CSG, thank you for posting the journals of the H of C concerning the Triennial Parliaments act. I have followed the link to the original journals, which are a little clearer in their formatting, but I must still confess myself completely baffled. In the recorded votes, it appears that the Noes have it, and the question is decided in the negative; but then the subsequent language sounds as though the act has passed, and the Lords have agreed to it. What am I missing here? Were the "No" votes on amendments to the original bill? Anybody? Bueller?
"they will, with their Lives and Fortunes, assist his Majesty" It's interesting to see this phrase here, which is echoed a century plus later in the final words of the American Declaration of Independence: "we pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor." It leads me to wonder if this was a somewhat standard formulation in matters of great moment during that era. Thanks to CSG for posting the text of this resolution.
Patricia, I also am totally unchurched, but here's how I understood that passage: Sam pretended to be somebody else in order to be allowed in the pew, someone whose name appeared on a roster posted on the wall of those entitled to use the pew. He was naturally fearful that the rightful occupant would show up and expose him as a fraud, but apparently that didn't happen.
It's a little surprising, on that theory, that other occupants of the pew would not know by sight all those named on the roster. Perhaps this was because they rarely came except on major occasions, or perhaps it was not just individuals but members of extended families that had the right to the pew.
Australian Susan often helps us out on these matters; I look forward to her comments.
The Triennial Parliament Wikipedia: The Triennial Act 1641 (16 Cha. I c. 1) [1](also known as the Dissolution Act) was an Act passed by the English Long Parliament, during the reign of King Charles I. The act requires that the Parliament meet for at least a fifty-day session once every three years. It was intended to prevent Kings from ruling without Parliament, as had been done between 1629 and 1640.
In 1664, it was repealed by the Triennial Parliaments Act 1664 (16 Cha. II c. 1) [2], though the requirement that a Parliament be called least once in three years was kept.
Under the Triennial Act 1694 (6 & 7 Will. & Mar. c. 2) [3]Parliament met annually and held general elections once every three years. The country now remained in a grip of constant election fever (10 elections in 20 years) and loyalties among MPs were difficult to establish. This increased faction and rivalry. In 1716 the Septennial Act was created, under which a parliament could remain in being for seven years.
This, the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement eventually led to Parliament having control over the country.
Recital that 16 Car. I. c. 1. is in Derogation of the Crown. The said Act repealed. Whereas the Act made in the Parliament begun at Westminster the Third day of November in the Sixteenth Yeare of the Raigne of our late Soveraigne Lord King Charles of blessed Memory entituled An Act for the preventing of Inconveniencies happening by the long Intermission of Parliaments is in Derogation of His Majestyes just Rights and Prerogative inherent to the Imperiall Crowne of this Realme for the calling and assembling of Parliaments, And may be an occasion of manifold mischeifes and inconveniences, and much endanger the Peace and Safety of His Majestie, and all His Leidge People of this Realme, Be it therefore enacted by the Kings most Excellent Majestie by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and the Co[m]mons in this present Parliament assembled and by the Authoritie of the same That the said Act entituled An Act for the preventing of Inconveniencies happening by the long Intermission of Parliaments And all and every the Articles Clauses and Things therein contained is, shall be and are hereby wholly repealed annulled and utterly made void, And are hereby declared to be null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever as if the said Act had never beene had or made, Any thing in the said Act contained to the contrary ( (fn. 1) ) notwithstanding.
II. No longer Intermission of Parliaments than Three Years. And because by the auntient Lawes and Statutes of this Realme made in the Raigne of King Edward the Third Parliaments are to be held very often Your Majesties humble and loyall Subjects the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and the Co[m]mons in this present Parliament assembled most humbly doe beseech Your most Excellent Majestie, That it may be declared and enacted And bee it declared and enacted by the Authority aforesaid That hereafter the sitting and holding of Parliaments shall not be intermitted or discontinued above three yeares at the most, but that within three yeares from and after the determination of this present Parliament and soe from time to time within three yeares after the determination of any other Parliament or Parliaments, or if there be occasion more often, Your Majestie Your Heires and Successors doe issue out Your Writts for calling, assembling and holding of another Parliament to the end there may be a frequent calling assembling and holding of Parliaments once in Three yeares at the least.
From: 'Charles II, 1664: An Act for the assembling and holding of Parliaments once in Three yeares at the least, And for the repeale of an Act entituled An Act for the preventing of Inconveniencies happening by the long Intermission of Parliaments.', Statutes of the Realm: volume 5: 1628-80 (1819), p. 513. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/…. Date accessed: 22 March 2007.
I don't understand, and haven't been able to find any discussion of, the point of this exercise. It seems the Act repealed the requirement that Parliament meet at least once every three years, and then in the next paragraph reinstated it. Was it just because the 1641 Act was a personal affront to his father that C2 wanted it repealed, even though he had no objection to its substance?
"Pepys is a musician and composed a tune, yet he never mentions church music" Actually, Carl, he does, on a number of occasions. 22 November 1663: "The anthem was good after sermon, being the fifty-first psalme, made for five voices by one of Captain Cooke's boys, a pretty boy. And they say there are four or five of them that can do as much. And here I first perceived that the King is a little musicall, and kept good time with his hand all along the anthem." 14 September 1662: "Thence to White Hall chapel, where sermon almost done, and I heard Captain Cooke's new musique. This the first day of having vialls and other instruments to play a symphony between every verse of the anthem; but the musique more full than it was the last Sunday, and very fine it is.1 But yet I could discern Captain Cooke to overdo his part at singing, which I never did before." 8 July 1660: "To White Hall chapel, where I got in with ease by going before the Lord Chancellor with Mr. Kipps. Here I heard very good music, the first time that ever I remember to have heard the organs and singing-men in surplices in my life." [Found these in a few minutes by using the search function to search the Diary for "church music" - another example of what makes this site so great.]
DrCari asks: "I wonder if Sam ordered a funeral feast, invitations and funeral rings ... " Sam has described the funeral in some detail, including his preparations for it, and has not mentioned these things, so I think we can conclude that they did not happen. The "feast" was mulled wine and biscuits (probably what Americans would call cookies). Invitations were by word of mouth, and spread more widely than Sam expected. Rings would have been a considerable expense, and I have the impression from other passages in the Diary and the annotations that these were passed out at funerals only when the decedent was of considerably higher social status than Tom. I would guess that Tom's funeral was entirely appropriate to his station in life and his status in his community and parish.
"all the morning doing business against to-morrow" This suggests he's preparing for the funeral, which if true resolves yesterday's debate about which Friday it would be, this week or next. We should find out for sure tomorrow.
For Language Hat, Guest, and others with the same question: There is a large asterisk beside the header for each annotation in the "Recent Activity" tab. For the ones you haven't seen yet, the asterisk is bold; for the others, it is grey. It doesn't always get it quite right, but the same was true of the "New" flags in the old system. At least that's how it works on my browser (IE7); don't know if others work the same way.
Whoops, scratch second paragraph of my previous comment, I just found the "Recent Activity" tab. Should have explored a little further before complaining.
Phil, after my initial surprise I decided I like the new format fine, it will just take a few days to get used to it.
One thing I do miss, and hope there's some way of restoring, is an analogue to the "Recently posted annotations" feature and the "New" flags in the old format. I always like to see new annotations to earlier entries, but it's a drag to have to go through the entries one by one to see if they have anything new added. And I'm not sure how we would find new annotations on linked names, places, etc.
"for certain he is an arch rogue, and bred in this towne" Sam's prejudices are showing here. Because the boy is articulate and witty, Sam infers that he cannot possibly be from the country.
"that our importing lesse than we export, do not impoverish the kingdom, according to the received opinion" Why would the conventional wisdom be that a positive balance of trade is a bad thing, impoverishing the kingdom? I thought that achieving and maintaining a positive balance of trade was the very basis of mercantilist theory.
More on "a spot of tea" Thanks to Todd for that fun link. It reminded me of an experience in cross-cultural (mis)understanding I had many years ago. I was doing field research on Polynesian languages in New Zealand (this was in 1974), visiting and working with different Polynesian communities that live in the Auckland area. Some very nice Cook Islanders invited me to return in the evening for a "spot of tea." To my American ears this sounded like tea and maybe some cookies. I had my dinner (supper/evening meal) before going. When I got there, there was this enormous spread of food, a potluck to which scores of people had contributed, and politeness demanded that I partake fully and with gusto. At no feast since have I ever felt so stuffed as I did that evening - but I did learn the meaning of "a spot of tea."
Comments
First Reading
About Tuesday 5 April 1664
Paul Chapin • Link
"and so did his solicitor (one that W. Joyce hath promised 5l. to if he be released)"
Contingency fees are not a modern invention.
About Tuesday 29 March 1664
Paul Chapin • Link
CSG, thank you for posting the journals of the H of C concerning the Triennial Parliaments act. I have followed the link to the original journals, which are a little clearer in their formatting, but I must still confess myself completely baffled. In the recorded votes, it appears that the Noes have it, and the question is decided in the negative; but then the subsequent language sounds as though the act has passed, and the Lords have agreed to it. What am I missing here? Were the "No" votes on amendments to the original bill? Anybody? Bueller?
About Saturday 2 April 1664
Paul Chapin • Link
"Would Sam be familiar with ... Descartes?"
Yes. In the entries for 5 August 1663 and 8 August 1663, he records discussing Descartes with his brother John.
http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1…
http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1…
About Friday 1 April 1664
Paul Chapin • Link
"they will, with their Lives and Fortunes, assist his Majesty"
It's interesting to see this phrase here, which is echoed a century plus later in the final words of the American Declaration of Independence: "we pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor." It leads me to wonder if this was a somewhat standard formulation in matters of great moment during that era.
Thanks to CSG for posting the text of this resolution.
About Friday 25 March 1664
Paul Chapin • Link
Patricia, I also am totally unchurched, but here's how I understood that passage: Sam pretended to be somebody else in order to be allowed in the pew, someone whose name appeared on a roster posted on the wall of those entitled to use the pew. He was naturally fearful that the rightful occupant would show up and expose him as a fraud, but apparently that didn't happen.
It's a little surprising, on that theory, that other occupants of the pew would not know by sight all those named on the roster. Perhaps this was because they rarely came except on major occasions, or perhaps it was not just individuals but members of extended families that had the right to the pew.
Australian Susan often helps us out on these matters; I look forward to her comments.
About Monday 21 March 1663/64
Paul Chapin • Link
The Triennial Parliament
Wikipedia: The Triennial Act 1641 (16 Cha. I c. 1) [1](also known as the Dissolution Act) was an Act passed by the English Long Parliament, during the reign of King Charles I. The act requires that the Parliament meet for at least a fifty-day session once every three years. It was intended to prevent Kings from ruling without Parliament, as had been done between 1629 and 1640.
In 1664, it was repealed by the Triennial Parliaments Act 1664 (16 Cha. II c. 1) [2], though the requirement that a Parliament be called least once in three years was kept.
Under the Triennial Act 1694 (6 & 7 Will. & Mar. c. 2) [3]Parliament met annually and held general elections once every three years. The country now remained in a grip of constant election fever (10 elections in 20 years) and loyalties among MPs were difficult to establish. This increased faction and rivalry. In 1716 the Septennial Act was created, under which a parliament could remain in being for seven years.
This, the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement eventually led to Parliament having control over the country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trie…
Footnote [2] is a link to
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/…
which contains the text of the act of repeal:
Recital that 16 Car. I. c. 1. is in Derogation of the Crown.
The said Act repealed.
Whereas the Act made in the Parliament begun at Westminster the Third day of November in the Sixteenth Yeare of the Raigne of our late Soveraigne Lord King Charles of blessed Memory entituled An Act for the preventing of Inconveniencies happening by the long Intermission of Parliaments is in Derogation of His Majestyes just Rights and Prerogative inherent to the Imperiall Crowne of this Realme for the calling and assembling of Parliaments, And may be an occasion of manifold mischeifes and inconveniences, and much endanger the Peace and Safety of His Majestie, and all His Leidge People of this Realme, Be it therefore enacted by the Kings most Excellent Majestie by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and the Co[m]mons in this present Parliament assembled and by the Authoritie of the same That the said Act entituled An Act for the preventing of Inconveniencies happening by the long Intermission of Parliaments And all and every the Articles Clauses and Things therein contained is, shall be and are hereby wholly repealed annulled and utterly made void, And are hereby declared to be null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever as if the said Act had never beene had or made, Any thing in the said Act contained to the contrary ( (fn. 1) ) notwithstanding.
II. No longer Intermission of Parliaments than Three Years.
And because by the auntient Lawes and Statutes of this Realme made in the Raigne of King Edward the Third Parliaments are to be held very often Your Majesties humble and loyall Subjects the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and the Co[m]mons in this present Parliament assembled most humbly doe beseech Your most Excellent Majestie, That it may be declared and enacted And bee it declared and enacted by the Authority aforesaid That hereafter the sitting and holding of Parliaments shall not be intermitted or discontinued above three yeares at the most, but that within three yeares from and after the determination of this present Parliament and soe from time to time within three yeares after the determination of any other Parliament or Parliaments, or if there be occasion more often, Your Majestie Your Heires and Successors doe issue out Your Writts for calling, assembling and holding of another Parliament to the end there may be a frequent calling assembling and holding of Parliaments once in Three yeares at the least.
From: 'Charles II, 1664: An Act for the assembling and holding of Parliaments once in Three yeares at the least, And for the repeale of an Act entituled An Act for the preventing of Inconveniencies happening by the long Intermission of Parliaments.', Statutes of the Realm: volume 5: 1628-80 (1819), p. 513. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/…. Date accessed: 22 March 2007.
I don't understand, and haven't been able to find any discussion of, the point of this exercise. It seems the Act repealed the requirement that Parliament meet at least once every three years, and then in the next paragraph reinstated it. Was it just because the 1641 Act was a personal affront to his father that C2 wanted it repealed, even though he had no objection to its substance?
About Thursday 17 March 1663/64
Paul Chapin • Link
"Pepys is a musician and composed a tune, yet he never mentions church music"
Actually, Carl, he does, on a number of occasions.
22 November 1663: "The anthem was good after sermon, being the fifty-first psalme, made for five voices by one of Captain Cooke's boys, a pretty boy. And they say there are four or five of them that can do as much. And here I first perceived that the King is a little musicall, and kept good time with his hand all along the anthem."
14 September 1662: "Thence to White Hall chapel, where sermon almost done, and I heard Captain Cooke's new musique. This the first day of having vialls and other instruments to play a symphony between every verse of the anthem; but the musique more full than it was the last Sunday, and very fine it is.1 But yet I could discern Captain Cooke to overdo his part at singing, which I never did before."
8 July 1660: "To White Hall chapel, where I got in with ease by going before the Lord Chancellor with Mr. Kipps. Here I heard very good music, the first time that ever I remember to have heard the organs and singing-men in surplices in my life."
[Found these in a few minutes by using the search function to search the Diary for "church music" - another example of what makes this site so great.]
About Friday 18 March 1663/64
Paul Chapin • Link
DrCari asks: "I wonder if Sam ordered a funeral feast, invitations and funeral rings ... "
Sam has described the funeral in some detail, including his preparations for it, and has not mentioned these things, so I think we can conclude that they did not happen. The "feast" was mulled wine and biscuits (probably what Americans would call cookies). Invitations were by word of mouth, and spread more widely than Sam expected. Rings would have been a considerable expense, and I have the impression from other passages in the Diary and the annotations that these were passed out at funerals only when the decedent was of considerably higher social status than Tom. I would guess that Tom's funeral was entirely appropriate to his station in life and his status in his community and parish.
About Thursday 17 March 1663/64
Paul Chapin • Link
Maurie beat me to it by 5 minutes.
About Thursday 17 March 1663/64
Paul Chapin • Link
"all the morning doing business against to-morrow"
This suggests he's preparing for the funeral, which if true resolves yesterday's debate about which Friday it would be, this week or next. We should find out for sure tomorrow.
About Saturday 12 March 1663/64
Paul Chapin • Link
Despite the presence of pretty women, our hero chooses to talk to Mr. Stacy in private about tar -- and without even invoking his oaths. Stout fellow.
About Tuesday 8 March 1663/64
Paul Chapin • Link
Does "puppy-dog water" mean urine? Do L&M have any comment on this striking sentence?
About New design launched
Paul Chapin • Link
For Language Hat, Guest, and others with the same question:
There is a large asterisk beside the header for each annotation in the "Recent Activity" tab. For the ones you haven't seen yet, the asterisk is bold; for the others, it is grey. It doesn't always get it quite right, but the same was true of the "New" flags in the old system.
At least that's how it works on my browser (IE7); don't know if others work the same way.
About New design launched
Paul Chapin • Link
Whoops, scratch second paragraph of my previous comment, I just found the "Recent Activity" tab. Should have explored a little further before complaining.
About New design launched
Paul Chapin • Link
Phil, after my initial surprise I decided I like the new format fine, it will just take a few days to get used to it.
One thing I do miss, and hope there's some way of restoring, is an analogue to the "Recently posted annotations" feature and the "New" flags in the old format. I always like to see new annotations to earlier entries, but it's a drag to have to go through the entries one by one to see if they have anything new added. And I'm not sure how we would find new annotations on linked names, places, etc.
About Sunday 28 February 1663/64
Paul Chapin • Link
"for certain he is an arch rogue, and bred in this towne"
Sam's prejudices are showing here. Because the boy is articulate and witty, Sam infers that he cannot possibly be from the country.
About Monday 29 February 1663/64
Paul Chapin • Link
"and so with a heart at great case to bed"
Clearly a scanning error for "great ease"
About Monday 29 February 1663/64
Paul Chapin • Link
"that our importing lesse than we export, do not impoverish the kingdom, according to the received opinion"
Why would the conventional wisdom be that a positive balance of trade is a bad thing, impoverishing the kingdom? I thought that achieving and maintaining a positive balance of trade was the very basis of mercantilist theory.
About Sunday 21 February 1663/64
Paul Chapin • Link
More on "a spot of tea"
Thanks to Todd for that fun link. It reminded me of an experience in cross-cultural (mis)understanding I had many years ago. I was doing field research on Polynesian languages in New Zealand (this was in 1974), visiting and working with different Polynesian communities that live in the Auckland area. Some very nice Cook Islanders invited me to return in the evening for a "spot of tea." To my American ears this sounded like tea and maybe some cookies. I had my dinner (supper/evening meal) before going. When I got there, there was this enormous spread of food, a potluck to which scores of people had contributed, and politeness demanded that I partake fully and with gusto. At no feast since have I ever felt so stuffed as I did that evening - but I did learn the meaning of "a spot of tea."
About Monday 15 February 1663/64
Paul Chapin • Link
A wild guess -
Maybe Sam got confused between Surat and Sumatra?