Elgin and Nairn Shires

The shires of Elgin (or Moray) and Nairn were situated on the southern coast of the Moray Firth, to the east of Invernessshire and the west of Banffshire. Nairnshire was the smaller of the two, and was assessed at less than a third of the value of Elginshire in 1657.1 A. and O. Apart from size, the two shires were very similar. Both consisted of a wide coastal plain, rising to mountains in the south, and they were crossed by rivers running from the high ground into the Firth, including the River Nairn, the River Findhorn and the River Lossie. Each of these rivers had a royal burgh at or near its mouth: Nairn, Forres and Elgin, respectively.2 Atlas Scot. Hist. 27, 226. In the early and mid-seventeenth century the shires were dominated by the same families, led by the Stewart earls of Moray and the Gordon marquesses of Huntly, and also including powerful gentry families such as the Brodies of Brodie and Lethen, the Campbells of Cawdor, the Innes of that ilk, the McKenzies of Pluscardine, and various branches of the Grant, Dunbar and Rose families.3 Atlas Scot. Hist. 149; Survey of the Province of Moray (Aberdeen, 1798), 13-49. The commissioners from the shires for the Scottish Parliaments throughout the century were drawn almost exclusively from this small group of families.4 Young, Parliaments of Scot. ii. 793, 797. During the civil wars, both shires were devastated by two royalist forces: those under James Graham, marquess of Montrose, which marched through the area repeatedly in 1644-5, taking the opportunity to torch the castles and lands of covenanting families, especially the Brodies; and those led by William Cunningham, 9th earl of Glencairn, which, in 1653-4, devastated the region once again.5 Atlas Scot. Hist. 141; Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke xlv, unfol.: 5 Mar., 19 Apr. 1654; xlvi, unfol.: 20 Nov. 1654, 30 Apr. 1655; Dow, Cromwellian Scot. 85.

One reason for the ferocity of the royalists in the 1640s and 1650s was the importance of the shires as a powerbase for hard-line covenanters who, as part of the Protester faction, sided with the Cromwellian invaders after 1651. It was no coincidence that those worst affected were the leading Protesters, Sir Alexander Brodie* of that ilk and his cousin, Alexander Brodie of Lethen.6 NAS, GD247/64/10/48-51, 66-7; Young, Parliaments of Scot. i. 68-9. The laird of Brodie was at first unwilling to countenance English rule, refusing to serve in the Nominated Assembly of 1653, for example, but by the end of the decade he had agreed to resume his position as judge of the court of session in Edinburgh. The laird of Lethen was quicker to support the Cromwellians, and negotiated private concessions from the government from 1654 onwards.7 Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke xliii, f. 21v; xlvi, unfol.: 30 Apr. 1655; xlvii, unfol.: 7 July 1655, 18 Feb. 1656; xlviii, unfol.: 7 Aug. 1656; NLS, Acc. 10583/5. In 1656 he became sheriff of Nairn, with his kinsman, David Brodie, serving as commissary; and in 1657 Lethen and his son were assessment commissioners for both shires.8 Scot. and Protectorate ed. Firth, 316-17; A. and O. The strength of the Protesters increased with the removal of the royalist marquess of Huntly, as the Gordon lands came under the control of the marquess’s brother-in-law and chief creditor, Archibald Campbell*, marquess of Argyll.9 Ane Account of the Familie of Innes ed. C. Innes (Aberdeen, 1864), 174-82. Argyll also had a financial hold over the other noble interest in the shires, that of the youthful earl of Moray (Alexander Stewart), who was also the brother-in-law of Argyll’s son and heir, Lord Lorne. In alliance with the Brodies and other local lairds, especially Innes of that ilk and Campbell of Cawdor, Argyll was the dominant figure in Nairn and Elgin shires for much of the 1650s.

Under the ordinance for the distribution of Scottish seats, passed by the protectoral council in June 1654, Elgin and Nairn were allowed one MP, with the burgh of Elgin chosen as the place of election.10 A. and O. The elections for the Parliament of 1654 could not be held, as the region was still disrupted by Glencairn’s rebellion, but by 1656 the shires were again under government control, aided by the establishment of strong garrisons in the nearby cities of Inverness and Aberdeen. The new citadel at Inverness was partly funded by the tax-payers of the two shires.11 Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke xlvii, unfol.: 21 June 1655. Military influence over the 1656 election was not the deciding factor, however. On 22 July, nearly a month before the elections were due to be held, the governor of Aberdeen, Major-general Thomas Morgan, visited Sir Alexander Brodie of Brodie, ‘and spoke to me for choosing the earl of Moray to the Parliament ensuing’.12 Brodie Diary, 184. Brodie does not seem to have acceded to this request, as his relationship with Moray was becoming increasingly strained, and he disapproved in principle of the ‘corrupt’ way in which the elections were managed.13 Brodie Diary, 184-5. Despite this, Moray was able to secure election, presumably on his own interest in the shires as much as on the good offices of the local commanders, and he was listed as MP for the seat by General George Monck* on 20 August 1656.14 Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke xxviii, f. 65.

Argyll was in England during this election, and his absence may explain what happened next. On 23 October 1656 a letter was read in Parliament from the former commander-in-chief in Scotland, Robert Lilburne*, saying that the Elgin and Nairn writ ‘was not executed, by reason it came too late into those remote countries’. Apparently without further investigation, the Speaker ordered that a new writ be issued, and Moray’s election was implicitly overturned.15 CJ vii. 444a. Four days later Argyll wrote to his local ally Sir Robert Innes, asking him to ‘prevail’ for a new candidate, Major Richard Beke*, ‘captain to his highness’s lifeguard, who is a very deserving gentleman, my friend’ and (perhaps crucially) ‘brother-in-law to Colonel Lilburne, who is a real friend to all Scotsmen’. On 1 December, Innes noted that ‘the tenor of this letter’ had been obeyed, and Beke returned as MP for the shires.16 Familie of Innes, 182. Beke’s election, on Argyll’s interest, was clearly part of the marquess’s attempt to jockey for position in London, currying favour with Lilburne and his allies within the army as well as with the protector. Such machinations had their price, however: the relationship between Argyll and Moray deteriorated during the later 1650s, and it is likely that the election played an important part in their estrangement.

Argyll’s high-handedness in 1656 could not be repeated in 1659. Growing tensions between Argyll and Brodie on the one part, and Moray on the other, may have weakened the marquess’s grip on the electorate; but probably the decisive factor was the suspicion with which Argyll and his friends were now held by the Cromwellian government. Monck, who had supported Argyll earlier in the decade, had turned against him by the end of 1657, and in 1659 used the full weight of government influence to prevent the Protesters from securing parliamentary seats across Scotland. Little could be done to prevent Argyll gaining a seat for himself in nearby Aberdeenshire, but in Elgin and Nairn the place was seized for a government nominee – Nathaniel Whetham II, son of one of Monck’s allies on the Scottish council.17 Dow, Cromwellian Scot. 237-8. Monck also had an indirect influence over the electoral history of the shires after the Restoration, by engineering Argyll’s trial and execution for treason in 1661. Both branches of the Brodie family were fined and excepted from pardon, and local patronage in the Scottish Parliament of 1661 seems to have returned to the wider gentry interest, which now included former royalists as well as covenanters: Sir Robert Innes the younger of that ilk joined Thomas McKenzie of Pluscardine as commissioner for Elginshire, and Nairnshire was represented by Sir Hew Campbell of Cawdor and John Grant of Moyness.18 Young, Parliaments of Scot. i. 68-9; ii. 793, 797.