disarming “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 (see Leeds, 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.[1] In 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’s Diary, 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.”[2] The 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 famous Letter 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 in
