Lanark Burghs

The constituency labelled ‘Lanark Burghs’ was made up of eight different burghs, scattered along the entire length of the Clyde river system: Lanark in Clydesdale; Glasgow and its near neighbours, Rutherglen, Renfrew and Dumbarton; Rothesay on the Isle of Bute; and finally Irvine and Ayr, on the Irish Sea coast. These were all ancient settlements, and all except Glasgow had been granted the status of royal burgh by the end of the Middle Ages. Glasgow, although only represented in the Scottish Parliament since 1546, had enjoyed a dominant position in the region long before, and was the home to one of Scotland’s oldest universities. Young, Parliaments of Scot. 769, 772, 777, 779, 781, 785. Even after a disastrous fire, which destroyed a quarter of the city in June 1652, in the mid-1650s Glasgow was by far the most important economic centre in south-western Scotland. Scot. and Commonwealth ed. Firth, 359-60. This can be seen in the assessment rates imposed in 1657: Rothesay, Dumbarton, Lanark, Rutherglen and Renfrew were taxed at £6 or less; Irvine had to pay £9 19s 8d, Ayr £13 19s 9¾d; while Glasgow, paid the lion’s share: £64 18s 9d. A. and O. ii. 1239-42. The customs and excise revenues received by the government in the same year show that Glasgow was the dominant port on the west coast – raising 9% of the customs and 13% of the excise yielded by the whole of Scotland. In comparison, the locally important port of Ayr (which handled a large proportion of the trade between Scotland and Ireland), could yield only 1.2% of the customs and 5% of the excise revenue of the nation. Atlas Scot. Hist. 273-4. The other burghs were economically insignificant, but a few had some strategic importance, especially Rothesay and Dumbarton, whose strong castles were part of the defensive network protecting the western lowlands from incursions from the mountainous north.

At first sight, the joining of these burghs into one parliamentary constituency looks haphazard – the arbitrary stroke of a pen on a map at Whitehall. There were, in fact, good reasons for this combination, based on political and religious affiliations which had emerged in the late 1640s and early 1650s, when the area formed the heartland of the western association, which, under the leadership of the marquess of Argyll (Archibald Campbell*), had purged the royalist elements from the Scottish government in 1649-50. The largest burghs, Glasgow and Ayr, had long been united in the same Presbyterian synod, and this now became the stronghold of the anti-royalist, Protester faction within the Kirk. Dow, Cromwellian Scot. 59. Argyll and the Protesters had forged links with the English against the Scottish royalists in the later 1640s, and the abortive invasion of England by Charles Stuart, quickly followed by the Cromwellian conquest of Scotland in 1651-2 brought them still closer together. When the English forces arrived in the region in August 1651, they met with little opposition. It was reported that 6,000 royalists under Colonel Cochrane were mustering near Glasgow, but these were forced to retreat, and Glasgow, Irvine and Ayr fell to the advancing English in a matter of days. Soon, as Colonel John Okey* reported, ‘through the goodness of God [we] have so scoured the country that we may march with 100 horse from this place all over the west and south’. Scot. and Commonwealth ed. Firth, 5, 316-7. Only Dumbarton put up serious resistance, eventually surrendering in the new year of 1652. Scot. and Commonwealth ed. Firth, 18, 39n. The unity of the eight burghs was recognised by the occupying forces, who treated the south west as a single entity, with its military capital at Ayr. A modern citadel was constructed near the port, ‘a most stately thing, and … very strong’, with a garrison of nearly 600 men. Scot. and Commonwealth 256-7; Scot. and Protectorate, ed. Firth, 303, 370. In December 1653 the whole region came under the command of the governor of Ayr, Colonel Thomas Cooper II*, with subordinate garrisons at Dumbarton, Glasgow and Rothesay. Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke xlv, unfol.: 16 Dec. 1653.

The English occupation itself threatened to break up the common ground between the eight burghs. The union between England and Scotland, tendered in 1652, was greeted by different burghs in very different ways. It was accepted with apparent alacrity by Rutherglen and Rothesay, and with hesistancy (‘in so far as God’s word is the rule to lead us therein’) by Dumbarton and Lanark; but Lanark, with Ayr, Renfrew and Irvine, failed to send deputies to the union negotiations in Edinburgh, and Glasgow was one of only three constituencies in Scotland to lodge a formal dissent to the process. Cromwellian Union ed. Terry, 50-1, 58-9, 74-5, 154-5; Dow, Cromwellian Scot. 40-2. Glasgow’s reasons for rejecting the union, signed by its provost and clerk, were primarily religious in nature. Having sought ‘the Lord’s mind’ they remained unsatisfied that union would leave the Kirk with its autonomy intact, and feared ‘a vast and boundless toleration of all sorts of errors and heresies’. The arrival of nine companies of soldiers and the purge of the corporation, persuaded Glasgow to change its mind; and their assent to the proposed union was declared on 13 March 1652. Cromwellian Union ed. Terry, 34-5, 116-7. The differences between the burghs were accompanied by rifts within them. In Glasgow, the Protesters managed to increase their hold on the university, with the English government backing the election of Patrick Gillespie as principal in the winter of 1652-3. Dow, Cromwellian Scot. 59. The incident provoked what Robert Baillie described as the ‘dividing of the Presbytery of Glasgow’, and tensions between the clergy and the corporation continued later in the decade. Baillie Lttrs. and Jnl. iii. 238, 245. During 1654 and 1655 divisions occurred in Lanark (which was purged by Protesters from Glasgow, with help from the English garrison) and also in Ayr, Irvine and Dumbarton. Baillie Lttrs. and Jnl. iii. 245-6, 277-8. The root of the problem seems to have been the degree to which the burghs should collaborate with the English. The commander-in-chief, Robert Lilburne, suggested that this was the situation in November 1653, reporting that although the Glasgow Protesters cooperated with his forces, ‘the generality of the people here … have a deadly antipathy against us’. Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke lxxxvi, f. 123.

As the English occupation continued, however, hostility towards the occupiers became much less pronounced. This was partly because of the strength of the local garrisons, and the reluctance of the Protesters of the south west to join the earl of Glencairn’s rebellion in favour of Charles Stuart. Most importantly, however, the English government was careful to maintain good relations with the individual burghs, and to grant favours and economic concessions to encourage their loyalty. Compared with other parts of Scotland, the south-west was treated with generosity. In July 1653 the burgesses of Rothesay were allowed to regulate the assessments throughout the Isle of Bute, and the assessments of the burgh were abated in November 1654 to account for losses incurred by resisting Glencairn’s rebels. Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke xliii, ff. 12v, 21v, 27; xlvi, unfol.: 22 Nov. 1654. Ayr’s petition to be allowed freedom ‘in settling magistrates in the said burgh’ in May 1655 was supported by General George Monck* and the garrison commander, Thomas Cooper; and at the same time the burgh was allowed 2,000 marks to build a new church through the direct order of the protector. Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke xlvii, unfol.: 11 and 15 May 1655. Such concessions encouraged further dialogue: in November 1655, for example, the provost of Ayr attended the Scottish council to lobby ‘for the ease of the burdens of this burgh’. NRS, B6/18/2, f. 97v. Ayr’s good relations with the Cromwellians can also be seen in the corporation’s willingness to grant burgess-ships to visiting officials like Judges George Smith* and William Lawrence in 1656, the customs commissioner Thomas Tucker in the same year, and the councillor, Samuel Disbrowe*, in 1658 – with the latter honour justified on the grounds that ‘their interest might be strengthened’ thereby. S. Gillanders, ‘The Scottish Burghs during the Cromwellian Occupation’ (PhD thesis, Edinburgh Univ. 1999), 282-3. It is notable that the only serious violent disorder witnessed by Ayr was a fight between the garrison and English troops of William Brayne’s regiment, waiting to embark for Jamaica in May 1656. Scot. and Protectorate ed. Firth, 323-8.

Glasgow was singled out for preferential treatment by the Cromwellian government. In August 1653 the city was granted £1,000 by the Nominated Assembly to help those who suffered in the fire of the previous year, and shortly afterwards its assessments were abated by direct order of Oliver Cromwell*. Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke l, f.67v; xliv, p. 11. The university at Glasgow was paid a government pension of over £400 each year by 1657, with a further £500 ‘given away’ by the protector as a one-off payment. Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke li, f. 30. At times, Cromwell’s personal intervention went too far. In December 1654 Monck complained that the corporation of Glasgow had misinformed the protector in order to get a further reduction in its taxes; and in September 1657 he urged Cromwell not to grant any more ‘extraordinary privileges’ to Glasgow, as, ‘though I wish the Remonstrating [ie. Protesting] party very well, I cannot in the least advise to an act in my apprehension so clearly opposite to the law’. Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke li, f. 12; 3/9, unfol.: 5 Dec. 1654; Scot. and Protectorate 218-9.

Improved relations between the government and the burghs can be seen in the elections for the protectorate Parliaments. The level of local participation seems to have been high. In 1654, when John Wilkie of Broomhouse was returned, the corporation at Glasgow, which hosted the election, proclaimed that all inhabitants ‘capable to give a voice’ should meet at Hutcheson’s Hospital to cast their votes. Extracts from the Recs. of Glasgow, 1630-62 (Sc. Burgh Rec. Soc. 1881), 292. In October 1654 Glasgow arranged for £60 sterling to be sent to their MP at Westminster, and in June 1655, long after the Parliament had finished, they were still employing Wilkie as an agent in London ‘anent the farming of the excise’. Extracts Recs. Glasgow, 300, 315. In Glasgow, at least, the MP was elected, paid and instructed by the burgh. The only other burgh with detailed records for this election, Dumbarton, was also fully involved. The burgh accounts for 1654-5 include sums ‘for champagne wine which was drunk with the governor and other horsemen when the public prayers were read for choosing commissioners to the Parliament of England’, and £4 Scots was paid to Walter Watson, who had been chosen as ‘commissioner for this burgh’ when the election was held at Glasgow. Dumbarton Common Good Accounts, 1614-60 ed. F. Roberts and I.M.M. MacPhail (Dumbarton, 1972), 202, 204. There was a greater reluctance to pay out later on, however, and in February 1655 Dumbarton, along with the other burghs, had to be forced to reimburse the Glasgow for their share of the allowance paid to Wilkie. Recs. Convention of Royal Burghs, iii. 397.

The 1656 election followed a similar pattern, with the outlying burghs sending commissioners to Glasgow, who then joined the inhabitants of that burgh in returning the MP. On 16 August the Glasgow authorities ordered that the election should take place ‘in the high gallery’ on 20 August. Extracts Recs. Glasgow, 341. Dumbarton sent a senior burgess, John Bontein to Glasgow ‘for choosing the commissioner for the Parliament at London’, and paid him £6 14s Scots for his trouble; Ayr sent its provost, William Cunningham. Dumbarton Accounts ed. Roberts and McPhail, 215; NRS, B6/18/2, f. 114v. The exact composition of this meeting can be seen in the election indenture. A complete list of 21 electors survives. This was headed by the provosts of Glasgow, Ayr, Rutherglen and Renfrew, and the commissioners for Dumbarton and Lanark (with Rothesay apparently unrepresented). The remaining electors, called ‘the burgesses and inhabitants’ of the various burghs, were mostly from Glasgow, including the dean of gild and deacon convener of the city. No English soldiers were named as electors in the indenture. C219/45, unfol. Despite this apparent lack of outside interference, the burghs chose a man strongly identified with the English interest in Scotland – George Lockhart I* of Tarbrax, who was the brother-in-law of the Cromwellian councillor, Sir William Lockhart of Lee*. Lockhart, as rector of Glasgow in the early 1650s, had fallen out with Gillespie and the Protester faction in the burgh – suggesting that the burgh authorities were no longer in the shackles of one particular religious group. In 1656 the inhabitants of Glasgow clearly saw Lockhart’s English connections as an advantage, not an embarrassment. He was called before the provost and baillies before he went to Westminster, and given detailed instructions, which included the injunction that he further ‘the town’s particular relating to the tithes of Cambusnethan’. Extracts Recs. Glasgow, 340, 344. The other burghs also treated Lockhart as their agent, agreeing to pay him £110 as an allowance during his stay in London, and for once this was paid as ‘advance money’ by all the burghs, not just Glasgow. Dumbarton Accts. 215; NRS, B6/18/2. A further request from Lockhart, for £100, was agreed by Glasgow on 18 April 1657, ‘and … the remaining burghs in the west to be written to, to send in their parts thereof’. Extracts Recs. Glasgow, 363.

The 1659 election saw the return of another Lockhart – John Lockhart, brother of Sir William. John had already served as Glasgow’s ‘commissioner … to act and agent before his highness’ in 1658, in order to defend the burgh against ‘Gillespie and his adherents’, and he was a natural choice to succeed his brother-in-law, who had died the previous year. Extracts Recs. Glasgow, 399. The election seems to have followed the pattern set in 1654 and 1656. Ayr sent Baillie Robert Kelso ‘to go to Glasgow upon ... the third of January ... to choose a commissioner to go to London to the Parliament’, while Dumbarton paid John Smollett ‘for his charges as commissioner for this burgh to Glasgow to join with the remaining commissioners of the seven western burghs’. NRS, B6/18/2, f. 146v; Dumbarton Accts. 237. As in the earlier Parliaments, the new MP was paid his expenses: £100 from Glasgow, which the burgh would then recoup from its neighbours. Extracts Recs. Glasgow, 414. In 1659, as before, the process of electing MPs for Westminster seems to have confirmed Glasgow and the other burghs in their support for the English government in Scotland. The presence of their own MP, with instructions from the burghs, and paid by them, allowed unprecedented access to the government at Whitehall. The election of two Lockharts in 1656 and 1659 suggests that the burghs were also making the most of their informal contacts with the Cromwellian regime, and were growing away from the Protester faction which had dominated the area for so long. The elections may even have resurrected the sense of community between the eight burghs, which had come adrift in the uncertainties of defeat, occupation and internal recrimination in 1652-4. In 1656, the Glasgow burgh records refer to the ‘western burghs’ and the ‘burghs of the west’; in 1659 the Dumbarton accounts also mention the ‘western burghs’: such language suggests a collegiality which had not been seen since the (politically very different) days of the western association, and attests to the renewed confidence of the eight burghs under the Cromwellian regime. Dumbarton Accts. 237.