HATTON, Christopher (1605-70)

The Hatton family, originally from Cheshire, achieved prominence during the reign of Elizabeth I with the rise to fame of her lord chancellor, Sir Christopher Hatton^‡. Sir Christopher invested his considerable wealth in land in Cheshire, Dorset, Northamptonshire and several other counties, and at his death his estates were estimated to be worth £5,000 p.a. (though they were also encumbered with debts totalling some £40,000). Northants. RO, FH 814, 3713 A&B, cited in J.P. Wainwright, Musical Patronage in Seventeenth-Century England, 3. It was from a cadet branch of the lord chancellor’s family that the Lords Hatton descended. To them came many of the Northamptonshire lands, though only after protracted legal disputes following Lord Chancellor Hatton’s death. To these were added further estates in Essex, probably through the marriage of Sir Christopher Hatton (father of the subject of this piece) to Alice Fanshawe.

The Christopher Hatton who is the subject of this article formed part of an influential triumvirate in Northamptonshire, along with Mildmay Fane, 2nd earl of Westmorland, and Thomas Brudenell, later earl of Cardigan. The three men were noted for their patronage of the antiquarian William Dugdale and their interest in the arts, though Hatton’s friendship with the Catholic Brudenell did not prevent occasional disputes with him over land. Finch, Wealth of Five Northamptonshire Families, 156–7. Hatton sat for three parliamentary seats before being disabled in 1642. He appears to have been an inactive Member but succeeded in acquiring a clutch of minor offices and in 1643 was appointed comptroller of the royal household. CSP Dom. 1641–3, p. 507. An advantageous marriage to Elizabeth Montagu allied him to influential figures on both sides during the Civil War, including Edward Montagu^†, Baron Montagu of Boughton, and Edward Montagu, 2nd earl of Manchester. These connections offered a certain amount of protection for his estates during the conflict, in which he wholeheartedly supported the king. Despite this, by 1642 Hatton’s extravagant lifestyle meant that his debts had mounted to some £18,600. Northants. RO, FH 4106, cited in Wainwright, Musical Patronage, 11.

Hatton proved to be a prominent member of the royalist court at Oxford, where he surrounded himself with high churchmen such as Peter Gunning, later bishop of Ely, who became tutor to Hatton’s heir, and Jeremy Taylor. In 1643 he was elevated to the peerage but after the fall of Oxford three years later he begged leave to compound. On 30 Mar. 1647 his fine was set at £4,156, which was later reduced to £3,226. CCC, 1579–80. Faced with heavy financial strictures, by 1648 Hatton had settled in France, where suspicion of his true loyalties caused the council of state to order their agents to keep him under surveillance. CSP Dom. 1650, p. 54. He remained abroad for the next few years, though Lady Hatton lived in England for much of the interregnum. The family’s financial difficulties forced Lady Hatton to take drastic measures and by 1647 she had been obliged to order the felling of timber worth £2,000 in an effort to reduce the family’s debts. P.A.J. Pettit, Royal Forests of Northamptonshire, 118. Hatton associated himself initially with the exiled queen, Henrietta Maria, but disgruntled with the ‘pernitious’ influence of Henry Jermyn, Baron Jermyn (later earl of St Albans), he seems to have tried to associate himself with the party dominated by Edward Hyde, later earl of Clarendon, James Butler, marquess (later duke) of Ormond (later also created earl of Brecknock in the English peerage) and Sir Edward Nicholas^‡. However, he secured permission to return to England in 1656 and the following year he was granted permission to reside in London ‘for the recovery of his health’. He continued to indulge in scheming in the hopes of bringing about the king’s return. One of his more implausible plans involved the marriage of Charles II to the daughter of Colonel John Lambert^†. Nicholas Pprs. i. 90–91, 116; CSP Dom. 1656-7, pp. 16, 583; Evelyn Diary, iii. 191; Add. 29548, f. 14; CCSP, iv. 428; W.H. Dawson, Cromwell’s Understudy, 344. His son and heir, Christopher Hatton, later Viscount Hatton, was by far the more active, though, and he seems to have been responsible for securing the desertion to the royal cause of his cousin Edward Montagu, later earl of Sandwich. CCSP, iv. 278, 627; HP Commons, 1660–90, ii. 512.

At the Restoration Hatton found himself disappointed once again in his quest to secure high office. He petitioned unsuccessfully to be appointed treasurer of the household. Bodl. Carte 74, f. 301, cited in Wainwright, Musical Patronage, 20. His efforts to be advanced in the peerage as a viscount were also ignored, in spite of the existence of a warrant of 1649 authorizing the creation. Nicholas Pprs. ii. 213; Add. 15856, f. 84. In January 1661 he wrote to Hyde to complain of being ‘the single person of his father’s council unrestored’ by the new king. Even so, a further year elapsed before he was finally admitted to the Privy Council. Bodl. Clarendon 74, f. 60; Bodl. Rawl. D859, f. 42. In May 1661 he was informed that he had failed once again to get his way when the office of lord privy seal, which he was eager to secure and for which he was said to have had the support of James, duke of York, went to John Robartes, 2nd Baron Robartes (later earl of Radnor). Hatton’s eventual appointment as governor of Guernsey must have appeared a poor sop. Add. 29550, f. 400; Schoenfeld, Restored House of Lords, 150; Add. 29550, f. 400. Guernsey was an island seriously divided between differing factions and Hatton was not a good choice for the position. CSP Dom. 1670, p. 679; La Société Guernesiaise Reps. and Trans. xviii. 416. Such perceived slights precipitated another rupture with his former associate Hyde and help to explain Hatton’s increasingly ill-tempered behaviour during the final decade of his life. CCSP, v. 74–75.

Hatton took his seat in the House on 5 June 1660, after which he was present on 37 days (31 per cent of the whole). On 20 Aug. he was added to the committee considering the patent for creating Edward Somerset, marquess of Worcester, duke of Beaufort. Hatton may well have been interested in the business given his own efforts to have his advancement to a viscountcy confirmed. Ten days later he was named to the committee considering the bill for draining the great level of the fens and he was then named to three further committees during the remainder of the session. He returned to the House at the opening of the second session on 6 Nov., following which he was present on 87 per cent of all sitting days. On the first day of the session he was one of the peers appointed to introduce Hyde as a baron. Although he was nominated to seven committees, there is no evidence that he played an important role in them and there appears to be no particular pattern to those to which he was named. On 8 Dec. and again on the 13th he registered his dissent at the resolutions to engross and then to pass the bill for vacating Sir Edward Powell’s fines.

Hatton took his seat at the opening of the Cavalier Parliament on 8 May 1661. He was thereafter present on just under 60 per cent of all sitting days and was named to 14 committees. On 11 May, with Thomas Windsor, 7th Baron Windsor, later earl of Plymouth, he introduced Anthony Ashley Cooper, Baron Ashley (later earl of Shaftesbury), into the House, though neither peer is known to have been particularly close to Ashley. Haley, Shaftesbury, 150n. Hatton was reported as being opposed to Aubrey de Vere, 20th earl of Oxford, in his efforts to secure appointment to the office of lord great chamberlain on 11 July, and on the 17th, along with nine other peers, he protested again at the resolution to pass the bill vacating Sir Edward Powell’s fines. On 19 July he was named to the committee deliberating on the bill for preserving deer. The measure may have been of interest to him as the proprietor of Pipewell woods within Rockingham forest. Pettit, Royal Forests, 68. It may also have been significant that Hatton, a peer with prominent high church sympathies, was one of those named to the committee considering the Quaker bill on 26 November.

Hatton took his seat in the new session on 18 Feb. 1663, after which he was present on just 24 days (28 per cent of the whole). He was named to three committees. Excused at a call of the House five days into the session, he resumed his place a fortnight later and that summer was assessed among those thought likely to support George Digby, 2nd earl of Bristol, in his efforts to have Clarendon (as Hyde had since become) impeached.

The spring of 1663 saw Hatton eager to intervene in the by-election for Northampton on behalf of his son Christopher, who was standing at the invitation of Sir James Langham^‡. The alliance was an unlikely one as Langham represented the interests of the Dissenters and Christopher Hatton’s opponent was the sitting Member, his cousin Sir William Dudley^‡. Bad blood caused by a dispute over the wardship of Dudley’s nieces had rumbled on between the Hattons, Montagus and Dudley since 1652, which may in part explain Hatton’s willingness to stand against his cousin. Add. 29550, ff. 177, 188, 454. The election brought into question the very nature of Northampton’s franchise. Concerned that the mayor, Brayfield, was prepared to use sharp practice on Dudley’s behalf, Hatton wrote to him extolling his son’s virtues and reminding Brayfield of his own former services to the town, with promises of more to come should they support him. Northants. RO, FH 4084. In the event Hatton’s influence was not sufficient to sway the corporation, which was eager to challenge the limitations placed upon it in 1660. Dudley was elected, though Christopher Hatton later unseated him on petition. Kishlansky, Parliamentary Selection, 179.

Hatton failed to attend the House for over six years from 27 July 1663 until October 1669. His appointment to the governorship of Guernsey in 1662 explains this in part, though he did not take up his post immediately. CSP Dom. 1670, p. 670. Plans to depart in May 1663 were postponed and it was not until February of the following year that Hatton finally left England for his new command. Both the delay and his subsequent secretive departure appear to have been owing to his need to avoid his creditors. No doubt hoping that his new office would bring better fortune, Hatton quietly slipped out of England, leaving it to his ‘retainers to engage themselves’ on his behalf. Bodl. Rawl. D859, ff. 42, 47; Bodl. Tanner 47, ff. 66–67.

Arrival in Guernsey offered no respite to his problems and Hatton immediately set about making the worst possible impression. Over-zealous in his efforts to fulfil the king’s instructions to remove unqualified jurats, he proceeded to exploit his position to make what he could from it. Bodl. Rawl. A255, f. 11. Early enthusiasm for his appointment among some local notables quickly soured. Even before his arrival Hatton had taken a firm dislike to the lieutenant governor, Nathaniel Darell, and he appears to have cared little about alienating many of the remaining prominent citizens as well. Add. 29550, ff. 433–4; CCSP, v. 422, 427–8. He harangued the crowd and humiliated the jurats who had gathered to greet him, on one occasion describing them as ‘rebels’ and of forming ‘cabals to deliver the island to foreign princes’. F.B. Tupper, History of Guernsey and Its Bailiwick, 332. In one report he informed Clarendon that Dean Saumarez’s wife was a person of ‘so violent and imperious temper, heart and spirit that what was by him enacted at London was by her repealed in Guernsey’. In another despatch he complained that Guernsey was ‘the magazine of all contraband trade from England’ and that the people were ‘as extravagant in their ways as any savage nation’. Bodl. Clarendon 82, ff. 123–4, 233–4; CCSP, v. 446; Dawson, Cromwell’s Understudy, 422. Far from doing anything substantive to counter such problems, Hatton appears to have done all in his power to milk the island. CSP Dom. 1670, p. 681. He appropriated funds intended for the garrison and sold stock to the highest bidder. Dawson, Cromwell’s Understudy, 423.

Hatton’s new office once more brought him into contact with Lambert who was imprisoned on Guernsey. The renewed acquaintance led to further problems. Hatton apparently enjoyed a good relationship with his prisoner. It was reported by some that they were on such good terms that Hatton would have refused an order to execute the disgraced general, but the news that his younger son, Charles Hatton, had eloped with Mary Lambert caused him to descend into paroxysms of rage. Charles was cut off without a penny. CSP Dom. 1661–2, p. 600; Add. 29571, f. 31; CSP Dom. 1668–9, pp. 643–4. Hatton’s impatience with Darell eventually resulted in him imprisoning the unfortunate lieutenant governor and Darell was compelled to appeal to Hatton’s heir, Christopher, who also received petitions from other frantic inhabitants concerned at ‘the poverty of this island, and the great want of the soldiers’ pay’. Add. 29551, ff. 71, 73–74. By the time of Hatton’s recall, arrears of pay were reported to have risen to over £3,099. CSP Dom. 1670, p. 727.

Meanwhile Hatton’s own financial predicament had continued to worsen. In 1664 he conveyed the majority of his estate into the hands of trustees in an attempt to salvage his position but in 1665 at least four creditors petitioned the king and council for satisfaction of their debts. VCH Northants. v. 403; CCSP, v. 430; CSP Dom. 1665–6, p. 138. It was no doubt Hatton’s financial embarrassments that encouraged him to misappropriate the funds for his governorship. Hatton’s agents, George Jeffreys and Richard Langhorne, wrote continually to Hatton and his heir, Christopher, pleading for permission to settle affairs, the one fearful of being gaoled as a debtor on Hatton’s behalf, while the other vented his frustration at Hatton’s refusal to give him directions. Add. 29551, ff. 35, 159.

Increasingly fractured relations on Guernsey, combined with a petition against Hatton by Darell in May 1664, led to the decision to appoint Sir Jonathan Atkins deputy governor in November. CSP Dom. 1670, p. 692. This was thought by some not to ‘look handsomely’ for Hatton. Add. 29551, f. 105. The assessment was confirmed when Hatton was ordered to return to England a month later to explain the state of the island to the king. Tupper, History of Guernsey, 334. Intransigent to the last, Hatton refused to quit his government. CSP Dom. 1670 & Addenda, p. 698. He attributed the damning reports to his enemies seeking to supplant him with falsehoods and insisted that, although the two main factions on the island had united against him, he was ‘popular with the people’. CCSP, v. 430. Hatton was eventually prevailed upon to return to England the following spring and the government was left in the control of his deputy. Ibid. v. 479; CSP Dom. 1670 & Addenda, pp. 427, 699. He never returned to the island.

Back in England Hatton continued to deny the allegations against him. In July 1665 he complained to Clarendon of his hardships and demanded to be granted some form of recompense for his losses. Bodl. Clarendon 83, f. 174. Despite confident predictions by Windsor that Hatton would clear himself of wrongdoing, he failed to make any headway in securing redress. CCSP, v. 451, 479, 498; Add. 29551, f. 126. Although he was willing to believe that Hatton had not been guilty of malpractice, Clarendon had been vocally critical of Hatton’s management of the island and he accused him of encouraging nonconformists. CCSP, v. 451. Hatton’s efforts to patch things up with his former associate, including an offer of providing free paving stones and flowers for the gardens of the lord chancellor’s new residence, failed to make an impression. Dawson, Cromwell’s Understudy, 423. In January 1666 it was said that Hatton had ‘totally lost’ the government of Guernsey and Clarendon’s fall the following year ensured Hatton a lengthy period in the wilderness. Add. 29551, ff. 161–2.

Despite his early return to England, Hatton continued to avoid Parliament. For much of the rest of his life he lived in lodgings in London, making his extended absence difficult to explain. On 25 Sept. 1666 he entrusted his proxy to John Egerton, 2nd earl of Bridgwater, which was vacated by the close of the session the following year. He then covered his absence in the subsequent session by registering his proxy on 27 Nov. 1667 with John Granville, earl of Bath.

During this time Hatton was far from inactive and despite continual setbacks, to his deputy Atkins’s amazement, in April 1667 Hatton confidently predicted his imminent return to Guernsey. Tupper, History of Guernsey, 334n. His optimism proved misplaced and two years later he was still attempting to stage a comeback. CSP Dom. 1668–9, pp. 643–4. He remained certain of success but in the event all that he was able to achieve was to ensure that the reversion of the office was settled on his far more capable son Christopher after his death. Add. 29552, f. 191; CSP Dom. 1668–9, p. 652. Relations within the family also remained far from even. Christopher Hatton’s marriage to Lady Cicely Tufton in February 1667 appears to have provoked a quarrel between father and son over the marriage settlement and the portions intended by Hatton for his remaining children. Add. 29571, f. 44. With Hatton still £8,700 in debt, payment of Lady Cicely’s £5,000 portion was dependent on the remainder of the arrears being settled. Northants. RO, FH 2010, cited in Wainwright, Musical Patronage, 20.

Hatton returned to the House for the opening of the new session on 19 Oct. 1669, after which he was present on 72 per cent of all sitting days, though he was named to just three committees. He took his seat in the following session on 14 Feb. 1670 and was present on almost 88 per cent of all sitting days prior to the April adjournment. His increased activity in the chamber may have been part of his renewed attempts to clear his name from the Guernsey debacle and to secure permission to return to the island and resume his government there. Even so, at a call of the House on 21 Feb. 1670 he was absent without explanation and without having left his proxy. He resumed his seat the following day and was named to six further committees during the session. It was perhaps ironic that the first of these was the committee considering the bill for taking away benefit of clergy from robbers of cloth and the king’s stores. Hatton’s foolish decision to sell several pieces of ordnance to the French, among others, had been one of the reasons for his recall from Guernsey. Tupper, History of Guernsey, 365. The same day (17 Mar.) Hatton entered his protest over the decision to pass the bill enabling John Manners, styled Lord Roos (later duke of Rutland), to divorce. He sat for the last time just under a month later, on 11 Apr. 1670.

From 1665 until his death, Hatton appears to have been partially estranged from his family. Based in lodgings in Scotland Yard, he entertained himself with an extravagant lifestyle while his wife and son were left to cope with the estate. North, Lives, ii. 294. Lady Hatton complained of her husband’s unkind treatment of her. On those rare occasions when Hatton so much as spoke to her the event was news worthy of reporting. Add. 29571, ff. 70, 94. Hatton’s relations with his heir were little better. Add. 29552, f. 210. By the end of his life, however, he appears to have salvaged a settlement and he returned to Kirby, where Dugdale noted that he died on 5 July 1670. He was buried the following month in Westminster Abbey and succeeded in the peerage by his long-suffering son, Christopher, as 2nd Baron Hatton.