avenged, and, while stating that the deed had been done without her order, candidly confessed that she was only the more indebted to Bothwellhaugh on that account. She also expressed the intention of bestowing on him a pension as soon as her jointure as queen-dowager of France was available (Labanoff, Lettres de Marie Stuart, iii. 354). On 2 Jan. 1572 Bothwellhaugh wrote to Lord Claud Hamilton [q. v.] from Brussels stating that on 26 Dec. he had been compelled to leave Paris from ‘lack of expense,’ and assuring him that he had not received a shilling from any one since the death of the Archbishop of St. Andrews (Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1572–4, entry 4). Mary in her letter to the Archbishop of Glasgow had expressed the wish that another ‘méchante créature’ were ‘hors du monde,’ and stated that she would be well pleased if one of her own subjects were the instrument in effecting this. The person thus devoted to death is supposed to have been Admiral Coligny. Whether this be so or not, an attempt was made, according to De Thou, to engage Bothwellhaugh in Coligny's murder, but, adds De Thou, he spurned the proposal ‘with contempt and indignation, asserting that he had avenged his own just quarrel, but he would neither for pence nor prayer avenge that of another man.’ Bothwellhaugh, however, was the principal agent of the Spanish authorities in their incessant plots against the life of the Prince of Orange. He and his brother, John Hamilton, provost of Bothwell, were excepted from the abstinence agreed upon on 10 July 1572 (Reg. P. C. Scotl. ii. 158), and were not mentioned among the Hamiltons included in the pacification at Perth. They and other persons who were abroad ‘stirring up and practising rebellion’ were, on 12 Feb. 1573–4, denounced as traitors (ib. p. 335). As the John Hamilton who acted in concert with James Hamilton of Bothwellhaugh in the several plots against the Prince of Orange is always referred to as his brother, the presumption is that he was John Hamilton provost of Bothwell, and not John Hamilton (fl. 1568–1609) [q. v.] the anti-protestant writer, a theory suggested by Mr. Froude (Hist. of Engl. cab. ed. ix. 196) and accepted by Hill Burton (Hist. of Scotland, v. 37). On 26 Dec. 1572 Bothwellhaugh left Paris for Brussels, where he wrote a letter to Lord Claud Hamilton begging assistance (Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1572–4, entry 4). In August of the following year the two Hamiltons were observed in Paris on their way through France into Flanders (ib. entry 1132). They were then in the service of the king of Spain, to whom they had been recommended on 3 April by Don Diego de Zuñiga on the testimony of the Archbishop of Glasgow (Teulet, Relations politiques, v. 110–11). From Brussels Bothwellhaugh on 29 Sept. wrote to Don Frances de Alava that he had found a fitting tool for the murder of the prince in a gentleman of his own nation (ib. p. 112). The plot failed, but Bothwellhaugh did not lose sight of the project. On 16 May 1575 Aguilon, secretary of the Spanish embassy at Paris, wrote to Zayas, secretary of state, that James Hamilton and another Scot had a practice in hand against the Prince of Orange, and requested the secretary to encourage the undertaking (ib. p. 127). The plot miscarried, probably by Hamilton being thrown into prison, but on 19 Dec. he made his escape by the aid of Colonel Balfour and other Scots, whom Don John was suspected to have bribed (Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1575–7, entry 1097). On the 29th he was seen to arrive at Marche-en-Famène (Horsley to Walsingham, ib. entry 1094). Shortly afterwards Colonel Balfour was employed by him to make another attempt on the life of the prince, which also ended in failure (ib. entry 1175). Paulet, writing to the queen in May 1577, reports that the two Hamiltons had come from Don John to the Duke of Guise at La Charité, and were now said to have gone into Spain (ib. entry 1448). On the revival of the acts of forfeiture against the Hamiltons, Bothwellhaugh was on 21 Oct. 1579 summoned to appear before the king and his justice for ‘treason anent the Earl of Moray’ (Acta Parl. Scot. iii. 125). An officer was sent to serve the writ on him at his dwelling-place at Bothwellhaugh, but he was found to be not at home, and his wife declined to receive it (ib. p. 133). Failing to answer the summons he was disinherited (ib. p. 137). In April 1580 he was seen with Ker of Fernieherst riding from France into Spain (Walsingham to Bowes, 3 May 1580, in Bowes, Correspondence, Surtees Soc. p. 49). Bothwellhaugh's mother, Catherine Schaw, was charged for her connection with the regent's murder, but was not tried. A servant, David, was condemned and executed; another, Arthur, wrongly described by some historians as a brother, was tried and acquitted. In all probability James Hamilton died abroad, but it is popularly believed that he was buried at Monkton. By the statute of 1585, c. 21, Bothwellhaugh's heir was restored, but by c. 22 the lands of Woodhouselee were excepted in favour of Sir Louis Bellenden, lord justice clerk, son and heir of Sir John Bellenden. On 12 Jan. 1591–2 the privy council passed an act restoring David Hamilton and Isabel and Alison Sinclair to the lands of
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 24.djvu/186
