Published in The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1790-1820, ed. R. Thorne, 1986
Available from Boydell and Brewer

Background Information

Number of voters:

81 in 1790 rising to 133 in 1811


24 and 25 July 1790SIR GEORGE DOUGLAS, Bt.30
 John Rutherfurd25
13 June 1796SIR GEORGE DOUGLAS, Bt. 
23 July 1802SIR GEORGE DOUGLAS, Bt. 
 Alexander Don58
25 July 1814 ALEXANDER DON vice Elliot Murray Kynynmound (Visct. Melgund), called to the Upper House 
30 June 1818(SIR) ALEXANDER DON, Bt. 

Main Article

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 dukes were reported to have agreed that ‘neither of them are to make votes, and that their espousing different candidates is to make no change in their personal friendship’. Both candidates were reported ‘unpopular’, but Douglas ‘dull, indifferent and inattentive’ enjoyed ‘a negative unpopularity’ and Rutherfurd, ‘snappish, petulant and assuming’, ‘a positive one’.1 Elliot, who had carried his election against Roxburghe’s brother with Buccleuch’s, support in 1780 by 43 votes to 34 but in 1784 withdrew on forfeiting that support, then reviewed the situation as follows:

I think it particularly unfortunate that a case should occur in which the Duke of Roxburghe should be induced to join the Duke of Buccleuch contrary to evident policy, if he has any regard for his own interest in that county. It was on their disunion alone that the country gentlemen could build any hope of having such an independent representation as should distinguish them from a burgage tenure borough, or that any gentleman could hope to represent them in such circumstances of freedom as could make that station either honourable or eligible. Besides that disunion of these two potentates another thing was necessary also. I mean some spirit of independence in the gentlemen themselves. Without some share of this it is evident that the Member for the county of Roxburgh must be the nominee of the Duke of Buccleuch ... and his near proxy in the House of Commons.2

Although he had meanwhile found a seat for Berwick, Elliot still looked to the county seat, and late in 1787 sounded out his uncle Adm. John Elliot on the subject: the response was not encouraging. In February 1788 Rutherfurd, who was related to Elliot’s wife, suggested that Elliot unite with him, but Elliot decided to canvass on his own account: the result was not particularly reassuring. In the ensuing Regency crisis, Elliot hoped that Roxburghe and Sir George Douglas might ally with him, but by the spring of 1789 ‘the change in public affairs’ put his prospects out of the question, for it was clear that Roxburghe could not support an opponent of government. Nevertheless, holding the balance between Douglas and Rutherfurd, Elliot was encouraged by his party leader the Duke of Portland to bank on replacing Douglas by offering him ‘a certain and quiet seat’, or by striking a similar bargain with Rutherfurd—though this was less likely to succeed.3 Elliot agreed, but achieved nothing. On 18 Feb. 1790 he informed his brother that he was still in the running, adding ‘My prospect is not good, but it is not desperate’, and consoling himself with the thought that his candidature would establish his future claims.

On 17 and 18 June 1790, Elliot’s uncle negotiated for a compromise with Buccleuch, on the lines suggested by Portland the year before, though the latter’s preference went to Roxburghe, whose interest was likely to be less permanent and more politically amenable. Adm. Elliot, who was willing, if necessary, to hold the county for his nephew until ‘it could be opened again with safety’ provided he was ‘a free man’, hoped that the several borough seats being offered to Sir Gilbert might obviate this necessity and facilitate a compromise to secure Sir Gilbert’s return for the county. Buccleuch had no objection to the proposal, but when it was referred to Rutherfurd, he declined it peremptorily, complaining that he had not been consulted first, that he had ever opposed ‘compromises of this nature’ and that no man was entitled ‘to bargain away the votes and interest of his friends’. He would make way neither for Sir Gilbert nor for Adm. Elliot in exchange for a borough seat and resisted Sir Gilbert’s efforts to prevent a personal rupture between them, leading him to suppose that he might publish their secret negotiations which, according to Elliot, ‘could not possibly offend a single freeholder’. Sir Gilbert next offered Roxburghe ‘the most liberal and (personally) the most disinterested terms that were consistent with the grand object which both I and my friends aim at in the representation of this county, I mean an open and free election’. A minute drawn up at Fleurs on 23 June 1790 listed the provisions under which Elliot would support Douglas at the election, ‘his friends permitting’: if their coalition guaranteed Douglas’s return, if no present or future engagements were made between the two dukes and if Roxburghe had no future commitment to Douglas. A final telltale provision whereby Roxburghe would not object to Douglas’s resigning his seat at any time for ‘local or county’, rather than public, reasons was apparently scrapped, but indicated how the proposed compromise was intended to open the county for Elliot when the time was ripe.4

As Sir George Douglas subsequently admitted, Elliot’s aid proved crucial to his success, as ‘we took the field 44 against 44 and I had only the casting vote for praeses’. With Elliot as praeses and Henry Erskine, secured by Elliot, as counsel, Douglas was able to outwit ‘Henry Dundas, the Duke of Buccleuch and the sheriff united to overpower me’. Rutherfurd had protested about the return on 24 July, in spite of a last minute bid by Elliot to fob him off again with the offer of a borough seat, alleging an illegal agreement between Douglas and Elliot, which together with the usual objections to votes, was to be the basis of his petition against the return, 8 Dec. 1790.5 The battle over the disputed votes raged in the court of session and, by appeal, in the House of Lords with such ill feeling that ‘a thorough reconciliation’ between Elliot and Rutherfurd seemed improbable, at least as long as both aspired to the county. Finally on 30 Mar. 1792 the committee of the House confirmed Douglas’s return, by the casting vote of Matthew Montague, not without some aspersions on Elliot’s conduct as praeses.6

Subsequently all augured well for Elliot’s pretensions at the next election: in 1793 it was anticipated that Douglas would decline, and in 1794 Rutherfurd made it known that he was dropping out. Elliot’s joining government with the Portland Whigs had enhanced his claims, but a difficulty arose out of his accepting the government of Corsica. Henry Dundas, who urged him to accept this office, suggested that Douglas might make way for him on his return. Elliot’s cousin, William Elliot*, suggested that if a sudden dissolution found Sir Gilbert abroad, his uncle Adm. Elliot might come in, or Douglas continue as his locum. Roxburghe, when consulted, pointed out that Sir Gilbert was likely to be ineligible (he had to vacate his seat in Parliament to take up his post in Corsica); while Adm. Elliot ‘positively refused’ to stand locum (June 1795) and the pis aller of continuing Douglas might be unacceptable to Buccleuch, whose friend Rutherfurd had meanwhile had his prospects completely changed by a financial windfall on the death of his father-in-law. Rutherfurd denied that this changed his mind, but his patron was being urged to take up Sir John Buchanan Riddell*. The notion that William Elliot should step into the breach was scouted by Elliot himself and duly prevented by his accepting Irish office. The only solution was for Sir Gilbert to secure his recall from Corsica in time for the dissolution. On 25 Jan. 1796 he informed the ministers in his plea to be relieved of his post:

You will feel the extreme hardship of losing the county of Roxburgh by absence on public service: for you know how much it has been an object to me all my life, and how much disappointment and mortification I have already experienced on that subject. I was secure when I left England.7

Having established that Roxburghe, supposing Sir Gilbert absent and ineligible, adhered to Douglas and ‘the peace of the county’, if Douglas were to stand again, William Elliot would be reduced to begging Henry Dundas (who alone had sufficient influence on him) to ask Buccleuch to support Sir Gilbert. Buccleuch was ‘peevish’ on the subject and would not be drawn, though it was supposed that if he declared for Elliot, Roxburghe would concur with him; otherwise it seemed likely that with no candidate of his own, Buccleuch would support Roxburghe’s choice. Sir Gilbert affected to believe, on the strength of the assurance of Douglas’s brother James, that Sir George would make way for him, but this belief was not shared by his friends at home. On 15 Jan. 1796 Henry Dundas informed William Elliot that if Buccleuch remained neutral, Roxburghe would be encouraged to support Douglas against Sir Gilbert, who might beat Douglas provided he came home in time, but that seemed unlikely. The fact was that government were not ready to relieve Sir Gilbert of Corsica and had nothing to offer him at home that he would accept. He ruefully admitted, 25 Jan. 1796, that he ran the risk of coming home ‘a gentleman at large’, without even the certainty of obtaining the county seat. On 28 Jan. his cousin William assured him that Douglas was willing to retain his seat, and that failing the concurrence of the two dukes in Elliot’s favour, and if he remained ineligible, Douglas might as well continue as the Member, though Sir Gilbert should meanwhile state his pretensions to the county from Corsica to safeguard his position. William Elliot had then to proceed to Ireland, leaving Sir Gilbert’s affairs in the hands of Adm. Elliot and without knowing the dukes’ final decision.8

On 24 Feb. 1796 Henry Dundas pressed Buccleuch for his decision, informing him that Roxburghe was prepared to accept Sir Gilbert if Buccleuch agreed, but did not feel at liberty to give up Douglas, unless ‘upon an understanding with you and to preserve the peace of the county it was understood that Sir Gilbert Elliot was to be brought in without a contest’. Dundas hinted that if the two dukes were agreed, they must prevail, but if Buccleuch remained neutral, there would perhaps be a doubtful contest between Douglas and Elliot, in which government could not be indifferent to the claims of Elliot as one of ‘our new friends’. On 26 Feb. Dundas wrote again, adding that government could not provide for Elliot at home and preferred him to remain in Corsica. Knowing that Roxburghe would meet his wishes and that his friend Rutherfurd was still reluctant to stand, though a forecast was in his favour, Buccleuch announced his decision to Dundas from Fleurs, 3 Mar. 1796: ‘to prevent any contest which might force us to take the field opposed to each other’ and ‘to keep the peace of the county from being disturbed by bringing forward a new candidate, agreeable perhaps to some of the Duke of Roxburghe’s friends but certainly not so to mine’, he concurred in Roxburghe’s preference for Douglas, ‘who is very desirous of representing the county again’, adding that

if Sir Gilbert Elliot comes into the field, either with, or without the support of the Duke of Roxburghe’s friends he certainly would be opposed by many of those gentlemen who upon a former occasion supported Mr Rutherfurd.

In conclusion Buccleuch made it clear that he had not forgiven Sir Gilbert for his part in the previous election and persisted in regarding him as an enemy. After a further interview with him, Dundas reported to the Elliots, 30 Mar. 1796, that he could not budge Buccleuch, into whose mouth he put an argument he found incontrovertible:

I am at present, and hope I shall remain, upon the most cordial footing with the Duke of Roxburghe, and why I am to disturb his friend in order to introduce my own avowed political enemy and that of my friends is to me perfectly incomprehensible.

Dundas commented that until Douglas, as to whose intentions Sir Gilbert had evidently been misinformed, was out of his way, and until Sir Gilbert could win over at least one of the dukes, he stood no chance. ‘Indeed’, he added, ‘if I had conceived that you had no stronger hold of the interest with which you coalesced at the last general election I never should have thought of making the attempt.’9

Meanwhile Douglas had begun his canvass and Adm. Elliot issued a circular on behalf of Sir Gilbert on 30 Mar. maintaining his claims, but this was before he had heard from Dundas. The only chance for Sir Gilbert now was to call on Douglas to withdraw in his favour, but Douglas denied that he had ever declined the county in Elliot’s favour. Elliot’s views were thus ‘completely frustrated’; his friends maintained that he had been duped by Roxburghe and doubted Dundas’s good faith. He could now choose only between making way for Douglas, thereby adding to the latter’s obligations to him, and withdrawing neutral: as Robert Dundas put it, ‘There must have been a complete and most extraordinary misunderstanding somewhere, as to Roxburghshire’. On 2 May 1796 Sir Gilbert announced his withdrawal in favour of Douglas: there was no question of his coming home for the election. Portland concurred, believing he stood no chance against ‘a complete and I think indissoluble alliance’ of the two dukes. It only remained for Sir Gilbert to write a letter of protest to Dundas about the latter’s disparagement of his pretensions. He had left England ‘morally certain’ of his election: all he lacked was a ‘formal promise’ from Douglas to make way for him.10 In July 1797 he was still hopeful of buying out Douglas with the bait of provision of ‘£400 or £500 a year’, if government encouraged him and Buccleuch could be conciliated.11

In October 1797 Sir Gilbert Elliot became Lord Minto, complaining that Buccleuch, though ‘sufficiently civil’, gave him no real encouragement to look to the county, which drove him ‘from Dalkeith to London to push the peerage as my only resource’. Although Sir John Riddell then announced his candidature at the next election, applying to Minto for support, and William Elliot urged Minto to give it to him, as Riddell had ‘always deported himself so handsomely towards the independent party’, Riddell did not persevere. Minto, who did not take Riddell’s claims seriously, was prepared to support him, saving his son’s pretensions when he came of age, or, under certain circumstances, those of his cousin William Elliot. But Riddell did not even take the crucial step of approaching the two dukes. In 1801 Lady Minto urged William Elliot, who was then looking for a seat, to sound Buccleuch, who might be expected to prefer a new man to ‘the present stupid possessor’; but when Lord Minto, with William Elliot in tow, had an interview with Roxburghe on 3 Dec. 1801, they learnt that Roxburghe had no intention of giving up Douglas if he offered again: ‘if Sir George was a candidate, he understood that none other would start, but if Sir George should withdraw, he knew that another person proposed to offer himself’. Minto concluded ‘that there is an understanding between the dukes for the county to the exclusion of my interest at all events’ and did not press William Elliot to come forward. The day before the interview, he had written:

I fear there is little chance for Elliot this time, as nothing can be hoped for without a duke and I cannot suppose that either of them will favour him. Nor is it reasonable to expect that government should press them for one who is not a friend, and therefore probably against somebody who would be one. To tell you the truth I don’t feel very anxious about it, for Elliot will have another seat in his option.

His long-term aim was to return his heir, but in 1802 he regarded ‘the quiet re-election of Sir George’ as ‘the best thing at present’.12

Roxburghe died in March 1804 leaving no ‘creditable relations’. Minto hoped that Buccleuch might be conciliated on his son’s behalf: Gilbert was not of age, but perhaps Buccleuch would consent to a locum if necessary. When Buccleuch applied for the vacant lord lieutenancy, Minto gave up his own ambition for it, accepting that Buccleuch had in turn made way for Roxburghe in 1794 to avert friction between them at a time when ‘their differences gave too much weight to a third interest’; and hoping that Buccleuch would appreciate Minto’s admission that ‘his support is the best prospect which Gilbert can ever look to in our quarter of the world’. If Buccleuch insisted on Rutherfurd’s being his candidate for Roxburghshire, he might at least make Gilbert Rutherfurd’s successor in Selkirkshire. Rutherfurd was not backward in asserting his pretensions, applying to government to act as vice-lieutenant, to which position the deceased duke had named him in December 1803, until the vacancy was filled, and stating that, but for Buccleuch’s application, he himself had wished to be lord lieutenant. In August 1805 Minto hoped that a coalition of his friends with Pitt’s government might secure Buccleuch’s support for his son; but his hopes proved false.13

The advent of Minto’s friends to power in February 1806, which placed him at the Board of Control, greatly enhanced his son’s prospects: Lady Minto thought he was sure to be elected ‘after a few nice bits have been disposed amongst the hungry dogs. Writerships and cadets is a fine way of making honest fellows.’ On 21 Feb. Minto secured the ‘avowed countenance’ of government for his son, with the promise of county and general patronage, as Buccleuch was ‘holding off’ from the new ministry. On 4 Apr. Gilbert Elliot set out for Scotland, ahead of Rutherfurd, armed with a letter from his father to Buccleuch asking him to let bygones be bygones and cement their alliance by supporting him, and adding that he would persevere, even without Buccleuch’s support. Buccleuch prevaricated, claiming uncertainty about Rutherfurd’s intentions, but conceded that if Rutherfurd withdrew, he would support Gilbert Elliot: he ‘tried to get rid of the subject; and seemed very happy to get rid of Gilbert’s company, though perfectly kind as usual in his manner’. Meanwhile, the canvass for Elliot had begun and Minto had obtained a response ‘as favourable as I could possibly expect’ from Sir George Douglas on applying to him on his son’s behalf, supposing Douglas declined a contest. But it was clear that Rutherfurd, who addressed the county on 12 Apr., was sure of Buccleuch’s support. He was also suspected of making a deal with Sir John Riddell, whose friendship Minto had not been able to preserve, for his interest in Roxburghshire in exchange for the quiet seat for Selkirkshire he himself was giving up, with no more obvious intention than to disappoint the hopes of Minto and with the concurrence of Buccleuch, who thus demonstrated that he was in Rutherfurd’s power. Minto, who dismissed as humbug Riddell’s ostensible opposition to Gilbert Elliot as a peer’s son, maintained that if Buccleuch cold-bloodedly preferred Riddell to his son for Selkirkshire, he would be making ‘a strong and clear declaration of perpetual hostility to me and my family’. By 19 Apr., moreover, Sir George Douglas had declined and his friends did not come over to Gilbert Elliot. On 20 Apr. Lady Minto wrote to her husband:

The game seems completely up ... there can be no doubt that the two dukes have disposed of the county alternately for their joint lives, and that the promise to the Duke of Buccleuch for this term is held sacred by most of the Roxburghe party ... The Duke of Roxburghe’s whole interest ... consists of 16 votes, but unfortunately the loss of 16 ... turns this election for Rutherfurd as it before kept him out; it seems to me useless for us to hold out.

Minto disbelieved in any ducal pact, ‘for if there had been Sir G. Douglas could not now support Gilbert’, and refused to give up hope, counting on the non-declarants and on the distance of the election, as well as the advantage for his son of Buccleuch openly voting against the government; as to ‘made votes’, he doubted whether they could outdo their opponents on that score and Rutherfurd did not even trouble to compete with him.14

It was clear that Gilbert Elliot would not be accommodated with Selkirkshire, and in Roxburghshire, as his father admitted, he had the ‘unpleasant duty’ of ‘playing a losing game to the end’, but ‘the game does not end the set’ and he must satisfy his party ‘and keep them hearty’, secure of his return meanwhile for a close borough by purchase. On being thus returned, Elliot declined the county, making his father’s imminent departure for India his excuse for not attending to stake his future claims. Rutherfurd thereupon replaced Sir George Douglas unanimously. Lady Minto had written before the election:

We must be beat in Roxburghshire by the sudden dissolution which deprives us of near 20 votes out of about a hundred. Gilbert is to sit for Ashburton, and we have the ground work for success in future at a cheaper rate.15

Rutherfurd was unopposed in 1807, when Gilbert Elliot admitted he had not much chance but was urged by his family to attend and renew his pretensions. In February 1808, upon a rumour that Rutherfurd was dying, Sir John Riddell made a tentative canvass, but Gilbert Elliot could not believe that Buccleuch would accept him, ‘if he can find any other person’. By May 1808 he was confident that Rutherfurd would retire at the dissolution and that he could beat anybody else, even if Buccleuch went against him. At Michaelmas 1809 he still expected Riddell to be his competitor, but Rutherfurd remained ‘the most formidable adversary we can have’.16

On 11 Jan. 1811 Rutherfurd’s retirement at the dissolution was reported and Buccleuch’s sponsorship of Alexander Don, younger of Newton Don, announced. Gilbert Elliot had lately been active in county affairs, and felt confident that he could defeat Don, who was little known, having been a détenu in France. Buccleuch’s choice of Don had mortified Sir John Riddell, who thought it was a foregone conclusion that he was to be supported for Roxburghshire and Don for Berwickshire, but he did not on that account defect. Speculations that Rutherfurd’s decision to retire was inspired by political differences with Buccleuch were denied by him: he had intended to retire at the end of the previous Parliament had it not been so short, and his present decision was premeditated and due to his inability to cope with patronage demands. He supported Don, whose father had been his warm supporter, on political grounds, but alleged that he would not canvass his friends for him. With the Regency in view, Don called himself the Prince’s friend, a move that displeased Lord Melville and which Gilbert Elliot wished to counter by securing letters of support from Lords Grey and Grenville: this was judged imprudent and he had to be satisfied with its being ‘perfectly understood’ that he had the backing of ‘the party’. Assuming that Elliot could win over many of Rutherfurd’s erstwhile supporters, that Buccleuch’s interest was in decline and with a canvass showing 59 sound promises and ‘a handsome majority of probables’, his mother informed his father, 3 Feb. 1811, ‘We may feel tolerably easy as to the result’. He had the day before assured his father that if a dissolution was near, he was secure; Don was very unpopular and Buccleuch ‘not in very good odour’ owing to ill feeling arising out of his conduct of the lord lieutenancy.17 Even the ‘resurrection’ of Perceval’s ministry under the Regency did not dismay Gilbert Elliot: he was safe if there was a dissolution within a year, and probably next year as well. The canvassing figures drawn up for Don certainly gave Elliot the lead as far as committed votes went. By July 1811 Elliot’s canvass was complete. The Michaelmas court merely added three claimants on either side, and although Buccleuch was buying up superiorities, it was unlikely that he could sway the result in time. Buccleuch’s son Lord Dalkeith, who was acting for Don, was more interested in securing the five Riddell votes by Lord Melville’s bestowing naval promotion on one of the family, claiming that without this, Don’s defeat was certain. On the eve of the election, Melville obliged; but Minto had provided his son with Indian patronage to the same end.18

The election of 1812 was ‘quite near run enough’ to make Gilbert Elliot feel ‘a little anxious’ beforehand, but he carried the day by seven votes. Rutherfurd had been chosen praeses by a narrow majority and Don thereby gained five new votes against only four for Elliot, but Elliot’s most distant supporters arrived in time and Rutherfurd’s unexpected ‘petulant’ attack on him as a peer’s son and open partiality to Don made no difference. Don claimed that a number of nominal votes on the Minto estate had kept him out, and threatened a petition. He was dissuaded from it and Buccleuch’s advisers were divided as to the feasibility of countering the so-called parchment votes on the Minto estate by ‘an army of the same description’. Elliot’s triumph was short lived. His father, who had become Earl of Minto in 1813 (and not Earl of Roxburghshire as he had at first wished), died in the following year. Alexander Don replaced him unopposed. Sir William Francis Eliott, 7th Bt. of Stobbs, a loyal supporter of his kinsmen of Minto in county elections, had hoped to be sponsored by them, but was stopped ‘in his absurd career’.19 Sir William also had thoughts of coming forward in 1818, though he did not canvass: ‘it would not have been worth his while’, so Sir John Riddell informed Buccleuch. Riddell, who fancied that Don might be retiring, staked his claim to succeed him, but Buccleuch assured him that Don was standing again. There was no opposition to him.20

Author: R. G. Thorne


  • 1. Pol. State of Scotland 1788, p. 302; SRO GD267/1/4, G. to P. Home, 29 Feb.; 267/3/15, same to same, 9 Feb. 1788.
  • 2. NLS mss 13338, Sir G. Elliot to W. Oliver, n.d. [1784].
  • 3. Ibid. 11046, ff. 28, 48, 92; 11047, ff. 87, 180; 12865, Sir G. to Adm. Elliot, 7 Apr. 1789; 13338, canvass of 15 Mar. 1788; Ginter, Whig Organization, 55.
  • 4. NLS mss 13339, Adm. to Sir G. Elliot, 11 June, Fri. [18 June], 18 June, W. Elliot to same, 12 June, Sir G. to Adm. Elliot, 30 May, 15, 20, 22, 25 June; minute of 23 June; Rutherfurd to Sir G. Elliot, Tues. 3 p.m. [1790].
  • 5. Ibid. Douglas to Sir J. Hippisley, 8 Aug.; Sir G. to Adm. Elliot, 22 July; ibid. and 13363, Rutherfurd’s protest, 24 July 1790; A. Mackenzie, Pol. State of Scotland 1790, p. 171; CJ, xlvi. 40.
  • 6. NLS mss 11048, ff. 78, 79, 81; 11137, f. 18; 12900, Sir G. to W. Elliot, 5 Dec. 1790; CJ, xlvii. 628. The evidence before the court of session appears in ‘Roxburghshire Politics 1790-91’, formerly at Edgerston, penes Mr M. J. Thompson.
  • 7. NLS mss 11137, f. 63; 11138, ff. 71, 79, 89, 106, 112, 123; 13339, Tod to Sir G. Elliot, 4 Jan. 1793; 13340, Adm. Elliot to same, 26 Jan., 24 May 1795; PRO 30/8/160, f. 39; SRO GD224/581, Ogilvie to Buccleuch, 2 Apr. 1796.
  • 8. NLS mss 11138, ff. 120, 148, 154, 159, 162, 168; 13340, W. to Adm. Elliot, 9 Nov. 1795, 15 Jan., Sir G. to Adm. Elliot, 5 Jan. 1796.
  • 9. SRO GD224/581, Rutherfurd to Buccleuch, 16, 24 Feb., Dundas to same, 24, 26 Feb., reply 3 Mar. 1796; NLS mss 1053, f. 69; 11138, f. 172.
  • 10. NLS mss 7, ff. 121, 123; 1053, f. 77; 11138, f. 178; 13340, Carnegie to Adm. Elliot, 3 Apr., Sir W. Elliot to same, 7 Apr., W. Elliot to same, 4, 16 Apr., Sir G. Elliot to same, 2 May 1796; SRO GD224/668/12/3, R. Dundas to Buccleuch, 20 Apr. 1796; Add. 33102, f. 9; Portland mss PwV110; H. Furber, Henry Dundas, 259.
  • 11. NLS mss 11051, ff. 98, 104, 108.
  • 12. Add. 33108, f. 224; NLS mss 11053, ff. 55, 178, 182; 11054, ff. 24, 36; 11139, f. 118; Minto, iii. 38.
  • 13. Letters of John Ramsay (Scottish Hist. Soc. ser. 4), iii. 118; NLS mss 11056, ff. 64, 71, 85; 11057, f. 3; 11058, f. 101; 11059, f. 66.
  • 14. NLS mss 11060, ff. 17, 48; 11061, ff. 5, 17, 24-34, 76-78, 89; 11079, ff. 140, 142, 147, 160, 162; 11744, f. 147; Edinburgh Advertiser, 11-15 Apr.; SRO GD224/584/10/14, Rutherfurd to Buccleuch, 26 Sept. 1806.
  • 15. NLS mss 11083, f. 20; 11740, ff. 131, 135, 149; Malmesbury mss, Lady Minto to Lady Malmesbury, Mon. [Oct. 1806].
  • 16. NLS mss 11087, ff. 38, 72, 93, 165; 11139, f. 177; 11804, G. to W. Elliot, 12 Feb. 1808.
  • 17. Ibid. 11081, ff. 234, 238, 247, 252; 11088, ff. 7, 9; 11804, W. to G. Elliot, 19 (bis), 23 Jan. 1811; SRO GD1/1/198/3/46.
  • 18. NLS mss 1, ff. 210-227; 11082, f. 128; 11088, ff. 16, 119; 11139, f. 185; SRO GD51/1/198/24/19; Add. 38739, f. 80.
  • 19. NLS mss 11082, ff. 131, 143; 11088, ff. 233, 248; 11804, W. Elliot to Minto [June], 3 July 1814; SRO GD224/581, Rutherfurd to Buccleuch, 5, [8] Oct., Donaldson to same, 7 Oct., Scott to same, 3 Nov., Mundell to Dundas, 7 Dec. 1812.
  • 20. SRO GD224/580, Riddell to Buccleuch, 13, 19 June, reply 16 June 1818.