HAMILTON, James (1589-1625)

The Hamiltons came to prominence in Scotland after Bannockburn (1314), when Walter Fitzgilbert of Hamilton surrendered Bothwell Castle to Robert Bruce, for which he was rewarded with baronies in Clydesdale, West Lothian and Galloway. However, they did not enter the first rank of Scottish society until the late fifteenth century, when Fitzgilbert’s direct descendant, Sir James Hamilton of Cadzow, was created Lord Hamilton and married Mary Stuart, sister to his close friend James III. As a result of this union, the Hamiltons stood in direct line to the Scottish throne should the Stuart dynasty ever fail. Their claim was even superior to that of the earls and dukes of Lennox.34 H.L. Rubinstein, Captain Luckless: James Hamilton, First Duke of Hamilton, 6-7, 256; P. Heylyn, Cyprianus Anglicus (1671), 348. It was therefore not surprising that in 1543 the head of the family, James Hamilton, 2nd earl of Arran [S], was appointed regent during the minority of Mary, queen of Scots.

During his period as regent, Arran was created duc de Châtelherault by the French king, Henri II, who was eager to arrange a marriage between the dauphin and the young Queen Mary. Following Arran’s death in 1575, control of the Hamilton estates passed into the hands of his second surviving son, Lord John Hamilton, the latter’s elder brother, the 3rd earl of Arran, having been declared insane. Though Protestant, Hamilton was a loyal supporter of Mary, queen of Scots, and suffered in her cause, experiencing both exile and the loss of his estates. However, in 1585 he was restored to favour by a grateful James VI, and soon became a trusted servant of the king. In 1597 he was granted the temporalties of the abbey of Arbroath in recognition of his long years of service to his mother and as compensation for the loss of Châtelherault, which the French now denied him. Two years later he was created marquess of Hamilton.

Early life, 1589-1617

James Hamilton, the subject of this biography, is said to have been born in 1589. Little is known of his upbringing, except that he became close friends of George Eglisham, a future royal physician.35 G. Eglisham, Forerunner of Revenge (1626), 5-6. Following the death of his father in April 1604, he wrote to the king, who had by now ascended the throne of England as James I, assuring him of his fidelity. The king took care to promote and protect the interests of his young kinsman, who seems to have been in France at the time.36 HMC Hamilton, i. 69; Miscellany of the Abbotsford Club, i. 263. The date of his father’s death is given as 6 Apr. in CP and Scots Peerage ed. J.B. Paul, iv. 372, but Anderson, 130, indicates 12 April. When Ludovic Stuart^*, 2nd duke of Lennox [S] (later duke of Richmond), was sent as special ambassador to Paris in November 1604, he was instructed to deal with Henri IV for Hamilton’s restoration to the duchy of Châtelherault.37 HMC Hatfield, xvi. 447. James also confirmed Hamilton’s possession of the abbey of Arbroath. This was accomplished only with difficulty, however, as other claimants had first to be satisfied, leading to a delay that Hamilton complained caused him public disgrace.38 Letters and State Pprs. during the Reign of King James the Sixth (Abbotsford Club), 125, 127n; CP, i. 2.

Although his finances were already overstretched,39 Letters and State Pprs. during the Reign of King James the Sixth, 126. Hamilton travelled to the Continent in the spring of 1608.40 Reg. PC Scot. 1607-10, pp. 105, 498. During his absence his elder brother died, whereupon he formally inherited the earldom of Arran. In January 1610 he visited Venice, where he was mistaken for a Frenchman on account of his dress and fluency. After being introduced to the doge, he was accorded the rare honour of being allowed to view the treasury and armoury.41 CSP Ven. 1607-10, pp. 408-9. In March he obtained, with Spanish assistance, verbal permission from the pope to visit Rome, which was normally out of bounds to Scots and English alike. However, Sir Henry Wotton^‡, Britain’s ambassador to Venice, was appalled, and urged Hamilton to turn homewards forthwith.42 Life and Letters of Sir Henry Wotton ed. L. Pearsall Smith, i. 487-8. Hamilton may have heeded this advice, for in July the Scottish Privy Council asked the king for a letter of recommendation for Hamilton, who intended to petition the French government in person for restoration to the duchy of Châtelherault.43 Reg. PC Scot. 1610-13, pp. 566-7. Chaney and Wilks claim that Hamilton ignored Wotton’s advice, but offer no evidence: Jacobean Grand Tour, 156. Hamilton remained in the vicinity of the French capital for some while, as in March 1611 he attended the oration delivered at the funeral of the 10th earl of Angus [S], which was held at the monastery of St Germain.44 Newsletters from the Archpresbyterate of George Birkhead ed. M.C. Questier (Cam. Soc. 5th ser. xii), 86n.

Hamilton had returned to Scotland by the beginning of 1612, when John Spottiswoode, archbishop of Glasgow, complained to the king that the marquess had ‘buffeted him for some proud speeches’.45 D. Calderwood, Hist. of the Kirk of Scotland, vii. 164. In April he was appointed to the commission for the apprehension of his brother-in-law, John, 8th Lord Maxwell [S] and the latter’s accomplice, William Douglas, who were wanted for treason. The following October he attended the Scottish Parliament, and was appointed one of the lords of the articles. This short-lived assembly proved to be fractious, as the bishops demanded that, in view of the impending marriage of the king’s daughter, Parliament vote the king 800,000 merks (equivalent to more than £53,000 sterling). It was eventually decided to grant half this amount, but even this sum was considered too high by many of the nobles, who demanded a further reduction. On 21 Oct. matters reached ‘such extremity’ that the 18th/2nd earl of Mar [S] offered to travel to London to discuss the intended subsidy with the king. However, Mar’s departure proved to be unnecessary, as Hamilton declared that he would be willing to consent to a grant of £20,000 sterling, whereupon the assembly reached unanimous agreement.46 Ibid. 165; Misc. of the Maitland Club, iii. pt. 1, pp. 116-17.

Following the death of the king’s eldest son, Prince Henry, in November 1612, it was widely supposed by his fellow Scots that Hamilton would marry the king’s daughter Elizabeth. Such an arrangement would ensure that, were the king and his remaining son Prince Charles (Stuart^*, later prince of Wales) to die, England would continue to be ruled by a Scot. However, Hamilton was already married, to the rigid presbyterian Anne Cunningham (daughter of the 7th earl of Glencairn), and in December Elizabeth was betrothed instead to the Elector Palatine, Frederick V.47 Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, i. 399. It may have been partly in order to soothe injured Scottish feelings that in late December James appointed Hamilton to the Scottish Privy Council.

In March 1613 it was rumoured at court that Hamilton had lent his support to those attempting to undermine Scotland’s lord chancellor, Lord Thirlestane [S]. However, these reports were discounted by the groom of the stole, Viscount Fentoun [S], who, writing to the earl of Mar, observed that those around the king ‘think that your lordship and the chancellor has [sic] a good hold of him, at least so much as anybody can have’.48 HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 50. The following year Hamilton quarrelled with the master of Ogilvy over the holding of certain courts in Arbroath. The matter became so heated that the Scottish Privy Council required both men to give surety for keeping the peace.49 Historical Works of Sir Jas. Balfour ed. J. Haig, ii. 54.

In March 1617 Hamilton attended the convention of estates which voted £200,000 (Scots) to cover the king’s expenses in the latter’s forthcoming journey to Scotland.50 Reg. PC Scot. 1616-19, p.56. Following James’s arrival, he and other leading nobles petitioned the king, without success, to release from the Tower the former royal favourite, their fellow Scot Robert Carr^*, earl of Somerset.51 Corresp. of Robert Kerr, First Earl of Ancram, i. 5. Although he had not seen the king since he was a boy, Hamilton quickly earned a reputation for speaking freely to James,52 Holles Letters ed. P.R. Seddon (Thoroton Soc. xxxv), 175. who warmed to his young kinsman. At a disputation held at Stirling in July between members of Edinburgh University, the king teased Hamilton, whose offices included that of hereditary sheriff of Lanarkshire, after one of the disputants argued that shrievalties could not be heritable: ‘James ... you see your cause is lost, and all that can be said for it distinctly answered’.53 Reg. PC Scot. 1616-19, p. 196n.

Residence in England, 1618-20

While he was in Scotland, James invited Hamilton to return with him to England and take up residence at court. The Venetian ambassador interpreted this offer as evidence of James’s jealousy of the power and influence wielded in Scotland by the young marquess,54 CSP Ven. 1617-19, p. 5. but if the king did entertain such concerns he kept them to himself. Hamilton agreed, and in early August, shortly after the king visited Hamilton’s seat in Lanarkshire, he was appointed to the English Privy Council.55 Reg. PC Scot. 1616-19, pp. 206-7n.

On the journey south, if not sooner, Hamilton struck up a friendship with the royal favourite George Villiers^*, earl (later 1st duke) of Buckingham. Before long the two young men were as thick as thieves, to the dismay of Theophilus Howard^*, Lord Howard de Walden (later 2nd earl of Suffolk), who sought unsuccessfully to sow dissension between them.56 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 98; HMC Downshire, vi. 262. Shortly after the royal party reached London, Buckingham resolved to surrender to Hamilton the mastership of the horse once he had secured for himself the office of lord high admiral. Moreover, in January 1618 Hamilton and Buckingham, now elevated to the rank of marquess in order to enjoy parity with his new friend, performed alongside one another in a masque held to celebrate Twelfth Night.57 Strafforde Letters (1739) ed. W. Knowler, i. 5; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 118, 128.

Hamilton quickly became popular with the great ladies of the court, and, having left his wife in Scotland, soon earned a reputation as a womanizer.58 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 101; HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 225. Court life was, however, expensive, and before long Hamilton was the recipient of royal bounty. In December 1617 one well informed source reported that he would soon be granted £10,000 out of Irish taxation. Whether this sum was ever in fact bestowed upon Hamilton is unclear, but the following year the king certainly assigned him £3,000 sterling from Scottish funds.59 HMC Downshire, vi. 357; HMC Mar and Kellie, i. 84; Reg. PC Scot. 1616-19, pp. 470-1. He also allocated him an annual pension of £3,000, charged upon the pretermitted customs, and in 1619 granted him part of a £2,000 fine imposed by Chancery towards payment of his debts.60 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 245, 258.

In the autumn of 1618 Buckingham renewed his bid to become lord admiral, his earlier attempt having received an unexpected check. Once again, Hamilton was widely tipped to succeed Buckingham as master of the horse. In early October, as Buckingham’s patent as lord high admiral was preparing, it was even reported by one well informed observer that Hamilton had received a letter of privy seal for this office.61 HMC Downshire, vi. 535, 546. In the event, however, Buckingham failed to surrender the mastership of the horse, despite becoming lord admiral in January 1619. The reason is unclear, but it may be that the favourite had already decided instead to transfer the mastership to his elder brother, Sir John Villiers^* (later Viscount Purbeck). Rumours that Hamilton would be advanced to the far more important office of lord treasurer, or lord chamberlain also came to nothing.62 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 168; CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 8; JOHN VILLIERS. Hamilton was understandably bitter at Buckingham’s breach of faith, and more than once quarrelled with the favourite.63 Add. 72263, f. 93v.

In May 1619 James announced that he intended to bestow English earldoms upon both Hamilton and the duke of Lennox’s younger brother, Lord D’Aubigny (Esmé Stuart).64 SP14/109/46. This honour, which had already been conferred upon Lennox, the king’s cousin, was intended to integrate those Scottish peers closely related to the royal family into the ranks of the English nobility. It was originally suggested that Hamilton become known as earl of Clare,65 Add. 72253, f. 37. which title, thought (incorrectly) to be synonymous with that of Clarence, was traditionally reserved for princes. However, it was eventually decided that Hamilton should be created earl of Cambridge. This was shrewd, as this particular title emphasized Hamilton’s links to both the English and Scottish thrones. The first holder of the earldom of Cambridge had been brother to William the Lion, king of Scotland in the early thirteenth century, while its last had been the English king, Edward IV.66 CP, ii. 493, 495.

Shortly before being created earl of Cambridge on 16 June 1619, Hamilton was made a free denizen, without which grant he would have remained an alien, incapable of holding land in England.67 SO3/6, unfol. (June 1619). His letters of denization are unnoticed in W.A. Shaw, Letters of Denization and Acts of Naturalization for Aliens in Eng. and Ire. 1603-1700 (Huguenot Soc. xviii). In July he returned to Scotland, in company with the lord chamberlain, William Herbert^*, 3rd earl of Pembroke, whose relations with Buckingham, like Hamilton’s own, had become somewhat strained. After attending a meeting of the Scottish Privy Council on 12 Aug., he returned to England, where he was soon tipped to succeed Lord Howard de Walden as captain of the band of gentlemen pensioners.68 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 277; Add. 72275, f. 94v. However, Hamilton was unwilling to assume this position for fear of being seen to be pursuing a vendetta against against Lord Howard, with whom he had clashed two years earlier.69 CSP Dom. 1619-23, pp. 113-14. Besides, he was still angry that Buckingham had not surrendered to him the mastership of the horse, as promised. In January 1620 he quarrelled with Buckingham at dinner over the sale of honours, in which the favourite was deeply involved. His argument, that such sales served merely to debase the ancient nobility, drew support from Thomas Howard^*, 21st (or 14th) earl of Arundel who, like Hamilton, was head of a long-established noble family. The disagreement was evidently so heated that, shortly thereafter, Hamilton and Buckingham felt obliged to announce to the rest of the court their unfeigned love for one another.70 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 286.

Hamilton and Buckingham renewed their bickering at Newmarket in February 1620, after it was rumoured that the favourite intended to resign the mastership of the horse to his prospective father-in-law, the 6th earl of Rutland (Francis Manners^*).71 Add. 72275, f. 93v. It was perhaps in order to placate Hamilton that in early March the king, without reference to Buckingham, appointed the young Scot a gentleman of his bedchamber. The following month, James further soothed Hamilton’s injured feelings by having the marquess represent him at the christening of Pembroke’s son.72 ‘Camden Diary’, 52, 56; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 297, 302. Moreover, in June he appointed him to a commission to investigate fraud in the office of Works. This was the first time that Hamilton had been named to an English commission and, since the body concerned had only four members, his inclusion served to emphasize his high standing with the king.

The parliaments of 1621

Like Buckingham, Lennox and Pembroke, Hamilton contributed £1,000 towards the benevolence raised in the autumn of 1620 for the defence of the Rhenish Palatinate, the territory governed by the king’s daughter and her husband.73 SP14/117/2. When the English Parliament met in January 1621 Hamilton, who was entitled to sit as earl of Cambridge, was accorded a prominent place in the opening procession. While Buckingham carried the cap of maintenance, he supplied the favourite’s place as master of the horse. This concession, which doubtless originated with the king, underlines James’s attempt to heal the rift between Hamilton and Buckingham.74 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 338-9; SP14/119/32. Hamilton was also appointed by the crown one of the triers of petitions from England’s overseas territories, including Gascony, to which the English still laid claim. This was a largely honorific position, but one which emphasized Hamilton’s connections with France.75 LJ, iii. 10b.

Although he was a stranger to English parliaments, Hamilton proved to be regular in his attendance. He was never absent for more than two days at a time, and sometimes attended afternoon meetings, like that held on 27 Apr., when the House agreed to examine the monopolist Sir Francis Michell. On this latter occasion, however, Hamilton could not disguise his weariness at the length of that day’s sitting, for when it was resolved to set down some pertinent questions Hamilton observed pointedly that ‘the day runs’. Clearly he thought that the matter could wait.76 LD 1621, p. 39.

Despite being a novice at Westminster, Hamilton frequently contributed to debate. His first recorded intervention was on 16 Feb., during discussion of the recusancy petition. Prince Charles, who was also sitting in his first Parliament, proposed that the king should be left to decide whether to issue a proclamation on the subject of recusancy. Hamilton concurred, but moved that a statement to this effect be included in the petition, to which the prince agreed. This exchange established something of a pattern, as this was not the only occasion on which Hamilton and Charles spoke in support of one another. When, on 26 Mar., Charles declared that the disgraced monopolist Sir Giles Mompesson^‡ should not be executed, he was seconded by Hamilton, who entered the caveat that Mompesson might be ‘censured higher hereafter if matters of higher nature be found’.77 LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, pp. 7, 44. On 3 May Charles was among those who seconded Hamilton after the latter opined that the disgraced lord chancellor, Viscount St. Alban (Francis Bacon*) should not be degraded as he had made a ‘clear and ingenuous confession, which men of his sort do not do’. The two men also concurred publicly the following day, after Charles proposed that Sir Francis Michell be fined rather than stripped of his knighthood.78 LD 1621, pp. 63, 65.

It was understandable that Hamilton and Charles sought to speak with one voice. However, given his recent treatment at the hands of the favourite, it would have been no surprise had Hamilton dissented publicly with Buckingham. In fact, Hamilton was nothing if not supportive of the lord admiral. When, on 13 Mar., Buckingham crossed swords with both the 3rd and 1st earl of Southampton (Henry Wriothesley^*) and the 3rd Lord Sheffield (Edmund Sheffield^*, later 1st earl of Mulgrave) for interrupting him at a conference with the Commons, Hamilton sought to exonerate the lord admiral and pacify those involved.79 LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, p. 22. One month later, after Buckingham asked the House to give his half-brother Sir Edward Villiers^‡ the chance to defend himself against his accusers by charging him with wrongdoing, Hamilton commended the motion. When, on 30 Apr., the former attorney general, Sir Henry Yelverton^‡, angrily likened Buckingham to Edward II’s favourite Hugh, Lord Le Despenser^†, Hamilton moved that he be returned to prison for having maligned a member of the House.80 LD 1621, pp. 4, 53. The king’s recent attempt to restore harmony between Hamilton and Buckingham had clearly paid off.

Much of the parliamentary sitting was taken up with the investigation and punishment of corruption. Hamilton, who lacked high office and whose own hands were therefore clean, took a close interest in this matter. For instance, on 12 Mar. he was appointed to the committee which heard the Commons lay out their evidence and complaints against various monopolists, among them Matthias Fowles, who was accused of adulterating silk. Fowles subsequently claimed that it was a perfectly acceptable part of the production process to dye silk, prompting Hamilton to inquire whether this was correct.81 LJ, iii. 42b; LD 1621, p. 32. When the Lords turned their attention to the lord chancellor, who was accused of receiving bribes, Hamilton pointed out that it would be difficult to proceed against Bacon if those guilty of offering inducements were charged with committing an offence once they testified. This was not an example of obstructionism, as Hamilton was among those who subsequently advocated that anyone who came forward with evidence should be granted immunity from prosecution. Only those who refused to testify, he added, should be accused of bribing a judge.82 LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, pp. 29, 38.

Hamilton was appointed to the committee for conferring with the Commons after Sir Giles Mompesson escaped from custody. Mompesson’s flight left a deep impression on both Houses, and during the debate on the corrupt ecclesiastical judge Sir John Bennett^‡, Hamilton opined that Bennett should either provide surety to prevent him from emulating Mompesson or be committed to the Fleet. He also seconded Arundel after the latter proposed that the surety given should be considerable.83 LJ, iii. 34a; LD 1621, pp. 22-3.

During the course of the sitting, Hamilton chaired one committee, to consider the patent that authorized Mompesson to hunt for concealed lands. He reported its findings on 26 March.84 LJ, iii. 47a, 70b. His remaining legislative appointments concerned bills to improve the navigation of the Thames, allow the duchy of Cornwall to issue leases, prevent the export of bullion, and permit his fellow Scot, the earl of March (Esmé Stuart^*), to acquire the manor of Temple Newsam. He was also appointed to help consider Buckingham’s proposal to erect an academy for training the sons of noblemen.85 Ibid. 22b, 26b, 31a, 37a.

Hamilton avoided causing controversy or offence during the sitting. However, during debate on 7 May his choice of language was questioned. The House was then in the process of debating the Commons’ claim to be a court of record. It was widely agreed that the Commons had overreached themselves, and that the best way forward would be to settle the matter quietly by means of a subcommittee. Hamilton shared this view, but suggested that unless the Commons themselves proposed appointing such a body the Lords should ‘not beg it’. This remark was held to be inappropriate by the 3rd Lord North (Dudley North^*), who observed that there was a world of difference between begging and propounding.86 LD 1621, pp. 70-1.

Towards the end of the summer sitting, Hamilton was chosen by the king to serve as his representative at the Scottish Parliament, which was due to meet in July, after Lennox offered his excuses. In late May he was awarded £5,000 to cover his expenses. He arrived on 18 July at Holyroodhouse, where he privately met Scotland’s chief officers of state to discuss how best to effect one of the main items of business, the ratification of the Five Articles of Perth. These articles, which required the Scottish Church to adopt some of the ceremonies and practices followed in England, had been unveiled four years earlier. Although they had elicited little enthusiasm north of the border, James was determined to force the Scots to bend to his will. Hamilton, as the king’s instrument, was equally determined to succeed, and over the course of the Parliament he used a combination of carrot and stick to achieve his ends. When the assembly opened on 25 July, he promised his listeners that, if they consented to the Five Articles ‘they should never be urged with more ceremonies’. At the same time, he secretly encouraged some of the government’s supporters in the Parliament to announce their opposition to the Five Articles, in the hope that this would flush out those who were genuinely opposed to their introduction. Overnight, these agents provocateurs reported their findings, thereby allowing Hamilton and his allies to buy of their opponents or cow them with threats. These underhand tactics proved entirely successful, for on the final day of the meeting (4 Aug.), after Hamilton repeated the king’s promise not to introduce further changes in his lifetime, the Five Articles were voted through. He also persuaded the Parliament to vote £1,200,000 (Scots) towards the defence of the Rhenish Palatinate after setting out in detail the reasons for the king’s poverty.87 D. Calderwood, Hist. of the Kirk of Scotland, vii. 489, 493, 496, 505; A.D. Nicholls, Jacobean Union: A Reconsideration of British Civil Policies under the Early Stuarts, 130.

Even before the Parliament ended, the king wrote to Hamilton expressing pleasure at his handling of its affairs.88 Letters and State Pprs. During the Reign of Jas. VI, 340. However, Hamilton waited until returning to England before revealing the full extent of his accomplishments.89 State Pprs. and Misc. Corresp. of Thomas, Earl of Melrose ed. J. Maidment (Abbotsford Club, ix), 428. James was delighted, and furnished Hamilton with a written note approving of all that the marquess had done in his name during the time of the Parliament. He also ordered that Hamilton be paid £10,000 (Scots) out of the taxes voted by the Scottish Parliament,90 HMC Hamilton, i. 69; HMC Mar and Kellie, i. 111; Reg. PC Scot. 1619-22, p. 721. and, in October, made him part sharer in the new patent for the sole making and issue of copper tokens. However, if Hamilton’s stock at court had now risen, his reputation in Scotland, where the Five Articles were widely hated, had sunk.91 G. Burnet, Mems. of the Lives and Actions of James and William, Dukes of Hamilton and Castle-Herald, 1.

Hamilton attended the Westminster Parliament on 20 Nov., when it reopened for the second and final time. Once again he seems to have attended its meetings regularly, although he missed three consecutive business days towards the end of the session, when the king and the Commons became embroiled in a dispute over the source of the privileges of the lower House. The accuracy of the attendance record is open to question, however, for on 26 Nov., when he is shown as present in the Lords, Hamilton wrote a letter from Newmarket, to which town the king had retired.92 Tixall Letters ed. A. Clifford, 49.

Hamilton’s first recorded speech of the winter sitting was given on 27 Nov., when he called for one of the men involved in forging letters of protection to be banished. Three days later he proposed that the House examine the seizure by the crown of the papers of the lawyer John Selden^‡, who had been employed by the Lords to investigate the privileges of peers, and consider how to replace those documents that were missing. On 1 Dec., Hamilton, like many of his fellow peers, declared himself opposed to the Commons’ monopolies bill on the grounds that the measure ‘touches the king’s prerogative’. Hamilton spoke twice during debate on the complaint made by Sir John Bourchier^‡ against the lord keeper (John Williams^*, bishop of Lincoln). On the first occasion he sought to establish the precise status of Bourchier’s complaint after Lennox questioned the assertion of the 8th Lord Saye and Sele (William Fiennes^*, later 1st Viscount Saye and Sele), that it was an appeal. On the second he argued that Williams should be cleared of any wrongdoing, and suggested that Bourchier’s case be given a further hearing. The first part of his motion was uncontroversial, but the second was opposed by Prince Charles. This was the first time the two men disagreed with one another publicly and, perhaps not surprisingly, it was Charles’ view that prevailed. The following day Hamilton and the earl of Arundel were required to draw up Bourchier’s formal acknowledgement of his fault.93 LD 1621, pp. 96, 101, 104, 108, 116, 120.

Hamilton was appointed to only one legislative committee during the course of the winter sitting. This concerned a bill to prevent the import of Spanish tobacco, which measure had originated in the Commons.94 LJ, iii. 193b. This measure was designed to protect the interests of the Virginia Company. Indeed, in the Commons it had been steered through committee by the deputy governor of the Virginia Company, Sir Edwin Sandys^‡. So far as is known, Hamilton had no direct interest in this bill, but he may not have looked kindly upon it either. As one of the leaders of the newly formed New England Council, he was a member of a body which the Virginia Company came to regard as an unwelcome rival. Moreover, his sympathies were pro-Spanish rather than pro-French (France having repeatedly ignored his requests to be restored to the duchy of Châtelherault). By March 1622 he had entered into negotiations with Britain’s ambassador to Madrid, the hispanophile Sir John Digby^* (later 1st earl of Bristol), for a marriage between his daughter and Bristol’s eldest son.95 HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 116. For evidence of his anti-French views, see CSP Ven. 1621-3, p. 56.

The Spanish Match and the Parliament of 1624

Hamilton was dismayed by the angry dissolution of the Parliament and, like Pembroke, warned his fellow councillors that in time the error of abandoning the 1621 assembly would be imputed to the Council rather than the king. Nevertheless, he must have been pleased that the failure of the Parliament meant that James now had little alternative but to press ahead with negotiations for a marriage between Prince Charles and the Spanish infanta.

One of the chief supporters of a Spanish Match was Buckingham. Despite their earlier differences, Hamilton and Buckingham now worked together to reassure James that a Spanish marriage was the best way to regain the Palatinate.96 T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, ii. 287, 345. Before long this political alliance had given rise to thoughts of a more permanent arrangement, as Buckingham was eager to establish a formal connection between his family and Hamilton’s, the premier noble family of Scotland. He therefore proposed a marriage between his nine year-old niece, Mary Feilding, and Hamilton’s eldest son, the earl of Arran (James Hamilton^*, later 2nd earl of Cambridge and 3rd marquess of Hamilton). Hamilton, however, may have been secretly appalled at the prospect of uniting his family with that of Buckingham, who had only recently joined the ranks of the nobility. Certainly, his childhood friend, George Eglisham, later claimed that he detested the idea.97 Eglisham, 11-12. Unfortunately for him, though, the king declared himself in favour, and consequently, in June 1622, Mary and Arran were married in the royal bedchamber.

Following this wedding, Hamilton’s standing was enhanced. In July, with Buckingham’s assistance, he was made keeper of Holyroodhouse and park, and in February 1623 he was elected to the order of the Garter.98 HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 126; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 479. Moreover, while Buckingham controlled appointments to senior positions in the English administration, Hamilton now exercised patronage over Scottish appointments, to the dismay of Scotland’s lord treasurer, the earl of Mar, with whom he quarrelled. By October 1622 Hamilton was, in the words of one of his fellow countrymen, ‘very great’.99 HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 126, 140, 142, 149; Elphinstone Fam. Bk. ed. W. Fraser, i. 194-5.

It was therefore something of a shock to Hamilton to discover, in February 1623, that Charles and Buckingham had secretly departed for Spain to fetch the infanta. He was deeply hurt at being excluded from the prince’s inner counsels, as he later admitted in a letter to Charles: ‘such distress was I in, being jealous of your favour, that I longed to know the cause why I was used with so much distrust having my interest in your good some degrees more than most subjects’.100 Harl. 1581, f. 7. His first response, on hearing the news that Charles and Buckingham had left for Madrid, was to remonstrate with the king.101 CSP Ven. 1621-3, p. 582. However, he quickly realized that further protest was pointless, for later that month, Arran, in company with the latter’s father-in-law the 1st earl of Denbigh (William Feilding^*), set out with his blessing to join the prince and the favourite.102 Harl. 1581, f. 1. He nevertheless remained alarmed that he had been excluded from the decision-making process, and complained to Lord Keeper Williams that Buckingham no longer treated him as an intimate. Williams reassured Hamilton that his fears were groundless, as Buckingham had often mentioned to him how much he relied upon Hamilton to protect his interests. This claim was false, but to the fragile Hamilton, who complained that Buckingham’s letters were ‘wonderful short to me’, and who resorted to peering over the king’s shoulder in order to read Buckingham’s letters to James, it was nothing short of music to the ears.103 Harl. 7000, f. 121; Harl. 1581, f. 9; Letters of Jas. VI and I ed. G.P.V. Akrigg, 403.

In the short term, Hamilton may have been mollified by being installed as a knight of the Garter in April 1623. The following month he and several other leading nobles were dispatched to Southampton to make preparations for receiving the infanta.104 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 499, 501. That July he also attended the ceremony held in the Chapel Royal at which the king agreed to abide by the terms of the treaty agreed by Charles and Buckingham, now a duke.105 Diary of Sir Simonds D’Ewes, 1622-4 ed. E. Bourcier, 148; HMC Hatfield, xxii. 185.

In September 1623 Hamilton expressed the fear that Prince Charles would not be allowed to leave Spain. However, to his relief, the following month both Charles and Buckingham returned safely to England. It soon became apparent that the prince and the lord admiral were disgusted at the treatment they had received in Spain, and now realized that the Spanish had little intention of restoring Frederick V to the Palatinate even if Charles married the infanta. In December they persuaded the king of the necessity of summoning a Parliament to vote the funds needed to recover the Palatinate by force. James was nevertheless terrified at the prospect of holding another Parliament, and, to Hamilton’s dismay, proposed to make it impossible for two of the Commons’ most troublesome leaders, Sir Edward Coke^‡ and Sir Edwin Sandys, to be elected by pricking them as sheriffs. Together with Pembroke, Hamilton persuaded James that such a tactic would do more harm than good.106 CSP Ven. 1623-5, pp. 123, 182-3.

The opposition of Charles and Buckingham to the Spanish Match placed Hamilton on the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand, he had no wish to alienate the prince or the favourite, whom he had described in one of his letters as ‘your unalterable friend and servant’. For this reason he agreed, in January 1624, to approach the French ambassador to discover whether France might be amenable to a marriage alliance once the negotiations with Spain were ended. On the other hand, however, he remained so pro-Spanish that he, like the earl of Pembroke, told the Spanish ambassadors that he was attempting to overthrow the duke.107 PRO31/12/29 (dispatches of 8/18 Jan. and 29 Jan./8 Feb. 1624). Although the ambassadors understandably doubted the sincerity of this claim, it was clear that Hamilton had become disenchanted with Buckingham. When the special cabinet council (of which Hamilton was a member) voted on whether to proceed with the Spanish Match, Hamilton preferred to abstain rather than support the duke.108 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 542.

The opening of Parliament in February 1624 was delayed by the sudden and unexpected death of Lennox, the lord steward. A successor needed to be found straight away, as the lord steward was responsible for swearing in the newly elected Members of the Commons. James immediately chose Hamilton who, despite having been in England more than six years, had still not obtained high office. However, rather than have Hamilton serve merely for the duration of the Parliament (as he had in the case of Charles Howard^*, 1st earl of Nottingham, during the first two Jacobean assemblies) he decided upon a more permanent arrangement. On 18 Feb. he conferred the steward’s staff on Hamilton ‘not merely for this present necessity of Parliament, [but also] for the better government of his house’.109 ‘Ferrar 1624’, p. 11. This meant that Hamilton would not feel inferior to his predecessor, whose tenure of the stewardship had also been absolute. It also suggests that James, now at odds with both his son and the lord admiral over foreign policy, was keen to weaken Hamilton’s dependency on Buckingham and to strengthen the position of one of the leading hispanophiles at court.

When Parliament opened the next day, Hamilton arrived in state ‘in his chariot’110 Univ. of Kansas, ms E237, f. 93. and discharged the duties of his new office. At the same time, he was appointed by the crown one of the triers of petitions from James’s three kingdoms. Over the course of the ensuing session, he attended the Lords with great regularity. His only extended periods of absence were in late April, when he was present at the St. George’s day feast at Windsor, and in late May, during the final days of the meeting.

The start of the 1624 Parliament was dominated by Buckingham’s address to both Houses on the subject of the Spanish Match, which was given in the great hall at Whitehall. Hamilton, though not required to do so, manned the doors ‘with much trouble and pain’ to ensure that only Members of both Houses were admitted.111 ‘Ferrar 1624’, p. 24. The next day, though not recorded as present in the Journal, he helped introduce Buckingham to the House of Lords in his ducal robes.112 LJ, iii. 217b.

The determination of Charles and Buckingham to use Parliament to put pressure on the king to break with Spain meant that Hamilton could no longer sit on the fence. Consequently, over the next few months, he threw in his lot with the prince and the favourite. On 26 Feb. he was excused from attending the upper House,113 Ibid. 218b. which perhaps suggests that he accompanied Charles and Buckingham to Hampton Court for a meeting with the Spanish ambassadors. At this interview, the ambassadors accused Buckingham of misrepresenting the behaviour of Spain and her king in his recent address to both Houses.114 PRO31/12/29 (dispatch of 26 Feb./7 Mar. 1624). Despite his earlier enthusiasm for the Spanish Match, Hamilton regarded this accusation as unjustified. The following day he seconded the 2nd earl of Warwick (Robert Rich^*), who proposed that the Lords invite the Commons to join with them in clearing Buckingham’s name. Shortly thereafter, on 1 Mar., he supported the prince after Charles claimed that Spain, by proposing a marriage, had acted in bad faith. Like Charles, he also thought that the recovery of the Palatinate should be given a higher priority than the Spanish Match which, the prince claimed, had been pursued purely as a means of restoring the Elector Palatine. The only question to be resolved, he told the House, was whether to pursue the recovery of the Palatinate through friendship with Spain or by force.115 LD 1624 and 1626, pp. 3, 9, 15.

On 28 Feb. Hamilton was appointed to help search for precedents regarding the abrupt termination of treaty negotiations. The following day he was named to a further committee, proposed by Buckingham, to investigate the state of the realm’s munitions.116 LJ, iii. 236b, 237b. However, he dissented after the 2nd Lord Russell (Francis Russell^*, later 4th earl of Bedford) urged that no further licences to export ordnance be issued. Hamilton explained that, all the while foreign countries were able to import English artillery they would have no interest in manufacturing their own, but if the supply of English guns dried up they would make their own or buy from other sources, thereby depriving the English of valuable sales.117 LD 1624 and 1626, p. 15.

From the outset, Hamilton understood that it was essential for the Lords to gain the support and cooperation of the Commons. Indeed, on 27 Feb. he proposed ‘a resolution with the Commons’. On 2 Mar. he was appointed to the committee that, in association with representatives of the Commons, was to compile reasons for breaking off the Spanish marriage negotiations.118 Ibid. 6; LJ, iii. 242b. The Commons subsequently offered to assist the king financially in return for an end to the Spanish Match. On 12 Mar. Buckingham criticized this offer as too general, but he was reined in by Hamilton, who observed that the Lords should ‘not distrust’ the lower House. He too wished the Commons to be ‘more particular’, he declared, but he did not want to ‘give occasion to break the correspondency’ that had by now been established between the two Houses. Rather than quibble over the precise wording of the Commons’ offer, the Lords should ‘join with them’.119 LD 1624 and 1626, pp. 29-30. However, Buckingham continued to demand that the Commons give specific commitments in respect of subsidies, as the campaigning season was fast approaching. Once again it was Hamilton who urged patience: ‘not to press them before their own time for an answer, but pray a new conference’.120 LJ, iii. 284b; LD 1624 and 1626, p. 51.

One of the chief impediments to war with Spain was the opposition of the lord treasurer, Lionel Cranfield^*, 1st earl of Middlesex. Hamilton disliked Middlesex, a wealthy merchant who had only recently achieved office and noble rank. In April 1622 he had accused Middlesex of forgetting his social station; the following December the two men had quarrelled.121 Add. 72275, f. 133v; HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 144. The cause of their dispute is unknown, but it may have concerned the earl of Denbigh, father-in-law of Hamilton’s eldest son. Denbigh had succeeded Middlesex as master of the great wardrobe earlier in the year, only to discover that the lord treasurer had exaggerated the profits of this office in order to exact a higher purchase price from him. Moreover, as lord treasurer, Middlesex had refused to let Denbigh classify certain items of expenditure as extraordinary, as this would have involved additional payments by the crown. Instead, he classified them as ordinary, thereby eating into Denbigh’s profits and putting him into debt. Hamilton was therefore pleased when, in early April 1624, Buckingham’s clients in the Commons accused Middlesex of corruption.

Hamilton took a leading role in the parliamentary attack on Middlesex. After the beleaguered lord treasurer complained, entirely accurately, that there was a conspiracy against him, Hamilton proposed that he name those involved. Shortly thereafter, it having become clear that the Ordnance Office was poorly equipped to support a war with Spain due to the neglect and corrupt practices of the lord treasurer, Hamilton called for Middlesex to be formally charged.122 LD 1624 and 1626, pp. 61, 69. Added on 16 Apr. to the subcommittee for munitions (the body responsible for considering the charges against Middlesex), Hamilton was subsequently appointed to the committee for considering the lord treasurer’s defence.123 LJ, iii. 310b, 329a. On 7 May Hamilton revealed that Middlesex had misled Buckingham into believing that the profits arising from the great wardrobe were considerable. Four days later he described Middlesex’s speeches in his own defence as ‘uncivil’, and proposed that this particular offence be added to the list of charges against him. That same afternoon, he announced that Middlesex had refused to allow certain items on Denbigh’s accounts to be treated as extraordinary despite having admitted to the House that he knew them to be such. In this he was seconded by Denbigh himself.124 Add. 40088, ff. 51v, 73r-v

Middlesex’s impeachment reached its climax on 12 May, when the lord treasurer completed his defence. Middlesex made light of his misdemeanours, claiming that he had achieved substantial savings for the king. However, this argument carried little weight with Hamilton, who reminded the House that the lord treasurer had failed to file necessary accounts, had made ‘great gains’ and had obtained large New Year gifts by ‘extortion’ and in ‘ungentlemanlike manner’. Worse still, he had extorted bribes and was guilty of ‘deceit of trust reposed in him by the king’. Hamilton agreed that Middlesex’s lease of the farm of the sugars, worth £4,000, was in no way criminal, since the king had given it freely. However, he argued that the grant showed the ravenous nature of the man, as Middlesex had lined his own pockets when the king’s coffers were all but empty. The following day Hamilton poured scorn on Middlesex’s claim to have saved £10,000 annually from the budget of the royal Household, a subject dear to his own heart, since he was now lord steward. The effect of this saving, he declared, had been to leave the household short: ‘His Majesty had sometimes wanted part of his dinner had I not given credit’. Moreover, the saving was ‘rather a robbery’, since it had enabled Middlesex to get ‘many gifts to himself’.125 LD 1624 and 1626, pp. 74-5, 78-80, 85.

Hamilton not surprisingly favoured imposing a heavy punishment on Middlesex. His fine, he argued, should reflect both the severity of his faults and his ability to pay: ‘leave him wealthy, and you punish him not; he will laugh at us all’. The Lords subsequently laid a fine of £80,000 upon Middlesex, which sum was reduced to £50,000 following the intervention of Prince Charles. After sentence was passed, Hamilton and the 1st earl of Manchester (Henry Montagu^*) proposed that a committee of peers be appointed to inform the king of the House’s decision. He himself was named to this body.126 Ibid. 89, 91.

The prospect of war with Spain perhaps inevitably raised fears about the loyalty of England’s Catholic community, many of whom had been hoping for de facto toleration in the wake of the Spanish Match. Early in the Parliament, on 1 Mar., the 18th earl of Oxford (Henry de Vere^*) and the archbishop of Canterbury (George Abbot^*) proposed that papists be disarmed and confined, but Hamilton was among those peers who thought that these questions could wait until Parliament had decided whether to advise the king to break off the Spanish Match and prepare for war. Appointed on 3 Apr. to discuss the petition drafted by the Commons on the subject of recusants, Hamilton concurred with Prince Charles, who thought that the petition’s preamble should either be shortened, on the grounds that ‘we petition only for execution of laws already made’, or omitted altogether. On 14 Apr. he was among those peers chosen to present the petition to the king.127 Ibid. 14, 54; LJ, iii. 287b, 304a. Some weeks later, the Commons’ attention turned to recusant officeholders. Although Hamilton was named to the committee for considering this matter, he was uneasy at the list of names prepared by the lower House. Many of those included were merely reputed to be Catholic, or had married Catholics. He did not wish the Lords to join the Commons in presenting the king with such a petition, he said, nor did he favour Manchester’s suggestion, that the prince should do so instead. In his opinion, those councillors with seats in the lower House should be required to perform this task. In the event, Charles offered his services in a private capacity.128 LJ, iii. 393b, 397b; LD 1624 and 1626, pp. 99-100.

Hamilton was appointed to several bill committees during the session. Their subjects included the abolition of trial by battle; the pleading of the general issue); the earl of Oxford’s estate; the sale of Kenilworth Castle to Prince Charles; the abolition of monopolies; the levying of fines in the names of others; the continuance of expiring laws; and the assignment of debts. His opinion on most of these measures is unknown, and he was apparently absent when the committee for the expiring laws continuance bill was appointed. However, he probably supported the Kenilworth bill and certainly opposed the monopolies bill, which, he said, laid the Council open to the charge of praemunire. Hamilton also chaired the committee for the purveyance bill, a measure aimed at curbing abuses connected with taking up carts for the royal household. As lord steward, it is unlikely that he sympathized with this measure, which he reported with a recommendation that it form the subject of a conference with the Commons.129 LJ, iii. 248b, 253a, 253b, 267b, 276b, 288b, 303b, 306a, 384a, 398a; LD 1624 and 1626, p. 98.

The purveyance bill was not the only measure to come before the upper House in which Hamilton had a direct interest. Prior to his elevation to the English peerage in 1619, Hamilton had been awarded letters of denization by the king. However, unlike other Scots with English titles, he had not yet been naturalized by act of Parliament. To remedy this deficiency, a bill of naturalization was laid before the Lords on 8 April. Such was Hamilton’s standing that this measure completed its passage through both Houses within a week.130 LJ, iii. 295a, 296a, 304b; CJ, i. 767a; ‘Hawarde 1624’, p. 245; ‘Nicholas 1624’, f. 156v.

Towards the end of the session, Hamilton demonstrated that he was alert to the need to protect the privileges of the upper House. On 19 May Prince Charles and Lord Keeper Williams proposed that four of six complaints levelled against Thomas Stoke by Samuel Harsnett^*, bishop of Norwich, be referred to High Commission. However, Hamilton suggested instead that Harsnett’s complaints be referred in their entirety to High Commission, which should be required to report back, ‘otherwise we shall wrong our privileges by putting it quite from us’. Hamilton’s final recorded speech of the session was delivered on 24 May, when he announced that two men who had petitioned to have Middlesex’s lands made liable for their debts had missed the deadline set by the House.131 LD 1624 and 1626, pp. 96, 103.

Final months, 1624-5

Now that he had set his face against Spain, Hamilton joined Charles and Buckingham in attempting to secure alliances with both France and the Low Countries.132 CSP Ven. 1623-5, pp. 293, 302. Indeed, he was one of the signatories to the treaty of Southampton in September 1624. However, his relations with Buckingham once again became strained. According to his doctor and childhood friend George Eglisham, he enraged the duke by refusing to allow Arran to consummate his marriage with Mary Feilding, who was still little more than a girl, thereby leaving open the possibility of a future annulment. Instead, he intended to send his son to France and Italy, to ‘pass his time abroad until ... means were found to untie that knot’.133 Eglisham, 12. There is certainly some evidence to support Eglisham’s allegation, for in the late summer of 1624, Hamilton instructed his son to leave for France ‘with as much haste as you can’, and to wait for neither servants nor provisions.134 NRS, GD406/1/14. The document is undated, and has been mis-catalogued.

Hamilton’s refusal to comply with Buckingham’s wishes weakened his position at court. In December 1624 his earlier alarm that he was not at the heart of government resurfaced when he was excluded from the signing of the French marriage treaty.135 HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 216. Like Pembroke and Arundel, who had also been pushed to the margins, he responded by declaring that he wished to be made a duke, in order to enjoy parity once again with the favourite.136 CSP Ven. 1623-5, p. 511. For additional evidence of the strain in Hamilton’s relations with the duke, see ibid. 617.

Early in the New Year, Hamilton briefly supplied the place of Pembroke, who served as lord chamberlain, after the latter fell ill.137 Finetti Philoxenis (1656), 144. On 7 Feb. 1625 he pressed Middlesex for payment of the fine imposed on him by Parliament, for unless this money was received he would be obliged to move for his lands to be extended. He assured the former lord treasurer that his demand was not motivated by malice but by financial necessity. However, he could not resist reminding Middlesex that when the latter had controlled the Exchequer he had refused Hamilton’s request for money to feed the household, saying that the lord steward ‘might feed them on stones’.138 M. Prestwich, Cranfield, 474. Middlesex responded by complaining of hard usage, and claimed that Hamilton was seeking to ruin him and turn the king against him.139 CSP Dom. 1623-5, pp. 471, 476. However, by then Hamilton had almost certainly fallen seriously ill.

Hamilton attended his last Council meeting on 9 Feb.,140 APC, 1623-5, p. 453. and died at his lodgings in Whitehall in the early hours of the morning of 2 Mar. 1625. He succumbed, almost certainly, to acute haemorrhagic smallpox, the same disease that would later kill Mary II: at death his body was covered in lesions and spots, and swelled up to an enormous size.141 Birch, ii. 503; Add. 72276, f. 143. We are grateful for this suggested diagnosis to Frederick Holmes, emeritus prof. of medicine at the Univ. of Kansas. On the death of Mary II, see F. Holmes, Sickly Stuarts, 150. Hamilton’s demise so soon after the death of Lennox (and not long before that of the king) quickly gave rise to a widely held suspicion that the lord steward had been poisoned. This was despite the fact that two members of Hamilton’s household died a few days before the marquess of the same contagious disease, and that a post mortem examination had ruled out poisoning.142 Add. 72276, f. 143; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 604. Nevertheless, the poisoning theory was later given credence by Eglisham, who alleged that Hamilton had been murdered by Buckingham.143 Eglisham, 12-13. Eglisham also claimed that the duke had poisoned Lennox (who died of a brain haemorrhage) and James I (who died from a stroke).

As well as asserting that Hamilton was poisoned, Eglisham was responsible for allowing a Jesuit named Wood to administer extreme unction to the dying marquess. This permitted members of the Catholic community, of whom Eglisham himself was one, to crow that Hamilton had secretly been a papist.144 Stuart Dynastic Policy and Religious Pols. 1621-5 ed. M.C. Questier (Cam. Soc. 5th ser. xxxiv), 356-7; HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 225. However, the king, on hearing that Hamilton had received extreme unction, was furious, as he had never doubted the lord steward’s Protestant faith.145 CSP Ven. 1623-5, p. 621. So too was Hamilton’s close friend, Lucy Russell, countess of Bedford, who claimed that Hamilton, even after he was rendered speechless, ‘gave evident demonstration (being asked by his chaplain) that he believed [himself] to be saved by the merits of Christ’.146 Pvte. Corresp. of Jane, Lady Cornwallis ed. Lord Braybrooke, 128.

Hamilton’s body was conveyed by torchlight from Whitehall to his house in London on 9 March.147 HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 223. From there it was transported to Scotland. However, it was not until 2 Sept. that the burial took place, at Hamilton Palace. The funeral procession included a ‘Parliament horse’, and on the coffin were laid Hamilton’s baton as lord steward and the regalia of the order of the Garter. His Parliament robes were carried by one of the mourners.148 Anderson, 411, 412.

James was grief-stricken at the death of his kinsman; others, too, mourned his loss. Hamilton was widely held to have been honest, and was praised by the newsletter-writer John Castle as ‘a person of true nobleness, a round speaker and exceedingly devoted to the good and happiness of these kingdoms’.149 Cal. Wynn Pprs. 209; Add. 72276, f. 143. However, not everyone was saddened. In Scotland, Hamilton’s role in forcing through the Five Articles of Perth had not been forgotten, while the earl of Middlesex exulted that God had removed the chief fomenter of misunderstanding between himself and Buckingham.150 Calderwood, vii. 630; CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 490. Hamilton was succeeded by his eldest son, James, earl of Arran. Neither a will nor letters of administration have been found.