Godfrey the Hunchback of Lorraine conquers Holland.
The Bishop of Utrecht surrenders it to Dirk V.
Floris II.
Dirk VI.
Floris, like his predecessors, was hard-fighting and tenacious. He
gradually recovered possession of his ancestral lands. He found a
formidable adversary in the able and warlike William, who, becoming
bishop of Utrecht in 1054, was determined to recover the lost
possessions of his see; and in 1058, in alliance with Hanno, archbishop
of Cologne, Egbert, margrave of Brandenburg, the bishop of Liege and
others, invaded the Frisian territory. At first success attended the
invaders and many places fell into their hands, but finally they were
surprised and defeated near Dordrecht. The counts of Guelders and
Louvain were among the prisoners that fell into the hands of Floris. The
attack was renewed in 1061. In a battle at Nederhemert Floris met with
his death in the hour of victory. He is said to have been killed as,
wearied with pursuing, he lay asleep under a tree. He was succeeded by
his son, Dirk V., a child, under the guardianship of his mother,
Gertrude of Saxony. Bishop William seems now to have seized his
opportunity and occupied all the territory that he claimed. In this he
was confirmed by two charters of the emperor Henry IV. (April 30 and May
2, 1064). Among the possessions thus assigned to him is found _comitatus
omnis in Hollandt cum omnibus ad bannum regalem pertinentibus_. An
examination of these documents shows the possessions of Dirk as _in
Westflinge et circa oras Rheni_, i.e. west of the Vlie and around the
mouths of the Rhine. Gertrude and her son appear to have withdrawn to
the islands of Frisia (Zeeland), leaving William in undisturbed
occupation of the disputed lands. In 1063 Gertrude contracted a marriage
with Robert, the second son of Baldwin V. of Flanders, a man famous for
his adventurous career (see FLANDERS). On his marriage his father
invested him with Imperial Flanders, as an apanage including the islands
of Frisia (Zeeland) west of the Scheldt. He now became guardian to his
stepson, in whose inheritance lay the islands east of the Scheldt.
Robert thus, in his own right and that of Dirk, was ruler of all Frisia
(Zeeland), and thus became known among his Flemish countrymen as Robert
the Frisian. The death of his brother Baldwin VI. in 1070 led to civil
war in Flanders, the claim of Robert to the guardianship of his nephew
Arnulf being disputed by Richilde, the widow of Baldwin. The issue was
decided by the decisive victory of Robert at Cassel (February 1071) when
Arnulf was killed and Richilde taken prisoner (see Flanders). While
Robert was thus engaged in Flanders, an effort was made to recover "the
County of Holland" and other lands now held by William of Utrecht. The
people rose in revolt, but by command of the emperor Henry IV. were
speedily brought back under episcopal rule by an army under the command
of Godfrey the Hunchback, duke of Lower Lorraine. Again in 1076, at the
request of the bishop, Duke Godfrey visited his domains in the Frisian
borderland. At Delft, of which town tradition makes Godfrey the founder,
the duke was treacherously murdered (February 26, 1076). William of
Utrecht died on the 17th of the following April. Dirk V., now grown to
man's estate, was not slow to take advantage of the favourable juncture.
With the help of Robert (his stepfather) he raised an army, besieged
Conrad, the successor of William, in the castle of Ysselmonde and took
him prisoner. The bishop purchased his liberty by surrendering all claim
to the disputed lands. Henceforth the Frisian counts became definitively
known as counts of Holland. Dirk V. died in 1091 and was succeeded by
his son Floris II. the Fat. This count had a peaceful and prosperous
reign of thirty-one years. After his death (1122) his widow, Petronilla
of Saxony, governed in the name of Dirk VI., who was a minor. The
accession of her half-brother, Lothaire of Saxony, to the imperial
throne on the death of Henry V. greatly strengthened her position. The
East Frisian districts, Oostergoo and Westergoo, were by Lothaire
transferred from the rule of the bishops of Utrecht to that of the
counts of Holland (1125). These Frisians proved very troublesome
subjects to Dirk VI. In 1132 they rose in insurrection under the
leadership of Dirk's own brother, Floris the Black. The emperor Conrad
III. (1138), who was of the rival house of Hohenstaufen, gave back these
Frisian districts to the bishop; it was in truth somewhat of an empty
gift. The Frisian peasants and fisher folk loved their independence, and
were equally refractory to the rule of any distant overlord, whether
count or bishop. Dirk VI. was succeeded in 1157 by Floris III.
Floris III.
Dirk VII.
William I.
Floris IV.
Floris III. reversed the traditional policy of his house by allying
himself with the Hohenstaufens. He became a devoted adherent and friend
of Frederick Barbarossa. He had troubles with West Friesland and
Groningen, and a war with the count of Flanders concerning their
respective rights in West Zeeland, in which he was beaten. In 1170 a
great flood caused immense devastation in the north and helped to form
the Zuider Zee. In 1189 Floris accompanied Frederick Barbarossa upon the
third Crusade, of which he was a distinguished leader. He died in 1190
at Antioch of pestilence. His son, Dirk VII., had a stormy, but on the
whole successful reign. Contests with the Flemings in West Zeeland and
with the West Frisians, stirred up to revolt by his brother William,
ended in his favour. The brothers were reconciled and William was made
count of East Friesland. In 1202, however, Dirk was defeated and taken
prisoner by the duke of Brabant, and had to purchase peace on
humiliating terms. He only survived his defeat a short time and died
early in 1204, leaving as his only issue a daughter, Ada, 17 years of
age. The question of female succession thus raised was not likely to be
accepted without a challenge by William. It had been the intention of
Dirk VII. to secure the recognition of his daughter's rights by
appointing his brother her guardian. His widow Alida, however, an
ambitious woman of strong character, as soon as her husband was dead,
hurried on a marriage between Ada and Count Louis of Loon; and attempted
with the nobles of Holland, who now for the first time make their
appearance as a power in the country, to oppose the claim which William
had made to the countship as heir in the male line. A struggle ensued.
William was supported by the Zeelanders and Ada was forced to fly to
England. William, by a treaty concluded with Louis of Loon in 1206,
became undisputed count. He took an active part in the events of his
time. He fought by the side of the emperor Otto IV. in the great battle
of Bouvines in 1214 (see PHILIP AUGUSTUS), and was taken prisoner. Two
years later he accompanied Louis, the eldest son of Philip Augustus, in
his expedition against King John of England. William is perhaps best
known in history by his taking part in the fourth Crusade. He
distinguished himself greatly at the capture of Damietta (1219). He did
not long survive his return home, dying in 1222. The earliest charters
conveying civic privileges in the county of Holland date from his
reign--those of Geertruidenberg (1213) and of Dordrecht (1220). His son
Floris IV., being a minor, succeeded him under the guardianship of his
maternal uncle, Gerard III. of Gelderland. He maintained in later life
close relations of friendship with Gerard, and supported him in his
quarrel with the bishop of Utrecht (1224-1226). Floris was murdered in
1235 at a tournament at Corbie in Picardy by the count of Clermont.
Another long minority followed his death, during which his brother Otto,
bishop of Utrecht, acted as guardian to his nephew William II.
William II.
Elected King of the Romans.
Floris V.
Alliance with Edward I. of England.
First Charter to Amsterdam.
Murder of Floris V.
William II. became a man of mark. Pope Innocent IV., having deposed the
emperor Frederick II., after several princes had refused to allow
themselves to be nominated in the place of the Hohenstaufen, caused the
young count of Holland to be elected king of the Romans (1247) by an
assembly composed chiefly of German ecclesiastics. William took Aachen
in 1248 and was there crowned king; and after Frederick's death in 1250,
he had a considerable party in Germany. He brought a war with Margaret
of Flanders (Black Margaret) to a successful conclusion (1253). He was
on the point of proceeding to Rome to be crowned emperor, when in an
expedition against the West Frisians he perished, going down, horse and
armour, through the ice (1256). Like so many of his predecessors he left
his inheritance to a child. Floris V. was but two years old on his
father's death; and he was destined during a reign of forty years to
leave a deeper impress upon the history of Holland than any other of its
counts. Floris was a man of chivalrous character and high capacity, and
throughout his reign he proved himself an able and beneficent ruler.
Alike in his troubles with his turbulent subjects and in the perennial
disputes with his neighbours he pursued a strong, far-sighted and
successful policy. But his active interest in affairs was not limited to
the Netherlands. He allied himself closely with Edward I. of England in
his strife with France, and secured from the English king great trading
advantages for his people; the staple of wool was placed at Dort
(Dordrecht) and the Hollanders and Zeelanders got fishing rights on the
English coast. So intimate did their relations become that Floris sent
his son John to be educated at the court of Edward with a view to his
marriage with an English princess. To balance the power of the nobles he
granted charters to many of the towns. Floris made himself master of
Amstelland and Gooiland; and Amsterdam, destined to become the chief
commercial town of Holland, counts him the founder of its greatness. Its
earliest extant charter dates from 1275. In 1296 Floris forsook the
alliance of Edward I. for that of Philip IV. of France, probably because
Edward had given support to Guy, count of Flanders, in his dynastic
dispute with John of Avesnes, count of Hainaut, Floris's nephew (see
FLANDERS). The real motives of his policy will, however, never be known,
for shortly afterwards a conspiracy of disaffected nobles, headed by
Gijsbrecht van Amstel, Gerard van Velzen and Wolfert van Borselen, was
formed against him. He was by them basely murdered in the castle of
Muiden (June 27, 1296). The tragic event has been immortalized in dramas
from the pens of Holland's most famous writers (see VONDEL, HOOFT). The
burghers and people, who knew him to be their best friend, took such
vengeance on his slayers as permanently to reduce the power of the
nobles.
John I.
Extinction of the first line of Counts. Their high character.
John I., his son, was in England when his father was murdered; he was
but 15 years of age, feeble in body and mind. He was married to Eleanor,
daughter of Edward I. His reign was a struggle between John of Avesnes,
the young count's guardian and next heir, and Wolfert van Borselen, who
had a strong following in Zeeland. In 1299 van Borselen was killed, and
a few months later John I. died. John of Avesnes was at once recognized
as his successor by the Hollanders. Thus with John I. ended the first
line of counts, after a rule of nearly 400 years. Europe has perhaps
never seen an abler series of princes than these fourteen lineal
descendants of Dirk I. Excepting the last there is not a weak man among
them. Physically handsome and strong, model knights of the days of
chivalry, hard fighters, wise statesmen, they were born leaders of men;
always ready to advance the commerce of the country, they were the
supporters of the growing towns, and likewise the pioneers in the task
of converting a land of marshes and swamps into a fertile agricultural
territory rich in flocks and herds. As individuals they had their
failings, but one and all were worthy members of a high-souled race.
John II. of the House of Avesnes.
William III.
William IV.
The Empress Margaret.
William V. of the House of Bavaria.
Albert of Bavaria.
William VI.
Jacqueline of Bavaria.
Accession of the Burgundian Dynasty.
Philip the Good.
Flourishing state of Holland.
Charles the Bold.
Mary of Burgundy.
John of Avesnes, who took the title of John II., was the son of John of
Avesnes, count of Hainaut, and Alida, sister of William II. of Holland.
On his succession to the countship the Hollanders were willing to
receive him, but the Zeelanders were hostile; and a long struggle ensued
before his authority was generally recognized. In 1301 Bishop William of
Utrecht invaded Amstelland, but was killed in battle. John made use of
his victory to secure the election of his brother Guy as bishop in his
place. A war with the Flemings followed, in which the Flemings were at
first victorious, but after a struggle of many vicissitudes they were at
length driven out of Holland and Zeeland In 1304. John II. died in that
year and was succeeded by his son William III., surnamed the Good
(1304-1337). In his reign the long-standing quarrel with Flanders, which
had during a century and a half caused so many wars, was finally settled
by the treaty of 1323, by which the full possession of West Zeeland was
granted to William, who on his part renounced all claim in Imperial
Flanders. The Amstelland with its capital, Amsterdam, which had hitherto
been held as a fief of Utrecht, was by William, on the death of his
uncle Bishop Guy, finally annexed to Holland. This count did much to
encourage civic life and to develop the resources of the country. He had
close relations through marriage with the three principal European
dynasties of his time. His wife was Jeanne of Valois, niece of the
French king; in 1323 the emperor Louis the Bavarian wedded his daughter
Margaret; and in 1328 his third daughter, Philippa of Hainaut, was
married to Edward III. of England. By their alliance William III.
occupied a position of much dignity and influence, which he used to
further the interests and increase the welfare of his hereditary lands.
He was in all respects a great prince and a wise and prudent statesman.
He was succeeded by his son, William IV., who was the ally of his
brother-in-law, Edward III., in his French wars. He was fond of
adventure, and in 1343 made a journey to the Holy Land in disguise, and
on his way took part in an expedition of the knights of the Teutonic
Order against the infidel Wends and Lithuanians. He was killed in battle
against the Frisians in 1345. He left no children, and the question as
to the succession now brought on Holland a period of violent civil
commotions. His inheritance was claimed by his eldest sister, the
empress Margaret, as well as by Philippa of Hainaut, or in other words,
by Edward III. of England. Margaret came in person and was duly
recognized as countess in Holland, Zeeland and Hainaut; but returned to
her husband after appointing her second son (the eldest, Louis,
renounced his rights) Duke William of Bavaria, as stadholder in her
place. William was but sixteen, and disorder and confusion soon reigned
in the land. The sudden death of the emperor in 1347 added to the
difficulties of his position. In 1349 Margaret was induced to resign her
sovereignty, and the stadholder became count under the title of William
V. This was the time of the formation of the famous parties in Holland,
known as Kabbeljauws (Cods) and Hoeks (Hooks); the former, the burgher
party, were the supporters of William (possibly the name was derived
from the light blue, scaly looking Bavarian coat of arms), the latter
the party of the disaffected nobles, who wanted to catch and devour the
fat burgher fish. In 1350 such was the disorder in the land that
Margaret, at the request of the nobles, came to Holland to take into her
own hands the reins of government. The struggle between the nobles and
the cities broke out into civil war. Edward III. came to Margaret's aid,
winning a sea-fight off Veere in 1351; a few weeks later the Hooks and
their English allies were defeated by William and the Cods at
Vlaardingen--an overthrow which ruined Margaret's cause. Edward III.
shortly afterwards changed sides, and the empress saw herself compelled
(1354) to come to an understanding with her son, he being recognized as
count of Holland and Zeeland, she of Hainaut. Margaret died two years
later, leaving William, who had married Matilda of Lancaster, in
possession of the entire Holland-Hainaut inheritance (July 1356). His
tenure of power was, however, very brief. Before the close of 1357 he
showed such marked signs of insanity that his wife, with his own consent
and the support of both parties, invited Duke Albert of Bavaria, younger
brother of William V., to be regent, with the title of Ruward (1358).
William lived in confinement for 31 years. Albert died in 1404, having
ruled the land well and wisely for 46 years, first as Ruward, then as
count. Despite outbreaks from time to time of the Hook and Cod troubles,
he was able to make his authority respected, and to help forward in many
ways the social progress of the country. The influence of the towns was
steadily on the increase, and their government began to fall into the
hands of the burgher patrician class, who formed the Cod party. Opposed
to them were the nobility and the lower classes, forming the Hook party.
In Albert's latter years a fresh outbreak of civil war (1392-1395) was
caused by the count's espousing the side of the Cods, while the Hooks
had the support of his eldest son, William. Albert was afterwards
reconciled to his son, who succeeded him as William VI. in 1404. On his
accession to power William upheld the Hooks, and secured their
ascendancy. His reign was much troubled with civil discords, but he was
a brave soldier, and was generally successful in his enterprises. He
died in 1417, leaving an only child, a daughter, Jacqueline (or Jacoba),
who had in her early youth been married to John, heir to the throne of
France. At a gathering held at the Hague (August 15, 1416) the nobles
and representatives of the cities of Holland and Zeeland had promised at
William's request to support his daughter's claims to the succession.
But John of France died (April 1417), and William VI. about a month
later, leaving the widowed Jacqueline at 17 years of age face to face
with a difficult situation. She was at first welcomed in Holland and
Zeeland, but found her claims opposed by her uncle, John of Bavaria,
supported by the Cod party. Every one from whom she might have expected
help betrayed her in turn, her second husband John IV. of Brabant, her
third husband Humphrey of Gloucester, her cousin Philip the Good of
Burgundy, all behaved shamefully to her. Her romantic and sad life has
rendered the courageous and accomplished Jacqueline the most picturesque
figure in the whole history of Holland. She struggled long against her
powerful kinsfolk, nor did she know happiness till near the end of her
life, when she abandoned the unequal strife, and found repose with
Francis of Borselen, Ruward of Holland, her fourth husband. Him Philip
the Good, duke of Burgundy, craftily seized; and thereby in 1433 the
Duchess Jacqueline was compelled to cede her rights over the counties of
Holland and Hainaut. Consequently at her death in 1436, as she left no
children, Philip succeeded to the full and undisputed possession of her
lands. He had already acquired by inheritance, purchase or force almost
all the other Netherland states; and now, with the extinction of the
Bavarian line of counts, Holland ceased to have an independent existence
and became an outlying province of the growing Burgundian power (see
BURGUNDY). During the years that followed the accession to the
sovereignty of Duke Philip, Holland plays but an insignificant part. It
was governed by a stadholder, and but small respect was shown for its
chartered rights and privileges. The quarrels between the Hook and Cod
factions still continued, but the outbreaks of civil strife were quickly
repressed by the strong hand of Philip. Holland during this time
contented herself with growing material prosperity. Her herring fishery,
rendered more valuable by the curing process discovered or introduced by
Benkelszoon, brought her increasing wealth, and her fishermen were
already laying the foundations of her future maritime greatness. It was
in the days of Duke Philip that Lorenz Koster of Haarlem contributed his
share to the discovery of printing. During the reign of Charles the Bold
(1467-1477) the Hollanders, like the other subjects of that warlike
prince, suffered much from the burden of taxation An outbreak at Hoorn
was by Charles sternly repressed. The Hollanders were much aggrieved by
the establishment of a high court of justice for the entire Netherlands
at Mechlin. (1474). This was regarded as a serious breach of their
privileges. The succession of Mary of Burgundy led to the granting to
Holland as to the other provinces of the Netherlands, of the Great
Privilege of March 1477, which restored the most important of their
ancient rights and liberties (see NETHERLANDS). A high court of justice
was established for Holland, Zeeland and Friesland, and the use of the
native language was made official. The Hook and Cod troubles again
disturbed the country. Hook uprisings took place at Leiden and Dordrecht
and had to be repressed by armed force.
Maximilian of Austria.
Philip II. the Fair.
The Emperor Charles V. (Charles III.).
Philip III.
William of Orange Stadholder.
The revolt of the Netherlands.
Union of Utrecht.
Abjuration of Philip's Sovereignty.
By the sudden death of the Duchess Mary in 1482 her possessions,
including the county of Holland, passed to her infant son Philip, under
the guardianship of his father the Archduke Maximilian of Austria. Thus
the Burgundian dynasty was succeeded by that of the Habsburgs. During
the regency of Maximilian the turbulence of the Hooks caused much strife
and unrest in Holland. Their leaders. Francis of Brederode and John of
Naaldwijk, seized Rotterdam and other places. Their overthrow finally
ended the strife between Hooks and Cods. The "Bread and Cheese War," an
uprising of the peasants in North Holland caused by famine, is a proof
of the misery caused by civil discords and oppressive taxation. In 1494,
Maximilian having been elected emperor, Philip was declared of age. His
assumption of the government was greeted with joy in Holland, and in his
reign the province enjoyed rest and its fisheries benefited from the
commercial treaty concluded with England. The story of Holland during
the long reign of his son and successor Charles III. (1506-1555), better
known as the emperor Charles V., belongs to the general history of the
Netherlands (see NETHERLANDS). On the abdication of Charles, his son
Philip II. of Spain became Philip III., count of Holland, the ruler
whose arbitrary rule in church and state brought about the revolt of the
Netherlands. His appointment of William, prince of Orange, as stadholder
of Holland and Zeeland was destined to have momentous results to the
future of those provinces (see WILLIAM THE SILENT). The capture of Brill
and of Flushing in 1572 by the Sea-Beggars led to the submission of the
greater part of Holland and Zeeland to the authority of the prince of
Orange, who, as stadholder, summoned the states of Holland to meet at
Dordrecht. This act was the beginning of Dutch independence. From this
time forward William made Holland his home. It became the bulwark of the
Protestant faith in the Netherlands, the focus of the resistance to
Spanish tyranny. The sieges of Haarlem, Alkmaar and Leiden saved Holland
from being overwhelmed by the armies of Alva and Requesens and stemmed
the tide of Spanish victory. The act of federation between Holland and
Zeeland brought about by the influence of William was the germ of the
larger union of Utrecht between the seven northern provinces in 1579.
But within the larger union the inner and closer union between Holland
and Zeeland continued to subsist. In 1580, when the sovereignty of the
Netherlands was offered to the duke of Anjou, the two maritime provinces
refused to acquiesce, and forced William to accept the title of count of
Holland and Zeeland. In the following year William in the name of the
two provinces solemnly abjured the sovereignty of the Spanish king (July
24). After the assassination of William (1584) the title of count of
Holland was never revived.
Government of Holland.
Johan van Oldenbarneveldt.
Contest between the Principles of National and Provincial Sovereignty.
In the long struggle of the united provinces with Spain, which followed
the death of Orange, the brunt of the conflict fell upon Holland. More
than half the burden of the charges of the war fell upon this one
province; and with Zeeland it furnished the fleets which formed the
chief defence of the country. Hence the importance attached to the vote
of Holland in the assembly of the States-General. That vote was given by
deputies at the head of whom was the advocate (in later times called the
grand pensionary) of Holland, and who were responsible to, and the
spokesmen of, the provincial states. These states, which met at the
Hague in the same building as the States-General, consisted of
representatives of the burgher oligarchies (regents) of the principal
towns, together with representatives of the nobles, who possessed one
vote only. The advocate was the paid minister of the states. He presided
over their meetings, kept their minutes and conducted all
correspondence, and, as stated above, was their spokesman in the
States-General. The advocate (or grand pensionary) of Holland therefore,
if an able man, had opportunities for exercising a very considerable
influence, becoming in fact a kind of minister of all affairs. It was
this influence as exerted by the successive advocates of Holland, Paul
Buys and Johan van Oldenbarneveldt, which rendered abortive the
well-meant efforts of the earl of Leicester to centralize the government
of the United Provinces. After his departure (1587) the advocate of
Holland, Oldenbarneveldt, became the indispensable statesman of the
struggling republic. The multiplicity of his functions gave to the
advocate an almost unlimited authority in the details of administration,
and for thirty years the conduct of affairs remained in his hands (see
OLDENBARNEVELDT). This meant the undisputed hegemony of Holland in the
federation, in other words of the burgher oligarchies who controlled the
town corporations of the province, and especially of Amsterdam. This
authority of Holland was, however, more than counterbalanced by the
extensive powers with which the stadholder princes of Orange were
invested; and the chief crises in the internal history of the Dutch
republic are to be found in the struggles for supremacy between two, in
reality, different principles of government. On the one side the
principle of provincial sovereignty which gave to the voice of Holland a
preponderating weight that was decisive; on the other side the principle
of national sovereignty personified in the princes of Orange, to whom
the States-General and the provincial states delegated executive powers
that were little less than monarchical.
Maurice Prince of Orange and John of Oldenbarneveldt.
Frederick Henry Prince of Orange.
William II. Prince of Orange.
John de Witt.
William III. Prince of Orange.
William IV. Prince of Orange.
The conclusion of the twelve years' truce in 1609 was a triumph for
Oldenbarneveldt and the province of Holland over the opposition of
Maurice, prince of Orange. In 1617 the outbreak of the religious dispute
between the Remonstrant and Contra-remonstrant parties brought on a life
and death struggle between the sovereign province of Holland and the
States-General of the union. The sword of Maurice decided the issue in
favour of the States-General. The claims of Holland were overthrown and
the head of Oldenbarneveldt fell upon the scaffold (1619). The
stadholder, Frederick Henry of Orange, ruled with well-nigh monarchical
authority (1625-1647), but even he at the height of his power and
popularity had always to reckon with the opposition of the states of
Holland and of Amsterdam, and many of his plans of campaign were
thwarted by the refusal of the Hollanders to furnish supplies. His son
William II. was but 21 years of age on succeeding to the stadholdership,
and the states of Holland were sufficiently powerful to carry through
the negotiations for the peace of Munster (1648) in spite of his
opposition. A life and death conflict again ensued, and once more in
1650 the prince of Orange by armed force crushed the opposition of the
Hollanders. The sudden death of William in the hour of his triumph
caused a complete revolution in the government of the republic. He left
no heir but a posthumous infant, and the party of the burgher regents of
Holland was once more in the ascendant. The office of stadholder was
abolished, and John de Witt, the grand pensionary (_Raad-Pensionaris_)
of Holland, for two decades held in his hands all the threads of
administration, and occupied the same position of undisputed authority
in the councils of the land as Oldenbarneveldt had done at the beginning
of the century. Amsterdam during this period was the centre and head of
the United Provinces. The principle of provincial sovereignty was
carried to its extreme point in the separate treaty concluded with
Cromwell in 1654, in which the province of Holland agreed to exclude for
ever the prince of Orange from the office of stadholder of Holland or
captain-general of the union. In 1672 another revolution took place.
John de Witt was murdered, and William III. was called to fill the
office of dignity and authority which had been held by his ancestors of
the house of Orange, and the stadholdership was declared to be
hereditary in his family. But William died without issue (see WILLIAM
III.) and a stadholderless period, during which the province of Holland
was supreme in the union, followed till 1737. This change was effected
smoothly, for though William had many differences with Amsterdam, he had
in Anthony Heinsius (van der Heim), who was grand pensionary of Holland
from 1690 to his death in 1720, a statesman whom he thoroughly trusted,
who worked with him in the furtherance of his policy during life and who
continued to carry out that policy after his death. In 1737 there was
once more a reversion to the stadholdership in the person of William
IV., whose powers were strengthened and declared hereditary both in the
male and female line in 1747. But until the final destruction of the
federal republic by the French armies, the perennial struggle went on
between the Holland or federal party (_Staatsgesinden_) centred at
Amsterdam--out of which grew the patriot party under William V.--and the
Orange or unionist party (_Oranjegesinden_), which was strong in the
smaller provinces and had much popular support among the lower classes.
The French conquest swept away the old condition of things never to
reappear; but allegiance to the Orange dynasty survived, and in 1813
became the rallying point of a united Dutch people. At the same time the
leading part played by the province of Holland in the history of the
republic has not been unrecognized, for the country ruled over by the
sovereigns of the house of Orange is always popularly, and often
officially, known as Holland.
Constitution of the States of Holland.
The Grand Pensionary.
College of Deputed Councillors.
The full title of the states of Holland in the 17th and 18th centuries
was: _de Edele Groot Mogende Heeren Staaten van Holland en
Westfriesland_. After 1608 this assembly consisted of nineteen members,
one representing the nobility (_ridderschap_), and eighteen, the towns.
The member for the nobles had precedence and voted first. The interests
of the country districts (_het platte land_) were the peculiar charges
of the member for the nobles. The nobles also retained the right of
appointing representatives to sit in the College of Deputed Councillors,
in certain colleges of the admiralty, and upon the board of directors of
the East India Company, and to various public offices. The following
eighteen towns sent representatives: South Quarter--(1) Dordrecht, (2)
Haarlem, (3) Delft, (4) Leiden, (5) Amsterdam, (6) Gouda, (7) Rotterdam,
(8) Gorinchem, (9) Schiedam, (10) Schoonhoven, (11) Brill; North
Quarter:--(12) Alkmaar, (13) Hoorn, (14) Enkhuizen, (15) Edam, (16)
Monnikendam, (17) Medemblik, (18) Purmerend. Each town (as did also the
nobles) sent as many representatives as they pleased, but the nineteen
members had only one vote each. Each town's deputation was headed by its
pensionary, who was the spokesman on behalf of the representatives.
Certain questions such as peace and war, voting of subsidies, imposition
of taxation, changes in the mode of government, &c., required unanimity
of votes. The grand pensionary (_Raad-Pensionaris_) was at once the
president and chief administrative officer of the states. He presided
over all meetings, conducted the business, kept the minutes, and was
charged with the maintenance of the rights of the states, with the
execution of their resolutions and with the entire correspondence. Nor
were his functions only provincial. He was the head and the spokesman of
the deputation of the states to the States-General of the union; and in
the stadholderless period the influence of such grand pensionaries of
Holland as John de Witt and Anthony Heinsius enabled the complicated and
intricate machinery of government in a confederacy of many sovereign and
semi-sovereign authorities without any recognized head of the state, to
work with comparative smoothness and a remarkable unity of policy. This
was secured by the indisputable predominance in the union of the
province of Holland. The policy of the states of Holland swayed the
policy of the generality, and historical circumstances decreed that the
policy of the states of Holland during long and critical periods should
be controlled by a succession of remarkable men filling the office of
grand pensionary. The states of Holland sat at the Hague in the months
of March, July, September and November. During the periods of
prorogation the continuous oversight of the business and interests of
the province was, however, never neglected. This duty was confided to a
body called the College of Deputed Councillors (_het Kollegie der
Gekommitteerde Raden_), which was itself divided into two sections, one
for the south quarter, another for the north quarter. The more
important--that for the south quarter--consisted of ten members, (1) the
senior member of the nobility, who sat for life, (2) representatives
(for periods of three years) of the eight towns: Dordrecht, Haarlem,
Delft, Leiden, Amsterdam, Gouda, Rotterdam and Gorinchem, with a tenth
member (usually elected biennially) for the towns of Schiedam,
Schoonhoven and Brill conjointly. The grand pensionary presided over the
meetings of the college, which had the general charge of the whole
provincial administration, especially of finance, the carrying out of
the resolutions of the states, the maintenance of defences, and the
upholding of the privileges and liberties of the land. With particular
regard to this last-named duty the college deputed two of its members to
attend all meetings of the states-general, to watch the proceedings and
report at once any proposals which they held to be contrary to the
interests or to infringe upon the rights of the province of Holland. The
institution of the College of Deputed Councillors might thus be
described as a vigilance committee of the states in perpetual session.
The existence of the college, with its many weighty and important
functions, must never be lost sight of by students who desire to have a
clear understanding of the remarkable part played by the province of
Holland in the history of the United Netherlands. (G. E.)
HOLLAND, a city of Ottawa county, Michigan, U.S.A., on Macatawa Bay
(formerly called Black Lake), near Lake Michigan, and 25 m. W.S.W. of
Grand Rapids. Pop. (1890) 3945; (1900) 7790, of whom a large portion
were of Dutch descent; (1904) 8966; (1910) 10,490. It is served by the
Pere Marquette Railroad, by steamboat lines to Chicago and other lake
ports, and by electric lines connecting with Grand Rapids, Saugatuck,
and the neighbouring summer resorts. On Macatawa Bay are Ottawa Beach,
Macatawa Park, Jenison Park, Central Park, Castle Park and Waukezoo. In
the city itself are Hope College (co-educational; founded in 1851 and
incorporated as a college in 1866), an institution of the (Dutch)
Reformed Church in America; and the Western Theological Seminary (1869;
suspended 1877-1884) of the same denomination. Holland is a grain and
fruit shipping centre, and among its manufactures are furniture,
leather, grist mill products, iron, beer, pickles, shoes, beet sugar,
gelatine, biscuit (Holland rusk), electric and steam launches, and
pianos. In 1908 seven weekly, one daily, and two monthly papers (four
denominational) were published at Holland, five of them in Dutch. The
municipality owns its water-works and electric-lighting plant. Holland
was founded in 1847 by Dutch settlers, under the leadership of the Rev.
A. C. Van Raalte, and was chartered as a city in 1867. In 1871 much of
it was destroyed by a forest fire.
HOLLAND, a cloth so called from the country where it was first made. It
was originally a fine plain linen fabric of a brownish colour--unbleached
flax. Several varieties are now made: hollands, pale hollands and fine
hollands. They are used for aprons, blinds, shirts, blouses and dresses.
HOLLAR, WENZEL or WENCESLAUS [VACLAF HOLAR] (1607-1677), Bohemian etcher,
was born at Prague on the 13th of July 1607, and died in London, being
buried at St Margaret's church, Westminster, on the 28th of March 1677.
His family was ruined by the capture of Prague in the Thirty Years' War,
and young Hollar, who had been destined for the law, determined to become
an artist. The earliest of his works that have come down to us are dated
1625 and 1626; they are small plates, and one of them is a copy of a
Virgin and Child by Durer, whose influence upon Hollar's work was always
great. In 1627 he was at Frankfort, working under Matthew Merian, an
etcher and engraver; thence he passed to Strassburg, and thence, in 1633,
to Cologne. It was there that he attracted the notice of the famous
amateur Thomas, earl of Arundel, then on an embassy to the imperial
court; and with him Hollar travelled to Vienna and Prague, and finally
came in 1637 to England, destined to be his home for many years. Though
he lived in the household of Lord Arundel, he seems to have worked not
exclusively for him, but to have begun that slavery to the publishers
which was afterwards the normal condition of his life. In his first year
in England he made for Stent, the printseller, the magnificent View of
Greenwich, nearly a yard long, and received thirty shillings for the
plate,--perhaps a twentieth part of what would now be paid for a single
good impression. Afterwards we hear of his fixing the price of his work
at fourpence an hour, and measuring his time by a sandglass. The Civil
War had its effect on his fortunes, but none on his industry. Lord
Arundel left England in 1642, and Hollar passed into the service of the
duke of York, taking with him a wife and two children. With other
royalist artists, notably Inigo Jones and Faithorne, he stood the long
and eventful siege of Basing House; and as we have some hundred plates
from his hand dated during the years 1643 and 1644 he must have turned
his enforced leisure to good purpose. Taken prisoner, he escaped or was
released, and joined Lord Arundel at Antwerp, and there he remained eight
years, the prime of his working life, when he produced his finest plates
of every kind, his noblest views, his miraculous "muffs" and "shells,"
and the superb portrait of the duke of York. In 1652 he returned to
London, and lived for a time with Faithorne the engraver near Temple Bar.
During the following years were published many books which he
illustrated:--Ogilby's _Virgil_ and _Homer_, Stapylton's _Juvenal_, and
Dugdale's _Warwickshire_, _St Paul's_ and _Monasticon_ (part i.). The
booksellers continued to impose on the simple-minded foreigner,
pretending to decline his work that he might still further reduce the
wretched price he charged them. Nor did the Restoration improve his
position. The court did nothing for him, and in the great plague he lost
his young son, who, we are told, might have rivalled his father as an
artist. After the great fire he produced some of his famous "Views of
London"; and it may have been the success of these plates which induced
the king to send him, in 1668, to Tangier, to draw the town and forts.
During his return to England occurred the desperate and successful
engagement fought by his ship the "Mary Rose," under Captain Kempthorne,
against seven Algerine men-of-war,--a brilliant affair which Hollar
etched for Ogilby's _Africa_. He lived eight years after his return,
still working for the booksellers, and retaining to the end his wonderful
powers; witness the large plate of Edinburgh (dated 1670), one of the
greatest of his works. He died in extreme poverty, his last recorded
words being a request to the bailiffs that they would not carry away the
bed on which he was dying.
Hollar's variety was boundless; his plates number some 2740, and include
views, portraits, ships, religious subjects, heraldic subjects,
landscapes, and still life in a hundred different forms. No one that
ever lived has been able to represent fur, or shells, or a butterfly's
wing as he has done. His architectural drawings, such as those of
Antwerp and Strassburg cathedrals, and his views of towns, are
mathematically exact, but they are pictures as well. He could reproduce
the decorative works of other artists quite faultlessly, as in the
famous chalice after Mantegna's drawing. His _Theatrum mulierum_ and
similar collections reproduce for us with literal truth the outward
aspects of the people of his day; and his portraits, a branch of art in
which he has been unfairly disparaged, are of extraordinary refinement
and power.
Almost complete collections of Hollar's works exist in the British
Museum and in the library at Windsor Castle. Two admirable catalogues
of his plates have been made, one in 1745 (2nd ed. 1759) by George
Vertue, and one in 1853 by Parthey. The latter, published at Berlin,
is a model of German thoroughness and accuracy.
HOLLES, DENZIL HOLLES, BARON (1599-1680), English statesman and writer,
second son of John Holles, 1st earl of Clare (c. 1564-1637), by Anne,
daughter of Sir Thomas Stanhope, was born on the 31st of October 1599.
The favourite son of his father and endowed with great natural
abilities, Denzil Holles grew up under advantageous circumstances.
Destined to become later one of the most formidable antagonists of King
Charles's arbitrary government, he was in early youth that prince's
playmate and intimate companion. The earl of Clare was, however, no
friend to the Stuart administration, being especially hostile to the
duke of Buckingham; and on the accession of Charles to the throne the
king's offers of favour were rejected. In 1624 Holles was returned to
parliament for Mitchell in Cornwall, and in 1628 for Dorchester. He had
from the first a keen sense of the humiliations which attended the
foreign policy of the Stuart kings. Writing to Strafford, his
brother-in-law, on the 29th of November 1627, he severely censures
Buckingham's conduct of the expedition to the Isle of Rhe; "since
England was England," the declared, "it received not so dishonourable a
blow"; and he joined in the demand for Buckingham's impeachment in 1628.
To these discontents were now added the abuses arising from the king's
arbitrary administration. On the 2nd of March 1629, when Sir John Finch,
the speaker, refused to put Sir John Eliot's Protestations and was about
to adjourn the House by the king's command, Holles with another member
thrust him back into the chair and swore "he should sit still till it
pleased them to rise." Meanwhile Eliot, on the refusal of the speaker to
read the Protestations, had himself thrown them into the fire; the usher
of the black rod was knocking at the door for admittance, and the king
had sent for the guard. But Holles, declaring that he could not render
the king or his country better service, put the Protestations to the
House from memory, all the members rising to their feet and applauding.
In consequence a warrant was issued for his arrest with others on the
following day. They were prosecuted first in the Star Chamber and
subsequently in the King's Bench. When brought upon his _habeas corpus_
before the latter court Holles offered with the rest to give bail, but
refused sureties for good behaviour, and argued that the court had no
jurisdiction over offences supposed to have been committed in
parliament. On his refusal to plead he was sentenced to a fine of 1000
marks and to imprisonment during the king's pleasure. Holles had at
first been committed and remained for some time a close prisoner in the
Tower of London. The "close" confinement, however, was soon changed to a
"safe" one, the prisoner then having leave to take the air and exercise,
but being obliged to maintain himself at his own expense. On the 29th of
October Holles, with Eliot and Valentine, was transferred to the
Marshalsea. His resistance to the king's tyranny did not prove so stout
as that of some of his comrades in misfortune. Among the papers of the
secretary Sir John Coke is a petition of Holles, couched in humble and
submissive terms, to be restored to the king's favour;[1] having given
the security demanded for his good behaviour, he was liberated early in
1630, and on the 30th of October was allowed bail. Being still banished
from London he retired to the country, paying his fine in 1637 or 1638.
The fine was repaid by the parliament in July 1644, and the judgment was
revised on a writ of error in 1668. In 1638 we find him, notwithstanding
his recent experiences, one of the chief leaders in his county of the
resistance to ship money, though it would appear that he subsequently
made submission.
Holles was a member of the Short and Long Parliaments assembled in 1640.
According to Laud he was now "one of the great leading men in the House
of Commons," and in Clarendon's opinion he was "a man of more
accomplished parts than any of his party" and of most authority. He was
not, however, in the confidence of the republican party. Though he was
at first named one of the managers for the impeachment of Strafford,
Holles had little share in his prosecution. According to Laud he held
out to Strafford hopes of saving his life if he would use his influence
with the king to abolish episcopacy, but the earl refused, and Holles
advised Charles that Strafford should demand a short respite, of which
he would take advantage to procure a commutation of the death sentence.
In the debate on the attainder he spoke on behalf of Strafford's family,
and later obtained some favours from the parliament for his eldest son.
In all other matters in parliament Holles took a principal part. He was
one of the chief movers of the Protestation of the 3rd of May 1641,
which he carried up to the Lords, urging them to give it their approval.
Although, according to Clarendon, he did not wish to change the
government of the church, he showed himself at this time decidedly
hostile to the bishops. He took up the impeachment of Laud to the House
of Peers, supported the Londoners' petition for the abolition of
episcopacy and the Root and Branch Bill, and afterwards urged that the
bishops impeached for their conduct in the affair of the late canons
should be accused of treason. He showed equal energy in the affairs of
Ireland at the outbreak of the rebellion, supported strongly the
independence and purity of the judicial bench, and opposed toleration of
the Roman Catholics. On the 9th of July 1641 he addressed the Lords on
behalf of the queen of Bohemia, expressing great loyalty to the king and
royal family and urging the necessity of supporting the Protestant
religion everywhere. Together with Pym, Holles drew up the Grand
Remonstrance, and made a vigorous speech in its support on the 22nd of
November 1641, in which he argued for the right of one House to make a
declaration, and asserted: "If kings are misled by their counsellors we
may, we must tell them of it." On the 15th of December he was a teller
in the division in favour of printing it. On the great subject of the
militia he also showed activity. He supported Hesilriges' Militia Bill
of the 7th of December 1641, and on the 31st of December he took up to
the king the Commons' demand for a guard under the command of Essex.
"Holles's force and reputation," said Sir Ralph Verney, "are the two
things that give the success to all actions." After the failure of the
attempt by the court to gain over Holles and others by offering them
posts in the administration, he was one of the "five members" impeached
by the king.[2] Holles at once grasped the full significance of the
king's action, and after the triumphant return to the House of the five
members, on the 11th of January, threw himself into still more
pronounced opposition to the arbitrary policy of the crown. He demanded
that before anything further was done the members should be cleared of
their impeachment; was himself leader in the impeachment of the duke of
Richmond; and on the 31st of January, when taking up the militia
petition to the House of Lords, he adopted a very menacing tone, at the
same time presenting a petition of some thousands of supposed starving
artificers of London, congregated round the House. On the 15th of June
he carried up the impeachment of the nine Lords who had deserted the
parliament; and he was one of the committee of safety appointed on the
4th of July.
On the outbreak of the Civil War (see GREAT REBELLION) Holles, who had
been made lieutenant of Bristol, was sent with Bedford to the west
against the marquess of Hertford, and took part in the unsuccessful
siege of the latter at Sherborne Castle. He was present at Edgehill,
where his regiment of Puritans recruited in London was one of the few
which stood firm and saved the day for the parliament. On the 13th of
November his men were surprised at Brentford during his absence, and
routed after a stout resistance. In December he was proposed for the
command of the forces in the west, an appointment which he appears to
have refused. Notwithstanding his activity in the field for the cause of
the parliament, the appeal to arms had been distasteful to Holles from
the first. As early as September he surprised the House by the marked
abatement of his former "violent and fiery spirit," and his changed
attitude did not escape the taunts of his enemies, who attributed it
scornfully to his disaster at Brentford or to his new wife. He probably
foresaw that, to whichever side victory fell, the struggle could only
terminate in the suppression of the constitution and of the moderate
party on which all his hopes were based. His feelings and political
opinions, too, were essentially aristocratic, and he regarded with
horror the transference of the government of the state from the king and
the ruling families to the parliamentary leaders. He now advocated peace
and a settlement of the disputes by concessions on both sides; a
proposal full of danger because impracticable, and one therefore which
could only weaken the parliamentary resistance and prolong the struggle.
He warmly supported the peace negotiations on the 21st of November and
the 22nd of December, and his attitude led to a breach with Pym and the
more determined party. In June 1643 he was accused of complicity in
Waller's plot, but swore to his innocency; and his arrest with others of
the peace party was even proposed in August, when Holles applied for a
pass to leave the country. The king's successes, however, for the moment
put a stop to all hopes of peace; and in April 1644 Holles addressed the
citizens of London at the Guildhall, calling upon them "to join with
their purses, their persons, and their prayers together" to support the
army of Essex. In November Holles and Whitelocke headed the commission
appointed to treat with the king at Oxford. He endeavoured to convince
the royalists of the necessity of yielding in time, before the "new
party of hot men" should gain the upper hand. Holles and Whitelocke had
a private meeting with the king, when at Charles's request they drew up
the answer which they advised him to return to the parliament. This
interview was not communicated to the other commissioners or to
parliament, and though doubtless their motives were thoroughly
patriotic, their action was scarcely compatible with their position as
trustees of the parliamentary cause. Holles was also appointed a
commissioner at Uxbridge in January 1645 and endeavoured to overcome the
crucial difficulty of the militia by postponing its discussion
altogether. As leader of the moderate (or Presbyterian) party Holles now
came into violent antagonism with Cromwell and the army faction. "They
hated one another equally"; and Holles would not allow any merit in
Cromwell, accusing him of cowardice and attributing his successes to
chance and good fortune. With the support of Essex and the Scottish
commissioners Holles endeavoured in December 1644 to procure Cromwell's
impeachment as an incendiary between the two nations, and "passionately"
opposed the self-denying ordinance. In return Holles was charged with
having held secret communications with the king at Oxford and with a
correspondence with Lord Digby; but after a long examination by the
House he was pronounced innocent on the 19th of July 1645. Determined on
Cromwell's destruction, he refused to listen to the prudent counsels of
Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper, who urged that Cromwell was too strong to be
resisted or provoked, and on the 29th of March 1647 drew up in
parliament a hasty proclamation declaring the promoters of the army
petition enemies to the state; in April challenging Ireton to a duel.
The army party was now thoroughly exasperated against Holles. "They were
resolved one way or other to be rid of him," says Clarendon. On the 16th
of June 1647 eleven members including Holles were charged by the army
with various offences against the state, followed on the 23rd by fresh
demands for their impeachment and for their suspension, which was
refused. On the 26th, however, the eleven members, to avoid violence,
asked leave to withdraw. Their reply to the charges against them was
handed into the House on the 19th of July, and on the 20th Holles took
leave of the House in _A grave and learned speech..._. After the riot of
the apprentices on the 26th, for which Holles disclaimed any
responsibility, the eleven members were again (30th of July) recalled to
their seats, and Holles was one of the committee of safety appointed. On
the flight of the speaker, however, and part of the parliament to the
army, and the advance of the latter to London, Holles, whose party and
policy were now entirely defeated, left England on the 22nd of August
for Sainte-Mere Eglise in Normandy. On the 26th of January 1648 the
eleven members, who had not appeared when summoned to answer the charges
against them, were expelled. Not long afterwards, however, on the 3rd of
June, these proceedings were annulled; and Holles, who had then returned
and was a prisoner in the Tower with the rest of the eleven members, was
discharged. He returned to his seat on the 14th of August.
Holles was one of the commissioners appointed to treat with the king at
Newport on the 18th of September 1648. Aware of the plans of the extreme
party, Holles threw himself at the king's feet and implored him not to
waste time in useless negotiations, and he was one of those who stayed
behind the rest in order to urge Charles to compliance. On the 1st of
December he received the thanks of the House. On the occasion of Pride's
Purge on the 6th of December Holles absented himself and escaped again
to France. From his retirement there he wrote to Charles II. in 1651,
advising him to come to terms with the Scots as the only means of
effecting a restoration; but after the alliance he refused Charles's
offer of the secretaryship of state. In March 1654 Cromwell, who in
alarm at the plots being formed against him was attempting to reconcile
some of his opponents to his government, sent Holles a pass "with
notable circumstances of kindness and esteem." His subsequent movements
and the date of his return to England are uncertain, but in 1656
Cromwell's resentment was again excited against him as the supposed
author of a tract, really written by Clarendon. He appears to have been
imprisoned, for his release was ordered by the council on the 2nd of
September 1659.
Holles took part in the conference with Monk at Northumberland House,
when the Restoration was directly proposed, and with the secluded
members took his seat again in parliament on the 21st of February 1660.
On the 23rd of February he was chosen one of the council to carry on the
government during the interregnum; on the 2nd of March the votes passed
against him and the sequestration of his estates were repealed, and on
the 7th he was made custos rotulorum for Dorsetshire. He took a leading
part in bringing about the Restoration, was chairman of the committee of
seven appointed to prepare an answer to the king's letter, and as one of
the deputed Lords and Commons he delivered at the Hague the invitation
to Charles to return. He preceded Charles to England to prepare for his
reception, and was sworn of the privy council on the 5th of June. He was
one of the thirty-four commissioners appointed to try the regicides in
September and October. On the 20th of April 1661 he was created Baron
Holles of Ifield in Sussex, and became henceforth one of the leading
members of the Upper House.
Holles, who was a good French scholar, was sent as ambassador to France
on the 7th of July 1663. He was ostentatiously English, and a zealous
upholder of the national honour and interests; but his position was
rendered difficult by the absence of home support. On the 27th of
January 1666 war was declared, but Holles was not recalled till May.
Pepys remarks on the 14th of November: "Sir G. Cartaret tells me that
just now my Lord Holles had been with him and wept to think in what a
condition we are fallen." Soon afterwards he was employed on another
disagreeable mission in which the national honour was again at stake,
being sent to Breda to make a peace with Holland in May 1667. He
accomplished his task successfully, the articles being signed on the
21st of June.
On the 12th of December he protested against Lord Clarendon's banishment
and was nearly put out of the council in consequence. In 1668 he was
manager for the Lords in the celebrated Skinner's case, in which his
knowledge of precedents was of great service, and on which occasion he
published the tract _The Grand Question concerning the Judicature of the
House of Peeres_ (1669). Holles, who was honourably distinguished by
Charles as a "stiff and sullen man," and as one who would not yield to
solicitation, now became with Halifax and Shaftesbury a leader in the
resistance to the domestic and foreign policy of the court. Together
with Halifax he opposed both the arbitrary Conventicle Act of 1670 and
the Test Oath of 1675, his objection to the latter being chiefly founded
on the invasion of the privileges of the peers which it involved; and he
defended with vigour the right of the Peers to record their protests. On
the 7th of January 1676 Holles with Halifax was summarily dismissed from
the council. On the occasion of the Commons petitioning the king in
favour of an alliance with the Dutch, Holles addressed a Letter to Van
Beuninghen at Amsterdam on "Love to our Country and Hatred of a Common
Enemy," enlarging upon the necessity of uniting in a common defence
against French aggression and in support of the Protestant religion.
"The People are strong but the Government is weak," he declares; and he
attributes the cause of weakness to the transference of power from the
nobility to the people, and to a succession of three weak princes. "Save
what (the Parliament) did, we have not taken one true step nor struck
one true stroke since Queen Elizabeth." He endeavoured to embarrass the
government this year in his tract on _Some Considerations upon the
Question whether the parliament is dissolved by its prorogation for 15
months_. It was held by the Lords to be seditious and scandalous; while
for publishing another pamphlet written by Holles entitled _The Grand
Question concerning the Prorogation of this Parliament_ (otherwise _The
Long Parliament dissolved_) the corrector of the proof sheets was
committed to the Tower and fined L1000. In order to bring about the
downfall of Danby (afterwards duke of Leeds) and the disbanding of the
army, which he believed to be intended for the suppression of the
national liberties, Holles at this time (1677-1679) engaged, as did many
others, in a dangerous intrigue with Courtin and Barillon, the French
envoys, and Louis XIV.; he refused, however, the latter's presents on
the ground that he was a member of the council, having been appointed to
Sir William Temple's new modelled cabinet in 1679. Barillon described
him as at this period in his old age "the man of all England for whom
the different cabals have the most consideration," and as firmly opposed
to the arbitrary designs of the court. He showed moderation in the
Popish Plot, and on the question of the exclusion followed Halifax
rather than Shaftesbury. His long and eventful career closed by his
death on the 17th of February 1680.
The character of Holles has been drawn by Burnet, with whom he was on
terms of friendship. "Hollis was a man of great courage and of as great
pride.... He was faithful and firm to his side and never changed through
the whole course of his life.... He 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
unblameable course of life and of a sound judgment when it was not
biased by passion."[3] Holles was essentially an aristocrat and a Whig
in feeling, making Cromwell's supposed hatred of "Lords" a special
charge against him; regarding the civil wars rather as a social than as
a political revolution, and attributing all the evils of his time to the
transference of political power from the governing families to the
"meanest of men." He was an authority on the history and practice of
parliament and the constitution, and besides the pamphlets already
mentioned was the author of _The Case Stated concerning the Judicature
of the House of Peers in the Point of Appeals_ (1675); _The Case Stated
of the Jurisdiction of the House of Lords in the point of Impositions_
(1676); _Letter of a Gentleman to his Friend showing that the Bishops
are not to be judges in Parliament in Cases Capital_ (1679); _Lord
Holles his Remains, being a 2nd letter to a Friend concerning the
judicature of the Bishops in Parliament..._.[4] He also published _A
True Relation of the unjust accusation of certain French gentlemen_
(1671), an account of Holles's intercession on their behalf and of his
dispute with Lord Chief Justice Keeling; and he left _Memoirs_, written
in exile in 1649, and dedicated "to the unparalleled Couple, Mr Oliver
St John ... and Mr Oliver Cromwell...." published in 1699 and reprinted
in Baron Maseres's _Select Tracts relating to the Civil Wars_, i. 189.
Several speeches of Holles were printed and are extant, and his Letter
to Van Beuninghen has been already quoted.
Holles married (1) in 1628 Dorothy, daughter and heiress of Sir Francis
Ashley; (2) in 1642 Jane, daughter and co-heiress of Sir John Shirley of
Ifield in Sussex and widow of Sir Walter Covert of Slougham, Sussex; and
(3) in 1666 Esther, daughter and co-heiress of Gideon Le Lou of
Columbiers in Normandy, widow of James Richer. By his first wife he left
one son, Francis, who succeeded him as 2nd baron. He had no children by
his other wives, and the peerage became extinct in the person of his
grandson Denzil, 3rd Baron Holles, in 1694, the estates devolving on
John Holles (1662-1711), 4th earl of Clare and duke of Newcastle.
Holles's brother, JOHN HOLLES, 2nd earl of Clare (1595-1666), was member
of parliament for East Retford in three parliaments before succeeding to
the peerage in 1637. He took some part in the Civil War, but "he was
very often of both parties, and never advantaged either." The earldom of
Clare, which had been granted in 1624 by James I. to his father, John
Holles, in return for the payment of L5000, became merged in the dukedom
of Newcastle in 1694, when John Holles, the 4th earl, was created duke
of Newcastle.
Holles's Life has been written by C. H. Firth in the _Dictionary of
National Biography_; by Horace Walpole in _Royal and Noble Authors_,
ii. 28; by Guizot in _Monk's Contemporaries_ (Eng. trans., 1851); and
by A. Collins in _Historical Collections of Noble Families_ (1752),
and in the _Biographia Britannica_. See also S. R. Gardiner, _History
of England_ (1883-1884), and _History of the Great Civil War_ (1893);
Lord Clarendon, _History of the Rebellion_, edited by W. D. Macray; G.
Burnet, _History of His Own Time_ (1833); and B. Whitelock,
_Memorials_ (1732). (P. C. Y.)