who withdrew his petition. There was also a complaint from the inhabitants that he did not know them sufficiently well and as a serving officer was likely to be an absentee.

Following the 1776 election John Bennett (0112) was returned, to be successfully challenged by Godfrey Greene (0901), who represented the constituency until 1790. The Ponsonby-Beresford pact came into force in 1790 and extended to Dungarvan, where in 1790 Marcus Beresford (0119) and Chambre Brabazon Ponsonby (1698) were returned, to be unsuccessfully challenged by Godfrey Greene and John Keily. In 1797 Marcus Beresford and John Brabazon Ponsonby (1703) were unsuccessfully challenged, this time by William Greene and John Keily. It was said that John Beresford (0115), Marcus’s father, had imported the workers from the Customs House in Dublin to increase the vote. The result of the poll was: Beresford 144, Ponsonby 131, Greene 57, Keily 63. The return was made accordingly, but Greene threatened to petition against it.

Marcus Beresford died in 1797 and was replaced by Edward Lee (1211), who won the Union ballot for the single seat that Dungarvan retained. In 1799 Dungarvan was described as ‘Doubtful. Election in the inhabitants at large. The Beresford and Ponsonby families have lately returned each one Member. Frequently contested’, and this had been the case throughout the century. After the Union the Devonshires endeavoured, with a measure of success, to recover slowly the electoral interest that they had neglected for so long.

Lismore was enfranchised by a 1614 charter, 11 James I which granted that the town of Lismore and all lands should be a free borough and that there should be therein a corporation consisting of a portreeve, burgesses – not fewer than 13 nor more than 24 – and a commonalty. The charter was procured by Richard Boyle, 1st Earl of Cork, with a view to establishing a corporation in the town, but whether he ever acted on it or such a corporation ever existed is unknown. Certainly in 1783 it was considered:

a Manor. Number of electors, supposed to be about 50 but not contested these very many years. Right of election in Potwallopers and Freeholders within the Manor. Number of inhabitants above 300. Seneschal of the Manor appointed by the Duke of Devonshire, is Returning Officer and [the] same man is Seneschal for Lismore and Tallow. Supposed Patron, Duke of Devonshire.

In 1785 it was reported that ‘The representation of this Borough belongs to the Duke of Devonshire. He gives Sir Henry Cavendish (0381) a seat without any stipulation. The other seat the Duke gives to Mr Ponsonby who returns Sir Richard Musgrave (1509) and he goes with him in support.’ In 1790 the psychological background was explained as follows:

Though nominally free, as its electors are composed of the Protestant inhabitants at large, this Borough is complete private property vested in the House of Cavendish by the marriage of the present Duke of Devonshire’s mother, who was daughter and heiress of the last Earl of Cork and Burlington, to whom it belonged. The voters, from the consciousness of favours received and protection bestowed, were long attached to the noble family of Boyle to whom principally Munster owes its civilisation and the Protestant religion in that province its steadiest support.

Although deprived of the residence of their ancient Lords in their Castle of Lismore, they look up with reverence to their descendants and support their political consequences with a degree of zeal warmed with the ardour of affection. From whence the Duke of Devonshire’s recommendation is all-powerful in their election of representatives, the candidates favoured with his countenance being certain of success.

Nevertheless, the 1790 election was controverted as Robert Paul (1644), with the support of Lord Grandison, successfully challenged the sitting MP, Sir Henry Cavendish. Lismore was disfranchised by the Act of Union and the £15,000 compensation was paid to the Duke of Devonshire for the use of those entitled under the will of the late Earl of Cork and Burlington, a copy of which, with other documentation, was provided for the Commissioners.

Tallow in 1783 had a charter for a sovereign, recorder and 24 burgesses, 10 James I, by which the Liberties were extended one and a half miles round the church every way. In 1783 it was stated that:

The Corporation is long gone into disuse, though it is by this charter the right of sending representatives is given. It is a manor, the electors, Potwallopers and before the decision of the House of Commons, Freeholders within the manor exercised right of suffrage. On the last election (1776), which was contested, 96 electors voted. The Seneschal of the manor, appointed by the Duke of Devonshire, is a Returning Officer. Inhabitants above 1,000. Supposed Patron, Lord Shannon.

It had acquired the anomalies of the neglected Burlington-Devonshire boroughs, to a greater degree than Lismore and probably not as much as Dungarvan.

There were at least eight disputed elections for Tallow between 1713, when John Silver (1921) challenged Richard Cox (0507) but the parliament was prorogued before any decision was made, and 1790, when John Hobson (1028) challenged the return of John Egan (0694). In the latter case the House ordered a new election, and Egan was again returned. Edward Hoare unsuccessfully petitioned against Redmond Barry (0095) in 1727, and in 1734 Robert Maynard, following the death of his brother William (1385), petitioned unsuccessfully against John Colthurst (0448). Then in 1757, following the by-election on the death of Colthurst, Joseph Lysaght (1295) petitioned, but then withdrew his petition, against the return of Sir Robert Deane (0608).

After the 1768 election Henry Wallis petitioned against the election of Hugh Cane (0342), but proceedings appear to have died in the long prorogation following the augmentation crisis. Following the 1776 election, John Hobson unsuccessfully petitioned against the election of both Hugh Cane (0342) and Nicholas Lysaght (1296). A report of the committee398 that sat on this election is extant. The Seneschal, who was the Returning Officer, did not appear before the committee, complaining that he had gout.

The election lasted five days, after which the candidates said that they had no more freeholders to poll. The numbers stood thus: Cane 140, Lysaght 152, Hobson 74. One hundred and ninety-two electors were admitted to vote: it is recorded that 183 had used their double vote and there were 9 plumpers, although the candidates’ totals would suggest 174 of the former and 18 of the latter. The report centres on who was allowed to vote under the charter – and what maximum distance they should be from the church.

In 1785 it was thought that ‘This Borough did belong to the Devonshire family but finding it impossible to be retained without great expense and trouble they have given up their interest to Lord Shannon who in a great measure returns the two Members’, and that it was ‘precarious’; in 1789 it belonged to the ‘Duke of Devonshire, but divided. These doubts were borne out at the next, and last disputed election – the Egan-Hobson dispute of 1790, when it was stated that:

His Grace of Devonshire has here also a commanding influence, acquired in the same manner as at Lismore but it is in some measure divided by the interest of Colonel Hugh Cane, which is so strong as always to secure his own return. Disputes arise not between them, as each are satisfied with their situation, the compacts of honour excluding the contest of ambition and the electors are lulled into that degree of apathy with regard to their rights, that most frequently precedes a morbid state of patriotism.

The Colonel’s interest is not of very long standing, for it is called an encroachment on the Boyle power and as the uninfluenced voices of the voters are no way concerned in the question, the phrase may be tolerated. These voters are not numerous and it is the policy of the ruling powers not to increase their number.

The following year it was said, possibly with more truth, that Tallow was an open borough formerly a Devonshire borough, but neglected. However, the nature of these manor boroughs made recovery possible, and in 1799 Tallow was considered ‘doubtful. Election in the inhabitants and tenants of the manor, under the influence of the Duke of Devonshire. Frequently contested. Mr Egan is returned against the Duke’s interest.’ Nevertheless, the £15,000 compensation was awarded to the Duke of Devonshire for the use of those entitled under the will of the late Earl of Cork and Burlington, a copy of which, with other documentation, was provided for the Commissioners.

Waterford city had a number of medieval charters dating from the period under Richard I when John was Lord of Ireland. It was incorporated as a county borough by a 1585 charter, 16 Eliz. I, which stated that all the former lands and houses within the bounds of the city as granted by King John, 7 John, or any of the succeeding kings or queens, should be a county by itself, as fully as was the city of Dublin, except the church and chancel of the Blackfriars within the walls and a place called Our Lady’s Chapel. This was confirmed and further defined by a charter of 1627, 2 Chas I. Waterford had a number of largely confirmatory charters. In 1783 the constitution of the city was described as follows:

Waterford – 40,000 inhabitants. Electors, 1,000, being Freemen and Freeholders half of whom are foreigners. Their Charter under Car. II. The Corporation, 17 Aldermen, out of whom a Mayor is chosen and 23 assistants or Common Council, out of whom 2 Sheriffs are chosen. The Corporation exercises a power of making Freemen at will. By the Charter, all sons, sons-in-law and apprentices of Freemen are entitled to their freedom and the usage supports the Charter. The Liberties of the city extend in length about 5 miles, in breadth about 4 miles. A large part of the property of the soil is in the Corporation, which it lets for terms of 999 years.

In 1793: ‘The constitution of the city is said to be like Bristol.’ All the MPs were connected with the city. Anthony Suxbury, who sat for both parliaments of William III, was a recorder of Waterford city, and Henry Nicholas may have sat for New Ross in the Restoration parliament, which would make him one of the few MPs with previous parliamentary experience.

The Christmas family came to Waterford in the late sixteenth century: Richard Christmas, who sat for Waterford from 1695 to1713, was Mayor of Waterford in 1695; his son, Thomas, was MP for Waterford from 1713 to 1747 and Mayor of Waterford in 1715 and 1725, and his son, also Thomas (0404), sat for Co. Waterford from 1743 until his death in 1749. The Carew family sat for the city mainly in the latter half of the century: Robert Carew sat briefly from 1739 until his early death in 1740; thereafter, from 1749 to 1800 a member of the family sat for the city in every parliament.

Shapland Carew, Recorder of Waterford and a clerk in both Houses of Parliament, represented the city from 1748 to 1776; his son, Robert Shapland Carew, represented the city from 1776 to 1800, when he lost the Union ballot for the one continuing MP for the city. None of the other MPs had so consistent a record, but all were closely connected with the city. Both of the Cornelius Boltons, father and son, were Mayors of Waterford. Samuel Barker was a banker and Mayor of Waterford in 1737.

Barker was returned for Waterford city at the 1761 election having polled 142 votes, the same number as Shapland Carew, the other member. On this occasion the unsuccessful candidates were Robert Snow and William Alcock (0020), who polled 125 and 105 votes respectively. The Alcocks were later arrivals on the Waterford scene. Henry Alcock (MP 1783-97) was Mayor of Waterford in 1777; his son, William Congreve Alcock, succeeded him in 1797 and won the Union ballot.

In the latter part of the eighteenth century the interest was shared among the Bolton, Carew and Alcock families, members of whom were invariably returned. This triangular arrangement did not always lead to harmony. In 1768 Henry Alcock was actually returned but Shapland Carew petitioned successfully against it. Both Shapland Carew and Cornelius Bolton (0180) strengthened their interest by living in Waterford. Bolton ‘constantly resides among the people and spends his money in Waterford which will always secure him his seat’; while Carew secured his interest in an even more practical manner, as:

[He was] bred a lawyer but does not practise, he has a good estate here and recommends himself to the people by asserting the right of freedom for many persons here and having mandamus issued out of the King’s Bench for that purpose. He also ingratiated himself into their favour by giving £100 towards building a market-house for their wool. He is a cunning, spirited man.

However, by 1785 it was said that ‘The Corporation of this City is pretty nearly in the possession of Mr Alcock, who returned himself and was the means of doing the same by Mr Carew.’407 This was because Alcock had managed to build up an influence in the corporation, for ‘The Corporation is influenced by the Members who made many Wexford men Freemen and they oppose but the merchants are much influenced by Mr Bolton (0181) and Mr Beresford (0115).’ In 1790 it was said that:

this city, considerable for its trade and population, is by charter free, the right of election being vested in the Freeholders, Burgesses and Freemen, the latter capable of being increased to any number at the discretion of the Corporation. The three families of Alcock, Bolton, and Carew have, however, for a series of years monopolised its representation, leaving to the citizens little other choice than to select two of them, colouring, we confess, the deformity of family combinations against freedom with the vivid tints of personal attachment to the individual. Mr Bolton and Mr Carew were chosen Members for this City in the last Parliament and discharged their delegated trust with integrity but at the last general election Henry Alcock, Esq. who has the entire command of the Corporation, having joined his interest to Mr Carew’s, they threw out Mr Bolton from the representation, whose conduct, at the time, certainly merited another return from the electors of Waterford. New combinations may take place at the next general election, for connections fluctuate much here, but Mr Alcock’s re-election appears at present indisputably certain and even that his junction with any other candidate will determine the preponderancy of the scale in his favour.