GREVILLE, CHARLES CAVENDISH FULKE (1794-1865), English diarist, a
great-grandson by his father of the 5th earl of Warwick, and son of Lady
Charlotte Bentinck, daughter of the duke of Portland, formerly a leader
of the Whig party, and first minister of the crown, was born on the 2nd
of April 1794. Much of his childhood was spent at his grandfather's
house at Bulstrode. He was one of the pages of George III., and was
educated at Eton and Christ Church, Oxford; but he left the university
early, having been appointed private secretary to Earl Bathurst before
he was twenty. The interest of the duke of Portland had secured for him
the secretaryship of the island of Jamaica, which was a sinecure office,
the duties being performed by a deputy, and the reversion of the
clerkship of the council. Greville entered upon the discharge of the
duties of clerk of the council in ordinary in 1821, and continued to
perform them for nearly forty years. He therefore served under three
successive sovereigns,--George IV., William IV. and Victoria,--and
although no political or confidential functions are attached to that
office, it is one which brings a man into habitual intercourse with the
chiefs of all the parties in the state. Well-born, well-bred, handsome
and accomplished, Greville led the easy life of a man of fashion, taking
an occasional part in the transactions of his day and much consulted in
the affairs of private life. Until 1855 when he sold his stud he was an
active member of the turf, and he trained successively with Lord George
Bentinck, and with the duke of Portland. But the celebrity which now
attaches to his name is entirely due to the posthumous publication of a
portion of a Journal or Diary which it was his practice to keep during
the greater part of his life. These papers were given by him to his
friend Mr Henry Reeve a short time before his death (which took place on
the 18th of January 1865), with an injunction that they should be
published, as far as was feasible, at not too remote a period after the
writer's death. The journals of the reigns of George IV. and William IV.
(extending from 1820 to 1837) were accordingly so published in obedience
to his directions about ten years after that event. Few publications
have been received with greater interest by the public; five large
editions were sold in little more than a year, and the demand in America
was as great as in England. These journals were regarded as a faithful
record of the impressions made on the mind of a competent observer, at
the time, by the events he witnessed and the persons with whom he
associated. Greville did not stoop to collect or record private scandal.
His object appears to have been to leave behind him some of the
materials of history, by which the men and actions of his own time would
be judged. He records not so much public events as the private causes
which led to them; and perhaps no English memoir-writer has left behind
him a more valuable contribution to the history of the 19th century.
Greville published anonymously, in 1845, a volume on the _Past and
Present Policy of England to Ireland_, in which he advocated the payment
of the Roman Catholic clergy; and he was also the author of several
pamphlets on the events of his day.
His brother, HENRY GREVILLE (1801-1872), attache to the British embassy
in Paris from 1834 to 1844, also kept a diary, of which part was
published by Viscountess Enfield, _Leaves from the Diary of Henry
Greville_ (London, 1883-1884).
See the preface and notes to the _Greville Memoirs_ by Henry Reeve.
The memoirs appeared in three sets--one from 1817 to 1837 (London,
1875, 3 vols.), and two for the period from 1837 to 1860, three
volumes in 1885 and two in 1887. When the first series appeared in
1875 some passages caused extreme offence. The copies issued were as
far as possible recalled and passages suppressed.
GREVIN, JACQUES (c. 1539-1570), French dramatist, was born at Clermont
about 1539. He studied medicine at the university of Paris. He became a
disciple of Ronsard, and was one of the band of dramatists who sought to
introduce the classical drama in France. As Sainte-Beuve points out, the
comedies of Grevin show considerable affinity with the farces and
_soties_ that preceded them. His first play, _La Maubertine_, was lost,
and formed the basis of a new comedy, _La Tresoriere_, first performed
at the college of Beauvais in 1558, though it had been originally
composed at the desire of Henry II. to celebrate the marriage of Claude,
duchess of Lorraine. In 1560 followed the tragedy of _Jules Cesar_,
imitated from the Latin of Muret, and a comedy, _Les Ebahis_, the most
important but also the most indecent of his works. Grevin was also the
author of some medical works and of miscellaneous poems, which were
praised by Ronsard until the friends were separated by religious
differences. Grevin became in 1561 physician and counsellor to Margaret
of Savoy, and died at her court in Turin in 1570.
The _Theatre_ of Jacques Grevin was printed in 1562, and in the
_Ancien Theatre francais_, vol. iv. (1855-1856). See L. Pinvert,
_Jacques Grevin_ (1899).
GREVY, FRANCOIS PAUL JULES (1813-1891). President of the French
Republic, was born at Mont-sous-Vaudrey in the Jura, on the 15th of
August 1813. He became an advocate in 1837, and, having steadily
maintained republican principles under the Orleans monarchy, was elected
by his native department to the Constituent Assembly of 1848. Foreseeing
that Louis Bonaparte would be elected president by the people, he
proposed to vest the chief authority in a president of the Council
elected and removable by the Assembly, or in other words, to suppress
the Presidency of the Republic. After the _coup d'etat_ this proposition
gained Grevy a reputation for sagacity, and upon his return to public
life in 1868 he took a prominent place in the republican party. After
the fall of the Empire he was chosen president of the Assembly on the
16th of February 1871, and occupied this position till the 2nd of April
1876, when he resigned on account of the opposition of the Right, which
blamed him for having called one of its members to order in the session
of the previous day. On the 8th of March 1876 he was elected president
of the Chamber of Deputies, a post which he filled with such efficiency
that upon the resignation of Marshal MacMahon he seemed to step
naturally into the Presidency of the Republic (30th January 1879), and
was elected without opposition by the republican parties (see FRANCE:
_History_). Quiet, shrewd, attentive to the public interest and his own,
but without any particular distinction, he would have left an
unblemished reputation if he had not unfortunately accepted a second
term (18th December 1885). Shortly afterwards the traffic of his
son-in-law (Daniel Wilson) in the decorations of the Legion of Honour
came to light. Grevy was not accused of personal participation in these
scandals, but he was somewhat obstinate in refusing to realize that he
was responsible indirectly for the use which his relative had made of
the Elysee, and it had to be unpleasantly impressed upon him that his
resignation was inevitable (2nd December 1887). He died at
Mont-sous-Vaudrey on the 9th of September 1891. He owed both his success
and his failure to the completeness with which he represented the
particular type of the thrifty, generally sensible and patriotic, but
narrow-minded and frequently egoistic _bourgeois_.
See his _Discours politiques et judiciaires, rapports et messages ...
accompagnes de notices historiques et precedes d'une introduction par
L. Delabrousse_ (2 vols., 1888).
GREW, NEHEMIAH (1641-1712), English vegetable anatomist and
physiologist, was the only son of Obadiah Grew (1607-1688),
Nonconformist divine and vicar of St Michael's, Coventry, and was born
in Warwickshire in 1641. He graduated at Cambridge in 1661, and ten
years later took the degree of M.D. at Leiden, his thesis being
_Disputatio medico-physica ... de liquore nervoso_. He began
observations on the anatomy of plants in 1664, and in 1670 his essay,
_The Anatomy of Vegetables begun_, was communicated to the Royal Society
by Bishop Wilkins, on whose recommendation he was in the following year
elected a fellow. In 1672, when the essay was published, he settled in
London, and soon acquired an extensive practice as a physician. In 1673
he published his _Idea of a Phytological History_, which consisted of
papers he had communicated to the Royal Society in the preceding year,
and in 1677 he succeeded Henry Oldenburg as secretary of the society. He
edited the _Philosophical Transactions_ in 1678-1679, and in 1681 he
published "by request" a descriptive catalogue of the rarities preserved
at Gresham College, with which were printed some papers he had read to
the Royal Society on the _Comparative Anatomy of Stomachs and Guts_. In
1682 appeared his great work on the _Anatomy of Plants_, which also was
largely a collection of previous publications. It was divided into four
books, _Anatomy of Vegetables begun_, _Anatomy of Roots_, _Anatomy of
Trunks_ and _Anatomy of Leaves, Flowers, Fruits and Seeds_, and was
illustrated with eighty-two plates, while appended to it were seven
papers mostly of a chemical character. Among his other publications were
_Sea-water made Fresh_ (1684), the _Nature and Use of the Salt contained
in Epsom and such other Waters_ (1697), which was a rendering of his
_Tractatus de salis ... usu_ (1695), and _Cosmologia sacra_ (1701). He
died suddenly on the 25th of March 1712. Linnaeus named a genus of trees
_Grewia_ (nat. ord. Tiliaceae) in his honour.
GREY, CHARLES GREY, 2ND EARL (1764-1845), English statesman, was the
eldest surviving son of General Sir Charles Grey, afterwards 1st Earl
Grey. He was born at his father's residence, Fallodon, near Alnwick, on
the 13th of March 1764. General Grey (1729-1807), who was a younger son
of the house of Grey of Howick, one of the most considerable territorial
families in Northumberland, had already begun a career of active service
which, like the political career of his son, covered nearly half a
century. Before the latter was born, General Grey had served on the
staff of Prince Ferdinand of Brunswick in the Seven Years' War and had
been wounded at Minden. While the son was making verses at Eton, the
father was serving against the revolted colonists in Pennsylvania and
New Jersey, and while the young member for Northumberland was denouncing
Pitt's war against the Convention, the veteran soldier was destroying
the remnant of the French colonial empire by the capture of Martinique
and Guadeloupe. When Napoleon threatened an invasion, General Grey took
the command of the southern district, and at the peace of Amiens he was
rewarded with a peerage, as Baron Grey of Alnwick, being created in 1806
Earl Grey and Viscount Howick. His elder brother, Sir Henry Grey of
Howick, the head of the family, had supported the government in
parliament. But the political career of young Grey, who was
heir-presumptive to the family estates, took a different complexion.
Young Grey expected to reoccupy the seat which had been his uncle's; and
his early years were spent in preparation for a parliamentary career. He
was sent to Eton, and proceeded thence to Cambridge. William Pitt, a
youth five years older, was then in residence as a master of arts,
studiously paying court to the Whigs of the university; and at the
general election of 1780 he came forward as a candidate for the
academical seat. His name stood last on the poll, but he was brought in
elsewhere, and his first speech proved him a man of the first mark. The
unparalleled successes which followed portended grave changes. Pitt's
elevation to the premiership, his brilliant and hard-fought battle in
the house, and his complete rout of the Whig party at the general
election of 1784, when he came in for Cambridge at the head of the poll,
threatened the great territorial interest with nothing less than
extinction. It was to this interest that Grey belonged; and hence, when
at length returned for Northumberland in 1786, he at once came forward
as a vigorous assailant of the government of Pitt. He was hailed by the
opposition, and associated with Fox, Burke and Sheridan as a manager in
the Hastings impeachment. During the nineteen years which remained of
the career of Fox, he followed the great Whig statesman with absolute
fidelity, and succeeded him as leader of the party. The shortcomings of
Fox's statesmanship were inherited by Grey. Both were equally devoid of
political originality, shunned the severer labours of the politician,
and instinctively feared any deviation from the traditions of their
party. Such men cannot save a party in its decadence, and the history of
Fox and Grey has been aptly termed the history of the decline and fall
of Whiggism.
The stunning blow of 1784 was the first incident in this history. Its
full significance was not at once perceived. An opposition, however weak
in the beginning, generally has a tendency to revive, and Grey's early
successes in the house helped to revive the Foxites. The European
situation became favourable to this revival. The struggle in France for
popular rights, culminating in the great Revolution, was watched by Fox
with interested sympathy. He affected to regard the domination of Pitt
as the domination of the crown, and as leading logically to absolutism,
and saw in that popular sympathy for the French Revolution which
naturally arose in England an instrument which might be employed to
overthrow this domination.
But Pitt gathered the fruits of the windfall. The spread of
"Jacobinism," or "French principles," became the pretext on which the
stronger half of the opposition went over to the government. Burke led
the movement in the Commons, the duke of Portland and Lord Fitzwilliam
in the Lords, and with this second incident in the Whig decline began
the difficulties of Grey's career. The domination of the premier had
already stirred the keenest resentment in the younger and more ambitious
members of the Whig party. Freed from the restraint of the steadier
politicians under Burke and Portland, the residuum under Fox fell into a
series of grave mistakes. Of this residuum Grey became the moving
spirit, for though Fox did not check their activity, he disclaimed the
responsibility of their policy. Fox had refused to condemn "French
principles," and denounced the war with France; but he would take no
part in exciting agitation in England. It was otherwise with the
restless spirits among whom Grey was found. Enraged by the attitude of
Pitt, which was grounded on the support of the constituencies as they
then stood, the residuum plotted an ill-timed agitation for
parliamentary reform.
The demand for parliamentary reform was as yet in a rudimentary stage.
Forty years later it had become the demand of an unenfranchised nation,
disabused by a sudden spread of political and economical knowledge. It
was as yet but the occasional instrument of the scheming politician.
Chatham had employed the cry in this sense. The Middlesex agitators had
done the same; even the premier of the time, after his accession to
power, had sought to strengthen his hands in the same way. But Pitt's
hands were now strengthened abundantly; whereas the opposition had
nothing to lose and much to gain by such a measure. The cry for reform
thus became their natural expedient. Powerless to carry reform in the
House, they sought to overawe parliament by external agitation, and
formed the Society of the Friends of the People, destined to unite the
forces of all the "patriotic" societies which already existed in the
country, and to pour their violence irresistibly on a terrified
parliament. Grey and his friends were enrolled in this portentous
association, and presented in parliament its menacing petitions. Such
petitions, which were in fact violent impeachments of parliament itself,
proceeding from voluntary associations having no corporate existence,
had been hitherto unknown in the English parliament. They had been well
known in the French assembly. They had heralded and furthered the
victory of the Jacobins, the dissolution of the constitution, the
calling of the Convention and the fall of the monarchy.
The Society of the Friends of the People was originally an after-dinner
folly, extemporized at the house of a man who afterwards gained an
earldom by denouncing it as seditious. Fox discountenanced it, though he
did not directly condemn it; but Grey was overborne by the fierce
Jacobinism of Lauderdale, and avowed himself the parliamentary
mouthpiece of this dangerous agitation. But Pitt, strong in his
position, cut the ground from under Grey's feet by suppressing the
agitation with a strong hand. The suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act,
the Gagging Acts and the state prosecutions form a painful historical
episode. But the discredit belongs as much to Grey and Lauderdale as to
Pitt. Grey always spoke regretfully of his share in the movement. "One
word from Fox," he said, "would have kept me out of all the mess of the
Friends of the People. But he never spoke it."
It was Grey who moved the impeachment of Pitt, and he next promoted the
equally foolish "Secession." Since the parliament did not properly
represent the nation, and refused to reform itself or to impeach the
minister, nothing remained but to disown it; and the opposition
announced their intention of "seceding," or systematically absenting
themselves from their places in parliament. This futile movement was
originated by Grey, Lauderdale and the duke of Bedford. It obtained a
somewhat wider support. It suited the languor of some dispirited
politicians like Fox, and the avarice of some lawyers in large practice
like Erskine; but sensible politicians at once condemned it. It directly
ignored parliamentary government, and amounted to nothing but a pettish
threat of revolution. "Secession," said Lord Lansdowne, with
characteristic shrewdness, "either means rebellion, or it is nonsense."
Pitt easily dashed this feeble weapon from the hands of his opponents.
He roused jealousy in the absent by praising the parts and the
patriotism of the rest, and thus gradually brought them back. Grey
himself reappeared to protest against the union with Ireland.
When Pitt died in 1806 nothing could prevent the reunited opposition
from coming into power, and thus the Broad-bottom ministry was formed
under Fox. On his death Grenville became premier, and Grey, now Lord
Howick, foreign secretary, and leader of the House of Commons. Disunion,
always the bane of English Liberalism, lurked in the coalition, and the
Foxites and Grenvillites were only ostensibly at one. Grey opposed the
war policy of Grenville; and this policy was not more successful than it
had been in the hands of Pitt. And the change from the leadership of Fox
to that of Grenville was only too perceptible. Both in court and country
Grenville affected the role of Pitt, and assumed a stiff and peremptory
attitude which ill became him. An ill-advised dissolution weakened their
majority; they lost ground by the "delicate investigation" into the
conduct of the princess of Wales; Lord Henry Petty's budget was too
specious to command confidence; and the king, fully aware of their weak
situation, resolved to get rid of them. When they proposed to concede a
portion of the Catholic claims, George refused and demanded of them an
undertaking never to propose such a measure again. This was refused, and
the Grenville-Grey cabinet retired in March 1807. In the same year
Grey's father died, and Grey went to the Upper House. Opposition united
Grey and Grenville for a time, but the parties finally split on the old
war question. When Napoleon returned from Elba in 1815, and once more
seized the government of France, the same question arose which had
arisen in 1792, Was England to go to war for the restoration of the
Bourbons? Grenville followed the traditions of Pitt, and supported the
ministry in at once renewing hostilities. Grey followed those of Fox,
and maintained the right of France to choose her own governors, and the
impossibility of checking the reaction in the emperor's favour. The
victory of Waterloo put an end to the dispute, but the disruption became
permanent. The termination of the war, and the cessation of all action
in common, reduced the power of the opposition to nothing. Grenville
retired from public life, and his adherents reinforced the ministry.
Little remained for the Whigs to do. But the persecution of the queen
afforded an opportunity of showing that the ministry were not
omnipotent; and the part taken on that occasion by Grey won him at once
the increased respect of the nation and the undying aversion of George
IV. It sealed the exclusion of himself and his few friends from office
during the king's life; and when in 1827 Grey came forth to denounce the
ministry of Canning, he declared that he stood alone in the political
world. His words were soon justified, for when Lord Goderich resigned,
the remnant which had hitherto supported Grey, hastened to support the
ministry of the duke of Wellington.
We now reach the principal episode in Grey's career. In 1827 he seemed
to stand forth the solitary and powerless relic of an extinct party. In
1832 we find that party restored to its old numbers and activity,
supreme in parliament, popular in the nation, and Lord Grey at its head.
The duke of Wellington's foolish declaration against parliamentary
reform, made in a season of great popular excitement, suddenly deprived
him of the confidence of the country, and a coalition of the Whigs and
Canningites became inevitable. The Whigs had in 1827 supported the
Canningites; the latter now supported the Whigs, of whom Grey remained
the traditional head. George IV. was dead, and no obstacle existed to
Grey's elevation. Grey was sent for by William IV. in November 1830, and
formed a coalition cabinet, pledged to carry on the work in which the
duke of Wellington had faltered. But Grey himself was the mere
instrument of the times. An old-fashioned Whig, he had little personal
sympathy with the popular cause, though he had sometimes indicated a
certain measure of reform as necessary. When he took office, he guessed
neither the extent to which the Reform Act would go, nor the means by
which it would be carried. That he procured for the country a measure of
constitutional reform for which he had agitated in his youth was little
more than a coincidence. In his youth he had put himself at the head of
a frantic agitation against parliament, because he there found himself
powerless. In his old age the case was reversed. Suddenly raised to a
position of authority in the country, he boldly stood between
parliament, as then constituted, and the formidable agitation which now
threatened it and by a forced reform saved it from revolution. In his
youth he had assailed Pitt's administration because Pitt's
administration threatened with extinction the political monopoly of that
landed interest to which he belonged. In his old age, on the contrary,
unable to check the progress of the wave, he swam with it, and headed
the movement which compelled that landed interest to surrender its
monopoly.
The second reading of the first Reform Bill was carried in the Commons
by a majority of one. This was equivalent to a defeat, and further
failures precipitated a dissolution. The confidence which the bold
action of the ministry had won was soon plainly proved, for the second
reading was carried in the new parliament by a majority of 136. When the
bill had at length passed the Commons after months of debate, it was
Grey's task to introduce it to the Lords. It was rejected by a majority
of 41. The safety of the country now depended on the prudence and
courage of the ministry. The resignation of Grey and his colleagues was
dreaded even by the opposition, and they remained in office with the
intention of introducing a third Reform Bill in the next session. The
last months of 1831 were the beginning of a political crisis such as
England had not seen since 1688. The two extreme parties, the
Ultra-Radicals and the Ultra-Tories, were ready for civil war. Between
them stood the ministry and the majority of intelligent peace-loving
Englishmen; and their course of action was soon decided. The bill must
be passed, and there were but two ways of passing it. One was to declare
the consent of the House of Lords unnecessary to the measure, the other
to create, if necessary, new peers in sufficient number to outvote the
opposition. These two expedients did not in reality differ. To swamp the
house in the way proposed would have been to destroy it. The question
whether the ministry should demand the king's consent to such a
creation, if necessary, was debated in the cabinet in September.
Brougham proposed it, and gradually a majority of the cabinet were won
over. Grey had at first refused to employ even the threat of so
unconstitutional a device as a means to the proposed end. But his
continued refusal would have broken up the ministry, and the breaking up
of the ministry must now have been the signal for revolution. The second
reading in the Commons was passed in December by a majority of 162, and
on New-Year's day 1832 the majority of the cabinet resolved on demanding
power to carry it in the Lords by a creation of peers. Grey carried the
resolution to the king. Some time still remained before the bill could
be committed and read a third time. It was not until the 9th of April
that Grey moved the second reading in the Lords. A sufficient number of
the opposition temporized; and the second reading was allowed to pass by
a majority of nine. Their intention was to mutilate the bill in
committee. The Ultra-Tories, headed by the duke of Wellington, had
entered a protest against the second reading, but they were now
politically powerless. The struggle had become a struggle on the one
hand for the whole bill, to be carried by a creation of peers, and on
the other for some mutilated measure. Grey's instinct divined that the
crisis was approaching. Either the king must consent to swamp the House,
or the ministry must cease to stand in the breach between the peers and
the country. The king, a weak and inexperienced politician, had in the
meantime been wrought upon by the temporizing leaders in the Lords. He
was induced to believe that if the Commons should reject the mutilated
bill when it was returned to them, and the ministry should consequently
retire, the mutilated bill might be reintroduced and passed by a Tory
ministry. He was deaf to all representations of the state of public
opinion; and to the surprise of the ministry, and the terror and
indignation of every man of sense in the country, he rejected their
proposal and accepted their resignation, May 9, 1832. The duke of
Wellington undertook the hopeless task of constructing a ministry which
should pass a restricted or sham Reform Bill. The only man who could
have made the success of such a ministry even probable was Peel, and
Peel's conscience and good sense forbade the attempt. He refused, and
after a week of the profoundest agitation throughout the country, the
king, beaten and mortified, was forced to send for Grey and Brougham. On
being told that his consent to the creation of peers was the only
condition on which they could undertake the government, he angrily and
reluctantly yielded. The chancellor, with cool forethought, demanded
this consent in writing. Grey thought such a demand harsh and
unnecessary. "I wonder," he said to Brougham, when the interview was
over, "you could have had the heart to press it." But Brougham was
inexorable, and the king signed the following paper: "The king grants
permission to Earl Grey, and to his chancellor, Lord Brougham, to create
such a number of peers as will be sufficient to ensure the passing of
the Reform Bill, first calling up peers' eldest sons.--WILLIAM R.,
Windsor, May 17, 1832."
Grey had now won the game. There was no danger that he would have to
resort to the expedient which he was authorized to employ. The
introduction of sixty new peers would have destroyed the opposition, but
it would have been equivalent to the abolition of the House. The king's
consent made known, a sufficient number of peers were sure to withdraw
to enable the bill to pass, and thus the dignity of both king and
peerage would be saved. The duke of Wellington headed this movement on
the part of the opposition; and the third reading of the bill was
carried in the Lords by a majority of 84.
It is well known that in after years both Grey and Brougham disclaimed
any intention of executing their threat. If this were so, they must have
merely pretended to brave a danger which they secretly feared to face,
and intended to avoid; and the credit of rescuing the country would
belong to the duke of Wellington and the peers who seceded with him. To
argue such cowardice in them from statements made when the crisis was
long past, and when they were naturally willing to palliate the rough
policy which they were forced to adopt, would be to set up a needless
and unjustifiable paradox. Nothing else in the career of either Grey or
Brougham leads us to suppose them capable of the moral baseness of
yielding up the helm of state, in an hour of darkness and peril, to
reckless and unskilled hands. Such would have been the result if they
had lacked the determination to carry out their programme to the end.
The influence of every statesman in the country would then have been
extinguished, and the United Kingdom would have been absolutely in the
hands of O'Connell and Orator Hunt.
Grey took but little part in directing the legislation of the reformed
parliament. Never anxious for power, he had executed the arduous task
of 1831-1832 rather as a matter of duty than of inclination, and wished
for an opportunity of retiring. Such an opportunity very shortly
presented itself. The Irish policy of the ministry had not conciliated
the Irish people, and O'Connell denounced them with the greatest
bitterness. On the renewal of the customary Coercion Bill, the ministry
was divided on the question whether to continue to the lord-lieutenant
the power of suppressing public meetings. Littleton, the Irish
secretary, was for abolishing it; and with the view of conciliating
O'Connell, he informed him that the ministry intended to abandon it. But
the result proved him to have been mistaken, and O'Connell, with some
reason supposing himself to have been duped, called on Littleton to
resign his secretaryship. It had also transpired in the discussion that
Lord Althorp, the leader of the House of Commons, was privately opposed
to retaining those clauses which it was his duty to push through the
house. Lord Althorp therefore resigned, and Grey, who had lately passed
his seventieth year, took the opportunity of resigning also. It was his
opinion, it appeared, which had overborne the cabinet in favour of the
public meeting clauses; and his voluntary withdrawal enabled Lord
Althorp to return to his post and to proceed with the bill in its milder
form. Grey was succeeded by Lord Melbourne; but no other change was made
in the cabinet. Grey took no further part in politics. During most of
his remaining years he continued to live in retirement at Howick, where
he died on the 17th of July 1845, in his eighty-second year. By his wife
Mary Elizabeth, only daughter of the first Lord Ponsonby, whom he
married on the 18th of November 1794, he became the father of ten sons
and five daughters. Grey's eldest son Henry (q.v.) became the 3rd earl,
and among his other sons were General Charles Grey (1804-1870) and
Admiral Frederick Grey (1805-1878).
In public life, Grey could always be upon occasion bold, strenuous and
self-sacrificing; but he was little disposed for the active work of the
politician. He was not one of those who took the statesman's duty "as a
pleasure he was to enjoy." A certain stiffness and reserve ever seemed
in the popular eye to hedge him in; nor was his oratory of the kind
which stirs enthusiasm and delight. A tall, stately figure, fine voice
and calm aristocratic bearing reminded the listener of Pitt rather than
of Fox, and his speeches were constructed on the Attic rather than the
Asiatic model. Though simple and straightforward, they never lacked
either point or dignity; and they were admirably adapted to the audience
to which they were addressed. The scrupulous uprightness of Grey's
political and private character completed the ascendancy which he
gained; and no politician could be named who, without being a statesman
of the highest class, has left a name more enviably placed in English
history. (E. J. P.)
GREY, SIR EDWARD, 3rd Bart. (1862- ), English statesman, was educated
at Winchester and at Balliol College, Oxford, and succeeded his
grandfather, the 2nd baronet, at the age of twenty. He entered the House
of Commons as Liberal member for Berwick-on-Tweed in 1885, but he was
best known as a country gentleman with a taste for sport, and as amateur
champion tennis-player. His interest in politics was rather languid, but
he was a disciple of Lord Rosebery, and in the 1892-1895 Liberal
ministry he was under-secretary for foreign affairs. In this position he
earned a reputation as a politician of thorough straightforwardness and
grit, and as one who would maintain British interests independently of
party; and he shared with Mr Asquith the reputation of being the ablest
of the Imperialists who followed Lord Rosebery. Though outside foreign
affairs he played but a small part in the period of Liberal opposition
between 1895 and 1905, he retained public confidence as one who was
indispensable to a Liberal administration. When Sir Henry
Campbell-Bannerman's cabinet was formed in December 1905 he became
foreign minister, and he retained this office when in April 1908 Mr
Asquith became prime minister.
GREY, SIR GEORGE (1812-1898), British colonial governor and statesman,
only son of Lieutenant-Colonel Grey of the 30th Foot, was born in Lisbon
on the 14th of April 1812, eight days after the death of his father at
the storming of Badajoz. He passed through Sandhurst with credit, and
received his commission in 1829. His lieutenancy was dated 1833, and his
captaincy 1839, in which year he sold out and left the army. In the
early 'thirties he was quartered in Ireland, where the wretchedness of
the poorer classes left a deep impression on his mind. In 1836 the Royal
Geographical Society accepted his offer to explore the north-west region
of West Australia, and accordingly he landed at Hanover Bay at the end
of 1837. The surrounding country he found broken and difficult, and his
hardships were aggravated by the tropical heat and his ignorance of the
continent. In a skirmish with the natives, in which he was speared near
the hip, he showed great courage, and put the assailants to flight,
shooting the chief, who had wounded him. After a brave endeavour to
continue his journey his wound forced him to retreat to the coast,
whence he sailed to Mauritius to recruit. Next year he again essayed
exploration, this time on the coast to the north and south of Shark's
Bay. He had three whale-boats and an ample supply of provisions, but by
a series of disasters his stores were spoilt by storms, his boats
wrecked in the surf, and the party had to tramp on foot from Gantheaume
Bay to Perth, where Grey, in the end, walked in alone, so changed by
suffering that friends did not know him. In 1839 he was appointed
governor-resident at Albany, and during his stay there married Harriett,
daughter of Admiral Spencer, and also prepared for publication an
account, in two volumes, of his expeditions. In 1840 he returned to
England, to be immediately appointed by Lord John Russell to succeed
Colonel Gawler as governor of South Australia. Reaching the colony in
May 1841, he found it in the depths of a depression caused by
mismanagement and insane land speculation. By rigorously reducing public
expenditure, and forcing the settlers to quit the town and betake
themselves to tilling their lands, and with the opportune help of
valuable copper discoveries, Grey was able to aid the infant colony to
emerge from the slough. So striking were his energy and determination
that when, in 1845, the little settlements in New Zealand were found to
be involved in a native war, and on the verge of ruin, he was sent to
save them. The Maori chiefs in open rebellion were defeated, and made
their submission. Another powerful leader suspected of fomenting
discontent was arrested, and friendly chieftains were subsidized and
honoured. Bands of the natives were employed in making government roads,
and were paid good wages. The governor gained the veneration of the
Maori tribes, in whose welfare he took a close personal interest, and of
whose legends and myths he made a valuable and scholarly collection,
published in New Zealand in 1855 and reprinted thirty years afterwards.
With peace prosperity came to New Zealand, and the colonial office
desired to give the growing settlements full self-government. Grey,
arguing that this would renew war with the Maori, returned the
constitution to Downing Street. But though the colonial office sustained
him, he became involved in harassing disputes with the colonists, who
organized an active agitation for autonomy. In the end a second
constitution, partly framed by Grey himself, was granted them, and Grey,
after eight years of despotic but successful rule, was transferred to
Cape Colony. He had been knighted for his services, and had undoubtedly
shown strength, dexterity and humanity in dealing with the whites and
natives. In South Africa his success continued. He thwarted a formidable
Kaffir rebellion in the Eastern Provinces, and pushed on the work of
settlement by bringing out men from the German Legion and providing them
with homes. He gained the respect of the British, the confidence of the
Boers, the admiration and the trust of the natives. The Dutch of the
Free State and the Basuto chose him as arbitrator of their quarrels.
When the news of the Indian Mutiny reached Cape Town he strained every
nerve to help Lord Canning, despatching men, horses, stores and L60,000
in specie to Bombay. He persuaded a detachment, then on its way round
the Cape as a reinforcement for Lord Elgin in China, to divert its
voyage to Calcutta. Finally, in 1859, Grey almost reached what would
have been the culminating point of his career by federating South
Africa. Persuaded by him, the Orange Free State passed resolutions in
favour of this great step, and their action was welcomed by Cape Town.
But the colonial office disapproved of the change, and when Grey
attempted to persevere with it Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton recalled him. A
change of ministry during his voyage to England displaced Sir Edward
Bulwer Lytton. But though the duke of Newcastle reinstated Grey, it was
with instructions to let federation drop. In 1861 the colonial office
sent him, for the fourth time in succession, to take up a post of
exceptional difficulty by again entrusting him with the governorship of
New Zealand, where an inglorious native war in Taranaki had just been
succeeded by an armed truce. Grey did his best to make terms with the
rebels and to re-establish friendship with the Maori king and the land
league of tribes formed to stop further sales of land to the whites. But
the Maori had got guns and powder, and were suspicious and truculent. In
vain Grey, supported by Bishop Selwyn and by Fox and the peace party
among the settlers, strove to avert war. It came in 1863, and spread
from province to province. Ten thousand regulars and as many colonial
riflemen were employed to put it down. The imperial troops were badly
handled, and Grey, losing patience, became involved in bitter disputes
with their commanders. As an example to the former he himself attacked
and captured Weraroa, the strongest of the Maori stockades, with a
handful of militia, a feat which delighted the colonists, but made him
as much disliked at the war office as he now was at Downing Street.
Moreover, Grey had no longer real control over the islands. New Zealand
had become a self-governing colony, and though he vindicated the
colonists generally when libellous imputations of cruelty and
land-grabbing were freely made against them in London, he crossed swords
with his ministers when the latter confiscated three million acres of
tribal land belonging to the insurgent Maori. Yet through all these
troubles progress was made; many successes were gained in 1866, chiefly
by the colonial militia, and a condition of something like tranquillity
had been reached in 1867, when he received a curt intimation from the
duke of Buckingham that he was about to be superseded. The colonists,
who believed he was sacrificed for upholding their interests and good
name, bade farewell to him in 1868 in an outburst of gratitude and
sympathy; but his career as a colonial governor was at an end. Returning
to England, he tried to enter public life, delivered many able speeches
advocating what later came to be termed Imperialism, and stood for
Newark. Discouraged, however, by the official Liberals, he withdrew and
turned again to New Zealand. In 1872 he was given a pension of L1000 a
year, and settled down on the island of Kawau, not far from Auckland,
which he bought, and where he passed his leisure in planting, gardening
and collecting books. In 1875, on the invitation of the Auckland
settlers, he became superintendent of their province, and entered the
New Zealand House of Representatives to resist the abolition of the
provincial councils of the colony, a change then being urged on by Sir
Julius Vogel in alliance with the Centralist Party. In this he failed,
but his eloquence and courage drew round him a strong Radical following,
and gave him the premiership in 1877. Manhood suffrage, triennial
parliaments, a land-tax, the purchase of large estates and the popular
election of the governor, were leading points of his policy. All these
reforms, except the last, he lived to see carried; none of them were
passed by him. A commercial depression in 1879 shook his popularity, and
on the fall of his ministry in 1879 he was deposed, and for the next
fifteen years remained a solitary and pathetic figure in the New Zealand
parliament, respectfully treated, courteously listened to, but never
again invited to lead. In 1891 he came before Australia as one of the
New Zealand delegates to the federal convention at Sydney, and
characteristically made his mark by standing out almost alone for "one
man one vote" as the federal franchise. This point he carried, and the
Australians thronged to hear him, so that his visits to Victoria and
South Australia were personal triumphs. When, too, in 1894, he quitted
New Zealand for London, some reparation was at last made him by the
imperial government; he was called to the privy council, and graciously
received by Queen Victoria on his visit to Windsor. Thereafter he lived
in London, and died on the 20th of September 1898. He was given a public
funeral at St Paul's. Grey was all his life a collector of books and
manuscripts. After leaving Cape Colony, he gave his library to Cape Town
in 1862; his subsequent collection, which numbered 12,000 volumes, he
presented to the citizens of Auckland in 1887. In gratitude the people
of Cape Town erected a statue of him opposite their library building.
_Lives_ of Sir George Grey have been written by W. L. and L. Rees
(1892), Professor G. C. Henderson (1907) and J. Collier (1909).
(W. P. R.)
GREY, HENRY GREY, 3RD EARL (1802-1894), English statesman, was born on
the 28th of December 1802, the son of the 2nd Earl Grey, prime minister
at the time of the Reform Bill of 1832. He entered parliament in 1826,
under the title of Viscount Howick, as member for Winchelsea, which
constituency he left in 1831 for Northumberland. On the accession of the
Whigs to power in 1830 he was made under-secretary for the colonies, and
laid the foundation of his intimate acquaintance with colonial
questions. He belonged at the time to the more advanced party of
colonial reformers, sharing the views of Edward Gibbon Wakefield on
questions of land and emigration, and resigned in 1834 from
dissatisfaction that slave emancipation was made gradual instead of
immediate. In 1835 he entered Lord Melbourne's cabinet as secretary at
war, and effected some valuable administrative reforms, especially by
suppressing malpractices detrimental to the troops in India. After the
partial reconstruction of the ministry in 1839 he again resigned,
disapproving of the more advanced views of some of his colleagues. These
repeated resignations gave him a reputation for crotchetiness, which he
did not decrease by his disposition to embarrass his old colleagues by
his action on free trade questions in the session of 1841. During the
exile of the Liberals from power he went still farther on the path of
free trade, and anticipated Lord John Russell's declaration against the
corn laws. When, on Sir Robert Peel's resignation in December 1845, Lord
John Russell was called upon to form a ministry, Howick, who had become
Earl Grey by the death of his father in the preceding July, refused to
enter the new cabinet if Lord Palmerston were foreign secretary (see J.
R. Thursfield in vol. i. and Hon. F. H. Baring in vol. xxiii. of the
_English Historical Review_). He was greatly censured for perverseness,
and particularly when in the following July he accepted Lord Palmerston
as a colleague without remonstrance. His conduct, nevertheless, afforded
Lord John Russell an escape from an embarrassing situation. Becoming
colonial secretary in 1846, he found himself everywhere confronted with
arduous problems, which in the main he encountered with success. His
administration formed an epoch. He was the first minister to proclaim
that the colonies were to be governed for their own benefit and not for
the mother-country's; the first systematically to accord them
self-government so far as then seemed possible; the first to introduce
free trade into their relations with Great Britain and Ireland. The
concession by which colonies were allowed to tax imports from the
mother-country _ad libitum_ was not his; he protested against it, but
was overruled. In the West Indies he suppressed, if he could not
overcome, discontent; in Ceylon he put down rebellion; in New Zealand he
suspended the constitution he had himself accorded, and yielded
everything into the masterful hands of Sir George Grey. The least
successful part of his administration was his treatment of the convict
question at the Cape of Good Hope, which seemed an exception to his rule
that the colonies were to be governed for their own benefit and in
accordance with their own wishes, and subjected him to a humiliating
defeat. After his retirement he wrote a history and defence of his
colonial policy in the form of letters to Lord John Russell, a dry but
instructive book (_Colonial Policy of Lord John Russell's
Administration_, 1853). He resigned with his colleagues in 1852. No room
was found for him in the Coalition Cabinet of 1853, and although during
the Crimean struggle public opinion pointed to him as the fittest man as
minister for war, he never again held office. During the remainder of
his long life he exercised a vigilant criticism on public affairs. In
1858 he wrote a work (republished in 1864) on parliamentary reform; in
1888 he wrote another on the state of Ireland; and in 1892 one on the
United States tariff. In his latter years he was a frequent contributor
of weighty letters to _The Times_ on land, tithes, currency and other
public questions. His principal parliamentary appearances were when he
moved for a committee on Irish affairs in 1866, and when in 1878 he
passionately opposed the policy of the Beaconsfield cabinet in India. He
nevertheless supported Lord Beaconsfield at the dissolution, regarding
Mr Gladstone's accession to power with much greater alarm. He was a
determined opponent of Mr Gladstone's Home Rule policy. He died on the
9th of October 1894. None ever doubted his capacity or his
conscientiousness, but he was generally deemed impracticable and
disagreeable. Prince Albert, however, who expressed himself as ready to
subscribe to all Grey's principles, and applauded him for having
principles, told Stockmar that, although dogmatic, he was amenable to
argument; and Sir Henry Taylor credits him with "more freedom from
littlenesses of feeling than I have met before in any public man." His
chief defect was perceived and expressed by his original tutor and
subsequent adversary in colonial affairs, Edward Gibbon Wakefield, who
wrote, "With more than a common talent for understanding principles, he
has no originality of thought, which compels him to take all his ideas
from somebody; and no power of working out theory in practice, which
compels him to be always in somebody's hands as respects decision and
action."
The earl had no sons, and he was followed as 4th earl by his nephew
Albert Henry George (b. 1851), who in 1904 became governor-general of
Canada.
GREY, LADY JANE (1537-1554), a lady remarkable no less for her
accomplishments than for her misfortunes, was the great-granddaughter of
Henry VII. of England. Her descent from that king was traced through a
line of females. His second daughter Mary, after being left a widow by
Louis XII. of France, married Charles Brandon, duke of Suffolk, who was
a favourite with her brother King Henry VIII. Of this marriage came two
daughters, the elder of whom, Lady Frances Brandon, was married to Henry
Grey, marquess of Dorset; and their issue, again, consisted of daughters
only. Lady Jane, the subject of this article, was the eldest of three
whom the marquess had by Lady Frances. Thus it will appear that even if
the crown of England had ever fallen into the female line of descent
from Henry VII., she could not have put in a rightful claim unless the
issue of his elder daughter, Margaret, had become extinct. But Margaret
had married James IV. of Scotland; and, though her descendant, James
VI., was ultimately called to the English throne, Henry VIII. had placed
her family after that of his second sister in the succession; so that,
failing the lawful issue of Henry himself, Lady Jane would, according to
this arrangement, have succeeded. It was to these circumstances that she
owed her exceptional position in history, and became the victim of an
ambition which was not her own.
She was born at her father's seat named Bradgate in Leicestershire about
the year 1537. Her parents, though severe disciplinarians, bestowed more
than ordinary care upon her education, and she herself was so teachable
and delighted so much in study that she became the marvel of the age for
her acquirements. She not only excelled in needlework and in music, both
vocal and instrumental, but while still very young she had thoroughly
mastered Latin, Greek, French and Italian. She was able to speak and
write both Greek and Latin with an accuracy that satisfied even such
critics as Ascham and her tutor Dr Aylmer, afterwards bishop of London.
She also acquired some knowledge of at least three Oriental tongues,
Hebrew, Chaldee and Arabic. In Ascham's _Schoolmaster_ is given a
touching account of the devotion with which she pursued her studies and
the harshness she experienced from her parents. The love of learning was
her solace; in reading Demosthenes and Plato she found a refuge from
domestic unhappiness. When about ten years old she was placed for a time
in the household of Thomas, Lord Seymour, who, having obtained her
wardship, induced her parents to let her stay with him, even after the
death of his wife, Queen Catherine Parr, by promising to marry her to
his nephew, King Edward VI. Lord Seymour, however, was attainted of high
treason and beheaded in 1549, and his brother, the duke of Somerset,
made some overtures to the marquess of Dorset to marry her to his son
the earl of Hertford. These projects, however, came to nothing. The duke
of Somerset in his turn fell a victim to the ambition of Dudley, duke of
Northumberland, and was beheaded three years after his brother.
Meanwhile, the dukedom of Suffolk having become extinct by the deaths of
Charles Brandon and his two sons, the title was conferred upon the
marquess of Dorset, Lady Jane's father. Northumberland, who was now
all-powerful, fearing a great reverse of fortune in case of the king's
death, as his health began visibly to decline, endeavoured to strengthen
himself by marriages between his family and those of other powerful
noblemen, especially of the new-made duke of Suffolk. His three eldest
sons being already married, the fourth, who was named Lord Guilford
Dudley, was accordingly wedded to Lady Jane Grey about the end of May
1553. The match received the full approval of the king, who furnished
the wedding apparel of the parties by royal warrant. But Edward's state
of health warned Northumberland that he must lose no time in putting the
rest of his project into execution. He persuaded the king that if the
crown should descend to his sister Mary the work of the Reformation
would be undone and the liberties of the kingdom would be in danger.
Besides, both Mary and her sister Elizabeth had been declared
illegitimate by separate acts of parliament, and the objections to Mary
queen of Scots did not require to be pointed out. Edward was easily
persuaded to break through his father's will and make a new settlement
of the crown by deed. The document was witnessed by the signatures of
all the council and of all but one of the judges; but those of the
latter body were obtained only with difficulty by threats and
intimidation.
Edward VI. died on the 6th July 1553, and it was announced to Lady Jane
that she was queen. She was then but sixteen years of age. The news came
upon her as a most unwelcome surprise, and for some time she resisted
all persuasions to accept the fatal dignity; but at length she yielded
to the entreaties of her father, her father-in-law and her husband. The
better to mature their plans the cabal had kept the king's death secret
for some days, but they proclaimed Queen Jane in the city on the 10th.
The people received the announcement with manifest coldness, and a
vintner's boy was even so bold as to raise a cry for Queen Mary, for
which he next day had his ears nailed to the pillory and afterwards cut
off. Mary, however, had received early intimation of her brother's
death, and, retiring from Hunsdon into Norfolk, gathered round her the
nobility and commons of those parts. Northumberland was despatched
thither with an army to oppose her; but after reaching Newmarket he
complained that the council had not sent him forces in sufficient
numbers and his followers began to desert. News also came that the earl
of Oxford had declared for Queen Mary; and as most of the council
themselves were only seeking an opportunity to wash their hands of
rebellion, they procured a meeting at Baynard's Castle, revoked their
former acts as done under coercion, and caused the lord mayor to
proclaim Queen Mary, which he did amid the shouts of the citizens. The
duke of Suffolk was obliged to tell his daughter that she must lay aside
her royal dignity and become a private person once more. She replied
that she relinquished most willingly a crown that she had only accepted
out of obedience to him and her mother, and her nine days' reign was
over.
The leading actors in the conspiracy were now called to answer for their
deeds. Northumberland was brought up to London a prisoner, tried and
sent to the block, along with some of his partisans. The duke of Suffolk
and Lady Jane were also committed to the Tower; but the former, by the
influence of his duchess, procured a pardon. Lady Jane and her husband
Lord Guilford Dudley were also tried, and received sentence of death for
treason. This, however, was not immediately carried out; on the
contrary, the queen seems to have wished to spare their lives and
mitigated the rigour of their confinement. Unfortunately, owing to the
general dislike of the queen's marriage with Philip of Spain, Sir Thomas
Wyat soon after raised a rebellion in which the duke of Suffolk and his
brothers took part, and on its suppression the queen was persuaded that
it was unsafe to spare the lives of Lady Jane and her husband any
longer. On hearing that they were to die, Lady Jane declined a parting
interview with her husband lest it should increase their pain, and
prepared to meet her fate with Christian fortitude. She and her husband
were executed on the same day, on the 12th of February 1554, her husband
on Tower Hill, and herself within the Tower an hour afterwards, amidst
universal sympathy and compassion.
See Ascham's _Schoolmaster_; Burnet's _History of the Reformation_;
Howard's _Lady Jane Grey_; Nicolas's Literary _Remains of Lady Jane
Grey_; Tytler's _England under Edward VI. and Mary_; _The Chronicles
of Queen Jane_, ed. J. G. Nichols; _The Accession of Queen Mary_
(Guaras's narrative), ed. R. Garnett (1892); Foxe's _Acts and
Monuments_.
GREY DE WILTON and GREY DE RUTHYN. The first Baron Grey de Wilton was
Reginald de Grey, who was summoned to parliament as a baron in 1295 and
who died in 1308. Reginald's son John, the 2nd baron (1268-1323), was
one of the lords ordainers in 1310 and was a prominent figure in English
politics during the reign of Edward II. The later barons Grey de Wilton
were descended from John's eldest son Henry (d. 1342), while a younger
son Roger (d. 1353) was the ancestor of the barons Grey de Ruthyn.
WILLIAM, 13TH LORD GREY DE WILTON (d. 1562), who succeeded to the title
on the death of his brother Richard, about 1520, won great fame as a
soldier by his conduct in France during the concluding years of Henry
VIII.'s reign, and was one of the leaders of the victorious English army
at the battle of Pinkie in 1547. He was then employed on the Scottish
marches and in Scotland, and in 1549 he rendered good service in
suppressing the rebellion in Oxfordshire and in the west of England; in
1551 he was imprisoned as a friend of the fallen protector, the duke of
Somerset, and he was concerned in the attempt made by John Dudley, duke
of Northumberland, to place Lady Jane Grey on the English throne In
1553. However, he was pardoned by Queen Mary and was entrusted with the
defence of Guines. Although indifferently supported he defended the town
with great gallantry, but in January 1558 he was forced to surrender and
for some time he remained a prisoner in France. Under Elizabeth, Grey
was again employed on the Scottish border, and he was responsible for
the pertinacious but unavailing attempt to capture Leith in May 1560. He
died at Cheshunt in Hertfordshire on the 14th/25th of December 1562.
He was described by William Cecil as "a noble, valiant, painful and
careful gentleman," and his son and successor, Arthur, wrote _A
Commentary of the Services and Charges of William, Lord Grey of
Wilton, K.G._ This has been edited by Sir P. de M. Grey Egerton for
the Camden Society (1847).
Grey's elder son ARTHUR, 14TH LORD GREY DE WILTON (1536-1593), was
during early life with his father in France and in Scotland; he fought
at the battle of St Quentin and helped to defend Guines and to assault
Leith. In July 1580 he was appointed lord deputy of Ireland, and after
an initial defeat in Wicklow was successful in reducing many of the
rebels to a temporary submission. Perhaps the most noteworthy event
during his tenure of this office was the massacre of 600 Italians and
Spaniards at Smerwick in November 1580, an action for which he was
responsible. Having incurred a heavy burden of debt Grey frequently
implored the queen to recall him, and in August 1582 he was allowed to
return to England (see E. Spenser, _View of the State of Ireland_,
edited by H. Morley, 1890, and R. Bagwell, _Ireland under the Tudors_,
vol. iii., 1890). While in Ireland Grey was served as secretary by
Edmund Spenser, and in book v. of the _Faerie Queene_ the poet
represents his patron as a knight of very noble qualities named
Artegall. As one of the commissioners who tried Mary queen of Scots,
Grey defended the action of Elizabeth's secretary, William Davison, with
regard to this matter, and he took part in the preparations for the
defence of England against the Spaniards in 1588. His account of the
defence of Guines was used by Holinshed in his _Chronicles_.
When he died on the 14th of October 1593 he was succeeded as 15th baron
by his son THOMAS (d. 1614), who while serving in Ireland incurred the
enmity of Robert Devereux, earl of Essex, and of Henry Wriothesley, earl
of Southampton; and after fighting against Spain in the Netherlands he
was a member of the court which sentenced these two noblemen to death in
1601. On the accession of James I. he was arrested for his share in the
"Bye" plot, an attempt made by William Watson and others to seize the
king. He was tried and sentenced to death, but the sentence was not
carried out and he remained in prison until his death on the 9th of July
1614. He displayed both ability and courage at his trial, remarking
after sentence had been passed, "the house of Wilton hath spent many
lives in their prince's service and Grey cannot beg his." Like his
father Grey was a strong Puritan. He left no children and his barony
became extinct.
In 1784 Sir Thomas Egerton, Bart., a descendant in the female line of
the 14th baron, was created Baron Grey de Wilton. He died without sons
in September 1814, when his barony became extinct; but the titles of
Viscount Grey de Wilton and earl of Wilton, which had been conferred
upon him in 1801, passed to Thomas Grosvenor (1799-1882), the second
son of his daughter Eleanor (d. 1846); and her husband Robert
Grosvenor, 1st marquess of Westminster. Thomas took the name of
Egerton and his descendants still hold the titles.
ROGER GREY, 1ST BARON GREY DE RUTHYN, who was summoned to parliament as
a baron in 1324, saw much service as a soldier before his death on the
6th of March 1353. The second baron was his son Reginald, whose son
REGINALD (c. 1362-1440) succeeded to the title on his father's death in
July 1388. In 1410 after a long dispute the younger Reginald won the
right to bear the arms of the Hastings family. He enjoyed the favour
both of Richard II. and Henry IV., and his chief military exploits were
against the Welsh, who took him prisoner in 1402 and only released him
upon payment of a heavy ransom. Grey was a member of the council which
governed England during the absence of Henry V. in France in 1415; he
fought in the French wars in 1420 and 1421 and died on the 30th of
September 1440. His eldest son, Sir John Grey, K.G. (d. 1439), who
predeceased his father, fought at Agincourt and was deputy of Ireland in
1427. He was the father of EDMUND GREY (d. 1489), who succeeded his
grandfather as Lord Grey de Ruthyn in 1440 and was created earl of Kent
in 1465.
One of Reginald Grey's younger sons, Edward (1415-1457), succeeded his
maternal grandfather as Baron Ferrers of Groby in 1445. He was the
ancestor of the earls of Stamford and also of the Greys, marquesses of
Dorset and dukes of Suffolk.