COCHRANE, William, 1st Lord Cochrane of Dundonald (1605-85), of Ayrshire.

The Cochranes were a well-established gentry family in the south-west of Scotland, having owned land in the barony of Paisley, Renfrewshire, since the thirteenth century. In the late sixteenth century the male line came to an end, and the family estates passed to Elizabeth Cochrane, whose husband, Alexander Blair, changed his name and succeeded to the lairdship. Their eldest son, Sir John Cochrane, who became an envoy of the Stuarts in Holland, Denmark and Russia during the 1640s and 1650s, resigned his Scottish lands to his younger brother, Sir William Cochrane, in December 1642. Sir William was the obvious choice as custodian of the estate. Having been educated locally – at Paisley Grammar School and Glasgow University -– William began his public career as deputy-sheriff of Renfrewshire in 1632, and he attended Charles I on his coronation visit to Edinburgh the following year. In 1634 he married a daughter of Sir William Scott of Ardross, and also succeeded to the Blair lands at Cowdoun, Woplaws and Knockglas, which were confirmed by royal charter in June of the same year. During the later 1630s, William Cochrane of Cowdoun (as he was then known) built up an impressive landholding for a younger son, including the lands of Dundonald in Ayrshire (purchased in 1638), which were erected into a barony by the crown in 1641, and the barony of Blair, granted in the same year. Cochrane’s rise to local prominence was aided by his status as chamberlain to the duke of Lennox – a post he held from about 1638 until 1641 at least.17HMC Laing, i. 209, 221. The Lennox connection was probably behind Cochrane’s knighthood, awarded in 1641.18Scots Peerage, iii. 334, 341-5. It may also have encouraged Cochrane’s brother to make his resignation of the family lands in his favour in 1642: an act which confirmed Sir William Cochrane as one of the most influential lairds in the south west of Scotland.

During the political upheavals of the 1640s, Cochrane was a leading Covenanter, serving on the committee of war between 1643 and 1646, as parliamentary commissioner for Ayrshire between 1644 and 1647, and on the committee of estates from 1644 until 1648.19Young, Parliaments of Scot. 126-7. In March 1645 Cochrane was sent with Sir James McDowell* of Garthland on a mission to Ulster to raise 1,500 men to aid the Covenanters against James Graham, earl of Montrose. Cochrane was chosen for this, and similar, missions, because his family owned lands in Ulster, and his younger brothers (notably Sir Bryce Cochrane) were officers in the ‘New Scots’ army there. Cochrane arranged for a further detachment to return to Scotland from Ulster in August 1645, when the threat from Montrose was at its height.20D. Stevenson, Scottish Covenanters and Irish Confederates (Belfast, 1981), 205-7. After the defeat of Montrose at Philiphaugh, Cochrane served as convenor of the shires of Ayr and Renfrew in levying troops to protect against further royalist activity, and he pursued those who had given succour to the insurgents in earlier months.21Government of Scot. under the Covenanters, 1637-51 ed. D. Stevenson (Edinburgh, 1982), 7-8, 46, 58. In October of the same year, Cochrane joined the earls of Glencairn and Cassillis on their mission to Ireland, and in November he embarked on a similar operation with the marquess of Argyll (Archibald Campbell*), with sufficient money for wages to entice at least 2,500 foot and four troops of horse across the North Channel.22Scotland under Covenanters ed. Stevenson, 10, 31, 38-9.

With the end of the first civil war in England, and the king’s successful negotiations with the Scots, Cochrane became a supporter of James Hamilton, 1st duke of Hamilton, and the royalist Engagement. As a mark of his new-found loyalty, Charles I elevated Cochrane to the peerage in December 1647, as Lord Cochrane of Dundonald.23Scots Peerage, iii. 345. Cochrane’s support for the Engagement brought him into direct conflict with the radical Covenanters of the south west, and, despite having nominal command of the Ayrshire regiment, in May 1648 he was unable to prevent the shire from rejecting the royalist cause and levying troops against Hamilton.24HMC Hamilton Suppl. 75; Scotland under Covenanters, 64. In the same month, Cochrane was appointed, with McDowell and Alexander Crawford, to return to Ireland, this time to levy forces for an invasion of England, and he was promised £64,000 to provide money for the troops and their transport.25Scotland under Covenanters, 65, 74-7; Montereul Corresp. ed. J.G. Fotheringham (2 vols. Edinburgh, 1899), ii. 487, 492. This new venture was successful, and by the end of July 1648, when Cochrane had returned to Edinburgh, a large contingent had returned from Ulster to fight for the king.26Stevenson, Scottish Covenanters and Irish Confederates, 257-60. After the catastrophic defeat of the Scottish army at Preston, Cochrane’s position was hopelessly compromised, and in 1649 the Presbytery of Ayr took its revenge, refusing to allow him to renew the Solemn League and Covenant and renounce the Engagement.27Scots Peerage, iii. 345. Cochrane remained excluded from politics until the arrival of Charles Stuart in 1651. In April and May of that year he was at Perth, working with Sir William Lockhart* of Lee to organise provisions for the army being prepared for yet another invasion of England.28Scotland under Covenanters, 109, 111-126, 149-51, 161, 167. He attended the Scottish Parliament at Perth, and raised men in Ayr and Renfrew for the royal army.29Scots Peerage, iii. 345. The final defeat, at Worcester in September 1651, once again forced Cochrane into retirement.

Unlike the majority of his peers, Cochrane emerged from the covenanting wars with his financial position secure. This was due not only to his famed ‘frugality’, but also to his gift for speculation and sharp practice.30W. Hamilton, Sheriffdoms of Lanark and Renfrew (Glasgow, 1831), 82. During the 1640s, large sums of money passed through Cochrane’s hands, and whether or not some of these funds were diverted into his private coffers, there is no doubt that he used his position to increase his income by supplying meal and other provisions to garrisons in the west of Scotland and to the ‘New Scots’ in Ireland – conducting transactions worth around £3,000 sterling in 1645 alone.31Pprs. Rel. to Army of the Covenant ed. C.S. Terry (2 vols., Edinburgh, 1917), ii. 384, 390, 401, 403-4. He was also involved in money lending, apparently being part of the financial circle around the Edinburgh merchant, Sir William Dick.32Reg. Gt Seal Scot. 1652-9, pp. 288-9; CJ vii. 488b. Cochrane’s clients included his old patron, James, duke of Lennox. Connections between the two men had continued during the wars, but on very different terms. Instead of being the duke’s servant, by the mid-1640s Cochrane had become his most important creditor. In a letter probably dating from 1646, Lennox wrote to his cautioner, the earl of Traquair, with a request that Cochrane’s claims should be satisfied by raising loans or selling lands – and the scale of the debt is indicated by his comment that ‘I had rather do it, than expose the dukedom of Lennox sub hasta [to public auction]’.33NRAS 54 (Stewart of Traquair), bundle 7, no. 17. The problems of the Lennoxes pale beside Cochrane’s greatest financial coup: his systematic predation of the estates of James Hamilton, earl of Abercorn, in Ayrshire and Renfrewshire. The insolvent Abercorn had been in Cochrane’s sights since the 1630s, and Cochrane’s lands at Dundonald had previously formed part of the earl’s estate, albeit alienated to other creditors.34Reg. Gt. Seal Scot. 1634-51, pp. 289-90. Other parcels of Abercorn land in Renfrewshire were bought up by Cochrane during the 1640s, but the prize was the lordship of Paisley, which came into his clutches only in August 1653, when the earl of Angus, acting for Abercorn, sold it for £13,500.35PRONI, D.623/B/7/1A-B; D.623/B7/8A-B; D. 623/B/7/12. This was an enormous sum in Scottish terms, especially for a former royalist, but it was not long before Cochrane was making further investments, purchasing other parts of the Paisley lordship alienated by Abercorn’s creditors in earlier years, as well as estates in Ayrshire held by the earl of Nithsdale.36NRAS 859, box 238, bundle 2, unfol.; Reg. Gt Seal Scot. 1652-9, pp. 288-9. Furthermore, Cochrane’s involvement with Abercorn was open-ended, as the earl of Angus had entered bonds to protect Cochrane against claims by Abercorn’s creditors.37NRAS 859, box 238, bundle 2, unfol. With this and other financial dealings unresolved, Cochrane had much at stake in Cromwellian Scotland.

As soon as the Paisley lands had been secured, Cochrane turned his back on the Stuarts, openly siding with the government against the rising led by the earl of Glencairn. In August 1653 – the same month that Paisley became his property – he headed the list of signatories of the ‘engagement of the gentlemen of Renfrewshire’, which sought to ‘vindicate and clear the said country and shire of any design, correspondence, or intercourse, directly or indirectly, with any in the north in arms’.38Scot. and Commonwealth, ed. Firth, 196-7. A week later, Major-general Robert Lilburne* reported to Oliver Cromwell* that he had been visited by Cochrane, who had given him the engagement in person.39Scot. and Commonwealth, ed. Firth, 198. In December 1653 Lilburne responded to such overtures, granting Cochrane a pass to travel to Ayrshire, presumably hoping that he might also have a calming effect on that shire at the height of the rebellion.40Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke XLV, unfol.: 30 Dec. 1653. Despite his approaches to the new regime, Cochrane could not easily shake off his royalist past, and he was fined £5,000 under the ordinance of pardon and grace passed in April 1654.41A. and O.

It was not long before Cochrane’s usefulness to the government overcame their distrust of him, however. The failure of Ayrshire and Renfrewshire to return an MP in the elections in 1654 prompted General George Monck* to solicit Cochrane’s support. In a letter of 2 October, he asked him to use his influence locally, ‘that an election be made by both shires of some fit person to serve them in Parliament’ and signalled his tolerance towards former royalists as voters, saying that ‘divers Members who were chosen by the shires’ had been ‘accepted of notwithstanding the qualifications of the persons electing’.42Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke XLVI, unfol.: 2 Oct. 1654. Cochrane’s response to this overture is not known for certain, although his departure for London (on a post warrant issued by Monck) a fortnight later, may have been connected with the fate of the seat.43Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke XLVI, unfol.: 14 Oct. 1654. Whatever the truth of this speculation, Cochrane certainly went south with Monck’s blessing, carrying a letter from the general to the protector recommending the gentlemen of the south west of Scotland as ‘peaceable men … ready to give their assurance (by the Lord Cochrane) of their continuance in their peaceable demeanour’.44NLS, MS 9752, f. 3. Monck’s generosity towards Cochrane may also have been influenced by his continuing respect for his brother Sir Bryce Cochrane, who had served with Monck in Ulster, and in December 1654 was recommended by him as a man of good character who posed no threat to the Cromwellian regime.45Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke XLVI, unfol.: 19 Dec. 1654.

Collaboration certainly had its benefits. Lord Cochrane’s fine was reduced to £1,666 in April 1655; he was given a pass to travel throughout Scotland in May 1655; in July the garrison commander at Paisley was ordered to exempt his house from quartering; and in December he was called upon to supervise the heritors of Bute in their assessment payments.46CSP Dom. 1655, pp. 71, 116, 188; Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke XLVII, unfol.: 11 May, 16 July, 20 Dec. 1655. In the spring of 1656 Cochrane regained his formal place in the local government, as one of the new justices of the peace for Ayrshire.47Scot. and Protectorate ed. Firth, 309. In March 1656 Cochrane’s second son married a daughter of Sir William Strickland* – a match which proved that he was now entirely acceptable to those in the higher ranks of the Cromwellian regime.48Scots Peerage, iii. 347-8. His local position was less secure, however, as the radical Covenanters of the south west were understandably suspicious of this royalist-turned-collaborator. Tensions were apparent in August 1656, when Cochrane was returned as MP for Ayrshire and Renfrewshire, only after defeating a challenge by the leading Protester, Sir George Maxwell of Nether Pollok.49C219/45, unfol.; Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke XXVIII, f. 65v; Baillie Lttrs. and Jnls. iii. 322. Cochrane’s pass and post warrant were issued by Monck on 2 September, and he left for London soon afterwards.50Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke XLVIII, unfol.: 2 Sept. 1656. The manner of his election and his evident enthusiasm for the journey prompted another prominent Protester, Alexander Brodie* of Brodie, to comment sourly on ‘the fervency in my Lord Cochrane to undertake this commission to the Parliament’.51Brodie Diary, 189.

Cochrane had taken his seat in the commons by 13 October 1656, when he was added to the committee of Scottish affairs.52CJ vii. 438a. Scottish concerns account for most of his appointments early in the session: he joined the committees for trade (20 Oct.), the removal of wardships and tenures (29 Oct.), and various measures to reduce crime in northern England and the Scottish borders (20 Nov., 4 Dec.).53CJ vii. 442a, 447a, 456a, 464a. On 4 December Cochrane also took part in the debates on the Scottish union bill, supporting George Downing’s amendment allowing burgh rights to be included in the legislation, and when it was proposed that the grand committee on the bill should be reconvened at a date far in the future, he angrily retorted that he would ‘rather … suspend the bill for this session, than give it so long a day’.54Burton’s Diary, i. 15, 18-19. Cochrane pursued his own financial interests during the session. He was involved in the committee on the bill to confirm George Monck’s claims to the duchess of Hamilton’s barony of Kinneil at the end of December, joining Lord Broghill (Roger Boyle), Thomas Clarges and Nathaniel Whetham I in calling for the bill to be committed.55CJ vii. 476b; Burton’s Diary, i. 267. As the earl of Abercorn claimed to be successor to the ducal estates, Cochrane’s interest in this bill was guided by self-interest as much as by loyalty to Monck.

Financial considerations no doubt also lay behind Cochrane’s petition on behalf of Esmé Stuart, duke of Lennox, submitted to the English council in December, and he also had a personal stake in the parliamentary committee on the petition of the creditors of Sir William Dick, appointed on 9 February 1657.56CSP Dom. 1656-7, p. 191; CJ vii. 488b. In April Cochrane was added to the committee considering donatives granted to Englishmen from forfeited estates in Scotland – an issue which had serious consequences for native creditors seeking payment from the same estates – and in the debate he opposed leniency to wives and children of forfeited landowners, arguing, on behalf of the creditors, that ‘if you confirm this ordinance without relating to the order, you cut off all the creditors at one blow; and undo a great many poor families. We have lain out of our moneys for seven years, and if you do this, we shall never be satisfied. I would have the donatives first satisfied, and the donors to keep possession till then, and that out of the rest the debts may be paid’.57CJ vii. 526a; Burton’s Diary, ii. 66. The urgency of a favourable resolution of such matters had been brought home to Cochrane in the previous March, when his status as an MP was the only thing that had protected him from a summons against him, issued by Walter Corbett of Towers. This was deemed a breach of privilege, and the Scottish judges were instructed to suspend all actions against Cochrane for the time being.58CJ vii. 505b.

In the public sphere, Cochrane was a supporter of the civilian courtiers, led by the president of the Scottish council, Lord Broghill, who pressed for the reduction of the power of the military across the three nations. On 28 January 1657 he acted as teller with Broghill’s Irish ally, William Jephson, in forcing a vote on the Militia Bill upon which the fate of the major-generals depended.59CJ vii. 483a. On 28 February he was teller with another Scottish councillor, Sir Edward Rodes*, against plans to reconsider the conditions which the controversial Quaker, James Naylor, endured in prison.60CJ vii. 497b. When the Remonstrance (which later became the Humble Petition and Advice) was debated, Cochrane again sided with the civilian interest. His committee appointments show his close involvement in every stage of the ‘kingship debates’. On 6 March he was appointed to the committee on the 4th article, which considered restrictions on royalist participation in the Scottish franchise, and, with similar irony, on 20 March he was involved in plans to revise the new constitution to secure the state against royalist plots.61CJ vii. 499b, 508b. Five days later he was among the Scottish MPs who voted to include the offer of the crown to Cromwell in the Humble Petition and Advice.62Narrative of the Late Parliament (1657), 23 (E.935.5). During April and May, Cochrane was named to committees to attend the protector to ask for an answer to the Humble Petition, to receive his scruples concerning it and (after Cromwell’s rejection of the crown) to decide how the title ‘protector’ might be spliced into an otherwise monarchical constitution.63CJ vii. 520b, 521a, 521b, 535a, 538b. On 27 May, Cochrane was named to the committee to draft the bills on the new constitution, which would turn the modified version into law.64CJ vii. 540b.

Cochrane’s last known intervention in Parliament came on 9 June, when he ungraciously opposed the bill to compensate the widow of John Bastwick, which he dismissed as a ‘private business’ – possibly in retaliation at the treatment of his own motion to read a petition of Lady Stuart (another member of the Lennox family), which had been voted down as a ‘private bill’ a few days before.65Burton’s Diary, ii. 124, 204. His retreat from Westminster was followed by a period of political inactivity, while he busied himself with buying up more land, and securing his title through grants from successive protectors.66NRAS 859, box 238, bundle 2, unfol. The accession of Richard Cromwell* as protector in September 1658 brought a number of important charters for Cochrane’s estates, including one for Craigie and other lands in Ayrshire originally acquired in 1652, and, most importantly, he also received confirmation of his title to the lordship of Paisley.67Reg. Gt. Seal Scot. 1652-9, pp. 288-9; NRAS 859, box 238, bundle 2, unfol.; box 240, bundle 2, unfol. Cochrane remained close to Monck during the later 1650s, being granted protection for the grazing on his Ayrshire estates in March 1658, and in June 1659 attending the general in person, although claims that he gave Monck £20,900 to help to restore Charles Stuart in 1660 must be treated with caution.68Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke XLVIII, unfol.: 31 Mar. 1658; Diary of Andrew Hay of Craignethan, ed. A.G. Reid (Edinburgh, 1901), 65; Scots Peerage, iii. 346.

After the Restoration, Cochrane was welcomed back to the fold by the royalists despite his flirtation with the Cromwellian regime. Having been a lukewarm Presbyterian, he now embraced episcopalianism with enthusiasm, causing Archbishop James Sharp to describe him in 1664 as ‘very real upon all occasions for the church’s interest since the restoring of it, and recommend him to Archbishop [Gilbert] Sheldon as one who might be useful ‘for quieting the distempers’ of the Covenanters in the south west.69HMC Laing, i. 343. Cochrane was created earl of Dundonald in May 1669.70Scots Peerage, iii. 346. He was involved in attempts to suppress the Covenanters in the mid-1670s, and worked with the 3rd duke of Hamilton and others to keep order in the region.71HMC Laing, i. 395; HMC Hamilton, 144. Despite this, his attitudes were moderate in comparison with those of John Maitland, duke of Lauderdale, and the more vindictive politicians of the 1660s and 1670s, and Covenanters such as Alexander Brodie of Brodie found him approachable, if not always amenable, even in the bleakest days of the ‘killing times’.72Brodie Diary, 265, 401. Cochrane died in 1685, at the age of 80, and was succeeded by his grandson, John, 2nd earl of Dundonald, who confirmed the family’s social status by marrying a daughter of the 3rd duke of Hamilton.73Scots Peerage, iii. 346, 350-2.