GREVILLE, George Guy, Lord Brooke (1818-1893), of Warwick Castle, Warws.

The ‘youthful scion of the House of Warwick’, it has been said of Lord Brooke that ‘beyond his opposition to the free-trade policy of Sir Robert Peel, he took no very active part in Parliamentary life’.1The Times, 27 Oct. 1845, 3 Dec. 1893. However, even this modest level of activity, which included a number of cogently-argued protectionist speeches, made Brooke one of the more energetic representatives of South Warwickshire in this period.

Heir to the earldom of Warwick, Brooke was first rumoured as a Conservative candidate for Warwick, which his father and uncle, Sir Charles John Greville, had both represented, at the 1841 general election.2The Standard, 14 June 1841; Morn. Post, 21, 29 June 1841; The Times, 21 June 1841. Although his father’s influence would have probably secured his return, Brooke did not offer, but was returned unopposed at a by-election in November 1845 for South Warwickshire. Brooke’s election probably took place without his knowledge, as he was travelling round the continent at the time, and although his supporters commended him as an ‘amiable and accomplished young nobleman’, local agriculturalists sought assurances that he would resist the free trade drift of Peel’s policy.3The Times, 30 Sept. 1845, 6 Nov. 1845.

Brooke’s opinions were fully in accordance with his constituents, however, and at a meeting of the Warwickshire Agricultural Protection Association, 29 Dec. 1845, he declared that ‘Old England that had never crouched to a foreign foe, would not fall before the machinations of a malicious and artful party of interested cotton spinners’.4The Times, 30 Dec. 1845; The Standard, 30 Dec. 1845. In his maiden speech, 10 Feb. 1846, Brooke was less forthright, but mounted a lucid critique of Peel’s decision to repeal the corn laws, noting that the baronet ‘had been for some few years changing his principles; but he had taken care to keep [this] from the House and from his own party’.5Hansard, 10 Feb. 1846, vol. 83, c. 696. He was even more critical of those Conservatives who had changed their opinions out of personal devotion to Peel rather than the merits of the policy.6Ibid., 696-7. These MPs had broken their pledges to constituents Brooke argued, and before finishing he criticised ‘the chicanery, the bribery, and the perjury’ employed by the Anti-Corn Law League in their attempt to challenge the Conservatives’ dominance on the electoral registers in the counties.7Ibid., 698-9. He spoke in similar terms, 12 May 1846, promising ‘hearty opposition’ to repeal which would ‘most injuriously affect the interests of landlords, tenants, and all persons employed in agricultural pursuits’.8Hansard, 12 May 1846, vol. 86, cc. 454-5 (at 455). Brooke’s staunch protectionism meant that he faced no opposition at the 1847 or 1852 general elections.

Brooke opposed further instalments of free trade, such as repeal of the navigation laws in 1849, and backed Disraeli’s proposal to relieve agriculture, 15 Mar. 1849, as well as his budget, 26 Nov. 1852. He supported Berkeley’s motion to reconsider the corn laws, 14 May 1850, and Cayley’s motions to repeal malt duty, 5 July 1850, 8 May 1851. On religious issues, Brooke was a firm Protestant, opposing Jewish emancipation and further Catholic relief as well as other political reforms. Brooke intervened on a number of occasions about county rates and unsuccessfully opposed the bill to exempt Birmingham from the levy, 29 Mar. 1849.9Hansard, 29 Mar. 1849, vol. 103, c. 954. As Birmingham had constructed a gaol and lunatic asylum, the town no longer had use of county facilities, and therefore, its representatives argued, should not have to pay for their upkeep. Brooke made two brief interventions on the county rates bill in the same session: 19 Mar. 1849, vol. 103, cc. 145, 157.

Brooke succeeded as 4th earl of Warwick in 1853 but although he ‘remained throughout his life a protectionist, … he took no active steps to promote the policy which he favoured’, possessing a ‘modest and retiring disposition’.10The Times, 4 Dec. 1893; Birmingham Daily Post, 4 Dec. 1893. He instead concentrated on ‘useful local duties’, including serving as president of the Warwickshire Agricultural Society, rather than ‘public affairs’.11The Times, 4 Dec. 1893. The devastating fire which destroyed much of his ancestral home, 3 Dec. 1871, was a ‘grievous blow’ to the earl, who in later years suffered from a ‘liability to sudden and alarming attacks of faintness’.12Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper, 3 Dec. 1893; Birmingham Daily Post, 4 Dec. 1893; F. Greville, Warwick castle and its earls (1903), ii. 802-17; G. Tyack, Warwickshire country houses (1994), 208. On his death in 1893 he was succeeded by his eldest son Francis Richard Charles Guy Greville (1853-1924), 5th earl of Warwick, Conservative MP for East Somerset, 1879-85 and Colchester, 1888-92.13Birmingham Daily Post, 4 Dec. 1893; Burke’s peerage (1949), 2078; M. Stenton and S. Lees, Who’s who of British MPs (1978), ii. 45-6; McCalmont’s parliamentary poll book, ed. J. Vincent and M. Stenton (8th edn., 1972), 267; pt. II, 45.