Clare had a tradition of turbulent electioneering. One reason was the existence of an unusually large number of territorial interests. The most ancient belonged to various branches of the O’Brien family: the Marquess of Thomond at Inchiquin, Sir Edward of Dromoland and O’Brien of Ballynalacker. Another interest, based upon 35,000 acres of former O’Brien territory, had devolved by inheritance to an Englishman, Lord Egremont.
Cavan was a largely Catholic county, remarkable for its density of population and thriving industries. The Earl of Farnham commanded the strongest electoral interest and in 1809 this was thought to consist of at least 1,000 freeholders; others with significant interests were the Saundersons of Castle Saunderson and the Cootes of Bellamont Forest. The numerous minor interests proved capable of coalescing into an effective ‘independent’ force, when occasion demanded.Wakefield, Account of Ireland, i. 249; ii.
It was reliably reported in 1812 that although Carlow was geographically small, ‘destitute of manufacturers’ and lacking ‘a resident temporal or spiritual peer’, it was ‘tenanted by more wealthy people than almost any other Irish county’. It is certainly true that a number of gentry drew sizeable incomes from their estates in the county and that many of them possessed influential electoral interests. The most important belonged to the Kavanaghs of Borris, a Catholic family descended from the ancient kings of Leinster whose head was evidently referred to in Carlow as the ‘monarch’.
Armagh was fairly prosperous and, appropriately enough for the county which contained the headquarters of both the Catholic and Established churches, possessed an almost equal number of Catholics and Protestants. The leading electoral interests belonged to the Caulfeild, Acheson and Brownlow families, the first two being ennobled with the respective earldoms of Charlemont and Gosford, and until 1812 elections were largely settled between them without much reference to political issues.Wakefield, Account of Ireland, ii.
Antrim, one of the more prosperous Irish counties, had a predominantly protestant population. The county developed a reputation for political radicalism in the late 18th century, and through the sympathy and sometimes the support of major landowners this had an impact on parliamentary elections.
The 7th Earl of Galloway was the principal patron in the burghs and so remained throughout the period. Wigtown and Whithorn were in his interest, though his policy of having no more than four townsmen in the council of either burgh and only one or two entertainments a year was thought risky by his agent John Bushby in 1790. The relationship between Galloway and Henry Dundas was never particularly tranquil. Whithorn had been recaptured from the Earl of Stair, whose main interest lay in Stranraer. The Gordons of Kenmure dominated New Galloway.
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.
