Chapter 21

Excellent English renderings of some of Judah Halevi’s poems may be read in Mrs H. Lucas’sThe Jewish Year, and Mrs R. N. Solomon’sSongs of Exile.

(I. A.)

HALÉVY, JACQUES FRANÇOIS FROMENTAL ÉLIE(1799-1862), French composer, was born on the 27th of May 1799, at Paris, of a Jewish family. He studied at the Paris Conservatoire under Berton and Cherubini, and in 1819 gained the grand prix de Rome with his cantataHerminie. In accordance with the conditions of his scholarship he started for Rome, where he devoted himself to the study of Italian music, and wrote an opera and various minor works. In 1827 his operaL’Artisanwas performed at the Théâtre Feydeau in Paris, apparently without much success. Other works of minor importance, and now forgotten, followed, amongst whichManon Lescaut, a ballet, produced in 1830, deserves mention. In 1834 the Opéra-Comique producedLudovic, the score of which had been begun by Hérold and had been completed by Halévy. In 1835 Halévy composed the tragic operaLa Juiveand the comic operaL’Éclair, and on these works his fame is mainly founded. The famous air of Eléazar and the anathema of the cardinal inLa Juivesoon became popular all over France.L’Éclairis a curiosity of musical literature. It is written for two tenors and two soprani, without a chorus, and displays the composer’s mastery over the most refined effects of instrumentation and vocalization in a favourable light. After these two works he wrote numerous operas of various genres, amongst which onlyLa Reine de Chypre, a spectacular piece analyzed by Wagner in one of his Paris letters (1841), andLa Tempesta, in three acts, written for Her Majesty’s theatre, London (1850), need be mentioned. In addition to his productive work Halévy also rendered valuable services as a teacher. He was professor at the Conservatoire from 1827 till his death—some of the most successful amongst the younger composers in France, such as Gounod, Victor Massé and Georges Bizet, the author ofCarmen, being amongst his pupils. He wasmaestro al cembaloat the Théâtre Italien from 1827 to 1829; then director of singing at the Opera House in Paris until 1845, and in 1836 he succeeded Reicha at the Institut de France. Halévy also tried his hand at literature. In 1857 he became permanent secretary to the Académie des Beaux Arts, and there exists an agreeable volume ofSouvenirs et portraitsfrom his pen. He died at Nice, on the 17th of March 1862.

HALÉVY, LUDOVIC(1834-1908), French author, was born in Paris on the 1st of January 1834. His father, Léon Halévy (1802-1883), was a clever and versatile writer, who tried almost every branch of literature—prose and verse, vaudeville, drama, history—without, however, achieving decisive success in any. His uncle, J. F. Fromental E. Halévy (q.v.), was for many years associated with the opéra; hence the double and early connexion of Ludovic Halévy with the Parisian stage. At the age of six he might have been seen playing in thatFoyer de la dansewith which he was to make his readers so familiar, and, when a boy of twelve, he would often, of a Sunday night, on his way back to the College Louis le Grand, look in at the Odéon, where he had free admittance, and see the first act of the new play. At eighteen he joined the ranks of the French administration and occupied various posts, the last being that of secrétaire-rédacteur to the Corps Législatif. In that capacity he enjoyed the special favour and friendship of the famous duke of Morny, then president of that assembly. In 1865 Ludovic Halévy’s increasing popularity as an author enabled him to retire from the public service. Ten years earlier he had become acquainted with the musician Offenbach, who was about to start a small theatre of his own in the Champs Élysées, and he wrote a sort of prologue,Entrez, messieurs, mesdames, for the opening night. Other little productions followed,Ba-ta-clanbeing the most noticeable among them. They were produced under the pseudonym of Jules Servières. The name of Ludovic Halévy appeared for the first time on the bills on the 1st of January 1856. Soon afterwards the unprecedented run ofOrphée aux enfers, a musical parody, written in collaboration with Hector Crémieux, made his name famous. In the spring of 1860 he was commissioned to write a play for the manager of the Variétés in conjunction with another vaudevillist, Lambert Thiboust. The latter having abruptly retired from the collaboration, Halévy was at a loss how to carry out the contract, when on the steps of the theatre he met Henri Meilhac (1831-1897), then comparatively a stranger to him. He proposed to Meilhac the task rejected by Lambert Thiboust, and the proposal was immediately accepted. Thusbegan a connexion which was to last over twenty years, and which proved most fruitful both for the reputation of the two authors and the prosperity of the minor Paris theatres. Their joint works may be divided into three classes: theopérettes, the farces, the comedies. Theopérettesafforded excellent opportunities to a gifted musician for the display of his peculiar humour. They were broad and lively libels against the society of the time, but savoured strongly of the vices and follies they were supposed to satirize. Amongst the most celebrated works of the joint authors wereLa Belle Hélène(1864),Barbe Bleue(1866),La Grande Duchesse de Gerolstein(1867), andLa Périchole(1868). After 1870 the vogue of Parody rapidly declined. The decadence became still more apparent when Offenbach was no longer at hand to assist the two authors with his quaint musical irony, and when they had to deal with interpreters almost destitute of singing powers. They wrote farces of the old type, consisting of complicated intrigues, with which they cleverly interwove the representation of contemporary whims and social oddities. They generally failed when they attempted comedies of a more serious character and tried to introduce a higher sort of emotion. A solitary exception must be made in the case ofFrou-frou(1869), which, owing perhaps to the admirable talent of Aimée Desclée, remains their uniquesuccès de larmes.

Meilhac and Halévy will be found at their best in light sketches of Parisian life,Les Sonnettes,Le Roi Candaule,Madame attend Monsieur,Toto chez Tata. In that intimate association between the two men who had met so opportunely on theperron des variétés, it was often asked who was the leading partner. The question was not answered until the connexion was finally severed and they stood before the public, each to answer for his own work. It was then apparent that they had many gifts in common. Both had wit, humour, observation of character. Meilhac had a ready imagination, a rich and whimsical fancy; Halévy had taste, refinement and pathos of a certain kind. Not less clever than his brilliant comrade, he was more human. Of this he gave evidence in two delightful books,Monsieur et Madame Cardinal(1873) andLes Petites Cardinal, in which the lowest orders of the Parisian middle class are faithfully described. The pompous, pedantic, venomous Monsieur Cardinal will long survive as the true image of sententious and self-glorifying immorality. M. Halévy’s peculiar qualities are even more visible in the simple and striking scenes of theInvasion, published soon after the conclusion of the Franco-German War, inCriquette(1883) andL’Abbé Constantin(1882), two novels, the latter of which went through innumerable editions. Zola had presented to the public an almost exclusive combination of bad men and women; inL’Abbé Constantinall are kind and good, and the change was eagerly welcomed by the public. Some enthusiasts still maintain that theAbbéwill rank permanently in literature by the side of the equally chimericalVicar of Wakefield. At any rate, it opened for M. Ludovic Halévy the doors of the French Academy, to which he was elected in 1884.

Halévy remained an assiduous frequenter of the Academy, the Conservatoire, the Comédie Française, and the Society of Dramatic Authors, but, when he died in Paris on the 8th of May 1908, he had produced practically nothing new for many years. His last romance,Kari Kari, appeared in 1892.

TheThéâtreof MM. Meilhac and Halévy was published in 8 vols. (1900-1902).

HALFPENNY, WILLIAM,English 18th-century architectural designer—he described himself as “architect and carpenter.” He was also known as Michael Hoare; but whether his real name was William Halfpenny or Michael Hoare is uncertain. His books, of which he published a score, deal almost entirely with domestic architecture, and especially with country houses in those Gothic and Chinese fashions which were so greatly in vogue in the middle of the 18th century. His most important publications, from the point of view of their effect upon taste, wereNew Designs for Chinese Temples, in four parts (1750-1752);Rural Architecture in the Gothic Taste(1752);Chinese and Gothic Architecture Properly Ornamented(1752); andRural Architecture in the Chinese Taste(1750-1752). These four books were produced in collaboration with John Halfpenny, who is said to have been his son.New Designs for Chinese Templesis a volume of some significance in the history of furniture, since, having been published some years before the books of Thomas Chippendale and Sir Thomas Chambers, it disproves the statement so often made that those designers introduced the Chinese taste into this country. Halfpenny states distinctly that “the Chinese manner” had been “already introduced here with success.” The work of the Halfpennys was by no means all contemptible. It is sometimes distinctly graceful, but is marked by little originality.

HALF-TIMBER WORK,an architectural term given to those buildings in which the framework is of timber with vertical studs and cross pieces filled in between with brickwork, rubble masonry or plaster work on oak laths; in the first two, brick nogging or nogging are the terms occasionally employed (seeCarpentry). Sometimes the timber structure is raised on a stone or brick foundation, as at Ledbury town hall in Herefordshire, where the lower storey is open on all sides; but more often it is raised on a ground storey, either in brick or stone, and in order to give additional size to the upper rooms projects forward, being carried on the floor joists. Sometimes the masonry or brickwork rises through two or three storeys and the half-brick work is confined to the gables. There seems to be some difference of opinion as to whether the term applies to the mixture of solid walling with the timber structure or to the alternation of wood posts and the filling in, but the latter definition is that which is generally understood. The half-timber throughout England is of the most picturesque description, and the earliest examples date from towards the close of the 15th century. In the earliest example, Newgate House, York (c.1450), the timber framing is raised over the ground floor. The finest specimen is perhaps that of Moreton Old Hall, Cheshire (1570), where there is only a stone foundation about 12 in. high, and the same applies to Bramall Hall, near Manchester, portions of which are very early. Among other examples are Speke Hall, Lancashire; Park Hall, Shropshire (1553-1558); Hall i’ th’ Wood, Lancashire (1591); St Peter’s Hospital, Bristol (1607); the Ludlow Feather’s Inn (1610); many of the streets at Chester and Shrewsbury; the Sparrowe’s Home, Ipswich; and Staple Inn, Holborn, from which in recent years the plaster coat which was put on many years ago has been removed, displaying the ancient woodwork. A similar fate has overtaken a very large number of half-timber buildings to keep out the driving winds; thus in Lewes nearly all the half-timbered houses have had slates hung on the timbers, others tiles, the greater number having been covered with plaster or stucco. Although there are probably many more half-timber houses in England than on the continent of Europe, in the north of France and in Germany are examples in many of the principal towns, and in some cases in better preservation than in England. They are also enriched with carving of a purer and better type, especially in France; thus at Chartres, Angers, Rouen, Caen, Lisieux, Bayeux, St Lô and Beauvais, are many extremely fine examples of late Flamboyant and early Transitional examples. Again on the borders of the Rhine in all the small towns most of the houses are in half-timber work, the best examples being at Bacharach, Rhense and Boppart. Far more elaborate examples, however, are found in the vicinity of the Harz Mountains; the supply of timber from the forests there being very abundant; thus at Goslar, Wernigerode and Quedlingburg there is an endless variety, as also farther on at Gelnhausen and Hameln, the finest series of all being at Hildesheim. In Bavaria at Nuremberg, Rothenburg and Dinkelsbühl, half-timber houses dating from the 16th century are still well preserved; and throughout Switzerland the houses constructed in timber and plaster are the most characteristic features of the country.

HALFWAY COVENANT,an expedient adopted in the Congregational churches of New England between 1657 and 1662. Under its terms baptized persons of moral life and orthodox belief might receive the privilege of baptism for their children and other church benefits, without the full enrolment in membership which admitted them to the communion of the Lord’s Supper.

SeeCongregationalism:American.

HALHED, NATHANIEL BRASSEY(1751-1830), English Orientalist and philologist, was born at Westminster on the 25th of May 1751. He was educated at Harrow, where he began his intimacy with Richard Brinsley Sheridan (seeSheridan Family) continued after he entered Christ Church, Oxford, where, also, he made the acquaintance of Sir William Jones, the famous Orientalist, who induced him to study Arabic. Accepting a writership in the service of the East India Company, Halhed went out to India, and here, at the suggestion of Warren Hastings, by whose orders it had been compiled, translated the Gentoo code from a Persian version of the original Sanskrit. This translation was published in 1776 under the titleA Code of Gentoo Laws. In 1778 he published a Bengali grammar, to print which he set up, at Hugli, the first press in India. It is claimed for him that he was the first writer to call attention to the philological connexion of Sanskrit with Persian, Arabic, Greek and Latin. In 1785 he returned to England, and from 1790-1795 was M.P. for Lymington, Hants. For some time he was a disciple of Richard Brothers (q.v.), and his unwise speech in parliament in defence of Brothers made it impossible for him to remain in the House, from which he resigned in 1795. He subsequently obtained a home appointment under the East India Company. He died in London on the 18th of February 1830.

His collection of Oriental manuscripts was purchased by the British Museum, and there is an unfinished translation by him of theMahābhāratain the library of the Asiatic Society of Bengal.

HALIBURTON, THOMAS CHANDLER(1796-1865), British writer, long a judge of Nova Scotia, was born at Windsor, Nova Scotia, in 1796, and received his education there, at King’s College. He was called to the bar in 1820, and became a member of the House of Assembly. He distinguished himself as a barrister, and in 1828 was promoted to the bench as a chief-justice of the common pleas. In 1829 he publishedAn Historical and Statistical Account of Nova Scotia. But it is as a brilliant humourist and satirist that he is remembered, in connexion with his fictitious character “Sam Slick.” In 1835 he contributed anonymously to a local paper a series of letters professedly depicting the peculiarities of the genuine Yankee. These sketches, which abounded in clever picturings of national and individual character, drawn with great satirical humour, were collected in 1837, and published under the title ofThe Clockmaker, or Sayings and Doings of Samuel Slick of Slickville. A second series followed in 1838, and a third in 1840.The Attaché, or Sam Slick in England(1843-1844), was the result of a visit there in 1841. His other works include:The Old Judge, or Life in a Colony(1843);The Letter Bag of the Great Western(1839);Rule and Misrule of the English in America(1851);Traits of American Humour(1852); andNature and Human Nature(1855).

Meanwhile he continued to secure popular esteem in his judicial capacity. In 1840 he was promoted to be a judge of the supreme court; but within two years he resigned his seat on the bench, removed to England, and in 1859 entered parliament as the representative of Launceston, in the Conservative interest. But the tenure of his seat for Launceston was brought to an end by the dissolution of the parliament in 1865, and he did not again offer himself to the constituency. He died on the 27th of August of the same year, at Gordon House, Isleworth, Middlesex.

A memoir of Haliburton, by F. Blake Crofton, appeared in 1889.

HALIBUT,orHolibut(Hippoglossus vulgaris), the largest of all flat-fishes, growing to a length of 10 ft. or more, specimens of 5 ft. in length and of 100 ℔ in weight being frequently exposed for sale in the markets. Indeed, specimens under 2 ft. in length are very rarely caught, and singularly enough, no instance is known of a very young specimen having been obtained. Small ones are commonly called “chicken halibut.” The halibut is much more frequent in the higher latitudes of the temperate zone than in its southern portion; it is a circumpolar species, being found on the northern coasts of America, Europe and Asia, extending in the Pacific southwards to California. On the British coasts it keeps at some distance from the shore, and is generally caught in from 50 to 150 fathoms. Its flesh is generally considered coarse, but it is white and firm, and when properly served is excellent for the table. The name is derived from “holy” (M.E.haly), and recalls its use for food on holy days.

HALICARNASSUS(mod.Budrum), an ancient Greek city on the S.W. coast of Caria, Asia Minor, on a picturesque and advantageous site on the Ceramic Gulf or Gulf of Cos. It originally occupied only the small island of Zephyria close to the shore, now occupied by the great castle of St Peter, built by the Knights of Rhodes in 1404; but in course of time this island was united to the mainland and the city extended so as to incorporate Salmacis, an older town of the Leleges and Carians.

About the foundation of Halicarnassus various traditions were current; but they agree in the main point as to its being a Dorian colony, and the figures on its coins, such as the head of Medusa, Athena and Poseidon, or the trident, support the statement that the mother cities were Troezen and Argos. The inhabitants appear to have accepted as their legendary founder Anthes, mentioned by Strabo, and were proud of the title of Antheadae. At an early period Halicarnassus was a member of the Doric Hexapolis, which included Cos, Cnidus, Lindus, Camirus and Ialysus; but one of the citizens, Agasicles, having taken home the prize tripod which he had won in the Triopian games instead of dedicating it according to custom to the Triopian Apollo, the city was cut off from the league. In the early 5th century Halicarnassus was under the sway of Artemisia, who made herself famous at the battle of Salamis. Of Pisindalis, her son and successor, little is known; but Lygdamis, who next attained to power, is notorious for having put to death the poet Panyasis and caused Herodotus, the greatest of Halicarnassians, to leave his native city (c.457B.C.). In the 5th centuryB.C.Halicarnassus and other Dorian cities of Asia were to some extent absorbed by the Delian League, but the peace of Antalcidas in 387 made them subservient to Persia; and it was under Mausolus, a Persian satrap who assumed independent authority, that Halicarnassus attained its highest prosperity. Struck by the natural strength and beauty of its position, Mausolus removed to Halicarnassus from Mylasa, increasing the population of the city by the inhabitants of six towns of the Leleges. He was succeeded by Artemisia, whose military ability was shown in the stratagem by which she captured the Rhodian vessels attacking her city, and whose magnificence and taste have been perpetuated by the “Mausoleum,” the monument she erected to her husband’s memory (seeMausolus). One of her successors, Pixodarus, tried to ally himself with the rising power of Macedon, and is said to have gained the momentary consent of the young Alexander to wed his daughter. The marriage, however, was forbidden by Philip. Alexander, as soon as he had reduced Ionia, summoned Halicarnassus, where Memnon, the paramount satrap of Asia Minor, had taken refuge with the Persian fleet, to surrender; and on its refusal took the city after hard fighting and devastated it, but not being able to reduce the citadel, was forced to leave it blockaded. He handed the government of the city back to the family of Mausolus, as represented by Ada, sister of the latter. Not long afterwards we find the citizens receiving the present of a gymnasium from Ptolemy, and building in his honour a stoa or portico; but the city never recovered altogether from the disasters of the siege, and Cicero describes it as almost deserted. The site is now occupied in part by the town of Budrum; but the ancient walls can still be traced round nearly all their circuit, and the position of several of the temples, the theatre, and other public buildings can be fixed with certainty.

From the ruins of the Mausoleum sufficient has been recovered by the excavations carried out in 1857 by C. T. Newton to enable a fairly complete restoration of its design to be made. The building consisted of five parts—a basement or podium, a pteron or enclosure of columns, a pyramid, a pedestal and a chariot group. The basement, covering an area of 114 ft. by 92, was built of blocks of greenstone and cased with marble. Round the base of it were probably disposed groups of statuary. Thepteron consisted (according to Pliny) of thirty-six columns of the Ionic order, enclosing a squarecella. Between the columns probably stood single statues. From the portions that have been recovered, it appears that the principal frieze of the pteron represented combats of Greeks and Amazons. In addition to these, there are also many life-size fragments of animals, horsemen, &c., belonging probably to pedimental sculptures, but formerly supposed to be parts of minor friezes. Above the pteron rose the pyramid, mounting by 24 steps to an apex or pedestal. On this apex stood the chariot with the figure of Mausolus himself and an attendant. The height of the statue of Mausolus in the British Museum is 9 ft. 9½ in. without the plinth. The hair rising from the forehead falls in thick waves on each side of the face and descends nearly to the shoulder; the beard is short and close, the face square and massive, the eyes deep set under overhanging brows, the mouth well formed with settled calm about the lips. The drapery is grandly composed. All sorts of restorations of this famous monument have been proposed. The original one, made by Newton and Pullan, is obviously in error in many respects; and that of Oldfield, though to be preferred for its lightness (the Mausoleum was said anciently to be “suspended in mid-air”), does not satisfy the conditions postulated by the remains. The best on the whole is that of the veteran German architect, F. Adler, published in 1900; but fresh studies have since been made (see below).

See C T. Newton and R. P. Pullan,History of Discoveries at Halicarnassus(1862-1863); J. Fergusson,The Mausoleum at Halicarnassusrestored (1862); E. Oldfield, “The Mausoleum,” inArchaeologia(1895); F. Adler,Mausoleum zu Halikarnass(1900); J. P. Six inJourn. Hell. Studies(1905); W. B. Dinsmoor, inAmer. Journ. of Arch.(1908); J. J. Stevenson,A Restoration of the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus(1909); J. B. K. Preedy, “The Chariot Group of the Mausoleum,” inJourn. Hell. Stud., 1910.

(D. G. H.)

HALICZ,a town of Austria, in Galicia, 70 m. by rail S.S.E. of Lemberg. Pop. (1900), 4809. It is situated at the confluence of the Luckow with the Dniester and its principal resources are the recovery of salt from the neighbouring brine wells, soap-making and the trade in timber. In the neighbourhood are the ruins of the old castle, the seat of the ruler of the former kingdom from which Galicia derived its Polish name. Halicz, which is mentioned in annals as early as 1113, was from 1141 to 1255 the residence of the princes of that name, one of the principalities into which western Russia was then divided. The town was then much larger, as is shown by excavations in the neighbourhood made during the 19th century, and probably met its doom during the Mongol invasion of 1240. In 1349 it was incorporated in the kingdom of Poland.

HALIFAX, CHARLES MONTAGUE,Earl of(1661-1715), English statesman and poet, fourth son of the Hon. George Montague, fifth son of the first earl of Manchester, was born at Horton, Northamptonshire, on the 16th of April 1661. In his fourteenth year he was sent to Westminster school, where he was chosen king’s scholar in 1677, and distinguished himself in the composition of extempore epigrams made according to custom upon theses appointed for king’s scholars at the time of election. In 1679 he entered Trinity College, Cambridge, where he acquired a solid knowledge of the classics and surpassed all his contemporaries at the university in logic and ethics. Latterly, however, he preferred to the abstractions of Descartes the practical philosophy of Sir Isaac Newton; and he was one of the small band of students who assisted Newton in forming the Philosophical Society of Cambridge. But it was his facility in verse-writing, and neither his scholarship nor his practical ability, that first opened up to him the way to fortune. His clever but absurdly panegyrical poem on the death of Charles II. secured for him the notice of the earl of Dorset, who invited him to town and introduced him to the principal wits of the time; and in 1687 his joint authorship with Prior of theHind and Panther transversed to the Story of the Country Mouse and the City Mouse, a parody of Dryden’s political poem, not only increased his literary reputation but directly helped him to political influence.

In 1689, through the patronage of the earl of Dorset, he entered parliament as member for Maldon, and sat in the convention which resolved that William and Mary should be declared king and queen of England. About this time he married the countess-dowager of Manchester, and it would appear, according to Johnson, that it was still his intention to take orders; but after the coronation he purchased a clerkship to the council. On being introduced by Earl Dorset to King William, after the publication of his poeticalEpistle occasioned by his Majesty’s Victory in Ireland, he was ordered to receive an immediate pension of £500 per annum, until an opportunity should present itself of “making a man of him.” In 1691 he was chosen chairman of the committee of the House of Commons appointed to confer with a committee of the Lords in regard to the bill for regulating trials in cases of high treason; and he displayed in these conferences such tact and debating power that he was made one of the commissioners of the treasury and called to the privy council. But his success as a politician was less due to his oratorical gifts than to his skill in finance, and in this respect he soon began to manifest such brilliant talents as completely eclipsed the painstaking abilities of Godolphin. Indeed it may be affirmed that no other statesman has initiated schemes which have left a more permanent mark on the financial history of England. Although perhaps it was inevitable that England should sooner or later adopt the continental custom of lightening the annual taxation in times of war by contracting a national debt, the actual introduction of the expedient was due to Montague, who on the 15th of December 1692 proposed to raise a million of money by way of loan. Previous to this the Scotsman William Paterson (q.v.) had submitted to the government his plan of a national bank, and when in the spring of 1694 the prolonged contest with France had rendered another large loan absolutely necessary, Montague introduced a bill for the incorporation of the Bank of England. The bill after some opposition passed the House of Lords in May, and immediately after the prorogation of parliament Montague was rewarded by the chancellorship of the exchequer. In 1695 he was triumphantly returned for the borough of Westminster to the new parliament, and succeeded in passing his celebrated measure to remedy the depreciation which had taken place in the currency on account of dishonest manipulations. To provide for the expense of recoinage, Montague, instead of reviving the old tax of hearth money, introduced the window tax, and the difficulties caused by the temporary absence of a metallic currency were avoided by the issue for the first time of exchequer bills. His other expedients for meeting the emergencies of the financial crisis were equally successful, and the rapid restoration of public credit secured him a commanding influence both in the House of Commons and at the board of the treasury; but although Godolphin resigned office in October 1696, the king hesitated for some time between Montague and Sir Stephen Fox as his successor, and it was not till 1697 that the former was appointed first lord. In 1697 he was accused by Charles Duncombe, and in 1698 by a Col. Granville, of fraud, but both charges broke down, and Duncombe was shown to have been guilty of extreme dishonesty himself. In 1698 and 1699 he acted as one of the council of regency during the king’s absence from England. With the accumulation of his political successes his vanity and arrogance became, however, so offensive that latterly they utterly lost him the influence he had acquired by his administrative ability and his masterly eloquence; and when his power began to be on the wane he set the seal to his political overthrow by conferring the lucrative sinecure office of auditor of the exchequer on his brother in trust for himself should he be compelled to retire from power. This action earned him the offensive nickname of “Filcher,” and for some time afterwards, in attempting to lead the House of Commons, he had to submit to constant mortifications, often verging on personal insults. After the return of the king in 1699 he resigned his offices in the government and succeeded his brother in the auditorship.

On the accession of the Tories to power he was removed in 1701 to the House of Lords by the title of Lord Halifax. In the same year he was impeached for malpractices along with LordSomers and the earls of Portland and Oxford, but all the charges were dismissed by the Lords; and in 1703 a second attempt to impeach him was still more unsuccessful. He continued out of office during the reign of Queen Anne, but in 1706 he was named one of the commissioners to negotiate the union with Scotland; and after the passing of the Act of Settlement in favour of the house of Hanover, he was appointed ambassador to the elector’s court to convey the insignia of order of the garter to George I. On the death of Anne (1714) he was appointed one of the council of regency until the arrival of the king from Hanover; and after the coronation he received the office of first lord of the treasury in the new ministry, being at the same time created earl of Halifax and Viscount Sunbury. He died on the 19th of May 1715 and left no issue. He was buried in the vault of the Albemarle family in Westminster Abbey. His nephew George (d. 1739) succeeded to the barony, and was created Viscount Sunbury and earl of Halifax in 1715.

Montague’s association with Prior in the travesty of Dryden’sHind and Pantherhas no doubt largely aided in preserving his literary reputation; but he is perhaps indebted for it chiefly to his subsequent influential position and to the fulsome flattery of the men of letters who enjoyed his friendship, and who, in return for his liberal donations and the splendid banqueting which they occasionally enjoyed at his villa on the Thames, “fed him,” as Pope says, “all day long with dedications.” Swift says he gave them nothing but “good words, and good dinners.” That, however, his beneficence to needy talent, if sometimes attributable to an itching ear for adulation, was at others prompted by a sincere appreciation of intellectual merit, is sufficiently attested by the manner in which he procured from Godolphin a commissionership for Addison, and also by his life-long intimacy with Newton, for whom he obtained the mastership of the mint. The small fragments of poetry which he left behind him, and which were almost solely the composition of his early years, display a certain facility and vigour of diction, but their thought and fancy are never more than commonplace, and not unfrequently in striving to be eloquent and impressive he is only grotesquely and extravagantly absurd. In administrative talent he was the superior of all his contemporaries, and his only rival in parliamentary eloquence was Somers; but the skill with which he managed measures was superior to his tact in dealing with men, and the effect of his brilliant financial successes on his reputation was gradually almost nullified by the affected arrogance of his manner and by the eccentricities of his sensitive vanity. So eager latterly was his thirst for fame and power that perhaps Marlborough did not exaggerate when he said that “he had no other principle but his ambition, so that he would put all in distraction rather than not gain his point.”

Among the numerous notices of Halifax by contemporaries may be mentioned the eulogistic reference which concludes Addison’s account of the “greatest of English poets”; the dedications by Steel to the second volume of theSpectatorand to the fourth of theTatler; Pope’s laudatory mention of him in the epilogue to hisSatiresand in the preface to theIliad, and his portrait of him as “Full-blown Bufo” in theEpistle to Arbuthnot. Various allusions to him are to be found in Swift’s works and in Marlborough’sLetters. See also Burnet’sHistory of his Own Times; The Parliamentary History; Howell’sState Trials; Johnson’sLives of the Poets; and Macaulay’sHistory of England. HisMiscellaneous Workswere published at London in 1704; hisLife and Miscellaneous Worksin 1715; and hisPoetical Works, to which also his “Life” is attached, in 1716. His poems were reprinted in the 9th volume of Johnson’sEnglish Poets.

HALIFAX, GEORGE MONTAGU DUNK,2nd Earl of(1716-1771), son of George Montagu, 1st earl of Halifax (of the second creation), was born on the 5th or 6th of October 1716, becoming earl of Halifax on his father’s death in 1739. Educated at Eton and at Trinity College, Cambridge, he was married in 1741 to Anne Richards (d. 1753), a lady who had inherited a great fortune from Sir Thomas Dunk, whose name was taken by Halifax. After having been an official in the household of Frederick, prince of Wales, the earl was made master of the buckhounds, and in 1748 he became president of the Board of Trade. While filling this position he helped to found Halifax, the capital of Nova Scotia, which was named after him, and in several ways he rendered good service to trade, especially with North America. About this time he sought tobecomea secretary of state, but in vain, although he was allowed to enter the cabinet in 1757. In March 1761 Halifax was appointed lord-lieutenant of Ireland, and during part of the time which he held this office he was also first lord of the admiralty. He became secretary of state for the northern department under the earl of Bute in October 1762, retaining this post under George Grenville and being one of the three ministers to whom George III. entrusted the direction of affairs. He signed the general warrant under which Wilkes was arrested in 1763, for which action he was mulcted in damages by the courts of law in 1769, and he was mainly responsible for the exclusion of the name of the king’s mother, Augusta, princess of Wales, from the Regency Bill of 1765. With his colleagues the earl left office in July 1765, returning to the cabinet as lord privy seal under his nephew, Lord North, in January 1770. He had just been transferred to his former position of secretary of state when he died on the 8th of June 1771. Halifax, who was lord-lieutenant of Northamptonshire and a lieutenant-general in the army, showed some disinterestedness in money matters, but was very extravagant. He left no children, and his titles became extinct on his death. Horace Walpole speaks slightingly of the earl, and says he and his mistress, Mary Anne Faulkner, “had sold every employment in his gift.”

See theMemoirsof his secretary, Richard Cumberland (1807).

HALIFAX, GEORGE SAVILE,1st Marquess of(1633-1695), English statesman and writer, great-grandson of Sir George Savile of Lupset and Thornhill in Yorkshire (created baronet in 1611), was the eldest son of Sir William Savile, 3rd baronet, who distinguished himself in the civil war in the royalist cause and who died in 1644, and of Anne, eldest daughter of Lord Keeper Coventry. He was thus nephew of Sir William Coventry, who is said to have influenced his political opinions, and of Lord Shaftesbury, afterwards his most bitter opponent, and great-nephew of the earl of Strafford; by his marriage with the Lady Dorothy Spencer, he was brother-in-law to Lord Sunderland. He entered public life with all the advantages of lineage, political connexions, great wealth and estates, and uncommon abilities. He was elected member of the Convention parliament for Pontefract in 1660, and this was his only appearance in the Lower House. A peerage was sought for him by the duke of York in 1665, but was successfully opposed by Clarendon, on the ground of his “ill-reputation amongst men of piety and religion,” the real motives of the chancellor’s hostile attitude being probably Savile’s connexion with Buckingham and Coventry. The honours were, however, only deferred for a short time and were obtained after the fall of Clarendon on the 31st of December 1667,1when Savile was created Baron Savile of Eland and Viscount Halifax.

He supported zealously the anti-French policy formulated in the Triple Alliance of January 1668. He was at this time in favour at court, was created a privy councillor in 1672, and, while ignorant of the disgraceful secret clauses in the treaty of Dover, was chosen envoy to negotiate terms of peace with Louis XIV. and the Dutch at Utrecht. His mission was still further deprived of importance by Arlington and Buckingham, who were in the king’s counsels, and who anticipated his arrival and took the negotiations out of his hands; and though he signed the compact, he had no share in the harsh terms imposed upon the Dutch, and henceforth became a bitter opponent of the policy of subservience to French interests and of the Roman Catholic claims.

He took an active part in passing through parliament the great Test Act of 16732and forfeited in consequence his friendship with James. In 1674 he brought forward a motion fordisarming “popish recusants,” and supported one by Lord Carlisle for restricting the marriages in the royal family to Protestants; but he opposed the bill introduced by Lord Danby (seeLeeds, 1st Duke of) in 1675, which imposed a test oath on officials and members of parliament, speaking “with that quickness, learning and elegance that are inseparable from all his discourses,” and ridiculing the multiplication of oaths, since “no man would ever sleep with open doors ... should all the town be sworn not to rob.” He was now on bad terms with Danby, and a witty sally at that minister’s expense caused his dismissal from the council in January 1676. In 1678 he took an active part in the investigation of the “Popish Plot,” to which he appears to have given excessive credence, but opposed the bill which was passed on the 30th of October 1678, to exclude Roman Catholics from the House of Lords.

In 1679, as a consequence of the fall of Danby, he became a member of the newly constituted privy council. With Charles, who had at first “kicked at his appointment,” he quickly became a favourite, his lively and “libertine” (i.e.free or sceptical) conversation being named by Bishop Burnet as his chief attraction for the king. His dislike of the duke of York and of the Romanist tendencies of the court did not induce him to support the rash attempt of Lord Shaftesbury to substitute the illegitimate duke of Monmouth for James in the succession. He feared Shaftesbury’s ascendancy in the national councils and foresaw nothing but civil war and confusion as a result of his scheme. He declared against the exclusion of James, was made an earl in 1679, and was one of the “Triumvirate” which now directed public affairs. He assisted in passing into law the Habeas Corpus Bill. According to Sir W. Temple he showed great severity in putting into force the laws against the Roman Catholics, but this statement is considered a misrepresentation.3In 1680 he voted against the execution of Lord Stafford.

Meanwhile (1679) his whole policy had been successfully directed towards uniting all parties with the object of frustrating Shaftesbury’s plans. Communications were opened with the prince of Orange, and the illness of the king was made the occasion for summoning James from Brussels. Monmouth was compelled to retire to Holland, and Shaftesbury was dismissed. On the other hand, while Halifax was so far successful, James was given an opportunity of establishing a new influence at the court. It was with great difficulty that his retirement to Scotland was at last effected; the ministers lost the confidence and support of the “country party,” and Halifax, fatigued and ill, at the close of this year, retired to Rufford Abbey, the country home of the Saviles since the destruction of Thornhill Hall in 1648, and for some time took little part in affairs. He returned in September 1680 on the occasion of the introduction of the Exclusion Bill in the Lords. The debate which followed, one of the most famous in the whole annals of parliament, became a duel of oratory between Halifax and his uncle Shaftesbury, the finest two speakers of the day, watched by the Lords, the Commons at the bar, and the king, who was present. It lasted seven hours. Halifax spoke sixteen times, and at last, regardless of the menaces of the more violent supporters of the bill, who closed round him, vanquished his opponent. The rejection of the bill by a majority of 33 was attributed by all parties entirely to the eloquence of Halifax. His conduct transformed the allegiance to him of the Whigs into bitter hostility, the Commons immediately petitioning the king to remove him from his councils for ever, while any favour which he might have regained with James was forfeited by his subsequent approval of the regency scheme.

He retired to Rufford again in January 1681, but was present at the Oxford parliament, and in May returned suddenly to public life and held for a year the chief control of affairs. The arrest of Shaftesbury on the 2nd of July was attributed to his influence, but in general, during the period of Tory reaction, he seems to have urged a policy of conciliation and moderation upon the king. He opposed James’s return from Scotland and, about this time (Sept.), made a characteristic but futile attempt to persuade the duke to attend the services of the Church of England and thus to end all difficulties. He renewed relations with the prince of Orange, who in July paid a visit to England to seek support against the French designs upon Luxemburg. The influence of Halifax procured for the Dutch a formal assurance from Charles of his support; but the king informed the French ambassador that he had no intention of fulfilling his engagements, and made another secret treaty with Louis. Halifax opposed in 1682 James’s vindictive prosecution of the earl of Argyll, arousing further hostility in the duke, while the same year he was challenged to a duel by Monmouth, who attributed to him his disgrace.

His short tenure of power ended with the return of James in May. Outwardly he still retained the king’s favour and was advanced to a marquisate (Aug. 17) and to the office of lord privy seal (Oct. 25). Being still a member of the administration he must share responsibility for the attack now made upon the municipal franchises, a violation of the whole system of representative government, especially as the new charters passed his office. In January 1684 he was one of the commissioners “who supervise all things concerning the city and have turned out those persons who are whiggishly inclined” (N. Luttrell’sDiary, i. 295). He made honourable but vain endeavours to save Algernon Sidney and Lord Russell. “My Lord Halifax,” declared Tillotson in his evidence before the later inquiry, “showed a very compassionate concern for my Lord Russell and all the readiness to serve them that could be wished.”4The Rye-House Plot, in which it was sought to implicate them, was a disastrous blow to his policy, and in order to counteract its consequences he entered into somewhat perilous negotiations with Monmouth, and endeavoured to effect his reconciliation with the king. On the 12th of February 1684, he procured the release of his old antagonist, Lord Danby. Shortly afterwards his influence at the court revived. Charles was no longer in receipt of his French pension and was beginning to tire of James and Rochester. The latter, instead of becoming lord treasurer, was, according to the epigram of Halifax which has become proverbial, “kicked upstairs,” to the office of lord president of the council. Halifax now worked to establish intimate relations between Charles and the prince of Orange and opposed the abrogation of the recusancy laws. In a debate in the cabinet of November 1684, on the question of the grant of a fresh constitution to the New England colonies, he urged with great warmth “that there could be no doubt whatever but that the same laws which are in force in England should also be established in a country inhabited by Englishmen and that an absolute government is neither so happy nor so safe as that which is tempered by laws and which sets bounds to the authority of the prince,” and declared that he could not “live under a king who should have it in his power to take, whenever he thought proper, the money he has in his pocket.” The opinions thus expressed were opposed by all the other ministers and highly censured by Louis XIV., James and Judge Jeffreys.

At the accession of James he was immediately deprived of all power and relegated to the presidency of the council. He showed no compliance, like other Lords, with James’s Roman Catholic preferences. He was opposed to the parliamentary grant to the king of a revenue for life; he promoted the treaty of alliance with the Dutch in August 1685; he expostulated with the king on the subject of the illegal commissions in the army given to Roman Catholics; and finally, on his firm refusal to support the repeal of the Test and Habeas Corpus Acts, he was dismissed, and his name was struck out of the list of the privy council (Oct. 1685). He corresponded with the prince of Orange, conferred with Dykveldt, the latter’s envoy, but held aloof from plans which aimed at the prince’s personal interference in English affairs. In 1687 he published the famousLetter to a Dissenter, in which he warns the Nonconformists against being beguiled by the “Indulgence” into joining the court party, sets in a clear light the fatal results of such a step, and reminds them that under their next sovereign their grievances would inall probability be satisfied by the law. The tract, which has received general and unqualified admiration, must be classed amongst the few known writings which have actually and immediately altered the course of history. Copies to the number of 20,000 were circulated through the kingdom, and a great party was convinced of the wisdom of remaining faithful to the national traditions and liberties. He took the popular side on the occasion of the trial of the bishops in June 1688, visited them in the Tower, and led the cheers with which the verdict of “not guilty” was received in court; but the same month he refrained from signing the invitation to William, and publicly repudiated any share in the prince’s plans. On the contrary he attended the court and refused any credence to the report that the prince born to James was supposititious. After the landing of William he was present at the council called by James on the 27th of November. He urged the king to grant large concessions, but his speech, in contrast to the harsh and overbearing attitude of the Hydes, was “the most tender and obliging ... that ever was heard.” He accepted the mission with Nottingham and Godolphin to treat with William at Hungerford, and succeeded in obtaining moderate terms from the prince. The negotiations, however, were abortive, for James had from the first resolved on flight. In the crisis which ensued, when the country was left without a government, Halifax took the lead. He presided over the council of Lords which assembled and took immediate measures to maintain public order. On the return of James to London on the 16th of November, after his capture at Faversham, Halifax repaired to William’s camp and henceforth attached himself unremittingly to his cause. On the 17th he carried with Lords Delamere and Shrewsbury a message from William to the king advising his departure from London, and, after the king’s second flight, directed the proceedings of the executive. On the meeting of the convention on the 22nd of January 1689, he was formally elected speaker of the House of Lords. He voted against the motion for a regency (Jan. 20), which was only defeated by two votes. The moderate and comprehensive character of the settlement at the revolution plainly shows his guiding hand, and it was finally through his persuasion that the Lords yielded to the Commons and agreed to the compromise whereby William and Mary were declared joint sovereigns. On the 13th of February in the Banqueting House at Whitehall, he tendered the crown to them in the name of the nation, and conducted the proclamation of their accession in the city.

At the opening of the new reign he had considerable influence, was made lord privy seal, while Danby his rival was obliged to content himself with the presidency of the council, and controlled the appointments to the new cabinet which were made on a “trimming” or comprehensive basis. His views on religious toleration were as wide as those of the new king. He championed the claims of the Nonconformists as against the high or rigid Church party, and he was bitterly disappointed at the miscarriage of the Comprehension Bill. He thoroughly approved also at first of William’s foreign policy; but, having excited the hostility of both the Whig and Tory parties, he now became exposed to a series of attacks in parliament which finally drove him from power. He was severely censured, as it seems quite unjustly, for the disorder in Ireland, and an attempt was made to impeach him for his conduct with regard to the sentences on the Whig leaders. The inquiry resulted in his favour; but notwithstanding, and in spite of the king’s continued support, he determined to retire. He had already resigned the speakership of the House of Lords, and he now (Feb. 8, 1690) quitted his place in the cabinet. He still nominally retained his seat in the privy council, but in parliament he became a bitter critic of the administration; and the rivalry of Halifax (the Black Marquess) with Danby, now marquess of Carmarthen (the White Marquess) threw the former at this time into determined opposition. He disapproved of William’s total absorption in European politics, and his open partiality for his countrymen. In January 1691 Halifax had an interview with Henry Bulkeley, the Jacobite agent, and is said to have promised “to do everything that lay in his power to serve the king.” This was probably merely a measure of precaution, for he had no serious Jacobite leanings. He entered bail for Lord Marlborough, accused wrongfully of complicity in a Jacobite plot in May 1692, and in June, during the absence of the king from England, his name was struck off the privy council.

He spoke in favour of the Triennial Bill (Jan. 12, 1693) which passed the legislature but was vetoed by William, suggested a proviso in the Licensing Act, which restricted its operation to anonymous works, approved the Place Bill (1694), but opposed, probably on account of the large sums he had engaged in the traffic of annuities, the establishment of the bank of England in 1694. Early in 1695 he delivered a strong attack on the administration in the House of Lords, and, after a short illness arising from a neglected complaint, he died on the 5th of April at the age of sixty-one. He was buried in Henry VII.’s chapel in Westminster Abbey.

The influence of Halifax, both as orator and as writer, on the public opinion of his day was probably unrivalled. His intellectual powers, his high character, his urbanity, vivacity and satirical humour made a great impression on his contemporaries, and many of his witty sayings have been recorded. But the superiority of his statesmanship could not be appreciated till later times. Maintaining throughout his career a complete detachment from party, he never acted permanently or continuously with either of the two great factions, and exasperated both in turn by deserting their cause at the moment when their hopes seemed on the point of realization. To them he appeared weak, inconstant, untrustworthy. They could not see what to us now is plain and clear, that Halifax was as consistent in his principles as the most rabid Whig or Tory. But the principle which chiefly influenced his political action, that of compromise, differed essentially from those of both parties, and his attitude with regard to the Whigs or Tories was thus by necessity continually changing. Measures, too, which in certain circumstances appeared to him advisable, when the political scene had changed became unwise or dangerous. Thus the regency scheme, which Halifax had supported while Charles still reigned, was opposed by him with perfect consistency at the revolution. He readily accepted for himself the character of a “trimmer,” desiring, he said, to keep the boat steady, while others attempted to weigh it down perilously on one side or the other; and he concluded his tract with these assertions: “that our climate is a Trimmer between that part of the world where men are roasted and the other where they are frozen; that our Church is a Trimmer between the frenzy of fanatic visions and the lethargic ignorance of Popish dreams; that our laws are Trimmers between the excesses of unbounded power and the extravagance of liberty not enough restrained; that true virtue hath ever been thought a Trimmer, and to have its dwelling in the middle between two extremes; that even God Almighty Himself is divided between His two great attributes, His Mercy and His Justice. In such company, our Trimmer is not ashamed of his name....”5

His powerful mind enabled him to regard the various political problems of his time from a height and from a point of view similar to that from which distance from the events enables us to consider them at the present day; and the superiority of his vision appears sufficiently from the fact that his opinions and judgments on the political questions of his time are those which for the most part have ultimately triumphed and found general acceptance. His attitude of mind was curiously modern.6Reading, writing and arithmetic, he thinks, should be taught to all and at the expense of the state. His opinions again on the constitutional relations of the colonies to the mother country, already cited, were completely opposed to those of his own period. For that view of his character which while allowing him the merit of a brilliant political theorist denies him the qualities of a man of action and of a practical politician, there is no solid basis. The truth is that while his political ideas are founded upon great moral or philosophical generalizations, often vividlyrecalling and sometimes anticipating the broad conceptions of Burke, they are at the same time imbued with precisely those practical qualities which have ever been characteristic of English statesmenship, and were always capable of application to actual conditions. He was no star-gazing philosopher, with thoughts superior to the contemplation of mundane affairs. He had no taste for abstract political dogma. He seems to venture no further than to think that “men should live in some competent state of freedom,” and that the limited monarchical and aristocratic government was the best adapted for his country. “Circumstances,” he writes in theRough Draft of a New Model at Sea, “must come in and are to be made a part of the matter of which we are to judge; positive decisions are always dangerous, more especially in politics.” Nor was he the mere literary student buried in books and in contemplative ease. He had none of the “indecisiveness which commonly renders literary men of no use in the world” (Sir John Dalrymple). The incidents of his career show that there was no backwardness or hesitation in acting when occasion required. The constant tendency of his mind towards antithesis and the balancing of opinions did not lead to paralysis in time of action. He did not shrink from responsibility, nor show on any occasion lack of courage. At various times of crisis he proved himself a great leader. He returned to public life to defeat the Exclusion Bill. At the revolution it was Halifax who seized the reins of government, flung away by James, and maintained public security. His subsequent failure in collaborating with William is, it is true, disappointing. But the cause was one that has not perhaps received sufficient attention. Party government had come to the birth during the struggles over the Exclusion Bill, and there had been unconsciously introduced into politics a novel element of which the nature and importance were not understood or suspected. Halifax had consistently ignored and neglected party; and it now had its revenge. Detested by the Whigs and by the Tories alike, and defended by neither, the favour alone of the king and his own transcendent abilities proved insufficient to withstand the constant and violent attacks made upon him in parliament, and he yielded to the superior force. He seems indeed himself to have been at last convinced of the necessity in English political life of party government, for though in his Cautions to electors he warns them against men “tied to a party,” yet in his last words he declares “If there are two parties a man ought to adhere to that which he disliked least though in the whole he doth not approve it; for whilst he doth not list himself in one or the other party, he is looked upon as such a straggler that he is fallen upon by both.... Happy those that are convinced so as to be of the general opinions” (Political Thoughts and Reflections of Parties).

The private character of Lord Halifax was in harmony with the greatness of his public career. He was by no means the “voluptuary” described by Macaulay. He was on the contrary free from self-indulgence; his manner of life was decent and frugal, and his dress proverbially simple. He was an affectionate father and husband. “His heart,” says Burnet (i. 492-493, ed. 1833), “was much set on raising his family”—his last concern even while on his deathbed was the remarriage of his son Lord Eland to perpetuate his name; and this is probably the cause of his acceptance of so many titles for which he himself affected a philosophical indifference. He was estimable in his social relations and habits. He showed throughout his career an honourable independence, and was never seen to worship the rising sun. In a period when even great men stooped to accept bribes, Halifax was known to be incorruptible; at a time when animosities were especially bitter, he was too great a man to harbour resentments. “Not only from policy,” says Reresby (Mem.p. 231), “(which teaches that we ought to let no man be our enemy when we can help it), but from his disposition I never saw any man more ready to forgive than himself.” Few were insensible to his personal charm and gaiety. He excelled especially in quick repartee, in “exquisite nonsense,” and in spontaneous humour. When quite a young man, just entering upon political life he is described by Evelyn as “a witty gentleman, if not a little too prompt and daring.” The latter characteristic was not moderated by time but remained through life. He was incapable of controlling his spirit of raillery, from jests on Siamese missionaries to sarcasms at the expense of the heir to the throne and ridicule of hereditary monarchy, and his brilliant paradoxes, his pungent and often profane epigrams were received by graver persons as his real opinions and as evidences of atheism. This latter charge he repudiated, assuring Burnet that he was “a Christian in submission,” but that he could not digest iron like an ostrich nor swallow all that the divines sought to impose upon the world.

The speeches of Halifax have not been preserved, and his political writings on this account have all the greater value.The Character of a Trimmer(1684 or 1685), the authorship of which, long doubtful, is now established,7was his most ambitious production, written seemingly as advice to the king and as a manifesto of his own opinions. In it he discusses the political problems of the time and their solution on broad principles. He supports the Test Act and, while opposing the Indulgence, is not hostile to the repeal of the penal laws against the Roman Catholics by parliament. Turning to foreign affairs he contemplates with consternation the growing power of France and the humiliation of England, exclaiming indignantly at the sight of the “Roses blasted and discoloured while lilies triumph and grow insolent upon the comparison.” The whole is a masterly and comprehensive summary of the actual political situation and its exigencies; while, when he treats such themes as liberty, or discusses the balance to be maintained between freedom and government in the constitution, he rises to the political idealism of Bolingbroke and Burke.The Character of King Charles II.(printed 1750), to be compared with his earlier sketch of the king in theCharacter of a Trimmer, is perhaps from the literary point of view the most admirable of his writings. The famousLetter to a Dissenter(1687) was thought by Sir James Mackintosh to be unrivalled as a political pamphlet.The Lady’s New Year’s Gift: or Advice to a Daughter, refers to his daughter Elizabeth, afterwards wife of the 3rd and mother of the celebrated 4th earl of Chesterfield (1688). InThe Anatomy of an Equivalent(1688) he treats with keen wit and power of analysis the proposal to grant a “perpetual edict” in favour of the Established Church in return for the repeal of the test and penal laws.Maxims of Stateappeared about 1692.The Rough Draft of a New Model at Sea(c.1694), though apparently only a fragment, is one of the most interesting and characteristic of his writings. It opens with the question: “’What shall we do to be saved in this world?’ There is no other answer but this, ‘Look to your moat.’ The first article of an Englishman’s political creed must be that he believeth in the sea.” He discusses the naval establishment, not from the naval point of view alone, but from the general aspect of the constitution of which it is a detail, and is thus led on to consider the nature of the constitution itself, and to show that it is not an artificial structure but a growth and product of the natural character. We may also mentionSome Cautionsto the electors of the parliament (1694), andPolitical, Moral and Miscellaneous Thoughts and Reflections(n.d.), a collection of aphorisms in the style of the maxims of La Rochefoucauld, inferior in style—but greatly excelling the French author in breadth of view and in moderation. (For other writings attributed to Halifax, see Foxcroft,Life of Sir G. Savile, ii. 529 sqq.).

Halifax was twice married, first in 1656 to the Lady Dorothy Spencer—daughter of the 1st earl of Sunderland and of Dorothy Sidney, “Sacharissa”—who died in 1670, leaving a family; and secondly, in 1672, to Gertrude, daughter of William Pierrepont of Thoresby, who survived him, and by whom he had one daughter, Elizabeth, Lady Chesterfield, who seems to have inherited a considerable portion of her father’s intellectual abilities. On the death of his son William, 2nd marquess of Halifax, in August 1700 without male issue, the peerage became extinct, and the baronetcy passed to the Saviles of Lupset, the wholemale line of the Savile family ending in the person of Sir George Savile, 8th baronet, in 1784. Henry Savile, British envoy at Versailles, who died unmarried in 1687, was a younger brother of the first marquess. Halifax has been generally supposed to have been the father of the illegitimate Henry Carey, the poet, but this is doubtful.

Back to Index Next