Chapter V: CHLODWIG KARL VICTOR, prince of Hohenlohe-Schillingsfurst (7)

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.