The seven towns which constituted the Dornoch Burghs were spread in a wide semi-circle around the Moray Firth and its adjacent sea lochs. The most northerly burgh, Dornoch, was in Sutherland; facing it, across the Dornoch Firth, was Tain, in Ross-shire. Dingwall, at the head of the Cromarty Firth, was also in Ross-shire. Inverness, situated on the isthmus of land between the Moray Firth and Loch Ness, was the largest burgh of the seven. The other three burghs, Nairn, Forres and Elgin, were the main settlements in Nairn and Elgin shires, to the south of the Moray Firth, with the cathedral city of Elgin being connected to the sea by the River Lossie. All seven were ‘royal burghs’, and Elgin, Forres, Inverness and Nairn had held this status since the twelfth century. Young, Parliaments of Scot. ii. 772, 776, 778, 783, 787. Economically, Inverness was dominant, and this was reflected in the imbalance of assessment rates between the burghs, with Inverness taxed at £49 in January 1660, while the next largest, Elgin, provided only £13 and the smallest, Dingwall, a mere £1 18s. 5d. A. and O. ii. 1359-62. In terms of the national economy, however, even Inverness was unimportant, accounting for no more than 2-3 per cent of the customs and excise revenues collected throughout Scotland in the mid-1650s. Atlas Scot. Hist. 272-3. The significance of the burghs was strategic, rather than economic. Dornoch, Tain, Dingwall and Inverness all controlled key routes into the Highlands; and the burghs to the south, on the coastal road between Inverness and Aberdeen, had seen considerable military activity during the campaigns of James Graham, marquess of Montrose in 1644-5. Atlas Scot. Hist. 141. Inverness and Elgin were both garrisoned by Parliament in the early 1650s, and a site outside Inverness was chosen for the massive citadel, with a garrison amounting to 490 foot and 100 horse by the spring of 1657. Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke xliii, f. 66; li, ff. 17, 18v.
Although Inverness and Elgin (and probably the other burghs as well) supported Charles Stuart in 1651, providing him with men and money for the ill-fated Worcester expedition, they submitted to parliamentary control without a fight, and by the mid-1650s seem to have cooperated, however reluctantly, with the English regime. Recs. of Inverness ed. W. Mackay and G.S. Laing (2 vols. Edinburgh, 1924), ii. 204; Recs. of Elgin ed. W. Cramond (2 vols. Aberdeen, 1903), i. 289. Inverness, Elgin, Tain, Forres and Dornoch all sent deputies to agree terms with the Rump Parliament in the spring of 1652. Cromwellian Union ed. Terry, 73, 92, 166-8, 177, 130, 135, 146. During the same period, the burgesses of Elgin were in constant communication with the governor of Inverness, Colonel Thomas Fitch*, to ensure that their privileges were respected by the new rulers. Recs. of Elgin, i. 291-3. Elgin’s diplomacy paid off: in October 1653 the townspeople were given allowance ‘for continuing of the … officers within this burgh that are presently in office’; and their existing provost, John Douglas, continued in post until at least 1658. Recs. of Elgin, i. 288, 295, 304, 308. A similar continuity can be seen at Inverness, where Robert Ross served as provost in 1651-2, 1655-7 and 1662-3, and Alexander Cuthbert of Drakies, son of a former provost, was bailiff and then dean of guild in the early 1650s before becoming provost himself 1657-62. Recs. of Inverness, ii. 206, 358; Young, Parliaments of Scot. i. 255. At Tain, the commissioner to the Scottish Parliament of 1643, Alexander Forrester of Edderton, continued to represent the burgh, as commissioner to the convention of burghs, in 1657; he became provost in 1663. Old Ross-shire and Scotland ed. W. MacGill (Inverness, 1909), 228; Young, Parliaments of Scot. i. 255. At Nairn, the parliamentary commissioner from 1648, John Rose of Braidley, served as provost from 1658. Young, Parliaments of Scot. ii. 595. In terms of personnel, the Cromwellian occupation seems to have had very little impact on at least four of the seven burghs.
The level of continuity within the burghs was matched by a lack of friction between the inhabitants and the Edinburgh government. Relations between the garrison and the people of Inverness were generally good, with local traders supplying the troops and many soldiers finding wives locally. Problems led to petitions, not unrest. In response to losses caused by the royalist rising led by the earl of Glencairn in 1654, the burgh of Tain lobbied the central government, and complaints about assessment rates from Elgin and Nairn were also addressed to the authorities. Old Ross-shire, ed. MacGill, 227-8; Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke xlvii, unfol.: 18 June 1655. The building of the citadel caused some difficulties in Inverness in 1655, as the locals were expected to contribute towards the construction work and provide furniture for the barracks, although the main gripe seems to have been the refusal of the local lairds to contribute their fair share. Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke xlvii, unfol.: 1 Oct. 1655. The Edinburgh government was quick to respond to other grievances in 1657, investigating the activities of Quakers in Inverness and ordering those soldiers who had set up as tradesmen to pay assessments at the same rate as the townspeople. Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke li, f. 6v; xlviii, unfol.: 16 July 1657.
This general willingness to interact with the Cromwellian government can also be seen in the elections to the Westminster Parliament. In the ordinance passed in June 1654, the seven burghs were allowed one MP, with elections being held at Inverness. A. and O. ii. 931; CSP Dom. 1654, p. 198. The 1654 election could not take place, as the area was still recovering from Glencairn’s rebellion, but on 29 August 1656 a return was made under the supervision of the sheriff of Inverness-shire, Kenneth McKenzie of Coll. All four identifiable signatories on the 1656 election indenture were men with long-standing links with their respective burghs: Alexander Cuthbert for Inverness, Alexander Forrester for Tain, Alexander Dunbar (son-in-law of John Rose of Braidley) for Nairn and Alexander Sutherland for Dornoch. A fifth elector, representing Forres, also attended, but his name cannot be deciphered. C219/45, unfol. In May 1657 the burgh of Elgin agreed to pay its share of ‘the expenses of the commissioner at the Parliament in London’, which totalled £819 Scots (£68 5s. sterling) for ‘the burghs be-north the Spey’, of which Elgin was meant to provide £150 16s. 6d. Scots (£12 10s. sterling). Recs. of Elgin, i. 301. The acquiescence of the natives in electing their MP and then in paying for his expenses is all the more notable when it is considered that the member in question was a carpet-bagger – Robert Wolseley, brother of the Cromwellian councillor, Sir Charles Wolseley* – whose only known connection with Scotland was as a commissioner in lowland Ayrshire. Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke xxviii, f. 65v; NLS, MS 9752, f. 11.
The elections for the 1659 Parliament followed a similar pattern. Although the indenture does not survive, the Elgin records reveal something of the nature of the election. On 27 December 1658 the corporation received a letter ‘from General [George] Monck* and Samuel Disbrowe* for sending a commissioner to the Parliament at London’, and on 15 January 1659 the burgh sent a representative to Inverness ‘anent the choosing of the commissioner to the Parliament’. Recs. of Elgin, i. 308. As in 1656, the burgh representatives chose an outsider – Edward Sedgewick, a London lawyer related to the Cromwells His return, unopposed, suggests that the Dornoch burghs were still prepared to take orders from the government in Edinburgh. This collaboration was conveniently forgotten after the restoration of the monarchy in 1660, although the same families continued to control the various burghs, and returned their own kinsmen to the Scottish Parliaments until 1707. Young, Parliaments of Scot. i. 172, 255, 210; ii. 772-87.
