St Andrews Burghs

The St Andrews burghs comprised 13 royal burghs mostly scattered along the Firth of Forth and the North Sea coasts of the shire (or ‘kingdom’) of Fife. The 13 varied greatly in size and prosperity, the richest (according to the 1657 assessment rates) being St Andrews, assessed at £33, and Kirkcaldy at £24, while Anstruther Wester, paying £3 9s and Kilrenny £3 were barely more than fishing villages. A. and O. This disparity in wealth is confirmed by the customs official, Thomas Tucker, in his report of 1656: most of the burghs owned only one or two small ships, while Kirkcaldy had 12, Anstruther Easter 10 and the ‘head port’ burgh of Burntisland had seven. Tucker was unimpressed by the burghs in general, which he described as having overseas trade ‘at all times very small and worth little’, while the settlements themselves were ‘all pitiful small towns … inhabited by seamen, colliers, salt-makers, and such like people’. The only exception, according to Tucker, was St Andrews, which, ‘although sufficiently humbled in the time of intestine troubles, continues still proud in the ruins of her former magnificence, and in being yet a seat for the Muses’. Misc. of the Scot. Burgh Rec. Soc. (Edinburgh, 1881), 20-2.

Despite its relative wealth, and its status as a university town and a centre of the Kirk, St Andrews was too eccentric to provide a consistent political lead to the smaller Fife burghs. In August 1651 when George Monck* and his troops marched into the region, St Andrews was alone in its refusal to surrender immediately, the councillors claiming that ‘they were not yet satisfied in conscience to comply with him’, even though the town could not be defended against assault. Scot. and Commonwealth ed. Firth, 6-7, 10. Again, the tender of union in February 1652 received ready acceptance from all the burghs except St Andrews, which complied only after drawing up a detailed list of grievances and demands. Cromwellian Union, ed. Terry, 46, 49, 69, 72, 85-6, 88-9, 93-4, 105, 109-11, 126-7, 138-9, 147-8. In 1653-4, during the royalist rising led by the earl of Glencairn, the stance of St Andrews, influenced by the pro-royalist Resolutioner ministers, James Wood and Robert Blair, caused concern for the English authorities, and Robert Lilburne reported to London that ‘20 collegians are gone out of St Andrews, and undoubtedly many of the ministers are great promoters of this rebellion’. Baillie Lttrs. and Jnls. iii. 248; Scot. and Protectorate, ed. Firth, 80. As the last incident suggests, the militancy of St Andrews was more the fault of the clergy and the dons than of the burgesses. Indeed, by 1655 a rift had developed between them, as Robert Baillie recorded: ‘for a number of years the communion had not been celebrated in … St Andrews … because all the magistrates were so deep in complying with the English that they were excluded from the table by the act of our church’, and this had naturally caused great resentment among the councillors. Baillie Lttrs. and Jnls. iii. 280. Such tensions may have eased after 1655-6, thanks to the success of Lord Broghill (Roger Boyle*) in persuading the St Andrews clergy, along with the other Resolutioners, to cooperate with the government. The university certainly benefited from official patronage thereafter. Baillie Lttrs. and Jnls. iii. 295, 310 ; Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke xlviii, unfol. : 9 Aug. 1656. But in the early 1650s English suspicions of St Andrews had an adverse effect on the other Fife burghs, which were forced to play host to a substantial number of troops garrisoned in Burntisland, Dunfermline, Kirkcaldy and Cupar, as well as in the troublesome burgh of St Andrews, and the popular annual race meeting held at Cupar was banned for several years, as it ‘may be of dangerous consequence to the public’. Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke xliii, f. 59v; lxii, unfol.: 5 Oct. 1654; xlv, unfol.: 10 May 1654; xlvi, unfol.: 27 Sept., 21 Oct. 1654; xlvii, unfol.: 21 Feb. 1656.

In bringing together the 13 royal burghs to form the constituency of St Andrew burghs under the June 1654 ordinance for the distribution of Scottish seats, the Cromwellian authorities recognised the strength of local bonds. A. and O. Despite the problems caused by St Andrews, the Fife burghs had a well-developed sense of their separate identity, and had long been used to acting together as a caucus within the convention of royal burghs. These meetings could be quite formal. The Burntisland council minute book describes a gathering in December 1654 as the ‘convention’ of the Fife burghs, and another in July 1655 as the ‘committee’ of the burghs. NRS, B9/12/10, f. 95; B9/12/11, f. 11. The main reason for the meetings was to enable collective bargaining about assessments and military dues, which were negotiated with the shire gentry as well as with the English administrators. NRS, B9/12/11, ff. 13v, 14, 15v, 18. The burghs, with the shire, even had a say in the choice of the assessment collector appointed by the Scottish council in November 1655. NRS B9/12/11, ff. 20v-21. The banding together of the burghs was encouraged by the Cromwellian government, especially once the militant clergy of St Andrews had been won over. In December 1655 there had been a separate assessment commission for each of the 13 burghs, although they were to work together in two divisions, for the western and eastern halves of the shire. Acts Parl. Scot. vi. pt. 2, p. 839; NRS, B9/12/11, f. 28. In June 1657 and again in January 1660, the burghs were grouped together in a single commission, represented by the provosts and bailies of the different burghs. A. and O.

This extent of this collegiality can be seen in the parliamentary election in August 1654. There was a preliminary meeting at Cupar to decide how the elections were to be held and to tackle the thorny problem of ‘the penalty imposed upon the unqualified electors’. NRS, B9/12/10, f. 80v. The individual burghs then chose commissioners to attend a further meeting, and each was given a guarantee that ‘whatever hazard [he] shall undergo by his voting and naming a commissioner [ie. MP] there, the council doth hereby engage and oblige the said burgh to relieve him thereof’. NRS, B9/12/10, f. 81. On this occasion the MP elected was the provost of St Andrews, James Sword. NRS, B9/12/10, f. 81v. The return of the indenture did not end the burgh meetings, however. The matter of Sword’s allowance as an MP (to be paid ‘proportionally, according to the assessment’) remained unsettled, causing a long dispute which was not settled until August 1656, when the burghs were faced with another parliamentary election, and even then there were objections. NRS, B9/12/10, f. 84r-v; B9/12/11, ff. 44v-46v, 47v-8v.

The election of August 1656 followed a similar pattern to that of two years before. Commissioners were chosen in the usual way, and a meeting held at Cupar. NRS, B9/12/11, f. 47. The surviving indenture, dated 13 August, shows that the sheriff of Fife, the earl of Wemyss, presided, all 13 burghs sent commissioners, and the Scottish councillor, Colonel Nathaniel Whetham I, was returned. C219/45, unfol.; Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke xxviii, f. 65v. The choice of MP seems to have reflected the wishes of the mainstream, rather than a radical minority. The representatives from Anstruther Wester, Crail, Inverkeithing, Kinghorn, Pittenweem and St Andrews were all prominent burgesses who had served as commissioners for their burghs to the Scottish Parliaments before 1651. Young, Parliaments of Scot. ii. 768-786. Whetham was subsequently issued with burgess tickets (and, in the case of Burntisland, charged for admission), to make sure the election was above board. NRS, B9/12/11, f. 48. The return of Whetham, rather than a local candidate, indicates that the burghs were united in their support for the regime – at least for what they could get out of it. Whetham was granted £100 as an allowance, although there was some disagreement about how this should be raised. As late as February 1657 ‘some [burghs] had their proportions ready and others not’, and the final amount seems to have been paid at the end of March. NRS, B9/12/11, ff. 70, 74v, 75, 77, 77v, 78v. Whetham was a good choice. He was active in the committee of Scottish affairs at Westminster, and sat on various other committees relating to Scotland, and proved a strong defender of the Resolutioner ministers in their debates in the protectoral council. Infra, ‘Nathaniel Whetham I’. When he returned to Edinburgh in early April, the burghs hurried to send some of their number to ‘salute’ him and to do what was necessary ‘for making him welcome’. NRS, B9/12/11, f. 79v. The burghs continued to regard Whetham as their representative even when he was away from Westminster. In July 1657 he was lobbied by Burntisland for a reduction of their assessments, hoping that he would use his influence in the Scottish council. NRS, B9/12/11, f. 86v. The value of having a friend in high places was acknowledged by the burghs in December 1658, when they met at Cupar to elect a new MP. Whetham was once again returned, and the commissioners from Burntisland and St Andrews were dispatched to Edinburgh ‘to acquaint him thereof’. NRS, B9/12/11, f. 140v-1. Whetham (who also sat for Edinburgh) was active in Scottish affairs in this Parliament, although whether his claim (made on 11 Mar.) that ‘I know they desire union as much as may be’ reflected the true feelings of his St Andrews constituents, is a matter for debate. Burton’s Diary, iv. 137.

After the fall of the protectorate, the Fife burghs continued to protect their own interests through working together and collaborating with the government in Edinburgh. This can be seen in the Burntisland minutes for 14 November 1659, at a time when Monck was preparing to intervene in English affairs. ‘In order to the letter from the lord general directed to the magistrates of this burgh to be communicated to the rest of the burghs of Fife, requiring them to agree among themselves to send one such person … to meet with his lordship at Edinburgh’ to discuss the affairs of the ‘country’. NRS, B9/12/11, f. 170v. By this time the Fife burghs were well used to dealing with the authorities. A commissioner was dispatched, returning with orders to the burghs to ensure that no trouble was caused by adherents of the Stuarts in his absence. NRS, B9/12/11, f. 171. And this time, even St Andrews remained acquiescent.