HYDE, Henry (1672-1753)

Hyde was described by Jonathan Swift as ‘a good, civil, simple man’. HP Commons 1690-1715, iv. 464. He lacked the political weight of his father or grandfather, but through a combination of marriage and inheritance he commanded significant interest in Cornwall and Wiltshire and was sufficiently well thought of to be able to retain the keepership of Richmond Park and the high stewardship of Oxford University after the death of Queen Anne, in spite of his unequivocal Toryism.

Having gained military experience in two campaigning seasons in Flanders in the early 1690s, Hyde returned to England in 1692 to marry Jane Leveson Gower and to take the Commons seat at Launceston left vacant by the death of William Harbord^‡ on the nomination of his Granville in-laws. HMC Portland, iii. 466; Add. 61414, f. 133; Verney ms mic. M636/46, J. to Sir R. Verney, 19 Nov. 1692. He continued to hold the seat until his succession to the earldom. During that time he acquired a number of minor offices but a rumour of March 1703 that he was to be summoned to the Lords by a writ in acceleration proved unfounded. Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 276. Over the next few years it was his wife who was most forward in exercising the family interest (notably on behalf of Tory candidates in Newcastle-under-Lyme). She was also instrumental in preventing the marriage of her nephew Sir William Wyndham^‡ to Lady Henrietta Somerset on the grounds that Lady Henrietta’s maternal family (the Childs) was prone to madness. As Lady Hyde pointed out, ‘there are millions of Tory families without the objections in this.’ Staffs. RO, D868/6/18b, 21a.

In the summer of 1710 rumours circulated once more that Hyde was one of three heirs to earldoms to be summoned to the Lords by writs in acceleration. Luttrell, Brief Relation, vi. 616. Robert Harley, earl of Oxford, listed him as one of the lords to be provided for on 12 Sept. 1710 and it was thought, incorrectly, that he was to be offered a place in the new administration. Wentworth pprs. 130. In October he was appointed to the Privy Council and the following summer he at last secured his place in the Lords on the death of his father. He took his seat in the House towards the end of the session on 28 May (after which he was present on eight days). On 12 June he was actively involved as a member of the journal committee. The death of Rochester’s father (which according to one report left his daughter-in-law unmoved) left his family (according to Francis Gwyn^‡) in need of protection. Soon after (moved or not) the new countess of Rochester took it upon herself to write to Oxford, as Harley had since become, requesting a meeting, so that his ‘advice and interest may not be wanting to two people that you will never find very unreasonable in their wishes.’ By the 1st earl of Rochester’s death both the places of high steward of Oxford University and the lord lieutenancy of Cornwall fell vacant. The latter was soon warmly contested by Charles Bodvile Robartes, 2nd earl of Radnor, and the young John Carteret, 2nd Baron Carteret (later Earl Granville), in opposition to George Granville, later Baron Lansdown, who represented the prevailing Granville interest. Fearful of losing his sway in the county should Radnor secure the lieutenancy, Granville chose to put his weight behind Rochester as a more suitable alternative. In a missive of 19 May to Oxford he enquired, ‘where is the difficulty in the person of Lord Rochester? Is any man more loved or more esteemed by all the gentlemen of the county? You can do nothing more to put them in good humour, and they already expect his appointment.’ Add. 61440, f. 1; HMC Portland, iv. 682, 683, 693. Granville had his way and Rochester was duly appointed in October.

The high stewardship invited quite as spirited a response on Rochester’s behalf by his countess, who contacted Oxford after hearing a rumour that he (Oxford) was to succeed to the place. Wishing to prevent any ‘misunderstanding between our families’ she advised him roundly ‘to let the duke [James Butler, 2nd duke of Ormond, chancellor of the university] know it is what you do not desire’. She continued to threaten openly that Oxford’s acceptance of the position ‘would breed ill blood in the world, and between you and my lord… though I with reason believe you will do nothing towards him but kindness.’ In return for Oxford’s acquiescence, she assured him of the support ‘of a sincere and honest faithful friend.’ HMC Portland, iv. 687-8. Like that of her cousin, Granville, Lady Rochester’s brinkmanship paid off and the stewardship was granted accordingly to her husband.

Rochester returned to the House a week into the new session on 13 Nov. 1711 (of which he attended 82 per cent of all sitting days). On 19 Nov. he wrote to the lord treasurer in response to Oxford’s offer of patronage, asking that he ‘would do me the honour to introduce me to the queen’. Add. 70243, Rochester to Harley, 19 Nov. 1711. Rochester’s countess, meanwhile, continued to show greater boldness and independence by sparring openly with Lady Sunderland at Hampton Court, where she was heard one day to enquire, ‘what was become of the Whigs, she had heard nothing of them of late, she believed they were all dead.’ Lady Sunderland riposted with equal bravura that, ‘if they were all dead they would soon have a glorious resurrection’. Wentworth pprs. 224. Less provocative, but an equally committed Tory, Rochester voted against barring Scots peers with British titles from sitting in the Lords by virtue of post-Union British peerages in the division held on 20 December. Two days later he delivered the report compiled by the commissioners for building churches, which it was ordered should lie on the table, and the same day (22 Dec.) he received the proxy of Robert Sutton, 2nd Baron Lexinton, which was vacated by Lexinton’s return to the House on 14 January. On 17 Jan. 1712 Rochester was nominated to the select committee appointed to draw up an address to be presented to the queen and on 15 Feb. he received the proxy of Francis Seymour Conway, Baron Conway, which was vacated on 7 March. On 7 May he reported from the committee for Moore’s bill and on 19 May acted as teller for those opposed to resuming the House from a committee of the whole considering the grants bill (the motion to resume was defeated by three votes).

Rochester attended nine of the prorogation days between the close of the session on 21 June 1712 and the opening of the new session on 9 Apr. the following year. In advance of the session, Swift listed him as a likely supporter of Oxford’s ministry. Rochester demonstrated his earnest support for the peace policy by encouraging the corporation of Wootton Bassett, over which he wielded some influence as lord of the manor, to compose a loyal address in favour of the treaty. HP Commons 1690-1715, ii. 699-700. He took his seat in the House at the opening of the new session, after which he was present on almost 78 per cent of all sitting days but he seems to have made little or no impact on the House’s business.

Rochester took his seat at the opening of the new Parliament on 16 Feb. 1714, after which he was present on 89 per cent of all sitting days. On 24 Apr. he reported from the committee for Walter Hele’s bill (concerning a settlement of lands lying in Devon) and four days later received Lexinton’s proxy again, which was vacated by the session’s close. In May inaccurate reports circulated both that Lexinton had married Rochester’s daughter, Catherine (later duchess of Queensberry) and that Rochester himself was busy with preparations for his own supposed marriage to ‘Lady Belle Bentinck’. Add. 70240, countess of Kinnoull to Oxford, 12 Mar. 1720; Add. 70149, Lady Russell to A. Harley, 1 May 1714. The source of the confusion is uncertain. There was certainly no truth in either of the reports (particularly given that Rochester’s wife did not die until 1725), though Lady Isabella Bentinck was married that summer to Evelyn Pierrepont, marquess of Dorchester (later duke of Kingston), a name somewhat similar to Rochester. On 4 May Rochester reported from the committee for Tregagle’s bill (in which he had perhaps taken an interest as it concerned lands lying within his lieutenancy) and on 11 May from that for Wynne’s bill. At the close of the month he was forecast by Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, as a supporter of the schism bill. On 7 Aug. he again received Lexinton’s proxy, which was vacated by the close.

Rochester attended 13 of the 15 days of the brief session that met following the death of Queen Anne in August. He was quick to assure the new king of his intention of demonstrating the ‘same duty and steadiness to your majesty which I ever paid to the late queen.’ Add. 75375, f. 24. His efforts appear to have paid off. In January of the following year he was noted as a Tory still in office and although he relinquished the lieutenancy of Cornwall to Radnor soon after, he retained a number of less prominent places. Add. 47028, f. 7; Add. 61471, ff. 13-14. Details of the latter part of his career, including his succession to the earldom of Clarendon, will be considered in the second phase of this work.

Despite fathering three sons and five daughters, at his death in 1753 only one of Clarendon’s children remained alive. His son and heir, Henry Hyde^†, styled Viscount Cornbury (who had been summoned to the Lords in 1751 by a writ in acceleration as Baron Hyde) had died in a riding accident in Paris earlier in the year. To make matters worse, contemporary gossip cast doubt upon the paternity of his surviving daughter, Catherine (Kitty), duchess of Queensberry [S], who was rumoured to have been fathered by Henry Boyle, Baron Carleton, his kinsman. Oxford DNB (Jane, countess of Rochester and Clarendon). If Clarendon had an opinion on the subject he took it with him to his grave at Wootton Bassett (not, as the Complete Peerage suggests, in Westminster Abbey). WSHC, 1235/10; Wilts. Arch. Mag. xxix. 194. He died without leaving a will and in the absence of any other children to dispute her title, administration of his estate was granted in February the following year (with a further confirmation in June 1783) to the duchess of Queensberry. Both the earldoms of Rochester and Clarendon were rendered extinct, though the earldom of Clarendon was later revived for Thomas Villiers* [171], husband of Clarendon’s granddaughter Charlotte Capel.