Chapter 5

Further details about Hamburg will be found in the following works: O. C. Gaedechens,Historische Topographie der Freien und Hansestadt Hamburg(1880); E. H. Wichmann,Heimatskunde von Hamburg(1863); W. Melhop,Historische Topographie der Freien und Hansestadt Hamburg von 1880-1895(1896); Wulff,Hamburgische Gesetze und Verordnungen(1889-1896); and W. von Melle,Das hamburgische Staatsrecht(1891). There are many valuable official publications which may be consulted, among these being:Statistik des hamburgischen Staates(1867-1904);Hamburgs Handel und Schiffahrt(1847-1903); the yearlyHamburgischer Staatskalender; andJahrbuch der Hamburger wissenschaftlichen Anstalten. See alsoHamburg und seine Bauten(1890); H. Benrath,Lokalführer durch Hamburg und Umgebungen(1904); and the consular reports by Sir William Ward, H.B.M.’s consul-general at Hamburg, to whom the author is indebted for great assistance in compiling this article.For the history of Hamburg see theZeitschrift des Vereins für hamburgische Geschichte(1841, fol.); G. Dehio,Geschichte des Erzbistums Hamburg-Bremen(Berlin, 1877); theHamburgisches Urkundenbuch(1842), theHamburgische Chroniken(1852-1861), and theChronica der Stadt Hamburg bis 1557of Adam Tratziger (1865), all three edited by J. M. Lappenberg; theBriefsammlung des hamburgischen Superintendenten Joachim Westphal 1530-1575, edited by C. H. W. Sillem (1903); Gallois,Geschichte der Stadt Hamburg(1853-1856); K. Koppmann,Aus Hamburgs Vergangenheit(1885), andKammereirechnungen der Stadt Hamburg(1869-1894); H. W. C. Hubbe,Beiträge zur Geschichte der Stadt Hamburg(1897); C. Mönckeberg,Geschichte der Freien und Hansestadt Hamburg(1885); E. H. Wichmann,Hamburgische Geschichte in Darstellungen aus alter und neuer Zeit(1889); and R. Bollheimer,Zeittafeln der hamburgischen Geschichte(1895).

For the history of Hamburg see theZeitschrift des Vereins für hamburgische Geschichte(1841, fol.); G. Dehio,Geschichte des Erzbistums Hamburg-Bremen(Berlin, 1877); theHamburgisches Urkundenbuch(1842), theHamburgische Chroniken(1852-1861), and theChronica der Stadt Hamburg bis 1557of Adam Tratziger (1865), all three edited by J. M. Lappenberg; theBriefsammlung des hamburgischen Superintendenten Joachim Westphal 1530-1575, edited by C. H. W. Sillem (1903); Gallois,Geschichte der Stadt Hamburg(1853-1856); K. Koppmann,Aus Hamburgs Vergangenheit(1885), andKammereirechnungen der Stadt Hamburg(1869-1894); H. W. C. Hubbe,Beiträge zur Geschichte der Stadt Hamburg(1897); C. Mönckeberg,Geschichte der Freien und Hansestadt Hamburg(1885); E. H. Wichmann,Hamburgische Geschichte in Darstellungen aus alter und neuer Zeit(1889); and R. Bollheimer,Zeittafeln der hamburgischen Geschichte(1895).

HAMDĀNĪ,in fullAbū Maḥommed ul-Ḥasan ibn Aḥmad ibn Ya‘qūb ul-Hamdānī(d. 945), Arabian geographer, also known as Ibn ul-Ḥā‘ik. Little is known of him except that he belonged to a family of Yemen, was held in repute as a grammarian in his own country, wrote much poetry, compiled astronomical tables, devoted most of his life to the study of the ancient history and geography of Arabia, and died in prison at San‘a in 945. HisGeography of the Arabian Peninsula(Kitāb Jazīrat ul-‘Arab) is by far the most important work on the subject. After being used in manuscript by A. Sprenger in hisPost- und Reiserouten des Orients(Leipzig, 1864) and furtherin hisAlte Geographie Arabiens(Bern, 1875), it was edited by D. H. Müller (Leiden, 1884; cf. A. Sprenger’s criticism inZeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft, vol. 45, pp. 361-394). Much has also been written on this work by E. Glaser in his various publications on ancient Arabia. The other great work of Hamdānī is theIklīl(Crown) concerning the genealogies of the Himyarites and the wars of their kings in ten volumes. Of this, part 8, on the citadels and castles of south Arabia, has been edited and annotated by D. H. Müller inDie Burgen und Schlösser Südarabiens(Vienna, 1879-1881).

For other works said to have been written by Hamdānī cf. G. Flügel’sDie grammatischen Schulen der Araber(Leipzig, 1862), pp. 220-221.

(G. W. T.)

HAMELIN, FRANÇOIS ALPHONSE(1796-1864), French admiral, was born at Pont l’Évêque on the 2nd of September 1796. He went to sea with his uncle, J. F. E. Hamelin, in the “Vénus” frigate in 1806 as cabin boy. The “Vénus” was part of the French squadron in the Indian Ocean, and young Hamelin had an opportunity of seeing much active service. She, in company with another and a smaller vessel, captured the English frigate “Ceylon” in 1810, but was immediately afterwards captured herself by the “Boadicéa,” under Commodore Rowley (1765-1842). Young Hamelin was a prisoner of war for a short time. He returned to France in 1811. On the fall of the Empire he had better fortune than most of the Napoleonic officers who were turned ashore. In 1821 he became lieutenant, and in 1823 took part in the French expedition under the duke of Angoulême into Spain. In 1828 he was appointed captain of the “Actéon,” and was engaged till 1831 on the coast of Algiers and in the conquest of the town and country. His first command as flag officer was in the Pacific, where he showed much tact during the dispute over the Marquesas Islands with England in 1844. He was promoted vice-admiral in 1848. During the Crimean War he commanded in the Black Sea, and co-operated with Admiral Dundas in the bombardment of Sevastopol 17th of October 1854. His relations with his English colleague were not very cordial. On the 7th of December 1854 he was promoted admiral. Shortly afterwards he was recalled to France, and was named minister of marine. His administration lasted till 1860, and was remarkable for the expeditions to Italy and China organized under his directions; but it was even more notable for the energy shown in adopting and developing the use of armour. The launch of the “Gloire” in 1859 set the example of constructing sea-going iron-clads. The first English iron-clad, the “Warrior,” was designed as an answer to the “Gloire.” When Napoleon III. made his first concession to Liberal opposition, Admiral Hamelin was one of the ministers sacrificed. He held no further command, and died on the 10th of January 1864.

HAMELN,a town of Germany, in the Prussian province of Hanover, at the confluence of the Weser and Hamel, 33 m. S.W. of Hanover, on the line to Altenbeken, which here effects a junction with railways to Löhne and Brunswick. Pop. (1905) 20,736. It has a venerable appearance and has many interesting and picturesque houses. The chief public buildings of interest are the minster, dedicated to St Boniface and restored in 1870-1875; the town hall; the so-called Rattenfängerhaus (rat-catcher’s house) with mural frescoes illustrating the legend (see below); and the Hochzeitshaus (wedding house) with beautiful gables. There are classical, modern and commercial schools. The principal industries are the manufacture of paper, leather, chemicals and tobacco, sugar refining, shipbuilding and salmon fishing. By the steamboats on the Weser there is communication with Karlshafen and Minden. In order to avoid the dangerous part of the river near the town a channel was cut in 1734, the repairing and deepening of which, begun in 1868, was completed in 1873. The Weser is here crossed by an iron suspension bridge 830 ft. in length, supported by a pier erected on an island in the middle of the river.

The older name of Hameln was Hameloa or Hamelowe, and the town owes its origin to an abbey. It existed as a town as early as the 11th century, and in 1259 it was sold by the abbot of Fulda to the bishop of Minden, afterwards passing under the protection of the dukes of Brunswick. About 1540 the Reformation gained an entrance into the town, which was taken by both parties during the Thirty Years’ War. In 1757 it capitulated to the French, who, however, vacated it in the following year. Its fortifications were strengthened in 1766 by the erection of Fort George, on an eminence to the west of the town, across the river. On the capitulation of the Hanoverian army in 1803 Hameln fell into the hands of the French; it was retaken by the Prussians in 1806, but, after the battle of Jena, again passed to the French, who dismantled the fortifications and incorporated the town in the kingdom of Westphalia. In 1814 it again became Hanoverian, but in 1866 fell with that kingdom to Prussia.

Legend of the Pied Piper.—Hameln is famed as the scene of the myth of the piper of Hameln. According to the legend, the town in the year 1284 was infested by a terrible plague of rats. One day there appeared upon the scene a piper clad in a fantastic suit, who offered for a certain sum of money to charm all the vermin into the Weser. His conditions were agreed to, but after he had fulfilled his promise the inhabitants, on the ground that he was a sorcerer, declined to fulfil their part of the bargain, whereupon on the 26th of June he reappeared in the streets of the town, and putting his pipe to his lips began a soft and curious strain. This drew all the children after him and he led them out of the town to the Koppelberg hill, in the side of which a door suddenly opened, by which he entered and the children after him, all but one who was lame and could not follow fast enough to reach the door before it shut again. Some trace the origin of the legend to the Children’s Crusade of 1211; others to an abduction of children; and others to a dancing mania which seized upon some of the young people of Hameln who left the town on a mad pilgrimage from which they never returned. For a considerable time the town dated its public documents from the event. The story is the subject of a poem by Robert Browning, and also of one by Julius Wolff. Curious evidence that the story rests on a basis of truth is given by the fact that the Koppelberg is not one of the imposing hills by which Hameln is surrounded, but no more than a slight elevation of the ground, barely high enough to hide the children from view as they left the town.

See C. Langlotz,Geschichte der Stadt Hameln(Hameln, 1888 fol.); Sprenger,Geschichte der Stadt Hameln(1861); O. Meinardus,Der historische Kern der Rattenfängersage(Hameln, 1882); Jostes,Der Rattenfänger von Hameln(Bonn, 1885); and S. Baring-Gould,Curious Myths of the Middle Ages(1868).

HAMERLING, ROBERT(1830-1889), Austrian poet, was born at Kirchenberg-am-Walde in Lower Austria, on the 24th of March 1830, of humble parentage. He early displayed a genius for poetry and his youthful attempts at drama excited the interest and admiration of some influential persons. Owing to their assistance young Hamerling was enabled to attend the gymnasium in Vienna and subsequently the university. In 1848 he joined the student’s legion, which played so conspicuous a part in the revolutions of the capital, and in 1849 shared in the defence of Vienna against the imperialist troops of Prince Windischgrätz, and after the collapse of the revolutionary movement he was obliged to hide for a long time to escape arrest. For the next few years he diligently pursued his studies in natural science and philosophy, and in 1855 was appointed master at the gymnasium at Trieste. For many years he battled with ill-health, and in 1866 retired on a pension, which in acknowledgment of his literary labours was increased by the government to a sum sufficient to enable him to live without care until his death at his villa in Stiftingstal near Graz, on the 13th of July 1889. Hamerling was one of the most remarkable of the poets of the modern Austrian school; his imagination was rich and his poems are full of life and colour. His most popular poem,Ahasver in Rom(1866), of which the emperor Nero is the central figure, shows at its best the author’s brilliant talent for description. Among his other works may be mentionedVenus im Exil(1858);Der König von Sion(1869), which is generally regarded as his masterpiece;Die sieben Todsünden(1872);Blätter im Winde(1887);Homunculus(1888);Amor undPsyche(1882). His novel,Aspasia(1876) gives a finely-drawn description of the Periclean age, but like his tragedyDanton und Robespierre(1870), is somewhat stilted, showing that Hamerling’s genius, though rich in imagination, was ill-suited for the realistic presentation of character.

A popular edition of Hamerling’s works in four volumes was published by M. M. Rabenlechner (Hamburg, 1900). For the poet’s life, see his autobiographical writings,Stationen meiner Lebenspilgerschaft(1889) andLehrjahre der Liebe(1890); also M. M. Rabenlechner,Hamerling, sein Leben und seine Werke, i. (Hamburg, 1896); a short biography by the same (Dresden, 1901); R. H. Kleinert,R. Hamerling, ein Dichter der Schönheit(Hamburg, 1889); A. Polzer,Hamerling, sein Wesen und Wirken(Hamburg, 1890).

HAMERTON, PHILIP GILBERT(1834-1894), English artist and author, was born at Laneside, near Shaw, close to Oldham, on the 10th of September 1834. His mother died at his birth, and having lost his father ten years afterwards, he was educated privately under the direction of his guardians. His first literary attempt, a volume of poems, proving unsuccessful, he devoted himself for a time entirely to landscape painting, encamping out of doors in the Highlands, where he eventually rented the island of Innistrynych, upon which he settled with his wife, a French lady, in 1858. Discovering after a time that his qualifications were rather those of an art critic than of a painter he removed to the neighbourhood of his wife’s relatives in France, where he produced hisPainter’s Camp in the Highlands(1863), which obtained a great success and prepared the way for his standard work onEtching and Etchers(1866). In the following year he published a book, entitledContemporary French Painters, and in 1868 a continuation,Painting in France after the Decline of Classicism. He had meanwhile become art critic to theSaturday Review, a position which, from the burden it laid upon him of frequent visits to England, he did not long retain. He proceeded (1870) to establish an art journal of his own,The Portfolio, a monthly periodical, each number of which consisted of a monograph upon some artist or group of artists, frequently written and always edited by him. The discontinuance of his active work as a painter gave him time for more general literary composition, and he successively producedThe Intellectual Life(1873), perhaps the best known and most valuable of his writings;Round my House(1876), notes on French society by a resident; andModern Frenchmen(1879), admirable short biographies. He also wrote two novels,Wenderholme(1870) andMarmorne(1878). In 1884Human Intercourse, another valuable volume of essays, was published, and shortly afterwards Hamerton began to write his autobiography, which he brought down to 1858. In 1882 he issued a finely illustrated work on the technique of the great masters of various arts, under the title of TheGraphic Arts, and three years later another splendidly illustrated volume,Landscape, which traces the influence of landscape upon the mind of man. His last books were:Portfolio Papers(1889) andFrench and English(1889). In 1891 he removed to the neighbourhood of Paris, and died suddenly on the 4th of November 1894, occupied to the last with his labours onThe Portfolioand other writings on art.

In 1896 was publishedPhilip Gilbert Hamerton: an Autobiography, 1834-1858; and aMemoir by his Wife, 1858-1894.

HAMI,a town in Chinese Turkestan, otherwise calledKamil,KomulorKamul, situated on the southern slopes of the Tian-Shan mountains, and on the northern verge of the Great Gobi desert, in 42° 48′ N., 93° 28′ E., at a height above sea-level of 3150 ft. The town is first mentioned in Chinese history in the 1st century, under the name I-wu-lu, and said to be situated 1000 lis north of the fortress Yü-men-kuan, and to be the key to the western countries. This evidently referred to its advantageous position, lying as it did in a fertile tract, at the point of convergence of two main routes running north and south of the Tian-Shan and connecting China with the west. It was taken by the Chinese inA.D.73 from the Hiungnu (the ancient inhabitants of Mongolia), and made a military station. It next fell into the bands of the Uighurs or Eastern Turks, who made it one of their chief towns and held it for several centuries, and whose descendants are said to live there now. From the 7th to the 11th century I-wu-lu is said to have borne the name of Igu or I-chu, under the former of which names it is spoken of by the Chinese pilgrim, Hsüan tsang, who passed through it in the 7th century. The name Hami is first met in the ChineseYüan-shior “History of the Mongol Dynasty,” but the name more generally used there is Homi-li or Komi-li. Marco Polo, describing it apparently from hearsay, calls it Camul, and speaks of it as a fruitful place inhabited by a Buddhist people of idolatrous and wanton habits. It was visited in 1341 by Giovanni de Marignolli, who baptized a number of both sexes there, and by the envoys of Shah Rukh (1420), who found a magnificent mosque and a convent of dervishes, in juxtaposition with a fine Buddhist temple. Hadji Mahommed (Ramusio’s friend) speaks of Kamul as being in his time (c.1550) the first Mahommedan city met with in travelling from China. When Benedict Goes travelled through the country at the beginning of the 17th century, the power of the king Mahommed Khan of Kashgar extended over nearly the whole country at the base of the Tian-Shan to the Chinese frontier, including Kamil. It fell under the sway of the Chinese in 1720, was lost to them in 1865 during the great Mahommedan rebellion, and the trade route through it was consequently closed, but was regained in 1873. Owing to its commanding position on the principal route to the west, and its exceptional fertility, it has very frequently changed hands in the wars between China and her western neighbours. Hami is now a small town of about 6000 inhabitants, and is a busy trading centre. The Mahommedan population consists of immigrants from Kashgaria, Bokhara and Samarkand, and of descendants of the Uighurs.

HAMILCAR BARCA,orBarcas(Heb.barak“lightning”), Carthaginian general and statesman, father of Hannibal, was born soon after 270B.C.He distinguished himself during the First Punic War in 247, when he took over the chief command in Sicily, which at this time was almost entirely in the hands of the Romans. Landing suddenly on the north-west of the island with a small mercenary force he seized a strong position on Mt. Ercte (Monte Pellegrino, near Palermo), and not only maintained himself against all attacks, but carried his raids as far as the coast of south Italy. In 244 he transferred his army to a similar position on the slopes of Mt. Eryx (Monte San Giuliano), from which he was able to lend support to the besieged garrison in the neighbouring town of Drepanum (Trapani). By a provision of the peace of 241 Hamilcar’s unbeaten force was allowed to depart from Sicily without any token of submission. On returning to Africa his troops, which had been kept together only by his personal authority and by the promise of good pay, broke out into open mutiny when their rewards were withheld by Hamilcar’s opponents among the governing aristocracy. The serious danger into which Carthage was brought by the failure of the aristocratic generals was averted by Hamilcar, whom the government in this crisis could not but reinstate. By the power of his personal influence among the mercenaries and the surrounding African peoples, and by superior strategy, he speedily crushed the revolt (237). After this success Hamilcar enjoyed such influence among the popular and patriotic party that his opponents could not prevent him being raised to a virtual dictatorship. After recruiting and training a new army in some Numidian forays he led on his own responsibility an expedition into Spain, where he hoped to gain a new empire to compensate Carthage for the loss of Sicily and Sardinia, and to serve as a basis for a campaign of vengeance against the Romans (236). In eight years by force of arms and diplomacy he secured an extensive territory in Spain, but his premature death in battle (228) prevented him from completing the conquest. Hamilcar stood out far above the Carthaginians of his age in military and diplomatic skill and in strength of patriotism; in these qualities he was surpassed only by his son Hannibal, whom he had imbued with his own deep hatred of Rome and trained to be his successor in the conflict.

This Hamilcar has been confused with another general who succeeded to the command of the Carthaginians in the First Punic War, and after successes at Therma and Drepanum was defeated atEcnomus (256B.C.). Subsequently, apart from unskilful operations against Regulus, nothing is certainly known of him. For others of the name seeCarthage, Sicily, Smith’sClassical Dictionary. So far as the name itself is concerned,Milcaris perhaps the same asMelkarth, the Tyrian god.See Polybius i.-iii.; Cornelius Nepos,Vita Hamilcaris; Appian,Res Hispanicae, chs. 4, 5, Diodorus,Excerpta, xxiv., xxv.; O. Meitzer,Geschichte der Karthager(Berlin, 1877), ii. alsoPunic Wars.

See Polybius i.-iii.; Cornelius Nepos,Vita Hamilcaris; Appian,Res Hispanicae, chs. 4, 5, Diodorus,Excerpta, xxiv., xxv.; O. Meitzer,Geschichte der Karthager(Berlin, 1877), ii. alsoPunic Wars.

(M. O. B. C.)

HAMILTON,the name of a famous Scottish family. Chief among the legends still clinging to this important family is that which gives a descent from the house of Beaumont, a branch of which is stated to have held the manor of Hamilton in Leicestershire; and it is argued that the three cinquefoils of the Hamilton shield bear some resemblance to the single cinquefoil of the Beaumonts. In face of this it has been recently shown that the single cinquefoil was also borne by the Umfravilles of Northumberland, who appear to have owned a place called Hamilton in that county. It may be pointed out that Simon de Montfort, the great earl of Leicester, in whose veins flowed the blood of the Beaumonts, obtained about 1245 the wardship of Gilbert de Umfraville, second earl of Angus, and it is conceivable that this name Gilbert may somehow be responsible for the legend of the Beaumont descent, seeing that the first authentic ancestor of the Hamiltons is one Walter FitzGilbert. He first appears in 1294-1295 as one of the witnesses to a charter by James, the high steward of Scotland, to the monks of Paisley; and in 1296 his name appears in the Homage Roll as Walter FitzGilbert of “Hameldone.” Who this Gilbert of “Hameldone” may have been is uncertain, “but the fact must be faced,” Mr John Anderson points out (Scots Peerage, iv. 340) “that in a charter of the 12th of December 1272 by Thomas of Cragyn or Craigie to the monks of Paisley of his church of Craigie in Kyle, there appears as witness a certain ‘Gilbert de Hameldunclericus,’ whose name occurs along with the local clergy of Inverkip, Blackhall, Paisley and Dunoon. He was therefore probably also a cleric of the same neighbourhood, and it is significant that ‘Walter FitzGilbert’ appears first in that district in 1294 and in 1296 is described as son of Gilbert de Hameldone....” Walter FitzGilbert took some part in the affairs of his time. At first he joined the English party but after Bannockburn went over to Bruce, was knighted and subsequently received the barony of Cadzow. His younger son John was father of Alexander Hamilton who acquired the lands of Innerwick by marriage, and from him descended a certain Thomas Hamilton, who acquired the lands of Priestfield early in the 16th century. Another Thomas, grandson of this last, who had with others of his house followed Queen Mary and with them had been restored to royal favour, became a lord of session as Lord Priestfield. Two of his younger sons enjoyed also this legal distinction, while the eldest, Thomas, was made an ordinary lord of session as early as 1592 and was eventually created earl of Haddington (q.v.). It is interesting to note that the 5th earl of Haddington by his marriage with Lady Margaret Leslie brought for a time the earldom of Rothes to the Hamiltons to be added to their already numerous titles.

Sir “David FitzWalter FitzGilbert,” who carried on the main line of the Hamiltons, was taken prisoner at the battle of Neville’s Cross (1346) and treated as of great importance, being ransomed, it is stated, for a large sum of money; in 1371 and 1373 he was one of the barons in the parliament. Of the four sons attributed to him David succeeded in the representation of the family, Sir John Hamilton of Fingaltoun was ancestor of the Hamiltons of Preston, and Walter is stated to have been progenitor of the Hamiltons of Cambuskeith and Sanquhar in Ayrshire.

David Hamilton, the first apparently to describe himself as lord of Cadzow, died before 1392, leaving four or five sons, from whom descended the Hamiltons of Bathgate and of Bardowie, and perhaps also of Udstown, to which last belong the lords Belhaven.

Sir John Hamilton of Cadzow, the eldest son, was twice a prisoner in England, but beyond this little is known of him; even the date of his death is uncertain. His two younger sons are stated to have been founders of the houses of Dalserf and Raploch. His eldest son, James Hamilton of Cadzow, like his father and great-grandfather, visited England as a prisoner, being one of the hostages for the king’s ransom. From him the Hamiltons of Silvertonhill and the lords Hamilton of Dalzell claim descent, among the more distinguished members of the former branch being General Sir Ian Hamilton, K.C.B. James Hamilton was succeeded by his eldest son Sir James Hamilton of Cadzow, who was created in 1445 an hereditary lord of parliament, and was thereafter known as Lord Hamilton. He had allied himself some years before with the great house of Douglas by marriage with Euphemia, widow of the 5th earl of Douglas, and was at first one of its most powerful supporters in the struggle with James II. Later, however, he obtained the royal favour and married about 1474 Mary, sister of James III. and widow of Thomas Boyd, earl of Arran. Of this marriage was born James, second Lord Hamilton, who as a near relative took an active part in the arrangements at the marriage of James IV. with Margaret Tudor; being rewarded on the same day (the 8th of August 1503) with the earldom of Arran. A champion in the lists he was scarcely so successful as a leader of men, his struggle with the Douglases being destitute of any great martial achievement. Of his many illegitimate children Sir James Hamilton of Finnart, beheaded in 1540, was ancestor of the Hamiltons of Gilkerscleugh; and John, archbishop of St Andrews, hanged by his Protestant enemies, was ancestor of the Hamiltons of Blair, and is said also to have been ancestor of Hamilton of London, baronet. James, second earl of Arran, son of the first earl by his second wife Janet Beaton, was chosen governor to the little Queen Mary, being nearest of kin to the throne through his grandmother, though the question of the validity of his mother’s marriage was by no means settled. He held the governorship till 1554, having in 1549 been granted the duchy of Châtellerault in France. In his policy he was vacillating and eventually he retired to France, being absent during the three momentous years prior to the deposition of Mary. On his return he headed the queen’s party, his property suffering in consequence. He was succeeded in the title in 1579 by his eldest son James, whose qualities were such that he was even proposed as a husband for Queen Elizabeth, but unfortunately he soon after became insane, his brother John, afterwards first marquess of Hamilton, administering the estates. From the third son, Claud, descends the duke of Abercorn, heir male of the house of Hamilton.

The first marquess of Hamilton had a natural son, Sir John Hamilton of Lettrick, who was legitimated in 1600 and was ancestor of the lords Bargany. His two legitimate sons were James, 3rd marquess and first duke of Hamilton, and William, who succeeded his brother as 2nd duke and was in turn succeeded under the special remainder contained in the patent of dukedom, by his niece Anne, duchess of Hamilton, who was married in 1656 to William Douglas, earl of Selkirk. The history of the descendants of this marriage belongs to the great house of Douglas, the 7th duke of Hamilton becoming the male representative and chief of the house of Douglas, earls of Angus.

The above mentioned Claud Hamilton, who with his brother, the first marquess, had taken so large a part in the cause of Queen Mary, was created a lord of parliament as Lord Paisley in 1587. He had five sons, of whom three settled in Ireland, Sir Claud being ancestor of the Hamiltons of Beltrim and Sir Frederick, distinguished in early life in the Swedish wars, being ancestor of the viscounts Boyne.

James, the eldest son of Lord Paisley, found favour with James VI. and was created in 1603 Lord of Abercorn, and three years later was advanced in the peerage as earl of Abercorn and lord of Paisley, Hamilton, Mountcastell and Kilpatrick. His eldest son James, 2nd earl of Abercorn, eventually heir male of the house of Hamilton and successor to the dukedom of Châtellerault, was created in his father’s lifetime lord of Strabane in Ireland, but he resigned this title in 1633 in favour of his brother Claud, whose grandson, Claud, 5th Lord Strabane, succeededeventually as 4th earl of Abercorn. This earl, taking the side of James II., was with him in Ireland, his estate and title being afterwards forfeited, while his kinsman Gustavus Hamilton, afterwards first Lord Boyne, raised several regiments for William III., and greatly distinguished himself in the service of that monarch. His brother Charles, 5th earl of Abercorn, who obtained a reversal of the attainder, died without issue surviving in 1701 when the titles passed to his kinsman James Hamilton, grandson of Sir George Hamilton of Donalong in Ireland and great-grandson of the first earl. This branch, most faithful to the house of Stuart, counted among its many members distinguished in military annals Count Anthony Hamilton, author of theMémoires du comte de Gramontand brother of “la belle Hamilton.” James, 6th earl of Abercorn (whose brother William was ancestor of Hamilton of the Mount, baronet), was a partizan of William III., and obtained in 1701 the additional Irish titles of lord of Mountcastle and viscount of Strabane.

The 8th earl of Abercorn, who was summoned to the Irish house of peers in his father’s lifetime as Lord Mountcastle, was created a peer of Great Britain in 1786 as Viscount Hamilton of Hamilton in Leicestershire, and renewed the family’s connexion with Scotland by repurchasing the barony of Duddingston and later the lordship of Paisley. His nephew and successor was created marquess of Abercorn in 1790, and was father of James, 1st duke of Abercorn.

See the article Hamilton and other articles on the different branches of the family (e.g.Haddington and Belhaven) in Sir J. B. Paul’s edition of Sir R. Douglas’sPeerage of Scotland; and also G. Marshall,Guide to Heraldry and Genealogy.

HAMILTON, MARQUESSES AND DUKES OF.The holders of these titles descended from Sir James Hamilton of Cadzow, who was made an hereditary lord of parliament in 1445, his lands and baronies at the same time being erected into the “lordship” of Hamilton. His first wife Euphemia, widow of the 5th earl of Douglas, died in 1468, and probably early in 1474 he married Mary, daughter of King James II. and widow of Thomas Boyd, earl of Arran; the consequent nearness of the Hamiltons to the Scottish crown gave them very great weight in Scottish affairs. The first Lord Hamilton has been frequently confused with his father, James Hamilton of Cadzow, who was one of the hostages in England for the payment of James I.’s ransom, and is sometimes represented as surviving until 1451 or even 1479, whereas he certainly died, according to evidence brought forward by J. Anderson inThe Scots Peerage, before May 1441. James, 2nd Lord Hamilton, son of the 1st lord and Princess Mary, was created earl of Arran in 1503; and his son James, who was regent of Scotland from 1542 to 1554, received in February 1549 a grant of the duchy of Châtellerault in Poitou.

John, 1st marquess of Hamilton (c.1542-1604), third son of James Hamilton, 2nd earl of Arran (q.v.) and duke of Châtellerault, was given the abbey of Arbroath in 1551. In politics he was largely under the influence of his energetic and unscrupulous younger brother Claud, afterwards Baron Paisley (c.1543-1622), ancestor of the dukes of Abercorn. The brothers were the real heads of the house of Hamilton, their elder brother Arran being insane. At first hostile to Mary, they later became her devoted partisans. Their uncle, John Hamilton, archbishop of St Andrews, natural son of the 1st earl of Arran, was restored to his consistorial jurisdiction by Mary in 1566, and in May of the next year he divorced Bothwell from his wife. Lord Claud met Mary on her escape from Lochleven and escorted her to Hamilton palace. John appears to have been in France in 1568 when the battle of Langside was fought, and it was probably Claud who commanded Mary’s vanguard in the battle. With others of the queen’s party they were forfeited by the parliament and sought their revenge on the regent Murray. Although the Hamiltons disavowed all connexion with Murray’s murderer, James Hamilton of Bothwellhaugh, he had been provided with horse and weapons by the abbot of Arbroath, and it was at Hamilton that he sought refuge after the deed. Archbishop Hamilton was hanged at Stirling in 1571 for alleged complicity in the murder of Darnley, and is said to have admitted that he was a party to the murder of Murray. At the pacification of Perth in 1573 the Hamiltons abandoned Mary’s cause, and a reconciliation with the Douglases was sealed by Lord John’s marriage with Margaret, daughter of the 7th Lord Glamis, a cousin of the regent Morton. Sir William Douglas of Lochleven, however, persistently sought his life in revenge for the murder of Murray until, on his refusal to keep the peace, he was imprisoned. On the uncertain evidence extracted from the assassin by torture, the Hamiltons had been credited with a share in the murder of the regent Lennox in 1571. In 1579 proceedings against them for these two crimes were resumed, and when they escaped to England their lands and titles were seized by their political enemies, James Stewart becoming earl of Arran. John Hamilton presently dissociated himself from the policy of his brother Claud, who continued to plot for Spanish intervention on behalf of Mary; and Catholic plotters are even said to have suggested his murder to procure the succession of his brother. Hamilton had at one time been credited with the hope of marrying Mary; his desires now centred on the peaceful enjoyment of his estates. With other Scottish exiles he crossed the border in 1585 and marched on Stirling; he was admitted on the 4th of November and formally reconciled with James VI., with whom he was thenceforward on the friendliest terms. Claud returned to Scotland in 1586, and the abbey of Paisley was erected into a temporal barony in his favour in 1587. Much of his later years was spent in strict retirement, his son being authorized to act for him in 1598. John was created marquess of Hamilton and Lord Evan in 1599, and died on the 6th of April 1604.

His eldest surviving sonJames, 2nd marquess of Hamilton (c.1589-1625), was created baron of Innerdale and earl of Cambridge in the peerage of England in 1619, and these honours descended to his son James, who in 1643 was created duke of Hamilton (q.v.). William, 2nd duke of Hamilton (1616-1651), succeeded to the dukedom on his brother’s execution in 1649. He was created earl of Lanark in 1639, and in the next year became secretary of state in Scotland. Arrested at Oxford by the king’s orders in 1643 for “concurrence” with Hamilton, he effected his escape and was temporarily reconciled with the Presbyterian party. He was sent by the Scottish committee of estates to treat with Charles I. at Newcastle in 1646, when he sought in vain to persuade the king to consent to the establishment of Presbyterianism in England. On the 26th of September 1647 he signed on behalf of the Scots the treaty with Charles known as the “Engagement” at Carisbrooke Castle, and helped to organize the second Civil War. In 1648 he fled to Holland, his succession in the next year to his brother’s dukedom making him an important personage among the Royalist exiles. He returned to Scotland with Prince Charles in 1650, but, finding a reconciliation with Argyll impossible, he refused to prejudice Charles’s cause by pushing his claims, and lived in retirement chiefly until the Scottish invasion of England, when he acted as colonel of a body of his dependants. He died on the 12th of September 1651 from the effects of wounds received at Worcester. He left no male heirs, and the title devolved on the 1st duke’s eldest surviving daughter Anne, duchess of Hamilton in her own right.

Anne married in 1656 William Douglas, earl of Selkirk (1635-1694), who was created duke of Hamilton in 1660 on his wife’s petition, receiving also several of the other Hamilton peerages, but for his life only. The Hamilton estates had been declared forfeit by Cromwell, and he himself had been fined £1000. He supported Lauderdale in the early stages of his Scottish policy, in which he adopted a moderate attitude towards the Presbyterians, but the two were soon alienated, through the influence of the countess of Dysart, according to Gilbert Burnet, who spent much time at Hamilton Palace in arranging the Hamilton papers. With other Scottish noblemen who resisted Lauderdale’s measures Hamilton was twice summoned to London to present his case at court, but without obtaining any result. He was dismissed from the privy council in 1676, and on a subsequent visit to London Charles refused to receive him. On the accessionof James II. he received numerous honours, but he was one of the first to enter into communication with the prince of Orange. He presided over the convention of Edinburgh, summoned at his request, which offered the Scottish crown to William and Mary in March 1689. His death took place at Holyrood on the 18th of April 1694. His wife survived until 1716.

James Douglas, 4th duke of Hamilton (1658-1712), eldest son of the preceding and of Duchess Anne, succeeded his mother, who resigned the dukedom to him in 1698, and at the accession of Queen Anne he was regarded as leader of the Scottish national party. He was an opponent of the union with England, but his lack of decision rendered his political conduct ineffective. He was created duke of Brandon in the peerage of Great Britain in 1711; and on the 15th of November in the following year he fought the celebrated duel with Charles Lord Mohun, narrated in Thackeray’sEsmond, in which both the principals were killed. His son, James (1703-1743), became 5th duke, and his grandson James, 6th duke of Hamilton and Brandon (1724-1758), married the famous beauty, Elizabeth Gunning, afterwards duchess of Argyll. James George, 7th duke (1755-1769), became head of the house of Douglas on the death in 1761 of Archibald, duke of Douglas, whose titles but not his estates then devolved on the duke of Hamilton as heir-male. Archibald’s brother Douglas (1756-1799) was the 8th duke, and when he died childless the titles passed to his uncle Archibald (1740-1819). His son Alexander, 10th duke (1767-1852), who as marquess of Douglas was a great collector and connoisseur of books and pictures (his collections realized £397,562 in 1882), was ambassador at St Petersburg in 1806-1807. His sister, Lady Anne Hamilton, was lady-in-waiting and a faithful friend to Queen Caroline, wife of George IV.; she did not write theSecret History of the Court of England ...(1832) to which her name was attached. William Alexander, 11th duke of Hamilton (1811-1863), married Princess Marie Amélie, daughter of Charles, grand-duke of Baden, and, on her mother’s side, a cousin of Napoleon III. The title of duke of Châtellerault, granted to his remote ancestor in 1548, and claimed at different times by various branches of the Hamilton family, was conferred on the 11th duke’s son, William Alexander, 12th duke of Hamilton (1845-1895), by the emperor of the French in 1864. His sister, Lady Mary Douglas-Hamilton, married in 1869 Albert, prince of Monaco, but their marriage was declared invalid in 1880. She subsequently married Count Tassilo Festetics, a Hungarian noble. The 12th duke left no male issue and was succeeded in 1895 by his kinsman, Alfred Douglas, a descendant of the 4th duke. Claud Hamilton, 1st Baron Paisley, brother of the 1st marquess of Hamilton, was, as mentioned above, ancestor of the Abercorn branch of the Hamiltons. His son, who became earl of Abercorn in 1606, received among a number of other titles that of Lord Hamilton. This title, and also that of Viscount Hamilton, in the peerage of Great Britain, conferred on the 8th earl of Abercorn in 1786, are borne by the dukes of Abercorn, whose eldest son is usually styled by courtesy marquess of Hamilton, a title which was added to the other family honours when the 2nd marquess of Abercorn was raised to the dukedom in 1868.

See John Anderson,The House of Hamilton(1825);Hamilton Papers, ed. J. Bain (2 vols., Edinburgh, 1890-1892); Gilbert Burnet,Lives of James and William, dukes of Hamilton(1677);The Hamilton Papers relative to 1638-1650, ed. S. R. Gardiner for the Camden Society (1880); G. E. C[okayne],Complete Peerage(1887-1898); an article by the Rev. J. Anderson in Sir J. B. Paul’s edition of theScots Peerage, vol. iv. (1907).

HAMILTON, ALEXANDER(1757-1804), American statesman and economist, was born, as a British subject, on the island of Nevis in the West Indies on the 11th of January 1757. He came of good family on both sides. His father, James Hamilton, a Scottish merchant of St Christopher, was a younger son of Alexander Hamilton of Grange, Lanarkshire, by Elizabeth, daughter of Sir R. Pollock. His mother, Rachael Fawcett (Faucette), of French Huguenot descent, married when very young a Danish proprietor of St Croix, John Michael Levine, with whom she lived unhappily and whom she soon left, subsequently living with James Hamilton; her husband procured a divorce in 1759, but the court forbade her remarriage.1Such unions as hers with James Hamilton were long not uncommon in the West Indies. By her James Hamilton had two sons, Alexander and James. Business misfortunes having caused his father’s bankruptcy, and his mother dying in 1768, young Hamilton was thrown upon the care of maternal relatives at St Croix, where, in his twelfth year, he entered the counting-house of Nicholas Cruger. Shortly afterward Mr Cruger, going abroad, left the boy in charge of the business. The extraordinary specimens we possess of his mercantile correspondence and friendly letters, written at this time, attest an astonishing poise and maturity of mind, and self-conscious ambition. His opportunities for regular schooling must have been very scant; but he had cultivated friends who discerned his talents and encouraged their development, and he early formed the habits of wide reading and industrious study that were to persist through his life. An accomplishment later of great service to Hamilton, common enough in the Antilles, but very rare in the English continental colonies, was a familiar command of French. In 1772 some friends, impressed by a description by him of the terrible West Indian hurricane in that year, made it possible for him to go to New York to complete his education. Arriving in the autumn of 1772, he prepared for college at Elizabethtown, N.J., and in 1774 entered King’s College (now Columbia University) in New York City. His studies, however, were interrupted by the War of American Independence.

A visit to Boston seems to have thoroughly confirmed the conclusion, to which reason had already led him, that he should cast in his fortunes with the colonists. Into their cause he threw himself with ardour. In 1774-1775 he wrote two influential anonymous pamphlets, which were attributed to John Jay; they show remarkable maturity and controversial ability, and rank high among the political arguments of the time.2He organized an artillery company, was awarded its captaincy on examination, won the interest of Nathanael Greene and Washington by the proficiency and bravery he displayed in the campaign of 1776 around New York City, joined Washington’s staff in March 1777 with the rank of lieutenant-colonel, and during four years served as his private secretary and confidential aide. The important duties with which he was entrusted attest Washington’s entire confidence in his abilities and character; then and afterwards, indeed, reciprocal confidence and respect took the place, in their relations, of personal attachment.3But Hamilton was ambitious for military glory—it was an ambition he never lost; he became impatient of detention in what he regarded as a position of unpleasant dependence, and (Feb. 1781) he seized a slight reprimand administered by Washington as an excuse for abandoning his staff position.4Later he secured a field command, through Washington, and won laurels at Yorktown, where he led the American column in thefinal assault on the British works. In 1780 he married Elizabeth, daughter of General Philip Schuyler, and thus became allied with one of the most distinguished families in New York.

Meanwhile, he had begun the political efforts upon which his fame principally rests. In letters of 1779-17805he correctly diagnoses the ills of the Confederation, and suggests with admirable prescience the necessity of centralization in its governmental powers; he was, indeed, one of the first, if not to conceive, at least to suggest adequate checks on the anarchic tendencies of the time. After a year’s service in Congress in 1782-1783, in which he experienced the futility of endeavouring to attain through that decrepit body the ends he sought, he settled down to legal practice in New York.6The call for the Annapolis Convention (1786) was Hamilton’s opportunity. A delegate from New York, he supported Madison in inducing the Convention to exceed its delegated powers and summon the Federal Convention of 1787 at Philadelphia (himself drafting the call); he secured a place on the New York delegation; and, when his anti-Federal colleagues withdrew from the Convention, he signed the Constitution for his state. So long as his colleagues were present his own vote was useless, and he absented himself for some time from the debates after making one remarkable speech (June 18th, 1787). In this he held up the British government as the best model in the world.7Though fully conscious that monarchy in America was impossible, he wished to obtain the next best solution in an aristocratic, strongly centralized, coercive, but representative union, with devices to give weight to the influence of class and property.8His plan had no chance of success; but though unable to obtain what he wished, he used his great talents to secure the adoption of the Constitution.

To this struggle was due the greatest of his writings, and the greatest individual contribution to the adoption of the new government,The Federalist, which remains a classic commentary on American constitutional law and the principles of government, and of which Guizot said that “in the application of elementary principles of government to practical administration” it was the greatest work known to him. Its inception, and much more than half its contents were Hamilton’s (the rest Madison’s and Jay’s).9Sheer will and reasoning could hardly be more brilliantly and effectively exhibited than they were by Hamilton in the New York convention of 1788, whose vote he won, against the greatest odds, for the ratification of the Constitution. It was the judgment of Chancellor James Kent, the justice of which can hardly be disputed, that “all the documentary proof and the current observation of the time lead us to the conclusion that he surpassed all his contemporaries in his exertions to create, recommend, adopt and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

When the new government was inaugurated, Hamilton became secretary of the treasury in Washington’s cabinet.10Congress immediately referred to him a press of queries and problems, and there came from his pen a succession of papers that have left the strongest imprint on the administrative organization of the national government—two reports on public credit, upholding an ideal of national honour higher than the prevalent popular principles; a report on manufactures, advocating their encouragement (e.g.by bounties paid from surplus revenues amassed by tariff duties)—a famous report that has served ever since as a storehouse of arguments for a national protective policy;11a report favouring the establishment of a national bank, the argument being based on the doctrine of “implied powers” in the Constitution, and on the application that Congress may do anything that can be made, through the medium of money, to subserve the “general welfare” of the United States—doctrines that, through judicial interpretation, have revolutionized the Constitution; and, finally, a vast mass of detailed work by which order and efficiency were given to the national finances. In 1793 he put to confusion his opponents who had brought about a congressional investigation of his official accounts. The success of his financial measures was immediate and remarkable. They did not, as is often but loosely said, create economic prosperity; but they did prop it, in an all-important field, with order, hope and confidence. His ultimate purpose was always the strengthening of the union; but before particularizing his political theories, and the political import of his financial measures, the remaining events of his life may be traced.

His activity in the cabinet was by no means confined to the finances. He regarded himself, apparently, as premier, and sometimes overstepped the limits of his office in interfering with other departments. The heterogeneous character of the duties placed upon his department by Congress seemed in fact to reflect the English idea of its primacy. Hamilton’s influence was in fact predominant with Washington (so far as any man could have predominant influence). Thus it happens that in foreign affairs, whatever credit properly belongs to the Federalists as a party (see also the articleFederalist Party) for the adoption of that principle of neutrality which became the traditional policy of the United States must be regarded as largely due to Hamilton. But allowance must be made for the mere advantage of initiative which belonged to any party that organized the government—the differences between Hamilton and Jefferson, in this question of neutrality, being almost purely factitious.12On domestic policy their differences were vital,and in their conflicts over Hamilton’s financial measures they organized, on the basis of varying tenets and ideals which have never ceased to conflict in American politics, the two great parties of Federalists and Democrats (or Democratic-Republicans). On the 31st of January 1795 Hamilton resigned his position as secretary of the treasury and returned to the practice of law in New York, leaving it for public service only in 1798-1800, when he was the active head, under Washington (who insisted that Hamilton should be second only to himself), of the army organized for war against France. But though in private life he remained the continual and chief adviser of Washington—notably in the serious crisis of the Jay Treaty, of which Hamilton approved. Washington’sFarewell Address(1796) was written for him by Hamilton.

After Washington’s death the Federalist leadership was divided (and disputed) between John Adams, who had the prestige of a varied and great career, and greater strength than any other Federalist with the people, and Hamilton, who controlled practically all the leaders of lesser rank, including much the greater part of the most distinguished men of the country, so that it has been very justly said that “the roll of his followers is enough of itself to establish his position in American history” (Lodge). But Hamilton was not essentially a popular leader. When his passions were not involved, or when they were repressed by a crisis, he was far-sighted, and his judgment of men was excellent.13But as Hamilton himself once said, his heart was ever the master of his judgment. He was, indeed, not above intrigue,14but he was unsuccessful in it. He was a fighter through and through, and his courage was superb; but he was indiscreet in utterance, impolitic in management, opinionated, self-confident, and uncompromising in nature and methods. His faults are nowhere better shown than in his quarrel with John Adams. Three times, in order to accomplish ends deemed by him, personally, to be desirable, Hamilton used the political fortunes of John Adams, in presidential elections, as a mere hazard in his manœuvres; moreover, after Adams became president, and so the official head of the party, Hamilton constantly advised the members of the president’s cabinet, and through them endeavoured to control Adams’s policy; and finally, on the eve of the crucial election of 1800, he wrote a bitter personal attack on the president (containing much confidential cabinet information), which was intended for private circulation, but which was secured and published by Aaron Burr, his legal and political rival.

The mention of Burr leads us to the fatal end of another great political antipathy of Hamilton’s life. He read Burr’s character correctly from the beginning; deemed it a patriotic duty to thwart him in his ambitions; defeated his hopes successively of a foreign mission, the presidency, and the governorship of New York; and in his conversations and letters repeatedly and unsparingly denounced him. If these denunciations were known to Burr they were ignored by him until his last defeat. After that he forced a quarrel on a trivial bit of hearsay (that Hamilton had said he had a “despicable” opinion of Burr); and Hamilton, believing as he explained in a letter he left before going to his death—that a compliance with the duelling prejudices of the time was inseparable from the ability to be in future useful in public affairs, accepted a challenge from him. The duel was fought at Weehawken on the Jersey shore of the Hudson opposite the City of New York. At the first fire Hamilton fell, mortally wounded, and he died on the following day, the 12th of July 1804. Hamilton himself did not intend to fire, but his pistol went off as he fell. The tragic close of his career appeased for the moment the fierce hatred of politics, and his death was very generally deplored as a national calamity.15

No emphasis, however strong, upon the mere consecutive personal successes of Hamilton’s life is sufficient to show the measure of his importance in American history. That importance lies, to a large extent, in the political ideas for which he stood. His mind was eminently “legal.” He was the unrivalled controversialist of the time. His writings, which are distinguished by clarity, vigour and rigid reasoning, rather than by any show of scholarship—in the extent of which, however solid in character Hamilton’s might have been, he was surpassed by several of his contemporaries—are in general strikingly empirical in basis. He drew his theories from his experiences of the Revolutionary period, and he modified them hardly at all through life. In his earliest pamphlets (1774-1775) he started out with the ordinary pre-Revolutionary Whig doctrines of natural rights and liberty; but the first experience of semi-anarchic states’-rights and individualism ended his fervour for ideas so essentially alien to his practical, logical mind, and they have no place in his later writings. The feeble inadequacy of conception, infirmity of power, factional jealousy, disintegrating particularism, and vicious finance of the Confederation were realized by many others; but none other saw so clearly the concrete nationalistic remedies for these concrete ills, or pursued remedial ends so constantly, so ably, and so consistently. An immigrant, Hamilton had no particularistic ties; he was by instinct a “continentalist” or federalist. He wanted a strong union and energetic government that should “rest as much as possible on the shoulders of the people and as little as possible on those of the state legislatures”; that should have the support of wealth and class; and that should curb the states to such an “entire subordination” as nowise to be hindered by those bodies. At these ends he aimed with extraordinary skill in all his financial measures. As early as 1776 he urged the direct collection of federal taxes by federal agents. From 1779 onward we trace the idea of supporting government by the interest of the propertied classes; from 1781 onward the idea that a not-excessive public debt would be a blessing16in giving cohesiveness to the union: hence his device by which the federal government, assuming the war debts of the states, secured greater resources, based itself on a high ideal of nationalism, strengthened its hold on the individual citizen, and gained the support of property. In his report on manufactures his chief avowed motive was to strengthen the union. To the same end he conceived the constitutional doctrines of liberal construction, “implied powers,” and the “general welfare,” which were later embodied in the decisions of John Marshall. The idea of nationalism pervaded and quickened all his life and works. With one great exception, the dictum of Guizot is hardly an exaggeration, that “there is not in the Constitution of the United States an element of order, of force, of duration, which he did not powerfully contribute to introduce into it and to cause to predominate.”

The exception, as American history showed, was American democracy. The loose and barren rule of the Confederation seemed to conservative minds such as Hamilton’s to presage, in its strengthening of individualism, a fatal looseness of social restraints, and led him on to a dread of democracy that he never overcame. Liberty, he reminded his fellows, in the New York Convention of 1788, seemed to be alone considered in government, but there was another thing equally important: “a principle of strength and stability in the organization ... and of vigour in its operation.” But Hamilton’s governmental system was in fact repressive.17He wanted a system strong enough, he would have said, to overcome the anarchic tendencies loosed by war, and represented by those notions of natural rights which he had himself once championed; strong enough to overbear all local, state and sectional prejudices, powers or influence, and to control—not, as Jefferson would have it, to be controlled by—the people. Confidence in the integrity, the self-control, and the good judgment of the people, which was the content of Jefferson’s political faith, had almost no place in Hamilton’s theories. “Men,” said he, “are reasoning rather than reasonable animals.” The charge that he laboured to introduce monarchy by intrigue is an under-estimate of his good sense.18Hamilton’s thinking, however, did carry him foul of current democratic philosophy; as he said, he presented his plan in 1787 “not as attainable, but as a model to which we ought to approach as far as possible”; moreover, he held through life his belief in its principles, and in its superiority over the government actually created; and though its inconsistency with American tendencies was yearly more apparent, he never ceased to avow on all occasions his aristocratic-monarchical partialities. Moreover, his preferences for at least an aristocratic republic were shared by many other men of talent. When it is added that Jefferson’s assertions, alike as regards Hamilton’s talk19and the intent and tendency of his political measures, were, to the extent of the underlying basic fact—but discounting Jefferson’s somewhat intemperate interpretations—unquestionably true,20it cannot be accounted strange that Hamilton’s Democratic opponents mistook his theoretic predilections for positive designs. Nor would it be a strained inference from much that be said, to believe that he hoped and expected that in the “crisis” he foresaw, when democracy should have caused the ruin of the country, a new government might be formed that should approximate to his own ideals.21From the beginning of the excesses of the French Revolution he was possessed by the persuasion that American democracy, likewise, might at any moment crush the restraints of the Constitution to enter on a career of licence and anarchy. To this obsession he sacrificed his life.22After the Democratic victory of 1800, his letters, full of retrospective judgments and interesting outlooks, are but rarely relieved in their sombre pessimism by flashes of hope and courage. His last letter on politics, written two days before his death, illustrates the two sides of his thinking already emphasized: in this letter he warns his New England friends against dismemberment of the union as “a clear sacrifice of great positive advantages, without any counterbalancing good; administering no relief to our real disease, which is democracy, the poison of which, by a subdivision, will only be more concentrated in each part, and consequently the more virulent.” To the end he never lost his fear of the states, nor gained faith in the future of the country. He laboured still, in mingled hope and apprehension, “to prop the frail and worthless fabric,”23but for its spiritual content of democracy he had no understanding, and even in its nationalism he had little hope. Yet probably to no one man, except perhaps to Washington, does American nationalism owe so much as to Hamilton.

In the development of the United States the influence of Hamiltonian nationalism and Jeffersonian democracy has been a reactive union; but changed conditions since Hamilton’s time, and particularly since the Civil War, are likely to create misconceptions as to Hamilton’s position in his own day. Great constructive statesman as he was, he was also, from the American point of view, essentially a reactionary. He was the leader of reactionary forces—constructive forces, as it happened—in the critical period after the War of American Independence, and in the period of Federalist supremacy. He was in sympathy with the dominant forces of public life only while they took, during the war, the predominant impress of an imperfect nationalism.24Jeffersonian democracy came into power in 1800 in direct line with colonial development; Hamiltonian Federalism was a break in that development; and this alone can explain how Jefferson could organize the Democratic Party in face of the brilliant success of the Federalists in constructing the government. Hamilton stigmatized his great opponent as a political fanatic; but actualist as he claimed to be,25Hamilton could not see, or would not concede, the predominating forces in American life, and would uncompromisingly have minimized the two great political conquests of the colonial period—local self-government and democracy.

Few Americans have received higher tributes from foreign authorities. Talleyrand, personally impressed when in America with Hamilton’s brilliant qualities, declared that he had the power of divining without reasoning, and compared him to Fox and Napoleon because he had “deviné l’Europe.” Of the judgments rendered by his countrymen, Washington’s confidence in his ability and integrity is perhaps the most significant. Chancellor James Kent, and others only less competent, paid remarkable testimony to his legal abilities. Chief-justice Marshall ranked him second to Washington alone. No judgmentis more justly measured than Madison’s (in 1831): “That he possessed intellectual powers of the first order, and the moral qualities of integrity and honour in a captivating degree, has been awarded him by a suffrage now universal. If his theory of government deviated from the republican standard he had the candour to avow it, and the greater merit of co-operating faithfully in maturing and supporting a system which was not his choice.”

In person Hamilton was rather short and slender; in carriage, erect, dignified and graceful. Deep-set, changeable, dark eyes vivified his mobile features, and set off his light hair and fair, ruddy complexion. His head in the famous Trumbull portrait is boldly poised and very striking. The captivating charm of his manners and conversation is attested by all who knew him, and in familiar life he was artlessly simple. Friends he won readily, and he held them in devoted attachment by the solid worth of a frank, ardent, generous, warm-hearted and high-minded character. Versatile as were his intellectual powers, his nature seems comparatively simple. A firm will, tireless energy, aggressive courage and bold self-confidence were its leading qualities; the word “intensity” perhaps best sums up his character. His Scotch and Gallic strains of ancestry are evident; his countenance was decidedly Scotch; his nervous speech and bearing and vehement temperament rather French; in his mind, agility, clarity and penetration were matched with logical solidity. The remarkable quality of his mind lay in the rare combination of acute analysis and grasp of detail with great comprehensiveness of thought. So far as his writings show, he was almost wholly lacking in humour, and in imagination little less so. He certainly had wit, but it is hard to believe he could have had any touch of fancy. In public speaking he often combined a rhetorical effectiveness and emotional intensity that might take the place of imagination, and enabled him, on the coldest theme, to move deeply the feelings of his auditors.

Back to Index Next