The 4th Duke of Queensberry, an absentee, had the principal interest in these burghs, but he was opposed by Sir James Johnstone of Westerhall. Queensberry’s heir, the 3rd Duke of Buccleuch, who aspired to the management of his Scottish interests, had a small but significant interest, as did the Earl of Hopetoun and Alexander Fergusson of Craigdarroch. After a disastrous defeat in 1784 Queensberry, with Henry Dundas’s support, had improved his interest in the burghs.
Inveraray and Campbeltown were in the interest of the Duke of Argyll, Rothesay in that of the Earl (from 1796 Marquess) of Bute, and Irvine in that of the Earl of Eglintoun. Ayr was more independent than the other burghs, but there Eglintoun and Sir Adam Fergusson of Kilkerran were influential. Argyll and Bute combined throughout the period to return the Member and Eglintoun normally endorsed their choice.
The principal interest in these five small burghs was that of Sir John Anstruther of Anstruther, who dominated Anstruther Easter and Wester and Pittenweem. He also had a significant interest in Kilrenny. Crail was in the interest of Thomas Erskine of Cambo. Henry Dundas and the Earl of Kellie had some influence in three of the burghs.
Sir David Carnegie of Southesk, the successful Whig candidate of 1784, told Sir Gilbert Elliot, 21 Oct. 1789, that as the burghs ‘never before had an opposition Member they are very tired of me, and have been looking for an excuse to get rid of me’.
John Stewart, 7th Earl of Galloway, a courtier who thought his parliamentary interest superior to almost any in Scotland ‘excepting the Duke of Queensberry’, and whose main ambition was a British peerage, had ‘the chief interest’.PRO 30/8/138, f. 42; Pol. State of Scotland 1788, p. 344. From 1768 until 1784 his nominees were unopposed.
The compiler of the opposition survey of 1788 considered the influence of Lady Sutherland and her husband Lord Gower, who the previous year had returned Gen. James Grant, a personal friend of Henry Dundas, to be virtually impregnable. At the same time, he noted that the excessive creation of life-rent votes had
Sir Thomas Dundas of Kerse, Member since 1768, whom his fellow Whigs believed to be ‘beloved by men of all parties’, had a ‘great estate and great personal interest’. He had not faced a contest since 1774: although James, Marquess of Graham (who in September 1790 succeeded his father as 3rd Duke of Montrose) as representative of a ‘very considerable interest’ on the ministerial side, had seemed likely to oppose Sir Thomas in 1784, he had desisted on John Francis Erskine of Mar’s declaring for Sir Thomas, or so Erskine claimed.R. M. Sunter, ‘Stirlingshire Pols.
The principal interest was that of the 3rd Duke of Buccleuch. The sitting Member Mark Pringle had a good interest and went along with the duke, as well as with Henry Dundas, so he was secure in his seat.Pol. State of Scotland 1788, p. 315. It appears that an opposition was intended to Pringle in 1802 and, although it was given up,Add. 33049, f. 354. he made way for another friend of Buccleuch’s, Rutherfurd.
In February 1788 the two leading interests of John Ker, 3rd Duke of Roxburghe, a courtier, and Henry Scott, 3rd Duke of Buccleuch, a ministerialist, divided the county into two parties. The sitting Member, Sir George Douglas, put up in 1784 by the former with the latter’s concurrence in order to exclude the Whig Member, Sir Gilbert Elliot of Minto, was now challenged by John Rutherfurd of Edgerstone, to whom Buccleuch had transferred his interest.
The dominant interest in Ross-shire was that of the earls of Seaforth, restored to supremacy in 1784 and subsequently strengthened through further creations of life-rent votes by the Whig Francis Humberston Mackenzie, chief of the clan. In 1788 Lawrence Hill credited Seaforth with 24 votes under direct control and estimated that he could probably rely on a further 20.
