« PreviousContinue »
Ireland, at the general council of officers, (two being chosen from each regiment, with the exception of those in Monk's army,) which was held in the hope of coming to some agreement. Several days were spent in debate upon the form of government to be adopted, during which the restitution of the parliament was warmly advocated by Ludlow. Disappointed in his hopes of a reconciliation between the contending parties, he resolved to return to Ireland: but, before leaving London, he had the satisfaction of learning the intention of the officers again to call together the long parliament. In Ireland, however, he met with a gloomy enough reception. He could not land at Dublin, as he found that a party of horse had been sent down to his house to seize him; and though received with great demonstrations of joy at Duncannon, he was immediately blockaded there by Captain Scot, who had been despatched by the council to notice the place which had thus admitted him to submission. The council, at the same time, circulated a letter justifying their conduct, and full of unfounded accusations against the lieutenant-general. He had scarcely drawn up an answer to this letter, when he heard to his astonishment, that the parliament had thanked the officers in Dublin for what they had done; and, within a week, the same persons sent him a letter, signed by the speaker, and desiring his attendance in parliament to give an account of the state of affairs in Ireland. These letters satisfied him that the parliament was in a state of complete dependence; but he resolved on immediately obeying their commands, a resolution in which he was still further confirmed on hearing that they had received a charge of high treason against him, as well as Mr Miles Corbet, Colonel Jones, and Colonel Thomlinson. Ludlow's whole conduct disproved the charge made against him, of assisting the army in England, and doing acts of hostility, by sea and land, against those in Ireland who had declared for the parliament; yet, on moving the house to hear him in his justification, all he could obtain was to have a day appointed for that purpose, which was afterwards several times delayed, till the dissipation, as he expresses it, of those who should have been his judges.
The arrival of Monk in London at first excited the expectations of the commonwealth party, but his ambiguous conduct soon raised their suspicions. The restoration of the secluded members satisfied them that he was hostile to the continuance of their authority, which was finally extinguished by the passing of the act for the dissolution of the long parliament, and the calling together of a new one. To this, the convention parliament, Ludlow was returned as one of the members for the burgh of Hindon. He took his seat in the house the day that the commissioners whom the parliament had resolved to send to the king at Breda were to be nominated; but he would have nothing to do with the matter. In the afternoon of the same day, he sat in the committee on elections; and, on another day, he went with the house to hear a sermon. He did not appear again, as a resolution had passed to seize the persons of all who had signed the warrant for the execution of the late king, and he even found it necessary to consult his safety by frequently changing the place of his abode, from one of which he had the mortification of witnessing the entry of Charles II. into the city. He had now some difficulty in determining whether he should take advantage of the proclamation requiring the surrender of the late king's
judges; but he had no confidence either in the justice or humanity of the person who had now the power in his hands. He had, besides, more than once been nearly inserted as one of the seven excepted persons from the bill of indemnity. But having the assurance of Sir Harbottle Grimston, the speaker, Rothes, and other leading men ainong the commons, that the house would never agree to except any one who had surrendered himself under the proclamation, he went to the speaker's chambers, who not being there, he then went to the house of the sergeant-at-arms, where Mr Herbert, a member of the convention, gave his word for his appearance, till he could obtain personal security; which he got in a few days. The disposition of the house of lords, however, to execute all those who had participated in the execution of Charles; the arrest of Sir Harry Vane, Sir Arthur Hazlerig, and the marquess of Argyle, and a threatened motion in the house, that all the prisoners should be sent to the Tower, justly alarmed his friends, who insisted upon his removing from his house, in case a search for him should be made. He accordingly resolved to appear no more in public; and went down to Richmond. The advice of another friend induced him to resolve upon departing from England, in which resolution he was confirmed by Lord Ossory, who concurred in the same advice. He accordingly left London at the close of the day, and, avoiding all the considerable towns on the road, reached Lewes next morning. He there found a small vessel prepared for him; but the wind blowing hard, and the vessel having no deck, he removed into another till he might put to sea. After he had entered it, the searchers came on board the vessel he had left to see what she carried, but omitted to search that in which he was, not suspecting any person to be in her, as she had struck on the sands. He continued in the harbour that day and the next night, the storm still continuing; but on the following morning they set sail, and had so favourable a passage, that they arrived in Dieppe the same evening.
A proclamation being published soon after his departure, offering a reward of £300 for apprehending and securing his person, Ludlow was advised by his friends to provide for his safety by removing to a greater distance from England. He finally settled at Vevay, in Switzerland, where he remained till the Revolution in 1688, having several times narrowly escaped assassination by the emissaries of the Stuarts. His unmerited misfortunes, and the purity of his life, obtained for him universal sympathy from those amongst whom he resided. At the Revolution he returned to England; but, in consequence of a motion in the house of commons to address the king for his apprehension, he found it necessary to return to Vevay, where he died in 1693. His last wishes were for the prosperity of his native country. He left memoirs of himself which contain much curious information as to the motives of those with whom he associated; and prove him-which his whole conduct indeed testifies-to have been a man who, if he did not possess extraordinary political sagacity, was actuated by the noblest and most patriotic motives; having been, on all occasions, an honest advocate of republican equality.
Saville, Marquess of Halifax.
BORN A. D. 1630.-DIED A. D. 1695.
SIR GEORGE SAVILLE, son of Sir William Saville, baronet, and Anne, daughter of Lord Coventry, was born in 1630. His activity in promoting the Restoration was rewarded by his elevation to the peerage; and in 1672 he was called to a seat in the privy council.
His opposition to the Danby administration cost him his seat in council, in 1676; but, upon the change of ministry, in 1679, he was made a member of the new council. On the agitation of the bill for the exclusion of the duke of York from the succession, Halifax opposed the projected measure, but suggested certain limitations of the duke's authority, in the event of the crown devolving upon him, which he conceived would effectually protect the interests of the protestant cause. At this period he professed his extreme dread of turning the monarchy into an elective government, and contended warmly for the principle of hereditary succession; but, in all this, we can hardly believe him to have been sincere, for he had often expressed his contempt of the hereditary principle, and had been heard to inquire, "Who takes a coachman to drive him, because his father was a good coachman ?” When the bill came to be debated, Halifax conducted the debate against it, on which occasion he displayed great eloquence, and considerable powers of mind. "He was animated," says Hume, "as well by the greatness of the occasion as by a rivalship with his uncle, Shaftesbury, whom, during that day's debate, he seemed, in the judgment of all, to have totally eclipsed." When the bill was thrown out, the indignant commons immediately voted an address for the removal of Halifax, Clarendon, Worcester, and some others, from his majesty's person and councils for ever. The parties pointed at in this address met it by urging an instant dissolution of the refractory house, and Charles followed this advice.
In August, 1682, Saville was created a marquess; and soon after he was made lord-privy-seal. On King James's accession, he was appointed president of the council; but on refusing his consent to the repeal of the tests, he was dismissed from all public employments. In the negotiations which preceded the arrival of the prince of Orange, Halifax did not act a very conspicuous part; he hesitated and trimmed too much; but in the convention parliament he was chosen speaker of the house of lords, and strenuously supported the motion for declaring the throne vacant.
On the accession of the prince and princess of Orange, the privy seal was once more intrusted to him; but, upon inquiry being instituted into the prosecutions of Russell, Sydney, and others, he withdrew from court, and flung himself into the ranks of the opposition. He died in April, 1695.
There is little to admire in the character of this statesman. It wants consistency throughout. His abilities will hardly be questioned; but in their exercise he seems to have been as little swayed by considerations of public welfare, as any of the band of heartless politicians to whom Charles and James intrusted the character of their government. Halifax was the author of some tracts, which were published after his death. He also left memoirs of his own time, which have perished.
Sir William Temple.
BORN A. D. 1629.-DIED A. D. 1698.
SIR WILLIAM TEMPLE was the son of Sir John Temple, master of the rolls, and privy-councillor in Ireland, in the reign of Charles II., and the grandson of the first Sir William Temple, secretary to the carl of Essex in the reign of Elizabeth. His father, early perceiving an eager thirst for knowledge, and indications of considerable strength of mind, used every means to promote these symptoms; consequently his advance in knowledge was rapid but sure. Having passed through the usual course of education, and acquired, in addition, an intimate acquaintance with the French and Spanish languages-which, at that time, were the most useful and important to a person of his station-he spent two years at Paris, and soon after made a tour through Holland, Flanders, and Germany, on his return from which, in 1654, he was united to the daughter of Sir Peter Osborne, governor of Jersey for Charles I., by which lady he had several children.
All offers of employment were rejected under the protector, but at the Restoration, in 1660, he quitted this privacy, and became a member of the convention in Ireland. Here, whilst others were by their pliant obsequiousness making assiduous court to the king, Sir William Temple exhibited a noble spirit of independence by his sturdy opposition to the Poll-bill, and his honourable refusal to listen to those who were sent to reason with him privately, and, if possible, divert him from his course of opposition. He declared, however, in reference to the bill," that he would have nothing to say to it out of the house." In the succeeding parliament, he was chosen with his father, Sir John Temple, for the county of Carlow, when, by the acuteness of his judgment, his upright independence, and by his not permitting himself to be identified with any party, he acquired much influence in the house. The grand events of his political life were two important treaties which were committed to his charge, and which he accomplished with most masterly skill. The first of these was his astonishingly judicious, and dexterous bringing about of the triple league between England, Holland, and Sweden, at the latter end of 1665. This treaty, so effective in diminishing the threatening power of France, so important to the peace of Europe, was managed with a secrecy so uncommon, with success so unexpected, that the great statesman, De Wit, could not help complimenting him "with having the honour, which never any other minister had before him, of drawing the States to a resolution and conclusion in five days, upon a matter of the greatest importance, and an assistance of the greatest expence they had ever been engaged in; and all directly against the nature of their constitution, which enjoined them to have recourse to their provinces ;" adding, that now it was done, it looked like a miracle.
The other treaty terminating in the marriage of the then prince of Orange to the lady Mary, daughter of the duke of York, and niece to his majesty, was far more durable in its nature and beneficial in its consequences, both to the security of the Protestant religion, and the
general happiness of the British kingdoms. The several gradations in the progress of this were accomplished principally by Sir William Temple, whose secrecy and dexterity brought it to maturity, and effected its completion in the year 1677, even contrary to the will of the duke, and not very much to the inclination of the king. The work in itself was one of so much delicacy and difficulty, that it appears as if the slightest variation from the actual course of time and circumstances would have inevitably destroyed all hopes of success. Towards the conclusion, he used the assistance of the lord-treasurer Danby, afterwards duke of Leeds, who saw so much importance and happiness to the public connected with the result, that he afterwards declared in print, that he would not suffer that part of his services to be buried in oblivion.
Sir William Temple's freedom from ambition was evinced by his resolute opposition to the desire of his friends that he would permit them to request a peerage for him. He had, however, much difficulty in dissuading them, and was resolved, if the offer were made him, that the nobility should commence with either his father or his son, himself being anxious rather to avoid than possess such distinction. And much does it redound to his honour, that he with noble generosity refused in the year 1669 to assist in the undermining that work of peace and amity which he had, a few years previously, laboured so hard, and with success so distinguished, to establish. He felt that the obligations of his office bound him to what he clearly perceived to be the welfare of his country, and Europe at large, and not to the vacillating expediency of private interests: nor would he sacrifice his own approbation to secure that of his superiors. The usage he received on this account from the lord-treasurer, Clifford, was most unworthy and shameful; he was refused the payment of an arrear of two thousand pounds, due on his embassy. Disgusted by this, and the sudden extinction of Lord Arlington's friendship, an effect of the same cause, he retired to his house at Sheen, near Richmond, in Surrey, and devoted himself for a few years to the preparation of works. In this interval he published his Observations upon the United Provinces,' and wrote the first part of his Miscellanies, which, with his other works, will be noticed presently. Meanwhile, the king preserved a neutrality, neither exerting propitiously his power, nor, on the other hand, showing any unkindness or hostility. It appears, indeed, from Sir William's letters, that the king made him a present of the plate belonging to his embassy, and disposed of his house on the continent, and the major part of his furniture to his successor, Sir George Downing. When, however, Charles grew weary of the war which ensued, he remembered Sir William Temple, and relying upon his willingness to act as the minister of peace, sent for him to go to Holland, and effect a treaty of peace. By the Spanish ambassador receiving proper powers, the journey to Holland was rendered unnecessary, and the treaty was concluded at home, in three days. In June, 1674, he was again sent ambassador into Holland, with offer of the king's mediation between France and the confederates, then at war, an offer which was not long after accepted; and Lord Berkeley, Sir William Temple, and Sir Leoline Jenkins were declared ambassadors and mediators, and Nimeguen fixed upon as the place of treaty. During this stay at the Hague commenced the inti