III.

Oct. 15.

Nov. 6. ment.

CHAP. address of thanks from the two houses for the removal A.D. 1667. of the chancellor, the king replied by promising never more to employ him in any capacity whatsoever. It may be that by this promise he hoped to satisfy the enemies of Clarendon; but they argued that the fallen statesman might, on some future day, recover the favour of his sovereign, or be restored by his son-in-law, should that prince succeed to the throne; their personal safety demanded precautions against his subsequent revenge; and, to consummate his ruin, it was resolved to proceed against him by impeachSeventeen charges were fabricated in a committee of the lower house, imputing to him venality and cruelty in the discharge of his office of chancellor, the acquisition by unlawful means of enormous wealth, the sale of Dunkirk to France, the disclosure of the king's secrets to his enemies, and the design of introducing a military government without the intervention of parliament. Nothing, however, could be more informal than the proceedings on this occasion. No papers were ordered, no witnesses were examined; the several charges were adopted on the credit of members, who engaged to produce proof whenever it might be deemed necessary; and the Commons in a body impeached Clarendon at the bar of the House of Lords of high treason, and other crimes and misdemeanours, requesting, at the same time, that he Nov. 12. might be committed to custody, till they should exhibit articles against him.'

It is probable, that from the absence of the duke of York (he was confined to his chamber by the smallpox) the enemies of Clarendon had promised them

1 C. Journals, Nov. 6, 8, 11. State Trials, vi. 330. Clarendon, 445-448, 450. Life of James, i. 431. Pepys, iii. 410, 411, 420.

AND PROTECTED BY THE LORDS.

153

III.

selves an easy victory. But the duke commissioned CHAP. his friends to defend his father-in-law; the bishops A.D. 1667. felt themselves bound to support him as the patron of orthodoxy; and several peers, convinced of his innocence, cheerfully seconded their efforts. They did not, indeed, dare openly to advocate his cause, but they intrenched themselves behind forms and privileges; they contended that to commit on a general charge was contrary to ancient practice; that the first precedent in its favour was furnished by the impeachment of the earl of Strafford, a precedent which the house would not follow, because the attainder had been reversed, and the proceedings erased from the journals; and they maintained that the Lords ought to be careful how they sanctioned a pretension which might prove in future times prejudicial to them and their posterity. After several animated debates, it was Nov. 14. twice resolved, by a small majority, that the accused Nov. 20. should not be committed, because no specific charge was contained in the impeachment.1

The Commons resented this decision of the Lords; conferences were repeatedly held, and each house pertinaciously adhered to its former opinion. The king's perplexity daily increased. He observed that the proceedings began to take the same course as in the impeachment of the earl of Strafford; and the calamities which followed the condemnation of that nobleman stared him in the face. He proposed, as an expedient, that the earl should clandestinely leave the kingdom; but no argument, no entreaty, could prevail on Cla

Clar. 450. L. Journ. 135-137. Pepys, iii. 415. Clarendon, in a letter to Ormond, says, "I must not omit to tell you that the "duke of York hath been, and is, as gracious to me, and as much "concerned for me as is possible. I have not many other friends to "brag of."-Carte, ii. App. 38.

CHAP. rendon to take a step which he deemed derogatory A.D. 1667. to his character; and the monarch, irritated by his

III.

obstinacy, began to speak of him in terms of aversion. His enemies now ventured to make use of the royal name. It was rumoured that the king had also offences to punish; that Clarendon, to thwart him in his amour with the beautiful Miss Stewart, had persuaded her to marry the duke of Richmond. Nov. 16. The earl, in a letter which he sent by the lord keeper, denied this charge; the king read it, burnt it deliberately in the flame of a candle, and coolly replied, that he was unable to understand its contents, but wondered what Clarendon was doing in England.'

This hint, however, was lost on the determined mind of the fallen minister. It was followed by an unavowed message delivered by the bishop of Hereford; the same advice was then urged by the French ambassador; and, when every other expedient had failed, the duke of York, by express command, carried to him a royal order to retire to the continent. He reluctantly obeyed; and, having addressed

In this letter he intimated an intention of going beyond the seas, but made it a condition that the king should first put a stop to the impeachment.-Clarendon Cont. 454.

2 Clarendon, 454-456. Life of James, i. 432. L. Journ. 154. That Charles was offended with the marriage is certain.-Clar. 453If we may believe Stewart herself, she wished to marry to relieve herself from his importunities, and therefore accepted the offer of the duke of Richmond, with the king's acquiescence.-Pepys, iii. 203. But the report was, that Charles thought of her for his own wife, that he consulted Sheldon, archbishop of Canterbury, on the means of procuring a divorce, that Sheldon revealed the secret to Clarendon, and that Clarendon, to secure the succession to his daughter's issue, brought about the marriage of Stewart with the duke of Richmond. -Burnet, i. 436. Lord Dartmouth's Note, 438. Pepys, iii. 293. It makes against this story, that, when a divorce was suggested afterwards to Charles, he replied that his conscience would not permit it. -Life of James, i. 439.

III.

a vindication of himself to the House of Lords, secretly CHAP. withdrew to France.1

2

A.D. 1667

Nov. 29.

His departure put an end to the quarrel between the two houses, but did not satisfy the resentment or the apprehension of his enemies. His vindication was voted Dec. 9. a scandalous and seditious libel, and ordered to be burnt by the hands of the common hangman. In it he had stated that he had withdrawn only for a time; and would return to prove his innocence, whenever he saw a likelihood of justice having its course, "uncon"trolled by the power and malice of men who had

sworn his destruction." His enemies pounced on this passage, and, under pretence of holding him to his word, introduced a bill which, after a feeble opposition, Dec. 19. was passed, ordering him to surrender for trial before first of February, and, in default of appearance, banishing him for life, disabling him from holding office, subjecting him to the penalties of high treason, if he returned to England, and rendering him incapable of pardon unless by act of parliament. Clarendon, the moment he heard of this enactment, hastened from Rouen to meet his accusers, but was detained at Calais by a dangerous illness, the consequence of fatigue of body and anxiety of mind. Before he could leave his bed, the allotted term had expired, and he thus became, without the possibility of preventing it, an exile for life.*

8

1 It is certain that the duke took the order to Clarendon; yet Lord Cornbury says that his father withdrew, because it was intended to dissolve the parliament, and try him by a jury of peers. -Carte, ii. App. 39.

2 The Commons, however, entered two resolutions on their journals, that in such cases the accused ought to be secured, and that, when he is in custody, the Lords may limit a time within which the particular charge may be specified.-C. Journ. December 5.

L. Journ. 154, 157, 162, 167, 169. St. of Realm, 628. 4 Life of Clarend. 355, et seq.

1668.

Jan. 21.

April 3.

CHAP.
III.

Notwithstanding this severity, it is certain that he
The charges

A.D. 1668. fell a victim to the hostility of party.

1674.

Dec. 9.

against him were not supported by any lawful proof,
and most, if not all, were satisfactorily refuted in his
answer.1 Yet he must not be considered an immacu-
late character. His dread of republicanism taught him
to advocate every claim of the prerogative, however
unreasonable, and his zeal for orthodoxy led him to
persecute all who dissented from the establishment.
He was haughty and overbearing; his writings betray
in many instances the faithlessness of his memory, or
his contempt for veracity; and his desire of amassing
wealth provoked Evelyn to remark of him, that “the
"lord chancellor never did, nor would do, anything but
"for money. "2
In exile he spent most of his time at
Montpelier and Moulins, relieving with literary com-
position the tedium of banishment, and soliciting re-
peatedly permission to revisit his native country, that
he might breathe his last in the company of his chil-
dren. But Charles, who felt no inclination to engage
in a new contest for the sake of a man who had long
ago forfeited his esteem, treated these prayers with
neglect; and the unfortunate exile, whom hope had
brought back to Rouen in Normandy, died there in
1674.9

By the exile of Clarendon, the ministry which had been established at the restoration was entirely dissolved. The duke of Ormond resided in his government of Ireland, Southampton was dead, Albemarle incapacited by age and infirmity, and Nicholas had resigned. The new cabinet, or, as it was called in the 1 Clarendon, 478.

2 See Historical Inquiry respecting the character of Clarendon, by the Hon. George Agar Ellis, 1827.

Supp. to Clar. Pap. iii. xliv. xlv. Wood, Athen. Oxon. ii. 1024.