GREY, Henry (1600-73)

Lord Grey had a distinguished lineage; his father-in-law, William Cecil^*, 2nd earl of Exeter, remarked that he had ‘as good a title to be marquess of Dorset as to be Lord Grey of Groby’.28 SP14/184/45. However, the marquessate of Dorset, and the family estates, had been forfeited to the crown in 1554, when Grey’s great-great-uncle, Henry Grey^†, duke of Suffolk, was executed for treason. Grey’s grandfather, another Henry Grey^*, secured the return of much of the family lands, including their seat at Bradgate near Leicester, and in 1603 was ennobled as Lord Grey of Groby. As his eldest son, Sir John Grey^‡, predeceased him, he was succeeded on his death in 1614 by his 14-year old grandson, the subject of this biography, whose mother purchased his wardship for £500.29 WARD 9/162, f. 183.

In October 1616, after studying at Oxford, the young 2nd Lord Grey was granted a passport, and by 1618 was in Italy, where he met his future brother-in-law, Henry de Vere^*, 18th earl of Oxford and enrolled at the university of Padua.30 Life and Letters of Sir Henry Wotton ed. L. Pearsall Smith, ii. 144. By 1620 he had returned to England, but thereafter his activities are unclear as his contemporaries often failed to distinguish him from his namesake and distant kinsman, Henry Grey^*, known by courtesy as Lord Grey of Ruthin before he succeeded as 8th earl of Kent in 1623. It was probably the latter who was injured on 12 Mar. 1620 (along with his brother-in-law Thomas Howard^*, 21st (or 14th) earl of Arundel) when the floor collapsed in Whitehall while accompanying the Spanish ambassador to an audience with the king.31 Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, ii. 296. However, reports the following June that Lord Grey would, like the earl of Oxford, command a company in the force being prepared by Sir Horace Vere^* (subsequently Lord Vere of Tilbury) to defend the Palatinate perhaps refer to this peer.32 CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 152. If so, then it is likely that it was Grey’s forthcoming marriage, to one of the daughters and coheirs of Lord Burghley (William Cecil^*, subsequently 2nd earl of Exeter), which presumably took place soon after a licence for that purpose was issued on 19 July, that changed his mind.

Marriage to Anne Cecil gave Grey a strong foothold in Lincolnshire, as his wife’s portion included the castle and borough of Stamford. However, he may not have gained possession of these properties until after the death of his father-in-law in 1640, as he exercised no discernible electoral patronage in Stamford in the 1620s. Although his uncle by marriage, Sir George Goring^* (later 1st earl of Norwich) was returned for the borough in 1624, Goring was closely connected with the earl of Exeter.33 J. Drakard, Hist. of Stamford, 68.

The adult 2nd Lord Grey of Groby, 1621-8

Grey was still under-age when the writs for the third Jacobean Parliament were issued in November 1620. However, as he would turn 21 before the assembly was scheduled to meet on 16 Jan., he was sent a writ on 4 Jan., three days before his birthday. He therefore took his seat on the 30th, the delayed first day of the session.34 HMC 3rd Rep. 17. He is subsequently recorded as having attended all but three of the 44 sittings before Easter. During one of his rare absences, on 5 Feb., the Lords agreed that new members should take the oath of allegiance. As a result, he was not sworn for another five days.35 LJ, iii. 15a. Despite the regularity of his attendance, Grey was appointed to just seven of the 28 committees established by the Lords before Easter. He is not known to have spoken more than once. On 26 Mar., as a member of the committee for investigating Sir Giles Mompesson’s^‡ patent for concealed lands, he and his fellow committee members ‘justified their knowledge of the proofs’.36 Ibid. 47a, 70b. On 27 Mar. Grey asked the clerk to provide him with copies of the documents relating to the accusations against Sir Henry Yelverton^‡, the disgraced former attorney general who was charged before the Lords concerning the issuing of monopoly patents.37 PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/1, p. 19.

After the Easter recess, Grey was one of the lords sent to the Tower to establish the truth of Yelverton’s claim that he was too ill to attend the upper House.38 LJ, iii. 96b. Marked as present at 32 of the 43 sittings held before the summer recess, 74 per cent of the total, he was appointed to just five more committees out of a total of 46 or 47; none concerned matters with which he can be connected. Grey is not recorded as having attended the Lords after the session was resumed in November, although there is no evidence that he was formally excused. On 17 Jan. 1622 he issued a protection for one of his servants, but Parliament was dissolved the following month.39 CSP Dom. Addenda 1580-1625, p. 641.

During the 1621 Parliament Robert Spencer^*, 1st Lord Spencer, who had been a friend of Grey’s grandfather, evidently tried to establish good relations between Grey and Henry Hastings^*, 5th earl of Huntingdon, Leicestershire’s lord lieutenant (the Grey and the Hastings families having long been local enemies). Spencer obtained a promise from Huntingdon that if ‘any unkindness [was] raised or like to be raised’ between Huntingdon and Grey, he would be allowed to mediate between them. The following May Huntingdon, probably prompted by Spencer, nominated Grey to the Leicestershire bench, claiming that he had kept house in the county (presumably at Bradgate) since the previous autumn; it is not known where Grey had been living before then. Grey also wanted to be appointed a deputy lieutenant, but as Huntingdon lost the right to appoint his own deputies in June 1623, he was unable to grant this wish until he regained his former authority in 1625.40 HEHL, HA12541; HMC Hastings, ii. 62; Sainty, Lords Lieutenants 1585-1642, p. 26.

Although Lord Grey of Ruthin became earl of Kent in September 1623, Sir William Grey^* was created Lord Grey of Warke on 11 Feb. 1624, thereby creating further potential for confusion. By then a fresh Parliament had been summoned, which was prorogued the following day, when the writ for the new Lord Grey was also issued. It is unclear whether the ‘Lord Grey of [blank]’ recorded as attending the prorogation meeting was the baron of Groby or of Warke.41 W. Dugdale, Perfect Copy of all Summons of the Noblity to the Great Councils and Parliaments of this Realm (1685), 552.

According to the assistant clerk’s manuscript minutes, Grey of Groby attended 48 of the 93 sittings of the session, 52 per cent of the total. He was granted leave of absence on 10 Mar., having missed the sitting the day before, and returned on the 17th. It seems likely that he was also the man granted leave of absence on 23 Mar., as Grey of Warke was recorded as present that day, whereas he himself missed all the sittings between the afternoon of 22 Mar. and 8 Apr. inclusive. He was last recorded as attending on 24 May, which means that he missed the final ten sittings.42 LJ, iii. 254a, 277a.

Grey was named to at least nine of the Lords’ 105 committees in 1624, one of them in his absence (on 2 Mar., when he was appointed to attend a conference with representatives from the Commons to draft a justification of the advice both Houses intended to proffer to the king to break off negotiations with Spain).43 Ibid. 242b. He may have been the Lord Grey named on the morning of 22 Mar. to the committee for the bill concerning the government of Wales. Although the Journal identifies this peer as Grey of Warke, the clerk’s committee book says he was Grey of Groby. Unfortunately, it is impossible to be sure which of these sources is correct, as both men were recorded as present that day, and the manuscript minutes and scribbled books do not differentiate between the two.44 Ibid. 273a; PA, HL/PO/CO/2/2, f. 17v. Lord Grey of Groby made no recorded speeches in this Parliament.

On 30 Mar. 1625 Grey of Groby visited Leicester to inform the mayor that James I had died three days previously, and instructed him to proclaim Prince Charles (Stuart^*, prince of Wales) as the new monarch, an event Grey witnessed.45 Recs. of the Bor. of Leicester ed. H. Stocks, iv. 218-19. In early April it was rumoured that ‘Lord Grey’ would be appointed to the Privy Council, but it is unlikely that this was a reference to Grey of Groby, who was still only in his mid-twenties and had yet to make any impression on national politics.46 T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 4.

The new king promptly summoned a fresh Parliament, which opened on 18 June. Grey is recorded as having attended 22 of the 31 sittings, 71 per cent of the total. His absences included 22 June, when the House agreed that all members should take the oath of allegiance. (He therefore did not take the oath until 10 August.)47 Procs. 1625, pp. 175-6. They may have also included 23 June. However, in this case clerical error may be suspected, as he was not recorded as excused when the House was called that day, and was appointed to two committees, one for privileges and another to confer with the Commons about the petition for a fast. In total he was named to 11 or 12 of the 25 committees appointed by the Lords. The precise number is unclear because the identity of the ‘Lord Grey’ named to consider the measure against counterfeiting the seals of judicial courts is not specified.48 Ibid. 43, 45, 73, 179. On 7 July Grey excused his distant kinsman, William Cavendish^*, 1st earl of Devonshire, but otherwise made no recorded speeches.49 Ibid. 102.

In September 1625 Grey was finally appointed a deputy lieutenant of Leicestershire. Early the following month he and his fellow deputies informed Huntingdon from Bradgate that prominent local recusants were stockpiling arms. They proposed to take a handpicked force of musketeers to carry out a search. Huntingdon urged caution, and when searches were subsequently made nothing much was found. Following the initial letter, Grey seems to have played little part in the proceedings; when Huntingdon wrote to his deputies on 14 Oct., he omitted Grey from the address because he was unsure whether the baron would be joining his colleagues.50 HEHL, HAM53/6, ff. 134v, 139r-v; T. Cogswell, Home Divisions, 53-4.

Grey did not attend the coronation on 2 Feb. 1626, and was not recorded as attending the second Caroline Parliament until the 23rd of that month. However, the attendance record is faulty, as Grey took the oath of allegiance on 15 Feb., when he was also reappointed to the privileges committee. The following day he was named to consider a bill for arming the militia. On 18 Feb. ‘Lord Grey’ was appointed to a committee for a private measure. Grey was nevertheless excused on 27 Feb., and is not recorded as having resumed his seat until 22 April. In the interim, on 11 Mar., a measure against recusants was referred to Grey and other members of a committee which had been appointed during the 1625 Parliament to consider a similar bill.51 SP16/20/8; Procs. 1626, i. 48, 50, 53, 57-8, 75, 127. Grey returned to Leicestershire, where he and a fellow deputy lieutenant, Sir Wolstan Dixie^‡, arrested the servant of a recusant for allegedly writing a treasonous letter. The Privy Council, commending their care, ordered the culprit to be delivered to a messenger for conveyance to London.52 APC, 1625-6, pp. 433-5; Procs. 1626, iv. 280. After returning to the upper House on 22 Apr., Grey attended reasonably regularly, and was named to three committees, including one to take evidence concerning the king’s charges against John Digby^*, 1st earl of Bristol.

In all, Grey was appointed to seven of the upper House’s 49 committees in 1626 (if the private measure on 18 Feb. is included), and was recorded as attending 28 of the 81 sittings, 35 per cent of the total. As he made no recorded speeches it is impossible to determine whether William Laud^*, bishop of St Davids (later archbishop of Canterbury), was correct to class Grey among the opponents of the favourite, George Villiers^*, 1st duke of Buckingham.53 Procs. 1626, i. 300, 319, 540; SP16/20/36.

Following the dissolution, Grey was identified as a Forced Loan refuser in a contemporary manuscript tract. In fact, he paid his £100 assessment on 8 Dec. 1626 and, the following January, attended the meeting at Leicester when the collection of the Loan was initiated in his native county.54 SP16/54/82i; E401/1386, rot. 36; HMC Cowper, i. 296. In July 1627 the Council ordered Grey and three others to punish disorders committed by opponents of the disafforestation of Leicester forest. The Council turned to Grey rather than Huntingdon, presumably because the latter had been lieutenant of the forest and had not yet received compensation for his loss of office. However, Grey declined to execute the order, alleging that, of the other three men who had been named by the Council, one was not resident in the county, one was not a justice of the peace and the last was too infirm to act.55 CSP Dom. 1627-8, pp. 255, 331; APC, 1627, p. 432.

A new Parliament was summoned in 1628, when Grey was afforded, perhaps for the first time, an opportunity to exercise electoral influence. Prior to the election Huntingdon was accused by Sir Henry Shirley, a candidate for one of the county seats, of embezzling money raised for the Leicestershire militia. Huntingdon responded by entering into an alliance with Grey to ensure the election of his heir, Ferdinando Hastings^†, Lord Hastings (subsequently 6th earl of Huntingdon) and Sir Edward Hartopp^‡. The latter was presumably Grey’s nominee. His connection with Hartopp is unknown but he undertook to ensure that Hartopp would attend the hustings. Faced with the united force of the Hastings and Grey interests, Shirley withdrew and Hastings and Hartopp were returned unopposed.56 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 223.

Earl of Stamford, 1628-73

On 26 Mar., nine days after the start of the new Parliament, Grey was created earl of Stamford; he no doubt chose that title because of his wife’s interest in the borough. It is not clear how or why he procured this promotion, but possibly it was intended to bring Huntingdon, who had refused to pay the Forced Loan, back into line. By granting Grey equality of status with Huntingdon, the king was making it likely that he would be reluctant to remain subordinate to Huntingdon in Leicestershire affairs. This would give the crown more leverage over Huntingdon, who might also be threatened with replacement by Grey as lord lieutenant. Of course, it is also possible that Grey simply purchased his new title.

The new earl of Stamford was recorded as attending 55 of the 94 sittings of the 1628 session, 59 per cent of the total. He was apparently absent on the day his patent was issued, despite being appointed to a committee for the bill to preserve the king’s revenue. Excused at the next sitting, the 28th, he returned on the 29th, when he was formally introduced as an earl, assisted by his father-in-law, the 2nd earl of Exeter, and his wife’s uncle by marriage, Edward Denny^*, earl of Norwich. He was again excused on 31 Mar., but though he resumed his seat the following day, he was excused five times in April and again on 3 May.57 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 123, 167.

On 22 Mar., while still a baron, Grey assisted in the introduction of William Maynard^*, 1st Lord Maynard, whose first wife had been the daughter of the 1st earl of Devonshire. That same day he received his only other committee appointment of the session, for a further bill concerning arming the militia. He made only one recorded speech, on 2 Apr., regarding a petition promoted by William Fiennes^*, 1st Viscount Saye and Sele, in which the constable of Banbury made a complaint against the local magistrates for failing to execute justice against soldiers billeted in the town. Stamford clearly supported the magistrates, accusing the constable of ‘malice’, and arguing that he should pay the costs, although he thought that ‘the soldiers [should be] sharply reproved if deserved’.58 Ibid. 88, 91, 103, 140, 142.

Stamford was marked as present at 19 of the 23 sittings of the 1629 session and was again appointed to the committee for privileges. However, he played no other recorded part in the session’s proceedings.59 LJ, iv. 6a. In 1631 conflict threatened to erupt between Stamford and Huntingdon when the former objected to the inclusion of Sir Thomas Gerard, a Hastings client, on the Leicestershire bench. However, this was averted after Huntingdon’s wife disowned Gerard, blaming him for problems which had arisen over the sale of a property by Huntingdon to Stamford.60 Cogswell, 192; HEHL, HA4843-4. In late 1634 Stamford went to France, but the report that this was ‘to pass some displeasures’ (presumably with the king) seems to have been mistaken, as his stay abroad was brief; he arrived back in England on 1 Jan. 1635, and was given an audience with the king the day after his return.61 C115/106/8474; APC, 1630-1, p. 251; SP78/96, f. 502; Harl. 7001, f. 77. In 1639 Stamford claimed that Charles had promised to make him joint lord lieutenant of Leicestershire. However, as late as 1635 he was still active as Huntingdon’s deputy lieutenant, helping to organize the musters. It was not until 1640 that he openly attacked Huntingdon’s conduct as lord lieutenant.62 HMC Cowper, ii. 317; HEHL, HA2296; Cogswell, 260, 271.

During the 1630s Stamford was largely concerned with increasing his estate. He set about draining part of his lands that lay in the Lincolnshire fens, and in 1632he was accused of having depopulated two or three villages.63 L. Stone, Crisis of the Aristocracy, 356; Recs. of the Bor. of Leicester, iv. 267. He also sponsored a number of projects. In 1632 he approached the countess of Huntingdon, then in London, suggesting that they combine forces to promote a further Fen drainage scheme or seek a licence to export grain, but she rebuffed him.64 HEHL HA4849. In 1633 he sought a monopoly of brewing in Leicester and Stamford. He won the support of the crown but the former borough was still fighting the project three years later and it is unlikely that he ever succeeded in setting it on foot.65 CSP Dom. 1631-3, p. 559; HMC Cowper, ii. 111-12; Recs. of the Bor. of Leicester, iv. 286-7. In 1636 he compared projects to ‘the getting of the philosopher’s stone, many fair hopes yet no assurance until it be fixed’, yet he proposed a further scheme for regulating the dressing of hemp, which he hoped would secure him £4,000 or £5,000 a year.66 SP16/313/1. However, this project also seems to have come to nothing.

Stamford made no recorded response after Charles I summoned the nobility to meet him at York on 1 Apr. 1639 to resist the Scottish Covenanters, but he evidently declined to attend, as he was at his father-in-law’s house in London on 31 March.67 HMC Cowper, ii. 217. Nevertheless he subsequently joined the king’s army in the north as, during negotiations between the opposing sides in June, he dined with the Covenanter commander, General Leslie. Returning to the English camp he sang the praises of the rebels, whom he described as loyal to the king and affectionate to the English. He particularly praised the presbyterian chaplains, whom he compared favourably to those in the English army. More worryingly for his listeners, he also stated that the Scottish army was large, well equipped and well horsed.68 CSP Dom. 1639, pp. 330-1.

Stamford took up arms for Parliament during the Civil War, commanding their army in Devon, but was defeated by a much smaller royalist force at Stratton on 16 May 1643 and was forced to surrender Exeter on 5 September. A more moderate parliamentarian than his eldest son, the regicide, Thomas Grey^‡, Lord Grey of Groby, he nevertheless continued to attend the upper House until late 1648 and was elected to the Commons for Leicestershire in the first Cromwellian Parliament. His participation in the royalist rising of his son-in-law, Sir George Booth^†, later 1st Lord Delamer, in 1659, made it easier for him to be rehabilitated at the Restoration the following year, but poor health restricted his political activities thereafter. He died intestate in August 1673, and was buried with his ancestors in the family vault at Bradgate. Letters of administration were granted on 2 Oct. to his younger son, John Grey^‡, and unmarried daughter, Jane, his widow having declined to act. His eldest son having died in 1657, his title passed to his grandson, Thomas Grey^†, then a minor.69 HP Commons, 1640-60, draft biography HENRY GREY, 1ST EARL OF STAMFORD; HP Lords 1660-1715, iii. 183-5; Nichols, iii. 677; PROB 6/48, f. 109.