MONK'S CONTEMPORARIES.

DENZIL HOLLIS.

[1597-1681.]

IN order properly to understand a revolution, we must consider it at its origin and termination in the earliest plans which it puts forth, and in the definitive results which it attains. In these its true character is revealed; by these we may judge what were the real thoughts and wishes of the people among whom it took place. All that occurs between these two periods is more or less factitious, transitory, and deceptive. The stream winds and wanders in its course; two points alone, its source and its mouth, determine its direction.

Just in this manner, during the course of a revolution, parties are formed and transformed, divided and subdivided, and seize the empire by turns, to lose it again each in its turn; but that is really the national party which appears at the origin and termination of the crisis-which, after having begun the war and endured all its vicissitudes, finds itself, at last, strong and wise enough to restore peace.

This honour belonged, in England, to the Presbyterian party, and to the political, rather than to the religious, reformers of that party. The English revolution, in 1640, took its first steps, and committed its first faults, under the guidance of the Presbyterians; in 1688, it was accomplished and concluded under the banner of the Whigs-a new party, very different from the Presbyterians, but inheriting their essential principles of public liberty and national government. They constituted, at that period, the national party in England.

Denzil Hollis, the younger son of the Earl of Clare, born at Haughton, Nottinghamshire, in 1597, was one of the most

B

66

important and honourable members of this party; we meet with him at every step in the events of his lifetime, and all his contemporaries bear testimony to his worth. "He was," says Clarendon, as much valued and esteemed by the whole party as any man; as he deserved to be, being of more accomplished parts than any of them, and of great reputation by the part he acted against the court and the Duke of Buckingham, in the Parliament of 1628."* Burnet says, "He was a man of great courage, and of as great pride; he was counted for many years the head of the Presbyterian party. He was faithful and firm to his side, and never changed through the whole course of his life. He was well versed in the records of Parliament: and argued well, but too vehemently; for he could not bear contradiction. He had the soul of an old stubborn Roman in him. He was a faithful but a rough friend, and a severe but fair enemy. He had a true sense of religion: and was a man of an unblamable course of life, and of a sound judgment when it was not biassed by passion."+

Hollis's first steps in life seemed to destine him to favour rather than to opposition. When he left college, he was attached to the person of the Duke of York, afterwards Charles I., and lived for some time on terms of the most intimate familiarity with that prince, accompanying him in the chase, partaking in his pleasures, and sometimes even sharing his bed. But he had been brought up by a haughty father, who openly lamented the departed glories of Elizabeth's splendid court, and despised James I., his timid pretensions, his contemptible pride, his avaricious countrymen, and his shameful favourites. "He who fears his enemy does not love his friend," was the device of the Earl of Clare, and his son remained faithful to the motto. In 1624, young Hollis was elected to represent a Cornish borough in the House of Commons, during the last Parliament of King James, and took an active part in the defence of the public liberties. In the following year, on his accession to the throne, Charles withdrew the seals from Williams, Bishop of Lincoln, a friend of the Earl of Clare. The earl considered himself affronted. The king informed his two sons that he would make them

* Clarendon's History of the Rebellion (Oxford, 1819), vol. i., p. 276. Burnet's History of his own Time (Oxford, 1823), vol. i., pp. 166-167. "Qui inimicum timet, amicum non amat."

Knights of the Bath at his coronation; but both refused the honour. Denzil even declined to take part in a brilliant masquerade in which the king had assigned him a place.* In matters both of business and festivity, in affairs which concerned either the interests of the state or his own personal relations, he already displayed that passionate haughtiness, that fidelity to his cause, his friendships and his enmities, that mixture of popular principles and aristocratic feelings, which were destined subsequently to make him one of the most active founders of that great Whig party, which has done so much for the credit of the British nobility, and for the liberty of the English people.

It was in 1628, during the Parliament rendered famous by the Petition of Rights, that his political activity really commenced; he was then one of the most ardent opponents of the court, the Duke of Buckingham, and all the oppressive measures under which the country groaned. On the 2nd of March, 1629, the Speaker of the Commons, in obedience to the orders of the king, was about to declare the adjournment of the House, and to leave his chair, when Mr. Hollis made him resume his seat, and kept him there by force, saying: "God's wounds, Mr. Speaker, you shall sit still till it please the House to rise."+ Charles I. had overstepped his lawful authority; the Opposition followed his example; and both parties hurried rapidly along this fearful road. After the dissolution of the Parliament, Hollis and several others were cited before the Privy Council, for what they had said and done in the House. Hollis was the first interrogated. Wherefore," he was asked, "did you, contrary to your former use, that morning that the tumult was in the lower House of Parliament, place yourself above divers of the privy councillors, by the chair ?"-"At some other times, as well as then," he answered, “I have seated myself in that place; and as for my sitting above the privy councillors, I take it to be my due in any place wheresoever, unless at the councilboard." In the course of his examination, he protested that he came into the House with as great zeal for his majesty's service as any one, but added, that as his majesty was offended with him, he humbly desired that he might rather

* Biographia Britannica, in the life of his father, John Hollis, Earl of Clare, vol. iv., p. 2641.

† Hansard's Parliamentary History, vol. ii., col. 490.

be the subject of his mercy than of his power.

"You mean

rather of his majesty's mercy than of his justice," said the Lord Treasurer.-"I said of his majesty's power, my lord," replied Hollis.* He was condemned to pay a fine of one thousand silver marks, and was sent to prison, where he remained for more than a year. Nearly all his friends met with the same fate, and Charles, thus freed from the parliamentary Opposition, reigned for twelve years with blind confidence, as if the day of retribution were never to arrive.

It came, however, and the Opposition re-appeared in the Parliament of 1640, much more exasperated and powerful than it had ever been before. Charles found himself face to face with, and at the mercy of, those men whom he had treated as insolent and impotent rebels. Hampden, Pym, and Hollis were, from the first, the declared leaders of the Reforming and Presbyterian party, in whose train followed all the future factions, as yet unaware of their own existence, and striving only to hasten forward the general movement. Strafford's trial placed Hollis, for a short time, in a painful dilemma: Strafford had married his sister, Arabella Hollis, and the difference of their political opinions had not interfered with their friendship. As a member of the committee appointed to examine into the charges brought against Strafford, Hollis strove to save the head of his brother-in-law, by attributing his conduct to the pressure of public violence. Secret negotiations commenced between the king and the chiefs of the reform party. A cabinet was projected of which the leaders were to form part, and, when in office, to reform the government according to the wishes of the country. Hollis was to be made Secretary of State. The life of Strafford and the maintenance of the Church were the price of this concession. The king assented to this plan, but soon grew cold, lent his ear to other counsels, and conspired against the Parliament, while continuing to negotiate with it. Whilst the king was hesitating and deceiving, Strafford was accused, judged, and condemned. Another negotiation was then set on foot, that the Commons should rest satisfied with his banishment. Hollis conducted it, it is said, with some success in the Commons. The king promised to go in person, and present the earl's petition to the Houses. Hollis had drawn up the speech which his majesty was to deliver. But the king did * Hansard's Parliamentary History, col. 504.