Ballynakill was incorporated by a charter of 1613, 10 James I. The corporation comprised a sovereign, two serjeants-at-mace, 12 burgesses and an unlimited number of freemen. In 1783 it had ‘a Magistrate and 12 Burgesses. 1,000 inhabitants, one sixth Protestants. Patron, Earl of Drogheda. Bought a few years back for £4,000. [Owner of] Soil, Earl Stanhope. 2 Burgesses residents and there are also a few Freemen still extant who are entitled but not permitted to vote.’

The Barrington family (0085, 0086), who sat for the borough with short breaks (John Barrington (0085) was declared not duly elected in 1715) until 1760, sold Ballynakill to Lord Drogheda between 1761 and 1768324 for £4,000. Lord Drogheda would appear to have got a bargain. In 1790 Ballynakill was described as follows:

This close Borough, whose electors have been reduced by time and management to a small number of Burgesses and a few Freemen, is the sole property of the Earl of Drogheda whose recommendation is all powerful in the appointment of the confidential trustees of his authority and whose pleasure invariably determines the choice of its representatives. Over the political conduct of these gentlemen, at least for some years past, his Lordship appears to have possessed little influence, they seeming to act as if they owed no obligation to his kindness, but had purchased their seats, instead of obtaining them, as was supposed, from his friendship and patronage.

Who will be elected for it hereafter it is impossible to foretell, as Sir William Montgomery (1448), who long represented it [1768–88], died in the course of the last year and Mr John Moore (1464), its other Member, has avowed his intention of becoming a candidate for the Borough of Lisburn. Should it be exposed to sale, the noble Earl’s parliamentary consequences will be entirely confined to his personal exertions in the House of Lords.

Sir William Montgomery was the father-in-law of Luke Gardiner (0842), John Beresford (0115) and the Marquess Townshend. It was thought that at the 1790 election he might have sold one seat to Sir John Tydd (2117), who held the lucrative office of Paymaster of Corn Premiums. In 1790 the Ballynakill corporation book listed the following: Frederick Trench (2108) (Sovereign), Burgesses, Earl of Drogheda (1454), Hon. Ponsonby Moore (1467), William Burton (0303), Thomas Pigott (1683); in 1791 John Tydd was added to the list. Ballynakill was disfranchised in 1800 and the £15,000 compensation was awarded to the Marquess of Drogheda.

Maryborough was incorporated by a 1571 charter of 12 Elizabeth I. The corporation comprised a burgomaster, two bailiffs, burgesses, a serjeant-at-mace, a town clerk, a billet master, a craner or weighmaster and a pound keeper (to look after stray or impounded animals etc.). A by-law of 1738 placed the admission of freemen in the hands of the burgomaster. There was no legal limit to the number of freemen who could be admitted and, prior to 1783, after which there were no new admissions, the situation appears to have got out of hand.

The Pigotts of Dysert had had a strong local interest throughout the seventeenth century, and they carried it over into the first part of the eighteenth century. Robert Pigott (1682) sat for Maryborough from 1703 until his death in 1730, when he was succeeded by Warner Westenra (2220). In 1739 the two MPs were Warner Westenra and William Wall (2156). On 1 March 1739 Wall, who had sat for Maryborough since 1713, sold his interest in the corporation to Bartholomew William Gilbert (0848) for £500; at the same time Wall took a voluntary oath that he would take no part in the corporation as regarded parliamentary or local elections and that he would give his support to Gilbert and Westenra. He resigned his position as burgomaster and Gilbert was elected in his place.

Gilbert and Westenra were then burgomaster turn and turn about until 1750, when William Henry Dawson (0597) joined them in a triumverate. Wall died in 1755 and there was a disputed election: other interests began to emerge or re-emerge. The Pigotts were joined by two late seventeenth-century families, the Parnells of Rathleague and the Poles of Ballyfin. In 1754 there was ‘a strong contest for the magistracy between Bart Wm Gilbert and John Pigott Esq. Upon the poll for Mr Gilbert there was 227: for Mr Pigott 129: majority for Gilbert 98: notwithstanding Pigott by a violent mob usurped office; an information was brought in the court of King’s Bench by Gilbert: judgment of ouster against Pigott but still usurped.’

This quotation is from a handlist of the voters for Maryborough328 dated 1 May 1760, indicating that there was a need to prepare for the election some six months before the king’s death would dissolve parliament. Out of a total of about 400 potential voters, only 70 resided in Maryborough. The list is in three columns entitled ‘Burgesses and Freemen’, ‘Place of Abode’ and ‘Observations’, and attempts to identify the voters committed to some major interest and how the rest might be influenced: comments such as ‘will serve whoever gives him most money’, ‘he will serve Mr Coote but money will prevail’, and ‘whoever gives his wife most money will get him’ were not uncommon.

Although there were quite a number of voters in Maryborough itself, there were also many much further away: for instance, there were a number in Dublin, including one who was ‘somewhat under the influence of Collo Paul but is poor and will take money’; there were similar voters in Carlow, Wicklow, Ballinasloe, Kilkenny, etc. as the 1747 ‘Newtown Act’ allowed. At the time of the 1761 election, when this poll book would have applied, the Dublin Journal reported that:

On Friday April 24 last came the election for two Burgesses to serve in Parliament for Maryborough. When opening the poll Mr Parnell and Mr Rochfort, two of the candidates upon a well grounded suspicion that several of one class of person who were not freemen or deemed so by any part of the body of the Corporate would be tendered as voters on that election, demanded from the Magistrate if he would receive them, who answered in so doubtful a manner that Messrs Parnell and Rochfort could not prepare for legal objections to them. On the third day the poll stood thus: Mr Parnell (1632) 185, Col. Coote 170, Mr Gilbert (0850) 241, Mr Rochfort 68.

After which the magistrate received 22 of the class first mentioned by Mr Parnell, though he had before received 32 voices for Col. Coote and the former magistrate, totally repugnant to the Bye Laws of the said corporation; and afterwards on the scrutiny refused admitting Mr Parnell and Mr Rochfort supporting their objections to anyone of the 94 persons objected to on the poll, under pretence they were not summoned to attend the scrutiny, which was impossible to do [they] being dispersed into different parts of the kingdom; and after striking off 17 of Mr Parnell and Mr Rochfort’s voters declared Mr Gilbert and Col. Coote duly elected.

Parnell petitioned against the election, and the House of Commons decided in favour of William Gilbert and Parnell: the latter was returned in the place of Col. Coote, declared not duly elected. Large electorates not only were difficult to control but opened the way for bribery, corruption of various kinds, and the exercise of all sorts of undue influence. There were at least nine controverted elections for Maryborough during the period 1692–1800.

In the 1770s the Earl of Drogheda attempted to gain control. In 1777 it was said that ‘His Lordship [Drogheda] has one Borough (Ballynakill) certain and he is now endeavouring to hold the half of Maryborough.’ He did not succeed. On Thursday 30 May 1776 the poll ended for Maryborough and the voting was as follows: Sir John Parnell 151, Lord Jocelyn (1100) 139, Sir John Tydd (2117)125,General Walsh (2165) 106. Tydd and Hunt Walsh petitioned against the return, and the House of Commons confirmed the election of Sir John Parnell but declared John Tydd elected in place of Lord Jocelyn, who was probably Lord Drogheda’s candidate.

By 1783331 Maryborough had ‘300 or 400 Freemen, mostly non-resident. [The town] 1,200 inhabitants. Patrons, Dean Coote and Sir John Parnell. Soil, various proprietors.’ Dean Coote and Sir John Parnell continued to consolidate their hold, and in 1790 it was commented that:

This Borough, whose electors are sufficiently numerous, though by no means entitled to the praise of independence, as having been created to serve the little purposes of private party and not to support the generous interests of free election, is principally under the dominion of the Rt Hon. Sir John Parnell, Bt, but the Rev. Dean Coote possesses a powerful interest in it. An interest formerly so powerful as to be deemed to command one half of the representation, and tho’ visibly declined, it still requires management and sometimes composition. In consequence of this, Charles Henry Coote (0481), Esq. the Dean’s eldest son, at present represents it and probably will continue to enjoy that station at the general election [1790] as from particular circumstances we do not apprehend that he will again think of contesting the County.

Maryborough was disfranchised by the Act of Union and the £15,000 was equally divided between Sir John Parnell and the Rt Hon. Charles Henry Coote.

Portarlington was enfranchised by a charter of 19 Chas II, 1668. The corporation consisted of a sovereign, two portreeves (or bailiffs), 12 burgesses and freemen, with the right to elect two MPs. In 1783 it had 3,000 inhabitants, one-half protestant, all holding in perpetuity. It had a famous settlement of Huguenots who increased the protestant population. The corporation was controlled by successive members of the Dawson family. In 1773 it was said that the MP, Sir Thomas Butler (0332), ‘was recommended to this seat by Lord Townshend, for when Lord Dawson was dignified with a Peerage he offered this seat to his benefactor the Lord Lieutenant, who named Butler and Butler was well with Lord Townshend by always opposing the Burtons’.

However, Sir Thomas died in 1772 and Viscount Carlow (0597) then brought in his son, Joseph Dawson (0590), who was barely of age. Lord Townshend had hoped in view of Butler’s short tenure to fill the vacancy, but Viscount Carlow had five sons and three daughters to provide for. It was confirmed in 1785 that ‘This Borough is the property of Lord Carlow by whom both seats were sold (in 1783). Mr Justice Kelly did represent it, but upon his being made a Judge, Sir Boyle Roche on the recommendation of Administration came in for a thousand pounds – half price.’ In 1785 Lord Carlow (0589) was created Earl of Portarlington. Five years later, in 1790, it was said that:

This Borough has long been addicted to the interest and subject to the control of the Dawson family, who now derive the title of Earl from it. The only electors are the Burgesses, who, according to the established practice, are chosen into their offices agreeably to the pleasure of the Earl of Portarlington who consequently, in effect, nominates the representatives.

Portarlington was not disfranchised by the Act of Union. It continued to send one MP to the united parliament. The franchise remained unchanged. The number of voters was estimated at 63 in 1784, 12 in 1815 and 15 in 1831. Its patron was John, 2nd Earl of Portarlington – his father died in 1798. It was sold in 1802 for £4,000. Its most distinguished post-Union MP was the economist David Ricardo. Ricardo offered a loan of £25,000 at 6 per cent which Lord Portarlington needed to clear the encumbrances on his estate and also for the purchase and disposal of the seat for four years for £4,000. Ricardo died in 1823.