DENZIL, LORD HOLLES, A CHARACTER Very unlike the earl of Bristol's: the one embraced a party with levity, and pursued it with passion; the other took his part on reflection, and yet could wave it, though his passions were concerned. The courage of Digby blazed by choice; that of Holles burned by necessity. Through their life, the former acted from the impulse of great parts; the latter of common sense; and in both, the event was what in those cases it generally is: Digby was unfortunate, and admired; Holles was successful, and less renowned.4 On a strict disquisition into the conduct of the latter, he seems to have been a patriot 2 [See p. 205.] A remarkable instance of his spirit was his challenging General Ireton, who pleading "that his conscience would not permit him to fight a duel; Holles pulled him by the nose, telling him, That if his conscience would not let him give redress, it ought to prevent him from offering injuries." 4 [We may concede to Lord Holles, said Sir E. Brydges, the qualities of integrity and sound sense, but he is too dry and hard to interest us.] both by principle and behaviour, and to have thoroughly understood the state of his country, and its relations with Europe, its dangers from royal power, from usurpation, from anarchy, from popery, from the French empire. On every crisis I have mentioned, he acted an honest and uniform part. He early opposed the enormous exertion of the prerogative by Charles the first, and his ministers; carrying up the impeachment against Laud, suffering a severe imprisonment for his free spirit, and being marked by the king in that wild attempt of accusing the five members. Yet he seems to have been one of the first alarmed at the designs of those who proposed to chastise, as well as to correct; and who meaned to retain the power, as well as the office of punishment. At the treaty at Oxford, where he was one of the commissioners 5 [Mercer thus expressed his praise of Denzil Holles : from the parliament, he ventured, in hopes of healing the distractions, to advise the king what to answer; an employment that clashed a little with his trust, and in which his sagacity did not shine; for though the king followed his advice, it had no effect. However, the intention seemed upright; and his so easily forgetting the personal injuries he had received, reflects great honour to his memory. He refused to act in the prosecution against lord Strafford, who was his brother-in-law, and against the bishops; yet he was esteemed the head of the Presbyterian party; and, in the isle of Wight, advised his majesty to give up episcopacy. The defects of his character seem to have been, that his principles were aristocratic, (demonstrated by all experience to be the most tyrannous species of government, and never imbibed but by proud and self-interested men); that his opposition to the army was too much founded on a personal enmity to Crom It has been objected to me, that lord Holles's writing, seem to argue for democracy; but it is certain that the tenor of his conduct and of his memoirs was to oppose and revile the lowborn and popular leaders, as soon as they had deprived his lordship and his associates of their ascendant in the common-wealth. It is in vain for a man to pretend to democratic principles who prefers monarchy to the constant, natural, and necessary consequences of a democracy. well; and that he sat on the trial of the regi cides, who, at worst, but chastised the faults which his lordship had pointed out." Lord Holles acted zealously for the Restoration; and while the dawn of the king's reign was unclouded, accepted employments and embassies from the crown, consistent with his honour and duty to his country. As soon as the Catholic rudder was uncovered, he again reverted to patriot opposition. When sir William Temple's privy-council was established, lord Holles, though eighty-two, yet never thinking himself past serving his country, accepted a place in it; but died soon after. When he was an exile in France, he wrote "Memoirs of Denzil Lord Holles, Baron of Ifield in Sussex, from the year 1641 to 1648." Published in 1699. 8vo. They were little more than the apology for his own conduct, and a virulent satire on his adversaries. The extraordinary wording of the dedication takes off all hopes of impartiality. It is addressed "To the unparallel'd 7 [" Did they not violently turn out a legal establishment," says Mr. Cole," and exercise a tyranny equal, if not superior, to that they chastised?" And has not such been the conduct, we may add, of all those revolutionary despots, who have risen to temporary elevation upon the ruins of each other?] couple, Mr. Oliver St. John, his majesty's sollicitor-general, and Mr. Oliver Cromwell, the parliament's lieutenant-general, the two grand designers of the ruin of three kingdoms." " Much temper was not to be expected from an exile in a religious and civil war. From the extreme good sense of his lordship's speeches and letters, one should not have expected that weak attempt to blast Cromwell for a coward. How a judicatory in the Temple of Fame would laugh at such witnesses, as a major-general Crawford and a colonel Dalbier! Cæsar and Cromwell are not amenable to a commission of oyer and terminer. There are published, besides, "Two Letters to the Earl of Strafford ;"2 published among the Strafford papers. 8 [This dedication is dated from St. Mere Eglide, in Normandy, 14th Feb. 1648, but is preceded by another to his grace John, duke of Newcastle, &c. which bears date Mar. 28, 1699; drawn up probably by the publisher; who was induced so to inscribe these papers because lord Holles was great uncle to the duke, who had ordered a stately monument to be erected at Dorchester to his memory; and the dedicator thought his grace's name ought to be inscribed on the literary monument which lord Holles had left of himself.] 9 Two obscure men, whom lord Holles quotes, to prove instances of Cromwell's want of spirit. 2 Vide that Collection, and Collins's Historical Account of the Families of Cavendish, Holles, &c. p. 100. |