suffered severely: John, the second son of the Earl of Dundonald, being
deeply implicated therein, and only escaping with his life by the earl
satisfying, first, the greed of James the Second’s popish priests, and
secondly, that of James himself.
The annexed extracts from Burnet will show all that needs be said on
this head:—
“Cochran, another of those who had been concerned in this treaty [as
to an insurrection in Scotland], was complained of, as having talked
very freely of the duke’s government of Scotland. Upon which the
Scottish secretary sent a note to him, desiring him to come to him;
for it was intended only to give him a reprimand, and to have ordered
him to go to Scotland. But he knew his own secret; so he left his
lodgings, and got beyond sea. This shewed the court had not yet got
full evidence, otherwise he would have been taken up, as well as
others were.”—Vol. i. folio, p. 548.
“The deliberations in Holland, among the English and Scotch that fled
thither, came to ripen faster than was expected. Lord Argile had been
quiet ever since the disappointment in the year eighty-three. He had
lived for most part in Frizeland, but came oft to Amsterdam, and met
with the rest of his countrymen that lay concealed there; the chief of
whom were the Lord Melvill, Sir Patrick Hume, and Sir John Cochran.
[The first of these (Melvill) was a fearful and mean-spirited man, a
zealous presbyterian, but more zealous in preserving his person and
estate. Hume was a hot and eager man, full of passion and resentment;
and instead of minding the business then in hand, he was always
forming schemes about the modelling of matters, when they should
prevail, in which he was so earnest, that he fell into perpetual
disputes and quarrels about it; Cochran was more tractable.[15]] With
these Lord Argile communicated all the advices that were sent to
him.”—On margin, “Argile designed to invade Scotland.”—Vol. iii. 27;
fol. vol. i. 632.
-----
Footnote 15:
Original note.
-----
Argile landed in the Isle of Bute with his adherents. “He had left his
arms in a castle, with such a guard as he could spare; but they were
routed by a party of the king’s forces. And with this he lost both
heart and hope. And then, apprehending that all was gone, he put
himself in a disguise, and had almost escaped; but he was taken. A
body of gentlemen that had followed him stood better to it, and forced
their way through, so that the greater part of them escaped. Some of
these were taken; the chief of them were Sir John Cochran, Ailoffe,
and Rumbold. These last two were Englishmen; but I knew not upon what
motive it was that they chose rather to run fortunes with Argile than
with the Duke of Monmouth. Thus was this rebellion brought to a speedy
end, with the effusion of very little blood.”—Vol. i. fol. p. 629.
“Cochran had a rich father, the Earl of Dundonald, and he offered the
priests 5000_l._ to save his son. They wanted a stock of money for
managing their designs, so they interposed so effectually that the
bargain was made. But to cover it, Cochran petitioned the council that
he might be sent to the king; for he had some secrets of great
importance which were not fit to be communicated to any but to the
king himself. He was upon that brought up to London; and after he had
been for some time in private with the king, the matters he had
discovered were said to be of such importance, that in consideration
of that the king pardoned him. It was said he had discovered all their
negotiations with the Elector of Brandenburg and the Prince of Orange.
But this was a pretence only, given out to conceal the bargain; for
the prince told me he had never once seen him. The secret of this came
to be known soon after.”—Vol. i. fol. 634.
Lord Macaulay’s account of the same event as regarded my ancestor, for
it is from this Sir John Cochrane that the present branch of our family
is descended, will complete all which is necessary to be alluded to in
this place.
“With Hume (Sir Patrick) was connected another Scottish exile of great
note, Sir John Cochrane, second son of the Earl of Dundonald. The
great question was, whether the Highlands or the Lowlands should be
the seat of war. The Earl (Argyle) wished to establish his authority
over his own domains, and to take possession of the ancient seat of
his family, at Inverary. But Hume and Cochrane were impracticable,
seeing that amongst his own mountains and lakes, and at the head of an
army of his own tribe, he would be able to bear down their opposition,
and to exercise the full authority of a general. They said that the
Campbells took up arms neither for liberty nor for the Church of God,
but for Mac Callum More alone. Cochrane declared he would go to
Ayrshire, if he went by himself, and with nothing but a pitch-fork in
his hand. Argyle, after long resistance, consented, and Cochrane and
Hume were at the head of a force to invade the Lowlands.
“Ayrshire was Cochrane’s object, and the coast was guarded by English
frigates. A party of militia lay at Greenock, but Cochrane, who wanted
provisions, was determined to land. Hume objected, but Cochrane was
peremptory. Cochrane entered Greenock, and procured a supply of meal,
but found no disposition to insurrection.
“Cochrane having found it impossible to raise the population on the
south of the Clyde, rejoined Argyle in Bute. The Earl again proposed
to make an attempt on Inverary, and again encountered pertinacious
opposition. The seamen sided with Hume and Cochrane. The Highlanders
were absolutely at the command of their chieftain.
* * * * * * * *
“Cochrane was taken and sent to London.... He held amongst the Scotch
rebels the same rank which had been held by Grey in the West of
England. That Cochrane should be forgiven by a prince vindictive
beyond all example seemed incredible. But Cochrane was the younger son
of a rich family; it was, therefore, only by sparing him _that money
could be made out of him_. His father, Lord Dundonald, offered a bribe
to the priests of the royal household, and a pardon was granted.”
The history of the succeeding Earls of Dundonald, down to the failure of
issue in the first branch, is thus detailed by Crawfurd.
“William, first Earl of Dundonald, married Euphemie, daughter of Sir
William Scot of Ardross, _in comitatu de Fife_, by whom he had two
sons and a daughter.
“1. William Lord Cochran, who dyed in the flower of his Age, Anno
1680, leaving Issue by the Lady Catherine his Wife, Daughter of John
Earl of Cassils, John who succeeded his Grand-father in the Honour,
William Cochran, of Kilmaronock, a Member of Parliament for the Burgh
of Wigtoun, and the other towns in that District and one of the
Commissioners for keeping her Majesty’s Signet, Sir Alexander Erskin,
Lord Lyon, and John Pringle, of Haining, being joined in Commission
with him. He married Grisel, Daughter of James, second Marquis of
Montrose, and has issue; Thomas Cochran of Polkely, third Son, dyed
without children; Alexander Cochran, of Bonshaw, the youngest; also
three Daughters; 1st. Margaret, married to Alexander Earl of
Eglintoun. 2nd. Helen, to John Earl of Sutherland. 3rd. Jean, to John
Viscount of Dundee, and afterward to William Viscount of Kilsyth.
“2nd. son, Sir John Cochran of Ochiltree, in Air-shire, Likewise a
Daughter Grisel, married to George Lord Ross.
“This Earl gave way to Nature in the spring of the Year 1686, and was
by his own Direction interr’d in the Paroch Church of Dundonald,
without any Funeral Monument, but upon his Escutcheon I find the Arms
of these noble and ancient Families.
“PATERNAL SIDE.
“Cochran of that Ilk.
“Lord Semple.
“Cunningham of Glengarnock.
“Lord Cairlyle of Torthorald.
“MATERNAL SIDE.
“Cochran of that Ilk.
“Montgomery of Skelmurly.
“Lindsay of Dunrod.
“Lord Semple.
“To William Earl of Dundonald succeeded John his Grandson and Heir, a
nobleman of great Goodness and excellent Parts; he dyed in the prime
of his Years, Anno 1691, regrated by all those who knew him, leaving
Issue by the Lady Susanna his Wife, Daughter of William Duke of
Hamilton, two Sons, William who succeeded in the Honours, but dyed
unmarried the 19th of November 1705. And
“John married Anne Daughter of Charles Earl of Dunmore, a Lady who
wanted no Vertue to make her an acceptable Wife; she dyed in 1711,
universally lamented, whose Conduct in all Conditions of Life render’d
her Loss a lasting Grief to her Relations, he had by her a Son and
three Daughters.
“William Lord Cochran,
“Lady Anne,
“Lady Catherine,
“Lady Susanne.
“ARMS.
“Argent, a chiveron; Gules, betwixt three Boars Heads, Azure,
supported by two Ratch Hounds of the first; Crest, a Horse, Argent,
Motto, Virtute et Labore.”
CHAPTER I.
MY BOYHOOD, AND ENTRANCE INTO THE NAVY.
YOUNGER BRANCH SUCCEEDS TO EARLDOM.—ALIENATION OF FAMILY ESTATES.—MY
FATHER’S SCIENTIFIC PURSUITS.—HIS RUINOUS MANUFACTURING PROJECTS.—A
NEGLECTED DISCOVERY.—COMMUNICATED TO JAMES WATT.—LORD DUNDONALD’S
AGRICULTURAL WORKS STILL HELD IN ESTIMATION.—EARLY REMINISCENCES.—MY
FIRST VISIT TO LONDON.—MY FATHER DESTINES ME FOR THE ARMY.—A
COMMISSION PROCURED.—MY AVERSION TO THE MILITARY PROFESSION.—OUR
RETURN TO SCOTLAND.—I AM PERMITTED TO ENTER THE NAVY.
My birth is recorded as having taken place on the 14th of December,
1775, at Annsfield in Lanarkshire. My father was Archibald, ninth Earl
of Dundonald; my mother, Anna Gilchrist, daughter of Captain Gilchrist,
a distinguished officer of the Royal Navy.[16]
-----
Footnote 16:
One action of my maternal grandfather is worthy of record. On March
28th, 1758, upwards of a century ago, he commanded the _Southampton_,
32, and when in company with the _Melampe_, 24, Captain Hotham, fell
in with two French frigates off Yarmouth. The _Melampe_, being the
faster sailer, came up first, and was so disabled that she fell astern
before the _Southampton_ got within range. On the _Melampe_ falling
off, one of the frigates made sail, and got away. The _Southampton_
then engaged the other, and after a six hours’ contest, carried on
with equal bravery on both sides, she boarded and captured the
_Danaë_, of 40 guns and 340 men, commanded by one of the bravest
officers in the French navy.
The loss of the _Danaë_ was her first and second captains, and eighty
men killed. The _Southampton_ had only one killed and ten wounded;
amongst whom was my grandfather, whose shoulder was shattered by a
grape-shot.
-----
My father was descended from John, the younger son of the first
earl—noticed in the introductory chapter as the compatriot of Argyll. On
default of issue in the elder branch of the family the title devolved on
my grandfather, Thomas, who married the daughter of Archibald Stuart,
Esq., of Torrence, in Lanarkshire, and had issue one daughter and twelve
sons, the most distinguished amongst whom, in a public capacity, was
Admiral the Honourable Sir Alexander, father of the present Admiral Sir
Thomas Cochrane.[17]
-----
Footnote 17:
Thomas Cochrane, eighth Earl of Dundonald, was a major in the army,
and M.P. for Renfrewshire. He died in 1778, at the age of
eighty-seven, and was married, first, to Elizabeth, daughter of James
Kerr, Esq. of Moris Town, Berwickshire, by whom he had two children,
Thomas, who died young, and a daughter, Grizel, who died unmarried.
By his second countess, he had issue—1. Argyle, died in infancy; 2.
Archibald, my father, died in 1823; 3. Charles, a colonel in the army,
killed in 1781, at York Town, in Virginia, during the American war of
Independence; 4. John, died in 1802; 5. James Athol, rector of
Mansfield in Yorkshire; 6. Basil, in the civil service of the East
India Company; 7. and 8. Thomas and George, died young; 9. Alexander
Forrester, Knight of the Bath, and rear-admiral in the navy; 10. ——,
died young; 11. George Augustus Frederick, M.P. for Grampound; 12.
Andrew, also M.P. for Grampound, who, on his marriage, assumed the
surname of Johnstone, and was the father of the present dowager Lady
Napier, relict of the late Lord Napier; 13. Elizabeth, married to
Patrick Heron, Esq. of Heron.
The issue of my father, Archibald, ninth Earl of Dundonald, was as
follows: 1. myself; 2. a daughter, died young; 3. James, died young;
4. Basil, lieutenant-colonel of the 36th Regiment; 5. William Erskine,
major in the 15th Light Dragoons, my only surviving brother; 6.
Archibald, captain in the Royal Navy; 7. Charles, died young.
-----
Some of my father’s earlier years were spent in the Navy, in which he
became acting lieutenant. A cruise on the coast of Guinea gave him a
distaste for the naval profession, which, in after years, postponed my
entrance therein far beyond the usual period. On his return home he
quitted the navy for a commission in the army, which was, after a time,
also relinquished.
Of our once extensive ancestral domains I never inherited a foot. In the
course of a century, and before the title descended to our branch,
nearly the whole of the family estates had been alienated by losses
incurred in support of one generation of the Stuarts, rebellion against
another, and mortgages, or other equally destructive process,—the
consequence of both. A remnant may latterly have fallen into other hands
from my father’s negligence in not looking after it, and his unentailed
estates were absorbed by expensive scientific pursuits presently to be
noticed. So that my outset in life was that of heir to a peerage,
without other expectations than those arising from my own exertions.
My father’s day was that of Cavendish, Black, Priestley, Watt, and
others, now become historical as the forerunners of modern practical
science. Imbued with like spirit, and in intimate communication with
these distinguished men, he emulated their example with no mean success,
as the philosophical records of that period testify. But whilst they
prudently confined their attention to their laboratories, my father’s
sanguine expectations of retrieving the family estates by his
discoveries led him to embark in a multitude of manufacturing projects.
The motive was excellent; but his pecuniary means being incommensurate
with the magnitude of his transactions, its object was frustrated, and
our remaining patrimony melted like the flux in his crucibles; his
scientific knowledge, as often happens, being unaccompanied by the
self-knowledge which would have taught him that he was not, either by
habit or inclination, a “man of business.” Many who were so, knew how to
profit by his inventions without the trouble of discovery, whilst their
originator was occupied in developing new practical facts to be turned
to their advantage, and his consequent loss.
An enumeration of some of my father’s manufacturing transactions,
extensively and simultaneously carried on, will leave no doubt as to
their failure in a pecuniary sense. First, the preparation of soda from
common salt, as a substitute for _barilla_,—till then the only alkali
available for soap and glass making. Secondly, a manufactory for
improvement in the production of _alumina_, as a mordant for silk and
calico printers. Thirdly, an establishment for preparing British gum as
a substitute for _gum Senegal_, these products being in use amongst
calico-printers to the present day; the latter especially being at that
distant period of great utility, as the foreign gum was scarce and
expensive. A fourth manufactory had for its object the preparation of
_sal ammoniac_. At a fifth was carried on the manufacture of _white
lead_, by a process then new to productive science. A sixth
establishment, on a ruinous scale as compared with his resources, was
for a new process of extracting tar and other products from pit-coal;
the former as an effective agent in protecting timber from decay, whilst
the refuse coke was in request amongst ironfounders, whose previous
operations for its manufacture were wasteful and unsatisfactory.[18]
-----
Footnote 18:
Whilst serving on the west coast of Africa, my father remarked the
destructive ravages made on ships’ bottoms by worms, and, from his
chemical knowledge, it occurred to him that an extract from pit-coal,
in the form of tar, might be employed as a preventive of the evil. On
his return home, the experiment was tried, and found to answer
perfectly. Notwithstanding the subsequent refusal of the Admiralty to
make use of his preservative, it was at once adopted by the Dutch and
elsewhere in the North, and in the case of small coasting vessels is
to this day used in our own country, as less expensive than coppering.
Had not the coppering of vessels become common shortly afterwards, the
discovery must have proved of incalculable value.
-----
After this enumeration, it is unnecessary to dilate on its ruinous
results. It is simply the old adage of “too many irons in the fire.” One
by one his inventions fell into other hands, some by fair sale, but most
of them by piracy, when it became known that he had nothing left
wherewith to maintain his rights. In short, with seven children to
provide for, he found himself a ruined man.
In the present state of manufacturing science, by which the above
objects are accomplished through improved means, the mention of such
matters may, at first sight, appear unnecessary. Yet, seventy years ago
they bore the same relation to the manufacturing processes of our time
as at that period did the crude attempts at the steam engine to its
modern perfection. In this point of view—which is the true one—reference
to my father’s patents, though now superseded by improvements, will
fairly entitle him to no mean place amongst other inventors of his day,
who deservedly rank as benefactors to their country.
One of my father’s scientific achievements must not be passed over.
Cavendish had some time previously ascertained the existence of
hydrogen. Priestley had become acquainted with its inflammable
character; but the Earl of Dundonald may fairly lay claim to the
practical application of its illuminating power in a carburetted form.
In prosecution of his coal-tar patent, my father went to reside at the
family estate of Culross Abbey, the better to superintend the works on
his own collieries, as well as others on the adjoining estates of
Valleyfield and Kincardine. In addition to these works, an experimental
tar-kiln was erected near the Abbey, and here coal-gas became
accidentally employed in illumination. Having noticed the inflammable
nature of a vapour arising during the distillation of tar, the Earl, by
way of experiment, fitted a gun-barrel to the eduction pipe leading from
the condenser. On applying fire to the muzzle, a vivid light blazed
forth across the waters of the Frith, becoming, as was afterwards
ascertained, distinctly visible on the opposite shore.
Strangely enough, though quick in appreciating a new fact, Lord
Dundonald lightly passed over the only practical product which might
have realised his expectations of retrieving the dilapidated fortunes of
our house; considering tar and coke to constitute the legitimate objects
of his experiments, and regarding the illuminating property of gas
merely as a curious natural phenomenon. Like Columbus, he had the egg
before him, but, unlike Columbus, he did not hit upon the right method
of setting it on end.
The incident just narrated took place about the year 1782 and the
circumstances attending it are the more vividly impressed on my memory
from an event which occurred during a subsequent journey with my father
to London. On our way we paid a visit to James Watt, then residing at
Handsworth, near Birmingham, and amongst other scientific subjects
discussed during our stay were the various products of coal, including
the gas-light phenomenon of the Culross Abbey tar-kiln. This gave rise
to some interesting conversation, which, however, ended without further
result.
Many years afterwards, Mr. Murdoch, then one of Watt’s assistants at
Soho, applied coal-gas to the illumination of that establishment, though
even with this practical demonstration its adoption for purposes of
general public utility did not keep pace with the importance of the fact
thus successfully developed, until, by the persevering endeavours of Mr.
Winsor, its advantages overcame prejudice.[19]
-----
Footnote 19:
A paper on the “Utility and Advantages of Gas-lights,” written by Mr.
Murdoch, and transmitted by him to Sir Joseph Banks, was read before
the Royal Society on the 25th of February 1808, detailing the lighting
of Messrs. Phillips and Lee’s manufactory at Manchester, and
describing the process of gas-manufacture. In this paper Mr. Murdoch
alludes to a memorial presented by Mr. Winsor to George III., pointing
out the utility of gas for lighting the public streets, &c.
-----
It is no detraction from Mr. Murdoch’s merit of having been the first to
turn coal-gas to useful account, to infer that Watt might, at some
period during the interval, have narrated to him the incident just
mentioned, and that the fact accidentally developed by my father had
thus become the subject of long and careful experiment; for this must
have been the case before the complete achievement shone forth in
perfection. Mr. Murdoch, so far as I am aware, never laid claim to a
discovery of the illuminating property of coal-gas, but to its useful
application only, to which his right is indisputable. As it is not
generally known to whom an earlier practical appreciation of gas-light
was in reality due, I have placed these facts on record.
One notice more of my father’s investigations may be permissible. To Sir
Humphry Davy is usually ascribed the honour of first pointing out the
relation between Agriculture and Chemistry. Reference to a work
published in 1795, entitled “_A Treatise showing the intimate connection
between Agriculture and Chemistry, by the_ EARL OF DUNDONALD,” will
decide the priority. Davy’s work may in a theoretical point of view
surpass that of my father, inasmuch as the analytical chemical science
of a more modern date is more minute than that of the last century; but
in point of patient investigation from countless practical experiments,
my father’s work is more than equal to that of his distinguished
successor in the same field, and is, indeed, held in no small estimation
at the present time.[20]
-----
Footnote 20:
I may mention three points contained in this work, to the discovery of
which claim has been laid by modern writers, viz. the malting of grain
for the purpose of feeding cattle, the converting of peat moss into
good soil, and the benefit of a judicious use of salt refuse as a
manure; the latter suggestion being made by my father in a treatise
published in 1785, nearly seventy-five years ago. Other discoveries
might be enumerated, but from those adduced it will be seen that most
of my father’s experiments were far in advance of the age in which he
lived. With slight modifications only not a few rank as modern
discoveries, though little more than plagiarisms without
acknowledgment.
-----
The reader will readily pardon me for thus devoting a few pages by way
of a tribute to a parent, whose memory still exists amongst my most
cherished recollections; even though his discoveries, now of national
utility, ruined him, and deprived his posterity of their remaining
paternal inheritance.
During boyhood we had the misfortune to lose our mother[21], and as our
domestic fortunes were even then at a low ebb, great difficulty was
experienced in providing us with the means of education—four of us being
then at an age to profit by more ample opportunities. In this emergency,
temporary assistance was volunteered by Mr. Rolland, the minister of
Culross, who thus evinced his gratitude for favours received in the more
auspicious days of the family. Highly as was the offer appreciated,
family pride prevented our reaping from it the advantage contemplated by
a learned and truly excellent man.
-----
Footnote 21:
Anna, Countess of Dundonald, died at Brompton on the 13th of November
1784.
-----