San Diego Sarah

Annotations and comments

San Diego Sarah has posted 9,723 annotations/comments since 6 August 2015.

The most recent first…

Comments

Third Reading

About Friday 22 November 1661

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

And in the House of Lords:

Bill concerning the Dutchy of Cornwall.
Hodie 2a vice lecta est Billa, "An Act to enable the King's Majesty to make Leases, Grants, and Copies of Offices, Lands, Tenements, and Hereditaments, Parcel of His Highness' Dutchy of Cornwall, or annexed to the same, and Confirmation of Leases and Grants already made.

Today the Duchy of Cornwall's rents and leaseholds provide the income of William, Prince of Wales.
Presumable the same was true in Stuart times? Since Charles II had no heir yet, perhaps this was a way of raising his 1,200,000l.?

About Friday 22 November 1661

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

As Terry reports above, the House of Commons is picking up where they left off.
https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/…

In the meantime, Charles II and his ministers had "off-shored" some of the most popular Regicides (hoping they would be forgotten?) when events heated up a few weeks back while Parliament was prorogued (in recess -- a word you'll hear a lot later on):
https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/…
https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/…
https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/…
https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/…

Which makes it hard for me to agree with Charles, Earl Spencer that Charles II was responsible for the bloodthirsty revenge on the killers of the King, his father. I think the historical record shows that he left it up to Parliament to decide who was responsible, having made it clear that some people must be held responsible and pay the price. The Cavalier Parliament doesn't seem to be dragging their heals or applying for mercy here. They could have left Vane, Waller and Lambert in their island purgatories.
https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/…

About Thursday 21 November 1661

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

In the House of Lords today:

Message from H. C. about a Proclamation concerning suspicious Persons.
A Message was brought from the House of Commons, by Mr. Secretary Morris and others:

To let their Lordships know, that the House of Commons have Intelligence that divers Male-contents, Fanatics, Cashiered and Disbanded Officers and Soldiers, and others, have some Design amongst them, tending to the Breach of the Peace of this Kingdom; therefore they desire their Lordships would join with them, to move His Majesty, that He would please to issue out a Proclamation, that all suspicious and loose Persons may be forthwith sent out of these Towns of London and Westm. and the Liberties thereof, for some Time.

Background info for this paranoia:
https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/…

I suppose this explains why Parlisment wants the army cashiered 20 miles away from London.

About Thursday 21 November 1661

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

In the House of Commons today:

Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords, to desire their Concurrence with this House, to petition his Majesty to issue a Proclamation for disarming the disbanded and cashiered Officers and Soldiers; and to command them to depart from, and not to approach within Twenty Miles of, this City, for such time as his Majesty shall think fit.

And Mr. Secretary Maurice is to carry up this Message to the Lords.

AND LATER:

Supply.
Resolved, upon the Question, Nemine contradicente, That the Sum of Twelve hundred thousand Pounds shall be speedily raised for Supply of the King's Majesty's present Occasions: And that the House do resolve into a Grand Committee To-morrow Morning, to consider of the manner of raising it.

These matters are related, even if Charles didn't want them to be.

About Thursday 21 November 1661

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

LKvM sadly Vicente disappears from view much later on. Terry Foreman tried to find him, on and off line during the second go-round, but I don't think he succeeded. Perhaps Terry will pop on and give us an up-date? He's still lurking somewhere nearby ...

About Cadiz

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

Cadiz, Drake and the Armada:

After the untimely death of the Marquis of Santa Cruz on 9 February 1588, Philip II of Spain needed a replacement to lead the 130-ship armada he was preparing in Lisbon to unleash on England. Santa Cruz had been considered the greatest admiral of the age and was irreplaceable, but there were several other talented naval commanders whom Philip could have selected.
Instead he chose a man with no naval or military experience — a high aristocrat named Alonso Pérez de Guzmán, Duke of Medina Sidonia.

The 37-year-old Medina Sidonia was a great grandson of a king of Aragon and was the senior peer in the strategic Andalusia region. During Sir Francis Drake’s raid on Cadiz the prior year, Medina Sidonia had dispatched a militia force into the city to deter Drake from landing. He saw no combat, instead he watched impotently as Drake burned 35 supply ships in Cadiz Harbor.

Medina Sidonia was a frail, sickly man prone to seasickness and insomnia who continually questioned his selection as the Armada’s high admiral. Nevertheless he proved a capable administrator — he was able to complete preparations and set sail for England at the end of May.

Medina Sidonia’s orders were to sail in a defensive formation down the English Channel and only fight the English navy if attacked. Nothing was to deter him from reaching the coast of Flanders and escorting the Duke of Parma’s army on barges to the mouth of the Thames.
To Medina Sidonia the voyage amounted to a holy crusade. Despite his misgivings he intended to see it through, come hell or high water.
https://armadainvincible.com

The armada was, of course, hell AND high water!

Catherine of Braganza's mother, Louisa de Guzman, was the daughter of a Duke of Medina Sidonia, probably the one known well by George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham and King Charles I.
https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…

About Monday 29 April 1661

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

On the subject of the cruet:

"The English word "cruet" originates with the Old French crue, an earthen pot.
The first definitive use of the word was in the 14th Century when it was used to describe a jar or pitcher, and they were used in churches for holy oil or wine. A cruet is a small flat-bottomed jar with a narrow neck. Cruets often have a lip or spout as well as a stopper or lid, and may also have a handle.
Dr. Johnson in his 1755 Dictionary defined a cruet as “A vial for vinegar or oyl, with a stopple.”
Later when a few of these were grouped together it became a ‘cruet set’, and then this got shortened again back to just ‘cruet.’
FROM: https://31se3.r.a.d.sendibm1.com/…

So it meant oil and winegar to Pepys.

About Hobbes' 'Of Libertie and Necessitie'

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

CONCLUSION:

As for example, there was a time when in England a man might enter into his own land, and dispossess such as wrongfully possessed it, by force. But in after times that liberty of forcible entry was taken away by a statute made by the king in Parliament.
And in some places of the world men have the liberty of many wives: in other places, such liberty is not allowed. ...

LATER:

(¶ 21.21) [Margin: In what Cases Subjects are absolved of their obedience to the subject]
The obligation of subjects to the sovereign is understood to last as long, and no longer, than the power lasteth by which he is able to protect them. For the right men have by nature to protect themselves, when none else can protect them, can by no covenant be relinquished.
The sovereignty is the soul of the Commonwealth; which, once departed from the body, the members do no more receive their motion from it.
The end of obedience is protection; which, wheresoever a man seeth it, either in his own or in another's sword, nature applieth his obedience to it, and his endeavour to maintain it. And though sovereignty, in the intention of them that make it, be immortal; yet is it in its own nature, not only subject to violent death by foreign war, but also through the ignorance and passions of men it hath in it, from the very institution, many seeds of a natural mortality, by intestine discord. ...

There's lots more. Not exactly bedside reading, which may account for Pepys only admitting to reading it once.

About Hobbes' 'Of Libertie and Necessitie'

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

PART 2

(¶ 21.16) [Margin: Nor to warfare, unless they voluntarily undertake it]
Upon this ground a man that is commanded as a soldier to fight against the enemy, though his sovereign have right enough to punish his refusal with death, may nevertheless in many cases refuse, without injustice; as when he substituteth a sufficient soldier in his place: for in this case he deserteth not the service of the Commonwealth. And there is allowance to be made for natural timorousness, not only to women (of whom no such dangerous duty is expected), but also to men of feminine courage.
When armies fight, there is on one side, or both, a running away; yet when they do it not out of treachery, but fear, they are not esteemed to do it unjustly, but dishonourably. For the same reason, to avoid battle is not injustice, but cowardice.
But he that enrolleth himself a soldier, or taketh impressed money, taketh away the excuse of a timorous nature, and is obliged, not only to go to the battle, but also not to run from it without his captain's leave. And when the defence of the Commonwealth requireth at once the help of all that are able to bear arms, every one is obliged; because otherwise the institution of the Commonwealth, which they have not the purpose or courage to preserve, was in vain.

(¶ 21.17) To resist the sword of the Commonwealth in defence of another man, guilty or innocent, no man hath liberty; because such liberty takes away from the sovereign the means of protecting us, and is therefore destructive of the very essence of government. But in case a great many men together have already resisted the sovereign power unjustly, or committed some capital crime for which every one of them expecteth death, whether have they not the liberty then to join together, and assist, and defend one another? Certainly they have: for they but defend their lives, which the guilty man may as well do as the innocent. There was injustice in the first breach of their duty: their bearing of arms subsequent to it, though it be to maintain what they have done, is no new unjust act. And if it be only to defend their persons, it is not unjust at all. But the offer of pardon taketh from them to whom it is offered the plea of self-defence, and maketh their perseverance in assisting or defending the rest unlawful.

(¶ 21.18) [Margin: The Greatest Liberty of Subjects, depends on the silence of the Law]
As for other liberties, they depend on the silence of the law. In cases where the sovereign has prescribed no rule, there the subject hath the liberty to do, or forbear, according to his own discretion. And therefore such liberty is in some places more, and in some less; and in some times more, in other times less, according as they that have the sovereignty shall think most convenient.

About Hobbes' 'Of Libertie and Necessitie'

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

Vicente and P.G.'s link above takes you to this dense document, which Pepys describes as "a very shrewd piece":
He probably picked up on this one-sided 'dialog' about impressment and service due to the sovereign:

(¶ 21.11) [Margin: Subjects have liberty to defend their own bodies even against them that lawfully invade them]
First therefore, seeing sovereignty by institution is by covenant of every one to every one; and sovereignty by acquisition, by covenants of the vanquished to the victor, or child to the parent; it is manifest that every subject has liberty in all those things the right whereof cannot by covenant be transferred. I have shown before, in the 14th Chapter, that covenants not to defend a man's own body are void. Therefore,

(¶ 21.12) [Margin: Are not bound to hurt themselves]
If the sovereign command a man, though justly condemned, to kill, wound, or maim himself; or not to resist those that assault him; or to abstain from the use of food, air, medicine, or any other thing without which he cannot live; yet hath that man the liberty to disobey.

(¶ 21.13) If a man be interrogated by the sovereign, or his authority, concerning a crime done by himself, he is not bound (without assurance of pardon) to confess it; because no man, as I have shown in the same chapter, can be obliged by covenant to accuse himself.

(¶ 21.14) Again, the consent of a subject to sovereign power is contained in these words, "I authorise, or take upon me, all his actions"; in which there is no restriction at all of his own former natural liberty: for by allowing him to kill me, I am not bound to kill myself when he commands me. It is one thing to say, "Kill me, or my fellow, if you please"; another thing to say, "I will kill myself, or my fellow." It followeth, therefore, that

(¶ 21.15) No man is bound by the words themselves, either to kill himself or any other man; and consequently, that the obligation a man may sometimes have, upon the command of the sovereign, to execute any dangerous or dishonourable office, dependeth not on the words of our submission, but on the intention; which is to be understood by the end thereof. When therefore our refusal to obey frustrates the end for which the sovereignty was ordained, then there is no liberty to refuse; otherwise, there is.

About Monday 4 July 1664

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

If you're interested in other annotations about the differences between swearing, cursing and blaspheming, originally, then and now, we have many annotations about it. The search bar is top right; search specifying swearing -- on the search page change the "in" line to annotations' order by "relevancy" is fine.
I also tackled blasphemy at
https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/…

About Sunday 16 September 1660

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

If I was writing the above annotation about the change from magical thinking to logical thinking, I would also point out that most of the early philosophers were mathemeticians.
This fact puzzled me until I understood that once your brain is trained to accept and trust that 2+2 always equals 4, it's ready to think through more complex truths.
As we know, Pepys didn't know much maths to begin with, but he had music down -- and music is maths in disguise. He was ready.

About Monday 4 November 1661

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

Pepys doesn't have his ear to the keyhole at Whitehall -- the Lord Steward of the Royal Household, James Butler, 1st Duke of Ormonde, is today "appointed lord-lieutenant of Ireland, 4 Nov. 1661".

He takes over from 3 placeholders, who had been doing their best as the previous Lord Lieutenant had avoided going there.

One of the placeholders was the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, Sir Maurice Eustace, and they had been trying to implement Charles II's "royalification" of Ireland
https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/…
The declaration is over 200 pages long, typed. That's how many pages hand written?

They were not doing it well enough by Westminster's standards:

James Butler, Duke of Ormonde, Lord Steward of his Majesty's Household, to Lord Chancellor of Ireland, Sir Maurice Eustace
Written from: Whitehall
Date: 21 October 1661
Shelfmark: MS. Carte 44, fol(s). 87
Document type: Copy
Sir Maurice's letter concerning the recusant lawyers has been read to the Lord Chancellor of England, who was observed to appear somewhat surprised at what was done, in that matter, but will, upon any notice being taken of what hath passed, render all the service he can.
"For God's sake," adds the Duke, "in things of this great importance, especially where you find yourself overbalanced, beware what you do. There is great notice taken of the multiplicity of letters written by you to various persons here who make no scruple so to expose them to the view of others, as though they meant ... to value themselves upon their correspondence with you."

Which brings us to

James Butler, 1st Duke of Ormonde, Lord Steward of his Majesty's Household, to the Lords Justices
Written from: Whitehall
Date: 5 November 1661
Shelfmark: MS. Carte 49, fol(s). 79
Document type: Copy
Yesterday, in Council, his Majesty was pleased to declare his pleasure that the writer should repair into Ireland to serve him as Lord Lieutenant.
Besides the satisfaction of joining with their Lordships in the advancement of his Majesty's service he will be glad to receive from them all advices they shall deem conducive thereto.

All gleaned from
Carte Calendar Volume 32, June - December 1661
For more information on the Carte manuscripts and calendar, see the Carte Calendar Project homepage.
Shelfmark: MS. Carte Calendar 32 Extent: 464 pages
https://wayback.archive-it.org/or…

Good luck, Your Grace.

About James Butler (Duke of Ormond, Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland)

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

CONCLUSION:

HISTORY: For much of their lives the two dukes of Ormonde dominated public events in Ireland, where they served the English sovereign as viceroy 5 times; they were also powerful presences in the Stuart court in England, and commanded armies both in Ireland and Europe.
Later, they spent long periods on the continent as travellers and exiles.
Yet despite their importance in the public life of the age, neither duke has been the subject of a full modern biography, a gap which this collection of essays aims to fill, using key episodes and phases in the Ormondes' careers to investigate the larger picture.
The dukes' lives as great nobles, landowners and converts to Protestantism raise problems specific to Ireland, but they also exemplify the predicament of nobles elsewhere in Europe. A particular focus is on the worlds that they and their wives created, often innovative and always dazzling, and on the clienteles who looked to them for preferment and on which a part of the Ormondes' political weight rested.
Throughout, much new light is cast on such vexed questions as the troubled and constantly changing relationship between Ireland and England, between public and private interests, and the roles of women.

Dr TOBY BARNARD teaches at the University of Oxford. Contributors: G.E. AYLMER, T.C. BARNARD, EVELINE CRUICKSHANKS, DAVID EDWARDS, JANE FENLON, RAYMOND GILLESPIE, DAVID HAYTON, PATRICK LITTLE, RENÉ MOULINAS, ÉAMONN - CIARDHA, NATHALIE GENET ROUFFIAC

About the Author:
Dr TOBY BARNARD teaches at the University of Oxford.

Contributors: G.E. AYLMER, T.C. BARNARD, EVELINE CRUICKSHANKS, DAVID EDWARDS, JANE FENLON, RAYMOND GILLESPIE, DAVID HAYTON, PATRICK LITTLE, RENÉ MOULINAS, ÉAMONN - CIARDHA, NATHALIE GENET ROUFFIAC.

About James Butler (Duke of Ormond, Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland)

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

PART 2

Emilia's sister Charlotte (who died unmarried) was buried on 25 November 1702 in the vault.

James, son of Thomas and Emilia, succeeded his grandfather as 2nd Duke of Ormond. He was impeached for high treason in 1715 and passed the rest of his life abroad, mainly at Avignon in France. He died on 5 November 1745 (according to his coffin plate) and was buried in the vault on 22 May 1746.

His first wife was Lady Anne Hyde, daughter of Lawrence, 1st Earl of Rochester.

Two young children by her were buried in the vault (Elisabeth and Mary).

His second wife was Mary Somerset, daughter of Henry, Duke of Beaufort. She is said never to have seen her husband during his exile and she was buried on 25 November 1733.

Their son Thomas was buried 1689, daughter Henrietta in 1701 and Elizabeth (who died unmarried) in 1750.

Further reading
The Dukes of Ormond 1610-1745 edited by T. Barnard and J. Fenlon, 2000.

Oxford Dictionary of National Biography 2004 for
James, 1st Duke of Ormonde,
https://www.oxforddnb.com/display…
Elizabeth, Countess of Ormonde
https://www.oxforddnb.com/display…
Richard, 1st Earl of Arran
https://www.oxforddnb.com/display…
Thomas, 6th Earl of Ossary
https://www.oxforddnb.com/display…
and James, 2nd Duke of Ormond
https://www.oxforddnb.com/display…
Historical Memorials of Westminster Abbey by A.P. Stanley, 3rd edn. 1869 (short report on examination of the vault and plan)

See also the website of Kilkenny Castle
https://www.kilkennycastle.ie/

The above is from the Westminster Abbey website
https://www.westminster-abbey.org…
@@@

Title: The Dukes of Ormonde, 1610-1745
Publisher: Boydell Press, Woodbridge, Suffolk
Publication Date: 2000

Synopsis:
A valuable insight into the political and material world of Ireland's leading aristocratic family.

About James Butler (Duke of Ormond, Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland)

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

James Butler, Duke of Ormond & family
Soldier
James Butler, 1st Duke of Ormond, and several members of his family, are buried in a large vault (22 ft long) at the east end of Henry VII's chapel in Westminster Abbey.
The vault was formerly the burial place of Oliver Cromwell and members of his family and officers until their bodies were ejected in 1661.
None of the Butler family has a monument and their names were only inscribed on a stone over the vault in the late 19th century when Dean Stanley viewed the coffins there. The chapel above the vault is now dedicated to the RAF and a carpet permanently covers the vault stone with the names inscribed on it.

James was the eldest son of Thomas, Viscount Thurles and his wife Elizabeth (Poyntz) and was born in London on 19th October 1610. He succeeded his grandfather as 12th Earl of Ormond in the Irish peerage.

At the Restoration of Charles II he was made Lord Steward of the Household and held the crown in the coronation procession. Created Duke of Ormond in 1661 he was also a Knight of the Order of the Garter and Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. He concluded peace with the Roman Catholic Irish on behalf of the King and left Ireland and served as a colonel under the Duke of York in Spain. He was buried on 4 August 1688.

His wife Elizabeth, Duchess of Ormond was buried on 24 July 1684 (the date inscribed on the vault stone is incorrect). She was the daughter of Sir Richard Preston (Baron Dingwall in Scotland and Earl of Desmond in Ireland) and his wife Lady Elizabeth (daughter of Thomas Butler, 10th Earl of Ormond). She was born on 25 July 1615 and James was her cousin. In 1642 she had to flee with her children from Kilkenny Castle to Dublin during the Catholic uprising.

They had sons Thomas, Richard and John, Earl of Gowran. Their daughter Mary, Duchess of Devonshire was buried with them on 6 August 1710.

Richard, Earl of Arran, son of James and Elizabeth, was born on 15 June 1639 and was created Earl of Arran in the Irish peerage and Baron Butler of Weston in the English peerage. His first wife was Lady Mary Stuart but they had no children. His second was Dorothy Ferrars. A son was baptised in the Abbey and buried in 1676 and a daughter was buried in 1687.

Thomas, Earl of Ossory was another son of James and Elizabeth. He was born on 8 July 1634 and educated in France. He was imprisoned in the Tower of London by Cromwell but received a pass to leave England. At the Restoration he was made a Privy Councillor and was a Member of Parliament, Lt. General of the Horse, and Deputy Governor of Ireland. He died of a fever and was buried in the vault on 31 July 1680.

On 17 November 1659 he married Emilia van Nassau (daughter of Henry de Nassau, Lord of Auverquerque and his wife Elizabeth, daughter of Count de Horn). She was buried in the vault on 12 December 1688.

A daughter Elizabeth, Countess of Derby was buried with them in 1717.

About Friday 31 May 1667

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

CONCLUSION:

The receivers and agents for the Royal Aid in co. Hereford are to attend the Privy Council this afternoon concerning their arrears. Lord Ashley to be moved to know how the matter stands as to the money in Mr. Price's hands for said county. Mr. Tim. Coles' permitted to give an account to my Lords of money in the hands of William Grisman, a constable in said county.
Sir William Doily's paper to be presented to the Privy Council concerning a suit commenced in co. Northampton against a collector.
Lord Ashley to be spoken with by the Serjeant at Arms concerning keeping in custody Mr. Price, receiver of co. Hereford. Price, Veale, White and Sir William Doily to attend here to-morrow.
Sir William Doily to give an accompt how the Receivers' accompts stand, and also of the charge of their [Doyle's] office and waggons. The auditors of the revenue are to call to accompt all the Receivers of the Poll money. Sir William Doyly to write to the Receivers of the said Poll money and of the taxes to hasten hither their accompts and moneys, and to the Commissioners of all [the counties, &c., of] England to send up the duplicates of the Poll money.
The Excise Commissioners to be spoken to concerning the papers of the Farmers of the London Excise, Mr. Ashburnham and Sir Stephen Fox of this day's date.
A time to be appointed to consider how to make returns by exchange out of the counties; and to consider Sir William Doily's papers of the 29th inst. for 7,000l. for waggons.
A copy to be sent to Lord Arlington of what is written to Sir William Temple and Mr. Glanvile about the tin at Ostend.
Sir Robert Southwell's Privy Seal read. Lord Arlington and Lord Ashley to be consulted about it.
Consideration to be taken of the allowances ordinary and extra-ordinary to public ministers; and to represent something to the King about it.
The Privy Seal for repayment to the King, out of the 11 Months' tax, of the 200,000l. borrowed by him on the Customs, and paid to Sir George Carteret and the Ordnance for the Navy and stores, agreed to, and sent to Lord Arlington for the King's signature.
My Lords' ordinary time of meeting to be Monday, 3 p.m., instead of Tuesday, 8 a.m.
[Treasury Minute Book I. pp. 7–9.]"

FROM
'Minute Book: May 1667', in Calendar of Treasury Books, Volume 2, 1667-1668, ed. William A Shaw( London, 1905), British History Online https://www.british-history.ac.uk…

They ran an expensive and global empire -- no phones, mimeo or xerox machines. I am impressed.

About Friday 31 May 1667

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

"So parted and I – L&M] by water to White Hall to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, the first time I ever was there and I think the second that they have met at the Treasury chamber there. Here I saw Duncomb look as big, and take as much state on him, as if he had been born a lord. I was in with him about Tangier, and at present received but little answer from them, they being in a cloud of business yet, but I doubt not but all will go well under them."

Pepys was right -- don't let the double negative confuse you:

"May 31.
Friday. Present: Duke of Albemarle, Sir Thomas Clifford, Sir William Coventry, Sir John Duncomb.
The officers of the Exchequer to attend here on Monday at 3 p.m.
The Farmers of the Customs to send to my Lords next Monday and every Monday an account of their receipts and payments for London and the like quarterly for the outports; and that for the future they pay no money on any tally but by order of my Lords: and that they attend here Monday next at 3 p.m. When Lord Ashley is present it is to be considered as to their carrying in all their tallies into the Exchequer.
Mr. Wood to be here on Monday with what papers relate to the tin at Ostend. Write to Sir William Temple to give my Lords an account of the whole state of the tin affair in Flanders, how disposed and what remains. Also to Mr. Glanvile to the like effect that he deliver to Alderman Backwell's order what tin is not disposed by Sir William Temple's order, except the 2,000lb. for the Swedish Ambassador. This to be communicated to said Backwell.
Sir George Carteret, Alderman Backwell and Mr. Sherwyn appearing gave an account by word of mouth of the tin in Flanders and [of] a second bargain of 300 tons of the King's tin which was sold to Alderman Lewys and Alderman Dashwood at 4l. per ton.
Sir George Carteret and Mr. Gawden appeared about the 62,000l. assignment demanded by the Victualler of the Navy. To be speedily considered.
Sir George Carteret to give in to my Lords an accompt of all assignments in his hands.

Mr. Pepys to be speedily considered for 30,000l. for Tangiers.

Sir George Carteret reports that he can have from the Bankers about 60,000l. presently if they like their security. He is to treat with them to lend it on the remotest orders of the Eleven Months' tax, not on those [orders thereon] for seamen's wages.

About Henry Coventry

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

CONCLUSION:

Sir William Coventry, 5th son of Lord Keeper Coventry, was 10 years younger than his brother Henry, -- POSTED ON HIS PAGE AT
https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…

The Coventry Papers came to Longleat through Henry Frederick Thynne, third son of Sir Henry Frederick Thynne, Bart., by Mary, daughter of Lord Keeper Coventry, and grandfather of Thomas Thynne, 2nd Viscount Weymouth (1714).
H. F. Thynne was Secretary to his uncle Henry Coventry, when Secretary of State, and also his co-heir (CVI. f.352); he was executor to his uncle Sir William Coventry.
https://discovery.nationalarchive…