HATTON, Christopher (1632-1706)

Far more capable than his curmudgeonly father, Hatton’s promising early career was marred first by the changing political landscape after the accession of James II and then of William and Mary and second by his dire health. He inherited an estate in disarray, but during his tenure of the peerage he succeeded in restoring his family’s fortunes.

Hatton joined his father in exile in France in 1654 but he had returned within two years, after which he was implicated in royalist plotting. In this he was able to call upon an extensive family network. Through his mother, Hatton was cousin to Edward Montagu, 2nd earl of Manchester, and to Edward Montagu, 2nd Baron Montagu of Boughton. Other relatives included members of the influential Coventry family and Thomas Windsor, 7th Baron Windsor (later earl of Plymouth). Following the fall of Richard Cromwell^‡, Hatton was credited with helping to recruit another cousin, Edward Montagu, later earl of Sandwich, to the royalist cause. Although encouraged by the king to stand for election to the Convention and in spite of his assurances to Edward Hyde, the future earl of Clarendon, that he would ‘get chosen if possible,’ Hatton appears to have been reluctant to comply and he reported later that he had missed being returned. He maintained a steady correspondence with Hyde in spite of this disappointment and continued to recommend people worth cultivating. Among these was the wife of General George Monck, later duke of Albemarle, who he considered ‘would take it well to have encouragement from the king.’ CCSP, iv. 594-5, 665.

Hatton’s father was appointed governor of Guernsey in 1662 but he delayed his departure and was on hand in 1663 to exert his influence in the by-election for Northampton, at which Hatton was at last prevailed upon to stand by the previous sitting member, Sir James Langham^‡. Northants. RO, FH 4084. Hatton’s agreement to stand on Langham’s interest is curious given his own high church credentials, as Langham was a champion of the dissenting interest. Other support was more predictable. He secured nominations from James, duke of York, and his cousin, Montagu of Boughton. M. Kishlansky, Parliamentary Selection, 176. For his part Montagu protested that his interest in the town was ‘but little’, and he recommended that Hatton look instead to his cousin Manchester, who as recorder wielded real authority within Northampton. Despite such high profile support, Hatton was defeated by another kinsman, Sir William Dudley^‡, though he was eventually returned on petition. Hatton’s contested return offered him the opportunity of becoming acquainted with Heneage Finch, later earl of Nottingham, brother-in-law to another cousin, Henry Montagu, whom Montagu of Boughton hoped might be prevailed upon to be present at the committee for petitions when Hatton’s case was heard. Add. 29551, ff. 5, 18.

Hatton accompanied his father to Guernsey in 1664. When the Baron was recalled to answer charges of maladministration the following year, Hatton was left behind to manage affairs in his father’s absence. He had returned to England by February 1667 when he married Cicely Tufton, despite difficulties created by Lord Hatton in the settlement of his estate. Diaries of Lady Anne Clifford, ed. D.J.H. Clifford, 193; Add. 29571, f. 44. The marriage further strengthened Hatton’s already extensive family connections within the peerage, allying him with the Sackville family, earls of Dorset.

Governor of Guernsey 1670-84

Hatton succeeded to the peerage in July 1670. He came into an estate valued at £1,370 p.a., and was also awarded a pension of £1,000 p.a. in recompense for losses caused by his father’s extravagance. It was not until 1677 that he was eventually able to settle all of the issues arising from his father’s dubious accounting practices. HP Commons 1660-90, ii. 512; Longleat, Bath mss, Coventry pprs. 16, f. 285. He quickly moved to establish his claim to the reversion of the governorship of Guernsey, despite a rumoured offer of £14,000 to relinquish the office, and in September 1670 he arrived on the island to take command. Northants. RO, FH 1423. The lieutenant governor, Colonel Jonathan Atkins, viewed Hatton’s precipitate arrival with some distaste and pointedly refused the new governor any of the traditional trappings of welcome. Hatton Corresp. (Cam. Soc. n.s. xxii) 56. Atkins’ own regime had become increasingly unpopular and Hatton secured a swift revenge, ordering his immediate removal from the island. He justified the decision by accusing Atkins of several counts of malpractice, appropriately many of them reminiscent of the charges formerly levelled at his father. F.B. Tupper, Hist. of Guernsey and its Bailwick, 371. Hatton remained on Guernsey until November and then left in time to take his seat in the House on 24 November.

Hatton’s duties on Guernsey meant that he was often absent from the mainland when Parliament was in session but he was present on 70 per cent of all sitting days in his first session as a peer. On 6 Dec. he was named to the committee considering an act for settling an agreement between Sir William Smith, Sir Thomas Hooke and others and on 12 Dec. to that considering the bill for discovering those that had defrauded the poor of the City of London. He was named to no further committees until January 1671 when he was named to those considering the assault on the lord steward, James Butler, duke of Ormond [I], and that scrutinizing a bill to settle the affairs of Charles Talbot, 12th earl (later duke) of Shrewsbury. Hatton was acquainted with at least one of Shrewsbury’s trustees, Mervin Tuchet, later 14th Baron Audley (earl of Castlehaven [I]), which may explain his inclusion. Hatton was named to a further eight committees in February and March, among them that concerning the bill to prevent the growth of popery, to which all present in the chamber were nominated.

From the summer of 1671 until early 1674 Hatton was in permanent residence on Guernsey and, consequently, absent from the House. Once there he immediately began an extensive programme of fortification concentrated on the bastion of Castle Cornet in St Peter Port. CSP Dom. 1671-2, p. 385. In spite of his more diplomatic demeanour, like his father Hatton soon fell foul of the factional nature of island politics finding himself trapped between the influential Andros family and their rivals the de Beauvoirs and Careys. A disputed election over a new jurat necessitated the king’s intervention, while arguments concerning the quartering of troops encouraged renewed infighting. CSP Dom. 1671, p. 492; 1672, pp. 531-2. Such disputes were temporarily silenced in December 1672 following the destruction of a large part of Castle Cornet in a massive explosion. Hatton himself escaped miraculously, being catapulted out of his chamber and onto the battlements, but both his wife and mother were killed. Verney ms mic. M636/25, C. Gardiner to Sir R. Verney, 5 Jan. 1673; Sir R. Verney to E. Verney, 6 Jan. 1673; Add. 29584, f. 10.

In the aftermath of the disaster Hatton was allowed little respite. With its principal garrison in ruins, the island was in even greater straits over the unwelcome quartering of troops. Hatton expended over £1,243 on repairing Castle Cornet and difficulties with the Andros family continued to escalate. CSP Dom. 1673-5, p. 238. Pressure of affairs in Guernsey made it impossible for Hatton to return to England for the new parliamentary session and in February 1673 he registered his proxy with Henry Bennet, earl of Arlington. Intriguingly, the proxy book records the proxy as having been entered on 1 Feb. while a copy of Hatton’s order entrusting the proxy to Arlington is dated five days later. Northants. RO, FH 1863. The following year found Hatton further disadvantaged on Guernsey with the appointment of William Sheldon as lieutenant governor. His authority was eroded still more when a dispute over the election of bailiffs on the island was decided against him. Tupper, 377.

Hatton returned to England in 1675 in time to take his seat at the opening of the new session on 13 April. It is perhaps indicative of his relative inactivity in the House, and also perhaps of a late resolution to attend, that shortly before the session opened he attempted, unsuccessfully, to borrow his cousin Montagu of Boughton’s robes for the occasion. Add. 29555, f. 106. Although present on over 90 per cent of all sitting days Hatton was named only to four committees. He then took his seat in the subsequent session on 13 Oct. but was present on just over half of all sitting days before quitting the session ten days before the close. His early departure may have been to prepare for his forthcoming wedding to Frances, the daughter of Sir Henry Yelverton, on 21 December. Marriage to the new Lady Hatton brought Hatton less money than his agents had advised that he needed, and she proved to be a difficult woman, frequently at loggerheads with Hatton’s brother, Charles. Northants. Past and Present, iii. 257. The connection did, though, strengthen his ties with the Finch family and especially with Daniel Finch, the future 2nd earl of Nottingham. The trustees named in the marriage settlement offer further evidence of Hatton’s close associates. Predictably, his Montagu cousins Robert Montagu, 3rd earl of Manchester, and Montagu of Boughton were among them, as were Windsor, Francis Brudenell, styled Lord Brudenell and Tuchet. Northants. RO, FH 3101.

Hatton managed to cast off an attack of giddiness that seems to have left him very unwell at the close of 1676 and took his seat once more at the opening of the sixteenth session on 15 Feb. 1677. Add. 29557, f. 429. Although he was present on just 58 per cent of all sitting days, he appears to have taken a far greater interest in the committee work of the House at this time. Named to the committees for privileges and petitions, on 19 Feb. he was also nominated to the committee examining the bill for preventing frauds and perjuries. The following day he was named to the committee considering a bill for Robert Bruce, earl of Ailesbury, and that concerning the bill for augmentations to small vicarages. On 22 Feb. he was named to the committee examining a bill for his cousin, Manchester, and on the same day he was also named to the committee concerning the bill to explain the act concerning Popish recusants. Hatton was named to a further 24 committees during the remainder of the session. He seems to have taken an active role in managing the committee for the bill for settling a maintenance on the vicar of All Hallows, Northampton, chairing the uncontroversial meeting at which it was ordered that the bill should be reported without amendments. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/3, f. 187. The House then resolved to pass the bill on 7 April.

Hatton was absent from the chamber for over a month between 10 Apr. and 21 May but he was kept apprised of events in Parliament by his brother Charles. Add. 29571, f. 388. Hatton’s closer concern with affairs in Parliament may have been in part owing to his involvement in a dispute with his former tutor, Peter Gunning (now bishop of Ely) over the payment of a rent charge of £100 out of Hatton Garden. Ely proved to be an unpredictable opponent. A meeting between him and Charles Hatton found Bishop Gunning at first ‘short and quick in his discourses’ but on discovering that Hatton wished to avoid a lengthy legal process if possible, ‘sweet and tractable.’ Even so, the dispute ground on beyond the bishop’s lifetime and was not resolved until 1691. Northants. RO, FH 4350; Add. 29555, ff. 429, 478.

Although Hatton was sufficiently identified with the court party to be marked doubly vile by Anthony Ashley Cooper, earl of Shaftesbury, in 1677, the following year he exercised his interest on behalf of the country candidate, Miles Fleetwood^‡, at the by-election for Northamptonshire. Personal affection for Fleetwood and willingness to concur with the desires of his kinsman, Charles Yelverton, 14th Baron Grey of Ruthin, appear to explain Hatton’s decision on this occasion. He returned to Guernsey soon after and entrusted his proxy to Robert Bertie, 3rd earl of Lindsey, on 26 Feb. 1678. The proxy expired with the close of the session on 13 May. Hatton remained absent from the House for the final two sessions of the Cavalier Parliament despite efforts made on his behalf by Grey of Ruthin to achieve his recall. Add. 29556, f. 431, Add. 29566, f. 427. Attempts by one of Hatton’s servants to foment bad blood between his master and Hatton’s Northamptonshire neighbour, Robert Brudenell, 2nd earl of Cardigan, only served to emphasize Hatton’s reputation as a fair man. Hatton generously offered that Cardigan should resolve the issue, though Cardigan, ‘knowing how we are all inclinable to partiality in our own causes’ declined and instead referred the matter to the arbitration of Montagu of Boughton. Northants. RO, FH 2763.

Revelations of the Popish Plot during that year touched Hatton and his family nearly as one of their closest confidantes, Richard Langhorne, was arrested and charged with treason. As well as serving the Hattons, Langhorne was also lawyer to the Jesuits in England. Recusant Hist. xix. 499. His faith had previously brought him under suspicion at the time of the Great Fire, though on that occasion he had been exonerated. Northants. RO, FH 2478. Thomas Langhorne attempted to seek Hatton’s interposition on his brother’s behalf, but Charles Hatton warned that, ‘though your lordship and twenty more should intercede, there would be no good done thereby in the condition the city and nation are in.’ Although both Charles Hatton, and the family’s other lawyer, William Longueville, visited Langhorne in prison, Hatton himself failed to intervene, and he appears to have avoided London for the duration of Langhorne’s ordeal. M. Blundell, Blessed Richard Langhorne: Layman – Martyr, 16; Hatton Corresp. i. 182. Another family friend, Chief Justice Sir William Scroggs, presided over the unfortunate Langhorne’s trial in the summer of 1679, when he was found guilty and sentenced to death. HJ, xxxviii. 850. Hatton acted as a trustee for Langhorne’s widow Elizabeth and their children, the latter of whom Langhorne was eager to free from what he believed to be the unsuitable influence of his Protestant wife. This did not imply that Hatton himself was anything other than a firm Anglican. CSP Dom. 1679-80, p. 232.

As in 1678, Hatton found himself divided between family loyalty and loyalty to his political associates during elections to the first Exclusion Parliament in February 1679. Rumours that he was to support his cousin Ralph Montagu, later duke of Montagu, elicited a cautionary letter from Sir Charles Lyttelton^‡ warning Hatton that such actions would cause both the king and Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby (later duke of Leeds) ‘great offence’. Hatton Corresp. i. 173. Hatton took his seat on 3 Apr. 1679, the day before he joined with Ailesbury and Lindsey in subscribing the protest against Danby’s attainder, and on 10 May he entered a further protest at the failure to pass the resolution for establishing a committee to confer with the Commons about the trials of the lords in the Tower. He was named to no committees during the Parliament.

Hatton’s family continued to be closely affected by the Plot’s revelations and in November 1679 his cousin, Lady Powis, was sent to the Tower. Hatton appears to have returned to his government of Guernsey in 1680 but in August he received a letter from Danby acknowledging his support in the previous Parliament and hoping that he would be able to return to England for the new session. Add. 29558, ff. 70-71. Hatton duly returned to the House shortly after the opening of the new Parliament on 29 October. Present on almost 64 per cent of all sitting days, although he continued to sit until the dissolution on 10 Jan. 1681, he was named to just one committee, that concerning the bill to outlaw the import of Irish cattle. Inactivity in committees did not mean that Hatton was idle during the session; John Fell, bishop of Oxford, commented to Lady Hatton on 16 Nov. that Hatton and the rest of the Lords had been confined for more than 12 hours the previous day considering the Exclusion bill. Add. 29582, f. 3. Perhaps influenced by the experience of Langhorne’s execution, the following month Hatton found William Howard, Viscount Stafford, not guilty of involvement in the Plot. No bitterness appears to have been attached to Scroggs’ involvement in Langhorne’s conviction, though, as Hatton and Charles Sackville, 6th Earl of Dorset and Middlesex, agreed to stand surety of £5,000 for the former lord chief justice in January 1681. Hatton’s brother, Charles, was rumoured to be courting Scroggs’ daughter, which may have been a more immediate reason for their willingness to assist him. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. ii. 262; Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 1, Box 1, folder 4, Tempest to Poley, 7 Jan. 1681; Hatton Corresp. i. 162-3.

Hatton took his seat in the new Parliament at Oxford one day after the opening on 22 Mar. 1681. He sat for its remaining six days without making any significant contribution but clearly remained an opponent of Exclusion. A letter of January 1682 from James, duke of York, at Edinburgh thanked Hatton for his assurances of ‘steadiness’ on his behalf, and he declared that, ‘If others had followed your example, things had not been in the condition they are, nor I here; but wheresoever I am, you may depend upon my being a true friend to you.’ Hatton Corresp. ii. 14. The same month Hatton was reported to have been engaged in suppressing conventicles in Northamptonshire and levying fines on those involved. Bodl. Tanner 36, f. 218.

Hatton’s staunch loyalty was rewarded with a step in the peerage early the following year. A warrant of 1649 advancing his father to a viscountcy had failed to pass the Great Seal; 33 years later, the promotion was at last confirmed, in spite of Hatton’s own apparent disinclination to pursue the honour. CSP Dom. 1682, p. 583. Nottingham may have influenced this promotion as well as Hatton’s earlier appointment as custos rotulorum for Northamptonshire. Rumours that Henry Mordaunt, 2nd earl of Peterborough, had died led to some speculation that Hatton would succeed him in the county lieutenancy as well, but this proved not to be the case. Add. 29559, f. 339; Add. 29594, f. 1; Add. 29584, ff. 47, 49. In May Hatton was further honoured when he was one of those awarded with the degree of DCL at Oxford.

Hatton returned to Guernsey in 1683 but he quit the island for the final time in April 1684 leaving the government in the hands of his brother Charles. Add. 41803, f. 35. The following month his wife died from smallpox. Verney ms mic. M636/38, J. to Sir R. Verney, 15 May 1684. Hatton was soon encouraged to marry again, although Bishop Fell, with whom he was on close terms, expressed concern at Hatton remarrying before a suitable period of mourning was completed. Fell comforted himself that there was at least no suggestion that Hatton kept ‘a miss, or complied with the fashionable vices of the age.’ Add. 29561, ff. 25-26; Add. 29583, f. 51.

James II and the Revolution, 1685-89

The accession of James II appeared initially to favour Hatton and his family. Following the death of his late wife Hatton had remained closely involved with the education of her brothers, Henry Yelverton, 15th Baron Grey of Ruthin, and Christopher Yelverton. In the spring of 1685 Hatton interested himself closely in securing Grey of Ruthin’s claim to the barony of Grey against the pretensions of Anthony Grey, 11th earl of Kent. HMC Dartmouth, 124. Grey’s right to the peerage was confirmed and, following further intervention from Hatton, he was permitted to carry the spurs at the king’s coronation. Add. 29582, f. 247. He was also granted a writ of summons even though he was less than 21 years of age. Beinecke Lib. Osborn mss fb. 190/3 L.178. In July Hatton was approached by his distant cousin Brian Cokayne, Viscount Cullen [I], to use his interest with the king to prevent Cullen’s son from suffering the disgrace of having his troop disbanded. Hatton was less successful in his efforts to secure the return of the court candidates, Sir John Egerton and Sir Roger Norwich^‡, for the county seats at the 1685 general election. Add. 29561, f. 182, Add. 29582, f. 243. Many of Hatton’s tenants opted to support the opposition candidates and Egerton withdrew before the poll. Following a typically fractious election, Norwich was returned with the mild Tory Edward Montagu of Horton^‡. HP Commons 1660-90, i. 336. Hatton’s brother-in-law, Christopher Yelverton, was unsuccessful at Higham Ferrers, in spite of his expectations of Hatton’s support and confident predictions that he had secured very nearly half of the votes. In addition to these reverses, Hatton continued to find himself troubled by the dispute with Bishop Gunning over the settlement of Hatton Garden. Fell attempted to conciliate Hatton by assuring him that though Gunning was ‘faulty by his endless uncertainty’, he should not be ‘thought guilty of artifice where he had none.’ Add. 29561, f. 462, Add. 29583, f. 178.

Hatton took his seat at the opening of the new Parliament on 19 May, when he was introduced in his new dignity, after which he continued to attend on 93 per cent of all sitting days. During the summer adjournment, Hatton married for the third time. The new Lady Hatton, daughter of another Northamptonshire neighbour, had at one point been considered as a possible match for Grey of Ruthin. Grey had also been rumoured to be likely to marry Hatton’s daughter, Anne, but in the event she was married to Nottingham (as Daniel Finch had since become) with a dowry of £10,000. Morrice, iii. 101; Add. 29582, f. 278; Rev. Pols. 42; TNA, PRO 30/53/11/31, A. Newport to Herbert of Chirbury, 29 Dec. 1685. The match between Anne Hatton and Nottingham was achieved through the interposition of Fell and Hatton’s aunt, Lady Anne Grimston. Nottingham was thereafter to prove one of Hatton’s staunchest allies. Add. 29582, f. 5; Horwitz, 41-42; HMC Buccleuch, i. 344. Their close association did not prevent them from becoming embroiled in a dispute the following year arising out of the new Lady Hatton’s marriage settlement. Northants. RO, FH 830. On Bishop Fell’s death in 1686, Hatton was one of the beneficiaries of his will, being left two portraits ‘as a memorial of his poor friend.’ TNA, PROB 11/385. The following January Hatton was summoned to give evidence in the trial of Henry Booth, 2nd Baron Delamer, for treason. Northants. RO, FH 2572.

For all the early indications that Hatton and his family could expect continued favour under the new regime, in the summer of 1685 his brother, Charles, was displaced as lieutenant governor of Guernsey by the Catholic, Charles Maccarty. This may have contributed to Hatton’s growing disillusionment with James’s policies, which was reflected in a series of forecasts drawn up over the next few years. A staunch adherent of the Church of England, in May 1687 Hatton was listed as being opposed to the king’s policies and while he was noted as being undeclared on the subject of repeal of the Test Act that November, it seems reasonable to assume that he would not have supported such a move. The same year he was involved in a dispute with the dean of St Paul’s over his plans to build a new church in Hatton Garden. Henry Compton, of London, appears to have supported Hatton’s project, wishing that ‘there were more such good works begun.’ Hatton Corresp. ii. 71.

The events of December 1688 found Hatton in something of a quandary. His brother-in-law, Grey of Ruthin, joined Bishop Compton’s rising in the Midlands though he was careful to hide his intentions from Hatton. Add. 29563, f. 395. Compton appears to have attempted to recruit Hatton as well, stopping at Kirby during his perambulations in the summer of 1688. Hatton Corresp. ii. 86. Hatton chose to pursue a less risky strategy and waited out events. If he was reluctant to join the rebels, he was also unwilling to rally to the king and was notable as the only officer in the regiment commanded by Theophilus Hastings, 7th earl of Huntingdon, to refuse to contribute to the fortification of Plymouth, excusing his inaction on the grounds of ill health. Beinecke Lib. Osborn mss fb.190/3 L.237. He then delayed travelling to London until the issue was all but decided and in spite of Nottingham’s communications urging him to abandon Kirby, which he believed was likely to lie in the path of a marauding northern army. Hatton Corresp. ii. 101-6, 111, 123, 127. Hatton’s lead was closely followed by his Northamptonshire neighbour, Charles Fane, 3rd earl of Westmorland. Add. 29563, f. 372. Hatton finally bowed to the inevitable and presented himself at one of the hastily assembled meetings in London on 21 December. He was then present in the House of Lords the following day and at the two subsequent sessions on 24 and 25 December. Kingdom without a King, 124, 158, 165. By this time he appears reluctantly to have accepted the Revolution, though he preferred a solution to the crisis short of settling the throne on the prince and princess.

Hatton took his place in the Convention on 22 Jan. 1689, after which he was present on a fifth of all sitting days. On 31 Jan. he voted against the insertion of the words declaring William and Mary king and queen and on 4 Feb. he voted against agreeing with the Commons’ use of the word ‘abdicated’. The same day he was named to the committee for drawing up reasons for the Lords’ refusal to concur with the Commons on that issue. He was then one of a clutch of peers to absent himself from the House for the subsequent division on 6 February. It was to their failure to attend that Henry Hyde, 2nd earl of Clarendon, blamed the Lords’ subsequent agreement to give way to the Commons on the question of abdication. Ibid. 202; Clarendon Corresp. ii. 261. He resumed his place on 8 Feb. and was then present on 19 occasions before absenting himself again for the whole of April. He attended on just two days in May before taking his place on a further six occasions before the close. On 17 June he was one of a number of officials requested to attend a meeting in the Prince’s lodgings the following day to consult about an address relating to the Isle of Wight and islands of Jersey, Guernsey and other dependencies, which was then reported to the House by Bridgwater. Royal Society, ms 70, pp. 77-78. Pleading ill health as the reason for his poor attendance of the House in the latter stages of the Convention, Hatton entrusted Nottingham with his proxy on 20 July 1689, which expired at the close of the session on 20 August. Nottingham exercised the proxy on 30 July to vote in favour of adhering to the Lords’ amendments to the bill for reversing the perjury judgments against Titus Oates.

Selling Guernsey, 1689-1702

Despite his lukewarm reception of the new regime, Hatton appears not to have suffered for his cautious approach. He remained influential enough to ensure that his candidate for the vacant office of deputy governor of Guernsey, Bernard Ellis, secured the post, in spite of the efforts of both the king and Fell’s nephew, William Lloyd, then bishop of St Asaph, to press the claims of Captain Sidney Godolphin^‡, ‘a very honest man and very fit for employment’. Godolphin was eventually appointed lieutenant governor of the Scilly Isles instead. Hatton himself appears not to have returned to Guernsey, claiming to be too ill to travel to his governorship, though his brother Charles insisted that his presence was required to calm the revival of old feuds on the island. Add. 29584, f. 74, Add. 29573, f. 250. Hatton failed to attend the second session of the Convention but he ensured that his proxy was again entrusted to Nottingham on 30 October. It was vacated at the close of the session on 27 January 1690.

Although Hatton appears to have suffered genuinely from poor health, this did not prevent him from being eager to continue to exercise his influence in Northamptonshire. although his interest in the 1690 election, however, was adversely affected the activities of a number of members of his circle, including Sir Justinian Isham’s^‡ decision to stand bail for the Jacobite Edward Griffin, Baron Griffin. Northants. RO, IC 1443; Add. 29594, f. 194. In June Hatton was more nearly affected when Charles Hatton was summoned before the Privy Council to explain his authorship of a pamphlet criticizing the Revolution settlement and was imprisoned in the Tower. Hatton appears to have made a concerted effort to distance himself from his brother at this juncture and to have been remarkably unwilling or unable to rally to Charles Hatton’s cause in spite of appeals from his sister-in-law and Lady Nottingham. Hatton Corresp. ii. 151-3, 159-61. Charles Hatton remained imprisoned until February of the following year.

Having failed to attend the first session of the Parliament of 1690, Hatton returned to the chamber for the second session on 15 Nov., after which he was present on just under 32 per cent of all sitting days. The following year the family’s long-standing dispute with the bishops of Ely was finally resolved by a private act settling Hatton Garden in Middlesex on Hatton and his heirs subject to their paying a fee farm rent of £100 to the bishop and his successors. PA, HL/PO/PB/1/1691/3W&Mn6. Hatton took his seat in the third session on 28 Nov. 1691 but he sat on just six occasions before quitting the chamber for the last time on 4 Dec. 1691. That month he was listed in an assessment compiled by William George Richard Stanley, 9th earl of Derby, among those believed to be doubtful with regard to his efforts to recover lands lost during the Interregnum. Lancs. RO, DDK 1615/9.

In the spring of 1692 it was reported that Hatton, feeling the effects of advancing age, intended to resign his office at Guernsey. Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 433. By now Hatton appears to have been suffering from chronic ill health, though some commentators clearly believed that his ailments were primarily diplomatic. With Hatton unwilling or unable to resume his duties on Guernsey, Charles Mordaunt, earl of Monmouth (later 3rd earl of Peterborough), was appointed commander in chief of the island during the governor’s continuing absence. Hatton’s indisposition did not prevent him continuing to attempt to improve his financial position. In June he claimed to have discovered valuable mines on his lands, though the supposedly precious stones turned out to be of questionable value. Add. 29574, ff. 38, 59, 73; CSP Dom. 1691-2, p. 234. In November of the same year Hatton stood as a trustee for his brother-in-law Christopher Yelverton at the request of Viscount Longueville (as Grey of Ruthin was now styled). Add. 29568, f. 160.

In 1693 Monmouth entered into negotiations with Hatton in the hopes of purchasing the governorship of Guernsey from him, but although Hatton professed himself willing to sell the post as his ‘age and infirmities’ meant that he was no longer well enough to administer it, Monmouth was unable to offer the £1,000 p.a. that Hatton demanded. Add. 29595, f. 1; Add. 29574, f. 167. Hatton’s ability to reject Monmouth’s offer may have been in part owing to his acquisition of the estate of Henry Fanshawe, 3rd Viscount Fanshawe [I], during that year. Fanshawe had left his lands to Hatton’s sister Alice but in 1693 she transferred them to her brother. They were eventually resold to Simon Fanshawe, 5th Viscount Fanshawe [I], by Elizabeth, dowager Lady Hatton, in 1714 for £1,898. H.C. Fanshawe, Hist. of the Fanshawe Family, 121.

Hatton’s continuing absence from London and the House may have weakened his political position. In the summer of 1693 he was one of a minority of Northamptonshire grandees who did not attend the meeting at Althorp, not being, as his brother noted, ‘much addicted to caballing.’ His failure to participate in the gathering and his continuing attachment to Nottingham left him vulnerable but in spite of such marginalization he retained considerable interest. When the protracted case of Montagu v. Bath was decided in chancery in favour of the latter that December, Montagu appealed to the House of Lords. Expressing the hope that he would be well enough to attend in his support, Montagu also requested that Hatton use his influence with Nottingham on his behalf. Hatton remained too ill to rally to his cousin’s cause and in February 1694, despite ‘all the eminent speakers except the Lord of (Rochester Laurence Hyde, earl of Rochester)’ supporting Montagu, the case was decided, again, in favour of John Granville, earl of Bath. Add. 29574, ff. 216, 257, 276.

Reports circulated early in 1694 that Hatton was to return to his post at Guernsey, following a peremptory summons, but they proved to be untrue. Add. 29574, f. 296. With Hatton’s continuing absence from Parliament at the close of the year, Nottingham approached him in the hopes of acquiring his proxy for use in the forthcoming vote on the treason trials bill. Although Hatton appears not to have agreed wholeheartedly with Nottingham on this issue, it is a measure of how closely they were allied that he returned Nottingham his proxy within a week with instructions on how it was to be employed. Despite this, the proxy seems not to have been formally registered. A newsletter of the same month reported Hatton’s return from Guernsey on 26 Dec., but this is most likely an error, perhaps confusing him with his brother Charles. Add. 29595, ff. 68, 72, 74; CSP Dom. 1695, p. 303.

Continuing non-residence may have fuelled speculation in 1696 that Hatton was to be put out of his governorship. In February he was noted among those who had failed to subscribe the Association, though Nottingham assured him that he had been able to persuade the House not to demand Hatton’s attendance as he was unable to undergo the journey to London. Moves to render those unwilling to sign the Association incapable of holding office soon after appear to have persuaded Hatton to make an effort to comply and on 17 Apr. he communicated his willingness to subscribe. Although he remained unable to attend the House in person to sign, his letter was accepted as sufficient evidence of his good will. HMC Lords, n.s. ii. 206-8, 213; Add. 29595, ff. 96, 106, 110; Add. 29566, f. 199. Hatton’s failure to answer his summons in November was treated with less patience and along with several other peers unwilling to attend during the trial of Sir John Fenwick^‡, he was ordered to be arrested and brought up to town. Luttrell, iv. 144; Add. 29574, f. 527; HMC Lords, n.s. ii. 263. A frantic round of appeals and the intervention of Nottingham, his brother Charles Hatton ‘and other friends’ eventually persuaded the Lords that Hatton’s illness was not illusory and he was granted leave to be absent once more. Add. 29595, f. 118; Add. 29574, ff. 526-7, 531; Northants. RO, FH 2910A, 2911; Add. 29566, ff. 348, 352.

In February 1697 Hatton was approached once again, this time by Monmouth’s brother, Harry Mordaunt^‡, about selling the governorship of Guernsey. Like his brother, Mordaunt was unable to offer sufficient compensation. Add. 29566, ff. 355-7. Despite his permanently bedridden condition, Hatton appears to have remained reluctant to divest himself of his office and eager to exert his influence even if from a distance. The death of dean de Saumarez in Guernsey precipitated a complicated struggle between Nottingham, Monmouth, the archbishops of York and Canterbury, the bishop of Winchester and the king over who should replace him and it is a measure of Hatton’s abiding influence even as an absentee governor that it was his nominee, Nicholas le Mesurier, who was eventually appointed. Societe Guernesiaise Report and Transactions, xviii. (4), 419. Not content with administering Guernsey from his sick bed, in July 1697 Hatton approached his distant relative Thomas Grey, 2nd earl of Stamford, to secure for him the high stewardship of Higham Ferrers, only to be informed that Stamford, ‘sensible of your retirement from business’, had disposed of the position to Sir Rice Rudd^‡. Add. 29566, f. 469.

The general election of 1698 found the grandees of Northamptonshire eager to manage the poll. Sir Justinian Isham was persuaded to quit his attempt to be returned for Northampton and stand for the county instead, and although Isham was clearly disgruntled at being manipulated, he comforted himself with the assurance of Hatton’s interest on his behalf, which Hatton confirmed eagerly. Despite his continuing involvement in local affairs, Hatton remained absent from the House but he was able to rely on the offices of his brother-in-law, Longueville, to be excused from attending the new Parliament. Add. 29567, ff. 93, 145-6; Northants. RO, IC 1587, 1589.

Hatton’s interest was sought by several of the candidates standing for Northamptonshire in the general election at the close of 1701. Add. 29568, ff. 35, 36; Add. 29569, f. 320. In advance of the poll Hatton approached Isham to find out his ‘resolution in relation to the election’ and to assure him of his intention of using his ‘uttermost endeavours’ to further his candidacy. Although Hatton had expected Isham to stand singly, on this occasion Isham joined with Thomas Cartwright^‡ to form a partnership that they hoped would meet with Hatton’s approbation. Northants. RO, IC 2935; Add. 29568 f. 38. Isham appears not to have been wholly confident of Hatton’s support, and although he expressed himself to be gratified by ‘the concern your lordship is pleased to show for my election’, he still feared the ill feeling current in areas in the east of the county where Hatton was particularly influential. Despite such misgivings, Isham assured himself that nothing would ‘be wanting on your [Hatton’s], part which may be for my advantage,’ and in the event both he and Cartwright were successful. Add. 29568, ff. 37, 46.

The reign of Anne, 1702-6

The accession of Queen Anne failed to rouse Hatton to return to Parliament, but he expressed himself heartened by the appointment to office of men like Sir John Leveson Gower, later Baron Gower, which he considered to be ‘such a satisfaction to the most loyal part of her subjects as obliges them to take all opportunities of expressing it.’ Staffs. RO, Sutherland (Leveson Gower) mss, D868/7/1a. The general election of 1702 once more found Hatton eagerly courted for his interest, which he exercised again in favour of Isham and Cartwright. In recompense for Hatton’s efforts on his behalf, Isham laid aside his own claim for the stewardship of Higham Ferrers in Hatton’s favour. Northants. RO, IC 2938; Add. 29568, f..65.

Hatton appears to have been suffering from poor health again in 1703, though he took the opportunity to recommend his physician’s brother to Nottingham for the chair of mathematics at Oxford. The news of the death of Captain Ellis on Guernsey that year found Hatton uncharacteristically unwilling to suggest a replacement. Instead he asked that Nottingham might ensure that ‘whoever comes into it is a discreet and well-tempered man, for he will have to do with a contentious wra[n]gling people.’ The following year Hatton was once more able to rely on Nottingham’s assistance in getting him excused from attendance in the House on the grounds of ill health. CSP Dom. 1703-4, pp. 191, 229, 489; Add. 29595, f. 258.

Hatton supported Isham and Cartwright again in May 1705 but he appears not to have been nearly as active as in previous elections. Northants. RO, IC 1670. The same year Hatton was listed as a Jacobite in an analysis of the peerage compiled in relation to the succession. It is highly unlikely that Hatton would have welcomed a Catholic Stuart restoration, and he was certainly not involved in Jacobite plotting but it is possible that he would indeed have been favourable to a restoration had the Pretender been prepared to renounce his religion.

In spite of his non-attendance of Parliament and near permanent invalid condition, Hatton remained influential to the end. In June 1706 he wrote to Isham urging him to provide him with an assessment of the number of Catholics in several of the Northamptonshire hundreds so that he could report to the Lords of the council. The following month he wrote to Isham again, this time in support of the grand jury of Northamptonshire’s address to the queen following the victory of John Churchill, duke of Marlborough, at Ramillies. Hatton cautioned Isham, the author of the address, to ensure that ‘as many of your friends as can be’ should be admitted to the grand jury to bar any attempt on the Whigs’ part to alter the document. Northants. RO, IC 2942-3; HP Commons 1690-1715, ii. 431-2.

Hatton died two months later at Kirby and was succeeded by William Seton Hatton, his eldest son by his third wife, as 2nd Viscount Hatton. Hatton’s decline had been a steady one and his death was ‘long expected’. Add. 61655, f. 33. Despite the care that he had taken in restoring his estate, in his will of 1695 Hatton explained that the property remained so heavily indebted and charged with annuities that he could not ‘well judge what further charge it may bear’ and he had been unable to make any formal provision either for his wife or any children by her. Characteristically, Hatton determined that after the payment of all debts and legacies, the entire remainder of his estate should be made over to his wife ‘in confidence … of her prudence and justice’ leaving it to her to arrive at a suitable settlement. As well as his wife, Hatton named Nottingham as one of his executors, along with his faithful adherents Sir Charles Lyttelton and William Longueville. In the event of his wife’s death, Nottingham, or failing him Lyttelton, was to act as guardian to Hatton’s young family. A suggestion that Hatton’s close friendship with a number of Catholics as well as his long absence from Parliament had raised question marks over his religious sympathies may have been the driving force behind his resolute declaration of his ‘constant adherence to the faith and doctrine of the Church of England.’ He was buried ‘wrapped in coarse woollen’ in the family vault at Gretton. Add. 29595, f. 264.