1893 text

Denzil Holles, second son of John, first Earl of Clare, born at Houghton, Notts, in 1597. He was one of the five members charged with high treason by Charles I. in 1641. He was a Presbyterian, and one of the Commissioners sent by Parliament to wait on Charles II. at the Hague. Sir William Lower, in his “Relation,” 1660, writes: “All agreed that never person spake with more affection nor expressed himself in better terms than Mr. Denzil Hollis, who was orator for the Deputies of the Lower House, to whom those of London were joined.” He was created Baron Holles on April 20th, 1661, on the occasion of the coronation of Charles II.

This text comes from a footnote on a diary entry in the 1893 edition edited by Henry B. Wheatley.

2 Annotations

vincent  •  Link

Holles, 1st Earl of Clare, was born in Nottinghamshire in 1599...........
Holles fought at Edgehill but soon afterwards began advocating a compromise settlement. Holles was accused of treason and in 1647 he fled to France. In 1660 he played an important role in recalling Charles II to the throne. On the Restoration Holles was created Baron Holles of Ifield in Sussex. Denzil Holles died in 1680.
God's Wounds!

In 1629, when the English Parliament produced a document censuring the policies of Charles I, the king attempted to dissolve the body. Uproar ensued in the House, as its Speaker, in apparent obedience to the king, prepared to leave the chamber. "God's wounds!" Holles cried. "You shall sit here till we please to rise!" Proceeding to the Speaker's chair, he and another man forcibly held the Speaker in his seat until a document condemning Roman Catholicism and illegal taxes had been read in full.
lenthy piece on his career
painting http://www.artunframed.com/images/artmis20/lely...

Bill  •  Link

Denzil, lord Holles, second son of John, the first earl of Clare, was one of the most distinguished of the popular leaders in the reign of Charles I. His courage, which was very extraordinary, was constitutional, and proceeded from a principle inherent in his family. His patriotism, which was as extraordinary and as active as his courage, seemed to proceed from as fixed a principle. In the part which he acted against Charles, with whom he had formerly lived in great intimacy, he appears not to have been influenced by personal hatred, party animosity, or the common motives of interest or ambition. He acted from a much nobler motive than any of these, an inviolable attachment to the liberties of his country. He had long entertained a jealousy of the prerogative; and therefore, in the last parliament of James I. sided with the party that opposed the court. This jealousy was much increased in the next reign; and he entered, with his usual spirit, into all those measures that he thought necessary to reduce the power of the king within bounds, and became a leader of the Presbyterian party, as he believed it to be on the side of liberty. He was greatly alarmed upon seeing Cromwell at the head of the Independents; and Cromwell was little less alarmed at seeing so able a chief at the head of the Presbyterians. He was, by the Independent faction, impeached of high-treason, which occasioned his flying into France. He was employed in several embassies after the Restoration, when he retained the same jealousy for liberty. He refused the insidious presents offered him by Lewis XIV. with as much disdain as he had before refused 5000 1. offered him by the parliament, to indemnify him for his losses in the civil war. Ob. 1679-80, Æt. 81.
---A Biographical History of England. J. Granger, 1779.

Log in to post an annotation.

If you don't have an account, then register here.


Chart showing the number of references in each month of the diary’s entries.