Go To Section
Selkirkshire
County
Available from Boydell and Brewer
Background Information
Number of voters:
40 in 1790 reduced to 37 in 1811
Elections
Date | Candidate |
---|---|
2 July 1790 | MARK PRINGLE |
10 June 1796 | MARK PRINGLE |
21 July 1802 | JOHN RUTHERFURD |
19 Nov. 1806 | WILLIAM ELIOTT LOCKHART |
29 May 1807 | WILLIAM ELIOTT LOCKHART |
29 Oct. 1812 | WILLIAM ELIOTT LOCKHART |
29 June 1818 | WILLIAM ELIOTT LOCKHART |
Main Article
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.1 It appears that an opposition was intended to Pringle in 1802 and, although it was given up,2 he made way for another friend of Buccleuch’s, Rutherfurd.
In 1804 it seemed likely that Buccleuch would put up Rutherfurd for Roxburghshire, and Lord Minto, who had a subsidiary interest in Selkirkshire, hoped the duke might invite his heir Gilbert Elliot, who would soon be of age, to represent the county. By April 1806 Minto feared that Rutherfurd’s transfer to the neighbouring county was intended to thwart his son’s pretensions, ‘for Selkirk certainly answered every other view completely’. He still hoped that Buccleuch might parley with him, particularly if he joined Minto in support of the Grenville ministry. That hope was disappointed. Lady Minto informed him, 25 Apr. 1806, ‘Barwickbrae is the candidate for Selkirkshire. I take it [Scott of] Harden would not come into their terms.’ Meanwhile, an unsigned invitation to the freeholders not to engage their votes appeared, and a few days later Lady Minto reported that she was informed that ‘Johnstone of Alva is a candidate for Selkirkshire and Mr Murray3, in opposition to Eliott whom the duke supports’. Retailing an opinion that Col. Eliott Lockhart of Barwickbrae was ‘a very unfit man to represent a county in all respects, and that his fortune would not support his attendance in Parliament’, she concluded that ‘he is to give way to Rutherfurd there, if he [Rutherfurd] loses this county [Roxburgh]’, though Rutherfurd himself gainsaid this.4 No contest ensued and Eliott Lockhart remained secure in his seat thereafter. In Lady Minto’s view (1811), Buccleuch was able to treat the county like a proprietary borough.5