London, he spoke with a maid, who had formerly serv'd him, that knew the chancellor very well, and who assured him, that one evening she had seen the chancellor go into Cromwells chamber at Whitehall; and after he had been shut up with him some hours, she saw him conducted out again. And Mr. Long desired time, that he might send over for this woman, who should appear and justify it. To this impossible discourse, the chancellor said, he would make no other defence, than that there were persons then in the town, who, he was confident, would avow that they had seen him once every day, from the time he returned from Spain to the day on which he attended his majesty at Paris; as indeed there were; and when he had said so, he offered to go out of the room; which the king would not have him do. But he told his majesty it was the course; and that he ought not to be present at the debate that was to concern himself; and the keeper with some warmth, said, it was true; and so he retired to his own chamber. The lord Jermyn, as soon as he was gone, said, that he never thought the accusation had any thing of probability in it; and that he believ'd the chancellor a very honest man; but the use that he thought ought to be made of this calumny, was, that it appeared that an honest and innocent man might be calumniated, as he thought Mr. Long had likewise been; and therefore they ought both to be cleared. The keeper said, he saw not ground enough to condemn the chancellor; but he saw no cause, neither to declare him innocent: that there was one witness which declared only what he had heard; but that he undertook also to produce the witness herself if he might have time; which in justice could not be denied; and therefore he proposed, that a competent time might be given to Mr. Long to make out his proof; and that in the mean time the chancellor might not repair to the council: with which proposition the king was so offended, that, with much warmth, he said, he discerned well the design; and that it was so false and wicked a charge, that, if he had no other exception against Mr. Long than this foul and foolish accusation, it was cause enough never to trust him. And therefore he presently sent for the chancellor, and as soon as he came in, commanded him to sit in his -place; and told him he was sorry he was not in a condition to do him more justice than to declare him innocent; which he did so, and commanded the clerk of the council to draw up a full order for his vindication, which his majesty himself would sign." Thus the chancellor tells the story. But Sir Richard Greenville, or Granville, in his "Defence against all aspersions of malignant persons," printed and published in Holland, Jan. 28, 1654, relates it as follows. "In April and May, 1653, when I was in Paris, it was there commonly spoken by divers persons, how that Sir Edward Hyde was suspected to have betrayed the king. Afterwards elsewhere having understood more probabilities of such truths, I believed it my duty to advertize his majesty of what I had been informed thereof. Aug. 12, 1653, I writ it to his majesty, for prevention of future mischief, if to be doubted, as that it was reported Sir Edward Hyde had private conference with Cromwell in England for intelligence. For answer thereto, the marquis of Ormonde, by letter of the 19th of September, 1653, did write to me, that his majesty required to know my grounds for what I did alledge against Sir Edward Hyde, also that I should send him all writings received concerning that affair: and like Clarendon, vol. VI. p. 515. 7: wise the names of all my authors. In obedience, I wrote as followeth. That my duty was my only ground for what I writ concerning Sir Edward Hyde. As for my authors, Colonel Wyndham said to myself at Boulogne, in June, 1653, that Sir Edward Hyde had been in England, and that there he had private speech with Cromwell; also, said he, Mr. Robert Long is now in Holland, he can, and will give more certain information of its particulars: and that thereupon I did by letter desire Mr. Long to certify the truth of that report. July 28, 1653, I received his answer, wherein. he appeared to confirm, what I writ was said of Sir Edward Hyde, by Colonel Wyndham: which letter I sent, because commanded, but greatly against my will. Since which letter Mr. Robert Long sent me another, containing thus-I will assure you it will be verified that the person named did positively and constantly affirm before two witnesses, whereof one is on this side of the sea, and the other in England, that that person brought Sir Edward Hyde to a conference with Cromwell, and described him so particularly, that it was evident he was known; and did as particularly describe a person that was then with him.And lastly, concerning Sir Edward Hydes pension for intelligence, that it was so said by divers persons, so commonly, and in divers places, that I did not charge them to my memory, therefore could not possibly at certainty name many authors for it, but I did well remember Mr. Campbell said it sundry times in my hearing at Paris: so also did the bishop of Derry speak it to me at Flushing, July, 1653. Having thus performed my duty, as required, at last, for the reward of my constant known loyalty, the marquis of Ormonde did signify to me, by letters dated November 29, 1653, That it was his majesties pleasure to command that I should not come into his presence or court: that he finds my allegations against Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer to be deficient to the ends they were offer'd, and are taken to be a defamatory libel. Since again for farther vindication of Hyde, have been dispersed many copies of a declaration in writing, as authorized by his majesty, Jan. 13, 1654, whereof divers copies have been dispers'd, not only in France, but also in England, Holland, and elsewhere; and of the same here next ensuing is a copy. "6 Tuesday, the 13th of January, 1654. PRESENT, The KINGS Majesty, The DUKE of GLOUCESTER, Prince RUPERT, Lord Keeper, Sir EDWARD HERBERT, Lord Chamberlain, Lord PIERCY, Lord INCHIQUIN, Marquis of ORMONDE, Lord Lieutenant of Lord JERMYN, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer. "Whereas upon complaint made the 22d day of December last by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, of certain discourses spread abroad to his prejudice, as if he was under an accusation of high treason: and upon his humble desire that his majesty would examine the grounds of those discourses; his majesty, after other enquiries, caused a letter to be read which had been written to himself in August last past by Sir Richard Granville, in which he informed his majesty, 1 wise the names of all my authors. In obedience, I wrote as followeth. That my duty was my only ground for what I writ concerning Sir Edward Hyde. As for my authors, Colonel Wyndham said to myself at Boulogne, in June, 1653, that Sir Edward Hyde had been in England, and that there he had private speech with Cromwell; also, said he, Mr. Robert Long is now in Holland, he can, and will give more certain information of its particulars: and that thereupon I did by letter desire Mr. Long to certify the truth of that report. July 28, 1653, I received his answer, wherein he appeared to confirm, what I writ was said of Sir Edward Hyde, by Colonel Wyndham: which letter I sent, because commanded, but greatly against my will. Since which letter Mr. Robert Long sent me another, containing thus-I will assure you it will be verified that the person named did positively and constantly affirm before two witnesses, whereof one is on this side of the sea, and the other in England, that that person brought Sir Edward Hyde to a conference with Cromwell, and described him so particularly, that it was evident he was known; and did as particularly describe a person that was then with him. And lastly, concerning Sir Edward Hydes pension for intelligence, that it was so said by divers persons, so commonly, and in divers places, that I did not charge them to my memory, therefore could not possibly at certainty name many authors for it, but I did well remember Mr. Campbell said it sundry times in my hearing at Paris: so also did the bishop of Derry speak it to me at Flushing, July, 1653. Having thus performed my duty, as required, at last, for the reward of my constant known loyalty, the marquis of Ormonde did signify to me, by letters dated November 29, 1653, That it was his majesties pleasure to command that I should not |