The ‘Banff Burghs’ comprised the towns of Banff and Cullen and the city of Aberdeen, situated on the north-east coast of Scotland. All three had been royal burghs since the twelfth century, but Aberdeen, as an important centre for trade, religion and education, soon outstripped its neighbours in size and prosperity. Young, Parliaments of Scot. ii. 767, 769, 771. This disparity was reflected in the rates set by the government for the general assessment in 1657: Cullen was to pay £1 10s., Banff £3, and Aberdeen £66 12s. A. and O. ii. 1239. Despite this local dominance, Aberdeen was only a modest economic centre in national terms. In 1656 it provided less than 8 per cent of the customs and just over 5 per cent of the excise revenues accrued by the government in Scotland. Atlas Scot. Hist. 273-4. Politically, however, Aberdeen was of much greater significance. From the very beginning, the city had a reputation for royalism, rejecting the Covenant in 1638, and receiving rough treatment from occupying covenanter forces in the early 1640s. Despite the atrocities of the troops of James Graham, 1st marquess of Montrose, who plundered the city in 1644 and killed 150 burgesses, there was widespread support for the Engagement in 1648, and in 1650-1 Charles Stuart received a warm welcome in the city, when raising troops before marching into England. Mems. of Aldermen and Provosts of Aberdeen, ed. A.M. Munro (Aberdeen, 1897), 146-64. The royalist defeat at Worcester on 3 September 1651 left Aberdeen traumatised and vulnerable. The former provost, Alexander Jaffray*, was given authority to treat ‘for the safety of the town’ two days later, and successfully negotiated preferential terms with the English forces marching towards them. Extracts from Council Regs. of Aberdeen, 1643-1747 (Scottish Burgh Rec. Soc. Edinburgh, 1872), 122-5, 128; Scotland and Commonwealth, ed. Firth, 14-15. The abject submission of Aberdeen was confirmed in March 1652, when the inhabitants, called upon to subscribe the forced union with England, agreed to do so ‘all in one voice’. Aberdeen Council Regs. 129-30. An English garrison, official favour to Jaffray’s party within the council (which now rejected the Kirk in favour of Independency) and a purge of the university ensured that Aberdeen remained compliant, and the earl of Glencairn’s royalist rebellion in 1653-4 received little support from the city. Dow, Cromwellian Scot. 59-60; Mems. Aberdeen, ed. Munro, 161, 165.
The paucity of records makes the political situation in the burgh of Cullen difficult to gauge, but it may have been similar to nearby Banff, where there were competing covenanter and royalist factions within the town in the early 1640s. At Banff, the covenanters (led by Dr Alexander Douglas*) ousted Lord Banff and the Ogilvies, but were themselves ejected by Montrose in 1644. Douglas and his cronies were soon returned to power, however, and managed to hold on to it even after 1651, when they submitted to the English invaders. Annals of Banff, ed. W. Cramond (2 vols. Aberdeen, 1891, 1893), i. 92, 94; ii. 267-71. Banff joined the general submission of the burghs in February 1652, and Cullen claimed to welcome union ‘so that the people of both nations may enjoy one just and common interest’. Cromwellian Union, ed. Terry, 45. In Banff and Cullen the corporations remained in Scottish hands throughout the 1650s, and the administration was controlled by the traditional leaders of the community. The assessment commissions for the burghs in 1657 and 1660 were staffed by local men of influence, including George Lawtry (who had been Cullen’s commissioner for the Scottish Parliaments of 1646-8), Dr Alexander Douglas and Gilbert Mair (the latter two being parliamentary commissioners for Banff Burgh between 1641 and 1651). A. and O. ii. 1146; Young, Parliaments of Scot. ii. 769, 771. Both assessment commissions were headed by ‘the magistrates for the time being’. A. and O. ii. 1146. In this, Banff and Cullen were similar to Aberdeen, whose commissioners included the provost and bailiffs and three former representatives of the burgh, Thomas Gray, Sir Robert Farquhar and Alexander Jaffray. A. and O. ii. 1147; Young, Parliaments of Scot. ii. 767. Although Aberdeen, as a garrison town, also listed three colonels and an English civilian, Dr Thomas Clarges*, among its assessment commissioners, the overall impression in all three burghs is one of continuity, with native Scots playing an active role in local government.
The survival of Scottish influence in the administration of the burghs may also have had an impact on the elections for the constituency for the Westminster Parliaments. Under the union ordinance of April 1654, the three burghs were to return one MP, elected at Aberdeen. A. and O. ii. 931. The restrictions on voting qualifications prevented elections being held in 1654, as the burgesses were deemed ‘uncapable of giving a voice’, but there were fewer scruples in 1656 and 1659. Roundhead Officers, ed. Akerman, 89, 90. In both elections the MPs were Englishmen: in 1656 the local commander, Colonel Stephen Winthrop, and in 1659, Monck’s brother-in-law, Thomas Clarges. The only surviving election indenture – from 1656 – is illegible, but local support for Winthrop can be gleaned from the Aberdeen records. C219/45, unfol. Winthrop’s election in August 1656 was followed by the appointment of Robert Patrie as ‘agent at London for the said burgh of Aberdeen, and to attend Colonel Stephen Winthrop’, with expenses paid by the city. Aberdeen Council Regs. 162. It is not clear whether Winthrop was also paid: he was certainly issued with instructions, asking him to reduce the burgh’s taxes, to overturn the ‘late act’ on creditors and debtors and to promote trade. Aberdeen Council Lttrs. III, ed. L.B. Taylor (Oxford, 1952), 270-4. On 17 November Patrie sent to Aberdeen a report of events in London; and although illness prevented Winthrop from being of much use to his constituents in the first sitting of this Parliament, in January 1658 he used his influence to promote their petition for a malt market for the city. Aberdeen Council Lttrs. III, 275-6, 303.
The election of Clarges in 1659 may have been at the request of George Monck*, but again it would be a mistake to see him as having been imposed on them against their will. On 19 January 1659 Monck wrote to Aberdeen thanking them ‘for your favour in choosing of Dr Clarges’, and assuring them that although he had already been returned for Peebles Burghs, ‘yet he will stand for your burgh and the rest joined with it and be ready to do you any service that lies in his power, if you please to lay your commands upon him’. Aberdeen Council Lttrs. III, 339. The burgh’s agent, Robert Patrie, attended Monck at Edinburgh, and reported him ‘pretty well satisfied with your choosing Doctor Clarges’. Aberdeen Council Lttrs. III, 340. Aberdeen expected Clarges to act as their representative, and to champion the interests of the burghs in general. Agents were sent to Edinburgh ‘for giving of further instructions to the commissioners representing the burghs at London at this present Parliament in what most conduces for the well of the liberties of burghs’, and Clarges was provided with detailed instructions, which prompted him to write on 25 March promising to serve them ‘as if I were myself an inhabitant amongst you’. Aberdeen Council Lttrs. III, 340-1. The tone of this correspondence is markedly different from the submissive nature of the burgh letters agreeing to the forced union in 1652. By 1656 (and certainly by 1659) the councillors of Aberdeen were more confident of their status, and willing to make demands on their MPs. This in turn suggests that the burgesses were unlikely to accept a government nominee without consultation and prior approval. Monck seems to have been aware of the need to conciliate the burghs in the electoral system, and even extended this to other issues. He was especially anxious, before intervening in English politics in the winter of 1659-60, to be certain of support from the burghs. On this occasion, the people of Aberdeen promised not to foment unrest or encourage the Stuart cause, and on 5 December they lauded Monck as the instrument ‘of peace and truth in these nations’. Spalding Misc. v. 384-5; Aberdeen Council Regs. 184.
