Chapter 6

Bibliography.—Hamilton’sWorkshave been edited by H. C. Lodge (New York, 9 vols., 1885-1886, and 12 vols., 1904); all references above are first to the latter edition, secondly (in brackets) to the former. There are various additional editions ofThe Federalist, notably those of H. B. Dawson (1863), H. C. Lodge (1888), and—the most scholarly—P. L. Ford (1898); cf.American Historical Review, ii. 413, 675. See also James Bryce, “Predictions of Hamilton and de Tocqueville,” inJohns Hopkins University Studies, vol. 5 (Baltimore, 1887); and the capital essay of Anson D. Morse in thePolitical Science Quarterly, v. (1890), pp. 1-23. For a bibliography of the period see theCambridge Modern History, vol. vii. pp. 780-810. The unfinishedLife of Alexander Hamilton, by his Son, J. C. Hamilton, going only to 1787 (New York, 2 vols., 1834-1840), was superseded by the same author’s valuable, but partisan and uncriticalHistory of the Republic ... as traced in the Writings of Alexander Hamilton(New York, 7 vols., 1857-1864; 4th ed., Boston, 1879). Professor W. G. Sumner’sAlexander Hamilton(Makers of America series, New York, 1890) is appreciative, and important for its criticism from the point of view of an American free-trader; see also, on Hamilton’s finance and economic views, Prof. C. F. Dunbar,Quarterly Journal of Economics, iii. (1889), p. 32; E. G. Bourne in ibid. x. (1894), p. 328; E. C. Lunt inJournal of Political Economy, iii. (1895), p. 289. Among modern studies must also be mentioned J. T. Morse’s ableLife(1876); H. C. Lodge’s (in the American Statesmen series, 1882); and G. Shea’s two books, hisHistorical Study(1877) andLife and Epoch(1879). C. J. Riethmüller’sHamilton and his Contemporaries(1864), written during the Civil War, is sympathetic, but rather speculative. The most vivid account of Hamilton is in Mrs Gertrude Atherton’s historical romance,The Conqueror(New York, 1902), for the writing of which the author made new investigations into the biographical details, and elucidated some points previously obscure; see also herA Few of Hamilton’s Letters(1903). F. S. Oliver’s brilliantAlexander Hamilton: An Essay on American Union(London, 1906), which uses its subject to illustrate the necessity of British imperial federation, is strongly anti-Jeffersonian, but no other work by a non-American author brings out so well the wider issues involved in Hamilton’s economic policy.

(F. S. P.; H. Ch.)

1These facts were first definitely determined by Mrs Gertrude Atherton from the Danish Archives in Denmark and the West Indies; see article inNorth American Review, Aug. 1902, vol. 175, p. 229; and preface to herA Few of Hamilton’s Letters(New York, 1903).2These were written in answer to the widely read pamphlets published over thenom de plumeof “A Westchester Farmer,” and now known to have been written by Samuel Seabury (q.v.). Hamilton’s pamphlets were entitled “A Full Vindication of the Measures of the Congress from the Calumnies of their Enemies,” and “The Farmer Refuted.” Concerning them George Ticknor Curtis (Constitutional History of the United States, i. 274) has said, “There are displayed in these papers a power of reasoning and sarcasm, a knowledge of the principles of government and of the English constitution, and a grasp of the merits of the whole controversy, that would have done honour to any man at any age. To say that they evince precocity of intellect gives no idea of their main characteristics. They show great maturity—a more remarkable maturity than has ever been exhibited by any other person, at so early an age, in the same department of thought.”3George Bancroft was the first to point out that there is small evidence that Hamilton ever really appreciated Washington’s great qualities; but on the score of personal and Federalist indebtedness he left explicit recognition.4For Hamilton’s letter to General Schuyler on this episode—one of the most important letters, in some ways, that he ever wrote—see theWorks, ix. 232 (8: 35).5Especially the letter of September 1780 to James Duane,Works, i. 213 (1: 203); also the “Continentalist” papers of 1781.6His most famous case at this time (Rutgersv.Waddington) was one that well illustrated his moral courage. Under a “Trespass Law” of New York, Elizabeth Rutgers, a widow, brought suit against one Joshua Waddington, a Loyalist, who during the war of American Independence, while New York was occupied by the British, had made use of some of her property. In face of popular clamour, Hamilton, who advocated a conciliatory treatment of the Loyalists, represented Waddington, who won the case, decided in 1784.7As Mr Oliver points out (Alexander Hamilton, p. 156), Hamilton’s idea of the British constitution was not a correct picture of the British constitution in 1787, and still less of that of the 20th century. “What he had in mind was the British constitution as George III. had tried to make it.” Hamilton’s ideal was an elective monarchy, and his guiding principle a proper balance of authority.8Briefly, he proposed a governor and two chambers—an Assembly elected by the people for three years, and a Senate—the governor and senate holding office for life or during good behaviour, and chosen, through electors, by voters qualified by property; the governor to have an unqualified veto on federal legislation; state governors to have a similar veto on state legislation, and to be appointed by the federal government; the federal government to control all militia. SeeWorks, i. 347 (1: 331); and cf. his correspondence, which is scanty,passimin later years, notably x. 446, 431, 329 (8: 606, 596, 517), and references below.9Nearly all the papers inThe Federalistfirst appeared (between October 1787 and April 1788) in New York journals, over the signature “Publius.” Jay wrote only five. The authorship of twelve of them is uncertain, and has been the subject of much controversy between partisans of Hamilton and Madison. ConcerningThe FederalistChancellor James Kent (Commentaries, i. 241) said: “There is no work on the subject of the Constitution, and on republican and federal government generally, that deserves to be more thoroughly studied. I know not indeed of any work on the principles of free government that is to be compared, in instruction and intrinsic value, to this small and unpretending volume.... It is equally admirable in the depth of its wisdom, the comprehensiveness of its views, the sagacity of its reflections, and the fearlessness, patriotism, candour, simplicity, and elegance, with which its truths are uttered and recommended.”10The position was offered first to Robert Morris, who declined it, expressing the opinion that Hamilton was the man best fitted to meet its problems.11Hamilton’sReport on Manufactures(1791) by itself entitles him to the place of an epoch-maker in economics. It was the first great revolt from Adam Smith, on whoseWealth of Nations(1776) he is said to have already written a commentary which is lost. In his criticism on Adam Smith, and his arguments for a system of moderate protective duties associated with the deliberate policy of promoting national interests, his work was the inspiration of Friedrich List, and so the foundation of the economic system of Germany in a later day, and again, still later, of the policy of Tariff Reform and Colonial Preference in England, as advocated by Mr Chamberlain and his supporters. See the detailed account given in the articleProtection.12That is, while Jefferson hated British aristocracy and sympathized with French democracy, Hamilton hated French democracy and sympathized with British aristocracy and order; but neither wanted war; and indeed Jefferson, throughout life, was the more peaceful of the two. Neutrality was in the line of commonplace American thinking of that time, as may be seen in the writings of all the leading men of the day. The cry of “British Hamilton” had no good excuse whatever.13e.g.his prediction in 1789 of the course of the French Revolution; his judgments of Burr from 1792 onward, and of Burr and Jefferson in 1800.14After the Democrats won New York in 1799, Hamilton proposed to Governor John Jay to call together the out-going Federalist legislature, in order to choose Federalist presidential electors, a suggestion which Jay simply endorsed: “Proposing a measure for party purposes which it would not become me to adopt.”—Works, x. 371 (8: 549). Compare also with later developments of ward politics in New York City, Hamilton’s curious suggestions as to Federalist charities, &c., in connexion with the Christian Constitutional Society proposed by him in 1802 to combat irreligion and democracy (Works, x. 432 (8 : 596).15Hamilton’s widow, who survived him for half a century, dying at the age of ninety-seven, was left with four sons and four daughters. He had been an affectionate husband and father, though his devotion to his wife had been consistent with occasional lapses from strict marital fidelity. One intrigue into which he drifted in 1791, with a Mrs Reynolds, led to the blackmailing of Hamilton by her husband; and when this rascal, shortly afterwards, got into trouble for fraud, his relations with Hamilton were unscrupulously misrepresented for political purposes by some of Hamilton’s opponents. But Hamilton faced the necessity of revealing the true state of things with conspicuous courage, and the scandal only reacted on his accusers. One of them was Monroe, whose reputation comes very badly out of this unsavoury affair.16In later years he said no debt should be incurred without providing simultaneously for its payment.17He warmly supported the Alien and Sedition Laws of 1798 (in their final form).18The idea, he wrote to Washington, was “one of those visionary things none but madmen could undertake, and that no wise man will believe” (1792). And see his comments on Burr’s ambitions,Works, x. 417, 450 (8: 585, 610). We may accept as just, and applicable to his entire career, the statement made by himself in 1803 of his principles in 1787: “(1) That the political powers of the people of this continent would endure nothing but a representative form of government. (2) That, in the actual situation of the country, it was itself right and proper that the representative system should have a full and fair trial. (3) That to such a trial it was essential that the government should be so constructed as to give it all the energy and the stability reconcilable with the principles of that theory.”19Cf. Gouverneur Morris,Diary and Letters, ii. 455, 526, 531.20Cf. even Mr Lodge’s judgments, pp. 90-92, 115-116, 122, 130, 140. When he says (p. 140) that “In Hamilton’s successful policy there were certainly germs of an aristocratic republic, there were certainly limitations and possibly dangers to pure democracy,” this is practically Jefferson’s assertion (1792) that “His system flowed from principles adverse to liberty”; but Jefferson goes on to add: “and was calculated to undermine and demolish the republic.” As to the intent of Hamilton to secure through his financial measures the political support of property, his own words are honest and clear; and in fact he succeeded. Jefferson merely had exaggerated fears of a moneyed political engine, and seeing that Hamilton’s measures of funding and assumption did make the national debt politically useful to the Federalists in the beginning he concluded that they would seek to fasten the debt on the country for ever.21Cf. Gouv. Morris,op. cit.ii. 474.22He dreamed of saving the country with an army in this crisis of blood and iron, and wished to preserve unweakened the public confidence in his personal bravery.23His own words in 1802. In justification of the above statements see the correspondence of 1800-1804passim—Works, vol. ix.-x. (or 7-8); especially x. 363, 425, 434, 440, 445 (or 8: 543, 591, 596, 602, 605).24Cf. Anson D. Morse, article cited below, pp. 4, 18-21.25Chancellor Kent tells us (Memoirs and Letters, p. 32) that in 1804 Hamilton was planning a co-operative Federalist work on the history and science of government on an inductive basis. Kent always speaks of Hamilton’s legal thinking as deductive, however (ibid. p. 290, 329), and such seems to have been in fact all his political reasoning:i.e.underlying them were such maxims as that of Hume, that in erecting a stable government every citizen must be assumed a knave, and be bound by self-interest to co-operation for the public good. Hamilton always seems to be reasoning deductively from such principles. He went too far and fast for even such a Federalist disbeliever in democracy as Gouverneur Morris; who, to Hamilton’s assertion that democracy must be cast out to save the country, replied that “such necessity cannot be shown by a political ratiocination. Luckily, or, to speak with a reverence proper to the occasion, providentially, mankind are not disposed to embark the blessings they enjoy on a voyage of syllogistic adventure to obtain something more beautiful in exchange. They must feel before they will act” (op. cit.ii. 531).

2These were written in answer to the widely read pamphlets published over thenom de plumeof “A Westchester Farmer,” and now known to have been written by Samuel Seabury (q.v.). Hamilton’s pamphlets were entitled “A Full Vindication of the Measures of the Congress from the Calumnies of their Enemies,” and “The Farmer Refuted.” Concerning them George Ticknor Curtis (Constitutional History of the United States, i. 274) has said, “There are displayed in these papers a power of reasoning and sarcasm, a knowledge of the principles of government and of the English constitution, and a grasp of the merits of the whole controversy, that would have done honour to any man at any age. To say that they evince precocity of intellect gives no idea of their main characteristics. They show great maturity—a more remarkable maturity than has ever been exhibited by any other person, at so early an age, in the same department of thought.”

3George Bancroft was the first to point out that there is small evidence that Hamilton ever really appreciated Washington’s great qualities; but on the score of personal and Federalist indebtedness he left explicit recognition.

4For Hamilton’s letter to General Schuyler on this episode—one of the most important letters, in some ways, that he ever wrote—see theWorks, ix. 232 (8: 35).

5Especially the letter of September 1780 to James Duane,Works, i. 213 (1: 203); also the “Continentalist” papers of 1781.

6His most famous case at this time (Rutgersv.Waddington) was one that well illustrated his moral courage. Under a “Trespass Law” of New York, Elizabeth Rutgers, a widow, brought suit against one Joshua Waddington, a Loyalist, who during the war of American Independence, while New York was occupied by the British, had made use of some of her property. In face of popular clamour, Hamilton, who advocated a conciliatory treatment of the Loyalists, represented Waddington, who won the case, decided in 1784.

7As Mr Oliver points out (Alexander Hamilton, p. 156), Hamilton’s idea of the British constitution was not a correct picture of the British constitution in 1787, and still less of that of the 20th century. “What he had in mind was the British constitution as George III. had tried to make it.” Hamilton’s ideal was an elective monarchy, and his guiding principle a proper balance of authority.

8Briefly, he proposed a governor and two chambers—an Assembly elected by the people for three years, and a Senate—the governor and senate holding office for life or during good behaviour, and chosen, through electors, by voters qualified by property; the governor to have an unqualified veto on federal legislation; state governors to have a similar veto on state legislation, and to be appointed by the federal government; the federal government to control all militia. SeeWorks, i. 347 (1: 331); and cf. his correspondence, which is scanty,passimin later years, notably x. 446, 431, 329 (8: 606, 596, 517), and references below.

9Nearly all the papers inThe Federalistfirst appeared (between October 1787 and April 1788) in New York journals, over the signature “Publius.” Jay wrote only five. The authorship of twelve of them is uncertain, and has been the subject of much controversy between partisans of Hamilton and Madison. ConcerningThe FederalistChancellor James Kent (Commentaries, i. 241) said: “There is no work on the subject of the Constitution, and on republican and federal government generally, that deserves to be more thoroughly studied. I know not indeed of any work on the principles of free government that is to be compared, in instruction and intrinsic value, to this small and unpretending volume.... It is equally admirable in the depth of its wisdom, the comprehensiveness of its views, the sagacity of its reflections, and the fearlessness, patriotism, candour, simplicity, and elegance, with which its truths are uttered and recommended.”

10The position was offered first to Robert Morris, who declined it, expressing the opinion that Hamilton was the man best fitted to meet its problems.

11Hamilton’sReport on Manufactures(1791) by itself entitles him to the place of an epoch-maker in economics. It was the first great revolt from Adam Smith, on whoseWealth of Nations(1776) he is said to have already written a commentary which is lost. In his criticism on Adam Smith, and his arguments for a system of moderate protective duties associated with the deliberate policy of promoting national interests, his work was the inspiration of Friedrich List, and so the foundation of the economic system of Germany in a later day, and again, still later, of the policy of Tariff Reform and Colonial Preference in England, as advocated by Mr Chamberlain and his supporters. See the detailed account given in the articleProtection.

12That is, while Jefferson hated British aristocracy and sympathized with French democracy, Hamilton hated French democracy and sympathized with British aristocracy and order; but neither wanted war; and indeed Jefferson, throughout life, was the more peaceful of the two. Neutrality was in the line of commonplace American thinking of that time, as may be seen in the writings of all the leading men of the day. The cry of “British Hamilton” had no good excuse whatever.

13e.g.his prediction in 1789 of the course of the French Revolution; his judgments of Burr from 1792 onward, and of Burr and Jefferson in 1800.

14After the Democrats won New York in 1799, Hamilton proposed to Governor John Jay to call together the out-going Federalist legislature, in order to choose Federalist presidential electors, a suggestion which Jay simply endorsed: “Proposing a measure for party purposes which it would not become me to adopt.”—Works, x. 371 (8: 549). Compare also with later developments of ward politics in New York City, Hamilton’s curious suggestions as to Federalist charities, &c., in connexion with the Christian Constitutional Society proposed by him in 1802 to combat irreligion and democracy (Works, x. 432 (8 : 596).

15Hamilton’s widow, who survived him for half a century, dying at the age of ninety-seven, was left with four sons and four daughters. He had been an affectionate husband and father, though his devotion to his wife had been consistent with occasional lapses from strict marital fidelity. One intrigue into which he drifted in 1791, with a Mrs Reynolds, led to the blackmailing of Hamilton by her husband; and when this rascal, shortly afterwards, got into trouble for fraud, his relations with Hamilton were unscrupulously misrepresented for political purposes by some of Hamilton’s opponents. But Hamilton faced the necessity of revealing the true state of things with conspicuous courage, and the scandal only reacted on his accusers. One of them was Monroe, whose reputation comes very badly out of this unsavoury affair.

16In later years he said no debt should be incurred without providing simultaneously for its payment.

17He warmly supported the Alien and Sedition Laws of 1798 (in their final form).

18The idea, he wrote to Washington, was “one of those visionary things none but madmen could undertake, and that no wise man will believe” (1792). And see his comments on Burr’s ambitions,Works, x. 417, 450 (8: 585, 610). We may accept as just, and applicable to his entire career, the statement made by himself in 1803 of his principles in 1787: “(1) That the political powers of the people of this continent would endure nothing but a representative form of government. (2) That, in the actual situation of the country, it was itself right and proper that the representative system should have a full and fair trial. (3) That to such a trial it was essential that the government should be so constructed as to give it all the energy and the stability reconcilable with the principles of that theory.”

19Cf. Gouverneur Morris,Diary and Letters, ii. 455, 526, 531.

20Cf. even Mr Lodge’s judgments, pp. 90-92, 115-116, 122, 130, 140. When he says (p. 140) that “In Hamilton’s successful policy there were certainly germs of an aristocratic republic, there were certainly limitations and possibly dangers to pure democracy,” this is practically Jefferson’s assertion (1792) that “His system flowed from principles adverse to liberty”; but Jefferson goes on to add: “and was calculated to undermine and demolish the republic.” As to the intent of Hamilton to secure through his financial measures the political support of property, his own words are honest and clear; and in fact he succeeded. Jefferson merely had exaggerated fears of a moneyed political engine, and seeing that Hamilton’s measures of funding and assumption did make the national debt politically useful to the Federalists in the beginning he concluded that they would seek to fasten the debt on the country for ever.

21Cf. Gouv. Morris,op. cit.ii. 474.

22He dreamed of saving the country with an army in this crisis of blood and iron, and wished to preserve unweakened the public confidence in his personal bravery.

23His own words in 1802. In justification of the above statements see the correspondence of 1800-1804passim—Works, vol. ix.-x. (or 7-8); especially x. 363, 425, 434, 440, 445 (or 8: 543, 591, 596, 602, 605).

24Cf. Anson D. Morse, article cited below, pp. 4, 18-21.

25Chancellor Kent tells us (Memoirs and Letters, p. 32) that in 1804 Hamilton was planning a co-operative Federalist work on the history and science of government on an inductive basis. Kent always speaks of Hamilton’s legal thinking as deductive, however (ibid. p. 290, 329), and such seems to have been in fact all his political reasoning:i.e.underlying them were such maxims as that of Hume, that in erecting a stable government every citizen must be assumed a knave, and be bound by self-interest to co-operation for the public good. Hamilton always seems to be reasoning deductively from such principles. He went too far and fast for even such a Federalist disbeliever in democracy as Gouverneur Morris; who, to Hamilton’s assertion that democracy must be cast out to save the country, replied that “such necessity cannot be shown by a political ratiocination. Luckily, or, to speak with a reverence proper to the occasion, providentially, mankind are not disposed to embark the blessings they enjoy on a voyage of syllogistic adventure to obtain something more beautiful in exchange. They must feel before they will act” (op. cit.ii. 531).

HAMILTON, ANTHONY,orAntoine(1646-1720), French classical author, was born about 1646. He is especially noteworthy from the fact that, though by birth he was a foreigner, his literary characteristics are more decidedly French than those of many of the most indubitable Frenchmen. His father was George Hamilton, younger brother of James, 2nd earl of Abercorn, and head of the family of Hamilton in the peerage of Scotland, and 6th duke of Châtellerault in the peerage of France; and his mother was Mary Butler, sister of the 1st duke of Ormonde. According to some authorities he was born at Drogheda, but according to the London edition of his works in 1811 his birthplace was Roscrea, Tipperary. From the age of four till he was fourteen the boy was brought up in France, whither his family had removed after the execution of Charles I. The fact that, like his father, he was a Roman Catholic, prevented his receiving the political promotion he might otherwise have expected on the Restoration, but he became a distinguished member of that brilliant band of courtiers whose chronicler he was to become. He took service in the French army, and the marriage of his sister Elizabeth, “la belle Hamilton,” to Philibert, comte de Gramont (q.v.) rendered his connexion with France more intimate, if possible, than before. On the accession of James II. he obtained an infantry regiment in Ireland, and was appointed governor of Limerick and a member of the privy council. But the battle of the Boyne, at which he was present, brought disaster on all who were attached to the cause of the Stuarts, and before long he was again in France—an exile, but at home. The rest of his life was spent for the most part at the court of St Germain and in thechâteauxof his friends. With Ludovise, duchesse du Maine, he became an especial favourite, and it was at her seat at Sceaux that he wrote theMémoiresthat made him famous. He died at St Germain-en-Laye on the 21st of April 1720.

It is mainly by theMémoires ducomte de Gramontthat Hamilton takes rank with the most classical writers of France. It was said to have been written at Gramont’s dictation, but it is very evident that Hamilton’s share is the most considerable. The work was first published anonymously in 1713 under the rubric of Cologne, but it was really printed in Holland, at that time the great patroness of all questionable authors. An English translation by Boyer appeared in 1714. Upwards of thirty editions have since appeared, the best of the French being Renouard’s (1812), forming part of a collected edition of Hamilton’s works, and Gustave Brunet’s (1859), and the best of the English, Edwards’s (1793), with 78 engravings from portraits in the royal collections at Windsor and elsewhere, A. F. Bertrand de Moleville’s (2 vols., 1811), with 64 portraits by E. Scriven and others, and Gordon Goodwin’s (2 vols., 1903). The original edition was reprinted by Benjamin Pifteau in 1876. In imitation and satiric parody of the romantic tales which Antoine Galland’s translation ofThe Thousand and One Nightshad brought into favour in France, Hamilton wrote, partly for the amusement of Henrietta Bulkley, sister of the duchess of Berwick, to whom he was much attached, four ironical and extravagantcontes,Le Bélier,Fleur d’épine,ZénéydeandLes Quatre Facardins. The saying inLe Bélier’ “Bélier, mon ami, tu me ferais plaisir si tu voulais commencer par le commencement,” has passed into a proverb. These tales were circulated privately during Hamilton’s lifetime, and the first three appeared in Paris in 1730, ten years after the death of the author; a collection of hisŒuvres diversesin 1731 contained the unfinishedZénéyde. Hamilton was also the author of some songs as exquisite in their way as his prose, and interchanged amusing verses with the duke of Berwick. In the name of his niece, the countess of Stafford, Hamilton maintained a witty correspondence with Lady Mary Wortley Montagu.

See notices of Hamilton in Lescure’s edition (1873) of theContes, Sainte-Beuve’sCauseries du lundi, tome i., Sayou’sHistoire de la littérature française à l’étranger(1853), and by L. S. Auger in theŒuvres complètes(1804).

HAMILTON, ELIZABETH(1758-1816), British author, was born at Belfast, of Scottish extraction, on the 21st of July 1758. Her father’s death in 1759 left his wife so embarrassed that Elizabeth was adopted in 1762 by her paternal aunt, Mrs Marshall, who lived in Scotland, near Stirling. In 1788 Miss Hamilton went to live with her brother Captain Charles Hamilton (1753-1792), who was engaged on his translation of theHedaya. Prompted by her brother’s associations, she produced herLetters of a Hindoo Rajahin 1796. Soon after, with her sister Mrs Blake, she settled at Bath, where she published in 1800 theMemoirs of Modern Philosophers, a satire on the admirers of the French Revolution. In 1801-1802 appeared herLetters on Education. After travelling through Wales and Scotland for nearly two years, the sisters took up their abode in 1803 at Edinburgh. In 1804 Mrs Hamilton, as she then preferred to be called, published herLife of Agrippina, wife of Germanicus; and in the same year she received a pension from government.The Cottagers of Glenburnie(1808), which is her best-known work, was described by Sir Walter Scott as “a picture of the rural habits of Scotland, of striking and impressive fidelity.” She also publishedPopular Essays on the Elementary Principles of the Human Mind(1812), andHints addressed to the Patrons and Directors of Public Schools(1815). She died at Harrogate on the 23rd of July 1816.

Memoirs of Mrs Elizabeth Hamilton, by Miss Benger, were published in 1818.

HAMILTON, EMMA,Lady(c.1765-1815), wife of Sir William Hamilton (q.v.), the British envoy at Naples, and famous as the mistress of Nelson, was the daughter of Henry Lyon, a blacksmith of Great Neston in Cheshire. The date of her birth cannot be fixed with certainty, but she was baptized at Great Neston on the 12th of May 1765, and it is not improbable that she was born in that year. Her baptismal name was Emily. As her father died soon after her birth, the mother, who was dependent on parish relief, had to remove to her native village, Hawarden in Flintshire. Emma’s early life is very obscure. She was certainly illiterate, and it appears that she had a child in 1780, a fact which has led some of her biographers to place her birth before 1765. It has been said that she was first the mistress of Captain Willet Payne, an officer in the navy, and that she was employed in some doubtful capacity by a notorious quack of the time, Dr Graham. In 1781 she was the mistress of a country gentleman, Sir Harry Featherstonhaugh, who turned her out in December of that year. She was then pregnant, and in her distress she applied to the Hon. Charles Greville, to whom she was already known. At this time she called herself Emily Hart. Greville, a gentleman of artistic tastes and well known in society, entertained her as his mistress, her mother, known as Mrs Cadogan, acting as housekeeper and partly as servant. Under the protection of Greville, whose means were narrowed by debt, she acquired some education, and was taught to sing, dance and act with professional skill. In 1782 he introduced her to his friend Romney the portrait painter, who had been established for several years in London, and who admired her beauty with enthusiasm. The numerous famous portraits of her from his brush may have somewhat idealised her apparently robust and brilliantly coloured beauty, but her vivacity and powers of fascination cannot be doubted. She had the temperament of an artist, and seems to have been sincerely attached to Greville. In 1784 she was seen by his uncle, Sir William Hamilton, who admired her greatly. Two years later she was sent on a visit to him at Naples, as the result of an understanding between Hamilton and Greville—the uncle paying his nephew’s debts and the nephew ceding his mistress. Emma at first resented, but then submitted to the arrangement. Her beauty, her artistic capacity, and her high spirits soon made her a great favourite in the easy-going society of Naples, and Queen Maria Carolina became closely attached to her. She became famous for her “attitudes,” a series ofposes plastiquesin which she represented classical and other figures. On the 6th of September 1791, during a visit to England, she was married to Sir W. Hamilton. The ceremony was required in order to justify her public reception at the court of Naples, where Lady Hamilton played an important part as the agent through whom the queen communicated with the British minister—sometimes in opposition to the will and the policy of the king. The revolutionary wars and disturbances which began after 1792 made the services of Lady Hamilton always useful and sometimes necessary to the British government. It was claimed by her, and on her behalf, that she secured valuable information in 1796, and was of essential service to the British fleet in 1798 during the Nile campaign, by enabling it to obtain stores and water in Sicily. These claims have been denied on the rather irrelevant ground that they are wanting in official confirmation, which was only to be expected since they wereex hypothesiunofficial and secret, but it is not improbable that they were considerably exaggerated, and it is certain that her stories cannot always be reconciled with one another or with the accepted facts. When Nelson returned from the Nile in September 1798 Lady Hamilton made him her hero, and he became entirely devoted to her. Her influence over him indeed became notorious, and brought him much official displeasure. Lady Hamilton undoubtedly used her influence to draw Nelson into a most unhappy participation in the domestic troubles of Naples, and when Sir W. Hamilton was recalled in 1800 she travelled with him and Nelson ostentatiously across Europe. In England Lady Hamilton insisted on making a parade of her hold over Nelson. Their child, Horatia Nelson Thompson, was born on the 30th of January 1801. The profuse habits which Emma Hamilton had contracted in Naples, together with a passion for gambling which grew on her, led her into debt, and also into extravagant ways of living, against which her husband feebly protested. On his death in 1803 she received by his will a life rent of £800, and the furniture of his house in Piccadilly. She then lived openly with Nelson at his house at Merton. Nelson tried repeatedly to secure her a pension for the services rendered at Naples, but did not succeed. On his death she received Merton, and an annuity of £500, as well as the control of the interest of the £4000 he left to his daughter. But gambling and extravagance kept her poor. In 1808 her friends endeavoured to arrange her affairs, but in 1813 she was put in prison for debt and remained there for a year. A certain Alderman Smith having aided her to get out, she went over to Calais for refuge from her creditors, and she died there in distress if not in want on the 15th of January 1815.

Authorities.—The Memoirs of Lady Hamilton(London, 1815) were the work of an ill-disposed but well-informed and shrewd observer whose name is not given.Lady Hamilton and Lord Nelson, by J. C. Jefferson (London, 1888) is based on authentic papers. It is corrected in some particulars by the detailed recent life written by Walter Sichel,Emma, Lady Hamilton(London, 1905). See also the authorities given in the articleNelson.

(D. H.)

HAMILTON, JAMES(1769-1831), English educationist, and author of the Hamiltonian system of teaching languages, was born in 1769. The first part of his life was spent in mercantile pursuits. Having settled in Hamburg and become free of the city, he was anxious to become acquainted with German and accepted the tuition of a French emigré, General d’Angelis. In twelve lessons he found himself able to read an easy German book, his master having discarded the use of a grammar and translated to him short stories word for word into French. As a citizen of Hamburg Hamilton started a business in Paris, and during the peace of Amiens maintained a lucrative trade with England; but at the rupture of the treaty he was made a prisoner of war, and though the protection of Hamburg was enough to get the wordseffacé de la liste des prisonniers de guerreinscribed upon his passport, he was detained in custody till the close of hostilities. His business being thus ruined, he went in 1814 to America, intending to become a farmer and manufacturer of potash; but, changing his plan before he reached his “location,” he started as a teacher in New York. Adopting his old tutor’s method, he attained remarkable success in New York, Baltimore, Washington, Boston, Montreal and Quebec. Returning to England in July 1823, he was equally fortunate in Manchester and elsewhere. The two master principles of his method were that the language should be presented to the scholar as a living organism, and that its laws should be learned from observation and not by rules. His system attracted general attention, and was vigorously attacked and defended. In 1826 Sydney Smith devoted an article to its elucidation in theEdinburgh Review. As text-books for his pupils Hamilton printed interlinear translations of the Gospel of John, of anEpitome historiae sacrae, of Aesop’sFables, Eutropius, Aurelius Victor, Phaedrus, &c., and many books were issued as Hamiltonian with which hehad nothing personally to do. He died on the 31st of October 1831.

See Hamilton’s own account,The History, Principles, Practice and Results of the Hamiltonian System(Manchester, 1829; new ed., 1831); Alberte,Über die Hamilton’sche Methode; C. F. Wurm,Hamilton und Jacotot(1831).

HAMILTON, JAMES HAMILTON,1st Duke of(1606-1649), Scottish nobleman, son of James, 2nd marquess of Hamilton, and of the Lady Anne Cunningham, daughter of the earl of Glencairn, was born on the 19th of June 1606. As the descendant and representative of James Hamilton, 1st earl of Arran, he was the heir to the throne of Scotland after the descendants of James VI.1He married in his fourteenth year May Feilding, aged seven, daughter of Lord Feilding, afterwards 1st earl of Denbigh, and was educated at Exeter College, Oxford, where he matriculated on the 14th of December 1621. He succeeded to his father’s titles on the latter’s death in 1625. In 1628 he was made master of the horse and was also appointed gentleman of the bedchamber and a privy councillor. In 1631 Hamilton took over a force of 6000 men to assist Gustavus Adolphus in Germany. He guarded the fortresses on the Oder while Gustavus fought Tilly at Breitenfeld, and afterwards occupied Magdeburg, but his army was destroyed by disease and starvation, and after the complete failure of the expedition Hamilton returned to England in September 1634. He now became Charles I.’s chief adviser in Scottish affairs. In May 1638, after the outbreak of the revolt against the English Prayer-Book, he was appointed commissioner for Scotland to appease the discontents. He described the Scots as being “possessed by the devil,” and instead of doing his utmost to support the king’s interests was easily intimidated by the covenanting leaders and persuaded of the impossibility of resisting their demands, finally returning to Charles to urge him to give way. It is said that he so far forgot his trust as to encourage the Scottish leaders in their resistance in order to gain their favour.2On the 27th of July Charles sent him back with new proposals for the election of an assembly and a parliament, episcopacy being safeguarded but bishops being made responsible to future assemblies. After a wrangle concerning the mode of election he again returned to Charles. Having been sent back to Edinburgh on the 17th of September, he brought with him a revocation of the prayer-book and canons and another covenant to be substituted for the national covenant. On the 21st of November Hamilton presided over the first meeting of the assembly in Glasgow cathedral, but dissolved it on the 28th on its declaring the bishops responsible to its authority. The assembly, however, continued to sit notwithstanding, and Hamilton returned to England to give an account of his failure, leaving the enemy triumphant and in possession. War was now decided upon, and Hamilton was chosen to command an expedition to the Forth to menace the rear of the Scots. On arrival on the 1st of May 1639 he found the plan impossible, despaired of success, and was recalled in June. On the 8th of July, after a hostile reception at Edinburgh, he resigned his commissionership. He supported Strafford’s proposal to call the Short Parliament, but otherwise opposed him as strongly as he could, as the chief adversary of the Scots; and he aided the elder Vane, it was believed, in accomplishing Strafford’s destruction by sending for him to the Long Parliament. Hamilton now supported the parliamentary party, desired an alliance with his nation, and persuaded Charles in February 1641 to admit some of their leaders into the council. On the death of Strafford Hamilton was confronted by a new antagonist in Montrose, who detested both his character and policy and repudiated his supremacy in Scotland. On the 10th of August 1641 he accompanied Charles on his last visit to Scotland. His aim now was to effect an alliance between the king and Argyll, the former accepting Presbyterianism and receiving the help of the Scots against the English parliament, and when this failed he abandoned Charles and adhered to Argyll. In consequence he received a challenge from Lord Ker, of which he gave the king information, and obtained from Ker an apology. Montrose wrote to Charles declaring he could prove Hamilton to be a traitor. The king himself spoke of him as being “very active in his own preservation.” Shortly afterwards the plot—known as the “Incident”—to seize Argyll, Hamilton and the latter’s brother, the earl of Lanark, was discovered, and on the 12th of October they fled from Edinburgh. Hamilton returned not long afterwards, and notwithstanding all that had occurred still retained Charles’s favour and confidence. He returned with him to London and accompanied him on the 5th of January 1642 when he went to the city after the failure to secure the five members. In July Hamilton went to Scotland on a hopeless mission to prevent the intervention of the Scots in the war, and a breach then took place between him and Argyll. When in February 1643 proposals of mediation between Charles and the parliament came from Scotland, Hamilton instigated the “cross petition” which demanded from Charles the surrender of the annuities of tithes in order to embarrass Loudoun, the chief promoter of the project, to whom they had already been granted. This failing, he promoted a scheme for overwhelming the influence and votes of Argyll and his party by sending to Scotland all the Scottish peers then with the king, thereby preventing any assistance to the parliament coming from that quarter, while Charles was to guarantee the establishment of Presbyterianism in Scotland only. This foolish intrigue was strongly opposed by Montrose, who was eager to strike a sudden blow and anticipate and annihilate the plans of the Covenanters. Hamilton, however, gained over the queen for his project, and in September was made a duke, while Montrose was condemned to inaction. Hamilton’s scheme, however, completely failed. He had no control over the parliament. He was unable to hinder the meeting of the convention of the estates which assembled without the king’s authority, and his supporters found themselves in a minority. Finally, on refusing to take the Covenant, Hamilton and Lanark were obliged to leave Scotland. They arrived at Oxford on the 16th of December. Hamilton’s conduct had at last incurred Charles’s resentment and he was sent, in January 1644, a prisoner to Pendennis Castle, in 1645 being removed to St Michael’s Mount, where he was liberated by Fairfax’s troops on the 23rd of April 1646. Subsequently he showed great activity in the futile negotiations between the Scots and Charles at Newcastle. In 1648, in consequence of the seizure of Charles by the army in 1647, Hamilton obtained a temporary influence and authority in the Scottish parliament over Argyll, and led a large force into England in support of the king on the 8th of July. He showed complete incapacity in military command; was kept in check for some time by Lambert; and though outnumbering the enemy by 24,000 to about 9000 men, allowed his troops to disperse over the country and to be defeated in detail by Cromwell during the three days August 17th-19th at the so-called battle of Preston, being himself taken prisoner on the 25th. He was tried on the 6th of February 1649, condemned to death on the 6th of March and executed on the 9th.

Hamilton, during his unfortunate career, had often been suspected of betraying the king’s cause, and, as an heir to the Scottish throne, of intentionally playing into the hands of the Covenanters with a view of procuring the crown for himself. The charge was brought against him as early as 1631 when he waslevying men in Scotland for the German expedition, but Charles gave no credence to it and showed his trust in Hamilton by causing him to share his own room. The charge, however, always clung to him, and his intriguing character and hopeless management of the king’s affairs in Scotland gave colour to the accusation. There seems, however, to be no real foundation for it. His career is sufficiently explained by his thoroughly weak and egotistical character. He took no interest whatever in the great questions at issue, was neither loyal nor patriotic, and only desired peace and compromise to avoid personal losses. “He was devoid of intellectual or moral strength, and was therefore easily brought to fancy all future tasks easy and all present obstacles insuperable.”3A worse choice than Hamilton could not possibly have been made in such a crisis, and his want of principle, of firmness and resolution, brought irretrievable ruin upon the royal cause.

Hamilton’s three sons died young, and the dukedom passed by special remainder to his brother William, earl of Lanark. On the latter’s death in 1651 the Scottish titles reverted to the 1st duke’s daughter, Anne, whose husband, William Douglas, was created (third) duke of Hamilton.

Bibliography.—Article in theDict. of Nat. Biog.by S. R. Gardiner;History of England and of the Civil War, by the same author;Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton, by G. Burnet;Lauderdale Papers(Camden Society, 1884-1885);The Hamilton Papers, ed. by S. R. Gardiner (Camden Society, 1880) andaddenda(Camden Miscellany, vol. ix., 1895);Thomason Tractsin the British Museum, 550 (6), 1948 (30) (account of his supposed treachery), and 546 (21) (speech on the scaffold).

(P. C. Y.)

1James, Lord Hamilton = Princess Mary Stuart,(d. 1479). daughter of James II.|James, Lord Hamilton and 1st earl of Arran(d.c.1529).|James, duke of Chatelherault, and 2nd earl of Arran(d. 1575).|James, 3rd earl of Arran(d. 1609).|John, 1st marquess of Hamilton(d. 1604).|James, 2nd marquess of Hamilton(d. 1625).|James, 3rd marquess and 1st duke of Hamilton.2See S. R. Gardiner in theDict. of Nat. Biography.3See S. R. Gardiner in theDict. of Nat. Biography.

James, Lord Hamilton = Princess Mary Stuart,(d. 1479). daughter of James II.|James, Lord Hamilton and 1st earl of Arran(d.c.1529).|James, duke of Chatelherault, and 2nd earl of Arran(d. 1575).|James, 3rd earl of Arran(d. 1609).|John, 1st marquess of Hamilton(d. 1604).|James, 2nd marquess of Hamilton(d. 1625).|James, 3rd marquess and 1st duke of Hamilton.

2See S. R. Gardiner in theDict. of Nat. Biography.

3See S. R. Gardiner in theDict. of Nat. Biography.

HAMILTON, JOHN(c.1511-1571), Scottish prelate and politician, was a natural son of James Hamilton, 1st earl of Arran. At a very early age he became a monk and abbot of Paisley, and after studying in Paris he returned to Scotland, where he soon rose to a position of power and influence under his half-brother, the regent Arran. He was made keeper of the privy seal in 1543 and bishop of Dunkeld two years later; in 1546 he followed David Beaton as archbishop of St Andrews, and about the same time he became treasurer of the kingdom. He made vigorous efforts to stay the growth of Protestantism, but with one or two exceptions “persecution was not the policy of Archbishop Hamilton,” and in the interests of the Roman Catholic religion a catechism calledHamilton’s Catechism(published with an introduction by T. G. Law in 1884) was drawn up and printed, possibly at his instigation. Having incurred the displeasure of the Protestants, now the dominant party in Scotland, the archbishop was imprisoned in 1563. After his release he was an active partisan of Mary queen of Scots; he baptized the infant James, afterwards King James VI., and pronounced the divorce of the queen from Bothwell. He was present at the battle of Langside, and some time later took refuge in Dumbarton Castle. Here he was seized, and on the charge of being concerned in the murders of Lord Darnley and the regent Murray he was tried, and hanged on the 6th of April 1571. The archbishop had three children by his mistress, Grizzel Sempill.

HAMILTON, PATRICK(1504-1528), Scottish divine, second son of Sir Patrick Hamilton, well known in Scottish chivalry, and of Catherine Stewart, daughter of Alexander, duke of Albany, second son of James II. of Scotland, was born in the diocese of Glasgow, probably at bis father’s estate of Stanehouse in Lanarkshire. He was educated probably at Linlithgow. In 1517 he was appointed titular abbot of Ferne, Ross-shire; and it was probably about the same year that he went to study at Paris, for his name is found in an ancient list of those who graduated there in 1520. It was doubtless in Paris, where Luther’s writings were already exciting much discussion, that he received the germs of the doctrines he was afterwards to uphold. From Alexander Ales we learn that Hamilton subsequently went to Louvain, attracted probably by the fame of Erasmus, who in 1521 had his headquarters there. Returning to Scotland, the young scholar naturally selected St Andrews, the capital of the church and of learning, as his residence. On the 9th of June 1523 he became a member of the university of St Andrews, and on the 3rd of October 1524 he was admitted to its faculty of arts. There Hamilton attained such influence that he was permitted to conduct as precentor a musical mass of his own composition in the cathedral. But the reformed doctrines had now obtained a firm hold on the young abbot, and he was eager to communicate them to his fellow-countrymen. Early in 1527 the attention of James Beaton, archbishop of St Andrews, was directed to the heretical preaching of the young priest, whereupon he ordered that Hamilton should be formally summoned and accused. Hamilton fled to Germany, first visiting Luther at Wittenberg, and afterwards enrolling himself as a student, under Franz Lambert of Avignon, in the new university of Marburg, opened on the 30th of May 1527 by Philip, landgrave of Hesse. Hermann von dem Busche, one of the contributors to theEpistolae obscurorum virorum, John Frith and Tyndale were among those whom he met there. Late in the autumn of 1527 Hamilton returned to Scotland, bold in the conviction of the truth of his principles. He went first to his brother’s house at Kincavel, near Linlithgow, in which town he preached frequently, and soon afterwards he married a young lady of noble rank, whose name has not come down to us. Beaton, avoiding open violence through fear of Hamilton’s high connexions, invited him to a conference at St Andrews. The reformer, predicting that he was going to confirm the pious in the true doctrine by his death, resolutely accepted the invitation, and for nearly a month was permitted to preach and dispute, perhaps in order to provide material for accusation. At length, however, he was summoned before a council of bishops and clergy presided over by the archbishop; there were thirteen charges, seven of which were based on the doctrines affirmed in theLoci communes. On examination Hamilton maintained that these were undoubtedly true. The council condemned him as a heretic on the whole thirteen charges. Hamilton was seized, and, it is said, surrendered to the soldiery on an assurance that he would be restored to his friends without injury. The council convicted him, after a sham disputation with Friar Campbell, and handed him over to the secular power. The sentence was carried out on the same day (February 29, 1528) lest he should be rescued by his friends, and he was burned at the stake as a heretic. His courageous bearing attracted more attention than ever to the doctrines for which he suffered, and greatly helped to spread the Reformation in Scotland. The “reek of Patrick Hamilton infected all it blew on.” His martyrdom is singular in this respect, that he represented in Scotland almost alone the Lutheran stage of the Reformation. His only book was entitledLoci communes, known as “Patrick’s Places.” It set forth the doctrine of justification by faith and the contrast between the gospel and the law in a series of clear-cut propositions. It is to be found in Foxs’sActs and Monuments.

HAMILTON, ROBERT(1743-1829), Scottish economist and mathematician, was born at Pilrig, Edinburgh, on the 11th of June 1743. His grandfather, William Hamilton, principal of Edinburgh University, had been a professor of divinity. Having completed his education at the university of Edinburgh, where he was distinguished in mathematics, Robert was induced to enter a banking-house in order to acquire a practical knowledge of business, but his ambition was really academic. In 1769 he gave up business pursuits and accepted the rectorship of Perth academy. In 1779 he was presented to the chair of natural philosophy at Aberdeen University. For many years, however, by private arrangement with his colleague Professor Copland, Hamilton taught the class of mathematics. In 1817 he was presented to the latter chair.

Back to Index Next