 

 

aﬁiograpbttal ikzttb

FROM THE

 

MEMOIRS

 

OF
BRASS CB-osBY, CE S a.
LORD MAYOR OF LONDON IN 1771,.
CONTAINING

A HISTORY

OF THE GREAT AND SUCCESSFUL STRUGGLE THAT THEN
TOOK PLACE FOR THE FREE PUBLICATION
OF’ THE '

PARLIAMENTARY DEBA’TES.~

SUNDERLAND:
PRINTED BY MARWOOD AND co.,

L; ' HERALD OFFICE.

1831,

   

MEMOIRS, 81c.

The annexed notice from the Memoirs of Brass Crosby, , ..

.3
Esq. Lord Mayor of London in 1770 and 1771, shewsthe «if/L
difﬁculties and dangers that were encountered at that period, C -?
in the struggle then made of reporting the debates in both 4'
Houses of Parliament, and which, owing to the spirited con- '3 :42
duct of the worthy chief magistrate, pointed out to the elec- w. ,
. . . . . z r“ «'1’. x
tors of England their legal right of ascertaining the senti— g £- 25‘

ments of their representatives, through the medium of the
public press:

The History of the City of London may, in a great
measure, "be considered as the History of the Rise and Pro-r
gress of Civil Liberty in this kingdom. The citizens have
always naturally felt, that to free institutions could they alone
look for prosperity and happiness; and in almost all the
struggles which have taken place, with a View to check
aristocratical or monarchical despotism, they have been ranged
on the side of the friends of liberty. With kings and nobles,
the only way to obtain respect is, to shew that you are too
powerful to be contemned, and too hold to suffer insult or
oppression without resistance. Whenever, through the folly
or imbecility of her chief magistrates, London has been for
a time the slave of the court, her subserviency has been
taken as a mark of her weakness, and she has been insulted
and plundered by the minions of the despot whom she
seemed to fear; but the moment she has taken that stand
on behalf of civil liberty, which her power and inﬂuence not

7 my;

4

only justify, but require, she has been treated with respect,
and has recovered from the fear of the court that which her‘
previous timidity had for a time forfeited. Fortunately these
instances of her weakness and folly are not numerous ; while,
on the other hand, the courage and perseverance her citizens
have often evinced in support of a popular cause, have
obtained for her a character which secures her from any
inconsiderate attack. The reliance on the powers of num-
bers, the strength inspired by the approbation of their fel-
low men, have'ialways tended to make the inhabitants of cities
the most determined defenders of any great national right.
Not only in Eng] 1nd, but in Spain and Italy, the inhabitants
of cities have longest resisted the efforts both of temporal
and ecclesiastical despotism, and at the moment when kings
and emperors tr'embled at the threats of an ambitious Pon-
tiﬂ‘, the population of Rome alone held him in check, and
repeatedly limited his power in his own city by the appoint-
ment of a popular tribune. In the same manner, the power
and inﬂuence of the Crown of England, and (when they have
been despotically exerted) of the Parliament, have always
met with the greatest resistance in that city in which their
immediate presence might be supposed to have given them
an advantage that nothing could counterbalance. Froissard,
who ﬂourished when feudal power was almost at its height,
says that “ the citizens of London, with their mayor, were
to be found at the head of all the revolutions in England,”
and the subsequent experience of Charles I. and James II.
amply veriﬁed the observation. In more recent times, the
impudent attempt of the parliament to reject a member
chosen by the grand body of the Middlesex electors, and the
silly effort to prevent the publication of the debates in Par-
liament, met with successful resistance from the inhabitants
of the city; for, though in the ﬁrst of these cases, the City of
London was not nominally the party interested, no one who
knows any thing of the history of that time can hesitate to

5

believe that the great number of citizens who were freed
holders of Middlesex, went far towards procuring the re-—
peated election of Mr. Wilkes; and that the resistance, from
beginning to end, was supported by the citizens, who after-
wards rewarded the object of the contest with the highest
honours their city could bestow. The regular publication of
the debates in parliament, is now acknowledged to be one of
the greatest advantages that could have been imagined, both
for the people and the government. By these, the nation was
roused with unexampled rapidity and effect to prepare for
resistance to the invasion threatened by the French; and the
mutiny at the N ore was better quelled by the speech of Mr.
Sheridan than it could have been by any unaided effort of
the government; yet, so blindly obstinate are men, if they
conceive their own power or dignity is called in question,
that when the ﬁrst attempts were made to publish reports of
the proceedings in parliament, the daring infringer of par—
liamentary privileges were threatened with the severest
punishment, and their reports would have been prohibited
for some time at least, had not the spirited resistance of the
editors and printers been seconded by the Cityrof London
and its leading magistrates. Among these, the name of Mr.
Crosby, at that time lord mayor, is most honourably con-
spicuous. The following is a sketch of the account of the
contest, given in the memoirs of that gentleman. On the
26th of February, 1728, the house resolved “ That it is an
indignity'to, and a breach of the privileges of this house, for
any person to presume to give, in written or printed news-
papers, any account or minutes of the debates or other pro-
ceedings of this house, or any committee thereof.” “ That
upon the discovery of the authors, printers, or publishers of
any such written or printed newspapers, the house Will pro-
ceed against the offenders with the utmost severity.” For
many years, these resolutions produced the desired effect ;
but the growing curiosity to know what passed in the two

6

houses, at length induced some persons to adopt the system
of giving a summary of the debates, under the name of
‘ Discussions in a Club.’ In the various magazines and
newspapers, published some years previous to Crosby’s time,_
may be seen the manner in which the parliamentary pro-
ceedings were then published. They were called the
“ Debates of a Certain Assembly”——of “a Political Club”
--of “ the Robin Hood Upper and Lower Club-rooms;”
and the speakers were designated under such names as
Servilius Priscus, Arianus Maturus, Afraras Burrhus,
Sempronius, &c. Dr. Johnson wrote the preliminary de-
bates from November 19, 1740, to February 23, 1743, in
The Gentleman’s Magazine for 1743, under the name of
“ Debates in the Senate of Lilliput :” sometimes with
feigned denominations of the several speakers, sometimes
with their real names in anagram, so that they might easily
be discovered. By degrees, the speakers became designated
by the initials of their real names—such was the practice up
to the time of Mr. Crosby’s imprisonment, in March, 1771.
In. The Political Register, for the 7th of March, in that year,
a discussion as to clearing the house of strangers is given,
and the house is called “ a certain club,” and a well-known
Baronet is described as “ Sir G. S. one of Lord B.’s Lords
of the T.” George Onslow, who afterwards brought on the
whole question of printing the reports, is represented as
having supported the motion, and he is called “ George 0—.”
0n the 8th of February, 1771, Colonel Onslow complained
of the printers of The Gazetteer and The Middlesex Journal,
for having published accounts of the debates, and on the 12th
of March he made similar complaints against three brace, as
he called them, of printers.

The ﬁrst motion made by Colonel Onslow was, “That The
Morning Chronicle, of March 4:, 1771, printed for William
Woodfall, should be delivered in and read.” This was op-

posed by the minority with great earnestness, as they alleged

 

l

7

that the whole of the news-writers throughout England were
liable to the same persecutions, and that their number was
nearly two hundred. If all were prosecuted, what possible
time could the house have to do any other business? This
was attacking a hive of bees, or an Hydra that would sprout.
out an hundred heads for one cut of. The motion was car—
ried by 130 to 43.

The next paper, moved for was The St. James’s Chronicle,
from the 7th to the 9th of March, printed by Henry Baldwin.
This was carried by 112 to 37. It was said that this paper
had, in the accounts of the Debates in Utopia, which had.
preﬁxed to the speech of one of the members this description
~—-“ Jeremiah Weymouth, the d—-n of the kingdom, spoke
as follows.” Colonel Barre, to shew the ridiculousness of
the proceeding, moved the following resolution :—“ That J e-
remiah Weymouth, the d—n of the kingdom, is not a mem—
ber of this house.” The minister could not well say that he
was, but every person knew who was meant by it, and the
previous question was moved. Colonel Barre’s motion was
lost by 38 to 120. The London Packet, printed for T. Evens,
The Whitehall Evening Post, printed by T. Wright, The
General Evening Post, sold by S. Bladon, and the London-
Evening Post, printed by J. Miller, were then severally
moved for by Colonel Onslow, were delivered in and read,
and their printers ordered to attend the house. The oppo»
sition, however, was so great to all these motions, that they
were not all carried until the house had divided 23 times.
Among the numerous amendments moved in ridicule of these
proceedings, was one, that to the words “ that T. Evens do
attend this house,” should be added, “ together with all his
compositors, correctors, pressmen, blackers, and devils.”—
This amendment was lost by 14 to 79. On the 145th of. March-
it was reported that Mr. William Woodfall wasin custody at
the House of Lords. Henry Baldwin and T. Wright were
called to the bar of the Commons, and on their knees repriw

f-
newt

J

8

manded by the Speaker. This practice of kneeling at the
bar of the house was ordered in the following session, upon
the motion of Mr. T. Townshend, to be discontinued: and
Mr. Hatsell, in recording the order, observes, that “ the
alteration was adopted from the humanity of the house, which
often has occasion to inﬂict punishment on persons that
would be more sensibly affected by this ignominious manner
of receiving their sentence, than by the severest species of
penalty the house can impose.” T. Evens attended, but
withdrew before called On, his wife having accidentally
broken her leg during his absence. Samuel Bladon (of The
General Evening Post) appeared at the bar, and having made
an open declaration of his sense of his offence, was discharged.
He was the only individual who made any declaration. John
Miller did not attend, and was ordered to be taken into cus—
tdd'y by the Serjeant at Arms. In May, 1771, W. Woodfall
published in The Town and Country Magazine, an advertise-
ment,istating that “ The Morning Chronicle was the ﬁrst
paper that ventured to put the liberty of the press to its most
glorious use; namely, the printing the Parliamentary De-
bates at full length. This has not of late years been even
attempted, and though of the utmost consequence to the
people in general, might still have remained untried, had
not The Morning Chronicle taken the lead, and shewn the
electors of England what was their legal rights, although
they were doubtful of it before.” In the period between
March and May, a great change must have taken place in
the minds of men, for this assertion of “ a legal right,” met
withm censure on the part of the house, although it was
made in direct contradiction of their resolutions; and in the
following sessions the proceedings in the house were printed
in the public newspapers without notice or inquiry, and this
the point in contest was apparently given up by the house.
While, however, the struggle was still going on, Wheble and
Thompson, the printers of The Middlesex Journal and The

 

 

9

Gazetteer, were apprehended under a Royal Proclamation,
which had been issued at the prayer of the house, as their
messengers had been unable to take these persons into cus-
tody. When thus apprehended they were taken to Guildhall
before the sitting aldermen, Wilkes and Oliver, and dis-
charged, and the printers bound over to prosecute for the
assault and false imprisonment. Alderman Wilkes dis-
charged W heble, because “ there was no other reason for
apprehending him than what appeared in the said proclama-
tion;” and Alderman Oliver discharged Thompson, “ he not
appearing to be accused of any crime.” Immediately after-
‘Wards Miller was taken into custody by a messenger of
the house, and on being brought before Brass Crosby, at
that time Lord Mayor, was discharged, “ because the war-
rant, by which he was arrested, was executed without being
backed by any city magistrate.” The messenger was, be-
sides, ordered to ﬁnd bail for the assault, and Miller was
bound over to prosecute. The Deputy Serjeant at Arms
reported these matters to the house, and the Lord Mayor
was ordered to attend in his place. Mr. Crosby, although
suffering from a severe attack of the gout, went down to the
house, accompanied by an immense body of people, and jus-
tiﬁed what he had done under the oath he had taken as an
alderman of the City of London, in which oath, said he, “ I ‘
swore that I would protect the citizens in their franchises
and rights. I have ever done so to the best of my abilities.
When I was admitted into the ofﬁce of Lord Mayor, 1 was
sworn in the same manner: this brought to my remembrance
what a charge I had taken on myself, to defend the people
who were under my particular jurisdiction. I knew that my
government, in the discharge of the ofﬁce I was chosen into,
was to be from the laws and charters granted from time to.
time to the citizens of London. By these charters it appears
that no warrant, command, process, or attachment, shall be
executed within the City of London but by the ministers of

10

the said city.” His lordship then stated that he found the
messenger was not a city ofﬁcer—that his warrant had not
been backed by a city authority—and, consequently, that his
arrest of a citizen within the limits of the city was illegal;
and he added, “ I felt that if I had not acted in the manner
I did in discharging that person, I should have been guilty
of perjury, or of a breach of my oath.” His lordship being
unable, from the state of his health, to remain longer in the"
house, withdrew. It was then ordered that Alderman Wilkes
should attend the house, but as his election for Middlesex
was at that moment refused to be acknowledged by the house,
and as he was not ordered to attend as a member “ in his
place,” he would not go, and the order was never carried
into effect. Mr. Alderman Oliver, one of the members for
the city, was ordered to attend “ in his place,” on Friday,
the 22nd of March. On the 20th March, Mr. Morgan, the
Lord Mayor’s Clerk, attended with the book of recognizances,
in compliance with an order of the house, and was called in
and ordered up to the table. The book was opened, and the
recognizance of William Witham, messenger of the house,
was read. Lord North moved, and Lord Beauchamp se-
conded, “ That the messenger’s recognizance be erased out
of the Lord Mayor’s book.” The Alderman Oliver, Saw-
bridge, Trecothick, and several others, were so shocked at

this violent and arbitrary attack of the laws of the land—a
‘ proceeding which, by “ eﬁ‘acing a record, was intended to
stop the course of justice”-—that they left the house. The
supporters of the motion, as they had the Lord Mayor’s
Clerk in custody, made him erase it. Junius, speaking of
this proceeding, says—“ By mere violence, and without the
shadow of right, they have expunged the record of a judicial
proceeedi’ng. Nothing remained but to attribute to‘ their
own vote a power of stopping the whole distribution of civil
and criminal justice.” And Lord Chatham, in a speech in
the House of Lords, on the lst of May, 1771, on moving an

I 4W.__..__._m__—..r,..,.~ m... - a. fww-.4.4--.._...~ . . s .

ll

address to the King to dissolve the Parliament, call this act
“ the act of a mob, and not of Parliament.” On Monday,
the 25th of March, Mr. Alderman Oliver, for his conduct in
discharging Thompson, was ordered, by a vote of the house,
to be committed to the Tower. On the 27th the Lord Mayor
attended in his place, and it was then resolved that he had
been guilty of a breach of the privilege of the house. Mr.
Welbore Ellis (son of the Bishop of Meath, and afterwards
created Lord Mendip), who had conducted the whole pro-
ceeding on the part of the ministry, rose and observed, that
the crimes the Lord Mayor had been guilty of were, in a
degree, higher than those of Mr. Alderman Oliver; and,
therefore, ought at least to meet with as severe a punishment;
but as the Lord Mayor was not in a good state of health, to
shew the tender mercy of the house, he should only move,
“ That Brass Crosby, Esq. Lord Mayor of London, and a
Member of this House, be, for his said offence, committed to
the Serjeant at Arms attending this house.” Mr. Crosby
immediately rose, and, in an indignant manner, addressed
the house as follows :-—“ Mr. Speaker—An honourable gen-
tleman has talked of the lenity to be shewn me on account of
my health, and my being only committed to the Serjeant at
Arms. I thank God my health is better than it has been for
some time past. I know that I was prejudged on Monday,
and that the string of resolutions and warrants is now in the
gentleman’s pocket. I ask no favour of this house—I crave
no mercy from the Treasury Bench. I am ready to go to my
noble friend at the Tower, if the house shall order me. My
conscience is clear, and tells me that I have kept my oath,
and done my duty to the city of which I have the honour to
be chief magistrate, and to my ,country. I will never betray
the privileges of the citizens nor the rights of the people. I
have no apology to make for having acted uprightly, and I
fear not any resentment in consequence of such conduct. I
will through life continue to obey the dictates of honour and

12

conscience, to give my utmost support to every part of the
constitution of this kingdom, and the event I shall always
leave to Heaven, being at all times ready to meet my fate.”
Mr. Ellis then moved that he be committed to the Tower of
London, which, after a stormy debate on the part of such of
the members of the opposition as consented to remain in the
house after these proceedings had commenced, was carried at
half-hast twelve o’clock, by a majority of 202 to 39. Mr.
Crosby left the house, and retired to the Mansion House,
from which, in order that no tumult might take place, he-set
out at four o’clock in the morning in a hackney-coach for
the Tower. On the 8th of May the session terminated, and
the Lord Mayor, accompanied by Mr. Alderman Oliver, left
the Tower. Their progress from thence to the Mansion
House was a triumphal procession. Twenty-one pieces of
cannon were ﬁred on Tower Hill by the Artillery Company,
and ﬁfty-three carriages attended in the train of the two
aldermen. At night the city was illuminated. All, there-
fore, that the ministry gained was a paltry pretext for im—
prisoning two honest men, which they carried into effect
amidst the execrations of the whole kingdom, while the
original cause of the contest was in effect decided against
them, for, from the very commencement of the next session
to the present moment, the reports of the debates in Parlia-
ment have been regularly printed by every newspaper in the
country. The details of this contest are fully as interesting
as those portions with which we have made up our sketch;
and the original documents, together with brief notices of the
various individuals concerned, are printed in these memoirs,
of which it has been said, “ they would form an important
contribution to the History of the City of London.”——Morm’ng

Chronicle.

 

JEN .1

 

 

 

RARE
DA
512
.C7
B5
1831

niversity Missouri- Columbia

IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII

0411440