Page:Imperialdictiona02eadi Brandeis.pdf/1051

HYD pirates from Ostend. A few months after the execution of Charles I., Hyde and Lord Cottington were sent on an embassy to Madrid, to solicit the assistance of the Spanish court in behalf of his son Prince Charles. The ambassadors set out on their mission in May, 1649, but after spending fifteen irksome months at Madrid, where they were exposed to a succession of slights and mortifications, they discovered that their embassy had proved a total failure; and after the decisive victory gained by Cromwell at Dunbar, they were ordered by the Spanish king to take their departure, "since their presence in the court would be prejudicial to his affairs." Hyde quitted Madrid in March, 1651, and after living for a short time with his family at Antwerp, he took up his residence in Paris with the exiled court. As chancellor of the exchequer, the duty devolved upon him of providing pecuniary supplies for the support of Charles and his suite—a very difficult task, as the treasury was empty, and there was no regular revenue. He was sometimes without clothes or fire, even in winter, and was often deep in debt for lodgings and food. His embarrassments were greatly aggravated by the improvidence and profligacy of Charles, the opposition of the queen-mother, who detested Hyde on account of his superior influence with the prince, and the paltry intrigues and jealous factious by which this mimic court was rent asunder. In spite of all these difficulties, Hyde seems to have preserved a firm, cheerful, and patient frame of mind, and to have nobly exerted himself to promote the interests of his master, though he was often treated with neglect and ingratitude. He attended Charles in all his migrations on the continent, and in January, 1658, was rewarded with the appointment to the office of lord chancellor; which, though at that time an empty title, he seems eagerly to have coveted. The death of Cromwell, the abdication of his son Richard, and the dissensions between the parliament and the army, raised the hopes of the royalists, and prepared the way for the restoration of the exiled dynasty. Hyde, whose sagacious and moderate counsels guided the conduct of Charles at this momentous crisis, had at length the gratification of witnessing the fulfilment of his long-cherished hopes. On the 25th of May, 1660, he landed at Dover along with his sovereign, followed his triumphal entry into the capital, and on the 1st of June took his place on the woolsack, as speaker of the house of lords. On the same day he also took his seat in the court of chancery.

From the Restoration down to 1667 Hyde was the virtual ruler of the country, and "carried the crown in his pocket." To him belongs the credit of passing the bill of oblivion and indemnity, without allowing the vindictive spirit which prevailed in the parliament at that period to introduce more numerous exceptions. On the other hand, he must bear the odium of first overreaching and then persecuting the presbyterians. As the Restoration was to be brought about by their assistance, he held out to them flattering hopes in the declaration from Breda and the manifesto which he published in the king's name, specifying certain important modifications of episcopacy as the basis of settlement between the two parties. But after Charles was securely settled upon the throne, and it became known that the presbyterians were no longer to be feared, he introduced and carried the notorious corporation act, which, in violation both of his own and the king's promises, and of the plainest principles of justice, provided that corporate offices should be held only by those who had within a year of their election taken the sacrament of the Lord's supper according to the rites of the Church of England, and the no less infamous act of uniformity, which in one day ejected two thousand ministers from their livings. It is only fair however to state, that the violent and servile loyalty of the parliament made these laws even more stringent than the chancellor had originally proposed. Meanwhile his daughter Anne, who had been a maid of honour to the princess of Orange, had been privately married to the duke of York, the king's brother; and—after various intrigues, in which her father's conduct was by no means worthy of his position and character—had been publicly owned by James as his duchess. Clarendon's overacted indignation against "the wickedness of his daughter," and the proposals regarding her which he alleges he made to the king, clearly prove that he was by no means a high-minded man. This marriage, though very offensive to the court, and especially to the queen-dowager, did not diminish the chancellor's influence with the king, who, as if to show his unabated confidence in his old councillor at this juncture (April, 1661), raised him to the peerage by the title of Baron Hyde of Hyde, and shortly after created him Viscount Cornbury and earl of Clarendon. He was likewise offered, but wisely declined the garter. He accepted, however, a present from the king of £2000, though he declined an offer of ten thousand acres of crown land, saying, "It was a principal part and obligation of his office to dissuade the king from making grants of such a nature." The inauspicious marriage of the king to Catherine of Braganza, which took place in 1662, was originally ascribed to Clarendon's advice, and a great deal of probably undeserved odium was afterwards incurred by him on account of this union. His subsequent treatment of that ill-used princess was certainly very unbecoming, and his conduct in attempting, for the purpose of retaining the king's favour, to persuade her to consent to the appointment of Lady Castlemaine, as one of the ladies of her bedchamber, is deserving of the severest reprobation. He indignantly refused a large bribe which was offered by the French court, to recommend the restoration of Nova Scotia, and other measures agreeable to Louis XIV.; but he had no hesitation in soliciting pecuniary aid for his master, and in thus originating that shameful dependence of Charles upon the French king, which was afterwards so injurious to the honour of the king and the best interests of the country. He also recommended and carried through the sale of Dunkirk to the French for five millions of livres—a most discreditable transaction, which was afterwards made the ground of one of the most serious charges brought against him by the parliament. Charles had hitherto resigned himself implicitly to the guidance of the chancellor, but a coolness now began between them which ultimately ended in total alienation. Clarendon was a bigoted adherent of the established church, and strenuously opposed the bill which, to please the king and favour the Roman catholics, was brought forward in 1663, to enable his majesty at his pleasure to dispense with the penal laws against sectarians. Charles, too, was wholly devoted to his licentious pleasures, and under the guidance of his mistresses began to be impatient of the admonitions and good advices which the chancellor administered to him, "too much with the air of a governor or of a lawyer." The king's profligate favourites, perceiving this diminution of royal regard, thought this a favourable opportunity to effect the chancellor's ruin; and one of their number, the earl of Bristol, an ambitious, intriguing, worthless courtier, suddenly presented to the house of lords (10th July, 1663) a paper containing articles of impeachment for high treason against Lord Clarendon. The chancellor made a vigorous and triumphant defence, and the charges were dismissed by the lords with a strong censure of the prosecutor, who was obliged to abscond and to remain in concealment for several years. This rash attempt to destroy the chancellor served only to confirm his power; but there is reason to believe that the confidence of the king was never again fully restored to him, and the breach between them continued to widen, until at length the long-continued domination of this powerful minister was irretrievably overthrown.

The ecclesiastical policy of Clarendon continued to the last bigoted and intolerant. He now in May, 1664, to the great delight of the high church party, passed the conventicle act, which forbids, under severe penalties, the meeting for religious purposes of more than five persons in addition to the members of the family. The enactment of the notorious "five mile act" speedily followed, by which all non-conforming ministers who refused to swear that it was not lawful, on any pretence whatever, to take up arms against the king, and that they would not at any time endeavour to bring about any alteration of government in church and state, were forbidden, under pain of fine and imprisonment, to reside within five miles of any borough, town, or any place where they had exercised their ministry. The Dutch war now broke out (November, 1664), and ended most dishonourably for the court and nation. But though Clarendon had resolutely opposed this unprincipled contest, and was in no degree accountable for the shameful manner in which it had been conducted, he was held responsible by the public for its disastrous termination. His windows were broken by the populace; he was reproached in ribald rhymes for the sale of Dunkirk, the cession of Tangier, and the king's unfruitful marriage. His opposition to a bill forbidding the importation of cattle from Ireland, drew down upon him the wrath of the squirearchy in the house of commons. Dissenters and Romanists were naturally hostile to him on account of his intolerant ecclesiastical policy; while even the bishops, he says, were dissatisfied with him for