THE GROSVENORS.
ENGLISH respectability culminates in the Grosvenors. As a family, they have in their long career done few striking acts, have furnished no great statesmen, yielded no orators, or generals, or admirals, or men of the highest rank, in any one department of life. But they have been steady, sensible men, who have done what they found to do efficiently, have never skulked from difficulties, and though given to accumulation have shown that they could on adequate occasion risk their properties for political principle. Consequently they have prospered, and having been lucky beyond measure in marriage and in the acqui- sition of a great Middlesex tract, are now the wealthiest family In Europe ; perhaps, due regard being had to security, the wealthiest uncrowned house on earth. The Lichtensteins have a throne, the Rothschilds are still exposed to the chances of the market, and there is no other family extant which certainly pos- sesses a larger income. The family, though from its want of great men it is never remembered as a feudal house, is still of con- siderable antiquity. The present branch dates, it is true, only from Heffry VI., in whose reign Sir Raufe le Gros- venor married the heiress of John Eton, of Eton (now spelt Eaton), in Cheshire, and acquired the manor round which the monstrous wealth of the House has gradually accreted. But he was the second son of Sir Thomas le Grosvenor, whose ancestry stretches away into the Scandinavian mist. Sir Thomas's eldest son had only daughters, and the patrimony was muddled away amongst co-heiresses ; but the second, whose marriage rebuilt the race, was of the same old stock. He claimed to descend from an uncle of Rollo, a fighting pagan of some mark, and peerage-makers are at liberty to admit his claim. As it involves, however, some particularly large assumptions, students of history will, in spite of Icelandic sagas, prefer the certainty that in the reign of Richard II. Sir Robert le Grosvenor, grandfather of the Eton bridegroom, fought a celebrated lawsuit with Sir Richard le Scrope, in which most of the English nobles gave their evidence. The Grosvenors said they were lineally descended from Gilbert le Grosvenor, nephew of Hugh Lupus, the great Earl of Chester (the man who gave the Percie.s Whitby), and affirmed that one Grosvenor was a crusader with Cceur de Lion, another served with Edward I. in Scotland, a third, Robert le Grosvenor, was with Edward III. at Cressy and the siege of Calais, all people respectably per- forming their duty. These "claims seem to have been generally admitted, and the House recognized as one of the "early Norman ;" but as the estates were chopped up for the co- heiresses, the race, but for Sir Raufe's marriage, would have disappeared from the surface. There he was, however, after his wife's death, circa 1465, Lord of Eyton, worth ten marks a year,
and lands in Burwardsley, Stockton, FIaugton, and Wigland, a burly country squire. His grandson Richard enriched this estate by marrying Catherine, one of the four co-heiresses of Richard Coton, or Cotton, of Rudivare-Ilfunpstall, in Staffordshire, a wealthy landowner in that county, and in Leicestershire, Derby- shire, and Cheshire ; and by the inquisition after the death of this Richard Grosvenor (34th of Henry VIII.) he held the manor of
Eton, the toll of the ferry, the fishery, a free boat, and forty messuages therein, as the twentieth part of a Knight's fee—. value, 26/. 13s. 4d. ; also lands in l3urwardsley, Hargreave, Hux- ley, Doddleston, Tussyngha.m, Bryndley, Stockton, Hampton, Wigland, and Oldcastle—total value, 46/. 11s. This fishery and ferry on the Dee are described more particularly in an early legal document, relating to one of the Eaton family, as "the serjeancy of Dee, from Eton Weir to Arnoldsheyre (a rock opposite Chester Castle, now called Arnold's Eye), by the service of clearing the river from all nets improperly placed there, and a moiety of all fish forfeited, and of the fish therein, as far as stall nets are placed, viz., from Dee Bridge to.Blakene, and from there to Arnoldsheyre to have one out of all the nets taken, and all the fish therein, and to have a ferry boat at Eton over the water, for which he shall be paid by the neighbours according to their pleasure, but shall receive from every stranger, if he has a horse and is a merchant, one halfpenny ; and if not a merchant, the payment to be at his option." Also toll from every " flote " at Eton, passing through his weir, "de prima knycke unum denarium, qui vocatur hachepeny, et de quaibet knydke sequente, unam quad- rantem," as well as waifs and wrecks on his manor of Eton, and two stall nets and two free boats on the Dee. This serjeantcy of the Dee, which must have produced much revenue, has• been laid claim to by the Grosvenors as lately as the end of the last century, and is one of the very few sources of profit the Grosvenors ever lost. His wife made this Richard father of five sons and eleven daughters, and their great grandson, also Richard, had also by one wife three sons and fourteen daughters, and as most of the ladies married well the Grosvenors became a very powerful connection. It may have been this tendency to multiply which made them so thrifty, for they grew as no other family ever did, and this Richard, whose forefathers since Cressy had done nothing of note, enjoyed in the 21st year of Elizabeth's reign the manor of Eton, with certain messuages, a free ferry, and the serjeantcy of the Dee, "by services unknown," from the Queen, as of her earldom of Chester ; and also the manors of Toshingham, Belgreave, and Thurca-ston, half the manor of Doddleston, and lands in Stockton, Droybayche, Wig- land, Stocklach, Hampton, Edge, Horton, Kyddington, Oldcastle, Hargrave, Burwardsley, Greenwall, Pulton, Pulford, Goistilow, Rowton, Oscrofte (this came from Catherine Cotton), Kynaston, Bromfield, Gresford, and Barton ; right of common in Burton, county Denbigh, and coal mines in Wrexham.
The House woke, however, out of its torpor with Richard the son of this wealthy squire. James I., in 1622, made him a baronet, and he sat as Knight of the Shire for Cheshire in the Parliaments of 18th James I. and 2nd and 3rd Charles I. In the latter he took a high position, and it would appear from a speech of his still extant that he was an able man and a zealous member of the Puritan party. The speech was delivered on 13th February, 1629, in a debate, in which Oliver Cromwell took past, on the pardons and preferments granted to divines condemned for Arminian doctrines, and preaching the divine right of kings.
Sir Richard seems to have acted up to his professions to his own hurt, for he became security for a brother-in-law, Peter Daniel, of Tabley, and involved himself so deeply that he was thrown into the Fleet, at the suit of one Bennet, and despite the "protection" of the King's Council he disappeared from the political stage—a sad termination for such promise. He did not die till 1645, but his son, Richard, the second baronet, long before his father's death took the lead of the family, and being of opposite politics raised the posse comitatus of Cheshire against Lord Fairfax. He lived and died a consistent upright Royalist, his estate was sequestrated, and he was turned out of Eton to live in a little house on the border of his own property. Even then Oliver Cromwell found BO much reason for suspicion in his conduct that he flung him into Chester Castle. His eldest son Roger, who died during his father's lifetime, was also an ardent Royalist, and the family might have perished, but, for some incomprehensible reason, Charles though the Grosvenors served him so well, befriended them: They regained all their property, and Roger was to have been one of the
Knights of the Royal Oak, when that project was abandoned for fear of excitiiii animosities. Roger was killed in a duel in 1661, but he had previously married Christian, a daughter of Sir Thomas Myddelton, of Chirk Castle, Denbigh, an active Presbyterian who became a Royalist. The family fortunes seem to have been little affected by Sir Richard's bonds, for Roger, during his father's life, had an income of 3,000/. a year, a sum which, though the rise of prices which distinguished the Tudor period had reached its maximum, was still very large. His son Sir Thomas, who suc- ceeded his grandfather as third baronet, represented Chester in Parliament during the reigns of Charles II., James II., and William III., and seems to have been a thoroughly honest, high- principled man.
"Sir Thomas was certainly at first supposed to be a warm sup- porter of the measures of the Crown, having been singled out by Jefferies as the foreman of a jury, who presented the necessity of requiring sureties of the peace from the principal Cheshire noble- men and gentlemen, who paid attention to the Duke of Monmouth in his prbgress through Cheshire ; and for that presentment Sir Thomas Grosvenor had afterwards an action of libel brought against him by the Earl of Macclesfield. On the bill for the repeal of the penal laws and test acts being brought into the House, he was closeted by the King on the subject, and his support of the measure was solicited, the royal request being accompanied with the offer of a peerage, and of the Earl of Shrewsbury4a regiment of horse, in which he then commanded a troop in the camp of Hounslow. On this occasion the constitutional principles of Sir Thomas Grosvenor were honourably developed ; the offers were rejected, he resigned the commission which he already held, and proceeding to the House gave his negative to the measure." He was Sheriff of Chester during the Revolution, and died in 1700, having first married in 1676 the third heiress who had en- riched the Groavenors. She was Mary, only child of A. Davies, of Ebury, a Middlesex proprietor, and brought to him an inheritance then valuable, now princely, viz., the huge slice of London on which the wealth of the house is now mainly based, and which in- cludes among other property the whole of the now fashionable region of Belgravia, Tyburnia, and Pimlico. His son, Sir Richard Grosve- nor, fourth baronet, sat for the city of Chester in the Parliaments of the 1st and 8th of George I. and the 1st of George II., in the latter of which he was associated with his younger brother, Thomas Grosvenor. He was Mayor of Chester in 1715, and at the coronation of George If. officiated as grand cupbearer to England, in right of his manor of 1Vymondley, in Hertfordshire. Though twice married he left no children, and was succeeded in the baronetcy by his next brother, Sir Thomas Grosvenor, who died unmarried at Naples in a consumption in 1733, and was succeeded by a third brother, Sir Robert Grosvenor, sixth baronet, who had sat along with him for Chester, being elected in the room of the fourth baronet. lie sat for the same city in four other Parliaments of the reign of George II., and was mayor of the city in 1737. He married Jane, the heiress of Thomas Warre, of Swell or Swill Court, and Shepton Beauchamp in Somersetshire and of Sandhall in Hampshire, and carved an estate out of this property for his younger son Thomas Grosvenor, who succeeded him as member for Chester. On his death in 1755, Sir Robert was succeeded in the baronetcy by his eldest son Sir Rich- ard Grosvenor (seventh baronet), who officiated as grand cupbearer at the coronation of George Ill., and was M.P. for Chester in 1754 and mayor of the city in 1759. In 1758 he purchased the manor of Eccleston, of which Belgrave was a hamlet, and was on 8th April, 1761, raised to the Peerage as Baron Grosvenor, Lord Bute having been gazetted Secretary of State a fortnight before. His domestic relations were, however, most unfortunate. He mar- ried in 1764 Henrietta, daughter of Henry Vernon of Hilton, Staffordshire, and, while still young and beautiful, Henry, the licentious Duke of Cumberland—that title seems to have branded the souls of all who bore it—pursued her. Lady Grosvenor's husband, Lord Stanhope observes, "it must be owned, offered her no small grounds of alienation. The Duke followed her secretly into Cheshire, meeting her in disguise, yet not unob- served, at various times and places. On the discovery which ensued, Lord Grosvenor, though from his own conduct hope- less of divorce, brought an action for criminal conversation, at which, for the first time, a Prince of the Blood appeared in the situation of defendant. The verdict was against him, and damages were awarded to the amount of 10,000/." The unhappy lady was, of course, immediately deserted by her royal admirer. In July, 1784, Pitt thought Lord Grosvenor useful enough and powerful enough to be promoted, and he made him Viscount 13elgrave a114 Earl Grosvenor. The family completely controlled Chester, sitting for it in Parliament as if the seat had been an estate ; but in return they were magnificent benefactors to the ancient city, whose gates they rebuilt, one in 1769 and the other a few years after. Robert, the second Earl, was as a member sufficiently conspicuous for a notice from Lord Stanhope, who, after observing that on the 12th of April, 1802, Sir Francis Burdett, in moving for a committee of the *hole House to inquire into the conduct of the late administration, "inveighed especially against Pitt, and arraigned with much bitterness the entire course of the war," continues :—" It may well be supposed that this attack was very offensive to the large majority of members who had supported Mr. Pitt in all his measures. Lord Belgrave became the mouthpiece of their indignation. He moved an amendment that, on the contrary, the thanks of the House should be given to the late ministers for their wise and salutary conduct throughout the war. The Opposition cried out that such a motion was contrary to the forms of Parliament; but the Speaker decided that it was regular, though very unusual, and that it might be put. But here Pitt rose. In his loftiest tone he said that he would not offer one word on the original motion, but he hoped he might be allowed to suggest that the amendment was certainly, for want of notice, against the general course of proceeding in the House, and that it ought to be withdrawn. Lord Belgrave did accordingly withdraw it, and after some further debate the House divided, and the motion of Sir F. Burdett was rejected by an immense majority. Upon this Lord Belgrave gave notice that he would, after the recess, bring forward a vote of thanks to the late administration. "But a second attack on Pitt being made on the 7th of May, by a Mr. Nicholls, who concluded by moving an address of thanks to the King for having been pleased to remove the Right Hon. W. Pitt from his councils," Lord Belgrave rose, "and pointed out that the foundation of the proposed address was entirely false. The King had not dismissed Mr. Pitt. That minister had of himself resigned." He then re stated the arguments he had urged in the former debate, and concluded by moving the amendment of which he had given notice. The amendment was vehemently opposed by Grey, Erskine, Fox, and Tierney ; and supported by Wilberforce, Sir Robert Peel, Lord Ilawkesbury, and Addington. On a division, Lord Belgrave's resolution was carried by a majority of 222 to 52. The Grosvenor family was therefore still, nominally at least, Tory.
This Lord Belgrave (second Earl Grosvenor) was a Lord of the Admiralty in 1789, Mayor of Chester in 1807, and Lord- Lieutenant of Flint, in which county the Grosvenoivi had now a seat called Halkin Hall. Their old luck with heiresses had not deserted them. The second Earl married Eleanor, heiress of Thomas, Earl of Wilton, the representative of one of the coheirs of the old Lords Grey of Wilton, of Border renown ; and the earldom of Wilton was, therefore, entailed on his second son Thomas, who has since succeeded to that title, and keeps up the old Tory politics of the Grosvenors.
Earl Grosvenor himself seems to have moved forward gradually to the Canning party, then took his side definitely with the Liberals, and on 13th of September, 1831, was raised to the rank of Marquis of Westminster. He was one of the few great Peers who strenuously supported the Reform Bill, and, on 7th October, 1831, he made in his place a speech containing the remarkable statement that he knew of his own knowledge that Mr. Pitt had never abandoned his desire for Parliamentary reform, that he saw in it the only chance of " salvation " for Great Britain, but that he had thought it useless to contend with the "borough-oligarchy." He never changed his views during the reaction which swept away so many great Peers, but, till his death in 1844, remained a con- sistent and strenuous Whig and supporter of the Grey and Melbourne administrations. An admirable man of business, an honest and consistent politician, his character was deformed only by a thrift, always more or less apparent in the family, which in him rose to a mania. The very rich in England are often very economical, for they are bred up with the idea that they are objects of incessant plunder ; we have been told on excellent authority that the late Sir Robert Peel would worry for an hour if he had forgotten his keys, and tradesmen know well that it is the nouveaux riches and not the aristocracy who pay exorbitant bills without inquiry. Still the thrift which gives rise to stories such as those told of the Marquis is unusual, and has done much to lower the great popularity of the House. On his death his eldest son Richard became Marquis, his second son Thomas was already Earl of Wilton, and on the elevation of his third son Robert to the barony of Ebury three brothers sat side by side as Peers of the realm. Chester, moreover, returns the future heir to the House of Commons, Flint sends up a cadet, and the family have a sort of
prescriptive claim to one seat for Middlesex. All are liked by the people as men who, though ennobled, have a sort of bourgeois respectability and aptitude for business, and, as the family wealth develops with every succeeding year, they may yet carve out more peerages without impoverishing the main stem. By every law of succession they cught now to develop some mad spendthrift ; but if they avert that danger, and can avoid internal disputes, they may by 1900 be better represented in the Peers than any family in the land. Their connection is enormous, for besides all other links with the great aristocracy Earl Grosvenor has married a daughter of the Gowers, and the group of brothers-in--law form a clan without a rival in Great Britain. So far have consistent respecta- bility, luck, and steady thrift brought up a Norman squire.
Previous page
