After three acrimonious contests in the space of two years the electoral situation in Tain Burghs in the late 1780s was complex and unstable. The ministerialist sitting Member, Charles Lockhart Ross of Balnagown, nephew of the lord advocate Robert Dundas, had his main strength in Tain, where his family had wrested power in 1786 from David Ross of Inverchalsey, SCJ (Lord Ankerville).
This district was considered the most unmanageable in Scotland, the burghs switching their allegiance to the highest bidder. William Robertson wrote of them 15 Jan. 1790:
To attack a set of venal burghs in the possession apparently even of another person is always hazardous, and no man ought to embark in such an adventure unless he has made up his mind to being involved in considerable expense.
In 1788 George Dempster of Dunnichen, a leading independent backbencher, who had represented this venal district for almost 30 years, decided to retire at the next general election. Two candidates offered themselves: George Murray of Pitkeathly, uncle of the 4th Duke of Atholl, and Colin Campbell of Carwhin, brother of the Whig 4th Earl of Breadalbane who, in conjunction with the 10th Earl of Kinnoull, hoped to ‘render Mr [Henry] Dundas’s attempt for those boroughs fruitless’. Murray clearly had Dundas’s approval and was easily returned, with only Perth voting for Campbell.
The Dukes of Hamilton, Queensberry and Buccleuch possessed the principal interests in these burghs, and in 1784 Queensberry and Buccleuch had concurred in Hamilton’s nomination of the Member, which had in effect been his since 1772. His strength lay in Linlithgow and Lanark, though in the latter Buccleuch’s brother-in-law Archibald, Lord Douglas, was in a position to challenge him. Queensberry dominated Peebles and Buccleuch Selkirk, and Buccleuch was Queensberry’s heir, so the long-term advantages lay with him, reinforced by his alliance with Henry Dundas.
Sir Hector Munro of Novar, a rich nabob, had dominated and represented the district since 1768. The following anecdote was related after his death:
James Maitland, 8th Earl of Lauderdale, who entered into his inheritance in 1789, dominated Lauder and was strongly placed at Dunbar. He decided to replace William Fullarton, the sitting Member returned on his family interest, with his brother Thomas Maitland.
This district of burghs was liable to ‘great and doubtful contests’,NLS mss 1, f. 206. much depending on the returning burgh.
The most powerful interests in this district in the late 1780s were those of the 7th Earl of Findlater, whose candidate William Adam defeated the nominee of the 4th Duke of Gordon in 1784; and the 5th Earl of Kintore. Findlater’s power was based primarily in Cullen and in Banff, where it was bolstered by his cousin and heir Sir James Grant, while Kintore’s was in Inverurie and Kintore.
Edinburgh was the only single burgh constituency in Scotland and its return throughout this period antedated the others from Scotland. Its government lay in the council of 25 members which, for the election of magistrates and the Member of Parliament and for certain other purposes, was augmented by eight additional or ‘extraordinary’ deacons. The principal influence in 1790 was that of Henry Dundas, the government manager for Scotland, who acted in conjunction with the Duke of Buccleuch.
The principal interest in 1790 was that of government acting through Henry Dundas, whose influence in turn derived from that of his friend Gen. Scott of Balcomie. This hold was tenuous, but the support of Kinghorn was secured through Andrew Hamilton of the excise office, and Kirkcaldy, a decayed and corrupt burgh, could be counted on. Dysart was in the interest of Sir James St. Clair Erskine, then a Whig, and Burntisland in that of William Ferguson of Raith, a friend of William Adam.
