CREW, John (c. 1598-1679)

A deeply religious, moderate Presbyterian and virulent anti-Catholic who wrote in 1672 of his hope that anti-Christian powers ‘would have bricks put into their mouths and hooks into their nostrils’, Beds. Archives, L30/20/10. John Crew was excluded from the House of Commons at Pride’s Purge and did not respond to a summons to Cromwell’s ‘Other House’. M. Schoenfeld, Restored House of Lords, 52. In 1660 he became a leading figure in the negotiations that led to the calling of the Convention in 1660. He was openly discussing the need to readmit the secluded members as early as 16 Jan. 1660, some two weeks before General Monck, later duke of Albemarle, arrived in London. Pepys Diary, i. 18. Thirty secluded members gathered at his house on 14 Feb., though whether this was before or after the meeting of representatives of the secluded and sitting members called the same day by Monck, is unclear. The likelihood is that it was a pre-meeting called to discuss tactics, for there was undoubtedly some sort of post-meeting discussion at Crew’s house the next day, involving ‘at least 40 gentlemen … [who] … came dropping in one after another’. Ibid. i. 57.

Monck called another, larger, meeting on 18 Feb. at which Crew and other secluded members did their best to reassure the Rumpers that they had no intention of seeking revenge and intended only to meet and dissolve so that writs could be issued for a free Parliament. Reports vary about how successful they were: according to at least one account, Hesilrige simply stormed out. W. Davies, Restoration, 288. Pepys was afterwards told that that readmission of the secluded members had become a ‘great likelihood’ and rejoiced to think that Crew and his son-in-law, Edward Montagu, later earl of Sandwich, were ‘likely to be great men’. He also reported the strange visits of secluded members to Crew’s house the next day – visits that he found all the more suspicious for taking place on a Sunday – apparently not realizing that plans were afoot for an immediate readmission. Pepys Diary, i. 60, 64.

On the morning of 21 Feb. Crew was one of a number of secluded members who assembled at the house of Arthur Annesley, later earl of Anglesey, before being conducted to Whitehall where they were addressed by Monck. Escorted by Monck’s soldiers, they were then readmitted to the House. According to Pepys, Crew was ‘very joyful’. Presumably Crew was even more joyful when, two days later, he came second in the poll to elect members of the new council of state. His son-in-law, to whom he was very close, was also elected to the council. Ibid. i. 64, 65.

Crew’s actions and Roger Morrice’s subsequent account of the negotiations that led to the Restoration suggest that as a political presbyterian he was in favour of a conditional restoration: ‘a fair comprehension in matters of religion, and popery be discountenanced’. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk iv. 157. As a member of the Convention he opposed the sitting of the ‘young lords’ and probably also the admission of those Members of the Commons whose elections breached the strict qualifications that were designed to exclude active cavaliers. Crew and Montagu believed that Monck had encouraged them to resist the admission of the ‘young lords’ and felt betrayed by his subsequent actions. They were also worried that despite having moved the Commons resolution condemning the execution of Charles I, Crew had ‘too much concerned himself with the presbyterian[s], against the House of Lords’ thereby damaging his standing with the king. Pepys Diary, i. 118, 125-6. Nevertheless, Crew took an active part in arrangements for the king’s reception and was a member of the delegation that met him at The Hague.

In April 1661 Charles II personally invested a dozen new peers (six earls and six barons) at a splendid ceremony in Whitehall. Ibid. ii. 79-80. John Crew was one of them, although a peerage was the one and only mark of favour he was to receive from the new regime. He took his seat in the House on the opening day of the ensuing session but was not introduced (between Edward Montagu, 2nd Baron Montagu, and Edward Watson* , 2nd Baron Rockingham) until 11 May. Thereafter he was regularly named to the sessional committees. He was present on 77 per cent of sitting days of the 1661-2 session and was named to 22 select committees. These included committees to discuss the major issues of the political and religious settlement such as uniformity and corporations as well as lower profile matters ranging from bills on fen drainage and the provision of allowances to curates, to Norwich stuffs and sheriff’s accounts. He was also named to the committee to consider the bill of the royalist Thomas Wentworth, earl of Cleveland. Rather oddly he was both listed as present in the attendance list and as absent at the call of the House on 20 May 1661. In July 1661 he was said to oppose the case of Aubrey de Vere, 20th earl of Oxford, who wished to overturn a pre-Civil War decision that had deprived his family of the great chamberlaincy. Although family loyalty might suggest a sympathy with Oxford’s case since Crew’s uncle (Ranulphe Crew^‡, chief justice of king’s bench) had favoured it in the original dispute, more recent personal and political considerations may have had greater weight. Crew probably had greater sympathy for the rival candidate, Montagu Bertie, 2nd earl of Lindsey, than for Oxford who was a notorious rake. Lindsey, despite his royalist past, was close to a number of former parliamentarians, including Albemarle, and was related through the marriage of his son and heir Robert Bertie, then styled Lord Willoughby de Eresby (later 2nd earl of Lindsey), to the Whartons.

At the adjournment later in July 1661 Crew was more than satisfied with the relationship between crown and Parliament, writing with pleasure of the return of ‘the old and good way of parliaments’. Seaward, Cavalier Parlt. 76. By the autumn, matters were rather different. A devout (and dour) Presbyterian with decidedly Calvinist leanings and a model family man, it is scarcely surprising that he should be disgusted by Charles II’s notoriously bawdy and pleasure loving court. Pepys Diary, vii. 355-6. Nor did he command sufficient patronage or influence in the cavalier-dominated House of Commons to attract offers of office or the flattering attentions of Charles’s ministers. On 13 Nov. Crew invited Pepys to see his new house; his son, Thomas Crew, later 2nd Baron Crew, told Pepys that the next session of Parliament would ‘be troublesome to the court and clergy’ and spoke of the growing enmity between Parliament and Clarendon. Ibid. ii. 213. There is little doubt that Crew agreed, though perhaps his own views were coloured by ill health. His longest absence of the session was between 20 Nov. and 7 Dec., and at a call of the House on 25 Nov. he was excused as being unwell. According to James Butler, then sitting under his English title as earl of Brecknock but better known as duke of Ormond [I], Crew was one of those who opposed the bill to restore the estates of Charles Stanley, 8th earl of Derby, in February 1662. Add. 33589, ff. 220-1.

By December 1662 Crew was thoroughly disillusioned. He complained to Pepys of ‘great factions at court’, hinting at disputes between the king and James, duke of York, over the possible legitimization of James Scott, duke of Monmouth, and predicting an attack on Clarendon in the forthcoming parliamentary session. He spoke of the betrayal of the Presbyterian interest manifested on the one hand by royalist attempts to purge the administration of former parliamentarian collaborators and on the other by the deprivation of Presbyterian ministers under the Act of Uniformity. He was particularly bitter about the exclusion of the ministers ‘to whom he says the king is beholden for his coming in, and that if any such thing had been foreseen he had never come in’. Pepys Diary, iii. 290-1.

During the 1663 session Crew was present for 72 per cent of sitting days, although his absences were far more scattered than in the previous session. He was named, along with all others present, to the committee to consider the bill for repealing acts of the Long Parliament and to six more genuinely select committees, including committees on bills for his fellow peer Richard Byron, 2nd Baron Byron, and select vestries. Not surprisingly, he was listed by Wharton as likely to vote for Bristol’s motion against Clarendon.

Virtually nothing is known of Crew’s activities, let alone his motivations, during the 1664 session other than what can be gleaned from entries in the Journal, although he attended assiduously, missing only one day. He was named to four select committees: for bills concerning the abatement of writs of error, defects in certain acts of the Convention, that of Roger Boyle^‡, earl of Orrery [I], and of Sir John Pakington^‡. Over the next session, 1664-5, he missed five of a potential 50 sitting days. He even attended the formal prorogation day on 20 Aug. 1664. Despite this high attendance he was named to only two select committees, one for the bill to prevent arrests of judgments and the other (to which almost everyone present was also named) for Sir Robert Carr’s bill. He did not attend the brief session of October 1665 at all. In January 1666 he was troubled by the possibility of threats to Sandwich, seeking Pepys’ help in persuading Sandwich to sue out a pardon for the prize goods affair and other matters, ‘For it is to be feared that the Parliament will fly out against him and particular men the next session’. Ibid. vii. 17. Pepys also reported a number of conversations held over the period 1664 to 1666 in which Crew expressed opposition to the Dutch war mainly on grounds of expense but also because it was unjustified and instigated by ‘persons that do not enough apprehend the consequences of the danger of it’. Ibid. v. 244; vi. 6; vii. 125.

During the 1666-7 session Crew was present on 77 per cent of sitting days. Some two-thirds of his absences were concentrated in January and early February 1667 and probably reflect another period of ill health. He was named to five select committees, including another bill for Cleveland and that for the naturalization of Lady Holles, wife of his friend and political ally, Denzil Holles* , Baron Holles. In October 1666 he resorted to a claim of privilege of Parliament to protect his servant, William Spurrier. By November 1666 news of rebellion in Scotland, suspicions of Catholic conspiracies, and the issue of government finance left Crew deeply depressed about the future of the country ‘he doubting not that all will break in pieces in the kingdom.’ He was worried about the government’s proposed new taxes – ‘the hardest that ever came out’ – and its inability to prepare a coherent strategy to secure Commons approval for them. Pepys Diary, vii. 387-8. In December the House of Lords petitioned the crown for a royal commission to inspect accounts.

According to his younger son Nathaniel, later bishop of Durham and 3rd Baron Crew, Crew’s understanding of the issues led him to be offered the chancellorship of the exchequer twice. On each occasion Crew refused, declaring that ‘if he was to begin the world again, he would never be concerned in public affairs’. Camden Miscellany 9 (Cam. Soc. n.s. liii.) 2. Nevertheless, Crew’s trenchant views on the subject (and perhaps also his concern for Sandwich), ensured him a place on the commission of accounts which was announced to the House on 29 Dec. 1666.

If Crew had willingly agreed to join the commission, he soon changed his mind. Country Members of the Commons, with whom he must surely have been in sympathy, were vociferous in their objections and obstructed its meetings. By May 1667 Crew was convinced that the commission would ‘do more hurt than good’ and that it was bound to ‘be looked upon as a forced, packed business of the king’ and hoped that it would soon fall. In anticipation of the imminent death of Thomas Wriothesley, 4th earl of Southampton, he was also angling for Sandwich to be appointed lord treasurer. Pepys Diary, viii. 193-5.

During the troubled 1667-8 session, Crew’s attendance rose to 83 per cent. His longest absence was at the beginning of the session and meant that he was not present to be named to the sessional committees. In October 1667 he was appointed to the committee to enquire into the abuses of woodmongers; thereafter he was named to five select committees to consider bills for Sir William Juxon, naturalization, trade, Lady Frances Savil, William Paston and the rebuilding of the City of London. Whilst it seems unlikely, given his Presbyterian sympathies and previous antipathy, that Crew was prepared to support Clarendon, he was nevertheless dismayed by the aftermath of the chancellor’s dismissal. In December he ‘bewailed the condition of the nation’ complaining of divisions at court, of the disputes between the Commons and the Lords, the danger of a dissolution of Parliament and the king’s coldness toward the queen. The following month he was, for once, optimistic about the future, cheered by news of the alliance against France, ‘the first good act that hath been done a great while’. On 16 Mar.1668 he entered his dissent to the reversal of the chancery decree in the case of Morley v. Elwes. His usual pessimism soon re-emerged. In April he bewailed Sandwich’s ‘folly in leaving his old interest’ and in May when he was once again convinced that ‘all will come to ruin.’ Over the course of the summer he was once more ill, this time dangerously but briefly so, with what Pepys called ‘an insipulus’. Ibid. viii. 558; ix. 30-31; 164, 190, 265.

When Parliament reconvened in October 1669, Crew attended some 86 per cent of sittings, though once again an absence early in the session meant that he was not named to the sessional committees. He was named to the select committees for the bills for prevention of frauds in exporting wool, for John Warner, the late bishop of Rochester, and for John Bill. He was also named to the committees to enquire into the decay of trade and to consider the report of the commissioners of accounts.

Crew was present for just under half the sitting days in the 1670-1 session. He was absent for the first two weeks of the session for which he was excused by reason of sickness on 21 Feb. 1670. Presumably he never fully recovered for thereafter his attendance was erratic. His absence early in the session meant that, once again, he was not named to the sessional committees. He was named, along with most of the members of the House, to the committees to investigate the attempt to assassinate Ormond and the bill to prevent the growth of popery. He was also named to committees for the bills on fee farm rents, impositions on brandy, the prevention of clandestine marriages, the enrolment of deeds and the construction of workhouses. Despite, or perhaps because of, his membership of the committee on the bill for brandy duties, on 8 Apr. 1670, in company with several other Presbyterian peers, he entered a protest against its passage.

Although Crew lived for another five years, he did not attend Parliament after the end of the 1670-1 session. On 4 Apr. 1672 he told his friend and political ally, John Swinfen^‡, that illness had confined him to his house for six weeks. Beds. Archives,L30/20/7. There are further references to episodic sicknesses in December 1672, August 1673 and December 1674. Ibid. L30/20/11, 14, 17. He was excused attendance on 13 Feb. 1673 and 12 Jan. 1674, probably for the same reason. Only a very small cache of Crew’s correspondence is known to survive, mainly from the 1670s. The tone and subject matter suggest a man contemplating death and who was firmly convinced of the imminence of the end of the world. Ibid. L30/20/2, 7, 8, 12, 15, 17-18.

From 1674 Crew began to make regular use of his proxy. In 1674 and the first session of 1675 his proxy was held by Richard Boyle, earl of Burlington. During the second session of 1675 it was held by William Russell, 5th earl (later duke) of Bedford. His failure to take the oath of allegiance was noted by the House on 29 Apr. 1675, and the following month his activities as a trustee came into question as a subsidiary issue to a complaint of privilege by William Wentworth, earl of Strafford. HMC 9th Rep. ii. 63-64. The ability to use proxies meant that Crew’s opinions were valuable even in his absence. During 1677 and 1678 his proxy was held by Bedford and may have been used by him in December 1678 when he voted against insisting on the Lords’ amendment to the disbanding bill and for the committal of Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby (later marquess of Carmarthen and duke of Leeds). In 1677 Shaftesbury deemed Crew triply worthy. In spring 1679 Danby, unsurprisingly, regarded Crew’s support ‘doubtful’, and in another list of similar date he was described as an opposition lord. On 9 May 1679 he was again excused attendance on grounds of ill health, but there is no entry of a proxy on his behalf.

Crew drew up his will in his eightieth year, on 19 Aug. 1678, declaring himself to be ‘of the same faith now I am old wherein I was trained up in my youth’ and expressing his conviction that he deserved damnation. Crew’s wealth is difficult to estimate. His main estates were in Northamptonshire, but he is known to have had a subsidiary estate in Essex and this alone was worth £800 a year. HMC 14th Rep. ix. 281. Negotiations for the marriage of one of his sons in the early 1670s suggest that even his younger sons were well provided for. Beds. Archives, L30/20/3. He also left generous bequests to his servants and to the poor of Northamptonshire. He was succeeded by his son, Thomas Crew, 2nd Baron Crew*.