GREY, William (1593-1674)

Grey belonged to a long line of Northumberland gentry stretching back to at least the early 1300s. The family achieved national prominence during the fifteenth century, when two of its members became bishops and a third married Edward IV’s aunt. They adopted Chillingham Castle as their principal seat around that time.46 Hist. of Northumb. xiv. 328. Grey’s father, Sir Ralph^‡, was possibly the county’s wealthiest Jacobean resident, with a landed estate comprising almost 250,000 acres.47 North Country Wills, 60; C142/231/82; WARD 7/70/192; S.J. and S.J. Watts, From Border to Middle Shire: Northumberland 1586-1625, p. 113. A Northumberland shire knight in 1604, Sir Ralph also served four times as the county’s sheriff, but his career was hindered by his strong Catholic ties. At best a nominal Anglican, his wife and many of his household were recusants. In 1607 Grey himself, then just 13 years old, was reportedly living with Lord William Howard of Naworth, one of northern England’s most prominent Catholics, and was also abstaining from Protestant worship.48 OR; A. Hughes, List of Sheriffs (PRO, L. and I. ix), 99; HMC Hatfield, xix. 3. Four decades later Grey would embrace the opposite extreme of presbyterianism, but he was still being accused of recusancy as late as 1629, and this stigma may have delayed his entry into public life. Sufficiently ambitious to acquire a baronetcy in his father’s lifetime, he represented his county in Parliament in 1621 but secured no other offices until Sir Ralph died two years later.49 Eg. 2553, f. 736.

In November 1623, less than three months after succeeding to his patrimony, Grey was summoned before the Privy Council to answer well-substantiated charges of smuggling wool across the Scottish border, in breach of a 1622 proclamation.50 APC, 1623-5, pp. 120, 184-5; CSP Dom. 1623-5, pp. 101, 133, 172-3. He delayed making his appearance until the following February, and in the meantime commenced negotiations for purchasing a peerage. A warrant for preparing his patent was issued on 3 Feb., two days after his encounter with the Council, but the process then hit a snag. Grey’s elevation was being arranged by the king’s cousin, Ludovic Stuart^*, duke of Richmond, who had procured the right to sell a barony in order to bolster the strained finances of his brother, Esmé Stuart^*, earl of March (later 3rd duke of Lennox [S]). However, the royal favourite George Villiers^*, 1st duke of Buckingham, was also seeking a way to reward his protégé Sir Edward Conway^* (later 1st Viscount Conway). Accordingly, it was agreed that, pending other arrangements, £4,000 of Grey’s fee should be diverted to Conway, who then used his position as secretary of state to block the patent until Grey provided guarantees that the money would be paid to him.51 APC, 1623-5, p. 172; CSP Dom. 1623-5, pp. 159, 161; Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, ii. 546. The total fee was probably at least £8,000: C.R. Mayes, ‘Sale of Peerages in Early Stuart Eng.’, JMH, xxix. 28; R.W. Goulding, ‘Gervase Holles, a Great Lover of Antiquities’, Trans. Thoroton Soc. xxvi. 46. This development was particularly inconvenient for Grey, as he was standing for re-election as a knight of the shire for Northumberland, and did not wish to withdraw his candidacy until he was certain of a seat in the Lords. In the end Conway relented, and the patent was sealed on 11 Feb., more than a fortnight before the sureties were provided.52 CSP Dom. 1623-5, pp. 161, 173. Nevertheless, the news that Grey was now ineligible to serve in the Commons arrived too late to prevent him being returned, so that a further election had to be held after Parliament convened. He failed to influence the choice of his successor, but at least had the satisfaction of securing the second shire seat for his brother-in-law, Sir Francis Brandling^‡.53 HP Commons, 1604-2, ii. 295-6. In a final twist, the geographical suffix chosen for Grey’s barony was not Chillingham, his principal seat, but Warke, another of his major properties, which had been the main base for the wool smuggling operation.54 CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 101.

Grey attended the state opening of the 1624 Parliament, but was not formally introduced in the Lords until 25 Feb., six days later, when he was supported by Robert Spencer^*, 1st Lord Spencer, and Charles Stanhope^*, 2nd Lord Stanhope of Harrington. During this session he was present for four-fifths of the sittings, though he attended only intermittently in the closing weeks.55 LJ, iii. 218a; Add. 40087, f. 21. Grey was named to nine bill committees, of which three may have been of personal interest. These concerned Wadham College, Oxford, which had been founded while he was attending the university; the estates of a County Durham gentleman, Sir Richard Lumley; and a ban on wool exports, which had important implications for Northumberland, regardless of Grey’s own activities.56 LJ, iii. 257a, 275a, 403b. He was also nominated to scrutinize the bill for partial repeal of the Tudor Act on Welsh government, and then appointed to a conference and joint subcommittee with the Commons about the same business. The remaining bills were mostly private measures.57 Ibid. 273a, 304a-b, 314b.

Despite his own northern roots, Grey had married into an Essex family, and he turned to two of his wife’s relatives, Elizabeth Finch, 1st Viscountess Maidstone and her son Sir Heneage Finch^‡ when he needed guarantors to vouch for payment of his peerage fee. In November 1624 Grey and the viscountess obtained a joint licence to spend the winter in London, and thereafter he increasingly based himself in the Home counties.58 CSP Dom. 1623-5, pp. 173, 380; 1625-6, p. 170. When in the capital itself he apparently lived near the Charterhouse, a neighbourhood which was also home to his sister-in-law. However, he also acquired a country residence at Isleworth, where a number of his children were baptized. From the spring of 1625 he began to appear on government commissions in both London and Middlesex.59 C54/3039/17; Strafforde Letters (1739) ed. W. Knowler, ii. 180; Coventry Docquets, 253; Lysons, iii. 112-13.

At first, Grey’s absence from Northumberland had no impact on his local standing, and his brother-in-law Brandling again secured one of the county seats in the 1625 parliamentary election.60 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 296. Grey attended the prorogation meeting on 17 May, and was present for all but three sittings while Parliament remained at Westminster. However, he arrived three days late for the Oxford phase, and missed a further two sittings before the abrupt dissolution. While at Westminster, Grey received seven nominations, the first being to consider the bill for improving the country’s military capacity. He was appointed to confer with the Commons about the proposed joint petition for a general fast, and nominated to attend the king when the petition against recusants was presented. On 9 July he was added to the committee charged with considering the petition from prisoners in the Fleet requesting release on account of the plague. At Oxford he received a single appointment, for the bill to tighten up the 1606 legislation concerning recusancy.61 Procs. 1625, pp. 72 78, 104, 112, 174.

When the 1626 Parliament was summoned, Grey failed to exercise any electoral patronage in Northumberland, presumably an indication that his increasing absence from the county was reducing his local influence. For much of this session he attended the Lords intermittently, being excused on three occasions. However, he turned up for every sitting from late April to late May, the period when the attack on the duke of Buckingham was at its height, and as a result achieved a very respectable overall attendance record of 80 per cent.62 Procs. 1626, i. 99, 225, 558. Along the way, he received 15 appointments and made four recorded speeches. Much of his business concerned issues with which he was already associated. Named to consider the bill to improve the nation’s military preparedness, he was also nominated to the select committee set up to address the same issues. Because he had been a member of the equivalent committee in 1625, Grey was appointed to scrutinize the bill against recusancy, and he was further named to consider legislation on Sabbath abuses and disorders of the clergy. Once again, he was nominated to the bill committee concerned with wool exports.63 Ibid. 53, 110, 127, 231, 267, 300.

In August 1625 the Lords had authorized a collection for relief of poor Londoners affected by the plague, and Grey was now appointed to help perfect the accounts for this money. He certainly took a close interest in the bill to confirm the foundation of Sutton’s Hospital, which was located in the Charterhouse, and having been named to the committee on 8 Mar. he moved successfully two weeks later for the measure to be recommitted.64 Ibid. 128, 193, 258. Grey was also appointed to help investigate a complaint by Sir Thomas Monson^‡, that the former lord treasurer, Lionel Cranfield^*, 1st earl of Middlesex, had failed to pay him compensation awarded by the Lords in 1624 in connection with Middlesex’s impeachment.65 Ibid. 180-1; HP Commons, 1604-29, v. 356. Although Grey did not comment directly on the 1626 impeachment articles brought against the duke of Buckingham, he sided three times with the latter’s opponents in the Lords. On 25 Feb. he supported the proposal to limit the number of proxies which could be held by a single peer, a move intended to reduce Buckingham’s influence in the House. During the debate on 15 May on whether Sir Dudley Digges^‡ had made treasonable comments while presenting the impeachment charges to the upper House, Grey was apparently the first to refute this suggestion. A week later he was appointed to help examine the crown’s impeachment charges against Buckingham’s enemy, John Digby^*, 1st earl of Bristol.66 Procs. 1626, i. 72, 477, 482, 541.

Grey was not named to the initial commission for collecting the Forced Loan in Northumberland, being appointed only when the commissioners were augmented in early 1627. In the event he himself refused to pay this prerogative levy, though he could well afford to do so, and in June he was dismissed as a magistrate both in Middlesex and the north. He was also instructed in the following January to lend £500 to the crown.67 R. Cust, Forced Loan, 102; Lords Procs. 1628, p. 636; CSP Dom. Addenda, 1625-49, p. 727.

When Parliament met in 1628, the liberties of the subject were at the top of the agenda, and Grey was particularly assiduous in his attendance during the first session. Until late May he was missing on just three occasions, obtaining formal leave on each occasion, and attended 85 per cent of the sittings overall.68 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 120, 167, 358. This time he attracted 17 appointments, and, in a clear indication of his growing profile in the Lords, he was named to the standing committee for petitions. As usual Grey received several nominations relating to religion. Appointed to confer with the Commons about the proposed joint petition for a general fast, he was also named to bill committees concerning clergy funding and episcopal leases. Any personal Catholic leanings were evidently a thing of the past, for he was appointed both to help draft a petition to the king requesting full implementation of the laws against recusants, and to scrutinize a bill to prevent children from being educated abroad as Catholics.69 Ibid. 78-9, 96, 112, 389, 678. Another predictable nomination concerned the bill to improve the kingdom’s military readiness, while he was again named to consider the bill to confirm the foundation of Sutton’s Hospital. In addition he was included in a select committee to consider proposals tabled by Buckingham for increasing maritime trade.70 Ibid. 88, 146, 474.

Grey twice claimed parliamentary privilege during the session. On 23 June Cuthbert Proctor, probably a resident of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Northumberland, appeared at the bar to answer for his arrest of one of the peer’s servants. Grey also tried to halt Chancery proceedings in a suit between himself and a Northumberland gentleman, Sir Roger Grey. This matter was referred to the committee for privileges, but there was no clear outcome.71 Ibid. 499-500, 690, 692-3; LJ, iv. 37b.

Grey delivered all seven of his speeches when the liberties of the subject were under discussion. On 2 Apr. he criticized an Oxfordshire magistrate who had complied with martial law, arguing that the man had acted out of ‘fear of the [Privy] Council table, which is not to be suffered when parliaments are not altogether out of date’.72 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 140, 142. After Serjeant Francis Ashley^‡ claimed in a conference with the Commons that the royal prerogative should be left unchecked, Grey successfully called on 19 Apr. for him to be brought to the bar of the Lords to apologize for his unacceptable remarks.73 Ibid. 303. However, he found himself out of his depth when he confronted Buckingham directly. On 12 May a number of the duke’s critics, probably including Grey, tried to prevent discussion of the king’s recent declaration about the Petition of Right by leaving the chamber, claiming that the House had adjourned. After their departure, Buckingham forced a debate regardless, securing a vote in favour of Charles’s position. The next day Grey questioned the validity of that verdict, complaining that it was ‘not fairly carried’ by the peers who had stayed behind. The duke immediately demanded an explanation, whereupon Grey tried to claim that he had expressed himself badly, and had meant no offence. Buckingham refused to accept this excuse, and Grey was obliged to apologize.74 Ibid. 415-17. After this bruising encounter, it is not surprising that on 19 May Grey was one of six peers to back the earl of Bristol’s call for the king to restore to favour any lords who had displeased him by refusing to pay the Loan. Nevertheless, when Roger Manwaring^† (later bishop of St Davids) appeared at the bar of the Lords on 13 June on charges of preaching in support of arbitrary taxation, Grey accused him of ‘malicious seditions’, before stating his own reasons for refusing to pay the Loan.75 Ibid. 465, 636.

In the event, Grey’s plea for royal forgiveness was successful, and he was restored to the Northumberland and Middlesex benches in December 1628. He missed the opening three weeks of the 1629 parliamentary session, having probably been delayed in northern England, for the House was informed on 9 Feb. that he was still ‘coming up’. In his absence he was appointed to the standing committees for privileges and petitions.76 LJ, iv. 6a-b, 25a. Grey finally took his seat on 16 Feb., and subsequently received four appointments. Nominated to help deliver a petition to the king requesting financial assistance for Robert de Vere^*, the impoverished 19th earl of Oxford, he was also named to a select committee to survey the country’s shipping and munitions. In addition, he renewed his battle with Cuthbert Proctor, who was this time alleged to have ‘uttered divers idle and unfitting terms … against some of the lords’. On 21 Feb. the House ordered an investigation, but the matter was still pending when Parliament was dissolved. Proctor had his revenge 12 months later, when, in connection with a lawsuit between the two of them, he sought Grey’s arrest for contempt of court.77 Ibid. 34b, 37b; Coventry Docquets, 424.

Grey had clearly not entirely forsaken his northern estates, for in March 1629 he obtained permission to enclose a park at Chillingham, in what seems to have been the final phase of a general upgrading of his Northumberland seat. Nevertheless, he also made improvements at Isleworth, and around 1631 diverted a road there, presumably in pursuit of greater privacy.78 CSP Dom. 1628-9, p. 498; Watts, 175; Coventry Docquets, 253, 282. Grey remained on close terms with his Finch relatives, and in 1633 he became a trustee for the property of Viscountess Maidstone, by now countess of Winchilsea. In this capacity he acquired an interest in her Essex house, Epping Place, which he bought in 1635 from her heir, Thomas Finch^*, 2nd earl of Winchilsea, for the considerable sum of £21,500. This became his main home, and in 1636 he was added to the Essex bench.79 PROB 11/165, ff. 180, 182v; C54/3039/17; J.H. Holmes, ‘Epping Place’, Essex Arch. Soc. Trans. n.s. xxv. 329-30.

Grey can scarcely have endorsed the king’s ‘personal rule’ during this decade. He was targeted by the government in 1631 for failing to compound for knighthood, and when the crown cracked down in 1634 on peers who were wintering in London without royal permission, Grey was the first to be prosecuted. Although he seems mostly to have lived in retirement, by 1635 his circle included John Pym^‡, a strong indication that he had not lost his radical streak.80 PC2/41, f. 141v; Strafforde Letters, i. 337; C54/3039/17. It is unclear whether he responded in January 1639 when the king instructed him to return north to help resist the Scots.81 CSP Dom. 1638-9, pp. 366-7, 372, 385. However, he certainly attended the Great Council of the Peers at York in the autumn of 1640, doing his best to protect his Northumberland neighbours from the financial consequences of the English defeat in the second Bishops’ War.82 Misc. State Pprs. 1501-1726 (1778) ed. Hardwicke, ii. 216, 274, 283.

At the outbreak of the English Civil War Grey predictably sided with Parliament, though his performance as commander of the Eastern Association’s forces in 1642-3 was undistinguished.83 C. Holmes, Eastern Association in the Eng. Civil War, 55, 66, 69-70; HMC 7th Rep. 550-1. He also acted as Speaker of the residual House of Lords for two-and-a-half years, although he was briefly imprisoned by his fellow peers in July 1643 for refusing to help negotiate a military alliance with the Scots.84 LJ, vi. 122a, 124a, 134a-b, 148a. Despite this record, there were limits to his radicalism, for on being appointed to the new Council of State in February 1649, Grey questioned its legitimacy and refused to serve. Thereafter, he was appointed only to local commissions. Having successfully made his peace with Charles II at the Restoration, he apparently retained many of his offices until his death.85 CSP Dom. 1649-50, pp. 6, 9; 1660-1, p. 37. Grey was a firm presbyterian in later life, and the godly Protestant sentiments of his will, drafted on 2 Mar. 1672, contrasted sharply with his Catholic upbringing. He died in July 1674, and was buried at Epping. He was succeeded as 2nd Lord Grey by his son Ralph^†, who outlived him by less than a year.86 PROB 11/345, ff. 368v-9v; Hist. of Northumb. xiv. 328; CP, vi. 169.