Athlone was enfranchised by a 1607 charter, 4 James I; it also had a charter of James II. Its corporation consisted of a sovereign, two bailiffs and 13 burgesses (including the constable of the castle), a recorder, town clerk, serjeant-at-mace and billet master. There was a select body called the common council. The Municipal Commissioners found no instance of a sovereign holding office for more than a year at a time, but there is considerable evidence of the sovereign and vice-sovereign alternating and both being members of the Handcock family.

In 1783 Athlone had ‘Sovereign, Burgesses and Freemen between 400 or 500. 2,000 inhabitants. Patrons, Sir Richard St George and Dean Handcock. Property various. A large town.’ In 1790 its history was explained as follows: ‘Formerly under the influence of the Dillon family, it has, since the Revolution, been uniformly represented by the united families of Handcock and St George who govern here with uncontrolled authority and whose recommendations never fail of success.’

Two elections – those of 1761 and 1768 – illustrate their dominance. In 1761 the voting was as follows: William Handcock (0959) 236, Henry St George (1841) 219, Wentworth Thewles 140. The high turn-out may be due to the excitement at the first election following the long parliament of George II, and possibly a degree of uncertainty as to the real state of affairs. Certainly, while the result was the same, the numbers were much smaller in July 1768, when the voting was: Sir Richard St George (1846) 82, Gilbert Holmes 17, William Handcock 96.

In 1793 it was considered a very Catholic town, so many of its voters may have been imported. Athlone retained a seat at the Union and William Handcock bought out Sir Richard Bligh St George (1848), who was hostile to the Union. Handcock thus became its sole proprietor after 1800.

Fore appears to have been a borough by prescription: the Rolls Office issued a negative certificate to the Commissioners for Union Compensation. In 1783 it was said to comprise ‘13 Burgesses, non-resident. Not more than 50 inhabitants. Patron and proprietor, Lord Westmeath.’ In 1790 it was described as follows:

This close Borough has invariably been under the dominion of the family of the Earls of Westmeath. Its electors consist but of twelve Burgesses, whom the Earl nominates and consequently appoints its representatives. Unless when honoured with the representation of Lord Viscount Delvin, his eldest son, it is a saleable commodity and increases the income, if not the political consequence, of this noble head of the ancient family of Nugent.

In 1798 the Marquess of Downshire bought Fore from the financially straitened Earls of Westmeath for £14,000 (this was said to be the pricecertainly he bought Fore and half of Carlingford for £21,000). Thomas Burgh (0284), who sat for Fore from February to August 1800, attempted to claim compensation for loss of his seat. This was evidently not allowed; the full compensation of £15,000 was paid to the Marquess of Downshire.

Kilbeggan was incorporated by a 1612/3 charter of 10 James I. Its corporation comprised a portreeve, 12 burgesses, two serjeants-at-mace, a recorder, a town clerk and a seneschal. Its history as related in 1790 was that:

At the Restoration, the then Earl of Cavan wrested this Borough from various contending Roman Catholics and it remains at this day under the absolute influence of Mr Lambart, descended from a younger Branch of the Earl’s family. This gentleman having been, for some time, a constant absentee, it is generally brought to market and proves a sure resource for those pests of the community, parliamentary adventurers.

The Lambart family represented the borough themselves for most of the century, with a break between 1783 and 1797 which, it was said, was caused by a dishonest clerk who had embezzled a large sum of money which obliged Charles Lambart (1192) to sell both seats in 1783; his heir, Gustavus Lambart (1194), was a minor in 1790. Kilbeggan was a village of 500–600 inhabitants. It was ‘a close Borough, whose sole electors are the twelve Burgesses and a very few Freemen appointed to save appearances, not to encourage independence’. It was disfranchised at the Act of Union; the £15,000 compensation was paid to Gustavus Lambart.

Mullingar was a curious borough. It was a manor set up by royal letters of 1583, 25 Eliz. I. There was also a 1676 charter of 27 Chas II but this was a grant to Sir Arthur Forbes, his heirs and assigns, ‘to grant any of the lands of the Manor of Mullingar as he shall think fit’; the freeholders were to return two members to parliament. From then until the Union Sir Arthur Forbes and his descendants, Earls of Granard, controlled the return of the MPs for Mullingar. In 1790 it was explained that:

The constitution of this manor is peculiarly singular. It was created at the Revolution, in favour of the Earl of Granard, in exclusion of the families of Pettit and Dalton, who had before a commanding influence in the ancient Borough and the Crown, to mark its sense of his eminent services, irrevocably fixed the absolute power of election in the Earl, by a most remarkable clause in the charter, directing that none should enjoy the right of suffrage or franchise in the manor, except Freeholders immediately created by the Earl, and his successors.

Mullingar was an important market town and in 1783 it was said that the electorate consisted of ‘Sovereign and Freeholders of the Manor, about 12 in number. But one elector in the town. 2,000 inhabitants, 100 Protestants. Patron, Lord Granard. A large town.’ Various members of the family sat for it, particularly in the middle of the century (1749–68). It was disfranchised in 1800; the £15,000 compensation was paid to George, Earl of Granard.