VOLUME XII SLICE III Gordon, Lord George to Grasses (continued 10)

GRANGE (through the A.-Fr. graunge, from the Med. Lat. granea, a place for storing grain, granum), properly a granary or barn. In the middle ages a “grange” was a detached portion of a manor with farm-houses and barns belonging to a lord or to a religious house; in it the crops could be conveniently stored for the purpose of collecting rent or tithe. Thus, such barns are often known as “tithe-barns.” In many cases a chapel was included among the buildings or stood apart as a separate edifice. The word is still used as a name for a superior kind of farm-house, or for a country-house which has farm-buildings and agricultural land attached to it.

Architecturally considered, the “grange” was usually a long building with high wooden roof, sometimes divided by posts or columns into a sort of nave and aisles, and with walls strongly buttressed. Sometimes these granges were of very great extent; one at St Leonards, Hampshire, was originally 225 ft. long by 75 ft. wide, and a still larger one (303 ft. long) existed at Chertsey. Ancient granges, or tithe-barns, still exist at Glastonbury, Bradford-on-Avon, St Mary’s Abbey, York, and at Coxwold. A fine example at Peterborough was pulled down at the end of the 19th century. In France there are many examples in stone of the 12th, 13th and 14th centuries; some divided into a central and two side aisles by arcades in stone. Externally granges are noticeable on account of their great roofs and the slight elevation of the eaves, from 8 to 10 ft. only in height. In the 15th century they were sometimes protected by moats and towers. At Ardennes in Normandy, where the grange was 154 ft. long; Vauclerc near Laon, Picardy, 246 ft. long and in two storeys; at Perrières, St Vigor, near Bayeux, and Ouilly near Falaise, all in Normandy; and at St Martin-au-Bois (Oise) are a series of fine examples. Attached to the abbey of Longchamps, near Paris, is one of the best-preserved granges in France, with walls in stone and internally divided into three aisles in oak timber of extremely fine construction.

In the social economic movement in the United States of America, which began in 1867 and was known as the “Farmers’ Movement,” “grange” was adopted as the name for a local chapter of the Order of the Patrons of Husbandry, and the movement is thus often known as the “Grangers’ Movement” (see Farmers’ Movement). There are a National Grange at Washington, supervising the local divisions, and state granges in most states.

GRANGEMOUTH, a police burgh and seaport of Stirlingshire, Scotland. Pop. (1901) 8386. It is situated on the south shore of the estuary of the Forth, at the mouth of the Carron and also of Grange Burn, a right-hand tributary of the Carron, 3 m. N.E. of Falkirk by the North British and Caledonian railways. It is the terminus of the Forth and Clyde Canal, from the opening of which (1789) its history may be dated. The principal buildings are the town hall (in the Greek style), public hall, public institute and free library, and there is a public park presented by the marquess of Zetland. Since 1810, when it became a head port, it has gradually attained the position of the chief port of the Forth west of Leith. The first dock (opened in 1846), the second (1859) and the third (1882) cover an area of 28 acres, with timber ponds of 44 acres and a total quayage of 2500 yards. New docks, 93 acres in extent, with an entrance from the firth, were opened in 1905 at a cost of more than £1,000,000. The works rendered it necessary to divert the influx of the Grange from the Carron to the Forth. Timber, pig-iron and iron ore are the leading imports, and coal, produce and iron the chief exports. The industries include shipbuilding, rope and sail making and iron founding. There is regular steamer communication with London, Christiania, Hamburg, Rotterdam and Amsterdam. Experiments in steam navigation were carried out in 1802 with the “Charlotte Dundas” on the Forth and Clyde Canal at Grangemouth. Kersa House adjoining the town on the S.W. is a seat of the marquess of Zetland.

GRANGER, JAMES (1723-1776), English clergyman and print-collector, was born in Dorset in 1723. He went to Oxford, and then entered holy orders, becoming vicar of Shiplake; but apart from his hobby of portrait-collecting, which resulted in the principal work associated with his name, and the publication of some sermons, his life was uneventful. Yet a new word was added to the language—“to grangerize”—on account of him. In 1769 he published in two quarto volumes a Biographical History of England “consisting of characters dispersed in different classes, and adapted to a methodical catalogue of engraved British heads”; this was “intended as an essay towards reducing our biography to a system, and a help to the knowledge of portraits.” The work was supplemented in later editions by Granger, and still further editions were brought out by the Rev. Mark Noble, with additions from Granger’s materials. Blank leaves were left for the filling in of engraved portraits for extra illustration of the text, and it became a favourite pursuit to discover such illustrations and insert them in a Granger, so that “grangerizing” became a term for such an extra-illustration of any work, especially with cuts taken from other books. The immediate result of the appearance of Granger’s own work was the rise in value of books containing portraits, which were cut out and inserted in collector’s copies.

GRANITE (adapted from the Ital. granito, grained; Lat. granum, grain), the group designation for a family of igneous rocks whose essential characteristics are that they are of acid composition (containing high percentages of silica), consist principally of quartz and felspar, with some mica, hornblende or augite, and are of holocrystalline or “granitoid” structure. In popular usage the term is given to almost any crystalline rock which resembles granite in appearance or properties. Thus syenites, diorites, gabbros, diabases, porphyries, gneiss, and even limestones and dolomites, are bought and sold daily as “granites.” True granites are common rocks, especially among the older strata of the earth’s crust. They have great variety in colour and general appearance, some being white or grey, while others are pink, greenish or yellow: this depends mainly on the state of preservation of their felspars, which are their most abundant minerals, and partly also on the relative proportion in which they contain biotite and other dark coloured silicates. Many granites have large rounded or angular crystals of felspar (Shap granite, many Cornish granites), well seen on polished faces. Others show an elementary foliation or banding (e.g. Aberdeen granite). Rounded or oval dark patches frequently appear in the granitic matrix of many Cornish rocks of this group.

In the field granite usually occurs in great masses, covering wide areas. These are generally elliptical or nearly circular and may be 20 m. in diameter or more. In the same district separate areas or “bosses” of granite may be found, all having much in common in their mineralogical and structural features, and such groups have probably all proceeded from the same focus or deep-seated source. Towards their margins these granite outcrops often show modifications by which they pass into diorite or syenite, &c.; they may also be finer grained (like porphyries) or rich in tourmaline, or intersected by many veins of pegmatite. From the main granite dikes or veins often run out into the surrounding rocks, thus proving that the granite is intrusive and has forced its way upwards by splitting apart the strata among which it lies. Further evidence of this is afforded by the alteration which the granite has produced through a zone which varies from a few yards to a mile or more in breadth around it. In the vicinity of intrusive granites slates become converted into hornfelses containing biotite, chiastolite or andalusite, sillimanite and a variety of other minerals; limestones recrystallize as marbles, and all rocks, according to their composition, are more or less profoundly modified in such a way as to prove that they have been raised to a high temperature by proximity to the molten intrusive mass. Where exposed in cliffs and other natural sections many granites have a rudely columnar appearance. Others weather into large cuboidal blocks which may produce structures resembling cyclopean masonry. The tors of the west of England are of this nature. These differences depend on the disposition of the joint cracks which traverse the rock and are opened up by the action of frost and weathering.

The majority of granites are so coarse in grain that their principal component minerals may be identified in the hand specimens by the unaided eye. The felspar is pearly, white or pink, with smooth cleaved surfaces; the quartz is usually transparent, glassy with rough irregular fractures; the micas appear as shining black or white flakes. Very coarse granites are called pegmatite or giant granite, while very fine granites are known as microgranites (though the latter term has also been applied to certain porphyries). Many granites show pearly scales of white mica; others contain dark green or black hornblende in small prisms. Reddish grains of sphene or of garnet are occasionally visible. In the tourmaline granites prisms of black schorl occur either singly or in stellate groups. The parallel banded structures of many granites, which may be original or due to crushing, connect these rocks with the granite gneisses or orthogneisses.

Under the microscope the felspar is mainly orthoclase with perthite or microcline, while a small amount of plagioclase (ranging from oligoclase to albite) is practically never absent. These minerals are often clouded by a deposit of fine mica and kaolin, due to weathering. The quartz is transparent, irregular in form, destitute of cleavage, and is filled with very small cavities which contain a fluid, a mobile bubble and sometimes a minute crystal. The micas, brown and white, are often in parallel growth. The hornblende of granites is usually pale green in section, the augite and enstatite nearly colourless. Tourmaline may be brown, yellow or blue, and often the same crystal shows zones of different colours. Apatite, zircon and iron oxides, in small crystals, are always present. Among the less common accessories may be mentioned pinkish garnets; andalusite in small pleochroic crystals; colourless grains of topaz; six-sided compound crystals of cordierite, which weather to dark green pinite; blue-black hornblende (riebeckite), beryl, tinstone, orthite and pyrites.

The sequence of crystallization in the granites is of a normal type, and may be ascertained by observing the perfection with which the different minerals have crystallized and the order in which they enclose one another. Zircon, apatite and iron oxides are the first; their crystals are small, very perfect and nearly free from enclosures; they are followed by hornblende and biotite; if muscovite is present it succeeds the brown mica. Of the felspars the plagioclase separates first and forms well-shaped crystals of which the central parts may be more basic than the outer zones. Last come orthoclase, quartz, microcline and micropegmatite, which fill up the irregular spaces left between the earlier minerals. Exceptions to this sequence are unusual; sometimes the first of the felspars have preceded the hornblende or biotite which may envelop them in ophitic manner. An earlier generation of felspar, and occasionally also of quartz, may be represented by large and perfect crystals of these minerals giving the rock a porphyritic character.

Many granites have suffered modification by the action of vapours emitted during cooling. Hydrofluoric and boric emanations exert a profound influence on granitic rocks; their felspar is resolved into aggregates of kaolin, muscovite and quartz; tourmaline appears, largely replacing the brown mica; topaz also is not uncommon. In this way the rotten granite or china stone, used in pottery, originates; and over considerable areas kaolin replaces the felspar and forms valuable sources of china clay. Veins of quartz, tourmaline and chlorite may traverse the granite, containing tinstone often in workable quantities. These veins are the principal sources of tin in Cornwall, but the same changes may appear in the body of the granite without being restricted to veins, and tinstone occurs also as an original constituent of some granite pegmatites.

Granites may also be modified by crushing. Their crystals tend to lose their original forms and to break into mosaics of interlocking grains. The latter structure is very well seen in the quartz, which is a brittle mineral under stress. White mica develops in the felspars. The larger crystals are converted into lenticular or elliptical “augen,” which may be shattered throughout or may have a peripheral seam of small detached granules surrounding a still undisintegrated core. Streaks of “granulitic” or pulverized material wind irregularly through the rock, giving it a roughly foliated character.

The interesting structural variation of granite in which there are spheroidal masses surrounded by a granitic matrix is known as “orbicular granite.” The spheroids range from a fraction of an inch to a foot in diameter, and may have a felspar crystal at the centre. Around this there may be several zones, alternately lighter and darker in colour, consisting of the essential minerals of the rock in different proportions. Radiate arrangement is sometimes visible in the crystals of the whole or part of the spheroid. Spheroidal granites of this sort are found in Sweden, Finland, Ireland, &c. In other cases the spheroids are simply dark rounded lumps of biotite, in fine scales. These are probably due to the adhesion of the biotite crystals to one another as they separated from the rock magma at an early stage in its crystallization. The Rapakiwi granites of Finland have many round or ovoidal felspar crystals scattered through a granitic matrix. These larger felspars have no crystalline outlines and consist of orthoclase or microcline surrounded by borders of white oligoclase. Often they enclose dark crystals of biotite and hornblende, arranged zonally. Many of these granites contain tourmaline, fluorite and monazite. In most granite masses, especially near their contacts with the surrounding rocks, it is common to find enclosures of altered sedimentary or igneous materials which are more or less dissolved and permeated by the granitic magma.

The chemical composition of a few granites from different parts of the world is given below:—

SiO2. Al2O3. Fe2O3. FeO. MgO. CaO. Na2O. K2O.

I. 74.69 16.21 .. 1.16 0.48 0.28 1.18 3.64

II. 71.33 11.18 3.96 1.45 0.88 2.10 3.51 3.49

III. 72.93 13.87 1.94 0.79 0.51 0.74 3.68 3.74

IV. 76.12 12.18 1.21 0.72 1.12 1.54 2.55 3.21

V. 73.90 13.65 0.28 0.42 0.14 0.23 2.53 7.99

VI. 68.87 16.62 0.43 2.72 1.60 0.71 1.80 6.48

I. Carn Brea, Cornwall (Phillips); II. Mazaruni, Brit. Guiana (Harrison); III. Rödö, near Alnö, Vesternorrland, Sweden (Holmquist); IV. Abruzzen, a group of hills in the Riesengebirge (Milch); V. Pikes Peak, Colorado (Matthews); VI. Wilson’s Creek, near Omeo, Victoria (Howitt).

Only the most important components are shown in the table, but all granites contain also small amounts of zirconia, titanium oxide, phosphoric acid, sulphur, oxides of barium, strontium, manganese and water. These are in all cases less than 1%, and usually much less than this, except the water, which may be 2 or 3% in weathered rocks. From the chemical composition it may be computed that granites contain, on an average, 35 to 55% of quartz, 20 to 30% of orthoclase, 20 to 30% of plagioclase felspar (including the albite of microperthite) and 5 to 10% of ferromagnesian silicates and minor accessories such as apatite, zircon, sphene and iron oxides. The aplites, pegmatites, graphic granites and muscovite granites are usually richest in silica, while with increase of biotite and hornblende, augite and enstatite the analyses show the presence of more magnesia, iron and lime.

In the weathering of granite the quartz suffers little change; the felspar passes into dull cloudy, soft aggregates of kaolin, muscovite and secondary quartz, while chlorite, quartz and calcite replace the biotite, hornblende and augite. The rock often assumes a rusty brown colour from the liberation of the oxides of iron, and the decomposed mass is friable and can easily be dug with a spade; where the granite has been cut by joint planes not too close together weathering proceeds from their surfaces and large rounded blocks may be left embedded in rotted materials. The amount of water in the rock increases and part of the alkalis is carried away in solution; they form valuable sources of mineral food to plants. The chemical changes are shown by the following analyses:

H2O. SiO2. TiO2. Al2O3. FeO. Fe2O3. CaO. MgO. Na2O. K2O. P2O5.

I. 1.22 69.33 n.d. 14.33 3.60 .. 3.21 2.44 2.70 2.67 0.10

II. 3.27 66.82 n.d. 15.62 1.69 1.88 3.13 2.76 2.58 2.44 n.d.

III. 4.70 65.69 0.31 15.23 .. 4.39 2.63 2.64 2.12 2.00 0.06

Analyses of I., fresh grey granite; II. brown moderately firm granite; III. residual sand, produced by the weathering of the same mass (anal. G. P. Merrill).

The differences are surprisingly small and are principally an increase in the water and a diminution in the amount of alkalis and lime together with the oxidation of the ferrous oxide.

(J. S. F.)

GRAN SASSO D’ITALIA (“Great Rock of Italy”), a mountain of the Abruzzi, Italy, the culminating point of the Apennines, 9560 ft. in height. In formation it resembles the limestone Alps of Tirol and there are on its elevated plateaus a number of doline or funnel-shaped depressions into which the melted snow and the rain sink. The summit is covered with snow for the greater part of the year. Seen from the Adriatic, Monte Corno, as it is sometimes called, from its resemblance to a horn, affords a magnificent spectacle; the Alpine region beneath its summit is still the home of the wild boar, and here and there are dense woods of beech and pine. The group has numerous other lofty peaks, of which the chief are the Pizzo d’Intermesole (8680 ft.), the Corno Piccolo (8650 ft.), the Pizzo Cefalone (8307 ft.) and the Monte della Portella (7835 ft.). The most convenient starting-point for the ascent is Assergi, 10 m. N.E. of Aquila, at the S. foot of the Gran Sasso. The Italian Alpine Club has erected a hut S.W. of the principal summit, and has published a special guidebook (E. Abbate, Guida al Gran Sasso d’ Italia, Rome, 1888). The view from the summit extends to the Tyrrhenian Sea on the west and the mountains of Dalmatia on the east in clear weather. The ascent was first made in 1794 by Orazio Delfico from the Teramo side. In Assergi is the interesting church of Sta. Maria Assunta, dating from 1150, with later alterations (see Gavini, in L’ Arte, 1901, 316, 391).

GRANT, SIR ALEXANDER, 8th Bart. (1826-1884), British scholar and educationalist, was born in New York on the 13th of September 1826. After a childhood spent in the West Indies, he was educated at Harrow and Oxford. He entered Oxford as scholar of Balliol, and subsequently held a fellowship at Oriel from 1849 to 1860. He made a special study of the Aristotelian philosophy, and in 1857 published an edition of the Ethics (4th ed. 1885) which became a standard text-book at Oxford. In 1855 he was one of the examiners for the Indian Civil Service, and in 1856 a public examiner in classics at Oxford. In the latter year he succeeded to the baronetcy. In 1859 he went to Madras with Sir Charles Trevelyan, and was appointed inspector of schools; the next year he removed to Bombay, to fill the post of Professor of History and Political Economy in the Elphinstone College. Of this he became Principal in 1862; and, a year later, vice-chancellor of Bombay University, a post he held from 1863 to 1865 and again from 1865 to 1868. In 1865 he took upon himself also the duties of Director of Public Instruction for Bombay Presidency. In 1868 he was appointed a member of the Legislative Council. In the same year, upon the death of Sir David Brewster, he was appointed Principal of Edinburgh University, which had conferred an honorary LL.D. degree upon him in 1865. From that time till his death (which occurred in Edinburgh on the 30th of November 1884) his energies were entirely devoted to the well-being of the University. The institution of the medical school in the University was almost solely due to his initiative; and the Tercentenary Festival, celebrated in 1884, was the result of his wisely directed enthusiasm. In that year he published The Story of the University of Edinburgh during its First Three Hundred Years. He was created Hon. D.C.L. of Oxford in 1880, and an honorary fellow of Oriel College in 1882.

GRANT, ANNE (1755-1838), Scottish writer, generally known as Mrs Grant of Laggan, was born in Glasgow, on the 21st of February 1755. Her childhood was spent in America, her father, Duncan MacVicar, being an army officer on service there. In 1768 the family returned to Scotland, and in 1779 Anne married James Grant, an army chaplain, who was also minister of the parish of Laggan, near Fort Augustus, Inverness, where her father was barrack-master. On her husband’s death in 1801 she was left with a large family and a small income. In 1802 she published by subscription a volume of Original Poems, with some Translations from the Gaelic, which was favourably received. In 1806 her Letters from the Mountains, with their spirited description of Highland scenery and legends, awakened much interest. Her other works are Memoirs of an American Lady, with Sketches of Manners and Scenery in America as they existed previous to the Revolution (1808), containing reminiscences of her childhood; Essays on the Superstitions of the Highlanders of Scotland (1811); and Eighteen Hundred and Thirteen, a Poem (1814). In 1810 she went to live in Edinburgh. For the last twelve years of her life she received a pension from government. She died on the 7th of November 1838.

See Memoir and Correspondence of Mrs Grant of Laggan, edited by her son J. P. Grant (3 vols., 1844).

GRANT, CHARLES (1746-1823), British politician, was born at Aldourie, Inverness-shire, on the 16th of April 1746, the day on which his father, Alexander Grant, was killed whilst fighting for the Jacobites at Culloden. When a young man Charles went to India, where he became secretary, and later a member of the board of trade. He returned to Scotland in 1790, and in 1802 was elected to parliament as member for the county of Inverness. In the House of Commons his chief interests were in Indian affairs, and he was especially vigorous in his hostility to the policy of the Marquess Wellesley. In 1805 he was chosen chairman of the directors of the East India Company and he retired from parliament in 1818. A friend of William Wilberforce, Grant was a prominent member of the evangelical party in the Church of England; he was a generous supporter of the church’s missionary undertakings. He was largely responsible for the establishment of the East India college, which was afterwards erected at Haileybury. He died in London on the 31st of October 1823. His eldest son, Charles, was created a peer in 1835 as Baron Glenelg.

See Henry Morris, Life of Charles Grant (1904).

GRANT, SIR FRANCIS (1803-1878), English portrait-painter, fourth son of Francis Grant of Kilgraston, Perthshire, was born at Edinburgh in 1803. He was educated for the bar, but at the age of twenty-four he began at Edinburgh systematically to study the practice of art. On completing a course of instruction he removed to London, and as early as 1843 exhibited at the Royal Academy. At the beginning of his career he utilized his sporting experiences by painting groups of huntsmen, horses and hounds, such as the “Meet of H.M. Staghounds” and the “Melton Hunt”; but his position in society gradually made him a fashionable portrait-painter. In drapery he had the taste of a connoisseur, and rendered the minutest details of costume with felicitous accuracy. In female portraiture he achieved considerable success, although rather in depicting the high-born graces and external characteristics than the true personality. Among his portraits of this class may be mentioned Lady Glenlyon, the marchioness of Waterford, Lady Rodney and Mrs Beauclerk. In his portraits of generals and sportsmen he proved himself more equal to his subjects than in those of statesmen and men of letters. He painted many of the principal celebrities of the time, including Scott, Macaulay, Lockhart, Disraeli, Hardinge, Gough, Derby, Palmerston and Russell, his brother Sir J. Hope Grant and his friend Sir Edwin Landseer. From the first his career was rapidly prosperous. In 1842 he was elected an associate of the Royal Academy, and in 1851 an Academician; and in 1866 he was chosen to succeed Sir C. Eastlake in the post of president, for which his chief recommendations were his social distinction, tact, urbanity and friendly and liberal consideration of his brother artists. Shortly after his election as president he was knighted, and in 1870 the degree of D.C.L. was conferred upon him by the university of Oxford. He died on the 5th of October 1878.

GRANT, GEORGE MONRO (1835-1902), principal of Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, was born in Nova Scotia in 1835. He was educated at Glasgow university, where he had a brilliant academic career; and having entered the ministry of the Presbyterian Church, he returned to Canada and obtained a pastoral charge in Halifax, Nova Scotia, which he held from 1863 to 1877. He quickly gained a high reputation as a preacher and as an eloquent speaker on political subjects. When Canada was confederated in 1867 Nova Scotia was the province most strongly opposed to federal union. Grant threw the whole weight of his great influence in favour of confederation, and his oratory played an important part in securing the success of the movement. When the consolidation of the Dominion by means of railway construction was under discussion in 1872, Grant travelled from the Atlantic to the Pacific with the engineers who surveyed the route of the Canadian Pacific railway, and his book Ocean to Ocean (1873) was one of the first things that opened the eyes of Canadians to the value of the immense heritage they enjoyed. He never lost an opportunity, whether in the pulpit or on the platform, of pressing on his hearers that the greatest future for Canada lay in unity with the rest of the British Empire; and his broad statesman-like judgment made him an authority which politicians of all parties were glad to consult. In 1877 Grant was appointed principal of Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, which through his exertions and influence expanded from a small denominational college into a large and influential educational centre; and he attracted to it an exceptionally able body of professors whose influence in speculation and research was widely felt during the quarter of a century that he remained at its head. In 1888 he visited Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, the effect of this experience being to strengthen still further the Imperialism which was the guiding principle of his political opinions. On the outbreak of the South African War in 1899 Grant was at first disposed to be hostile to the policy of Lord Salisbury and Mr Chamberlain; but his eyes were soon opened to the real nature of President Kruger’s government, and he enthusiastically welcomed and supported the national feeling which sent men from the outlying portions of the Empire to assist in upholding British supremacy in South Africa. Grant did not live to see the conclusion of peace, his death occurring at Kingston on the 10th of May 1902. At the time of his death The Times observed that “it is acknowledged on all hands that in him the Dominion has lost one of the ablest men that it has yet produced.” He was the author of a number of works, of which the most notable besides Ocean to Ocean are, Advantages of Imperial Federation (1889), Our National Objects and Aims (1890), Religions of the World in Relation to Christianity (1894) and volumes of sermons and lectures. Grant married in 1872 Jessie, daughter of William Lawson of Halifax.

GRANT, JAMES (1822-1887), British novelist, was born in Edinburgh on the 1st of August 1822. His father, John Grant, was a captain in the 92nd Gordon Highlanders and had served through the Peninsular War. For several years James Grant was in Newfoundland with his father, but in 1839 he returned to England, and entered the 62nd Foot as an ensign. In 1843 he resigned his commission and devoted himself to writing, first magazine articles, but soon a profusion of novels, full of vivacity and incident, and dealing mainly with military scenes and characters. His best stories, perhaps, were The Romance of War (his first, 1845), Bothwell (1851), Frank Hilton; or, The Queen’s Own (1855), The Phantom Regiment and Harry Ogilvie (1856), Lucy Arden (1858), The White Cockade (1867), Only an Ensign (1871), Shall I Win Her? (1874), Playing with Fire (1887). Grant also wrote British Battles on Land and Sea (1873-1875) and valuable books on Scottish history. Permanent value attaches to his great work, in three volumes, on Old and New Edinburgh (1880). He was the founder and energetic promoter of the National Association for the Vindication of Scottish Rights. In 1875 he became a Roman Catholic. He died on the 5th of May 1887.

GRANT, JAMES AUGUSTUS (1827-1892), Scottish explorer of eastern equatorial Africa, was born at Nairn, where his father was the parish minister, on the 11th of April 1827. He was educated at the grammar school and Marischal College, Aberdeen, and in 1846 joined the Indian army. He saw active service in the Sikh War (1848-49), served throughout the mutiny of 1857, and was wounded in the operations for the relief of Lucknow. He returned to England in 1858, and in 1860 joined J. H. Speke (q.v.) in the memorable expedition which solved the problem of the Nile sources. The expedition left Zanzibar in October 1860 and reached Gondokoro, where the travellers were again in touch with civilization, in February 1863. Speke was the leader, but Grant carried out several investigations independently and made valuable botanical collections. He acted throughout in absolute loyalty to his comrade. In 1864 he published, as supplementary to Speke’s account of their journey, A Walk across Africa, in which he dealt particularly with “the ordinary life and pursuits, the habits and feelings of the natives” and the economic value of the countries traversed. In 1864 he was awarded the patron’s medal of the Royal Geographical Society, and in 1866 given the Companionship of the Bath in recognition of his services in the expedition. He served in the intelligence department of the Abyssinian expedition of 1868; for this he was made C.S.I. and received the Abyssinian medal. At the close of the war he retired from the army with the rank of lieutenant-colonel. He had married in 1865, and he now settled down at Nairn, where he died on the 11th of February 1892. He made contributions to the journals of various learned societies, the most notable being the “Botany of the Speke and Grant Expedition” in vol. xxix. of the Transactions of the Linnaean Society.

GRANT, SIR JAMES HOPE (1808-1875), English general, fifth and youngest son of Francis Grant of Kilgraston, Perthshire, and brother of Sir Francis Grant, P.R.A., was born on the 22nd of July 1808. He entered the army in 1826 as cornet in the 9th Lancers, and became lieutenant in 1828 and captain in 1835. In 1842 he was brigade-major to Lord Saltoun in the Chinese War, and specially distinguished himself at the capture of Chin-Kiang, after which he received the rank of major and the C.B. In the first Sikh War of 1845-46 he took part in the battle of Sobraon; and in the Punjab campaign of 1848-49 he commanded the 9th Lancers, and won high reputation in the battles of Chillianwalla and Guzerat (Gujarat). He was promoted brevet lieutenant-colonel and shortly afterwards to the same substantive rank. In 1854 he became brevet-colonel, and in 1856 brigadier of cavalry. He took a leading part in the suppression of the Indian mutiny of 1857, holding for some time the command of the cavalry division, and afterwards of a movable column of horse and foot. After rendering valuable service in the operations before Delhi and in the final assault on the city, he directed the victorious march of the cavalry and horse artillery despatched in the direction of Cawnpore to open up communication with the commander-in-chief Sir Colin Campbell, whom he met near the Alambagh, and who raised him to the rank of brigadier-general, and placed the whole force under his command during what remained of the perilous march to Lucknow for the relief of the residency. After the retirement towards Cawnpore he greatly aided in effecting there the total rout of the rebel troops, by making a detour which threatened their rear; and following in pursuit with a flying column, he defeated them with the loss of nearly all their guns at Serai Ghat. He also took part in the operations connected with the recapture of Lucknow, shortly after which he was promoted to the rank of major-general, and appointed to the command of the force employed for the final pacification of India, a position in which his unwearied energy, and his vigilance and caution united to high personal daring, rendered very valuable service. Before the work of pacification was quite completed he was created K.C.B. In 1859 he was appointed, with the local rank of lieutenant-general, to the command of the British land forces in the united French and British expedition against China. The object of the campaign was accomplished within three months of the landing of the forces at Pei-tang (1st of August 1860). The Taku Forts had been carried by assault, the Chinese defeated three times in the open and Peking occupied. For his conduct in this, which has been called the “most successful and the best carried out of England’s little wars,” he received the thanks of parliament and was gazetted G.C.B. In 1861 he was made lieutenant-general and appointed commander-in-chief of the army of Madras; on his return to England in 1865 he was made quartermaster-general at headquarters; and in 1870 he was transferred to the command of the camp at Aldershot, where he took a leading part in the reform of the educational and training systems of the forces, which followed the Franco-German War. The introduction of annual army manœuvres was largely due to Sir Hope Grant. In 1872 he was gazetted general. He died in London on the 7th of March 1875.

Incidents in the Sepoy War of 1857-58, compiled from the Private Journal of General Sir Hope Grant, K.C.B., together with some explanatory chapters by Capt. H. Knollys, Royal Artillery, was published in 1873, and Incidents in the China War of 1860 appeared posthumously under the same editorship in 1875.

GRANT, SIR PATRICK (1804-1895), British field marshal, was the second son of Major John Grant, 97th Foot, of Auchterblair, Inverness-shire, where he was born on the 11th of September 1804. He entered the Bengal native infantry as ensign in 1820, and became captain in 1832. He served in Oudh from 1834 to 1838, and raised the Hariana Light Infantry. Employed in the adjutant-general’s department of the Bengal army from 1838 until 1854, he became adjutant-general in 1846. He served under Sir Hugh Gough at the battle of Maharajpur in 1843, winning a brevet majority, was adjutant-general of the army at the battles of Moodkee in 1845 (twice severely wounded), and of Ferozshah and Sobraon in 1846, receiving the C.B. and the brevet rank of lieutenant-colonel. He took part in the battles of Chillianwalla and Gujarat in 1849, gaining further promotion, and was appointed aide-de-camp to the queen. He served also in Kohat in 1851 under Sir Charles Napier. Promoted major-general in 1854, he was commander-in-chief of the Madras army from 1856 to 1861. He was made K.C.B. in 1857, and on General Anson’s death was summoned to Calcutta to take supreme command of the army in India. From Calcutta he directed the operations against the mutineers, sending forces under Havelock and Outram for the relief of Cawnpore and Lucknow, until the arrival of Sir Colin Campbell from England as commander-in-chief, when he returned to Madras. On leaving India in 1861 he was decorated with the G.C.B. He was promoted lieutenant-general in 1862, was governor of Malta from 1867 to 1872, was made G.C.M.G. in 1868, promoted general in 1870, field marshal in 1883 and colonel of the Royal Horse Guards and gold-stick-in-waiting to the queen in 1885. He married as his second wife, in 1844, Frances Maria, daughter of Sir Hugh (afterwards Lord) Gough. He was governor of the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, from 1874 until his death there on the 28th of March 1895.

GRANT, ROBERT (1814-1892), British astronomer, was born at Grantown, Scotland, on the 17th of June 1814. At the age of thirteen the promise of a brilliant career was clouded by a prolonged illness of such a serious character as to incapacitate him from all school-work for six years. At twenty, however, his health greatly improved, and he set himself resolutely, without assistance, to repair his earlier disadvantages by the diligent study of Greek, Latin, Italian and mathematics. Astronomy also occupied his attention, and it was stimulated by the return of Halley’s comet in 1835, as well as by his success in observing the annular eclipse of the sun of the 15th of May 1836. After a short course at King’s College, Aberdeen, he obtained in 1841 employment in his brother’s counting-house in London. During this period the idea occurred to him of writing a history of physical astronomy. Before definitely beginning the work he had to search, amongst other records, those of the French Academy, and for that purpose took up his residence in Paris in 1845, supporting himself by giving lessons in English. He returned to London in 1847. The History of Physical Astronomy from the Earliest Ages to the Middle of the Nineteenth Century was first published in parts in The Library of Useful Knowledge, but after the issue of the ninth part this mode of publication was discontinued, and the work appeared as a whole in 1852. The main object of the work is, in the author’s words, “to exhibit a view of the labours of successive inquirers in establishing a knowledge of the mechanical principles which regulate the movements of the celestial bodies, and in explaining the various phenomena relative to their physical constitution which observation with the telescope has disclosed.” The lucidity and completeness with which a great variety of abstruse subjects were treated, the extent of research and the maturity of judgment it displayed, were the more remarkable, when it is remembered that this was the first published work of one who enjoyed no special opportunities, either for acquiring materials, or for discussing with others engaged in similar pursuits the subjects it treats of. The book at once took a leading place in astronomical literature, and earned for its author in 1856 the award of the Royal Astronomical Society’s gold medal. In 1859 he succeeded John Pringle Nichol as professor of astronomy in the University of Glasgow. From time to time he contributed astronomical papers to the Monthly Notices, Astronomische Nachrichten, Comptes rendus and other scientific serials; but his principal work at Glasgow consisted in determining the places of a large number of stars with the Ertel transit-circle of the Observatory. The results of these labours, extending over twenty-one years, are contained in the Glasgow Catalogue of 6415 Stars, published in 1883. This was followed in 1892 by the Second Glasgow Catalogue of 2156 Stars, published a few weeks after his death, which took place on the 24th of October 1892.

See Month. Notices Roy. Astr. Society, liii., 210 (E. Dunkin); Nature, Nov. 10, 1892; The Times, Nov. 2, 1892; Roy. Society’s Catalogue of Scient. Papers.

(A. A. R.*)

GRANT, ULYSSES SIMPSON (1822-1885), American soldier, and eighteenth president of the United States, was born at Point Pleasant, Ohio, on the 27th of April 1822. He was a descendant of Matthew Grant, a Scotchman, who settled in Dorchester, Massachusetts, in 1630. His earlier years were spent in helping his father, Jesse R. Grant, upon his farm in Ohio. In 1839 he was appointed to a place in the military academy at West Point, and it was then that his name assumed the form by which it is generally known. He was christened Hiram, after an ancestor, with Ulysses for a middle name. As he was usually called by his middle name, the congressman who recommended him for West Point supposed it to be his first name, and added thereto the name of his mother’s family, Simpson. Grant was the best horseman of his class, and took a respectable place in mathematics, but at his graduation in 1843 he only ranked twenty-first in a class of thirty-nine. In September 1845 he went with his regiment to join the forces of General Taylor in Mexico; there he took part in the battles of Palo Alto, Resaca de la Palma and Monterey, and, after his transfer to General Scott’s army, which he joined in March 1847, served at Vera Cruz, Cerro Gordo, Churubusco, Molino del Rey and at the storming of Chapultepec. He was breveted first lieutenant for gallantry at Molino del Rey and captain for gallantry at Chapultepec. In August 1848, after the close of the war, he married Julia T. Dent (1826-1902), and was for a while stationed in California and Oregon, but in 1854 he resigned his commission. His reputation in the service had suffered from allegations of intemperate drinking, which, whether well founded or not, certainly impaired his usefulness as a soldier. For the next six years he lived in St Louis, Missouri, earning a scanty subsistence by farming and dealings in real estate. In 1860 he removed to Galena, Illinois, and became a clerk in a leather store kept by his father. At that time his earning capacity seems not to have exceeded $800 a year, and he was regarded by his friends as a broken and disappointed man. He was living at Galena at the outbreak of hostilities between the North and South.

[For the history of the Civil War, and of Grant’s battles and campaigns, the reader is referred to the article American Civil War. To the “call to arms” of 1861 Grant promptly responded. After some delay he was commissioned Grant’s Civil War career. colonel of the 21st Illinois regiment and soon afterwards brigadier-general. He was shortly assigned to a territorial command on the Mississippi, and first won distinction by his energy in seizing, on his own responsibility, the important point of Paducah, Kentucky, situated at the confluence of the two great waterways of the Tennessee and the Ohio (6th Sept. 1861). On the 7th of November he fought his first battle as a commander, that of Belmont (Missouri), which, if it failed to achieve any material result, certainly showed him to be a capable and skilful leader. Early in 1862 he was entrusted by General H. W. Halleck with the command of a large force to clear the lower reaches of the Cumberland and the Tennessee, and, whatever criticism may be passed on the general strategy of the campaign, Grant himself, by his able and energetic work, thoroughly deserved the credit of his brilliant success of Fort Donelson, where 15,000 Confederates were forced to capitulate. Grant and his division commanders were promoted to the rank of major-general U.S.V. soon afterwards, but Grant’s own fortunes suffered a temporary eclipse owing to a disagreement with Halleck. When, after being virtually under arrest, he rejoined his army, it was concentrated about Savannah on the Tennessee, preparing for a campaign towards Corinth, Miss. On the 6th of April 1862 a furious assault on Grant’s camps brought on the battle of Shiloh (q.v.). After two days’ desperate fighting the Confederates withdrew before the combined attack of the Army of the Tennessee under Grant and the Army of the Ohio under Buell. But the Army of the Tennessee had been on the verge of annihilation on the evening of the first day, and Grant’s leadership throughout was by no means equal to the emergency, though he displayed his usual personal bravery and resolution. In the grand advance of Halleck’s armies which followed Shiloh, Grant was relieved of all important duties by his assignment as second in command of the whole force, and was thought by the army at large to be in disgrace. But Halleck soon went to Washington as general-in-chief, and Grant took command of his old army and of Rosecrans’ Army of the Mississippi. Two victories (Iuka and Corinth) were won in the autumn of 1862, but the credit of both fell to Rosecrans, who commanded in the field, and the nadir of Grant’s military fortunes was reached when the first advance on Vicksburg (q.v.), planned on an unsound basis, and complicated by a series of political intrigues (which had also caused the adoption of the original scheme), collapsed after the minor reverses of Holly Springs and Chickasaw Bayou (December 1862).

It is fair to assume that Grant would have followed other unsuccessful generals into retirement, had he not shown that, whatever his mistakes or failures, and whether he was or was not sober and temperate in his habits, he possessed the iron determination and energy which in the eyes of Lincoln and Stanton,1 and of the whole Northern people, was the first requisite of their generals. He remained then with his army near Vicksburg, trying one plan after another without result, until at last after months of almost hopeless work his perseverance was crowned with success—a success directly consequent upon a strange and bizarre campaign of ten weeks, in which his daring and vigour were more conspicuous than ever before. On the 4th of July 1863 the great fortress surrendered with 29,491 men, this being one of the most important victories won by the Union arms in the whole war. Grant was at once made a major-general in the regular army. A few months later the great reverse of Chickamauga created an alarm in the North commensurate with the elation that had been felt at the double victory of Vicksburg and Gettysburg, and Grant was at once ordered to Chattanooga, to decide the fate of the Army of the Cumberland in a second battle. Four armies were placed under his command, and three of these concentrated at Chattanooga. On the 25th of November 1863 a great three-days’ battle ended with the crushing defeat of the Confederates, who from this day had no foothold in the centre and west.

After this, in preparation for a grand combined effort of all the Union forces, Grant was placed in supreme command, and the rank of lieutenant-general revived for him (March 1864). Grant’s headquarters henceforth accompanied the Army of the Potomac, and the lieutenant-general directed the campaign in Virginia. This, with Grant’s driving energy infused into the best army that the Union possessed, resolved itself into a series, almost uninterrupted, of terrible battles. Tactically the Confederates were almost always victorious, strategically, Grant, disposing of greatly superior forces, pressed back Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia to the lines of Richmond and Petersburg, while above all, in pursuance of his explicit policy of “attrition,” the Federal leader used his men with a merciless energy that has few, if any, parallels in modern history. At Cold Harbor six thousand men fell in one useless assault lasting an hour, and after two months the Union armies lay before Richmond and Petersburg indeed, but had lost no fewer than 72,000 men. But Grant was unshaken in his determination. “I purpose to fight it out on this line, if it takes all summer,” was his message from the battlefield of Spottsylvania to the chief of staff at Washington. Through many weary months he never relaxed his hold on Lee’s army, and, in spite of repeated partial reverses, that would have been defeats for his predecessors, he gradually wore down his gallant adversary. The terrible cost of these operations did not check him: only on one occasion of grave peril were any troops sent from his lines to serve elsewhere, and he drew to himself the bulk of the men whom the Union government was recruiting by thousands for the final effort. Meanwhile all the other campaigns had been closely supervised by Grant, preoccupied though he was with the operations against his own adversary. At a critical moment he actually left the Virginian armies to their own commanders, and started to take personal command in a threatened quarter, and throughout he was in close touch with Sherman and Thomas, who conducted the campaigns on the south-east and the centre. That he succeeded in the efficient exercise of the chief command of armies of a total strength of over one million men, operating many hundreds of miles apart from each other, while at the same time he watched and manœuvred against a great captain and a veteran army in one field of the war, must be the greatest proof of Grant’s powers as a general. In the end complete success rewarded the sacrifices and efforts of the Federals on every theatre of war; in Virginia, where Grant was in personal control, the merciless policy of attrition wore down Lee’s army until a mere remnant was left for the final surrender.

Grant had thus brought the great struggle to an end, and was universally regarded as the saviour of the Union. A careful study of the history of the war thoroughly bears out the popular view. There were soldiers more accomplished, as was McClellan, more brilliant, as was Rosecrans, and more exact, as was Buell, but it would be difficult to prove that these generals, or indeed any others in the service, could have accomplished the task which Grant brought to complete success. Nor must it be supposed that Grant learned little from three years’ campaigning in high command. There is less in common than is often supposed between the buoyant energy that led Grant to Shiloh and the grim plodding determination that led him to Vicksburg and to Appomattox. Shiloh revealed to Grant the intensity of the struggle, and after that battle, appreciating to the full the material and moral factors with which he had to deal, he gradually trained his military character on those lines which alone could conduce to ultimate success. Singleness of purpose, and relentless vigour in the execution of the purpose, were the qualities necessary to the conduct of the vast enterprise of subduing the Confederacy. Grant possessed or acquired both to such a degree that he proved fully equal to the emergency. If in technical finesse he was surpassed by many of his predecessors and his subordinates, he had the most important qualities of a great captain, courage that rose higher with each obstacle, and the clear judgment to distinguish the essential from the minor issues in war.—(C. F. A.)]

After the assassination of President Lincoln a disposition was shown by his successor, Andrew Johnson, to deal severely with the Confederate leaders, and it was understood that indictments for treason were to be brought against General Lee and others. Grant, however, insisted that the United States government was bound by the terms accorded to Lee and his army at Appomattox. He went so far as to threaten to resign his commission if the president disregarded his protest. This energetic action on Grant’s part saved the United States from a foul stain upon its escutcheon. In July 1866 the grade of general was created, for the first time since the organization of the government, and Grant was promoted to that position. In the following year he became involved in the deadly quarrel between President Johnson and Congress. To tie the president’s hands Congress had passed the Tenure of Office Act, forbidding the president to remove any cabinet officer without the consent of the Senate; but in August 1867 President Johnson suspended Secretary Stanton and appointed Grant secretary of war ad interim until the pleasure of the Senate should be ascertained. Grant accepted the appointment under protest, and held it until the following January, when the Senate refused to confirm the president’s action, and Secretary Stanton resumed his office. President Johnson was much disgusted at the readiness with which Grant turned over the office to Stanton, and a bitter controversy ensued between Johnson and Grant. Hitherto Grant had taken little part in politics. The only vote which he had ever cast for a presidential candidate was in 1856 for Presidency, 1868. James Buchanan; and leading Democrats, so late as the beginning of 1868, hoped to make him their candidate in the election of that year; but the effect of the controversy with President Johnson was to bring Grant forward as the candidate of the Republican party. At the convention in Chicago on the 20th of May 1868 he was unanimously nominated on the first ballot. The Democratic party nominated the one available Democrat who had the smallest chance of beating him—Horatio Seymour, lately governor of New York, an excellent statesman, but at that time hopeless as a candidate because of his attitude during the war. The result of the contest was at no time in doubt; Grant received 214 electoral votes and Seymour 80.

The most important domestic event of Grant’s first term as president was the adoption of the fifteenth amendment to the Constitution on the 30th of March 1870, providing that suffrage throughout the United States should not be restricted on account of race, colour or previous condition of servitude. The most important event in foreign policy was the treaty with Great Britain of the 8th of May 1871, commonly known as the Treaty of Washington, whereby several controversies between the United States and Great Britain, including the bitter questions as to damage inflicted upon the United States by the “Alabama” and other Confederate cruisers built and equipped in England, were referred to arbitration. In 1869 the government of Santo Domingo (or the Dominican Republic) expressed a wish for annexation by the United States, and such a step was favoured by Grant, but a treaty negotiated with this end in view failed to obtain the requisite two-thirds vote in the Senate. In May 1872 something was done towards alleviating the odious Reconstruction laws for dragooning the South, which had been passed by Congress in spite of the vetoes of President Johnson. The Amnesty Bill restored civil rights to all persons in the South, save from 300 to 500 who had held high positions under the Confederacy. As early as 1870 President Grant recommended measures of civil service reform, and succeeded in obtaining an act authorizing him to appoint a Civil Service commission. A commission was created, but owing to the hostility of the politicians in Congress it accomplished little. During the fifty years since Crawford’s Tenure of Office Act was passed in 1820, the country had been growing more and more familiar with the spectacle of corruption in high places. The evil rose to alarming proportions during Grant’s presidency, partly because of the immense extension of the civil service, partly because of the growing tendency to alliance between spoilsmen and the persons benefited by protective tariffs, and partly because the public attention was still so much absorbed in Southern affairs that little energy was left for curbing rascality in the North. The scandals, indeed, were rife in Washington, and affected persons in close relations with the president. Grant was ill-fitted for coping with the difficulties of such a situation. Along with high intellectual powers in certain directions, he had a simplicity of nature charming in itself, but often calculated to render him the easy prey of sharpers. He found it almost impossible to believe that anything could be wrong in persons to whom he had given his friendship, and on several occasions such friends proved themselves unworthy of him. The feeling was widely prevalent in the spring of 1872 that the interests of pure government in the United States demanded that President Grant should not be elected to a second term. This feeling led a number of high-minded gentlemen to form themselves into an organization under the name of Liberal Republicans. They held a convention at Cincinnati in May with the intention of nominating for the presidency Charles Francis Adams, who had ably represented the United States at the court of St James’s during the Civil War. The convention, was, however, captured by politicians who converted the whole affair into a farce by nominating Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune, who represented almost anything rather than the object for which the convention had been called together. The Democrats had despaired of electing a candidate of their own, and hoped to achieve success by adopting the Cincinnati nominee, should he prove to be an eligible person. The event showed that while their defeat in 1868 had taught them despondency, it had not taught them wisdom; it was still in their power to make a gallant fight by nominating a person for whom Republican reformers could vote. But with almost incredible fatuity, they adopted Greeley as their candidate. As a natural result Grant was re-elected by an overwhelming majority.

The most important event of his second term was his veto of the Inflation Bill in 1874 followed by the passage of the Resumption Act in the following year. The country was still labouring under the curse of an inconvertible Second presidency. paper currency originating with the Legal Tender Act of 1862. There was a considerable party in favour of debasing the currency indefinitely by inflation, and a bill with that object was passed by Congress in April 1874. It was promptly vetoed by President Grant, and two months later he wrote a very sensible letter to Senator J. P. Jones of Nevada advocating a speedy return to specie payments. The passage of the Resumption Act in January 1875 was largely due to his consistent advocacy, and for these measures he deserves as high credit as for his victories in the field. In spite of these great services, popular dissatisfaction with the Republican party rapidly increased during the years 1874-1876. The causes were twofold: firstly, there was great dissatisfaction with the troubles in the Southern states, owing to the harsh Reconstruction laws and the robberies committed by the carpet-bag governments which those laws kept in power; secondly, the scandals at Washington, comprising wholesale frauds on the public revenue, awakened lively disgust. In some cases the culprits were so near to President Grant that many persons found it difficult to avoid the suspicion that he was himself implicated, and never perhaps was his hold upon popular favour so slight as in the summer and autumn of 1876.

After the close of his presidency in the spring of 1877 Grant started on a journey round the world, accompanied by his wife and one son. He was received with distinguished honours in England and on the continent of Europe, Later life. whence he made his way to India, China and Japan. After his return to America in September 1880 he went back to his old home in Galena, Illinois. A faction among the managers of the Republican party attempted to secure his nomination for a third term as president, and in the convention at Chicago in June 1880 he received a vote exceeding 300 during 36 consecutive ballots. Nevertheless, his opponents made such effective use of the popular prejudice against third terms that the scheme was defeated, and Garfield was named in his stead. In August 1881 General Grant bought a house in the city of New York. His income was insufficient for the proper support of his family, and accordingly he had become partner in a banking house in which one of his sons was interested along with other persons. The name of the firm was Grant and Ward. The ex-president invested in it all his available property, but paid no attention to the management of the business. His facility in giving his confidence to unworthy people was now to be visited with dire calamity. In 1884 the firm became bankrupt, and it was discovered that two of the partners had been perpetrating systematic and gigantic frauds. This severe blow left General Grant penniless, just at the time when he was beginning to suffer acutely from the disease which finally caused his death. Down to this time he had never made any pretensions to literary skill or talent, but on being approached by the Century Magazine with a request for some articles he undertook the work in order to keep the wolf from the door. It proved a congenial task, and led to the writing of his Personal Memoirs, a frank, modest and charming book, which ranks among the best standard military biographies. The sales earned for the general and his family something like half a million dollars. The circumstances in which it was written made it an act of heroism comparable with any that Grant ever showed as a soldier. During most of the time he was suffering tortures from cancer in the throat, and it was only four days before his death that he finished the manuscript. In the spring of 1885 Congress passed a bill creating him a general on the retired list; and in the summer he was removed to a cottage at Mount M’Gregor, near Saratoga, where he passed the last five weeks of his life, and where he died on the 23rd of July 1885. His body was placed in a temporary tomb in Riverside Drive, in New York City, overlooking the Hudson river.2

Grant showed many admirable and lovable traits. There was a charming side to his trustful simplicity, which was at times almost like that of a sailor set ashore. He abounded in kindliness and generosity, and if there was anything especially difficult for him to endure, it was the sight of human suffering, as was shown on the night at Shiloh, where he lay out of doors in the icy rain rather than stay in a comfortable room where the surgeons were at work. His good sense was strong, as well as his sense of justice, and these qualities stood him in good service as president, especially in his triumphant fight against the greenback monster. Altogether, in spite of some shortcomings, Grant was a massive, noble and lovable personality, well fit to be remembered as one of the heroes of a great nation.

(J. Fi.)

General Grant’s son, Frederick Dent Grant (b. 1850), graduated at the U.S. Military Academy in 1871, was aide-de-camp to General Philip Sheridan in 1873-1881, and resigned from the army in 1881, after having attained the rank of lieutenant-colonel. He was U.S. minister to Austria in 1889-1893, and police commissioner of New York city in 1894-1898. He served as a brigadier-general of volunteers in the Spanish-American War of 1898, and then in the Philippines, becoming brigadier-general in the regular army in February 1901 and major-general in February 1906.

Bibliography.—Adam Badeau’s Military History of U. S. Grant (3 vols., New York, 1867-1881), and Grant in Peace (Hartford, 1887), are appreciative but lacking in discrimination. William Conant Church’s Ulysses S. Grant and the Period of National Preservation and Reconstruction (New York, 1897) is a good succinct account. Hamlin Garland’s Ulysses S. Grant, His Life and Character (New York, 1898) gives especial attention to the personal traits of Grant and abounds in anecdote. See also Grant’s Personal Memoirs (2 vols., New York, 1885-1886); J. G. Wilson’s Life and Public Services of U. S. Grant (New York, 1886); J. R. Young’s Around the World with General Grant (New York, 1880); Horace Porter’s Campaigning with Grant (New York, 1897); James Ford Rhodes’s History of the United States (vols. iii.-vii., New York, 1896-1906); James K. Hosmer’s Appeal to Arms and Outcome of the Civil War (New York, 1907); John Eaton’s Grant, Lincoln, and the Freedmen (New York, 1907), and various works mentioned in the articles American Civil War, Wilderness Campaign, &c.

1 President Lincoln was Grant’s most unwavering supporter. Many amusing stories are told of his replies to various deputations which waited upon him to ask for Grant’s removal. On one occasion he asked the critics to ascertain the brand of whisky favoured by Grant, so that he could send kegs of it to the other generals. The question of Grant’s abstemiousness was and is of little importance. The cause at stake over-rode every prejudice and the people of the United States, since the war, have been in general content to leave the question alone, as was evidenced by the outcry raised in 1908, when President Taft reopened it in a speech at Grant’s tomb.

2 The permanent tomb is of white granite and white marble and is 150 ft. high with a circular cupola topping a square building 90 ft. on the side and 72 ft. high; the sarcophagus, in the centre of the building, is of red Wisconsin porphyry. The cornerstone was laid by President Harrison in 1892, and the tomb was dedicated on the 27th of April 1897 with a splendid parade and addresses by President McKinley and General Horace Porter, president of the Grant Monument Association, which from 90,000 contributions raised the funds for the tomb.

GRANT (from A.-Fr. graunter, O. Fr. greanter for creanter, popular Lat. creantare, for credentare, to entrust, Lat. credere, to believe, trust), originally permission, acknowledgment, hence the gift of privileges, rights, &c., specifically in law, the transfer of property by an instrument in writing, termed a deed of grant. According to the old rule of common law, the immediate freehold in corporeal hereditaments lay in livery (see Feoffment), whereas incorporeal hereditaments, such as a reversion, remainder, advowson, &c., lay in grant, that is, passed by the delivery of the deed of conveyance or grant without further ceremony. The distinction between property lying in livery and in grant is now abolished, the Real Property Act 1845 providing that all corporeal tenements and hereditaments shall be transferable as well by grant as by livery (see Conveyancing). A grant of personal property is properly termed an assignment or bill of sale.

GRANTH, the holy scriptures of the Sikhs, containing the spiritual and moral teaching of Sikhism (q.v.). The book is called the Adi Granth Sahib by the Sikhs as a title of respect, because it is believed by them to be an embodiment of the gurus. The title is generally applied to the volume compiled by the fifth guru Arjan, which contains the compositions of Guru Nanak, the founder of the Sikh religion; of his successors, Guru Angad, Amar Das, Ram Das and Arjan; hymns of the Hindu bhagats or saints, Jaidev, Namdev, Trilochan, Sain, Ramanand, Kabir, Rai Das, Pipa, Bhikhan, Beni, Parmanand Das, Sur Das, Sadhna and Dhanna Jat; verses of the Mahommedan saint called Farid; and panegyrics of the gurus by bards who either attended them or admired their characters. The compositions of the ninth guru, Teg Bahadur, were subsequently added to the Adi Granth by Guru Govind Singh. One recension of the sacred volume preserved at Mangat in the Gujrat district contains a hymn composed by Mira Bai, queen of Chitor. The Adi Granth contains passages of great picturesqueness and beauty. The original copy is said to be in Kartarpur in the Jullundur district, but the chief copy in use is now in the Har Mandar or Golden Temple at Amritsar, where it is daily read aloud by the attendant Granthis or scripture readers.

There is also a second Granth which was compiled by the Sikhs in 1734, and popularly known as the Granth of the tenth Guru, but it has not the same authority as the Adi Granth. It contains Guru Govind Singh’s Jāpji, the Akāl Ustit or Praise of the Creator, thirty-three sawaias (quatrains containing some of the main tenets of the guru and strong reprobation of idolatry and hypocrisy), and the Vachitar Natak or wonderful drama, in which the guru gives an account of his parentage, divine mission and the battles in which he was engaged. Then come three abridged translations by different hands of the Devi Mahatamya, an episode in the Markandeya Puran, in praise of Durga, the goddess of war. Then follow the Gyan Parbodh or awakening of knowledge, accounts of twenty-four incarnations of the deity, selected because of their warlike character; the Hazare de Shabd; the Shastar Nam Mala, which is a list of offensive and defensive weapons used in the guru’s time, with special reference to the attributes of the Creator; the Tria Charitar or tales illustrating the qualities, but principally the deceit of women; the Kabit, compositions of a miscellaneous character; the Zafarnama containing the tenth guru’s epistle to the emperor Aurangzeb, and several metrical tales in the Persian language. This Granth is only partially the composition of the tenth guru. The greater portion of it was written by bards in his employ.

The two volumes are written in several different languages and dialects. The Adi Granth is largely in old Punjabi and Hindi, but Prakrit, Persian, Mahratti and Gujrati are also represented. The Granth of the Tenth Guru is written Form of the Granth. in the old and very difficult Hindi affected by literary men in the Patna district in the 16th century. In neither of these sacred volumes is there any separation of words. As there is no separation of words in Sanskrit, the gyanis or interpreters of the guru’s hymns prefer to follow the ancient practice of junction of words. This makes the reading of the Sikh scriptures very difficult, and is one of the causes of the decline of the Sikh religion.

The hymns in the Adi Granth are arranged not according to the gurus or bhagats who compose them, but according to rags or musical measures. There are thirty-one such measures in the Adi Granth, and the hymns are arranged according to the measures to which they are composed. The gurus who composed hymns, namely the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and ninth gurus, all used the name Nanak as their nom-de-plume. Their compositions are distinguished by mahallas or wards. Thus the compositions of Guru Nanak are styled mahalla one, the compositions of Guru Angad are styled mahalla two, and so on. After the hymns of the gurus are found the hymns of the bhagats under their several musical measures. The Sikhs generally dislike any arrangement of the Adi Granth by which the compositions of each guru or bhagat should be separately shown.

All the doctrines of the Sikhs are found set forth in the two Granths and in compositions called The Sikh doctrines. Rahit Namas and Tanakhwah Namas, which are believed to have been the utterances of the tenth guru. The cardinal principle of the sacred books is the unity of God, and starting from this premiss the rejection of idolatry and superstition. Thus Guru Govind Singh writes:

“Some worshipping stones, put them on their heads; Some suspend lingams from their necks; Some see the God in the South; some bow their heads to the West. Some fools worship idols, others busy themselves with worshipping the dead. The whole world entangled in false ceremonies hath not found God’s secret.”

Next to the unity of God comes the equality of all men in His sight, and so the abolition of caste distinctions. Guru Nanak says:

“Caste hath no power in the next world; there is a new order of beings, Those whose accounts are honoured are the good.”

The concremation of widows, though practised in later times by Hinduized Sikhs, is forbidden in the Granth. Guru Arjan writes:

“She who considereth her beloved as her God, Is the blessed sati who shall be acceptable in God’s Court.”

It is a common belief that the Sikhs are allowed to drink wine and other intoxicants. This is not the case. Guru Nanak wrote:

“By drinking wine man committeth many sins.”

Guru Arjan wrote:

“The fool who drinketh evil wine is involved in sin.”

And in the Rahit Nama of Bhai Desu Singh there is the following:

“Let a Sikh take no intoxicant; it maketh the body lazy; it diverteth men from their temporal and spiritual duties, and inciteth them to evil deeds.”

It is also generally believed that the Sikhs are bound to abstain from the flesh of kine. This, too, is a mistake, arising from the Sikh adoption of Hindu usages. The two Granths of the Sikhs and all their canonical works are absolutely silent on the subject. The Sikhs are not bound to abstain from any flesh, except that which is obviously unfit for human food, or what is killed in the Mahommedan fashion by jagging an animal’s throat with a knife. This flesh-eating practice is one of the main sources of their physical strength. Smoking is strictly prohibited by the Sikh religion. Guru Teg Bahadur preached to his host as follows:

“Save the people from the vile drug, and employ thyself in the service of Sikhs and holy men. When the people abandon the degrading smoke and cultivate their lands, their wealth and prosperity shall increase, and they shall want for nothing ... but when they smoke the vile vegetable, they shall grow poor and lose their wealth.”

Guru Govind Singh also said:

“Wine is bad, bhang destroyeth one generation, but tobacco destroyeth all generations.”

In addition to these prohibitions Sikhism inculcates most of the positive virtues of Christianity, and specially loyalty to rulers, a quality which has made the Sikhs valuable servants of the British crown.

The Granth was translated by Dr Trumpp, a German missionary, on behalf of the Punjab government in 1877, but his rendering is in many respects incorrect, owing to insufficient knowledge of the Punjabi dialects. The Sikh Religion, &c., in 6 vols. (London, 1909) is an authoritative version prepared by M. Macauliffe, in concert with the modern leaders of the Sikh sect.

(M. M.)

GRANTHAM, THOMAS ROBINSON, 1st Baron (c. 1695-1770), English diplomatist and politician, was a younger son of Sir William Robinson, Bart. (1655-1736) of Newby, Yorkshire, who was member of parliament for York from 1697 to 1722. Having been a scholar and minor fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, Thomas Robinson gained his earliest diplomatic experience in Paris and then went to Vienna, where he was English ambassador from 1730 to 1748. During 1741 he sought to make peace between the empress Maria Theresa and Frederick the Great, but in vain, and in 1748 he represented his country at the congress of Aix-la-Chapelle. Returning to England he sat in parliament for Christchurch from 1749 to 1761. In 1754 Robinson was appointed a secretary of state and leader of the House of Commons by the prime minister, the duke of Newcastle, and it was on this occasion that Pitt made the famous remark to Fox, “the duke might as well have sent us his jackboot to lead us.” In November 1755 he resigned, and in April 1761 he was created Baron Grantham. He was master of the wardrobe from 1749 to 1754 and again from 1755 to 1760, and was joint postmaster-general in 1765 and 1766. He died in London on the 30th of September 1770.

Grantham’s elder son, Thomas Robinson (1738-1786), who became the 2nd baron, was born at Vienna on the 30th of November 1738. Educated at Westminster School and at Christ’s College, Cambridge, he entered parliament as member for Christchurch in 1761, and succeeded to the peerage in 1770. In 1771 he was sent as ambassador to Madrid and retained this post until war broke out between England and Spain in 1779. From 1780 to 1782 Grantham was first commissioner of the board of trade and foreign plantations, and from July 1782 to April 1783 secretary for the foreign department under Lord Shelburne. He died on the 20th of July 1786, leaving two sons, Thomas Philip, who became the 3rd baron, and Frederick John afterwards 1st earl of Ripon.

Thomas Philip Robinson, 3rd Baron Grantham (1781-1859). in 1803 took the name of Weddell instead of that of Robinson. In May 1833 he became Earl de Grey of Wrest on the death of his maternal aunt, Amabell Hume-Campbell, Countess de Grey (1751-1833), and he now took the name of de Grey. He was first lord of the admiralty under Sir Robert Peel in 1834-1835 and from 1841 to 1844 lord-lieutenant of Ireland. On his death without male issue his nephew, George Frederick Samuel Robinson, afterwards marquess of Ripon (q.v.), succeeded as Earl de Grey.

GRANTHAM, a municipal and parliamentary borough of Lincolnshire, England; situated in a pleasant undulating country on the river Witham. Pop. (1901) 17,593. It is an important junction of the Great Northern railway, 105 m. N. by W. from London, with branch lines to Nottingham, Lincoln and Boston; while there is communication with Nottingham and the Trent by the Grantham canal. The parish church of St Wulfram is a splendid building, exhibiting all the Gothic styles, but mainly Early English and Decorated. The massive and ornate western tower and spire, about 280 ft. in height, are of early Decorated workmanship. There is a double Decorated crypt beneath the lady chapel. The north and south porches are fine examples of a later period of the same style. The delicately carved font is noteworthy. Two libraries, respectively of the 16th and 17th centuries, are preserved in the church. At the King Edward VI. grammar school Sir Isaac Newton received part of his education. A bronze statue commemorates him. The late Perpendicular building is picturesque, and the school was greatly enlarged in 1904. The Angel Hotel is a hostelry of the 15th century, with a gateway of earlier date. A conduit dating from 1597 stands in the wide market-place. Modern public buildings are a gild hall, exchange hall, and several churches and chapels. The Queen Victoria Memorial home for nurses was erected in 1902-1903. The chief industries are malting and the manufacture of agricultural implements. Grantham returns one member to parliament. The borough falls within the S. Kesteven or Stamford division of the county. Grantham was created a suffragan bishopric in the diocese of Lincoln in 1905. The municipal borough is under a mayor, 4 aldermen and 12 councillors. Area, 1726 acres.

Although there is no authentic evidence of Roman occupation, Grantham (Graham, Granham in Domesday Book) from its situation on the Ermine Street, is supposed to have been a Roman station. It was possibly a borough in the Saxon period, and by the time of the Domesday Survey it was a royal borough with 111 burgesses. Charters of liberties existing now only in the confirmation charter of 1377 were granted by various kings. From the first the town was governed by a bailiff appointed by the lord of the manor, but by the end of the 14th century the office of alderman had come into existence. Finally government under a mayor and alderman was granted by Edward IV. in 1463, and Grantham became a corporate town. Among later charters, that of James II., given in 1685, changed the title to that of government by a mayor and 6 aldermen, but this was afterwards reversed and the old order resumed. Grantham was first represented in parliament in 1467, and returned two members; but by the Redistribution Act of 1885 the number was reduced to one. Richard III. in 1483 granted a Wednesday market and two fairs yearly, namely on the feast of St Nicholas the Bishop, and the two following days, and on Passion Sunday and the day following. At the present day the market is held on Saturday, and fairs are held on the Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday following the fifth Sunday in Lent; a cherry fair on the 11th of July and two stock fairs on the 26th of October and the 17th of December.

GRANTLEY, FLETCHER NORTON, 1st Baron (1716-1789), English politician, was the eldest son of Thomas Norton of Grantley, Yorkshire, where he was born on the 23rd of June 1716. He became a barrister in 1739, and, after a period of inactivity, obtained a large and profitable practice, becoming a K.C. in 1754, and afterwards attorney-general for the county palatine of Lancaster. In 1756 he was elected member of parliament for Appleby; he represented Wigan from 1761 to 1768, and was appointed solicitor-general for England and knighted in 1762. He took part in the proceedings against John Wilkes, and, having become attorney-general in 1763, prosecuted the 5th Lord Byron for the murder of William Chaworth, losing his office when the marquess of Rockingham came into power in July 1765. In 1769, being now member of parliament for Guildford, Norton became a privy councillor and chief justice in eyre of the forests south of the Trent, and in 1770 was chosen Speaker of the House of Commons. In 1777, when presenting the bill for the increase of the civil list to the king, he told George III. that parliament has “not only granted to your majesty a large present supply, but also a very great additional revenue; great beyond example; great beyond your majesty’s highest expense.” This speech aroused general attention and caused some irritation; but the Speaker was supported by Fox and by the city of London, and received the thanks of the House of Commons. George, however, did not forget these plain words, and after the general election of 1780, the prime minister, Lord North, and his followers declined to support the re-election of the retiring Speaker, alleging that his health was not equal to the duties of the office, and he was defeated when the voting took place. In 1782 he was made a peer as Baron Grantley of Markenfield. He died in London on the 1st of January 1789. He was succeeded as Baron Grantley by his eldest son William (1742-1822). Wraxall describes Norton as “a bold, able and eloquent, but not a popular pleader,” and as Speaker he was aggressive and indiscreet. Derided by satirists as “Sir Bullface Doublefee,” and described by Horace Walpole as one who “rose from obscure infamy to that infamous fame which will long stick to him,” his character was also assailed by Junius, and the general impression is that he was a hot-tempered, avaricious and unprincipled man.

See H. Walpole, Memoirs of the Reign of George III., edited by G. F. R. Barker (1894); Sir N. W. Wraxall, Historical and Posthumous Memoirs, edited by H. B. Wheatley (1884); and J. A. Manning, Lives of the Speakers (1850).

GRANTOWN, the capital of Speyside, Elginshire, Scotland. Pop. (1901) 1568. It lies on the left bank of the Spey, 23¼ m. S. of Forres by the Highland railway, with a station on the Great North of Scotland’s Speyside line connecting Craigellachie with Boat of Garten. It was founded in 1776 by Sir James Grant of Grant, and became the chief seat of that ancient family, who had lived on their adjoining estate of Freuchie (Gaelic, fraochach, “heathery”) since the beginning of the 15th century, and hence were usually described as the lairds of Freuchie. The public buildings include the town hall, court house and orphan hospital; and the industries are mainly connected with the cattle trade and the distilling of whisky. The town, built of grey granite, presents a handsome appearance, and being delightfully situated in the midst of the most beautiful pine and birch woods in Scotland, with pure air and a bracing climate, is an attractive resort. Castle Grant, immediately to the north, is the principal mansion of the earl of Seafield, the head of the Clan Grant. In a cave, still called “Lord Huntly’s Cave,” in a rocky glen in the vicinity, George, marquess of Huntly, lay hid during Montrose’s campaign in 1644-45.

GRANULITE (Lat. granulum, a little grain), a name used by petrographers to designate two distinct classes of rocks. According to the terminology of the French school it signifies a granite in which both kinds of mica (muscovite and biotite) occur, and corresponds to the German Granit, or to the English “muscovite biotite granite.” This application has not been accepted generally. To the German petrologists “granulite” means a more or less banded fine-grained metamorphic rock, consisting mainly of quartz and felspar in very small irregular crystals, and containing usually also a fair number of minute rounded pale-red garnets. Among English and American geologists the term is generally employed in this sense. The granulites are very closely allied to the gneisses, as they consist of nearly the same minerals, but they are finer grained, have usually less perfect foliation, are more frequently garnetiferous, and have some special features of microscopic structure. In the rocks of this group the minerals, as seen in a microscopic slide, occur as small rounded grains forming a mosaic closely fitted together. The individual crystals have never perfect form, and indeed rarely any traces of it. In some granulites they interlock, with irregular borders; in others they have been drawn out and flattened into tapering lenticles by crushing. In most cases they are somewhat rounded with smaller grains between the larger. This is especially true of the quartz and felspar which are the predominant minerals; mica always appears as flat scales (irregular or rounded but not hexagonal). Both muscovite and biotite may be present and vary considerably in abundance; very commonly they have their flat sides parallel and give the rock a rudimentary schistosity, and they may be aggregated into bands—in which case the granulites are indistinguishable from certain varieties of gneiss. The garnets are very generally larger than the above-mentioned ingredients, and easily visible with the eye as pink spots on the broken surfaces of the rock. They usually are filled with enclosed grains of the other minerals.

The felspar of the granulites is mostly orthoclase or cryptoperthite; microcline, oligoclase and albite are also common. Basic felspars occur only rarely. Among accessory minerals, in addition to apatite, zircon, and iron oxides, the following may be mentioned: hornblende (not common), riebeckite (rare), epidote and zoisite, calcite, sphene, andalusite, sillimanite, kyanite, hercynite (a green spinel), rutile, orthite and tourmaline. Though occasionally we may find larger grains of felspar, quartz or epidote, it is more characteristic of these rocks that all the minerals are in small, nearly uniform, imperfectly shaped individuals.

On account of the minuteness with which it has been described and the important controversies on points of theoretical geology which have arisen regarding it, the granulite district of Saxony (around Rosswein, Penig, &c.) may be considered the typical region for rocks of this group. It should be remembered that though granulites are probably the commonest rocks of this country, they are mingled with granites, gneisses, gabbros, amphibolites, mica schists and many other petrographical types. All of these rocks show more or less metamorphism either of a thermal character or due to pressure and crushing. The granites pass into gneiss and granulite; the gabbros into flaser gabbro and amphibolite; the slates often contain andalusite or chiastolite, and show transitions to mica schists. At one time these rocks were regarded as Archean gneisses of a special type. Johannes Georg Lehmann propounded the hypothesis that their present state was due principally to crushing acting on them in a solid condition, grinding them down and breaking up their minerals, while the pressure to which they were subjected welded them together into coherent rock. It is now believed, however, that they are comparatively recent and include sedimentary rocks, partly of Palaeozoic age, and intrusive masses which may be nearly massive or may have gneissose, flaser or granulitic structures. These have been developed largely by the injection of semi-consolidated highly viscous intrusions, and the varieties of texture are original or were produced very shortly after the crystallization of the rocks. Meanwhile, however, Lehmann’s advocacy of post-consolidation crushing as a factor in the development of granulites has been so successful that the terms granulitization and granulitic structures are widely employed to indicate the results of dynamometamorphism acting on rocks at a period long after their solidification.

The Saxon granulites are apparently for the most part igneous and correspond in composition to granites and porphyries. There are, however, many granulites which undoubtedly were originally sediments (arkoses, grits and sandstones). A large part of the highlands of Scotland consists of paragranulites of this kind, which have received the group name of “Moine gneisses.”

Along with the typical acid granulites above described, in Saxony, India, Scotland and other countries there occur dark-coloured basic granulites (“trap granulites”). These are fine-grained rocks, not usually banded, nearly black in colour with small red spots of garnet. Their essential minerals are pyroxene, plagioclase and garnet: chemically they resemble the gabbros. Green augite and hypersthene form a considerable part of these rocks, they may contain also biotite, hornblende and quartz. Around the garnets there is often a radial grouping of small grains of pyroxene and hornblende in a clear matrix of felspar: these “centric” structures are frequent in granulites. The rocks of this group accompany gabbro and serpentine, but the exact conditions under which they are formed and the significance of their structures is not very clearly understood.

(J. S. F.)

GRANVELLA, ANTOINE PERRENOT, Cardinal de (1517-1586), one of the ablest and most influential of the princes of the church during the great political and ecclesiastical movements which immediately followed the appearance of Protestantism in Europe, was born on the 20th of August 1517 at Besançon, where his father, Nicolas Perrenot de Granvella (1484-1550), who afterwards became chancellor of the empire under Charles V., was practising as a lawyer. Later Nicolas held an influential position in the Netherlands, and from 1530 until his death he was one of the emperor’s most trusted advisers in Germany. On the completion of his studies in law at Padua and in divinity at Louvain, Antoine held a canonry at Besançon, but he was promoted to the bishopric of Arras when barely twenty-three (1540). In his episcopal capacity he attended several diets of the empire, as well as the opening meetings of the council of Trent; and the influence of his father, now chancellor, led to his being entrusted with many difficult and delicate pieces of public business, in the execution of which he developed a rare talent for diplomacy, and at the same time acquired an intimate acquaintance with most of the currents of European politics. One of his specially noteworthy performances was the settlement of the terms of peace after the defeat of the league of Schmalkalden at Mühlberg in 1547, a settlement in which, to say the least, some particularly sharp practice was exhibited. In 1550 he succeeded his father in the office of secretary of state; in this capacity he attended Charles in the war with Maurice, elector of Saxony, accompanied him in the flight from Innsbruck, and afterwards drew up the treaty of Passau (August 1552). In the following year he conducted the negotiations for the marriage of Mary of England and Philip II. of Spain, to whom, in 1555, on the abdication of the emperor, he transferred his services, and by whom he was employed in the Netherlands. In April 1559 Granvella was one of the Spanish commissioners who arranged the peace of Cateau Cambrésis, and on Philip’s withdrawal from the Netherlands in August of the same year he was appointed prime minister to the regent, Margaret of Parma. The policy of repression which in this capacity he pursued during the next five years secured for him many tangible rewards, in 1560 he was elevated to the archiepiscopal see of Malines, and in 1561 he received the cardinal’s hat; but the growing hostility of a people whose religious convictions he had set himself to trample under foot ultimately made it impossible for him to continue in the Low Countries, and by the advice of his royal master he, in March 1564, retired to Franche Comté. Nominally this withdrawal was only of a temporary character, but it proved to be final. The following six years were spent in comparative quiet, broken, however, by a visit to Rome in 1565; but in 1570 Granvella, at the call of Philip, resumed public life by accepting another mission to Rome. Here he helped to arrange the alliance between the Papacy, Venice and Spain against the Turks, an alliance which was responsible for the victory of Lepanto. In the same year he became viceroy of Naples, a post of some difficulty and danger, which for five years he occupied with ability and success. He was summoned to Madrid in 1575 by Philip II. to be president of the council for Italian affairs. Among the more delicate negotiations of his later years were those of 1580, which had for their object the ultimate union of the crowns of Spain and Portugal, and those of 1584, which resulted in a check to France by the marriage of the Spanish infanta Catherine to Charles Emmanuel, duke of Savoy. In the same year he was made archbishop of Besançon, but meanwhile he had been stricken with a lingering disease; he was never enthroned, but died at Madrid on the 21st of September 1586. His body was removed to Besançon, where his father had been buried. Granvella was a man of great learning, which was equalled by his industry, and these qualities made him almost indispensable both to Charles V. and to Philip II.

Numerous letters and memoirs of Granvella are preserved in the archives of Besançon. These were to some extent made use of by Prosper Levêque in his Mémoires pour servir (1753), as well as by the Abbé Boisot in the Trésor de Granvella. A commission for publishing the whole of the letters and memoirs was appointed by Guizot in 1834, and the result has been the issue of nine volumes of the Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, edited by C. Weiss (Paris, 1841-1852). They form a part of the Collection de documents inédits sur l’histoire de France, and were supplemented by the Correspondance du cardinal Granvelle, 1565-1586, edited by M. E. Poullet and G. J. C. Piot (12 vols., Brussels, 1878-1896). See also the anonymous Histoire du cardinal de Granville, attributed to Courchetet D’Esnans (Paris, 1761); J. L. Motley, Rise of the Dutch Republic; M. Philippson, Ein Ministerium unter Philipp II. (Berlin, 1895); and the Cambridge Modern History (vol. iii. 1904).

GRANVILLE, GRANVILLE GEORGE LEVESON-GOWER, 2nd Earl (1815-1891), English statesman, eldest son of the 1st Earl Granville (1773-1846), by his marriage with Lady Harriet, daughter of the duke of Devonshire, was born in London on the 11th of May 1815. His father, Granville Leveson-Gower, was a younger son of Granville, 2nd Lord Gower and 1st marquess of Stafford (1720-1803), by his third wife; an elder son by the second wife (a daughter of the 1st duke of Bridgwater) became the 2nd marquess of Stafford, and his marriage with the daughter and heiress of the 17th earl of Sutherland (countess of Sutherland in her own right) led to the merging of the Gower and Stafford titles in that of the dukes of Sutherland (created 1833), who represent the elder branch of the family. As Lord Granville Leveson-Gower, the 1st Earl Granville (created viscount in 1815 and earl in 1833) entered the diplomatic service and was ambassador at St Petersburg (1804-1807) and at Paris (1824-1841). He was a Liberal in politics and an intimate friend of Canning. The title of Earl Granville had been previously held in the Carteret family.

After being at Eton and Christ Church, Oxford, young Lord Leveson went to Paris for a short time under his father, and in 1836 was returned to parliament in the Whig interest for Morpeth. For a short time he was under-secretary for foreign affairs in Lord Melbourne’s ministry. In 1840 he married Lady Acton (Marie Louise Pelline de Dalberg, widow of Sir Richard Acton; see Acton and Dalberg). From 1841 till his father’s death in 1846, when he succeeded to the title, he sat for Lichfield. In the House of Lords he signalized himself as a Free Trader, and Lord John Russell made him master of the buckhounds (1846). He proved a useful member of the party, and his influence and amiable character were valuable in all matters needing diplomacy and good breeding. He became vice-president of the Board of Trade in 1848, and took a prominent part in promoting the great exhibition of 1851. In the latter year, having already been admitted to the cabinet, he succeeded Palmerston at the foreign office until Lord John Russell’s defeat in 1852; and when Lord Aberdeen formed his government at the end of the year, he became first president of the council, and then chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster (1854). Under Lord Palmerston (1855) he was president of the council. His interest in education (a subject associated with this office) led to his election (1856) as chancellor of the London University, a post he held for thirty-five years; and he was a prominent champion of the movement for the admission of women, and also of the teaching of modern languages. From 1855 Lord Granville led the Liberals in the Upper House, both in office, and, after Palmerston’s resignation in 1858, in opposition. He went in 1856 as head of the British mission to the tsar’s coronation in Moscow. In June 1859 the queen, embarrassed by the rival ambitions of Palmerston and Russell, sent for him to form a ministry, but he was unable to do so, and Palmerston again became prime minister, with Lord John as foreign secretary and Granville as president of the council. In 1860 his wife died, and to this heavy loss was shortly added that of his great friends Lord and Lady Canning and of his mother (1862); but he devoted himself to his political work, and retained his office when, on Palmerston’s death in 1865, Lord Russell (now a peer) became prime minister and took over the leadership in the House of Lords. He was made Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, and in the same year married again, his second wife being Miss Castalia Campbell. From 1866 to 1868 he was in opposition, but in December 1868 he became colonial secretary in Gladstone’s first ministry. His tact was invaluable to the government in carrying the Irish Church and Land Bills through the House of Lords. On the 27th of June 1870, on Lord Clarendon’s death, he was transferred to the foreign office. Lord Granville’s name is mainly associated with his career as foreign secretary (1870-1874 and 1880-1885); but the Liberal foreign policy of that period was not distinguished by enterprise or “backbone.” Lord Granville personally was patient and polite, but his courteous and pacific methods were somewhat inadequate in dealing with the new situation then arising in Europe and outside it; and foreign governments had little scruple in creating embarrassments for Great Britain, and relying on the disinclination of the Liberal leaders to take strong measures. The Franco-German War of 1870 broke out within a few days of Lord Granville’s quoting in the House of Lords (11th of July) the curiously unprophetic opinion of the permanent under-secretary (Mr Hammond) that “he had never known so great a lull in foreign affairs.” Russia took advantage of the situation to denounce the Black Sea clauses of the treaty of Paris, and Lord Granville’s protest was ineffectual. In 1871 an intermediate zone between Asiatic Russia and Afghanistan was agreed on between him and Shuválov; but in 1873 Russia took possession of Khiva, within the neutral zone, and Lord Granville had to accept the aggression. When the Conservatives came into power in 1874, his part for the next six years was to criticize Disraeli’s “spirited” foreign policy, and to defend his own more pliant methods. He returned to the foreign office in 1880, only to find an anti-British spirit developing in German policy which the temporizing methods of the Liberal leaders were generally powerless to deal with. Lord Granville failed to realize in time the importance of the Angra Pequeña question in 1883-1884, and he was forced, somewhat ignominiously, to yield to Bismarck over it. Whether in Egypt, Afghanistan or equatorial and south-west Africa, British foreign policy was dominated by suavity rather than by the strength which commands respect. Finally, when Gladstone took up Home Rule for Ireland, Lord Granville, whose mind was similarly receptive to new ideas, adhered to his chief (1886), and gracefully gave way to Lord Rosebery when the latter was preferred to the foreign office; the Liberals had now realized that they had lost ground in the country by Lord Granville’s occupancy of the post. He went to the Colonial Office for six months, and in July 1886 retired from public life. He died in London on the 31st of March 1891, being succeeded in the title by his son, born in 1872. Lord Granville was a man of much charm and many friendships, and an admirable after-dinner speaker. He spoke French like a Parisian, and was essentially a diplomatist; but he has no place in history as a constructive statesman.