Harriet Lewin, the fifth of twelve children of Thomas Lewin (1753–1843), retired employee of the East India Company, and Mary Hale (1768–1837), was born on 1st July 1792 at Ridgeway, near Southampton, Hampshire. Harriet had four sisters and seven brothers. (1)
Thomas Lewin was a wealthy man, having made a lot of money while living in India. She was educated by a succession of governesses, but it was her father, "who had a fine voice and was proficient at several instruments, stimulated her lifelong love of music, and Harriet became an accomplished pianist and also mastered the cello." According to her biographer, Joseph Hamburger, Harriet was "on the tall side, striking in appearance, athletic, high-spirited, unconventional in ambition, attitudes, and dress, and her personality was so dominant that within the family she was referred to as The Empress." (2)
Harriet Lewin's interests changed dramatically after meeting George Grote in 1815. She lived 6 miles from Grote's home, and they met at a dance that followed a Sunday cricket match in which Grote took part. They both shared a love of music and gradually she became interested in his radical views on politics. They wanted to get married but this was not possible because of the objections of his father, on whom he was financially dependent. Eventually, the young couple took matters into their own hands and they were secretly married on 5th March 1820. Eleven months later they suffered misfortune when a prematurely born son died after a week, and this was followed by a threat to Harriet's life from puerperal fever (a fever caused by uterine infection following childbirth). The marriage remained childless. (3)
In her book, The Ascent of Women (2003) Melanie Phillips she described Harriet Grote as "a brilliant thinker" who "was tall and robust and towered over her husband, who resembled a Dresden china figurine". Harriet had a habit of calling George Grote the "Historian". (4) Harriet took a keen interest in politics and became a a supporter of women's suffrage. Harriet later explained how she became a suffragist: "When I discovered that the purse in my pocket and the watch at my side were not my own but the Historian's, I felt it was time women should have the power to amend these preposterous laws." (5)
James Mill, who became a close friend of the Grotes. "Mill's theorizing was compelling, for he provided closely reasoned and far-reaching explanations which Grote eagerly accepted. Mill was especially persuasive in discussions which resembled Platonic dialogues." (6) Grote wrote: "Conversation with him was not merely instructive, but provocative to the dormant intelligence", and this gave him "powerful intellectual ascendancy over younger minds". (7)
James Mill had a tremendous impression on George Grote. "He became a utilitarian in philosophy, an associationist in psychology, an advocate of democratic reform in his politics, and a confirmed atheist." Harriet recalled that after a year or so, "there existed but little difference, in point of opinion, between master and pupil". Harriet claimed that Mill's influence on Grote was so great that he "may be said to have inspired and directed many of the important actions of his life". (8)
The Grote's home became the centre of a group of radicals that believed in progressive reform. This enabled Harriet engage in debate with a wide range of left-wing intellectuals in London. This included James Milll, Jeremy Bentham, Francis Place, William Molesworth, John Stuart Mill, John Roebuck, David Ricardo, John Romilly, John Austin, Sarah Austin and Joseph Parkes. Some of these joined together to form a small reading group for discussion of works on political economy, law, and philosophy. Their meetings took place in Grote's house in Threadneedle Street. This group became known as the Philosophical Radicals or the "Grote conclave". (9)
According to Bertrand Russell, the author of History of Western Philosophy (1946): "The doctrines of the French revolutionary philosophers, made less enthusiastic and much more precise, were brought to England by the philosophical radicals, of whom Bentham was the recognized chief. Bentham was, at first, almost exclusively interested in law; gradually, as he grew older, his interests widened and his opinions became more subversive. After 1808, he was a republican, a believer in the equality of women, an enemy of imperialism, an uncompromising democrat. Some of his opinions he owed to James Mill." (10)
Jeremy Bentham argued that what he came to call "utilitarianism" imposes an obligation on legislators as well as individuals to "minister to general happiness", an obligation which, he said, is "paramount to and inclusive of every other". He used the term "utility" to denote whatever "tends to produce benefit, advantage, good or happiness". These ideas were developed by John Stuart Mill who regarded happiness as the greatest good, and each person's happiness as being equal in value to anyone else's. (11)
Harriet Grote had no problem discussing these philosophical issues. Richard Cobden called her "a remarkable woman, desperately blue in the stocking". He added that "had she been a man, she would have been the leader of a party". (12) Harriet Grote's friend Sydney Smith called her the "Queen of the Radicals". Francis Place claimed "she was the philosophic radicals". (13) Harriet later told her friend, Harriet Martineau, that this was an exciting time as it was "'a pregnant decade, if ever there was one'". (14)
Harriet Grote and the other Philosophical Radicals explained political conduct in terms of self-interest, arguing that in the absence of democratic institutions, governments inevitably will abuse power in the interest of the few and to the detriment of the "numerous classes". To guarantee that government will serve the entire populace, they insisted that the electorate must be large enough to have an interest similar to that of the community, which meant there should be universal, or at least a greatly extended, suffrage. They also urged the need for secret ballot and frequent elections. (15)
In 1831 George Grote published Essentials of Parliamentary Reform, in which he proposed a greatly extended suffrage, secret ballot, and frequent, preferably annual, elections to parliament. "Men fasten upon some special incongruity or abomination, as if the removal of it were the grand object to be effected by a Reform. Manchester, Leeds, and Birmingham, are great cities, important enough to have their interests protected by Representatives of their own: Old Sarum, Gatton, and Weobly, are insignificant hamlets, yet their interests are better protected than those of the three greatest manufacturing cities in England. As long as the argument for Reform is thus put, its opponents meet it satisfactorily, by showing that, if the suffrage were transferred from the three hamlets to the three cities above-mentioned, all things else remaining unchanged, the residents in the latter would be neither better nor worse protected than they are at present. In like manner some persons exclaim against the open bribery at the Liverpool election, or against the severity of the Duke of Newcastle in expelling his tenants at Newark, and are anxious that such transactions should be prevented in future. But here, too, it is easy to reply, that little would be gained by tying men down to bribe in secret, and with some degree of coyness and ceremony. Nor is it without reason that the Duke of Newcastle complains of having been held up as a single and unique tyrant, while other landlords are accomplishing the same end with greater certainty and good fortune." (16)
The Whigs in the House of Commons used Grote's arguments to support parliamentary reform and it played a role in the passing of the 1832 Reform Act. Voting in the boroughs was restricted to men who occupied homes with an annual value of £10. There were also property qualifications for people living in rural areas. As a result, only one in seven adult males had the vote. Nor were the constituencies of equal size. Whereas 35 constituencies had less than 300 electors, Liverpool had a constituency of over 11,000. "The overall effect of the Reform Act was to increase the number of voters by about 50 per cent as it added some 217,000 to an electorate of 435,000 in England and Wales. But 650,000 electors in a population of 14 million were a small minority." (17)
In December 1832, George Grote stood for the City of London seat in the first reformed parliament. Popular enthusiasm for reform allowed him to head the poll. Along with other radicals, Grote sat not on the government side but on the opposition benches. The Whigs government was regarded as representing aristocratic interests and therefore as adversaries of those representing popular, democratic interests. "Grote was widely regarded as leader of the radicals in parliament, this by virtue of his position in the City, his gravitas, and his being somewhat older than many of his fellow radicals." (18)
Harriet Grote was critical of her husband's approach in the House of Commons. Most of the philosophic radicals favoured hard bargaining, even if their withholding support were to cause the fall of the government and accession to office by the Tories; whereas others like Grote were prepared to give grudging support to the government, settling for whatever less than radical reforms the government might concede. John Stuart Mill called him "faint-hearted" and Joseph Parkes said that he needed to be more critical of the Whigs. (19)
During his years in the House of Commons he campaigned strongly for secret ballots. In his maiden speech and on five other occasions he introduced motions proposing secret voting in parliamentary elections. Grote argued that secret ballots would counter bribery and intimidation of voters, therefore making election results an authentic reflection of the electorate's wishes. He regarded it as the most important part of the radical programme, but he was unable to convince the majority of MPs and complained about the "profound slumber" of Parliament. (20)
In 1841 George Grote resigned from Parliament. "The lure of scholarship overcame his sense of public duty, especially as the quest for radical political change appeared to be futile." He had began writing the History of Greece in 1823. He now decided to concentrate all his efforts to complete this major project. The first two volumes were published in March 1846, and the final twelfth volume appeared only ten years later. (21)
In 1851 Harriet and George Grote were living at 12 Savile Row, St James, Westminster. At the time they had eight domestic servants including butler, footman, housekeeper, page and lady's maid. (22) Harriet Grote sympathized with the organized feminist movement as it emerged during the 1850s. She was determined to campaign for gender equality and complained that she was left "lamenting that I ever was born a woman". (23) Harriet was a supporter of the Langham Place Group and the Society for the Promotion of the Employment of Women. (24)
In 1855, together with a number of female artists and philanthropists, Harriet Grote established the Society of Female Artists (SFA). Other members included military artist, Elizabeth Thompson, writer, Barbara Bodichon, watercolour artist Elizabeth Murray; opera singer Jenny Lind, the novelist Harriet Jane Trelawny, sculptor, Mary Thornycroft, the artist Margaret Tekusch and natural history illustrator, Augusta Innes Withers. (25)
The main objective of the SFA was to help women artists get their work exhibited. Pam Hirsch has pointed out: "The sudden increase in the number of women's paintings exhibited meant that they were inevitably of a variable standard, and some male critics took the opportunity to lament the allegedly low ability of paintings. The SFA gained mixed support from women artists themselves; some who were already successfully exhibiting at the Royal Academy ignored it, and some sent their large historical works to the Royal Academy and smaller works to the SFA." (26)
The English Woman's Journal, published by the Langham Place Group, was supportive and wrote: "The Society of Female Artists (have helped artists) by offering a new industrial opening for women... that everything which in the present needs of society at large helps to rouse the energy, concentrate the ambition and support the social relations and professional status of working women, is a great step in advance." (27)
The art critic, William Michael Rossetti, was also sympathetic to the plight of women artists. He understood the strategy of women exhibiting by themselves, as otherwise "they would too likely be crowded out of other exhibitions, or so inconspicuously placed that the important fact of the effort that a certain number of women are making to establish in art would sink out of public observation." (28)
Harriet Grote also supported the campaign of Caroline Norton to obtain gender equality. Ernest Sackville Turner has argued that the "Common Law of England, in the early part of the 19th century, granted a wife fewer rights than had been accorded to under the later Roman law, and hardly more than had been conceded to an African slave before emancipation... The husband... owned her body, her property, her savings, her personal jewels and her income, whether they lived together or separately." Turner goes on to point out, that the husband "could legally support his mistress on the earnings of his wife". (29)
John Stuart Mill, the Radical MP for Westminster, was one of the few men who was willing to speak up for women: "She can acquire no property, but for the husband: the instant it becomes hers, even if by inheritance, it becomes ipso facto his... This is her legal state. And from this state she has no means to withdraw herself. If she leaves her husband she can take nothing with her, neither her children nor anything which is rightfully her own. If he chooses he can compel her to return by law, or by physical force; or he may content himself with seizing for his own use anything which she may earn or which may be given to her by her relations. It is only separation by a decree of a court of justice which entitles her to live apart without being forced back into the custody of an exasperated jailer." (30)
Barbara Leigh Smith, the daughter of Benjamin Leigh Smith, the Radical MP for Norwich, joined the campaign, and published Brief Summary in Plain Language of the Most Important Laws Concerning Women (1854). It included the following passage: "A man and wife are one person in law; the wife loses all her rights as a single woman, and her existence is entirely absorbed in that of her husband. He is civilly responsible for her acts; she lives under his protection or cover, and her condition is called coverture. A woman's body belongs to her husband; she is in his custody, and he can enforce his right by a writ of habeas corpus." (31)
As part of her campaign Caroline Norton published the pamphlet, English Laws for Women in the Nineteenth Century (1854). She explained that after years of experiencing violence from her husband she was unable to obtain a divorce: "I consulted whether a divorce 'by reason of cruelty' might not be pleaded for me; and I laid before my lawyers the many instances of violence, injustice, and ill-usage, of which the trial was but the crowning example. I was then told that no divorce I could obtain would break my marriage; that I could not plead cruelty which I had forgiven; that by returning to Mr Norton I had 'condoned' all I complained of. I learnt, too, the law as to my children – that the right was with the father; that neither my innocence nor his guilt could alter it; that not even his giving them into the hands of a mistress, would give me any claim to their custody. The eldest was but six years old, the second four, the youngest two and a half, when we were parted. I wrote, therefore, and petitioned the father and husband in whose power I was, for leave to see them – for leave to keep them, till they were a little older. Mr Norton's answer was, that I should not have them; that if I wanted to see them, I might have an interview with them at the chambers of his attorney." (32)
Caroline Norton also wrote a letter to Queen Victoria complaining about the position of women in regards to divorce. "If her husband take proceedings for a divorce, she is not, in the first instance, allowed to defend herself. She has no means of proving the falsehood of his allegations... If an English wife be guilty of infidelity, her husband can divorce her so as to marry again; but she cannot divorce the husband, however profligate he may be. No law court can divorce in England. A special Act of Parliament annulling the marriage, is passed for each case. The House of Lords grants this almost as a matter of course to the husband, but not to the wife. In only four instances (two of which were cases of incest), has the wife obtained a divorce to marry again." (33)
A group of women, including Harriet Grote, Barbara Leigh Smith, Emily Davies, Elizabeth Garrett and Dorothea Beale, organised a petition demanding equal legal rights with men. The petition signed by 26,000 men and women was submitted to Parliament. It was accepted by John Stuart Mill in the House of Commons and Lord Henry Brougham in the House of Lords. "The subject was almost entirely new to public consideration, and, as was natural, the feeling both in support of and in opposition to change was very strong. It would disrupt society, people said; it would destroy the home, and turn women into loathsome, self-assertive creatures no one could live with." (34)
The proposed Marriage and Divorce Act was discussed at great length in 1857. William Ewart Gladstone, the future leader of the Liberal Party, was a strong opponent of the bill as he saw it as undermining the authority of the Church. He made seventy-three interventions against the bill, twenty-nine of them in the course of one protracted sitting. However, he was in a small minority and could only gain the support of a "few dozen votes". (35)
In the House of Lords, John Bird Sumner, the Archbishop of Canterbury and Henry Phillpotts, Bishop of Exeter, both supported the measure and became law in January, 1858. Its main purpose was to transfer jurisdiction on divorce from Parliament and the ecclesiastical courts to a new tribunal. This simplified proceedings and radically lowered divorce costs, thereby making it available to a larger section of the population. Actions for "criminal conversations" were abolished. (36)
The new law did not treat men and women on a equal basis. A man could divorce a woman if she was "guilty of adultery". However, the woman could only obtain a divorce if she could show that "her husband has been guilty of incestuous adultery, or of bigamy with adultery, or of rape, or of sodomy or bestiality, or of adultery coupled with such cruelty as without adultery would have entitled her to a divorce, or of adultery coupled with desertion, without reasonable excuse, for two years or upwards." (37)
Four of the causes in the new act were based on Caroline Norton's experiences as a married woman. (Clause 21) A wife deserted by her husband might be protected if the possession of her earnings from any claim of her husband upon them. (Clause 24) The courts were able to direct payment of separate maintenance to a wife or to her trustee. (Clause 25) A wife was able to inherit and bequeath property like a single woman. (Clause 26) A wife separated from her husband was given the power of contract and suing, and being sued, in any civil proceeding. (38)
In 1867 Harriet Grote helped form the London Society for Women's Suffrage. From the outset it was intended that this new society in London was to be part of a federated scheme. It was argued that the London Society for Women's Suffrage should cooperate closely with the recently formed Manchester Society for Suffrage. (39) The first committee of the society included Clementia Taylor, Frances Power Cobbe, Millicent Garrett Fawcett, Katherine Hare and Margaret Bright Lucas. Other members included Helen Taylor, Lydia Becker, Barbara Bodichon, Jessie Boucherett, Emily Davies, Francis Mary Buss, Dorothea Beale, Anne Clough, Rhoda Garrett, Lilias Ashworth Hallett, Louisa Garrett Smith, Priscilla McLaren, Elizabeth Garrett, Alice Westlake, Catherine Winkworth and Kate Amberley. (40)
Clementia Taylor took the main role in developing the strategy for the London Society for Women's Suffrage: "Our present course of action is the dissemination of information throughout the kingdom and it seems to me, we cannot apply our pounds to better purpose than by the publication of good papers." (41) This included Helen Taylor's pamphlet's The Claims of Englishwomen to the Suffrage Constitutionally Considered. (42)
It was decided to allow men to play an active role in the London Society for Women's Suffrage. Rachael Strachey pointed out: "At that date it was usual, when men and women were on a committee together, for the men to do all the talking, but in these early suffrage groups neither the men nor the women were of that kind. They practised, as well as believed in, equality, to the great advantage of their cause." (43)
The first public meeting organised by the London Society for Women's Suffrage was held in the Gallery of the Architectural Society in Conduit Street on 17th July 1869. The chair was taken by Clementia Taylor and the audience heard for the first time women speak from a London platform in the furtherance of their cause. The following year on 26th March 1870, another meeting was held, this time in the Hanover Square Rooms, again with Taylor in the chair. Among the speakers were Harriet Grote, Millicent Garrett Fawcett, Katherine Hare, Helen Taylor, John Stuart Mill and Charles Wentworth Dilke. (44)
After forty-four years of marriage, Harriet Grote discovered that her husband, George Grote, was romantically attached to Susan Durant, the sculptor who created the marble medallion of Grote that now hangs in University College London (UCL). (45) The relationship only came to an end after she threatened separation. Although she complained to close friends about this disloyalty, she made no allusion to it in her The Personal Life of George Grote (1873), which she wrote after his death. (46)
George Grote died at 12 Savile Row, London, on 18th June 1871 leaving effects valued at around £120,000. Harriet Grote, died on 29th December 1878 at The Ridgeway, Shiere, Surrey leaving a personal estate valued at around £70,000. (47)
Harriet Grote: Writer and radical liberal, married to George Grote, who was elected to parliament as a reformer in 1832 and was one of the founders of London University, of which he was treasurer in 1860 and president in 1868. Harriet Grote was a close friend of John Stuart Mill, Anna Jameson and Jenny Lind the singer, at whose house in Wimbledon Emma and Anne Shaen, sisters to William Shaen, solicitor to many women's causes, were staying when they signed the 1866 women's suffrage petition. With Jenny Lind, Harriet Grote was one of the founders of the Society of Female Artists.... A friend of the Langham Place group, Harriet Grote was a supporter of the Society for the Promotion of the Employment of Women, of which her niece, Sarah Lewin, was for a time secretary.
In 1857 Barbara Leigh Smith Bodichone joined forces with Harriet Grote, and her friend, and her friend, Mrs Robinson Blaine, to found the Society of Female Artists (SFA) specifically to help women artists get their work exhibited. The sudden increase in the number of women's paintings exhibited meant that they were inevitably of a variable standard, and some male critics took the opportunity to lament the allegedly low ability of paintings.... The SFA gained mixed support from women artists themselves; some who were already successfully exhibiting at the Royal Academy ignored it, and some sent their large historical works to the Royal Academy and smaller works to the SFA.
The Society of Female Artists (have helped artists) by offering a new industrial opening for women... that everything which in the present needs of society at large helps to rouse the energy, concentrate the ambition and support the social relations and professional status of working women, is a great step in advance.
Harriet Lewin.... was born on 1 July 1792 at Ridgeway, near Southampton, Hampshire, the fifth of twelve children of Thomas Lewin (1753–1843), retired employee of the East India Company, and Mary Hale (1768–1837). She had four sisters and seven brothers.
The Lewins were comfortably off, as Harriet's father had made a modest fortune in Madras. Her education was left to a succession of governesses, but her father, who had a fine voice and was proficient at several instruments, stimulated her lifelong love of music, and Harriet became an accomplished pianist and also mastered the cello. She was on the tall side, striking in appearance, athletic, high-spirited, unconventional in ambition, attitudes, and dress, and her personality was so dominant that within the family she was referred to as The Empress.
Harriet Lewin's interests changed dramatically during her courtship by George Grote (1794–1871), the radical politician and historian of Greece. He was obliged to work in his father's bank, but he was dedicated to scholarship and had strong opinions about politics. Expecting his future wife to share his interests and eager to set her on the right path, he guided her through classic texts of political economy and philosophy. She was an apt student and adopted his opinions about utilitarian ethics, radical politics of the Benthamite variety, Malthusianism, political economy, and atheism, and the direction of her thinking was set for the remainder of her life. She never ceased to be eagerly interested in politics and books, which led Cobden to call her "a remarkable woman, desperately blue in the stocking".
When a people first awake to a strong feeling of discontent against Institutions of long standing, their indignation will seldom be directed in due proportion against all the objectionable parts. Accident brings to their view some one of the many ramifications of evil in a glaring manner, and at an opportune moment: while others, no less mischievous in themselves, either are not obtruded so indecently on the public, or find it otherwise occupied, and thus escape notice. This disproportionate and partial perception not only has the effect of retarding the proper outcry against unobserved abuses, but tends farther to keep out of view those great principles which connect one abuse with another, and which form the common source of all of them. Where the evil is thus imperfectly conceived, the remedies demanded are likely to be equally incomplete and superficial.
Something of this sort is discernible in the clamours raised against the Representative System. Men fasten upon some special incongruity or abomination, as if the removal of it were the grand object to be effected by a Reform. Manchester, Leeds, and Birmingham, are great cities, important enough to have their interests protected by Representatives of their own: Old Sarum, Gatton, and Weobly, are insignificant hamlets, yet their interests are better protected than those of the three greatest manufacturing cities in England. As long as the argument for Reform is thus put, its opponents meet it satisfactorily, by showing that, if the suffrage were transferred from the three hamlets to the three cities above-mentioned, all things else remaining unchanged, the residents in the latter would be neither better nor worse protected than they are at present. In like manner some persons exclaim against the open bribery at the Liverpool election, or against the severity of the Duke of Newcastle in expelling his tenants at Newark, and are anxious that such transactions should be prevented in future. But here, too, it is easy to reply, that little would be gained by tying men down to bribe in secret, and with some degree of coyness and ceremony. Nor is it without reason that the Duke of Newcastle complains of having been held up as a single and unique tyrant, while other landlords are accomplishing the same end with greater certainty and good fortune.
Such abuses are indeed indefensible; but they ought to be attacked, not as vicious excrescences on a system sound in the main, but as symptoms, rather gross and magnified, of widespread internal corruption. The system of representation should be surveyed, conceived, and criticised, as a whole: the purposes which it ought to answer should be compared with its actual workings: and it should be accounted a blessing or an injury according as the one of these coincides with or departs from the other. No Reform can be treated as complete which does not render the Representative Body on the whole an efficient and trustworthy instrument of good government.
That which the people require at the hands of their Government is, protection for their persons, their earnings, and their inheritances: good, accessible, cheap, and speedy justice, for settling private disputes, and for bringing offenders to punishment: together with an adequate public force, for ensuring execution of the laws, and for keeping off external enemies. No less sacred is the duty, though reserved for unborn statesmen to fulfil, of ensuring to the poorer classes universally the largest attainable amount of instruction; I would add, of protecting them against indigence, were I not persuaded that well directed instruction would implant in them the habit of regulating their own numbers, and thus of maintaining wages, by their own prudence, at the proper level. To pay for all these services, adequate taxes,—not insignificant in amount, even under the best management—must, of course, be levied.
All this may be summed up in a few comprehensive words: but, in reality, it comprises an unceasing series of laborious acts and painful supervision, sufficient to weary the zeal and fret the temper of benevolence itself: it calls for complete devotion of time, on the part of some of the ablest heads in the community: nor has the man ever yet existed, who could continue engaged in such employments without wishing to leave them half-performed. The nature of the case forbids that free competition, which ensures steady perseverance in the most repulsive private professions: for every public servant is necessarily a temporary monopolist. On the other hand, if there be this temptation to elude the obligations incident to office, there is a motive yet more unconquerable to multiply demands for taxes: to create pretences for palliating unlimited expenditure: and to acquire ascendancy, or gratify liberality, at the expense of the public purse.
To counteract, as much as may be, such overwhelming temptations, a feeling of anxious responsibility must be kept up in the minds of Government functionaries; and the romancers of the last age, complimenting the House of Commons at the expense of King, Peers, and subordinates, were pleased to assign that House as the body through whom responsibility was to be ensured. Not that Members of Parliament were supposed to be endued with any inborn virtue greater than that of gentlemen in office whom it was their business to watch: but their aptitude was affirmed to be derived from their being elected periodically by the people. Election by the people, real or supposed, was the ultimate source of security.
Harriet Lewin - born 1st July 1792 at The Ridgeway, near Southampton, daughter of Mary Hale and Thomas Lewin of Madras Civil Service.
5th March 1820 Harriet Lewin married George Grote
1841 Census: No. 4 Upper Eccleston Street,Hanover Square, Belgravia, George Grote [Head] Banker aged approx 45
Harriet Grote [wife] aged approx 45
1851 Census: No. 12 Savile Row, St James, Westminster George Grote [Head] Landed Proprietor aged 56 (born Beckenham, Kent) Harriet Grote [wife] aged 58 (born Southampton) 8 domestic servants including butler, footman, housekeeper, page, lady's maid
1861 Census: No. 12 Savile Row, St James, Westminster George Grote [Head] Landed Proprietor aged 66 (born Beckenham, Kent) 4 domestic servants - wife Harriet absent
1871 Census: No. 12 Savile Row, St James, Westminster. George Grote [Head] Chancellor of London University & Landed Proprietor aged 76 (born Beckenham, Kent) Harriet Grote [wife] aged 73 (78) (born St Mary's Southampton)
8 domestic servants
George Grote died at 12 Savile Row, London, on 18th June 1871. Effects valued at under £120,000
Harriet Grote, widow, died on 29th December 1878 at The Ridgeway, Shiere, Surrey leaving a personal estate valued at under £70,000.
(1) David Simkin, Family History Research (19th September, 2023)
(2) Joseph Hamburger, Harriet Grote: Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (24th May 2008)
(3) Joseph Hamburger, George Grote: Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (14th November 2018)
(4) Melanie Phillips, The Ascent of Women (2003) page 120
(5) Millicent Garrett Fawcett, What I Remember (1924) page 56
(6) Joseph Hamburger, George Grote: Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (14th November 2018)
(7) Alexander Bain, The Minor Works of George Grote (1873) page 284
(8) Joseph Hamburger, George Grote: Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (14th November 2018)
(9) The Examiner (28th January, 1838)
(10) Bertrand Russell, History of Western Philosophy (1946) page 695
(11) A. C. Grayling, The History of Philosophy (2019) page 281
(12) Jessie K. Buckley, Joseph Parkes of Birmingham (1926) page 151
(13) Joseph Hamburger, Harriet Grote: Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (24th May 2008)
(14) Harriet Grote, letter to Harriet Martineau (2nd February, 1867)
(15) Joseph Hamburger, George Grote: Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (14th November 2018)
(16) George Grote, Essentials of Parliamentary Reform (1831)
(17) J. F. C. Harrison, The Common People (1984) page 259
(18) Joseph Hamburger, George Grote: Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (14th November 2018)
(19) Joseph Parkes, letter to John Lambton, 1st Earl of Durham (26th January 1835)
(20) Harriet Grote, The Personal Life of George Grote (1873) page 130
(21) Joseph Hamburger, George Grote: Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (14th November 2018)
(22) Census Data (1851)
(23) Joseph Hamburger, Harriet Grote: Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (24th May 2008)
(24) Elizabeth Crawford, The Women's Suffrage Movement: A Reference Guide 1866-1928 (2000) page 352
(25) Art Journal (October 1857)
(26) Pam Hirsch, Barbara Leigh Smith Bodichon, Feminist, Artist and Rebel (1998) page 148
(27) English Woman's Journal (May, 1858)
(28) William Michael Rossetti, Fine Arts Quarterly Review (October 1863)
(29) Ernest Sackville Turner, Roads to Ruin (1950) page 135
(30) Alan Chedzoy, A Scandalous Woman: The Story of Caroline Norton (1992) page 244
(31) Barbara Leigh Smith, Brief Summary in Plain Language of the Most Important Laws Concerning Women (1854)
(33) Caroline Norton, letter to Queen Victoria (2nd June, 1855)
(34) Ray Strachey, The Cause: A History of the Women's Movement in Great Britain (1928) page 73
(35) Roy Jenkins, Gladstone (1995) pages 184-185
(36) Julia O'Faolain & Lauro Martines, Not in God's Image: Women in History (1973) page 343
(37) Statutes of the United Kingdom and Ireland (1857)
(38) Margaret Forster, Significant Sisters (1984) pages 47-48
(39) Clementia Taylor, letter to Helen Taylor (20th June, 1867)
(40) Elizabeth Crawford, The Women's Suffrage Movement: A Reference Guide 1866-1928 (2000) pages 351-353
(41) Clementia Taylor, letter to Helen Taylor (15th July, 1867)
(43) Rachael Strachey, The Cause: A Short History of the Women's Movement in Great Britain (1928) page 112
(44) Elizabeth Crawford, The Women's Suffrage Movement: A Reference Guide 1866-1928 (2000) page 352
(45) Harriet Grote, letter to Helen Taylor (29th November 1868)
(46) Joseph Hamburger, Harriet Grote: Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (24th May 2008)
(47) David Simkin, Family History Research (19th September, 2023)