|
Henry Hyde, Earl of Clarendon (1638-1709) Born: 2nd June 1638 at Westminster, Middlesex Lord Cornbury Earl of Clarendon Died: 31st October 1709 at Westminster, Middlesex Henry was the eldest
son of Edward Hyde, the 1st Earl of Clarendon, and his second wife, Frances,
the daughter of Sir Thomas Aylesbury. As Royalist exiles, both he and his
brother, Laurence (later Earl of Rochester), spent part of their boyhood
under their mother's care in Antwerp and Breda. Of their attachment to their
father, they afterwards gave ample proof. Clarendon Senior, during several
years before the Restoration, made frequent use of his eldest son as
copyist, decipherer and confidential secretary, entrusting him with part of
his correspondence with distant Royalists. Many of Henry Hyde's letters from
this period are among the 'Clarendon Papers' in the Bodleian Library. The
earliest paper in his handwriting is dated from Cologne, 2nd August 1655.
His father called him 'as secret as he ought to be'.
Very soon after the return of his family to England in
1660, Hyde married Theodosia, daughter of Lord Capel and sister of the
Duchess of Beaufort. He lost his wife as early as February 1662 and nearly
forty years afterwards, on 17th May 1701, described to Pepys a strange
supposed instance of second-sight connected with her death. In 1666, he
married Flower the daughter of William
Backhouse, the Rosicrucian Philosopher, and widow of her cousin, Sir
William Backhouse, bart. Through her, Henry became possessed of the manor
and house of Swallowfield
Park in Berkshire where the two lived together for most of their
lives. The second Lady Clarendon, who in her later years became first lady
of the bedchamber to her niece by marriage, the Princess Anne, is tartly
described by a junior colleague as one who "looked like a mad-woman and
talked like a scholar".
In 1601, Lord Cornbury - Henry's title after his father's
elevation to the Earldom of Clarendon that April - was elected to parliament
for Wiltshire, which he continued to represent till the death of the 1st
Earl in 1674. In 1662, he was appointed private secretary to the new queen,
Catherine of Braganza, whose Lord Chamberlain he became in July 1665. Burnet
asserts, with questionable accuracy, that she "thought herself bound to
protect him in a particular manner," because of "his father being
so violently prosecuted on the account of her marriage." He seems to
have been a vigilant guardian of her interests, although many years later an
interminable lawsuit arose between them concerning certain arrears which he
considered due to himself in respect of his office. With many of the most
prominent members of the court and council, however, and with the King
himself, the son was no more popular than the father, whom in disposition he
much resembled. The company in which he took pleasure was such as John
Evelyn's who, as early as 1664, helped him to plant the park at Cornbury.
In parliament, where he spoke neither infrequently nor
ineffectively, he, like his brother, courageously raised his voice on behalf
of his father on the occasion of his impeachment in 1667; and, after his
fall, Lord Cornbury became a steady opponent of the court party and the
cabal. Not less than twenty speeches by him are extant from 1673 alone and
his denunciation of the scandalous immorality of the Duke of Buckingham and
his attack upon Arlington are alike to the credit of his courage. On his
father's death, in 1674, he succeeded to the Earldom of Clarendon; but it
was not until 1680, when the state of the parties was more equally balanced,
that he was made a Privy Councillor, through the influence of Prince James,
Duke of York, the husband of his sister, Anne.
About the same time, he was named Keeper of Denmark (later Somerset) House
and Treasurer and Receiver-General of the Queen's Revenues; and the Duke
would have willingly seen him made Secretary of State. At this, as in most
other seasons of his life, he seems to have been much hampered by pecuniary
troubles.
The friendship of the Duke of York led to Clarendon's
inclusion, with his brother, among those against whom the Commons, early in
January 1681, addressed the King as persons inclined to Popery. In
Clarendon's case, the accusation is absurd on the face of it, but it may for
a time have stood him in good stead. His reputation for loyalty was such
that he could afford to visit, in the Tower, both the Earl of Essex, in
1683, and, in the new reign, the Duke of Monmouth, and to plead the cause of
Dame Alice Lisle when under sentence by Judge Jeffreys. Immediately upon the
accession of the Duke of York as King James II, Clarendon had been appointed
to the great office of Lord Privy Seal in the place of Halifax and, during
the earlier part of the year, had, in various ways, exerted himself on
behalf of the Crown.
In September 1685, Clarendon's office of Privy Seal was
put into commission (Evelyn being one of the commissioners), and he was
named Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland. It may be, as Burnet surmises, that James
reckoned on finding a subservient instrument for his Irish policy in his
kinsman, the head of a broken house. But being first and foremost a
protestant of the Church of England, Clarendon could not, except for purely
selfish ends, fall in with the policy of governing Ireland for and by the
Irish Roman Catholics. The Earl of Tyrconnel had been summoned to London
from the command of the military forces in Ireland in December 1695, about
the date when Clarendon set out for Dublin. The journey occupied the better
part of four weeks, including Christmas festivities at Chester and a
memorable crossing of Penmaenmawr, in Carnarvonshire, in three coaches and a
wagon. On 9th January 1686, the new Lord-Lieutenant arrived in Dublin. He
speedily found his authority overshadowed by that of the absent
commander-in-chief, whose return was talked of, in London, as early as the
middle of January and, in Dublin, from the beginning of March. Soon
afterwards, Clarendon was bluntly apprised by Sunderland of the King's
intention to introduce large numbers of Roman Catholics into the Irish
judicial and administrative system, as well as into the army. Clarendon,
while he sought to allay the panic which spread among the Dublin
protestants, complained bitterly of the position in which he was placed. He
conformed to the wishes of the King and of the extreme party, by warning
bishops and preachers against offending Roman Catholic feeling and by
admitting Roman Catholics as councillors and as officers of the army, as
well as by urging their admission into town corporations. But he thoroughly
disliked the policy, although he only permitted himself certain guarded
protests against it to the King. When, in June 1686, Tyrconnel actually
returned with full power as commander-in-chief, Clarendon still clung to his
office, striving to keep his "natural unfortunate temper" despite
manifold provocations and indignities inflicted upon "the huffing great
man".
In August 1680, Tyrconnel, who had entirely transformed
the army and even made a change in the command of the Lord Lieutenant's own
bodyguard, visited England to obtain the King's permission for the
completion of his work by undoing the Act of Settlement, which Clarendon was
desirous of upholding. Clarendon sent many protests to both King and Queen
during his rival's absence; but as his brother's influence visibly sank, he
began to doubt whether his complaints were ever permitted to reach the King.
At last, he came to the conclusion that no hope of retaining his post in
Ireland remained, except through the kindness of the Queen, and even this
support he feared to have forfeited for some petty reason. Not until about
three weeks after the dismissal of Rochester on 8th January 1687, did he
receive his letter of recall from Sunderland. Tyrconnel, who took
Clarendon's place had a final interview with the outgoing viceroy on 8th
February. On 21st February, Clarendon landed at Neston in Cheshire. He had
taken the precaution of carrying with him the books of the stores, with the
design, as Tyrconnel suggested to Dartmouth, of leaving his successor in the
dark.
Clarendon, at the time, solemnly placed on record his
resolution that nothing should tempt him to contribute in the least to the
prejudice of the English protestant interest. His friends hoped that his
Royal brother-in-law, who granted him several private audiences during the
month after his arrival, would restore to him the Privy Seal. It was,
however, given, on 16th March 1687, to a zealous Roman Catholic, Lord
Arundell of Wardour, and Clarendon had to withdraw into private life. Evelyn,
in August 1687, records a visit to Swallowfield,
where Lord Cornhury was on a visit to his father. The Earl was, at the time,
sorely troubled by a marriage project of his eldest son, from the difficulty
of raising the sums required for a settlement on the encumbered family
estates. To relieve himself of pecuniary difficulties, he engaged in
speculations, ranging from the digging for coal in Windsor
Forest to the traffic of Scotch pedlars. A pension of £2,000 per annum
conferred on him by James II, about the beginning of 1688, was probably
welcome, although Halifax thought it, inadequate. Macaulay ignored it.
Clarendon, more than ever, identified his interests with
those of the church. While in Ireland, he had received a mark of confidence
from Oxford by being named High Steward of the University on 5th January
1686 and, on leaving England, he had done his best to keep the
ecclesiastical appointments open for better days. He advised the famous
'Bishops in the Tower' concerning their bail and was asked by Judge Jeffreys
to use his good offices with Sancroft. Accordingly, the course of events
soon made the Queen anxious for his countenance, for, while in Ireland,
Clarendon had persistently wooed her goodwill and, in 1681, he had been
placed upon her council. On 24th September 1688, the day after her friendly
reception of him, Clarendon found the King himself, in view of the Dutch
preparations for invasion, anxious to "see what the Church of England
men will do." King James may have been sincere giving credence to
Clarendon's assurance, on 1st November, that he had had nothing to do with
the invitation to the monarch's nephew and son-in-law, the Prince of Orange,
to take the Throne of England. Unfortunately, on 14th November, nine days
after the landing of the Prince, followed the desertion to him of Henry's
eldest son, Lord Cornbury; which was, afterwards, with some show of reason,
thought, to have "begun the general defection". Clarendon
immediately threw himself at the feet of the King and Queen, on 16th
November, and his anguish was probably genuine, though his motives may have
been more complex. His wife was not in on the secret of the flight of the
Princess Anne, in which, according to the Duchess
of Marlborough, he would have well liked to have had a chance of
sharing. In the council of peers, called by the King, upon his return, on
27th November, to discuss the question of summoning a free parliament,
Clarendon inveighed unsparingly against the Royal policy; and, on 1st
December, he set out for Salisbury to make his peace with William of Orange.
Two days later, he had an interview with the Prince at Berwick, near Hindon,
and speedily made up his mind, with a view to the interests of his family as
well as to the destinies of the country, to tender his support to him. He
was present at the Hungerford
Conference, which took place at the Bear Inn in that town on 8th December,
and followed the advance of the Prince as far as Henley, where, on 13th
December, he obtained leave of absence, wearily informing his friend, the
Bishop of Ely that "all was naught". By the Prince's desire, he
waited on him again at Windsor
Castle on 16th December, and took heart to present to him, his
brother, Rochester. It was at the conference held at Windsor that Clarendon
is said to have suggested the confinement of King James II to the Tower of
London; while, according to Burnet and improved by Macaulay, he proposed his
relegation to Breda. He himself distinctly declares that, except at the
Windsor meeting, he had never been present at any discourse concerning what
should be done with King James, but that he was against the King being sent
away. He was certainly now fully alive to the gravity of the crisis, though
he may have doubted whether or not he ought to "kick against the
pricks"; but such efforts as he made to warn the unfortunate King
against being hurried into an irretraceable step were frustrated by his
flight of which he was informed by the Prince himself.
Under the new regime, Clarendon, at first, continued to
bear himself as the representative of the protestant interest in Ireland
and, early in 1689, had several interviews on their behalf with King
William. Indeed, Burnet affirms that Clarendon's hopes were set on a return
to Dublin, but that Tyrconnel's agents found means to frighten William III
into altogether declining to discuss Irish affairs with Clarendon, who
thereupon took his revenge by "reconciling himself to King James."
He certainly both repudiated the whig assumption of 'abdication' and the
settlement of the Crown upon William and Mary, speaking with vehemence
against this measure in Parliament and, afterwards, refused to take the
oaths to the new government. He remonstrated with his younger niece, Anne,
as to her unconcern for her father's misfortunes; while, with the loss of
Queen Mary's favour he, of course, abandoned all present prospect of office.
Clarendon spent part of the Summer of 1689 "for his
health" at Tunbridge Wells and was, at other times in the year,
"diverting himself" at Swallowfield, Cornbury, and Oxford. Early
in 1690, King William, specially irritated by reports that Clarendon had
represented him as averse to the interests of the church, informed Rochester
that, but for the Queen's sake, he would have excepted him, on account of
Clarendon's cabals, from the act of grace. Not long afterwards, these
suspicions took a more definite shape. Clarendon was in frequent intercourse
with Richard Graham, Lord Preston, who was plotting in behalf of King James.
On 21st June, by the express direction of Queen Mary, who wrote to the
absent King that she was "sorrier than it may well be believed"
for her uncle, he was placed under arrest and, on the following day, lodged
in the Tower. Here he remained, under not especially considerate treatment,
although his wife bore him company for a time, till 15th August. After his
liberation, the threads of the conspiracy, the nucleus of which seems to
have consisted entirely of protestants, were resumed. When Lord Preston was
on his way to St. Germains, he was arrested on the Thames on 31st December
1690 and the letters found upon him included one from Clarendon to King
James, expressing a hope that the marriage he had been negotiating would
soon "come off" and adding, "Your relations have been very
hard on me this last Summer. Yet, as soon as I could go safely abroad, I
pursued the business". Preston afterwards named Clarendon among his
accomplices and reaffirmed this statement before King William. Clarendon,
who, after being examined before the cabinet council on 4th January 1691,
had been once more consigned to the Tower, remained there for several
months. His wife was, once more, his companion during part of his
confinement and, as on the previous occasion, he was visited by Rochester,
Lord Cornbury and John Evelyn. In the July, he was allowed to go for air
into the country under care of his warder; and his release on bail soon
followed.
The remainder of Clarendon's life was passed in
tranquillity at his residences in the country. Cornbury was, in 1694 owing
to his pecuniary difficulties, denuded of many of the pictures collected by
his father and of at least a great part of its library; and, in 1697, or
shortly before, was sold by Clarendon to Rochester, though to spare his
pride the sale was kept a secret till his death. Of the publication
(1702-1704) of the first edition, in three volumes, of the 'History of the
Rebellion' by its author's sons, the chief credit belongs to Rochester; but
Clarendon took a great interest in the work. In 1704, he presented Evelyn
with the three printed volumes.
Clarendon died on 31st October 1709. He has no
pretensions to eminence as a statesman; but it is unnecessary to follow
Macaulay in concluding private interest to have been the primary motive of
his public conduct, or to accept all the cavils of Burnet against a man whom
he evidently hated. A Church of England tory of a narrow type, he was
genuinely trusted by the great interest with which, on both sides of St.
George's Channel, inherited sentiment and personal conviction identified
him. At the time of the catastrophe of King James' reign, he probably
drifted further in opposition than he had intended; but there is no proof
that he set great hopes for his own future upon the new government and then
became a conspirator through disappointment. In his 'Diary (1687-1690) and
Correspondence,' which, with the letters of his younger brother, Rochester,
first appeared in 1828, he appears as a respectable man, devoid neither of
principle nor of prejudice, without any striking capacity for the management
of affairs of state, and with none at all for the management of his own, at
times querulous, and occasionally, as was natural in the friend of so many
bishops, rather unctuous in tone. In Macky's 'Characters,' he is said to
have "wit, but affectation." Of his literary tastes, his
correspondence with John Evelyn furnishes some illustrations. He had a
remarkably fine collection of medals and was author of the 'History and
Antiquities of the Cathedral Church at Winchester' (1715). Lely's portrait
of Clarendon (when Lord Cornbury) and of his first wife Theodosia, at the
Grove, Watford, is described as one of this painter's best pictures. He was
succeeded in both his title and his estates by his eldest son, Edward. Edited from Sidney Lee's 'Dictionary of National Biography' (1891)
|
|||
© Nash Ford Publishing 2003. All Rights Reserved. |