GREY, Henry (1671-1740)

Grey (or Ruthin), as he was styled before succeeding to the title, was known as ‘the Bug’ or ‘His Stinkingess’, apparently because he suffered from remarkably bad breath in an age when personal hygiene was probably rudimentary at best. Add. 61459, ff. 101-3; Beds. Archives, L22/28; Add. 72490, f. 106. His historical reputation has not proved much more flattering, although some contemporaries complimented him as an astute moderate. Cary Gardiner comparing Grey with his father reckoned he ‘much transcends him in parts’, and Swift considered him ‘good natured’. Others (such as John Hervey^†, Baron Hervey) regarded him either as a time-server of the most opportune variety, willing to toe whichever line happened to be in fashion, or a harmless nonentity who owed his appointment to a number of key offices precisely to that fact. Verney ms mic. M636/52, C. Gardiner to Sir J. Verney, 25 Aug. 1702. Arthur Mainwaring^‡ remarked that it seemed ‘as if Bug had been fortunately made by providence to supply a vacancy that was to be filled up with something very insignificant’. Add. 61459, ff. 52-53.

Grey certainly seems to have had little problem with serving in a variety of administrations. Having been reckoned in his early years ‘always violent to the Tory party’, he slipped seamlessly into the ranks of the court Whigs on his appointment as lord chamberlain. Wentworth Pprs. 134. As such his career mimicked that of a number of courtiers who saw their duty first and foremost to serve the monarch, in return for which they expected appropriate favours. Nor should he be regarded as being without talent. His correspondence reveals him to have been a man with a keen sense of humour and his political longevity belies his apparent inconsequence. Thus over the course of a career in the Lords of just under 40 years he progressed from an earldom to a dukedom and, dying without male heirs, succeeded in securing a marquessate shortly before his death specially framed to descend to his granddaughter, Lady Jemima Campbell, so that his honours would endure.

Grey’s father had opposed settling the crown on William and Mary preferring the kind of settlement envisaged by Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham. It seems likely that Grey too was sympathetic to this view (he appears to have been a regular visitor at the home of his neighbour in Bedfordshire, the Jacobite peer Thomas Bruce, 2nd earl of Ailesbury). Beds. Archives, L31/129. Shortly after the Revolution, he departed on the expected tour of Holland, Germany and Italy and early on demonstrated a wilfulness that meant that he took in Rome in his wanderings, in spite of a clear command from his mother not to visit that city. He took advantage of an introduction to Cardinal Howard to visit a consistory enabling him to ‘have a sight of antichrist’ (the Pope) but expressed disappointment that he was unable to get a glimpse of the Pope’s horns and cloven hooves. Ibid. L30/8/32/4, L30/8/36/1, L30/2/8. Following a spell in Geneva, Grey returned to England in February 1692. Add. 70081, newsletter, 13 Feb. 1692. Until his succession to the peerage he appears to have spent his time engaged in a round of gaming, hunting and visits to the chocolate house. Although he seems to have been content not to involve himself directly in politics, a note in his accounts which refers to paying one of the doorkeepers at Parliament £1 1s. 1d. in April 1693 may suggest that he occasionally took advantage of his right as the eldest son of a peer to attend debates. Beds. Archives, L31/129.

Grey’s life of comparative ease was brought to an abrupt halt in August 1702 when he succeeded to the earldom following the death of his father. With the peerage he succeeded to a substantial fortune and interest based on lands in Bedfordshire, Berkshire and Herefordshire as well as to estates that had descended through his mother in Northamptonshire and Wiltshire. HP Commons 1690-1715, ii. 258; VCH Berks. iii. 319-20. Later that year he benefited financially still further by the death of his sister, Lady Amabel Grey, by whose death he was reputed to have secured an addition of £30,000 to his fortune (the true figure appears to have been nearer £23,000). Add. 70073-4, newsletter, 28 Nov. 1702.

Kent took his seat on 20 Oct. after which he was present on almost 55 per cent of all sitting days. He appears to have made little impact on the session, which may in part be attributed to the loss of his sister the following month. In January 1703 just how little was yet known about him is revealed in the forecasts surrounding the occasional conformity bill. A list compiled by Nottingham included Kent among those thought likely to support the measure but was further annotated, with a revision in pencil, listing Kent as a likely opponent of the bill. On 16 Jan. Kent revealed his hand by voting against adhering to the Lords’ amendments to the penalty clause. The following month, on 22 Feb., he subscribed the protest at the resolution not to commit the bill for the landed qualification of Members of the Commons and the same day he served as one of the tellers on the motion whether the bill should be rejected.

Kent’s attitude to the occasional conformity bill remained ambiguous, and he was listed (with a query) as a potential supporter of the bill in a forecast compiled by Charles Spencer, 3rd earl of Sunderland, at the beginning of November 1703. He took his seat in the new session on 9 Nov., after which he was present on 64 per cent of all sitting days, and on 26 Nov. he was again listed by Sunderland among the bill’s likely supporters. This assessment was confirmed on 14 Dec. when he was among those to support it.

Kent attempted to employ his interest on behalf of his cousin, Banastre Maynard, in March 1704, approaching John Churchill, duke of Marlborough, for an ensign’s commission for the young man. Add. 61291, f. 161. Although Marlborough obliged, Maynard’s father (Kent’s uncle), Banastre Maynard, 3rd Baron Maynard, objected that his son had been commissioned into a regiment that was still in the process of being raised thereby failing to meet his object of getting Ensign Maynard out of England and away from his creditors as soon as possible. Add. 61118, ff. 231-2; Add. 61291, f. 163. Maynard continued to prove a problem for his family over the coming months before being found a place in a regiment in Flanders. Add. 61396, ff. 180-1.

Kent was severely injured in a riding accident at the beginning of April 1704 and was at one point thought to be in danger of losing his life. Daily Courant, 5 Apr. 1704; Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 410. In the event his injuries proved far less threatening and, having made a full recovery, he was later that month the unexpected beneficiary of the newly vacated office of lord chamberlain. Kent’s appointment appears to have taken a number of observers by surprise. Add. 70075, newsletter, 25 Apr. 1704. Most detected the hand of the duchess of Marlborough in his selection, an assumption that Kent was more than happy to confirm by writing soon after to thank the duchess for her role in securing him ‘the honour designed me’. Add. 61474, ff. 100-1. He also wrote to Marlborough to express his ‘thanks for any share’ he may have had in it. Add. 61291, f. 163. Unsurprisingly, Kent made no reference to the reputed £10,000 the post was supposed to have cost him. Wentworth Pprs. 134. Neither of the parties appeared very satisfied with his selection. The Tory press was quick to propagate rumours that he had lost the £10,000 to the duchess at the gaming tables, while other commentators pointed out that ‘the Whigs have no reason to boast at this change for that noble lord appeared for the occasional conformity bill and always for the interest of the church’. Summarizing the situation, Sidney Godolphin, Baron (later earl of) Godolphin, noted that ‘the whole town was thoroughly disappointed about Bug’. Gregg, Queen Anne, 180; Add. 70075, newsletter, 29 Apr. 1704; Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. 284.

However disappointed society may have been by his appointment, Kent attempted to woo at least some at court by hosting a lavish entertainment on the Thames in May. Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 429; Add. 70075, newsletter, 25 May 1704. In June he was one of two peers rumoured to be in line to be promoted to dukedoms and the same month he was appointed to the lieutenancy of Herefordshire. Add. 70075, newsletter, 8 June 1704; Add. 61123, f. 16. For once, the reaction was less caustic, with Thomas Coningsby^†, Baron Coningsby [I], (later earl of Coningsby), writing to Robert Harley, later earl of Oxford, that, ‘it’s certainly most proper for him he having the best estate and at least as good an inclination to her majesty’s service as any nobleman who has an estate among us’. Add. 70021, f. 124.

Having attended the prorogation day of 4 July 1704, Kent took his seat in the new session on 24 Oct. after which he was present on approximately 58 per cent of all sitting days. The following month he was listed among those thought likely to support the Tack, and on 18 Nov. he was entrusted with Maynard’s proxy which was vacated by the close. Eg. 3359, ff. 45-46. The end of the parliamentary session in March 1705 coincided with rumours that Kent was to be turned out of his place as lord chamberlain. Verney ms mic. M636/52, Sir T. Cave to Fermanagh, 25 Mar. 1705. In October it was reported that John Egerton, 3rd earl of Bridgwater, one of the former competitors for the place, was to be appointed in his stead. In the event, the rumour proved to be groundless. It was later suggested that Kent’s ability to retain the chamberlaincy for so long was more owing to his comparative unimportance set against ‘fear of disobliging a multitude’ who all thought themselves better qualified for the place rather than from any of his own merits. R. Bucholz, Augustan Court, 64-65; HMC Portland, iv. 262.

In spite of such reports of his paltry influence at court, Kent continued to wield significant local interest. In the elections that spring, he promised his support to James Scudamore^‡, 3rd Viscount Scudamore [I], for the county seat in Herefordshire. TNA, C115/110, no. 8921, Kent to Scudamore, 30 Mar. 1705. He also employed his interest in Bedfordshire on behalf of the Whig candidates, though in the latter case a resurgent Tory interest left the seats divided between the two parties. Christ Church, Oxf. Wake mss, 3, ff. 311-12; HP Commons 1690-1715, ii. 6-7. Kent took his seat in the new Parliament on 27 Oct. 1705 and on 14 Nov. he reported the queen’s answer to the Lords’ address. Absent for a few days towards the close of the month, on 26 Nov. he registered his proxy with Godolphin, which was vacated by his resumption of his seat on 3 December. The same month he was one of those to vote against the Tory inspired motion that the church was in danger under the present administration. WSHC, 3790/1/1, p. 60.

Kent was able to call upon both the queen and duchess of Marlborough to stand as godmothers to his new daughter, Lady Anne Grey, in February 1706. LPL, ms 1770 (Wake’s diary), f. 11. The child’s godfather was the queen’s consort, Prince George of Denmark, duke of Cumberland. Beds. Archives, L31/83. Kent returned to the House for the single sitting day of 21 Nov. and then resumed his place at the opening of the new session on 3 Dec. Present on almost 62 per cent of all sitting days in the session, he was one of a number of peers to be promoted at that time and at the close of the month he was introduced in his new dignity as marquess of Kent between Charles Powlett, 2nd duke of Bolton, and Charles Montagu, 4th earl (later duke) of Manchester. Having taken his place, he then acted as one of the sponsors of the newly promoted Evelyn Pierrepont, marquess of Dorchester. Early the following year Kent was involved in a dispute with the lord great chamberlain, Robert Bertie, marquess of Lindsey (later duke of Ancaster), over which of them ought to lead the queen at the thanksgiving service at St Paul’s. On 11 Jan. 1707 Harley wrote to Kent advising him that the dispute was to be debated in council on 23 Jan. when he ought to be ‘prepared with your counsel to argue on your behalf.’ Add. 70277, Harley to Kent, 11 Jan. 1707. The disagreement was settled in Kent’s favour, it being concluded that the lord chamberlain should lead on all occasions barring those when the queen was in her robes. Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 163, box 1, Biscoe to Maunsell, 4 Jan. 1707. Kent was absent from the House for just over a week in the middle of January 1707 but covered his absence by registering his proxy with Godolphin on 14 Jan. The proxy was vacated by his resumption of his seat on 22 Jan., and on 3 Feb. he received that of his uncle, Maynard, which was vacated by the close of the session. The following month Kent complained of the activities of an Irish clergyman named Higgins, who had preached a sermon declaring the Church of England to be in danger, as a result of which Higgins was arrested on Sunderland’s warrant. Ibid. 1 Mar. 1707.

Following the brief prorogation Kent attended on five days of the nine-day session that met in mid-April 1707. Shortly afterwards rumours circulated that he was to be put out as lord chamberlain and replaced by James Douglas, duke of Queensberry [S]. Luttrell, Brief Relation, vi. 165. Although nothing came of this, towards the end of May it was reported that there had been a dramatic falling-out between Kent and Godolphin over the creation of the two Scots dukes, James Graham, duke of Montrose [S], and John Ker, duke of Roxburghe [S]. Kent claimed these promotions were contrary to a former promise made by Godolphin, and their argument was said to have been carried on in the queen’s presence with Kent insisting that he regarded it as ‘a slur upon the English peerage’. Add. 72494, ff. 31-32. It was perhaps in part Kent’s resentment of having been overlooked on this occasion that led him to press to be rewarded with the garter that summer, a pretension which was greeted by Marlborough with disbelief. In a letter to his duchess, Marlborough complained, ‘as to what you write of Kent pressing for the blue ribbon, it would be scandalous to give it him, since he has no one quality that deserves it.’ Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. 895.

Shortly before the opening of the new Parliament, Thomas Foley^‡ sought Harley’s mediation with Kent over a local dispute between the two men in Herefordshire. Foley was eager to assure the marquess ‘how false and groundless a story was told him of my being in any design to pull down his weirs.’ Add. 70226, T. Foley to Harley, 22 Oct. 1707. Kent took his seat in the new Parliament on 6 Nov. 1707, after which he was present on 65 per cent of all sitting days but he seems to have made no particular impact on the session. Following the dissolution in April 1708, he used his interest in Bedfordshire on behalf of the Whig candidates, Lord Edward Russell^‡ and Sir William Gostwick^‡, who were both returned. HP Commons 1690-1715, ii. 7. In spite of this demonstration of his local interest and rumours popularized in a set of comic verses composed by Congreve that ‘that little great man’ was soon to be viewed ‘in ribbon blue’, Add. 72490, f. 106. Kent’s application to be rewarded with a garter was again met with disdain by Marlborough, and towards the end of May he was said to be talking very freely about the ministers as he expected to be turned out of office at any moment. HMC Portland, iv. 491. Part of the reason for Kent’s disquiet was his increasingly fractious relations with the duchess of Marlborough, who believed that Kent was busily cultivating the queen’s new favourite, Abigail Masham. Later that summer he was believed to be the source of a number of rumours spread by the vice-chamberlain, Peregrine Bertie^‡, that the duchess had been involved in ‘two terrible battles with the queen.’ Add. 61459, ff. 101-3.

Kent took his seat in the new Parliament on 16 Nov., after which he was present on almost 72 per cent of all sitting days. A list that had been prepared in advance of the session (though possibly not annotated until 1710) noted Kent unsurprisingly as a court Whig. On 21 Jan. 1709 he voted in favour of permitting Scots peers with British titles to vote in the elections for the Scots representative peers. That summer Kent drew up proposals for settling the poor Palatines, who had recently arrived from Germany, which Sunderland undertook to lay before the queen for her consideration. Add. 61652, f. 151. Resuming his seat in the second session on 15 Nov. 1709, after which he was present on approximately 76 per cent of all sitting days, Kent suffered the embarrassment that month of being robbed by his former steward, Thomas Aston, who was seized attempting to abscond overseas with a large sum of Kent’s money. Post Boy, 17-19 Nov. 1709; Add. 61653, f. 191. In December it was rumoured that he was at last to be granted his wish and that he was to be one of five new garter knights, but no further progress was made in the award for the time being. Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 46, ff. 185-6. Uncertain how to respond to the trial of Henry Sacheverell, Kent was said to have waited on the queen to receive her guidance, but he then ignored her recommendation of voting that the doctor should be found guilty but subjected to a lenient punishment. Wentworth Pprs. 146. Having found Sacheverell guilty, he supported the imposition of a harsh penalty for his crimes.

It was perhaps in part as a result of this small act of rebellion that on 14 Apr. Kent was summoned to the queen’s presence and at last forced to resign his office. Add. 72499, ff. 146-7. He was replaced by Charles Talbot, duke of Shrewsbury, whose appointment proved to be the first of a series of alterations resulting in the wholesale replacement of the ministry that year. Kent was said to have been ‘extremely nettled’ by his treatment, and although the queen expressed the hope that he would ‘be easy in this matter by being made a duke’, he was ‘not shy of expressing a good deal of resentment.’ Add. 61118, f. 29. Kent’s discomfiture no doubt encouraged Godolphin to write to him from Althorp towards the close of September hoping that it would be convenient for him to visit Wrest, perhaps with a view to discussing the new political situation. Beds. Archives, L30/8/29/1. Although Harley had included Kent’s name among a list of potential Admiralty commissioners earlier in the year, by October he listed Kent as a certain opponent of his new ministry. Add. 70331, Harley memorandum, 1 July 1710. In the elections for Bedfordshire that autumn, Kent again employed his interest on behalf of the Whig candidates, even going so far as to convince the Tory dean of Gloucester (who was resident in the county) to stay away from the polls. The result was the same as the contest two years previously. HP Commons 1690-1715, ii. 7.

Kent took his seat in the new Parliament on 25 Nov. 1710. Two days later he was introduced formally in his new dignity as duke of Kent between William Cavendish, 2nd duke of Devonshire, and Charles Lennox, duke of Richmond. Present on over 72 per cent of all sitting days, on 11 Jan. 1711 he subscribed two protests, first at the resolution to agree with the committee resolution that the allied army’s defeat at Almanza had been down to the intervention of Henri de Massue de Ruvigny, earl of Galway [I], and second at the resolution to reject Galway’s petition. The following day he protested again at the resolution to censure the ministers of the previous administration for approving an offensive war in the Peninsular, and on 3 Feb. he subscribed a further protest at the resolution to agree with the committee that the regiments on the Spanish establishment had not been properly supplied. Absent from the House for just over a week towards the end of February, on 20 Feb. Kent registered his proxy with Godolphin once more, which was vacated on his return to the House on 28 February.

In spite of his disgruntlement at being turned out of office and clear disapproval of the manner in which the previous administration’s handling of the war had been lambasted, Kent’s allegiance appears to have returned to the balance by the spring of 1711. Towards the end of March he received a warm invitation from Godolphin to join in the amusements at Newmarket. He was assured that he should ‘never want a supper’ there and was promised that Lady Hervey would be ‘sure to give you your bellyful’ but he also appears to have been courted by the ministry. Beds. Archives, L30/8/29/2. A few weeks before the session’s close, Sir Simon Harcourt, (later Viscount Harcourt) suggested that Harley (soon to be created earl of Oxford) should replace Kent as lord lieutenant of Herefordshire but, in spite of this threat, between August and October Kent was appointed successively lord lieutenant of Buckinghamshire and of Bedfordshire, which he held in addition to his Herefordshire lieutenancy. HMC Portland, iv. 694; Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 47, ff. 289-90, 324. In November 1711, on the death of Paulet St John, 3rd earl of Bolingbroke, he added the office of custos rotulorum for Bedford to his portfolio, which may have been the result of a direct appeal from Kent to William Legge, earl of Dartmouth. Beds. Archives, L30/8/44. News of Kent’s appointment was greeted warmly in Bedford with toasts to his health, illuminations and ringing of bells. Post Man, 15-17 Nov. 1711. Such marks of favour seem to have had the intended effect, and in advance of the new session Oxford listed Kent as a potential supporter, though Lady Strafford commented shortly after how Kent ‘is made a jest on by every body in being (as he thinks) the head of the Whig party’. Add. 70331, unfol.; Wentworth Pprs. 219.

Present on two prorogation days in November, Kent took his seat at the opening of the new session on 7 Dec. 1711 after which he was present on 69 per cent of all sitting days. The night before the session, Kent was said to have been summoned to attend the queen. Although it was reported that as a result of this closeting he voted with the Tories the following day, he continued to steer an independent course. Wentworth Pprs. 222. On 8 Dec. he was listed as a possible opponent of the court in the abandoned division over the presentation of the ‘No Peace without Spain’ motion, and on 10 Dec. he was noted among those office-holders who had voted against the ministry on the question of ‘No Peace without Spain’. On 19 Dec. he was forecast as being in favour of permitting James Hamilton* , 4th duke of Hamilton [S], to take his seat in the House as duke of Brandon and the following day he voted accordingly not to bar Scots peers with British titles from sitting in the House.

By the close of the session in June 1712, Kent was once more being listed by Oxford as a doubtful court supporter. The assessment may have been inspired in part by Kent’s decision to divide with the ministry on 28 May in opposing the calls for the queen to order her commanders on the continent to resume offensive operations. PH, xxvi. 177. Present on six of the prorogation days that were held between the close of the previous session and the opening of the new session in April 1713, towards the end of 1712 efforts were made to secure Kent’s continued goodwill with his appointment as a knight of the garter. In January 1713 it was reported that the installation of the new knights had been postponed on account of Kent’s ill health. Wentworth Pprs. 315.

Kent took his seat at the opening of the new session on 9 Apr. 1713, after which he was present on just under 70 per cent of all sitting days. Although his name had been added by Oxford to a list of likely ministry supporters in March 1713, that month Kent waited on the queen to seek her assurance that she did not favour the Pretender. Hamilton Diary, 52. Towards the end of May Oxford noted him as a potential opponent to be contacted in advance of the division on the French treaty of commerce. Kent failed to attend the House for approximately a fortnight between 21 May and 4 June. His absence elicited an appeal on 3 June from Samuel Masham, Baron Masham, that he would be sure to be present the following Friday for the second reading of the malt tax bill. Masham noted that ‘there is a great deal of pains taken to throw it out, which if it should, would be of prejudice very much at this time to her majesty’s affairs, which I am satisfied your grace would be uneasy to see.’ Beds. Archives, L30/8/47/2. On 13 June Oxford listed him as a likely opponent of the French commerce treaty but the same month, Kent responded to Masham’s appeal and was noted by John Elphinstone, Lord Balmerinoch [S], as one of three lords to desert the Scots in the division on the Union. Scot. Hist. Soc. Misc. xii. 160.

Despite his rebellion of the previous summer, Kent continued to maintain a foot firmly in the court camp. In November he sought Oxford’s assistance in excusing Nehemiah Brandreth from being pricked as sheriff for Bedfordshire and in recommending Thomas Emerton to be selected in his stead. The following month Kent emphasized his willingness to co-operate with the ministry, insisting that he had ‘no great[er] ambition than to acknowledge your favours.’ Add. 70229, Kent to Oxford, 7 Nov, 6 Dec. 1713. Kent’s efforts secured a positive response a few days later when Oxford wrote to assure him that he had acted as requested with regard to the shrievalty and also to let him know that as soon as he returned to London he intended to seek out ‘a convenient time to wait upon you, being desirous to know your grace’s opinion in public matters, for it will be a great satisfaction to me to concur with your grace in the public service.’ Beds. Archives, L30/8/41/2.

Kent took his seat at the opening of the new Parliament on 16 Feb. 1714. Present on almost 79 per cent of all sitting days, the following month he was noted by Peter Wentworth among the majority voting against including an addition to the address to the queen proposed by Heneage Finch, Baron Guernsey. Wentworth believed that this was the first time he had voted against ‘us courtiers’. Wentworth Pprs. 360. Kent lodged his proxy with Lionel Sackville, 7th earl (later duke) of Dorset, on 20 Mar., which was vacated by his resumption of his seat on 5 Apr. He registered the proxy with Dorset again on 13 May, which was vacated by his return to the House on 26 May. The following day he was forecast by Nottingham as being opposed to the schism bill. On 24 June he registered his proxy once again, though on this occasion with his kinsman, Talbot Yelverton, Viscount Longueville (later earl of Sussex), which was vacated the following day. Four days later (29 June) he received Dorset’s proxy, which was vacated on 2 July, on which day he was also entrusted with that of Longueville, which was vacated by the close of the session. A few days later, Kent approached Oxford for his assistance in securing a place for James Brett. He repeated his address a few days later, justifying his importunity by claiming:

I believe I may say I have not been very troublesome to your lordship upon this or any other subject, and that I made it my business last winter to be as serviceable as I could and am only sorry I was not more useful, and that we differed so much in our notions of it. Add. 70229, Kent to Oxford, 11, 23 July 1714.

By this time Oxford was on the point of being dismissed, and it is uncertain whether Kent was successful in his suit. In any case his own star was once more in the ascendant, being one of those to be named lords justices on the queen’s death. Having taken his seat in the House on 1 Aug., he continued to attend on five days out of the brief 15-day session.

Kent continued to hold a succession of court offices under the new regime, but his last years were marked with sadness. Although he survived a severe illness in 1717, in the succeeding years he was forced to confront the loss of his duchess as well as the remainder of his surviving children. Herts. ALS, DE/P/F59, Lady Cowper to Cowper, 1 Aug. 1717. Details of the latter part of his career will be dealt with in the next part of this work. Kent died in June 1740 and was buried, according to the directions in his will, in the family vault he had built at Flitton. On his demise the dukedom became extinct, but the barony of Lucas and the newly created marquessate of Grey descended, by virtue of a special remainder, to his granddaughter, Lady Jemima Campbell.