EARL. The family from which Earl Grey sprung had been settled in Northumberland since the Conquest, and was at various times ennobled in its branches, giving birth to the Earls of Tankerville in Normandy and England, and the Barons Grey of Werke. Charles, first earl, son of Sir Henry Grey of Howick, was aide-de-camp to Prince Ferdinand at Minden, served long and well in the American War, and commanded the land forces at the reduction of Martinique, &c., in 1794. As the reward of his long service, he was created Baron Grey of Howick in 1801, and in 1806 Viscount Howick and Earl Grey. His eldest son Charles, the subject of this notice, was born at Falodon, near Alnwick, on the 13th of March 1764. He received his early education at Eton, and before he was sixteen entered King's College, Cambridge, where he studied with distinction for two years. He completed his education in the usual manner, by a continental tour, spending some time in France, Spain, and Italy. In 1786 he returned home, and soon after was sent to parliament by his native county. To the surprise of his friends, who belonged, of course, to the Tory party, the youthful member took his seat on the left of the speaker, and soon convinced the House that a formidable ally had been gained by the small but brilliant opposition that followed the banner of Fox. His maiden speech, Feb. 21, 1787, stamped his character as a speaker. The clearness and force of his argument, the animation and grace of his delivery, joined to a stately and aristocratic bearing, excited general admiration. The subject of debate was Mr Pitt's commercial treaty with France, which the young statesman followed his leader in opposing. A few years sufficed to show that he was capable of taking wider views, and shaping a course untrammelled by any docile subservience to a chief. He soon became a prominent man in the House; and to have commanded respect in a house where Fox, Burke, and Sheridan spoke on the same side with him, implied no common abilities. In the following year, though not yet twenty-four, he was appointed one of the managers in the trial of Warren Hastings.

From the very commencement of his political life, Mr Grey stood out as the champion of the principles which gave character to his whole career. The three words which summed up his ministerial programme in 1831, Peace, Retrenchment, and Reform, constitute the main burden of his early parliamentary history. In the debates on the Regency Bill in 1789, indeed, he vigorously supported his party in defence of expenditure for one whom they "valued highly as an auxiliary." That Mr Grey's conduct, however, was guided by no servile partizanship was evinced by his subsequent resistance to the additional grant for liquidating the prince's debts. Of his principal appearances in the House from 1789 to 1792, it may suffice to notice his motion for inquiry into the convention with Spain in 1789, his opposition to a war with Russia (on the taking of Oczakow), and his efforts to mitigate the law of imprisonment for debt.

The outbreak of the French Revolution, and the rapid series of events from 1789 onwards, produced a schism in the camp of the Whigs. While Burke vehemently opposed the progress of the terrible phenomenon, and many of the Whigs consented to support the omnipotent minister, Fox and Grey, at the head of their small but resolute band, never swerved for a moment in their opposition to a war with France. Fearlessly committing himself to the advocacy of principles then regarded, not only by the order with which birth and feeling connected him, but by an immense majority of the people, as dangerous and revolutionary, Mr Grey became one of the chief promoters of a political confederacy, entitled "The Society of the Friends of the People." The very name smacked of revolution; and though most of the leading and more liberal Whigs joined this formidable association, Mr Fox declined to have anything to do with it, and even exerted himself privately against it. The avowed object was to obtain a reform in the system of parliamentary representation; and on the 30th April 1792 Mr Grey gave notice of a motion for next session, embodying the principle "that the evils which threaten the constitution can only be corrected by timely and temperate reform."

Before next session the aspect of parties had considerably altered. The general antipathy to everything known as "liberal"—a synonym to many minds for Jacobinism, anarchy, and atheism—had its due weight with timid and time-serving politicians, and a section of the Whigs were already meditating an alliance with the ministry. The demand for parliamentary reform was not indeed quite new. It had been for some time recognised as a valuable stock-cry for ambitious politicians, and so late as 1785 Mr Pitt himself spoke of it as "the great question which was nearest his heart." Mr Pitt had changed his sentiments, so persuasive was the French revolution; and it was no wonder that smaller men consented to leave things as they were. Of another stamp was Mr Grey. Amid almost universal selfishness and servility, he adhered to his principles from first to last, "unshaken, unseceded, untarried." The faith of his youth continued to be the creed of his manhood, and its triumph was the glory of his old age.

On the 6th of May 1793, the House of Commons was inundated with petitions in favour of parliamentary reform. Among others, Colonel Macleod presented one from Edinburgh "of the whole length of the floor of the House." Last of all came Mr Grey with the petition of the People's Friends, a document "of such length as took nearly half an hour in the reading." It stated "with great precision and distinctness" the existing defects in the system of parliamentary representation, and the evils arising from the long duration of parliaments. It offered to prove that the treasury and the peers actually nominated 97 members, and influenced the return of 70 more, while 91 individual commoners procured the election of 139, in all 307—a majority of the entire House of Commons being thus returned by one hundred and sixty individuals. Mr Grey concluded his speech by moving for a select committee. After two long debates the motion was lost by 282 to 41. The House of Commons was well pleased with its own purity!

The war with France continued to meet with Mr Grey's determined opposition, even after it had come to be regarded by many of his party as a necessary evil. Acknowledging as he did (1794) that France "groaned under the most furious tyranny," and that "he would prefer the dominion of Nero or Caligula to the authority which now governed that nation," he made repeated motions (1795–96) for the opening of negotiations, dwelling always with great force on the ruinous expense of the war. The result was ever the same; "extended and animated speeches," able reasoning, and undeniable figures, were followed invariably by crushing minorities. The introduction of foreign troops into England, the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, the large addition to the grant for liquidating the debts of the Prince of Wales, and the "detestable" bill to restrain public meetings, were opposed with equal vigour and with as little success. His motions in 1796 (March 10 and May 6), on the state of the nation, and for an impeachment of ministers for malversation of public money, were lost in like manner by overwhelming majorities. His whole career was a desperate battle against invincible odds. On the 26th May 1797, he again brought forward a motion for parliamentary reform, and this time he put forth a plan. He proposed to leave the number of members unaltered, but to increase the county representation from 92 to 113; to extend the county franchise from freeholders to copyholders and leaseholders; the burgh franchise to all tax-paying householders; a voter only to vote for one member; the elections to be all on the same day; and, if the whole measure were carried, but not otherwise, triennial parliaments—a measure in principle little different from the Reform Bill of 1830. In concluding his speech, Mr Grey intimated that if his motion were lost he would despair of any further success in attempting to remedy the national ills; "and not again trouble the House with his observations." The motion was lost by 258 to 63, and the general question of parliamentary reform went to sleep for more than a generation. Mr Grey did not speak again in parliament till 1799, when he came forward in opposition to the Irish Union. For some years after this he made no public appearance of importance.

On the 23rd of January 1806, Mr Pitt died, and the Whigs came into power under Grenville and Fox. Mr Grey, now Lord Howick, was made first lord of the admiralty. On the death of Mr Fox, a few months after his great rival, Lord Howick succeeded his departed chief as secretary for foreign affairs, and leader of the House of Commons. The time had now come for attempting with better hope some of the great reforms for which he had hitherto battled. One only of these the brief duration of his power permitted him to carry—the abolition of the slave trade. Early in March 1807, he moved the abolition of the oath which barred Roman Catholics and other dissenters from serving in the army and navy. The opposition shriek of horror at so latitudinarian a proposal, was more loud than edifying. The cries of "No Popery," "Church and King," &c., were raised with great effect from the expectant premier down to the orthodox street-sweeper. The old king took violent alarm, and demanded a written promise from his ministers not to meddle with the obnoxious topic. Mr Pitt had given him such a pledge, but Lord Howick and his colleagues respectfully declined to follow the example, and threw up their offices. A few years later their successors quietly passed the measure to the abjuration of which they owed their power.

On the dissolution of parliament, Lord Howick declining to contest the county of Northumberland, took his seat for Appleby. The death of his father in November of that year removed him to the House of Peers as Earl Grey, and for several years he enjoyed the calm pleasures of domestic retirement, steadily refusing the power which was more than once within his reach, while its acceptance involved the slightest compromise of the principles for the realization of which alone power had for him any charms. To the sweeter influences of family life, though outwardly a man of stiff and haughty reserve, he was keenly sensitive, and nowhere were these influences more attractively displayed than in the family circle at Howick. He had married in 1794 the only daughter of William, afterwards Lord Ponsonby, by whom he had ten sons and five daughters.

In 1809, 1810, and 1812, repeated overtures were made to Earl Grey and Lord Grenville to join the administration, but on each occasion the offers were unhesitatingly rejected. The Prince Regent was anxious to obtain the support of "some of those persons with whom the early habits of his public life were formed;" and after the last unsuccessful negotiation, on the death of Mr Perceval (May 1812), Lord Grey was careful to express his willingness that his friends should take office without him, promising his cordial support—for himself untrammeled freedom was a stern necessity. During the eighteen succeeding years, Lord Grey headed the opposition in the House of Peers. In that time of depression and discontent which followed the peace, he opposed, consistently with his ancient policy, the harsh and coercive measures of the government, ever advocating, as the true and constitutional method of dealing with the existing evils, the removal of the causes from which they sprung. In no part of his public life did he earn higher honour than on the trial of Queen Caroline. His severe and dignified opposition to the Bill of Pains and Penalties had great weight in influencing the decision of the Peers, and alienated him for ever from a king who had been from the beginning unworthy of his friendship.

In 1827 Mr Canning became prime minister, and a shameful spectacle of place-hunting ensued. All the Whig leaders gave them their support. Earl Grey alone stood disdainfully aloof from a man whose tardy and doubtful liberalism contrasted so strongly with the unyielding consistency of his own political life. His utter distrust of Mr Canning's policy, and the severity with which he criticised his career, were sufficiently justified to his rigid sense of honour by that statesman's declaration of unqualified opposition to Reform and Roman Catholic Emancipation. In that session, in supporting the Duke of Wellington's unpopular amendment on the ministerial Corn Bill, he made the memorable declaration so characteristic of his severe patrician spirit. "If," said he, "there should come a contest between this house and a great portion of the people, my part is taken; and with that order to which I belong I will stand or fall." Coriolanus was not less "ambitious for poor knaves' caps and legs" than the lordly English reformer.

The time at last came for the triumphant realization of the great objects for which Earl Grey had so long and almost hopelessly contended. One of these—the relief of the Roman Catholics from civil disabilities—was granted by his opponents as a tardy concession to the imperious voice of the nation. In the debates on that question in the House of Lords, Earl Grey was said to have "excelled all others, and even himself." The long sleeping question of Reform was once more revived when disappointed politicians found that ministers were bidding for popular favour, and the exciting impulse of the French Revolution of 1830 gave new life to the agitation of grievances. The Iron Duke with fatal honesty scouted the necessity of change, and affirmed that the existing system of representation enjoyed "the full and entire confidence of the country." The country answered with a groan, and the Wellington ministry had to retire. The veteran leader of the Whigs was summoned to the helm of affairs; and on the 22d of November, Earl Grey, as prime minister, delivered his programme in the House of Peers. The history of the great event which crowned his long labours in the cause of Reform is elsewhere fully narrated (see Britain). Throughout the whole of that trying and momentous time, the wisdom and firmness of the minister were manifested so conspicuously as to have earned him, in all impartial eyes, the glory of having guided the nation in safety over the kindling mine of revolution. The contest between his order and the people, of which he had once spoken, had actually arrived, and he sacrificed the independence of the peers to the will of the nation. That no other course was open to a man charged with so fearful a responsibility, is a sufficient answer to the charge of inconsistency. The moral courage requisite to so stern a duty was of higher account than a martyrdom purchased by civil war.

The acts of the first reformed parliament are already told (see Britain). The emancipation of the slaves, the abolition of the East India Company's monopoly, the reform of the Irish Church, and of the poor-laws, were the chief of the legislative victories won under the rule of Earl Grey. His foreign policy, in the able hands of Lord Palmerston, was at once bold and pacific, temperate but just. Personal changes and differences finally shook the cabinet, and in November 1834 Earl Grey resigned. The remaining years of his life were spent in retirement. For some time he appeared occasionally in the House of Lords, frankly supporting the administration of Lord Melbourne. He died at his seat, in Northumberland, on the 17th July 1845, in the eighty-second year of his age. A political career so long useful and unblemished had seldom been exemplified. Faithful, in the midst of so much inconsistency and cowardice, to the principles for which he had braved obloquy in his youth, and resisted the fascinations of power, he attained at length, in the decline of life but not of vigour, the goal of all his strivings, the grand results, of which he had all but despaired. In the latter part of his political life he stood alone—an ultimus Romanorum; and, after his death, his characteristic part as a statesman was no longer possible to a successor, had any been fit to assume it. Let his defects have been ever so many, and they were few, the high example of his uncorrupted honour and constancy in the pursuit of great ends is a κτήμα ες αι to the nation which reaps their fruits.

Grey, Lady Jane, a scion of the blood-royal of England, remarkable for her many virtues and accomplishments no less than her misfortunes, was born in 1537, at Broadgate, in Leicestershire. She was the great-granddaughter of Henry VII. of England. Mary, second daughter of that king, after being left a widow by Louis XIII. of France, married Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, by whom she had a daughter, who ultimately married Henry Grey, Marquis of Dorset. The offspring of this union was three daughters, the eldest of whom was Lady Jane Grey. From an early period she was distinguished for her talents; it is known for certain that while still very young she had thoroughly mastered Latin, Greek, French, and Italian, and was conversant with at least three of the Oriental tongues, Hebrew, Chaldee, and Arabic. In Ascham's Schoolmaster is given a touching account of the difficulties and hardships under which she pursued her studies, and the ceaselessly cruel treatment she experienced from her parents. In 1553, her father and the Duke of Northum- Greyhound berland, having risen to power after the downfall of Somerset, resolved to transfer into their own families the right of succession to the throne. A marriage was accordingly brought about between Lady Jane Grey and Lord Guilford Dudley, the Duke of Northumberland's fourth son; and the weakly Edward VI, when he found his end approaching, was easily persuaded to pass over his own sisters, Mary and Elizabeth, and nominate Lady Jane Grey and her husband as his successors to the English throne. Some days elapsed after the king's death before Lady Jane was told that she was queen of England; and when she came to know the fact, she could only with the greatest difficulty be persuaded to avail herself of it. After a reign of ten days, she quietly resigned the throne in favour of Mary. Her husband and she were thrown into the Tower; and though it was not originally intended to put them to death, yet, in consequence of Wyatt's insurrection, they were executed together, Feb. 12, 1554. Lady Jane displayed on the scaffold the same pious resignation and calm self-possession that had distinguished her throughout life. (Ascham's Schoolmaster; Biog. Brit.; Burnet's Hist. Ref.)