Bannow was a borough by prescription and no charter could be found for it in 1800, when Charles, Earl of Ely (2088), claimed the compensation for its disfranchisement. Apparently:

This place was, in the time of Henry the Second, a sea port of some consequence, and lying directly opposite to that part of Wales from which the English adventurers emigrated, it soon became populous, being well enough adapted to the shipping then in use but since that period, the sea has thrown up a bar against its entrance, so that it is now accessible only to the smallest kind of fishing boats.

As the former circumstance pointed it out for the distinction of being a Borough, so from the latter sprang its decline and its consequent subjugation to Lord Viscount Loftus (2088), its absolute master, who nominates at pleasure its Magistrates and Burgesses, the only electors now remaining to it and equally appoints its representatives.

In 1783 it had ‘13 Burgesses. No inhabitant. Patron, Mr Tottenham. Proprietor of the soil, Mr Boyse’, and in 1784 the Belfast News Letter reported that ‘Bannow retains only the name, being totally uninhabited.’ Bannow was disfranchised in 1800 and the £15,000 compensation paid to Charles, Marquess of Ely – his marquessate was also part of the benefits that accrued to him from the Union.

Clonmines, like Bannow, was a borough by prescription, and no charter was available. In 1783 it was reported that its corporation comprised the ‘same 13 Burgesses as Bannow. No inhabitant. Patron same, Mr Tottenham (2088). Proprietor, Mr Annesley. A decayed and rotten Borough.’ In 1790 its origins were explained as follows:

This, like Bannow, was in early days a thriving and populous sea port and from the same causes which destroyed the former’s prosperity it has sunk into decay. Its electors, reduced by art and fraud to the Burgesses only, are the mere passive organs of Lord Loftus’s (2088) will who creating them by his breath, rules them by his nod and who might as easily return for it two of his footmen, as he has introduced some of his domestics into their body. Submissive obedience forms the first merit of his delegated trustees, nor do his commands ever meet with any opposition from the vassals of his power.

Like Bannow it was disfranchised at the Union and the £15,000 compensation paid to Charles, Marquess of Ely.

Enniscorthy was enfranchised by a 1613 charter of 11 James I. Its corporation was to consist of a portreeve, 12 free burgesses and a commonalty. The electors were the portreeve and 12 free burgesses. By the end of the century Enniscorthy was:

a busy, industrious and prosperous town, situated on the River Slaney, about 12 miles above Wexford, to which town the river is navigable for small vessels. It is a close Borough, the electors being confined, by the usual progress of encroaching power, to the Burgesses only and is the private property of the Colclough family, long of high consideration in this County. For a length of time constantly a merchantable commodity, it has been the transitory property of various parliamentary adventurers but one seat for it at present having been bought by Mr Longfield …

Enniscorthy belonged to the Colclough family, one of whom sat for Co. Wexford in every parliament from 1727 to 1790. Sir Vesey Colclough (0436) was the dominant influence in the returns for the 1790 election, when he returned himself. From 1776 he had sold the other seat to Richard Longfield (1263), for his cousin Mountifort Longfield (1262).

In 1783 there were supposed to be 13 burgesses, of which one was resident. The population of the town was about 700. This election saw a temporary upset: Colclough had sold both seats, one to William Alexander English (0697), a noted duellist, and the other to Richard Longfield, who returned Mountifort Longfield, the sitting member. Adam Colclough, John Colclough and Cornelius Grogan (0905) all petitioned against the return. They complained that the number of burgesses had been reduced to eight, and of these three were ill and one absent.

Sir Vesey Colclough was the Returning Officer and he did not hold the election within 20 days of the writ being served or give four days’ notice of his intention to do so. Furthermore, the notice mentioned no hour. Two of these four burgesses heard of the election only the night before and, having set off for Enniscorthy, arrived there about noon. One of them, Richard Colclough, found that Sir Vesey intended to hold the election immediately and he went to inform Mr Adam Colclough, which caused a delay of about ten minutes. On returning to the Bear Inn where the election was to be held, they found it over.

Soon after, Cornelius Grogan and Mr Robinson, the two other burgesses, arrived. They intended to vote for David Walsh (2164) rather than William Alexander English. English was present but Longfield was not, as Sir Vesey had told him that his presence was unnecessary. As Town Clerk, the landlord of the Bear Inn was hastily sworn. His waiter, Thomas James, aged 50, acted as crier and only a very attentive ear could hear him. Sir Vesey Colclough then declared that as the only burgess present he would vote for Longfield and English and that as the Returning Officer he would duly return them. Sir Vesey left for Wexford within a quarter of an hour of proceedings being completed. Apparently the election for Co. Wexford was in progress, and Sir Vesey was a (successful) candidate there.

The Select Committee met on 5 November 1783. After hearing this and further similar information, the committee declared that: (1) the election was void, (2) Sir Vesey Colclough, the Returning Officer, had conducted the said election unduly and irregularly. A footnote to the report pointed out the Commons resolution of 1713, which stated that:

No Sheriff of a county, mayor … or any chief magistrate of any city, town, borough or corporation, or seneschal of a manor, hath a right to vote in any election (except where the voices of other electors are equal) any usage or custom to the contrary notwithstanding, unless where by express words of the charter they have other or greater power, or where there hath been usage to the contrary time out of mind in boroughs by prescription.

At the new election Conway Heatley (0997), who also purchased his seat, was returned and Mountifort Longfield re-elected. In 1790 Vesey Colclough returned himself along with Mountifort Longfield.

Colclough had for years lived a spendthrift life. He had left his wife and legitimate children to live with his mistress and their children in Tintern Abbey, which was said to be falling around their ears. Shortly before his death in 1794 his estate produced only £1,600 p.a., and it is probable that at this time he (or his executors) sold the interest in the borough of Enniscorthy which he had bought – including the office of portreeve – from his cousin Adam Colclough for £3,000 in 1766.

At the time of the Union, when it was disfranchised, it was in the hands of Cornelius O’Callaghan, Lord Lismore, who received the £15,000 compensation minus £2,700 paid to Robert Cornwall (0494), who had bought his seat at the 1797 election and then vacated it to make way for a Unionist in a plan that backfired.

Fethard was the third of a curious trio of boroughs, the others being Bannow and Clonmines. It did have a charter of 1614, 11 James I. Its corporation comprised a portreeve, free burgesses and a commonalty, and the power to return two MPs rested with the portreeve and 12 free burgesses. In 1692 these included Sir Nicholas Loftus (1253), Henry Loftus (1249), Anderson Saunders (1878), Thomas Loftus, Nathaniel Boyse (0219), John Cliffe (0423), Dudley Loftus (1247), Thomas Butler.

In 1783 the burgesses

were the same 13 Burgesses as Bannow and Clonmines. None resident. Same Patron, Mr Tottenham (2088). 13 domestics, or persons dependent on the will of Mr Loftus and nominated by him depute 6 Members to serve in Parliament from an opulent and respectable county, wherein they are not perhaps acquainted or possess one shilling of property. This must be a burlesque on all representation.

Fethard was:

in former days a sea port of some note … reduced, by the constant increase of its [sand] bar, to an inconsiderable receptacle for the smallest fishing boats and with its harbour the town itself has dwindled into insignificance. It is a close Borough, none being now permitted to elect its representatives but the Burgesses only and these being ever of Lord Loftus’s (2088) nomination, he is consequently its sole proprietor and commands with uncontrolled authority their choice of those mis-called, their representatives in Parliament.

It was disfranchised by the Act of Union and the £15,000 compensation was awarded to Lord Ely. Charles Tottenham of Ballycurry, Co. Wicklow, presented a memorial436 at the beginning of the hearing claiming an interest in the boroughs of Fethard, Clonmines and Bannow, but this does not appear to have been allowed.

Gorey was enfranchised by a 1620 charter of 17 James I. Its corporation consisted of a sovereign, 12 burgesses and free commons. The village had about 200 inhabitants and was under the patronage of the Ram family, although Lord Valentia owned part of the soil. In 1790 Gorey was reputed to be:

a very poor and despicable village, situated in a most beautiful and fertile country. Never of any importance, the chapter of accidents alone could have elevated it to the rank of being represented in the House of Commons. It is, as might be expected, a close Borough, whose sole electors, limited indeed in number, are appointed by the Ram family under whose dominion it entirely is, and whose power is irresistible in the choice of its Members.

Throughout the period 1692 to 1800 the borough belonged to the Rams. Except for the 1713–14 parliament, Abel Ram (1756) sat for the borough from 1692 until his death in 1740; his son Abel (1757) sat from 1727 to 1776, Stephen Ram (1764) from 1764 to 1790, and until the 1790s both seats were usually occupied by the Rams. After 1790 they tended to sell the seats; in 1796 John Toler (2081) paid £2,300 for his return on condition that the money would be returned if he died before the next parliament. A seat in parliament was a considerable outlay and a considerable income for its possessor. In 1800 the £15,000 compensation for its disfranchisement was paid to Stephen Ram.

New Ross’s earliest charter dates back to 1302, 28 Edw. I, and a succession of charters followed, mainly granting commercial privileges. Its corporation consisted of a sovereign and an indefinite number of free burgesses and freemen, ‘all honorary, 3,000 inhabitants. Patrons, Mr Tottenham and Mr Leigh. A large town but venal and rotten.’ The two families probably made the return for it throughout the century. When Robert Leigh (1222) was first returned for New Ross in 1759 it was said that ‘He had half the borough and a good estate.’ He then sat continuously until the Union, when he won the Union ballot.

In 1790 it was stated that: ‘New Ross is an excellent port, situated on the River Barrow below its conflux with the Nore and lying in a rich neighbourhood, it enjoys a considerable degree of trade. But the inhabitants, tho’ wealthy and numerous, have no share whatever in the election of their nominal representatives.’ In 1791 it was described as ‘a close Borough, the joint property of the two Members. Mr Tottenham (2089) has an office and goes with his relation Lord Loftus. Mr Leigh may almost be considered as one of the Loftus Party, his son (1218) being returned upon the Loftus interest, for the town of Wexford.’ The Leighs and the Tottenhams were intermarried and after the Union they returned their nominees – usually members of their families – alternately..

Taghmon was a borough by prescription; no charter could be found for it in 1800. It is mentioned in 1642, so it must have existed before then. It conformed to the usual pattern of a sovereign and 12 burgesses. The town was:

much declined from that degree of consequence which, in early days, it seems to have possessed … now a very paltry village, eminent for nothing but its saleable representation. Reduced to a close Borough, its electors are confined to the twelve Burgesses, who are always chosen agreeably to the pleasure of Mr Hore (1037), of Harperstown who is absolute master of the Corporation and the nominator of its Members in the House of Commons.

In 1783 it had ‘13 burgesses, few resident, few inhabitants, Patron Mr Hoare’. The Hores, who were related to the Grogans, appear to have controlled the borough throughout the century. William Hore (1038) sat for the county from 1709 to 1713, and three members of the family (1036, 1037, 1039) sat for Taghmon 1727–68.

Among their famous purchasers were the Hely-Hutchinsons, and in 1797 Lord Donoughmore told Lord Sudley that the seat for his father, John Hely-Hutchinson (1001), had been secured by paying £1,400 two years before it was due to become vacant and a further £200 at the time of the vacancy: poverty perhaps explains why they consistently sold the seats in the later eighteenth century and finally sold the borough itself to Henry Bruen (0268) in the early 1790s. The £15,000 for its disfranchisement was paid to the Trustees of the estate of Henry Bruen, who died in 1795.

Wexford town was incorporated by a 1317 charter of 11 Edw. II, extended under Henry IV in 1411. The corporation was refurbished under the 1674 ‘new rules’ of 24 Chas II to allow all freemen to return the MPs for the borough. In 1783 the situation was described as follows: ‘Freemen at large, apprentices serving seven years. About 550 have voted. A large and populous trading town. Electors, a Mayor, 2 Baliffs, 24 Burgesses and 800 or 900 Freemen. Ought to be a free town but by manoeuvring in the Corporation, it is retained as a kind of rotten Borough under the influence of Richard Nevill (1527) and others.’

The town was described as follows in 1790:

The capital of the County, is very industrious, rich and prosperous and every day improving in modern buildings, though were we to judge from the ruins of its walls, its castles and ancient churches, we have good reason to believe that it will never recover its former magnifience. Its electors are sufficiently numerous not to be easily influenced and too independent in circumstances to be liable to the suspicion of seduction, yet from some unaccountable fatality, it is as abject a Borough as any in the County. Lord Loftus (2088) has, by various means, needless to recount, secured to himself one half of the representation. Mr Neville at present enjoys the other but on his demise it will infallibly fall to the noble Lord, who so well understands the approbation of Boroughs.

Two election results indicate the interests in the 1760s and 1770s. In July 1768 the voting was: Richard Le Hunt (1215) 309, Arthur Jones-Nevill (1125) 263, John Grogan (0906) 218, Mr Hatton 121.

During the course of this election, the Mayor allowed the votes of several persons for Mr Le Hunte and Mr Nevill, whom he had a few days before rejected on the Mayoralty election, and would not allow the votes of several others for Mr Grogan and Mr Hatton whom he had received on the other election, and rejected the votes of 70 other voters who offered the poll for Mr Grogan and Mr Hatton, which if he had received, would have given a fair majority of 25 to Mr Grogan over Mr Nevill.

The return does not appear to have been contested. In May 1776 the voting was: Richard Nevill 332, Richard Le Hunt 293, John Grogan 137. Nevill and Le Hunt were declared duly elected.

Earlier the influence in the town appears to have been divided between the Nevill and the Le Hunt families but Richard Le Hunt, whose health had been failing for some time, died in February 1783 and Charles Tottenham Loftus (2088) was returned with Richard Nevill. After this the Loftus interest infiltrated, and when Loftus was elevated to the peerage in 1785 his nephew, Francis Leigh (1218), was returned.

In 1798 Nevill reached a formal agreement with Sir Charles Tottenham (Loftus), now Lord Ely, that ‘A cordial union shall subsist between them in the borough of Wexford, which is to be continued in their issue male, and in failure thereof to nomimees … each to have one member of parliament, mayors etc. alternately.’ It was thought by 1791 that Nevill’s interest was ‘decaying’, while Loftus’s ‘was rising’.

By the Act of Union Wexford retained an MP and Leigh won the Union ballot but, as he had been appointed Collector of Dublin at a salary of £1,200 a year, he did not take up the seat and thereby risk an election. An uneasy relationship between Nevill and the now Marquess of Ely and his successor continued after the Union. The electorate was probably c. 500-550 in the 1770s and after the Union it was estimated at 150,441 perhaps because the creation of freemen was no longer so necessary in view of the Ely-Nevill agreement