|
LORD WILLIAM
DOUGLAS, who married the heiress of the Hamilton family, was
created Earl of Selkirk, Lord
Daer and Shorteleuch, in 1644, when he was only ten
years of age, and, at the Restoration, he was made Duke
of Hamilton for life. His Grace
frequently opposed the measures of the Court during the reign of
Charles II., but his opposition even to the most flagrant acts of
tyranny was timid and feeble. King James appointed him a privy
councillor and one of the Commissioners of the Treasury, and he
was implicated in many of the unjustifiable acts of the Scottish
Privy Council at that period. He refused, however, to support the
dispensing power claimed by the King. He was ‘a faithful and loyal
subject,’ he said, ‘but there was a limit imposed by conscience.’
On the landing of the Prince of Orange, he headed the procession
of Scottish noblemen and gentlemen who waited upon William at
Whitehall, and he presided at their meeting held immediately
after, when they resolved to request the Prince to assume the
government of Scotland. Although his abilities were but moderate,
and his political career by no means straightforward or
consistent, he was selected by the Whig party as their leader, on
account of his illustrious descent and vast influence. After a
keen contest, he was elected President of the Convention at
Edinburgh, in 1689, which declared that James had forfeited the
throne. When the convention was formed into a Parliament, Hamilton
was nominated Lord High Commissioner. He was appointed President
of the Council and Lord High Admiral of Scotland; but he
quarrelled with the Court, and retired for a considerable time
into private life. He was ultimately reconciled to the Government,
however, and having consented to quit his retreat, he was
appointed Lord High Commissioner to the Parliament of 1693. The
Duke was a man of fair abilities and respectable character, tried
by the low political standard of the day; but he was fickle,
false, and greedy, and so provoked King William by his factious
conduct, that he exclaimed on one occasion, ‘I wish to Heaven that
Scotland were a thousand miles off, and that the Duke of Hamilton
were king of it; then I should be rid of them both.’ Bishop Burnet
says, ‘The Duke wanted all sorts of polishing. He was rough and
sullen, but candid and sincere [a great mistake]. His temper was
boisterous, neither fit to submit nor to govern.’ The Duke died in
April, 1694, in the sixtieth year of his age. One of his younger
sons became Earl of Selkirk, another Earl of Ruglen, and a third
Earl of Orkney. His eldest son—
JAMES, fourth Duke
of Hamilton, was born in 1658. After completing his education at
the University of Glasgow, he made a tour on the Continent, and on
his return, in 1679, he was appointed one of the Gentlemen of the
Bedchamber by Charles II., with whom he was a favourite on account
of his humour and wit. In 1683 he was nominated Ambassador
Extraordinary to France, and served in two campaigns as
aide-de-camp to the French King Louis XIV. On leaving France,
after the death of Charles II. in 1685, he was warmly recommended
to his successor by Louis himself. The Earl of Arran, as he was
then called, received from King James the office of Master of the
Wardrobe, in addition to his former post, the command of the Royal
Regiment of Horse, and a part of the forfeited estates of the
Stewarts of Coltness, who were stripped of their property on
account of their adherence to the Presbyterian Church.
When the Revolution
took place, Arran adhered to the cause of the exiled monarch,
while his father, the Duke, according to a course of policy common
at that period, supported the claims of King William, so that
whatever might be the result, the family titles and estates were
safe. Arran was deeply implicated in Montgomery’s plot for the
restoration of the Stewart family, and was twice confined to the
Tower on suspicion of treason. On regaining his liberty, he
returned to Scotland and spent several years there in retirement.
The death of his father, in 1694, brought him no accession of
title or estate, as both were possessed by his mother, who
survived till 1717. But, in 1698, the Duchess resigned the family
dignities into the hands of King William, who immediately
conferred them on her son, to the no small surprise and
disappointment of the friends of the Government, as the
disaffection of Arran was notorious. During the excitement
connected with the failure of the Darien expedition, the Duke
acquired great popularity by heading the opposition to the
ministry, and strenuously supporting the claims of the African
Company. On the accession of Queen Anne, he protested against the
legality of the meeting of the Convention Parliament, affirming
that it ought to have been dissolved on the death of the King, and
withdrew from the House, followed by seventy-nine of the members,
a step which was warmly resented by the Queen. His Grace took an
active part in the discussions respecting the union of the two
kingdoms, and was regarded as the leader of the opposition to that
measure. But he suddenly abandoned his party at a critical
moment—through treachery, it was alleged, but more probably
through fickleness and timidity—and, by his desertion, completely
paralysed their movements. He continued to keep up a
correspondence with the exiled monarch; but his attachment to
James was not sufficiently strong to induce him to run much risk
for his sake, for, on learning that a descent was about to be made
on Scotland, the Duke retired to his estates in Staffordshire, and
on the appearance of the French fleet on the coast, he was taken
into custody and carried up to London. On the overthrow of the
Whig ministry, in 1710, various offices and honours were bestowed
upon the cautious and time-serving nobleman, and he was, in the
following year, created a British peer by the titles of Duke of
Brandon and Baron Dutton. But a considerable number of the members
of the Upper House offered violent resistance to this step; and
after a long and keen debate, it was decided that no Scottish peer
who was created a British peer since the Union had a right to a
seat in the House of Lords. This resolution, though quite illegal,
was not rescinded till 1782, when Douglas, eighth Duke of
Hamilton, was permitted to take his seat in the House of Lords as
Duke of Brandon. In 1712 Duke James was appointed Master-General
of the Ordnance, and received the Order of the Garter in addition
to that of the Thistle, which had been conferred on him by King
James. His Grace was shortly after nominated Ambassador
Extraordinary to France, but before he could set out for the
French Court, he lost his life in a duel (November, 1712) with
Lord Mohun, an odious villain already stained with several
murders.
The Jacobites, who
had formed great expectations from the Duke’s mission, went so far
as to affirm that Mohun had been instigated by some members of the
Whig party to challenge the Duke, and that the unfortunate
nobleman was killed not by his antagonist, who also fell in the
rencontre, but by General Macartney, Mohun’s second, who fled
to the Continent, and remained abroad for several years. He
ultimately surrendered himself, and was tried, in 1716, and
acquitted of the charge of murder, but was found guilty of
homicide. The Duke resembled his predecessors both in the
mediocrity of his talents and the fickleness of his disposition.
Mackay, who gave him credit for bravery and good sense, speaks of
his ‘black, coarse complexion,’ and rough manners, and adds, ‘He
is very forward and hot for what he undertakes, ambitious and
haughty, and a violent enemy.’ The character of the Duke is
portrayed by Thackeray in his novel of ‘Esmond.’ His son—
JAMES, fifth Duke
of Hamilton, and second Duke of Brandon, succeeded his father when
he was only ten years of age, and died in 1743, in his forty-first
year. The only noteworthy incident in the life of his son—
JAMES, sixth Duke
of Hamilton, and third Duke of Brandon, was his marriage to
Elizabeth Gunning, one of the three celebrated beauties, who,
after his death, in his thirty-fourth year, married John, fifth
Duke of Argyll, and was the mother of four dukes—two of Hamilton
and two of Argyll—and was created a peeress of Great Britain in
1766, by the title of Baroness Hamilton. Her eldest son—
JAMES GEORGE,
seventh Duke of Hamilton, on the death of the Duke of Douglas, in
1761, became the male representative and head of the house of
Douglas. His guardians made an unsuccessful attempt to obtain for
him possession of the family estates. (See THE DOUGLASES.)
He died in 1769, in his fifteenth year, and was succeeded by his
brother—
DOUGLAS, eighth
Duke of Hamilton and fifth Duke of Brandon, who was a zealous and
influential supporter of the Government of his day, and, in
return, had honours and offices heaped upon him. He died in 1799,
without issue, and was succeeded by his uncle—
LORD ARCHIBALD
HAMILTON, who inherited, through his mother—daughter of Edward
Spencer of Rendlesham—and grandmother— daughter of Digby, Lord
Gerard—extensive estates in the counties of Suffolk, Lancaster,
and Stafford. His elder son—
ALEXANDER, tenth
Duke of Hamilton and seventh of Brandon, who succeeded his father
in 1819, was noted for his taste in the fine arts, the vast sums
of money which he spent in the improvement of his estates and the
embellishment of his princely mansion, and no less for his pride
in his family and position. He was appointed by the Ministry of
‘All the Talents,’ in 1806, British Ambassador at St. Petersburg,
but resigned when they went out of office. He married the youngest
daughter of William Beckford, of Fonthill Abbey, author of
‘Vathek’ and other works, through whom he inherited the Beckford
library, and many rare and precious heirlooms. He died in 1852 at
the age of eighty-five. His younger brother, LORD ARCHIBALD
HAMILTON, who represented the county of Lanark from 1802 till his
death in 1827, was distinguished for his patriotic spirit and his
earnest efforts in the cause of burgh reform in Scotland.
WILLIAM ALEXANDER ANTHONY
ARCHIBALD, eleventh Duke
of Hamilton and eighth Duke of Brandon, married, in 1845, the
Princess Marie of Baden, cousin-german of the French Emperor,
Napoleon III., from whom he succeeded in obtaining a recognition
of his right to the title of Duke of Chatelherault, conferred on
the Regent Arran, in 1548, which was also claimed by the Marquis
of Abercorn, as the representative in the male line of the
Hamilton family. Duke William lost his life by falling down the
stairs in a hotel in Paris, in 1863, in the fifty-second year of
his age, and was succeeded by his elder son—
WILLIAM ALEXANDER
LOUIS STEPHEN, twelfth Duke of Hamilton and ninth Duke of Brandon,
born in 1845. It was said when
the Duke came of age, that there are few positions in life more
influential and—if (as Lord Bacon affirms) ‘power to good be the
true and lawful end of aspiring‘—more desirable, than that which
is occupied by the youthful heir of the house of Hamilton. The
head of the most illustrious of our historical families, whose
origin is hid in the mists of antiquity, and whose deeds are
interwoven with the most momentous events in the history of our
country; the possessor of the highest rank and of titles
unrivalled as regards both their number and their renown—a triple
dukedom, a triple marquisate, four earldoms, and seven baronies;
premier peer of Scotland, male heir of the ‘doughty Douglases,’
the representative in the female line of the ‘princely Hamiltons’—at
one time the heirs, after the Stewarts, to the Scottish
crown—owner of their vast estates extending over four counties,
situated for the most part in the richest districts of the
kingdom, and yielding a rental of £157,602 a year, what wants this
young patrician that a king would have? The influence which such a
man might exercise for good on his tenantry and the peasantry on
his estates is almost unbounded. In the days of old the heads of
the great houses of Douglas and Hamilton were to be found wherever
Scotland required their services, at home or abroad, in the
council-chamber or on the battlefield. They laid down their lives
in many a bloody fight in defence of their country’s independence
and freedom; and their exploits in England, France, and Spain, as
well as on their native soil, have been celebrated by the greatest
writers in the English language. In later times they have been
noted as excellent and liberal landlords, living among, and kindly
caring for the welfare of, their kinsmen and retainers, and
exerting themselves to promote the improvement of the agriculture
and manufactures of the country. They upheld the banner of the
‘good old cause’ in the dark days when it seemed hopelessly
crushed beneath the iron heel of last century’s Toryism, and
Parliamentary and burgh reform in Scotland are indissolubly
associated with the exertions and the memory of Lord Archibald
Hamilton, the grand-uncle of the present representative of the
family. There have been—and it is matter for thankfulness that
there are still in our country—great landowners, like the Duke of
Buccleuch, who have shown themselves much more careful to
discharge faithfully the duties of their high position than to
exact rigorously their rents and rights—men who might have sat for
the portrait of the public benefactor portrayed in the sacred
Scriptures, and of whom it might be said, as it was of him, ‘When
the ear heard them then it blessed them, and when the eye saw them
it gave witness to them, because they delivered the poor that
cried, and the fatherless, and him that had none to help him. The
blessing of him that was ready to perish came upon them, and they
caused the widow’s heart to sing for joy.’ The memory of such men
is blessed, and will be held in everlasting remembrance.
Unfortunately,
there have been of late examples of noble and territorial magnates
of another and very different kind, who have thrown away or
utterly neglected the great opportunities of doing good which
their rank, social position, and extensive possessions afforded,
and whose names are associated with no service done to their
country, no scheme of public usefulness, no deed of benevolence.
They are negligent alike of their duties as legislators and as
landlords—content to live lives of indolence or of fashionable
dissipation, and at last go down to their tombs ‘unwept,
unhonoured, and unsung.’ The public hope better things of the
young possessor of the Hamilton titles and estates; but he must
remember that it is not a hurried visit to his ancestral mansion,
or a brief sojourn at Brodick while the grouse are in season, that
will be regarded by the public as compensation for systematic
absenteeism during eleven months in the year. Nor can small sums
of money or a few cartloads of coals and pounds of tea doled out
to the poor at Christmas, be accepted in lieu of the generous
hospitality which such ‘large-acred men’ are bound, in virtue of
their wealth and rank, to extend to their neighbours, and for the
personal kindness which it is their duty to show to their
dependents. In the well-known words of the lamented Edward
Drummond, ‘Property has its duties as well as its right,’ a maxim
not always kept in mind and acted on by the young patricians of
the present day, much to the loss of the tenantry and the
labourers on their estates, and not much to their own credit or
profit. The Duke of Hamilton is now at the most critical point of
his career. As our national poet said of the Prince of Wales,
afterwards George IV.—
‘He may do
weel for a’ he’s dune yet,
But only he’s no just begun yet.’
A recent
authoritative announcement has made known to the public that the
Duke has been relieved from the heavy pecuniary embarrassments in
which he was involved at the outset of his career by his own
thoughtlessness and inexperience. He has it, therefore, in his
power now to start without hindrance on a career of usefulness and
honour. It is hoped that he will henceforth ‘shun false delights
and live laborious days’ in the diligent discharge of the duties
incumbent on him as a landlord and a legislator; and that,
carefully avoiding the ‘primrose path of dalliance,’ he will
follow the course which is dictated alike by duty and
self-interest, and by a regard to the honour of his family, the
welfare of his dependents, and the good of his country.
It is,
unfortunately, only too well known to the whole country how
grievously these hopes have been disappointed. The Duke, who is
now forty years of age, continues to ‘slug his life away’ in
selfish and frivolous, if not vicious, amusements, utterly
neglecting his duties both as a legislator and a landlord. He is a
stranger in his ancestral halls, and his neighbours, his tenants
and retainers, are not known to him even by sight. In no part of
his Grace’s conduct is his habitual disregard of the claims alike
of his own dependents and of the public at large more conspicuous
than in the mode in which he employs his power as the proprietor
of a large portion of Arran. That beautiful island is apparently
regarded by him as a hunting-park or preserve for the exclusive
use of himself and a few congenial companions, from which visitors
are, as far as possible, to be excluded, and where even the
natives are allowed to remain only on sufferance. The Duke
scarcely ever sets foot in Arran, or sees the face of a tenant or
crofter there, except for a few weeks in the shooting season. And
yet, in order that his privacy during this brief visit may not be
intruded on, or his game run the risk of being disturbed, he does
everything in his power to entirely exclude his countrymen of all
classes from the island. Arran is well known to be the finest of
all the watering-places on the west coast of Scotland, whether the
beauty and variety of its scenery is considered, or its bracing
air and unrivalled facilities for sea-bathing. It is a favourite
resort of the geologist and the botanist, as well as of the
tourist and the invalid in search of health. But one and all are
regarded as a nuisance by its lordly proprietor; and since they
cannot be forcibly expelled, every expedient is tried to make
their residence in the island uncomfortable and even dangerous.
For the purpose of preventing the erection of new and commodious
houses, feu charters are peremptorily refused, and sites can be
obtained only on a yearly lease, so that the owner is always
liable to ejection. The result is that thousands of the citizens
of Glasgow, of all classes, who year after year repair to Arran to
enjoy its splendid scenery and to recruit their health, are
compelled to take up their residence in overcrowded little dens of
houses, most unhealthy as well as uncomfortable. Even at Lamlash,
which is a good many miles distant from Brodick Castle, and is one
of the most popular watering places on the Clyde, permission
cannot be obtained even to erect a pier for the accommodation of
the crowds of visitors who frequent it, and who are consequently
compelled at low tide to land in small boats, always inconvenient
and not unfrequently dangerous. And when they do reach the shore,
visitors have no resource but to take up their quarters in what is
significantly called ‘The Colliers’ Row,’ or in some miserable
low-roofed, smoky little croft-house on the hill-side or in a
narrow glen. Such treatment of the citizens of Glasgow is
peculiarly unworthy in the representative of a house whose chiefs
in former days used to manifest a warm interest in the prosperity
of that great commercial emporium, and were proud of their
connection with it. It is no less ungrateful than unwise, for
surely the owner of estates, whose value has been enormously
increased through the trade and commerce of the large towns, is
under peculiar obligations to do all in his power to promote the
health and comfort of their teeming, toil-worn population. Such an
abuse of the rights of property as the Duke persists in
perpetrating in this case is fraught with imminent peril to his
order, and he and landowners of his class would do well, for their
own sakes, to desist from such a high-handed use of their
proprietary rights as will raise the delicate and dangerous
question whether the Legislature is not bound, from a regard to
the public welfare, to interfere with their management, and to
restrict their power over their estates.
The pecuniary
affairs of the Duke of Hamilton have been brought so prominently
before the public by his own proceedings, that there need be no
hesitation in referring to them here. It transpired in the course
of a lawsuit which he instituted against his late agent, three or
four years ago, that the Duke’s liabilities amounted, at that
time, to about a million and a half of money. In order to lessen
somewhat this burden, his Grace has sold by auction in London the
magnificent collection of paintings and rare and costly articles
of virtu, probably unrivalled in Britain, which descended
to him from his ancestors. It brought the large sum of £162,452.
The splendid Beckford Library was next brought to the hammer. The
sale, which occupied forty days, extended over a period of
eighteen months, and realised £73,500. The Duke has obtained the
disentail of the whole of his estates, and now holds them in fee.
Of the Duke’s
younger brother, Charles, it is unnecessary to say anything, but
his only sister, Lady Mary Victoria, has had a peculiar career.
She was married in 1869 to the eldest son of the reigning Prince
of Monaco. After bearing a son to him she left him, and took up
her residence in Paris with her mother. In 1880 she applied to the
Papal Consistory for the dissolution of her marriage with the
Prince, on the plea that she had never in her heart consented to
be his wife. She alleged that she had been forced to marry him by
her mother and the Emperor Louis Napoleon, but that, while the
marriage ceremony was proceeding, she kept saying to herself, ‘I
will not marry him; he shall not be my husband.’ On this plea the
marriage was declared null and void by the Papal Court, and Lady
Mary very soon thereafter espoused Count Tasselo Festetics, a
Hungarian nobleman.
The most
ancient cadet of the house of Hamilton is the family of Hamilton
of Preston and Fingalton, represented by Colonel Sir William
Hamilton, son of the late Professor of Logic and Metaphysics in
the University of Edinburgh, one of the most eminent
metaphysicians in Europe. But the DUKE OF
ABERCORN is the head of the most influential branch
of the ducal family. Its founder, LORD CLAUD HAMILTON, was the
fourth son of the second Earl of Arran and Duke of Chatelherault.
He was created a peer by James VI., and received from that monarch
a grant of the barony of Paisley, from which he derived his title
of Baron Paisley. This donation was followed by the gift of the
rich Abbey of Paisley, which was sold by one of his descendants;
but the Duke still retains
662 acres in Renfrewshire, a remnant
of these grants. JAMES HAMILTON, eldest son of Lord Paisley, was
created by King James EARL OF ABERCORN, a place with which the
Hamiltons had no connection; it seemed to have been chosen for his
title because there the founder of the house deserted the Earl of
Douglas, and thus greatly contributed to the downfall of the
Douglas family. Lord Abercorn was one of the Scotsmen who followed
James to England, and profited so largely by the liberality of the
British Solomon that he obtained no less than 51,919 acres in
Tyrone and 15,860 in Donegal out of the forfeited estates of the
old Irish chieftains. Claud, a younger brother of this Earl,
obtained a grant of 400 acres in Longford, and 2,000 acres in the
barony of Strabane. In 1634 he was created by Charles I. LORD
HAMILTON, and BARON OF STRABANE, in the peerage of Ireland. On the
resignation of these honours by his elder brother, Sir George,
Count of France (another fortunate younger son of Lord Abercorn,
who married Frances Jennings, sister of the famous Sarah, Duchess
of Marlborough), he obtained grants of land in Tyrone and
Tipperary, and after the Restoration, in 1660, he received other
donations of lands in Cork, besides which several lucrative
offices were conferred upon him. The eldest son of Sir George
Hamilton, who was one of the favourites of Charles II., obtained
the grant of an estate in Meath, and £900 a year out of the
first-fruits and tenths of the dioceses of St. David’s, Hereford,
Oxford, and Worcester. His eldest son, James Hamilton, who was one
of the Privy Councillors of James VII., and enjoyed his
confidence, abandoned the cause of that wrongheaded and ill-fated
monarch in the hour of his utmost need, went over to the side of
the Prince of Orange, and took a prominent part in raising the
siege of Londonderry. CLAUD HAMILTON, fourth Earl of Abercorn,
unlike his self-seeking and politic kinsman, adhered firmly to the
cause of James after the Revolution of 1688, accompanied him when
he came from France to Ireland, and upon his arrival in Dublin was
sworn a member of the Privy Council. After the defeat of James at
the battle of the Boyne, the Earl embarked with him to return to
France, but lost his life during the voyage. He was attainted, and
his estates were forfeited for his adherence to the Jacobite
cause; but his brother, Charles, who succeeded him in his earldom,
obtained a reversal of the attainder. On his death, without issue,
the titles and estates devolved upon the Captain James Hamilton
who abandoned the cause of King James when it became evident that
it was the losing side. Services so well timed as his were sure to
meet with a liberal reward. He was created BARON MOUNT-CASTLE and
VISCOUNT STRABANE, and lucrative offices—civil, military, and
ecclesiastical—were bestowed upon his family. His grandson, the
eighth Earl, about the year 1745, purchased the estate of
Duddingstone, near Edinburgh, which had passed by marriage from
the Lauderdale to the Argyll family, and erected on it a mansion
that cost £30,000. He was created a British peer in 1786 by the
title of VISCOUNT HAMILTON. His nephew, the ninth Earl, was made a
marquis in 1790, and was succeeded by his grandson, who held the
office of Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland in 1866—68, and again in
1874—76, and was created DUKE OF ABERCORN in
1868. His Grace died in October, 1885, in his seventy-fifth year.
The family estates comprise 69,949 acres, with a rent-roll of
£45,954. |
