The Duke of Queensberry nominally had the principal interest, but such was the ascendancy gained over him by Lord Chief Baron Montgomery, who had sat as the duke’s Member from 1768 to 1775, that the latter was able to secure the return of his two sons in turn. Indeed by 1802, the lord chief baron was credited with the leading interest in the county, and in 1806 and 1810 his son Sir James was said to be sitting on his own interest.1

There was no effective challenge. On 2 Jan. 1789 Henry Erskine complained to his fellow Whig Sir Thomas Dundas, after the Duke of Queensberry had acted with opposition on the Regency:

The chief baron notwithstanding his connection with the Duke of Queensberry and the Marquess Townshend will remain the adherent of H. Dundas; and his son who comes in as Member for the county of Peebles, by the Duke of Queensberry’s own interest, will vote against you. In these circumstances it is certainly worth our while to try whether the Duke of Queensberry cannot make this sheriffship the means of securing us the support of Montgomery in the event of his being in Parliament.2

Erskine’s hope was disappointed, though his collateral wish that the Pittite sitting Member, Lord Elibank’s brother David Murray, should not be returned was realized, for Murray was obliged to find a seat elsewhere.

Both in 1812 and in 1818 Sir George Montgomery of Magbie Hill (who also had an interest in Peebles burgh), was reported to be interested in displacing his cousin Sir James. In 1812 his excuse was ‘that while Sir James was going on in his profession he did not interfere with him. But now that he has given up his profession he thinks he may stay at home and attend to his private affairs.’3 No opposition to Sir James materialized.