The Project Gutenberg eBook ofEncyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Grasshopper" to "Greek Language"

The Project Gutenberg eBook ofEncyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Grasshopper" to "Greek Language"This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online atwww.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.Title: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Grasshopper" to "Greek Language"Author: VariousRelease date: November 26, 2011 [eBook #38143]Most recently updated: January 8, 2021Language: EnglishCredits: Produced by Marius Masi, Don Kretz and the OnlineDistributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA, 11TH EDITION, "GRASSHOPPER" TO "GREEK LANGUAGE" ***

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online atwww.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Grasshopper" to "Greek Language"Author: VariousRelease date: November 26, 2011 [eBook #38143]Most recently updated: January 8, 2021Language: EnglishCredits: Produced by Marius Masi, Don Kretz and the OnlineDistributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net

Title: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Grasshopper" to "Greek Language"

Author: Various

Release date: November 26, 2011 [eBook #38143]Most recently updated: January 8, 2021

Language: English

Credits: Produced by Marius Masi, Don Kretz and the OnlineDistributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA, 11TH EDITION, "GRASSHOPPER" TO "GREEK LANGUAGE" ***

Articles in This Slice

GRASSHOPPER(Fr.sauterelle, Ital.grillo, Ger.Grashüpfer,Heuschrecke, Swed.Gräshoppa), names applied to orthopterous insects belonging to the familiesLocustidaeandAcridiidae. They are especially remarkable for their saltatory powers, due to the great development of the hind legs, which are much longer than the others and have stout and powerful thighs, and also for their stridulation, which is not always an attribute of the male only. The distinctions between the two families may be briefly stated as follows:—TheLocustidaehave very long thread-like antennae, four-jointed tarsi, a long ovipositor, the auditory organs on the tibiae of the first leg and the stridulatory organ in the wings; theAcridiidaehave short stout antennae, three-jointed tarsi, a short ovipositor, the auditory organs on the first abdominal segment, and the stridulatory organ between the posterior leg and the wing. The term “grasshopper” is almost synonymous withLocust(q.v.). Under both “grasshopper” and “locust” are included members of both families above noticed, but the majority belong to theAcridiidaein both cases. In Britain the term is chiefly applicable to the large green grasshopper (LocustaorPhasgonura viridissima) common in most parts of the south of England, and to smaller and much better-known species of the generaStenobothrus,GomphocerusandTettix, the latter remarkable for the great extension of the pronotum, which often reaches beyond the extremity of the body. All are vegetable feeders, and, as in all orthopterous insects, have an incomplete metamorphosis, so that their destructive powers are continuous from the moment of emergence from the egg till death. The migratory locust (Pachytylus cinerascens) may be considered only an exaggerated grasshopper, and the Rocky Mountain locust (Caloptenus spretus) is still more entitled to the name. In Britain the species are not of sufficient size, nor of sufficient numerical importance, to do any great damage. The colours of many of them assimilate greatly to those of their habitats; the green of theLocusta viridissimais wonderfully similar to that of the herbage amongst which it lives, and those species that frequent more arid spots are protected in the same manner. Yet many species have brilliantly coloured under-wings (though scarcely so in English forms), and during flight are almost as conspicuous as butterflies. Those that belong to theAcridiidaemostly lay their eggs in more or less cylindrical masses, surrounded by a glutinous secretion, in the ground. Some of theLocustidaealso lay their eggs in the ground, but others deposit them in fissures in trees and low plants, in which the female is aided by a long flattened ovipositor, or process at the extremity of the abdomen, whereas in theAcridiidaethere is only anapparatus of valves. The stridulation or “song” in the latter is produced by friction of the hind legs against portions of the wings or wing-covers. To a practised ear it is perhaps possible to distinguish the “song” of even closely allied species, and some are said to produce a sound differing by day and night.

GRASS OF PARNASSUS,in botany, a small herbaceous plant known asParnassia palustris(natural orderSaxifragaceae), found on wet moors and bogs in Britain but less common in the south. The white regular flower is rendered very attractive by a circlet of scales, opposite the petals, each of which bears a fringe of delicate filaments ending in a yellow knob. These glisten in the sunshine and look like a drop of honey. Honey is secreted by the base of each of the scales.

GRATE(from Lat.crates, a hurdle), the iron or steel receptacle for a domestic fire. When coal replaced logs and irons were found to be unsuitable for burning the comparatively small lumps, and for this reason and on account of the more concentrated heat of coal it became necessary to confine the area of the fire. Thus a basket or cage came into use, which, as knowledge of the scientific principles of heating increased, was succeeded by the small grate of iron and fire-brick set close into the wall which has since been in ordinary use in England. In the early part of the 19th century polished steel grates were extensively used, but the labour and difficulty of keeping them bright were considerable, and they were gradually replaced by grates with a polished black surface which could be quickly renewed by an application of black-lead. The most frequent form of the 18th-century grate was rather high from the hearth, with a small hob on each side. The brothers Adam designed many exceedingly elegant grates in the shape of movable baskets ornamented with the paterae and acanthus leaves, the swags and festoons characteristic of their manner. The modern dog-grate is a somewhat similar basket supported upon dogs or andirons, fixed or movable. In the closing years of the 19th century a “well-grate” was invented, in which the fire burns upon the hearth, combustion being aided by an air-chamber below.

GRATIAN(Flavius Gratianus Augustus), Roman emperor 375-383, son of Valentinian I. by Severa, was born at Sirmium in Pannonia, on the 18th of April (or 23rd of May) 359. On the 24th of August 367 he received from his father the title of Augustus. On the death of Valentinian (17th of November 375) the troops in Pannonia proclaimed his infant son (by a second wife Justina) emperor under the title of Valentinian II. (q.v.). Gratian acquiesced in their choice; reserving for himself the administration of the Gallic provinces, he handed over Italy, Illyria and Africa to Valentinian and his mother, who fixed their residence at Milan. The division, however, was merely nominal, and the real authority remained in the hands of Gratian. The eastern portion of the empire was under the rule of his uncle Valens. In May 378 Gratian completely defeated the Lentienses, the southernmost branch of the Alamanni, at Argentaria, near the site of the modern Colmar. When Valens met his death fighting against the Goths near Adrianople on the 9th of August in the same year, the government of the eastern empire devolved upon Gratian, but feeling himself unable to resist unaided the incursions of the barbarians, he ceded it to Theodosius (January 379). With Theodosius he cleared the Balkans of barbarians. For some years Gratian governed the empire with energy and success, but gradually he sank into indolence, occupied himself chiefly with the pleasures of the chase, and became a tool in the hands of the Frankish general Merobaudes and bishop Ambrose. By taking into his personal service a body of Alani, and appearing in public in the dress of a Scythian warrior, he aroused the contempt and resentment of his Roman troops. A Roman named Maximus took advantage of this feeling to raise the standard of revolt in Britain and invaded Gaul with a large army, upon which Gratian, who was then in Paris, being deserted by his troops, fled to Lyons, where, through the treachery of the governor, he was delivered over to one of the rebel generals and assassinated on the 25th of August 383.

The reign of Gratian forms an important epoch in ecclesiastical history, since during that period orthodox Christianity for the first time became dominant throughout the empire. In dealing with pagans and heretics Gratian, who during his later years was greatly influenced by Ambrose, bishop of Milan, exhibited severity and injustice at variance with his usual character. He prohibited heathen worship at Rome; refused to wear the insignia of the pontifex maximus as unbefitting a Christian; removed the altar of Victory from the senate-house at Rome, in spite of the remonstrance of the pagan members of the senate, and confiscated its revenues; forbade legacies of real property to the Vestals; and abolished other privileges belonging to them and to the pontiffs. For his treatment of heretics see the church histories of the period.

Authorities.—Ammianus Marcellinus xxvii.-xxxi.; Aurelius Victor,Epit.47; Zosimus iv. vi.; Ausonius (Gratian’s tutor), especially theGratiarum actio pro consulatu; Symmachus x. epp. 2 and 61; Ambrose,De fide, prolegomena toEpistolae11, 17, 21,Consolatio de obitu Valentiniani; H. Richter,Das weströmische Reich, besonders unter den Kaisern Gratian, Valentinian II. und Maximus(1865); A. de Broglie,L’Église et l’empire romain au IVesiècle(4th ed., 1882); H. Schiller,Geschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit, iii., iv. 31-33; Gibbon,Decline and Fall, ch. 27; R. Gumpoltsberger,Kaiser Gratian(Vienna, 1879); T. Hodgkin,Italy and her Invaders(Oxford, 1892), vol. i.; Tillemont,Hist. des empereurs, v.; J. Wordsworth in Smith’sDictionary of Christian Biography.

(J. H. F.)

GRATIANUS, FRANCISCUS,compiler of theConcordia discordantium canonumorDecretum Gratiani, and founder of the science of canon law, was born about the end of the 11th century at Chiusi in Tuscany or, according to another account, at Carraria near Orvieto. In early life he appears to have been received into the Camaldulian monastery of Classe near Ravenna, whence he afterwards removed to that of San Felice in Bologna, where he spent many years in the preparation of theConcordia. Theprecise date of this work cannot be ascertained, but it contains references to the decisions of the Lateran council of 1139, and there is fair authority for believing that it was completed while Pope Alexander III. was still simply professor of theology at Bologna,—in other words, prior to 1150. The labours of Gratian are said to have been rewarded with the bishopric of Chiusi, but if so he appears never to have been consecrated; at least his name is not in any authentic list of those who have occupied that see. The year of his death is unknown.

For some account of theDecretum Gratianiand its history seeCanon Law. The best edition is that of Friedberg (Corpus juris canonici, Leipzig, 1879). Compare Schultze,Zur Geschichte der Litteratur über das Decret Gratians(1870),Die Glosse zum Decret Gratians(1872), andGeschichte der Quellen und Litteratur des kanonischen Rechts(3 vols., Stuttgart, 1875).

GRATRY, AUGUSTE JOSEPH ALPHONSE(1805-1872), French author and theologian, was born at Lille on the 10th of March 1805. He was educated at the École Polytechnique, Paris, and, after a period of mental struggle which he has described inSouvenirs de ma jeunesse, he was ordained priest in 1832. After a stay at Strassburg as professor of the Petit Séminaire, he was appointed director of the Collège Stanislas in Paris in 1842 and, in 1847, chaplain of the École Normale Supérieure. He became vicar-general of Orleans in 1861, professor of ethics at the Sorbonne in 1862, and, on the death of Barante, a member of the French Academy in 1867, where he occupied the seat formerly held by Voltaire. Together with M. Pététot,curéof Saint Roch, he reconstituted the Oratory of the Immaculate Conception, a society of priests mainly devoted to education. Gratry was one of the principal opponents of the definition of the dogma of papal infallibility, but in this respect he submitted to the authority of the Vatican Council. He died at Montreux in Switzerland on the 6th of February 1872.

His chief works are:De la connaissance de Dieu, opposing Positivism (1855);La Logique(1856);Les Sources, conseils pour la conduite de l’esprit(1861-1862);La Philosophie du credo(1861);Commentaire sur l’évangile de Saint Matthieu(1863);Jésus-Christ, lettres à M. Renan(1864);Les Sophistes et la critique(in controversy with E. Vacherot) (1864);La Morale et la loi de l’histoire, setting forth his social views (1868);Mgr. l’évêque d’Orléans et Mgr. l’archevêque de Malines(1869), containing a clear exposition of the historical arguments against the doctrine of papal infallibility. There is a selection of Gratry’s writings and appreciation of his style by the Abbé Pichot, inPages choisies des Grands Écrivainsseries, published by Armand-Colin (1897). See also the critical study by the oratorian A. Chauvin,L’Abbé Gratry(1901);Le Père Gratry(1900), andLes Derniers Jours du Père Gratry et son testament spirituel, (1872), by Cardinal Adolphe Perraud, Gratry’s friend and disciple.

GRATTAN, HENRY(1746-1820), Irish statesman, son of James Grattan, for many years recorder of Dublin, was born in Dublin on the 3rd of July 1746. He early gave evidence of exceptional gifts both of intellect and character. At Trinity College, Dublin, where he had a distinguished career, he began a lifelong devotion to classical literature and especially to the great orators of antiquity. He was called to the Irish bar in 1772, but never seriously practised the law. Like Flood, with whom he was on terms of friendship, he cultivated his natural genius for eloquence by study of good models, including Bolingbroke and Junius. A visit to the English House of Lords excited boundless admiration for Lord Chatham, of whose style of oratory Grattan contributed an interesting description toBaratariana(seeFlood, Henry). The influence of Flood did much to give direction to Grattan’s political aims; and it was through no design on Grattan’s part that when Lord Charlemont brought him into the Irish parliament in 1775, in the very session in which Flood damaged his popularity by accepting office, Grattan quickly superseded his friend in the leadership of the national party. Grattan was well qualified for it. His oratorical powers were unsurpassed among his contemporaries. He conspicuously lacked, indeed, the grace of gesture which he so much admired in Chatham; he had not the sustained dignity of Pitt; his powers of close reasoning were inferior to those of Fox and Flood. But his speeches were packed with epigram, and expressed with rare felicity of phrase; his terse and telling sentences were richer in profound aphorisms and maxims of political philosophy than those of any other statesman save Burke; he possessed the orator’s incomparable gift of conveying his own enthusiasm to his audience and convincing them of the loftiness of his aims.

The principal object of the national party was to set the Irish parliament free from constitutional bondage to the English privy council. By virtue of Poyning’s Act, a celebrated statute of Henry VII., all proposed Irish legislation had to be submitted to the English privy council for its approval under the great seal of England before being passed by the Irish parliament. A bill so approved might be accepted or rejected, but not amended. More recent English acts had further emphasized the complete dependence of the Irish parliament, and the appellate jurisdiction of the Irish House of Lords had also been annulled. Moreover, the English Houses claimed and exercised the power to legislate directly for Ireland without even the nominal concurrence of the parliament in Dublin. This was the constitution which Molyneux and Swift had denounced, which Flood had attacked, and which Grattan was to destroy. The menacing attitude of the Volunteer Convention at Dungannon greatly influenced the decision of the government in 1782 to resist the agitation no longer. It was through ranks of volunteers drawn up outside the parliament house in Dublin that Grattan passed on the 16th of April 1782, amidst unparalleled popular enthusiasm, to move a declaration of the independence of the Irish parliament. “I found Ireland on her knees,” Grattan exclaimed, “I watched over her with a paternal solicitude; I have traced her progress from injuries to arms, and from arms to liberty. Spirit of Swift, spirit of Molyneux, your genius has prevailed! Ireland is now a nation!” After a month of negotiation the claims of Ireland were conceded. The gratitude of his countrymen to Grattan found expression in a parliamentary grant of £100,000, which had to be reduced by one half before he would consent to accept it.

One of the first acts of “Grattan’s parliament” was to prove its loyalty to England by passing a vote for the support of 20,000 sailors for the navy. Grattan himself never failed in loyalty to the crown and the English connexion. He was, however, anxious for moderate parliamentary reform, and, unlike Flood, he favoured Catholic emancipation. It was, indeed, evident that without reform the Irish House of Commons would not be able to make much use of its newly won independence. Though now free from constitutional control it was no less subject than before to the influence of corruption, which the English government had wielded through the Irish borough owners, known as the “undertakers,” or more directly through the great executive officers. “Grattan’s parliament” had no control over the Irish executive. The lord lieutenant and his chief secretary continued to be appointed by the English ministers; their tenure of office depended on the vicissitudes of English, not Irish, party politics; the royal prerogative was exercised in Ireland on the advice of English ministers. The House of Commons was in no sense representative of the Irish people. The great majority of the people were excluded as Roman Catholics from the franchise; two-thirds of the members of the House of Commons were returned by small boroughs at the absolute disposal of single patrons, whose support was bought by a lavish distribution of peerages and pensions. It was to give stability and true independence to the new constitution that Grattan pressed for reform. Having quarrelled with Flood over “simple repeal” Grattan also differed from him on the question of maintaining the Volunteer Convention. He opposed the policy of protective duties, but supported Pitt’s famous commercial propositions in 1785 for establishing free trade between Great Britain and Ireland, which, however, had to be abandoned owing to the hostility of the English mercantile classes. In general Grattan supported the government for a time after 1782, and in particular spoke and voted for the stringent coercive legislation rendered necessary by the Whiteboy outrages in 1785; but as the years passed without Pitt’s personal favour towards parliamentary reform bearing fruit in legislation, he gravitated towards the opposition, agitated for commutation of tithes in Ireland, and supported the Whigson the regency question in 1788. In 1792 he succeeded in carrying an Act conferring the franchise on the Roman Catholics; in 1794 in conjunction with William Ponsonby he introduced a reform bill which was even less democratic than Flood’s bill of 1783. He was as anxious as Flood had been to retain the legislative power in the hands of men of property, for “he had through the whole of his life a strong conviction that while Ireland could best be governed by Irish hands, democracy in Ireland would inevitably turn to plunder and anarchy.”1At the same time he desired to admit the Roman Catholic gentry of property to membership of the House of Commons, a proposal that was the logical corollary of the Relief Act of 1792. The defeat of Grattan’s mild proposals helped to promote more extreme opinions, which, under French revolutionary influence, were now becoming heard in Ireland.

The Catholic question had rapidly become of the first importance, and when a powerful section of the Whigs joined Pitt’s ministry in 1794, and it became known that the lord-lieutenancy was to go to Lord Fitzwilliam, who shared Grattan’s views, expectations were raised that the question was about to be settled in a manner satisfactory to the Irish Catholics. Such seems to have been Pitt’s intention, though there has been much controversy as to how far Lord Fitzwilliam (q.v.) had been authorized to pledge the government. After taking Grattan into his confidence, it was arranged that the latter should bring in a Roman Catholic emancipation bill, and that it should then receive government support. But finally it appeared that the viceroy had either misunderstood or exceeded his instructions; and on the 19th of February 1795 Fitzwilliam was recalled. In the outburst of indignation, followed by increasing disaffection in Ireland, which this event produced, Grattan acted with conspicuous moderation and loyalty, which won for him warm acknowledgments from a member of the English cabinet.2That cabinet, however, doubtless influenced by the wishes of the king, was now determined firmly to resist the Catholic demands, with the result that the country rapidly drifted towards rebellion. Grattan warned the government in a series of masterly speeches of the lawless condition to which Ireland had been driven. But he could now count on no more than some forty followers in the House of Commons, and his words were unheeded. He retired from parliament in May 1797, and departed from his customary moderation by attacking the government in an inflammatory “Letter to the citizens of Dublin.”

At this time religious animosity had almost died out in Ireland, and men of different faiths were ready to combine for common political objects. Thus the Presbyterians of the north, who were mainly republican in sentiment, combined with a section of the Roman Catholics to form the organization of the United Irishmen, to promote revolutionary ideas imported from France; and a party prepared to welcome a French invasion soon came into existence. Thus stimulated, the increasing disaffection culminated in the rebellion of 1798, which was sternly and cruelly repressed. No sooner was this effected than the project of a legislative union between the British and Irish parliaments, which had been from time to time discussed since the beginning of the 18th century, was taken up in earnest by Pitt’s government. Grattan from the first denounced the scheme with implacable hostility. There was, however, much to be said in its favour. The constitution of Grattan’s parliament offered no security, as the differences over the regency question had made evident that in matters of imperial interest the policy of the Irish parliament and that of Great Britain would be in agreement; and at a moment when England was engaged in a life and death struggle with France it was impossible for the ministry to ignore the danger, which had so recently been emphasized by the fact that the independent constitution of 1782 had offered no safeguard against armed revolt. The rebellion put an end to the growing reconciliation between Roman Catholics and Protestants; religious passions were now violently inflamed, and the Orangemen and Catholics divided the island into two hostile factions. It is a curious circumstance, in view of the subsequent history of Irish politics, that it was from the Protestant Established Church, and particularly from the Orangemen, that the bitterest opposition to the union proceeded; and that the proposal found support chiefly among the Roman Catholic clergy and especially the bishops, while in no part of Ireland was it received with more favour than in the city of Cork. This attitude of the Catholics was caused by Pitt’s encouragement of the expectation that Catholic emancipation, the commutation of tithes, and the endowment of the Catholic priesthood, would accompany or quickly follow the passing of the measure.

When in 1799 the government brought forward their bill it was defeated in the Irish House of Commons. Grattan was still in retirement. His popularity had temporarily declined, and the fact that his proposals for parliamentary reform and Catholic emancipation had become the watchwords of the rebellious United Irishmen had brought upon him the bitter hostility of the governing classes. He was dismissed from the privy council; his portrait was removed from the hall of Trinity College; the Merchant Guild of Dublin struck his name off their rolls. But the threatened destruction of the constitution of 1782 quickly restored its author to his former place in the affections of the Irish people. The parliamentary recess had been effectually employed by the government in securing by lavish corruption a majority in favour of their policy. On the 15th of January 1800 the Irish parliament met for its last session; on the same day Grattan secured by purchase a seat for Wicklow; and at a late hour, while the debate was proceeding, he appeared to take his seat. “There was a moment’s pause, an electric thrill passed through the House, and a long wild cheer burst from the galleries.”3Enfeebled by illness, Grattan’s strength gave way when he rose to speak, and he obtained leave to address the House sitting. Nevertheless his speech was a superb effort of oratory; for more than two hours he kept his audience spellbound by a flood of epigram, of sustained reasoning, of eloquent appeal. After prolonged debates Grattan, on the 26th of May, spoke finally against the committal of the bill, ending with an impassioned peroration in which he declared, “I will remain anchored here with fidelity to the fortunes of my country, faithful to her freedom, faithful to her fall.”4These were the last words spoken by Grattan in the Irish parliament.

The bill establishing the union was carried through its final stages by substantial majorities. The people remained listless, giving no indications of any eager dislike of the government policy. “There were absolutely none of the signs which are invariably found when a nation struggles passionately against what it deems an impending tyranny, or rallies around some institution which it really loves.”5One of Grattan’s main grounds of opposition to the union had been his dread of seeing the political leadership in Ireland pass out of the hands of the landed gentry; and he prophesied that the time would come when Ireland would send to the united parliament “a hundred of the greatest rascals in the kingdom.”6Like Flood before him, Grattan had no leaning towards democracy; and he anticipated that by the removal of the centre of political interest from Ireland the evil of absenteeism would be intensified.

For the next five years Grattan took no active part in public affairs; it was not till 1805 that he became a member of the parliament of the United Kingdom. He modestly took his seat on one of the back benches, till Fox brought him forward to a seat near his own, exclaiming, “This is no place for the Irish Demosthenes!” His first speech was on the Catholic question, and though some doubt had been felt lest Grattan, like Flood, should belie at Westminster the reputation made in Dublin, all agreed with the description of his speech by the Annual Register as “one of the most brilliant and eloquent ever pronounced within the walls of parliament.” When Fox and Grenville came into power in 1806 Grattan was offered, but refused toaccept, an office in the government. In the following year he showed the strength of his judgment and character by supporting, in spite of consequent unpopularity in Ireland, a measure for increasing the powers of the executive to deal with Irish disorder. Roman Catholic emancipation, which he continued to advocate with unflagging energy though now advanced in age, became complicated after 1808 by the question whether a veto on the appointment of Roman Catholic bishops should rest with the crown. Grattan supported the veto, but a more extreme Catholic party was now arising in Ireland under the leadership of Daniel O’Connell, and Grattan’s influence gradually declined. He seldom spoke in parliament after 1810, the most notable exception being in 1815, when he separated himself from the Whigs and supported the final struggle against Napoleon. His last speech of all, in 1819, contained a passage referring to the union he had so passionately resisted, which exhibits the statesmanship and at the same time the equable quality of Grattan’s character. His sentiments with regard to the policy of the union remained, he said, unchanged; but “the marriage having taken place it is now the duty, as it ought to be the inclination, of every individual to render it as fruitful, as profitable and as advantageous as possible.” In the following summer, after crossing from Ireland to London when out of health to bring forward the Catholic question once more, he became seriously ill. On his death-bed he spoke generously of Castlereagh, and with warm eulogy of his former rival, Flood. He died on the 6th of June 1820, and was buried in Westminster Abbey close to the tombs of Pitt and Fox. His statue is in the outer lobby of the Houses of Parliament at Westminster. Grattan had married in 1782 Henrietta Fitzgerald, a lady descended from the ancient family of Desmond, by whom he had two sons and two daughters.

The most searching scrutiny of his private life only increases the respect due to the memory of Grattan as a statesman and the greatest of Irish orators. His patriotism was untainted by self-seeking; he was courageous in risking his popularity for what his sound judgment showed him to be the right course. As Sydney Smith said with truth of Grattan soon after his death: “No government ever dismayed him. The world could not bribe him. He thought only of Ireland; lived for no other object; dedicated to her his beautiful fancy, his elegant wit, his manly courage, and all the splendour of his astonishing eloquence.”7

Bibliography.—Henry Grattan,Memoirs of the Life and Times of the Right Hon. H. Grattan(5 vols., London, 1839-1846);Grattan’s Speeches(ed. by H. Grattan, junr., 1822);Irish Parl. Debates; W. E. H. Lecky,History of England in the Eighteenth Century(8 vols., London, 1878-1890) andLeaders of Public Opinion in Ireland(enlarged edition, 2 vols., 1903). For the controversy concerning the recall of Lord Fitzwilliam see, in addition to the foregoing, Lord Rosebery,Pitt(London, 1891); Lord Ashbourne,Pitt: Some Chapters of his Life(London, 1898);The Pelham Papers (Brit. Mus. Add. MSS., 33118);Carlisle Correspondence; Beresford Correspondence; Stanhope Miscellanies; for the Catholic question, W. J. Amhurst,History of Catholic Emancipation(2 vols., London, 1886); Sir Thomas Wyse,Historical Sketch of the late Catholic Association of Ireland(London, 1829); W. J. MacNeven,Pieces of Irish History(New York, 1807) containing an account of the United Irishmen; for the volunteer movement Thomas MacNevin,History of the Volunteers of 1782(Dublin, 1845);Proceedings of the Volunteer Delegates of Ireland 1784(Anon. Pamph. Brit. Mus.). See also F. Hardy,Memoirs of Lord Charlemont(London, 1812); Warden Flood,Memoirs of Henry Flood(London, 1838); Francis Plowden,Historical Review of the State of Ireland(London, 1803); Alfred Webb,Compendium of Irish Biography(Dublin, 1878); Sir Jonah Barrington,Rise and Fall of the Irish Nation(London, 1833); W. J. O’Neill Daunt,Ireland and her Agitators; Lord Mountmorres,History of the Irish Parliament(2 vols., London, 1792); Horace Walpole,Memoirs of the Reign of George III.(4 vols., London, 1845 and 1894); Lord Stanhope,Life of William Pitt(4 vols., London, 1861); Thomas Davis,Life of J. P. Curran(Dublin, 1846)—this contains a memoir of Grattan by D. O. Madden, and Grattan’s reply to Lord Clare on the question of the Union; Charles Phillips,Recollections of Curran and some of his Contemporaries(London, 1822); J. A. Froude,The English in Ireland(London, 1881); J. G. McCarthy,Henry Grattan: an Historical Study(London, 1886); Lord Mahon’sHistory of England, vol. vii. (1858). With special reference to the Union seeCastlereagh Correspondence; Cornwallis Correspondence; Westmorland Papers(Irish State Paper Office).

(R. J. M.)

1W. E. H. Lecky,Leaders of Public Opinion in Ireland, i. 127 (enlarged edition, 2 vols., 1903).2Ibid.i. 204.3Ibid.i. 241.4Grattan’s Speeches, iv. 23.5W. E. H. Lecky,History of England in the Eighteenth Century, viii. 491. Cf.Cornwallis Correspondence, iii. 250.6W. E. H. Lecky,Leaders of Public Opinion in Ireland, i. 270.7Sydney Smith’sWorks, ii. 166-167.

1W. E. H. Lecky,Leaders of Public Opinion in Ireland, i. 127 (enlarged edition, 2 vols., 1903).

2Ibid.i. 204.

3Ibid.i. 241.

4Grattan’s Speeches, iv. 23.

5W. E. H. Lecky,History of England in the Eighteenth Century, viii. 491. Cf.Cornwallis Correspondence, iii. 250.

6W. E. H. Lecky,Leaders of Public Opinion in Ireland, i. 270.

7Sydney Smith’sWorks, ii. 166-167.

GRATTIUS [FALISCUS],Roman poet, of the age of Augustus, author of a poem on hunting (Cynegetica), of which 541 hexameters remain. He was possibly a native of Falerii. The only reference to him in any ancient writer is incidental (Ovid,Ex Ponto, iv. 16. 33). He describes various kinds of game, methods of hunting, the best breeds of horses and dogs.

Back to Index Next