HYDE, William (1635-94), of Langtoft, Lincs.
Available from Boydell and Brewer
Family and Education
b. 10 Nov. 1635, o.s. of Humphrey Hyde of Langtoft by Sarah, da. and h. of Thomas Gibson of Barleythorpe, Rutland. educ. Queens’, Camb. 1652. m. 18 Aug. 1658, Mary (d. 21 Mar. 1672), da. of Sir Thomas Trollope, 1st Bt., of Casewick, Lincs., 3s. 1da. suc. fa. 1637.1
Sheriff, Rutland 1658-Nov. 1660; commr. for assessment, Rutland Jan. 1660, 1664-9, 1679-80, Kesteven Aug. 1660-1, Lincs. 1661-3, 1664-74, 1679-80, 1689-90; j.p. Lincs. (Kesteven) July 1660-Feb. 1688, (Holland) 1663-Feb. 1688, (Kesteven and Holland) Oct. 1688-d.; capt. of militia horse, Lincs. Aug. 1660-81, 1689-d., commr. for sewers, 1660, oyer and terminer, Lincoln 1661.2
Hyde was the grandson of a London merchant and customs farmer. His father, a younger son, acquired property and connexions in Lincolnshire and Rutland by marriage. As sheriff of Rutland Hyde was responsible for conducting the general election of 1660, and signed the congratulatory address to the King at the Restoration. But he took no known part in politics until the Exclusion Parliaments, in all of which he sat for Stamford, six miles from Langtoft. He defeated the Berties at the first general election of 1679 on the interest of his friend the 5th Earl of Exeter (John Cecil). He was classed as ‘honest’ by Shaftesbury, but took no known part in the Exclusion Parliaments and was absent from the division on the bill. He may have gone over to the Court, for he remained on the commission of the peace, and when he lost his militia commission in 1681 Sir Leoline Jenkins wrote, by ‘express command from his Majesty, to inquire the cause’. He went abroad with Lord Exeter in 1683, and did not stand in 1685. In 1687 he was listed among the Northamptonshire opposition to James II, and in Lincolnshire he returned the same negative answers on the repeal of the Test Act and Penal Laws as ((Sir) Henry Monson. It was probably of him that Lord Lindsey (Robert Bertie I) wrote: ‘This is one of the worst of them, fit to be turned out’. He was indeed removed from local office, but regained his seat at the general election of 1689. He was again totally inactive in the Convention, being given leave to go into the country on 12 July. Though presumably a Whig, he was not listed as a supporter of the disabling clause in the bill to restore corporations. Re-elected in 1690, he died on 21 Nov. 1694 and was buried at Langtoft. According to his daughter-in-law ‘he was the delight of his country, honoured with the title of honest ... a senator most faithful to his God, king and country’. No other member of the family entered Parliament.3