(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’sMilitary History of U. S. Grant(3 vols., New York, 1867-1881), andGrant in Peace(Hartford, 1887), are appreciative but lacking in discrimination. William Conant Church’sUlysses S. Grant and the Period of National Preservation and Reconstruction(New York, 1897) is a good succinct account. Hamlin Garland’sUlysses 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’sPersonal Memoirs(2 vols., New York, 1885-1886); J. G. Wilson’sLife and Public Services of U. S. Grant(New York, 1886); J. R. Young’sAround the World with General Grant(New York, 1880); Horace Porter’sCampaigning with Grant(New York, 1897); James Ford Rhodes’sHistory of the United States(vols. iii.-vii., New York, 1896-1906); James K. Hosmer’sAppeal to Arms and Outcome of the Civil War(New York, 1907); John Eaton’sGrant, Lincoln, and the Freedmen(New York, 1907), and various works mentioned in the articlesAmerican Civil War,Wilderness Campaign, &c.
Bibliography.—Adam Badeau’sMilitary History of U. S. Grant(3 vols., New York, 1867-1881), andGrant in Peace(Hartford, 1887), are appreciative but lacking in discrimination. William Conant Church’sUlysses S. Grant and the Period of National Preservation and Reconstruction(New York, 1897) is a good succinct account. Hamlin Garland’sUlysses 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’sPersonal Memoirs(2 vols., New York, 1885-1886); J. G. Wilson’sLife and Public Services of U. S. Grant(New York, 1886); J. R. Young’sAround the World with General Grant(New York, 1880); Horace Porter’sCampaigning with Grant(New York, 1897); James Ford Rhodes’sHistory of the United States(vols. iii.-vii., New York, 1896-1906); James K. Hosmer’sAppeal to Arms and Outcome of the Civil War(New York, 1907); John Eaton’sGrant, Lincoln, and the Freedmen(New York, 1907), and various works mentioned in the articlesAmerican Civil War,Wilderness Campaign, &c.
1President 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.2The 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.
1President 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.
2The 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.greanterforcreanter, popular Lat.creantare, forcredentare, 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 (seeFeoffment), 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 (seeConveyancing). 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 theAdi Granth Sahibby 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 theAdi Granthby 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. TheAdi Granthcontains 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 secondGranthwhich was compiled by the Sikhs in 1734, and popularly known as theGranth of the tenth Guru, but it has not the same authority as theAdi Granth. It contains Guru Govind Singh’sJāpji, theAkāl Ustitor Praise of the Creator, thirty-threesawaias(quatrains containing some of the main tenets of the guru and strong reprobation of idolatry and hypocrisy), and theVachitar Natakor 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 theDevi Mahatamya,an episode in theMarkandeya Puran, in praise of Durga, the goddess of war. Then follow theGyan Parbodhor awakening of knowledge, accounts of twenty-four incarnations of the deity, selected because of their warlike character; theHazare de Shabd; theShastar 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; theTria Charitaror tales illustrating the qualities, but principally the deceit of women; theKabit, compositions of a miscellaneous character; theZafarnamacontaining the tenth guru’s epistle to the emperor Aurangzeb, and several metrical tales in the Persian language. ThisGranthis 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. TheAdi Granthis largely in old Punjabi and Hindi, but Prakrit, Persian, Mahratti and Gujrati are also represented. TheGranth of the Tenth Guruis writtenForm 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, thegyanisor 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 theAdi Granthare 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 theAdi Granth, and the hymns are arranged according to themeasuresto 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 theAdi Granthby which the compositions of each guru or bhagat should be separately shown.
All the doctrines of the Sikhs are found set forth in the twoGranthsand in compositions calledThe Sikh doctrines.Rahit NamasandTanakhwah 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.”
“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.”
“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 theGranth. Guru Arjan writes:
“She who considereth her beloved as her God,Is the blessedsatiwho shall be acceptable in God’s Court.”
“She who considereth her beloved as her God,
Is the blessedsatiwho 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.”
“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 twoGranthsof 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.”
“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.”
“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.
TheGranthwas 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.
TheGranthwas 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,1stBaron(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 1834-1835and 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).
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 GermanGranit, 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 andflattened 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 hisMémoires pour servir(1753), as well as by the Abbé Boisot in theTrésor 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 thePapiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, edited by C. Weiss (Paris, 1841-1852). They form a part of theCollection de documents inédits sur l’histoire de France, and were supplemented by theCorrespondance du cardinal Granvelle, 1565-1586, edited by M. E. Poullet and G. J. C. Piot (12 vols., Brussels, 1878-1896). See also the anonymousHistoire 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 theCambridge Modern History(vol. iii. 1904).
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 hisMémoires pour servir(1753), as well as by the Abbé Boisot in theTrésor 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 thePapiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, edited by C. Weiss (Paris, 1841-1852). They form a part of theCollection de documents inédits sur l’histoire de France, and were supplemented by theCorrespondance du cardinal Granvelle, 1565-1586, edited by M. E. Poullet and G. J. C. Piot (12 vols., Brussels, 1878-1896). See also the anonymousHistoire 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 theCambridge 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; seeActonandDalberg). 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.
The life of Lord Granville (1905), by Lord Fitzmaurice, is full of interesting material for the history of the period, but being written by a Liberal, himself an under-secretary for foreign affairs, it explains rather than criticizes Lord Granville’s work in that department.
The life of Lord Granville (1905), by Lord Fitzmaurice, is full of interesting material for the history of the period, but being written by a Liberal, himself an under-secretary for foreign affairs, it explains rather than criticizes Lord Granville’s work in that department.
(H. Ch.)
GRANVILLE, JOHN CARTERET,Earl(1690-1763), English statesman, commonly known by his earlier title as Lord Carteret, born on the 22nd of April 1690, was the son of George, 1st Lord Carteret, by his marriage with Grace Granville, daughter of Sir John Granville, 1st earl of Bath, and great grandson of the Elizabethan admiral, Sir Richard Grenville, famous for his death in the “Revenge.” The family of Carteret was settled in the Channel Islands, and was of Norman descent. John Carteret was educated at Westminster, and at Christ Church, Oxford. Swift says that “with a singularity scarce to be justified he carried away more Greek, Latin and philosophy than properly became a person of his rank.” Throughout life Carteret not only showed a keen love of the classics, but a taste for, and a knowledge of, modern languages and literatures. He was almost the only Englishman of his time who knew German. Harte, the author of theLife of Gustavus Adolphus, acknowledged the aid which Carteret had given him. On the17th of October 1710 he married at Longleat Lady Frances Worsley, grand-daughter of the first Viscount Weymouth. He took his seat in the Lords on the 25th of May 1711. Though his family, on both sides, had been devoted to the house of Stuart, Carteret was a steady adherent of the Hanoverian dynasty. He was a friend of the Whig leaders Stanhope and Sunderland, took a share in defeating the Jacobite conspiracy of Bolingbroke on the death of Queen Anne, and supported the passing of the Septennial Act. Carteret’s interests were however in foreign, and not in domestic policy. His serious work in public life began with his appointment, early in 1719, as ambassador to Sweden. During this and the following year he was employed in saving Sweden from the attacks of Peter the Great, and in arranging the pacification of the north. His efforts were finally successful. During this period of diplomatic work he acquired an exceptional knowledge of the affairs of Europe, and in particular of Germany, and displayed great tact and temper in dealing with the Swedish senate, with Queen Ulrica, with the king of Denmark and Frederick William I. of Prussia. But he was not qualified to hold his own in the intrigues of court and parliament in London. Named secretary of state for the southern department on his return home, he soon became helplessly in conflict with the intrigues of Townshend and Sir Robert Walpole. To Walpole, who looked upon every able colleague, or subordinate, as an enemy to be removed, Carteret was exceptionally odious. His capacity to speak German with the king would alone have made Sir Robert detest him. When, therefore, the violent agitation in Ireland against Wood’s halfpence (seeSwift, Jonathan) made it necessary to replace the duke of Grafton as lord lieutenant, Carteret was sent to Dublin. He landed in Dublin on the 23rd of October 1724, and remained there till 1730. In the first months of his tenure of office he had to deal with the furious opposition to Wood’s halfpence, and to counteract the effect of Swift’sDraper’s Letters. The lord lieutenant had a strong personal liking for Swift, who was also a friend of Lady Carteret’s family. It is highly doubtful whether Carteret could have reconciled his duty to the crown with his private friendships, if government had persisted in endeavouring to force the detested coinage on the Irish people. Wood’s patent was however withdrawn, and Ireland settled down. Carteret was a profuse and popular lord lieutenant who pleased both the “English interest” and the native Irish. He was at all times addicted to lavish hospitality, and according to the testimony of contemporaries was too fond of burgundy. When he returned to London in 1730, Walpole was firmly established as master of the House of Commons, and as the trusted minister of King George II. He had the full confidence of Queen Caroline, whom he prejudiced against Carteret. Till the fall of Walpole in 1742, Carteret could take no share in public affairs except as a leader of opposition of the Lords. His brilliant parts were somewhat obscured by his rather erratic conduct, and a certain contempt, partly aristocratic and partly intellectual, for commonplace men and ways. He endeavoured to please Queen Caroline, who loved literature, and he has the credit, on good grounds, of having paid the expenses of the first handsome edition ofDon Quixoteto please her. But he reluctantly, and most unwisely, allowed himself to be entangled in the scandalous family quarrel between Frederick, prince of Wales, and his parents. Queen Caroline was provoked into classing him and Bolingbroke, as “the two most worthless men of parts in the country.” Carteret took the popular side in the outcry against Walpole for not making war on Spain. When the War of the Austrian Succession approached, his sympathies were entirely with Maria Theresa—mainly on the ground that the fall of the house of Austria would dangerously increase the power of France, even if she gained no accession of territory. These views made him welcome to George II., who gladly accepted him as secretary of state in 1742. In 1743 he accompanied the king of Germany, and was present at the battle of Dettingen on the 27th of June. He held the secretaryship till November 1744. He succeeded in promoting an agreement between Maria Theresa and Frederick. He understood the relations of the European states, and the interests of Great Britain among them. But the defects which had rendered him unable to baffle the intrigues of Walpole made him equally unable to contend with the Pelhams. His support of the king’s policy was denounced as subservience to Hanover. Pitt called him “an execrable, a sole minister who had renounced the British nation.” A few years later Pitt adopted an identical policy, and professed that whatever he knew he had learnt from Carteret. On the 18th of October 1744 Carteret became Earl Granville on the death of his mother. His first wife died in June 1743 at Aschaffenburg, and in April 1744 he married Lady Sophia Fermor, daughter of Lord Pomfret—a fashionable beauty and “reigning toast” of London society, who was younger than his daughters. “The nuptials of our great Quixote and the fair Sophia,” and Granville’s ostentatious performance of the part of lover, were ridiculed by Horace Walpole. The countess Granville died on the 7th of October 1745, leaving one daughter Sophia, who married Lord Shelburne, 1st marquis of Lansdowne. This marriage may have done something to increase Granville’s reputation for eccentricity. In February 1746 he allowed himself to be entrapped by the intrigues of the Pelhams into accepting the secretaryship, but resigned in forty-eight hours. In June 1751 he became president of the council, and was still liked and trusted by the king, but his share in government did not go beyond giving advice, and endeavouring to forward ministerial arrangements. In 1756 he was asked by Newcastle to become prime minister as the alternative to Pitt, but Granville, who perfectly understood why the offer was made, declined and supported Pitt. When in October 1761 Pitt, who had information of the signing of the “Family Compact” wished to declare war on Spain, and declared his intention to resign unless his advice was accepted, Granville replied that “the opinion of the majority (of the Cabinet) must decide.” He spoke in complimentary terms of Pitt, but resisted his claim to be considered as a “sole minister” or, in the modern phrase, “a prime minister.” Whether he used the words attributed to him in the Annual Register for 1761 is more than doubtful, but the minutes of council show that they express his meaning. Granville remained in office as president till his death. His last act was to listen while on his death-bed to the reading of the preliminaries of the treaty of Paris. He was so weak that the under-secretary, Robert Wood, author of an essay onThe Original Genius of Homer, would have postponed the business, but Granville said that it “could not prolong his life to neglect his duty,” and quoted the speech of Sarpedon fromIliadxii. 322-328, repeating the last word (ἴομεν) “with a calm and determined resignation.” He died in his house in Arlington Street, London, on the 22nd of January 1763. The title of Granville descended to his son Robert, who died without issue in 1776, when the earldom of this creation became extinct.