|
This page is part of a website based
on the life and achievements of eighteenth-century inventor Henry Cort. Please email site controller Eric
Alexander with any comments or queries. |
Fact,
error and conjecture
|
A continuous, typically
chronological, record of past events or trends. One definition of “history” in The Concise
Oxford Dictionary. |
Some attempts to define the word
history betray a cartload of wishful thinking.
Is the historical record continuous?
More significant: Is it
accurate?
|
Unfortunately
even Burkes and Debretts give impossible and inconsistent information. I have several Bechers who are listed as marrying
in say 1719, have 5 children and then remarry a second time also in
1719! Mayor John's brother Michael's
wife Peniel is listed in Debretts as married to another and having had a
child four years before Michael died, yet it is plain from his will that they
were definitely still married. Burkes
shows some people as dead from the date their will was written (the Rev Henry
Becher's brother John, my ancestor is an example of this), rather than their
actual death... the inconsistencies
don't necessarily become apparent unless it is a branch that you know well. From letter of Becher
family historian Jenny Stiles to Eric Alexander, October 2006. |
Anyone studying historical
documents soon learns that even contemporary documents contain errors.
One way this occurs is
through misreading handwriting.
Thus our pursers’ page contains a quotation referring to
"Captain Richard Beecher".
The Commissioned Sea Officers of the Royal Navy 1660-1815 states
correctly that the captain’s real name is Michael Becher. (They also get the date of his death right, but miss his
promotion to ship’s commander.)
The baptism of Rev Moses Porter (the priest who accompanies James Hackman on his journey to the gallows) is
recorded in his ordination papers as 21 July 1733 at St Andrew
Undershaft, London. But the date in the
parish record is 21 July 1735.
The IGI’s
compilers can also misread handwriting, as shown by their date for Henry Cort's marriage to Elizabeth Haysham: 17 March 1760. The original parish record reveals the year
as 1768: eights and zeros look horribly alike in eighteenth-century
handwriting.
As for spelling people’s names, many eighteenth-century
clerks have to guess from the pronunciation how the name is spelt, with some
curious results. (John Julius
Angerstein is distinguished as a pioneer of Lloyds List, a founder of the Royal
National Lifeboat Institution and an art collector whose pictures form the
nucleus of the National Gallery. He is
also a signatory to the 1791
petition.)
Then there are Problems
with memory. We note, for example,
James Ingram's account of the sinking of the Royal
George: so rich in detail, but still recalling the date incorrectly.
There may be a similar error
in an account of Cort’s rolling demonstration at Stourton.
|
William Playfair, brother of
Professor Playfair, of Edinburgh, who had been employed as a draughtsman by
Watt until 1782, says that he “was present in 1784 at the first great Exhibition of the Rolling Mill with a welding heat
on Mr Cort’s plan, at a Mill near Stourbridge belonging to Mr. Humphrey. All the ironmasters for 20 miles round
were invited. They could not help
wondering at the effect but they were as much mystified as they were
surprised.”
From
H.W. Dickinson’s 1940 presentation to Newcomen Society on Henry Cort’s
Bicentenary, quoting Monthly Mag. XLVIII, 1816, p. 234, n |
Some time this Week I shall go over to Stourton having been advised by Mr Cort that he is ready & has already preformed to the Satisfaction of all present. – I told him at Stourbridge that I shoul give him 10Days extra to be perfect before I paid him a Visit. – I find he has been attended by great Numbers of Spectators – among which was MR. Kier – You will learn from him what the Trade can expect from Mr Corts method. From letter of John Wilkinson to James
Watt, 3 November 1783 |
Do these descriptions refer
to the same event? If so, Playfair has got
the year wrong: not a great error if he was recalling it over thirty years
later. But it leads to further
misconceptions. Mott,
knowing that Cort was in the area in June 1784, assumes that was the date for
the rolling demonstration: you will find it quoted in Henry Cort: The Great
Finer.
Richard Cort’s evidence
suffers badly from flawed memory.
|
The Treasurer of the Navy was authorised to pay Mrs Elizabeth Cort £125 p.a. (with deductions
to yield £100 net). When she died in
1816 a pension of £25 6s 0d (reduced to £19 by fees) was granted to each of
Cort's two unmarried daughters. The
outcome of Richard Cort's appeal in 1855 was that on 20th June he was granted
a pension of £50 p.a. chargeable to the Civil List. In 1856 the two unmarried daughters (like Richard, over 70
years of age) had their pensions increased to £30 and in 1859 to £50 p.a. From Mott/Singer, Henry Cort: The Great
Finer |
Most of the errors in this
passage can be ascribed to Richard Cort’s writings
in the 1850s.
Probate records show Elizabeth Cort's will proved in 1826. She could hardly have died in 1816: is there
an error in transcription in the record?
The will, made in 1813, names
three unmarried daughters: Elizabeth, Caroline and Catherine. Catherine is evidently
married by 1835, but one would expect a codicil to the will if the marriage
took place before her mother's death.
|
Between 1855 and 1859 Richard Cort, the last surviving son of
Henry Cort, made a number of appeals on behalf of one widowed and two
unmarried sisters. From Mott/Singer, Henry Cort: The Great
Finer |
Richard Cort the only surviving son… on behalf of himself and
three sisters, aged from 68 to 73 years From record of petition to Parliament, 4
July 1856. |
Elsewhere we learn that
Richard draws up the petition nearly a year earlier. If it is handed in on the date specified, how could it be granted
in June 1855?
We may also query the age of
the sisters. Of the seven original
ones, Maria died in 1797 and four of the others married. The only unmarried ones alive in 1855 could
be Elizabeth (born 1773) and Caroline (born 1783). So how come they are both aged between 68 and 73 in either 1855
or 1856?
Richard's memory flaws also
show up in his recollection of the 1791 petition to
William Pitt.
|
The next letter on Cort's behalf was written in 1794, addressed
to William Pitt, Prime Minister, and signed by ten members of Parliament and
five others. From Mott/Singer, Henry Cort: The Great
Finer |
This story is taken from one
of Richard's articles in 1856. Both the
date of the petition, and the number of signatories are quoted wrong.
A slight case of over-simplification
occurs in the Oxford DNB's entry for the naval career of Alexander, Seventh
Lord Colvill of Culross. Having taken
command of the Northumberland in January 1753, he is supposed to have
remained there for nine years.
Northumberland's books, however, reveal that on 12 November 1757 Colvill is
replaced as captain by Henry Martin on being appointed "Commander in
Chief, North America". However, on
15 June 1758 he resumes command, sailing back to England for a spell. Back in Canada in 1759, he becomes Commander
in Chief again on 21 September, a week after the capture of Quebec. The ODNB would have us believe he remains in
command of Northumberland until returning to England three years later,
but there is no evidence for this in the ship's books
A few errors have crept into
records about Samuel Marshall.
The first discrepancy
concerns his earliest command. To judge
from ships' pay books, he moves from Second Lieutenant on the Rochester
(his first commissioned post) to Second Lieutenant on the Foudroyant on
8 June 1762, while the ships are moored near Martinique; then remains at this post,
and in the Caribbean area, until appointed commander of Antigua on 24
September.
At first sight the Falkland
master's log - the only surviving book from this ship for this period - does
not conflict with this story. On 7 June
ship's master Alexander Tod announces that "Mr Thoms Marshal
was to command the Falkland by order of Adml Rodney". Certainly there is a Lieutenant Thomas
Marshall in the Navy at this point, but other books reveal that he is aboard
the Lyon: at Lisbon on the specified date, subsequently sailing to
England. No sign of stationing anywhere
near the Caribbean for any of the relevant period.
The implication that Tod has
his Marshalls mixed up is confirmed by the log for the ninth: "Lieutenant
Marshall of Foudroyant took command from Capt Drake." There is no indication in any of Foudroyant's
books of any Marshalls other than Samuel, so we must assume that he continues
to draw pay for his post on Foudroyant while in command of Falkland.
Another discrepancy concerns
the date of his death: in 1793, according to The Commissioned Sea
Officers of the Royal Navy 1660-1815.
But other naval records give it as 2nd October 1795.
Quite apart from errors in
contemporary records, there are commentators’ mistakes and misconceptions. Thus Singer’s theory that the Attwick business passes to Cort through a bequest to his
wife has been accepted and taken up by other historians.
For an assortment of errors,
this story about Adam Jellicoe takes some beating…
|
He became Deputy Paymaster to the Royal Navy and had
Shedfield as his country seat between 1767 and 1789. He
invested vast amounts of Treasury money entrusted to his keeping in various projects such as the financing of Henry
Cort’s revolutionary iron foundries at Funtley and
Gosport. However, at his death
in 1789, probably by suicide, the scandal was
exposed to public view and the Navy set up a Commission of Enquiry to
investigate the matter. The hearings
lasted for over 20 years and Cort and many
others were financially ruined. From an account of Shedfield House on the
Web. |
Jellicoe
bought Shedfield in 1767 when he was a clerk at Portsmouth. He moved to London in 1776; it’s doubtful
whether he spent any time at Shedfield after that – the inventory taken in 1789
shows the estate let to one Edward Daysh.
Jellicoe did not become Deputy Paymaster until 1785 or 1786.
No evidence has been quoted (and
the memorandum he wrote in November 1782 suggests it
is untrue) that Jellicoe invested Navy money in any venture other than Cort’s,
or that anyone other that Cort was ruined as a result.
Cort’s “revolutionary”
processes involved fineries, not foundries (used for
casting). Furthermore, it is unlikely
that the works at either Fontley or Gosport included foundries during Cort’s
time.
Despite repeated rumours, it
is unlikely that Jellicoe’s death was by suicide. Nor was the scandal exposed to public view:
it was effectively buried until hearings started under a Commission of Enquiry in
1804. Although the commission’s report
appeared some 23 years after Jellicoe’s misdemeanour, its proceedings had taken
less than a year, and had focused on more serious
matters.
Many commentators are
reluctant to admit their errors. Write
to point them out, and you may be completely ignored.
And you
may find vastly different conclusions reached by different historians. Look at the two accounts of the key to
promotion in Sandwich’s administration…
Even I have put information
on the web I have subsequently found to be false (e.g. that Henry Slingsby was the curate who baptised Cort’s
granddaughter Frances).
Stay vigilant. Don't believe all that historians tell
you. It ain't necessarily so.
|
RELATED TOPICS John Becher and
the American War Thomas Morgan
and the American War Shelburne, Parry
and associates |
henrycort.net
hj