Peebles Burghs

The constituency known as Peebles (or Haddington) Burghs was made up of seven royal burghs spread across five shires in south-east Scotland: Haddington and the ports of Dunbar and North Berwick in Haddingtonshire, Peebles in Peebleshire, Selkirk in Selkirkshire, Lauder in Berwickshire and the border town of Jedburgh in Roxburghshire. The seven burghs varied greatly in size, prosperity and status. Haddington, which had a population of about 3,250 in 1639, was far larger than Lauder and Dunbar (with no more than 1,400 apiece), and dwarfed Peebles (900), Jedburgh (800), Selkirk (600) and especially North Berwick (less than 500). I. D. Whyte, ‘Urbanisation in Early Modern Scotland’, Sc. Econ. Soc. Hist. ix. 24. Population size did not always correlate with economic prosperity, as suggested by the division of the £100 (sterling) fee allowed to their MP in 1654, and the assessment rates levied by the government in the later 1650s. In both, Haddington emerges as the richest burgh, while North Berwick was by far the poorest; yet the wealth of Dunbar and Jedburgh was greater than might be expected for towns of their size, while the relatively populous burgh of Lauder was considered the sixth in terms of ability to pay taxes and contributions. NRS, B56/16/15; A. and O. The status of the seven burghs did not necessarily follow either population size or prosperity, but the age of their charters as royal burghs. Thus Peebles and Jedburgh (which had been royal burghs since the twelfth century), seem to have wielded greater influence than their economic positions would suggest, although both deferred to Haddington, which was equally venerable, and outclassed its neighbours in size and prosperity. Young, Parliaments of Scot. ii. 773-87.

The Cromwellian regime during the 1650s had a dramatic impact on the Peebles Burghs. Dunbar was severely damaged during the battle there in September 1650, and worse destruction followed, as English troops passing through in later months took what they needed and burnt what they could not carry – causing losses estimated at £11,000 sterling in the space of a year. NRS, B18/39/1, pp. 6-12. Other burghs also suffered materially, with Peebles having its church used as a stable and its charters and writs ‘spoiled’ by English soldiers. Extracts Recs. Peebles, 1652-1714 (Sc. Burgh Rec. Soc. Glasgow, 1910), pp. xx-xxi. Peebles and Selkirk were military garrisons throughout the 1650s, and the burden of quartering (alongside the high rate of assessment payments) was a constant grievance for them. Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke li, f. 18; Extracts Recs. Peebles, 4-6, 18, 37, 45, 196. English influence also diminished the local dominance of Haddington Burgh, as in 1654 the government stipulated that elections should take place at Lauder, which, although geographically at the centre of the seven burghs, was only of minor importance, and could prove inaccessible – as in 1659, when representatives from Peebles and Selkirk could not reach the election meeting because of flooding. A. and O.; CSP Dom. 1654, p. 199; Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke li, ff. 60v-61. Yet Cromwellian interference was only a minor irritant compared with the difficulties the burghs had in maintaining their independence from the shire authorities throughout this period. This can be seen in the Scottish council’s decision to appoint justices of the peace at the beginning of 1656, which brought protests from Peebles protesting that the powers granted to local lairds amounted to an attack on burgh liberties. The case was adjudicated by the Scottish council, which ruled in May that magistrates could act as justices in their own burghs, but working in conjunction with their shire colleagues. L.M. Smith, ‘Scot. and Cromwell’ (DPhil. thesis, Oxford Univ. 1979), 195-6. Although this compromise seems to have worked well enough, it did nothing to reduce other tensions between the rival interests. Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke xlviii, unfol.: 19 Nov. 1656.

The surviving evidence of the conduct and outcome of the three parliamentary elections held between 1654 and 1659 suggests that they were influenced by the burghs’ concerns for their liberties. In each election the decision was taken by the burghs themselves, but rather than electing locals they chose figures of national importance, and, as the decade continued, the choice shifted from Scottish to English MPs. On 21 July 1654 the burgh council at Peebles chose one of their number as a commissioner to ‘ride to Lauder upon Wednesday next’ to meet the representatives of the other burghs. Extracts Recs. Peebles, 23. At this meeting it was decided to elect as MP William Thomsone, the town clerk of Edinburgh and an important figure in the convention of royal burghs. C219/44, unfol. The dominant force in this election seems to have been the burgh of Haddington: when the Edinburgh city council was concerned at the propriety of allowing its own town clerk to sit for other burghs, it consulted only the Haddington burgesses. Recs. Burgh Edinburgh, 1642-55, 343-4. The customary payment of the MP was also organised by Haddington, which then collected a proportion from the other six burghs – some of which paid with great reluctance, and only after pressure from the convention of royal burghs itself. NRS, B56/16/15; B18/37/5; Recs. Convention of Royal Burghs, 391; Extracts Recs. Peebles, 26. Thomsone was a faithful servant of the burghs, however, and on 29 December he wrote to his constituents describing his role in the staving off attempts by ‘the gentlemen representing the shires’ to reduce the number of burgh MPs and to bring urban areas under the control of the shire assessment commissioners, adding that ‘it is an old mistake in the gentry to think the holding down of the burghs to be their up-making’. NRS, B56/16/16; P. Little, ‘Scottish Affairs at Westminster: a letter from the Union Parliament of 1654-5’, SHR lxxxiv. 247-56.

The election of 20 August 1656 marked a change of policy, as the burghs chose an Englishman, George Downing, scoutmaster-general of the army in Scotland. Downing may not have been the burghs’ first choice. The president of the Scottish council, Lord Broghill (Roger Boyle*), told Secretary John Thurloe* that ‘I had fain to send for the chief of them, and deal with them earnestly’ before he could secure Downing’s return. TSP v. 323. This was election not by diktat from the government, but by careful negotiation. Downing’s decision to sit for Carlisle instead of his Scottish constituency brought a new writ from London, issued by a parliamentary order of 2 October. CJ vii. 432a. The by-election, delayed until early January 1657, followed the usual pattern, with representatives meeting at Lauder, whence the Haddington commissioner reported on 12 January that ‘they elect Mr John Vincent of Warmsworth’. NRS, B30/13/5. Vincent was an English lawyer with no connections with Scotland, and was probably recommended to the burghs by Lord Broghill, perhaps on the advice of his fellow councillor, Sir Edward Rodes*, who was Vincent’s neighbour in Yorkshire. In Parliament, Vincent was active in defence of the moderate policies of the Scottish council, whose reforms had improved the lot of the burghs in general, and supported the Union bill that promised to guarantee burgh rights.

The election of another Englishman, Dr Thomas Clarges, on 4 January 1659, followed the same pattern. Again, the election took place at Lauder, and Haddington Burgh took a leading role through its provost, who was sent to join the other burgh commissioners on 29 December, and soon reported back that ‘by the unanimous voices of the … burghs … Dr Thomas Clarges was chosen commissioner to the ensuing Parliament’, having been ‘recommended by the Lord General Monck, being his brother-in-law’. Clarges was an attractive candidate for the burghs, with his personal connection with the commander-in-chief, George Monck*, and, as an added incentive, it was noted that the new MP had agreed ‘he would expect no allowance’ from his constituents. NRS, B30/13/6, ff. 5v, 6v. The benefits of having an influential Englishman as a representative are also indicated by surviving letters to Clarges from two of the burghs, Selkirk and Peebles, who were unable to send representatives to the election because of floods on the road to Lauder. They were, however, anxious to endorse the result, saying they had chosen Clarges on the basis of ‘the credible testimonies they have of your ability for the employment and affection for this nation’. They also appended a list of instructions, asking him to work to ease the excise burden, ‘and that the burghs may farm the excise themselves and not be forced to join with the shires’, to reduce assessments, and to head-off an attempt by some landowners ‘against the whole burghs and shires of this nation’ to force the repayment of a debt of £30,000 guaranteed by them in the 1640s. Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke li, ff. 60v, 61. Although Parliament was dissolved before such matters as excise, assessments and debt relief could be discussed, Clarges was one of the most active Scottish MPs, and perhaps the strongest defender of the protectoral union when it was debated in March 1659. This lack of firm evidence for reciprocation should not detract from the apparent willingness of the Peebles Burghs to elect influential English MPs who would protect them from the encroachments of the shires; nor should the bonfires and other celebrations which greeted the return of Charles Stuart in 1660 indicate an innate antipathy to Cromwellian rule in the years before. NRS, B30/13/6, f. 20v; Extracts Recs. Peebles, 200-1.