Today the Savoy Conference ended. It started on April 15: a digest of what was subsequently discussed and by whom is at https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/…
Sadly, it didn't achieve much in the way of reconciliation as both sides still wanted to "win". Since Charles II was officially CofE, the Anglican church quite predictably "won".
Notes based on "Everyman's History of the Prayer Book" by Percy Dearmer Chapter XI -- The Fifth English Prayer Book http://justus.anglican.org/resour… Percy Dearmer (1867 - 1936) was a Christian socialist and probably best-known as the author of 'A Parson's Handbook'.
THE Savoy Conference came to an end 24 July, 1661: before Christmas of that year Convocation had completed the Fifth Prayer Book; and the next year this was annexed to the Act of Uniformity.
The preceding chapter showed the conditions under which the new Prayer Book was produced and the principles which motivated the revisers. These are stated clearly in the first of the prefaces to the English Prayer Book, and is called "The Preface."
"The Preface" was written by Sanderson, Bishop of Lincoln, and is divided into 5 paragraphs: 1. A description of the previous revisions: in the often misquoted phrase, they had been meant "to keep the mean between the two extremes, of too much stiffness in refusing, and of too much easiness in admitting any variation." The loose way in which the word "Liturgy" (properly a term for the Holy Communion) is used of the service as a whole, is a sign that liturgical knowledge is not what it had been a century before. 2. A sketch of those preliminaries to the present revision (the deputation to the king, etc.) described in our last chapter. The harsh tone of a triumphant party will be noticed in the Bishop's phrases. 3. The standard by which proposed changes were accepted or rejected, with a proviso that the Book of 1604 contained nothing contrary to the Word of God. Here is another famous and important sentence: "We have rejected all such as were either of dangerous consequence (as secretly striking at some established doctrine, or laudable practice of the Church of England, or indeed of the whole Catholick Church of Christ) or else of no consequence at all, but utterly frivolous and vain." 4. A description of the changes introduced, beginning with a statement that they were not made "to gratify this or that party in any their unreasonable demands." 5. An expression of the hope that these changes (though unwelcome to "men of factious, peevish, and perverse spirits") will be approved by "all sober, peaceable, and truly conscientious sons of the Church of England."
... [FOR THE EXACT CHANGES, PLEASE READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE -- SDS]
Puritanism brought to England a noble stock of moral sturdiness; and the ecclesiastical descendants of those Dissenters whom the cruelty of the Clarendon Code put outside the pale of the law, are among the best of our people today; but those descendants are themselves the surest witnesses today that the Churchmen were right in liturgical matters, for our modern Presbyterians and Nonconformists are steadily adopting the phrases and customs and ornaments to which the saintly Richard Baxter and his colleagues so strangely objected.
After the Savoy Conference the last revision of the Prayer Book was put in hand, and the long-lasting Fifth English Prayer Book was produced.
Excerpted from "Everyman's History of the Prayer Book" by Percy Dearmer Chapter X -- The Savoy Conference http://justus.anglican.org/resour… Percy Dearmer (1867 - 1936) was a Christian socialist and probably best-known as the author of 'A Parson's Handbook,' a popular guide to the ritual and conduct of Anglican liturgies.
We may summarize the position by two quotations. The Puritan Divines said: "To load our public forms with the private fancies upon which we differ, is the most sovereign way to perpetuate schism to the world's end. Prayer, confession, thanksgiving, reading of the Scriptures, and administration of the Sacraments in the plainest, and simplest manner, were matter enough to furnish out a sufficient Liturgy, though nothing either of private opinion, or of church pomp, of garments, or prescribed gestures, of imagery, of musick, of matter concerning the dead, of many superfluities which creep into the Church under the name of order and decency, did interpose itself. To charge Churches and Liturgies with things unnecessary, was the first beginning of all superstition." "If the special guides and fathers of the Church would be a little sparing of encumbering churches with superfluities, or not over-rigid, either in reviving obsolete customs, or imposing new, there would be far less cause of schism, or superstition." The Bishops said: "It was the wisdom of our Reformers to draw up such a Liturgy as neither Romanist nor Protestant could justly except against." "For preserving of the Churches' peace we know no better nor more efficacious way than our set Liturgy; there being no such way to keep us from schism, as to speak all the same thing, according to the Apostle. This experience of former and latter times hath taught us; when the Liturgy was duly observed we lived in peace; since that was laid aside there bath been as many modes and fashions of public worship as fancies." "If we do not observe that golden rule of the venerable Council of Nice, 'Let ancient customs prevail,' till reason plainly requires the contrary, we shall give offence to sober Christians by a causeless departure from Catholic usage, and a greater advantage to enemies of our Church, than our brethren, I hope, would willingly grant."
In many things the Churchmen of that age were in the wrong: they were especially to blame for the penal laws and the harrying of Dissenters, which took generations and many acts of toleration to remove. But few scholars would now refuse to admit that their theology was broader, more Christian, because less tainted by Calvinism, and truer to the New Testament than that of their opponents; and in those liturgical matters with which this little history is concerned there is now no doubt that they were right and the Puritans wrong.
Who would now desire that Confirmation should not be administered by the Bishop, or that it should not be assumed in that service that the children brought have the Christian spirit and the forgiveness of their sins?
Who now would desire to omit the mention of godparents at Baptism or Confirmation? `
Who would like the minister to have power, if he chose, not to deliver the Sacrament to each communicant individually?
Who could bear to see the simple ornaments and ceremonies already mentioned — the surplice, or kneeling for communion — abolished?
Some of the Puritan criticisms were good, and some were accepted by the Bishops and their coadjutors.
The Bishops agreed to print the Epistles and Gospels according to the Authorized Version; to add to the rubric "The portion of Scripture appointed for the Epistle"; to give a longer time for notice by the communicants, altering "overnight, or else in the morning" to "at least some time the day before"; to add the manual acts to the Consecration in the Communion Service (the Puritans had rightly pointed out that the breaking of the bread was not so much as mentioned); to add (and this was also an improvement) to the rubric after Confirmation the words "or be ready and desirous to be confirmed."
Besides these things, they agreed to alter in the Marriage Service "with my body I thee worship" to "with my body I thee honor" (although fortunately this was not done); but they did alter "till death us depart "to" till death us do part."
The Bishops further agreed to add the preface ("prefixed by God himself," the Puritans had said) to the Commandments, but fortunately this also was not done; and to omit from the Burial Service the epithets "in sure and certain hope of Resurrection to eternal life"; but mercifully this was taken back also, the sense being guarded by the insertion of the definite article.
The Ornaments Rubric was to be omitted, "forasmuch as this rubric seemeth to bring back the cope, albe, etc., and other vestments forbidden by the Common Prayer Book, 5 and 6 Edw. VI" (the Second Book); to which the Bishops replied, We think it fit that the rubric continue as it is. The Surplice, the Cross in Baptism, and kneeling at Communion are objected to as "fountains of evil"; the wedding-ring is to be optional.
There is to be "nothing in the Liturgy which may seem to countenance the observation of Lent as a religious fast"; and the "religious observation of saints' days . . . and the vigils thereof is to be omitted."
The word "Sunday" was objected to, and not only "Priest," but even that most harmless of words, "Curate." The Bishops replied to such criticisms as these by referring to Catholic usage, and to a Custom of the Churches of God, agreeable to the Scripture and ancient, and to the Catholic Consent of antiquity.
The Puritan Divines also objected to those phrases in the Prayer Book which assume all the congregation "to be regenerated, converted, and in an actual state of grace": the Bishops replied by pointing to St. Paul's use of the word "saints."
The Puritans objected to the charitable assumptions of the Burial Service. It is better to be charitable and hope the best, said the Bishops. The Puritans asked for a rubric declaring that the prayers and exhortations are not for the benefit of the dead (the Bishops significantly ignored this). They also demanded a rubric allowing ministers not to go to the graveside unless they thought fit, to which the Bishops replied that, since this was not asked for the ease of tender consciences, but of tender heads, the desire may be helped by a cap better than a rubric.
Bishops were not afraid to be witty in those days, or to speak in homely fashion, as when they met the demand for omitting all Lessons from the Apocrypha by the remark, "It is heartily to be wished that sermons were as good; for, if nothing ought to be heard in church except the Old and New Testaments, then there would be no sermons either."
Few of us today, whether Anglican or Nonconformists, would agree with these objections, many of which were undeniably fractious and captious while others depended upon a theology now obsolete.
It is a mercy the Bishops did not give way to the Puritan demand that "inheritors" in the Catechism should be altered to "heirs" — thus making the Kingdom of Heaven a future hope instead of a present inheritance; and we may be glad the Bishops left the definition of a Sacrament broad, by refusing to put "Two only," without the qualification "as generally necessary to salvation."
We may also be thankful that we are not fettered by the insertion into the Catechism of the theories current in 1661 "concerning the nature of faith, repentance, the two covenants, justification, sanctification, adoption, and regeneration."
Charles II rides for Windsor, leaving the clerics to work out the Anglican future:
On April 15, 1661, the Savoy Conference met at Gilbert Sheldon, Bishop of London's chambers at Savoy Hospital: it consisted of 12 Bishops (including John Cosin of Durham, Robert Sanderson of Lincoln, and Gilbert Sheldon of London), with 9 coadjutors (including John Pearson, afterwards Bishop of Chester, Peter Heylin, Peter Gunning, Anthony Sparrow, Herbert Thorndike), on the one side; and on the other, 12 Presbyterian Divines (including Richard Baxter, author of 'The Saints' Rest', and Edmund Calamy, Edward Reynolds, Anthony Tuckney, John Conant, William Spurstowe, John Wallis, Thomas Manton, Arthur Jackson, Thomas Case, Samuel Clarke, and Matthew Newcomen), with 9 coadjutors. ... One point emerges — the truth of John Milton's epigram that Presbyter was but old Priest writ large.
... the Puritans wished to give the minister power to refuse Baptism to a child, if he considered their parents to be heretical or notorious sinners. We may be thankful the Bishops replied, We think this to be very hard and uncharitable, and giving also too great and arbitrary a power.
Similarly, they wished to give greater liberty to the minister in the Absolution (Visitation of the Sick), and the Bishops answered the giving of absolution must not depend upon the minister's pleasure, but on the sick man's penitence.
They also desired that the minister should be urged to use full power "both to admit and to keep from the Lord's Table."
They further proposed to deprive the people of their share in the service — the repetitions and responses, the Kyries after the Commandments (the minister to say instead "a suitable prayer" at the end), and the alternate reading of the Psalms and Hymns, declaring "the people's part in public prayer to be only with silence and reverence to attend thereunto, and to declare their consent in the close, by saying Amen."
It is not surprising they desired the minister to face the people throughout the service — an obtrusive piece of clericalism from which many denominations still suffer: to this the Bishops replied, Not so, and pointed out that in the ancient Church the minister always turned with the people when he acted as their spokesman. The minister, thus exalted, must have the entire service in his own hands: the Puritan Divines not only wished him to have discretion to "omit part" of the appointed service and substitute extempore prayer, but also they desired that the collects should be melted down into "one methodical and entire form of prayer composed out of many of them," and that the Litany should be changed "into one solemn prayer."
If the Bishops had given way in 1661, we would today go to church and find a frock-coated gentleman confronting us to say the whole Litany without a break as one solemn prayer, while we "with silence and reverence to attend thereunto" and to say "Amen" when he had finished.
Pepys may have been at Westminster today, but he missed the big news from Whitehall:
So great was the demand for Prayer Books that, before 1660 had reached its close, 5 editions of the old Book of Prayer were printed.
But the Prayer Book had not been revised since 1604, and many agreed at least in this — that a new revision was needed. It was the only point about which the two parties in the State did agree, as the Savoy Conference was soon to show.
But first, while Charles II was still in the Dutch Republic, a company of Presbyterian divines went to The Hague with the Parliamentary deputation that was to bring back Charles II (May 10, 1660), and asked that, as the Prayer Book had long been discontinued, the King should not use it when he landed. They also asked that his chaplains should give up using the surplice.
Charles II replied with his usual keenness of wit, that he would not be restrained himself when others had so much indulgence.
But after Charles II was back the Puritans continued their pressure, and asked that the Prayer Book might be made like the liturgies of the Reformed Churches.
There were 9 Bishops still alive; and they made the excellent reply that "the nearer both their forms and ours come to the liturgy of the ancient Greek and Latin Churches, the less are they liable to the objections of the common enemy."
Charles II issued a declaration on October 25, 1660, promising a conference, and allowing freedom meanwhile.
On April 15, 1661, the Savoy Conference met:" ... but you'll have to wait for that.
Meanwhile the Lords seem to have no sense of urgency:
Bill to confirm the one for draining the Great Level. The Lord Lexington reported from the Committee, the Bill concerning the Draining the Great Level of the Fens, as fit to pass as it is, without any Alteration. Hodie 3a vice lecta est Billa, "An Act for confirming and continuing an Act, for the necessary Maintenance of the Work of Draining the Great Level of the Fens."
Bill for preserving Deer. The Earl of North'on reported from the Committee, the Bill against Killing of Deer, as fit to pass, with some Alterations; which, being read Twice, were agreed to. Hodie 3a vice lecta est Billa, "An Act to prevent the unlawful coursing, hurting, and killing of Deer."
Bill to restore Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction. The Lord Lucas reported from the Committee, the Bill concerning Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, as fit to pass, with an Alteration. Which being read Twice; ORDERED, That the Committee for this Bill do meet To-morrow in the Afternoon, in the Lord Chancellor's Lodgings.
Message from H. C. with Bills. A Message was brought from the House of Commons, by Mr. Gilby and others; who brought up these Bills following: 1. A Bill for dividing Trynity Church, in Kingston upon Hull, from Hassle. 2. To return a Bill sent down from their Lordships to them, for confirming an Enclosure of Land at Parsons Green; to which the House of Commons do concur, without any Alterations.
Militia Bill. The Lord Lucas reported from the Committee, the Bill concerning the Militia, wherein the Committee have thought fit to make some Alterations, which are offered to the Consideration of this House. The Alterations were read Twice. And, after Debate thereof, The Question being put, "Whether to agree with the Committee in leaving out the Proviso concerning taking the Oaths?" It was Resolved in the Negative. The other Proviso, brought in from the Committee, after Debate, was not Agreed to. Hodie 3a vice lecta est Billa, "An Act declaring the sole Right of the Militia to be in the King; and for the present ordering and disposing the same."
Hampson to be attached, if he do not make up Rolls in the Stat. Office, or deliver the Books. They can't do their work if they can't see the evidence.
@@@
Apparently even the Royalists were hesitant to give Charles II a standing army.
Major considerations for the House of Commons today:
Highways. Ordered, That the Committee to whom the Bill for Highways was committed, be revived; and do sit this Afternoon in the Place formerly appointed.
Seudamore's Losses at Play. A Bill for making void of divers Judgments and Conveyances obtained by George Colt and Thomas Colt, and their Trustees, for Monies won at Play, was this Day read the Second time. Resolved, upon the Question, That the said Bill be committed to Lord Cornbury, ... and all the Members that serve for Herefordshire: ... And to send for Persons, Papers, Witnesses, and Records; and to send for and examine such Persons as were present at and privy to the Frauds in winning the Monies at Play, and drawing Mr. Scudamore into the Judgments and Conveyances; and to make Report thereof to the House: And also to prepare and bring in a Bill to avoid all Judgments and Securities, given for Monies won at Play; and to prevent all Practices and Cheats in Gaming for the future.
Navy Government. A Bill, sent from the Lords, for the establishing Articles and Orders for the Regulating and better Government of his Majesty's Navies, Ships of War, and Forces by Sea, was this Day read the Second time. Resolved, upon the Question, That the same be committed to ... And to send for Persons, Papers, and Records: And all the Members of this House, who shall come to the said Committee, are to have Votes thereat.
Publick Revenue. And then the House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House, to resume the Debate of the Increase of his Majesty's Revenue. Mr. Milward made Report to the House, That the Committee having proceeded in the Matter of the Increase of his Majesty's Revenue; and that it being put to the Question, That an Imposition should be laid upon Salt, towards the Increase of his Majesty's Revenue; it passed in the Negative: After which, it was resolved, upon the Question, That Paper and Parchment be first taken into Consideration towards the Increase of his Majesty's Revenue: And that it was the Desire of the Committee, That the House might again resolve into a Committee To-morrow Morning, at Nine of the Clock, to resume the further Debate of the Increase of his Majesty's Revenue.
@@@
Yes, courtiers like John Scudamore, 1st Viscount Scudamore (22 March 1601 – 19 May 1671) gambled away fortunes, but Parliament can't provide Charles II with a decent income. Historians seem to agree Parliament always kept him under-funded, and that he spent what he had unwisely. Under-funding and thrift do not always coexist.
"So by degrees till I come to Hatfield before twelve o’clock, where I had a very good dinner with my hostess, at my Lord of Salisbury’s Inn, and after dinner though weary I walked all alone to the Vineyard, which is now a very beautiful place again; and coming back I met with Mr. Looker, my Lord’s gardener (a friend of Mr. Eglin’s), who showed me the house, the chappell with brave pictures, and, above all, the gardens, such as I never saw in all my life; nor so good flowers, nor so great gooseberrys, as big as nutmegs.
"Back to the inn, and drank with him, and so to horse again, ..."
Strange how people can amble around the gentry's houses and check out their veggies without so much as a "by your leave." You can't do that at Hatfield House today.
"So by degrees till I come to Hatfield before twelve o’clock, ... I met with Mr. Looker, my Lord’s gardener (a friend of Mr. Eglin’s), who showed me the house, the chappell with brave pictures, and, above all, the gardens, such as I never saw in all my life; nor so good flowers, nor so great gooseberrys, as big as nutmegs." https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/…
Thanks to the military skill of Gen. Rowland Laugharne and the adept political maneuvering of Mayor Poyer, parliament's forces in Pembrokeshire were ultimately successful and in May 1646, with the surrender of King Charles to the Scots, the first Civil War ended. Parliament had clear control of the country, and it seemed men like Poyer could enjoy the fruits of victory.
In Pembrokeshire, bad feelings continued to simmer. Mayor Poyer was called to London to answer charges of appropriating land and property to the value of £6,000. The charge eventually came to nothing but Poyer was incensed he should be called to task by parliament, the people he had risked his life to champion.
For some time Gen. Laugharne's soldiers - like many other armies across Britain - had been refusing to disband until they were paid arrears in wages. Sir Thomas, Lord Fairfax ordered Mayor Poyer to appear again before a committee of accounts and to give up control of Pembroke and its castle. Poyer refused and used the excuse of the unpaid soldiers. He would vacate the castle when Gen. Laugharne's men had been given the wages they were owed.
England slipped towards a second civil war. There were many other causes for this, but men like Poyer and Laugharne now declared for Prince Charles.
When parliament sent a large force under Gen. Horton to deal with the south Wales rebels, Mayor Poyer declared: "He, who feared neither Fairfax, Cromwell or Ireton, would be the first man to charge against Ironsides."
Unfortunately for Poyer and Laugharne, their army was defeated at the Battle of St. Fagans on 4 May, 1648, and they fell back to Pembroke. Parliamentary forces appeared outside the town walls and a 7-week siege began. Oliver Cromwell commanded the besieging troops. Mayor John Poyer and Gen. Rowland Laugharne were tireless defenders of Pembroke, appearing on the walls and leading sorties against Cromwell's troops. Inevitably, food and water ran short, and at the end of July the town surrendered.
John Poyer, Col. Laugharne and Col. Rice Powell (who had garrisoned Tenby against Cromwell) were sent to London for trial as traitors. A military court sat from 4-12 April, 1649, and returned a guilty verdict. All 3 were condemned to death. However, the council of state decided on leniency -- only one man must die, his fate to be decided by a child who would draw lots to decide who would face the firing squad. The unlucky man was John Poyer.
Mayor John Poyer's execution took place at Covent Garden on 25 April, 1649.
The first thing on the House of Common's agenda today:
Poyer's Claim. UPON reading of the humble Petition of Elizabeth Poyer, Relict of Col. John Poyer, deceased, who was sentenced by a Court Martial, and shot to Death; setting forth her Husband's Fidelity, Services, Loss of his Life, Expence of his Estate to the Value of 8,000£. and upwards, and her Debts and Sufferings; and praying some present Relief to keep her and hers from starving; and further Provision for the Maintenance of her and her poor Family.
Ordered, That the said Condition of the Petitioner and her Children be, and is hereby humbly recommended to the pious Consideration of his Majesty; who is humbly desired by this House to grant unto her such Relief, in Compensation of her sad Sufferings and Losses, as, in his Princely Wisdom and Goodness, he shall judge her Case may deserve.
@@@
Do you think the Poyer family deserved a ROYALIST pension? The Commons sent the case back to Charles II for the decision. I include the back story to remind us all just how confusing loyalty becomes in a 10 year civil war:
When you think of the Civil Wars, you tend to think of famous men like Charles I and Oliver Cromwell. But the war is organized and fought by thousands of individuals, all of whom contribute to the outcome.
In Wales there was one man who symbolizes the turmoil of the age, supporting first parliament and then the king. He was the mayor of Pembroke, John Poyer. Initially, Poyer was a devoted Parliamentary man. As well as being Pembroke's mayor, before the outbreak of war he also commanded one of Pembrokeshire's Trained Bands. Parliament needed men like Poyer and his Trained Band because by 1642 most of south Wales had come out in favor of King Charles, except Pembroke and Tenby. Over the next few years the war in Pembrokeshire was chaotic, with first one side gaining the upper hand, then the other. John Poyer was in the thick of it all, manipulating, bribing and fighting to advance parliament's cause. Some of Poyer’s actions were barely legal. At Michaelmas 1642, for example, Poyer, his term of office as mayor of Pembroke at an end, refused to stand down. The new mayor had royalist leanings so there was no way John Poyer was going to give him control. He kept the position of mayor for the next 6 years. Pembroke castle and town, under the command of Mayor Poyer and Gen. Rowland Laugharne, became a serious threat to the royalist Welsh forces. The local royalist commanders even declared that when they captured Mayor Poyer they would put him in a barrel pierced by nails and roll him down hill into Milford Haven. Poyer merely shrugged and said they would have to catch him first.
Message from H. C. with a Bill. To return the Bill concerning Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, sent down to the House of Commons, with a Proviso, to which they do concur with their Lordships.
Bill to confirm the one for Increase of Navigation, &c. Hodie 2a et 3a vice lecta est Billa, "An Act for confirming an Act, intituled, An Act for encouraging and increasing of Shipping and Navigation; and several other Acts, both Public and Private, mentioned therein." It was Resolved in the Affirmative.
Report of the Conference concerning the Bill for Pains and Penalties. Then the Lord Privy Seal reported the Effect of this Conference: "That the House of Commons do agree with this House in all the Alterations in the Bill of Pains and Penalties, excepting to the leaving out the Proviso concerning the Marquis of Winton; to which they cannot agree, because, it being examined by a Committee of their House, it did appear to them to be a just Thing. And the House of Commons say, They received no Reasons from their Lordships to induce them to be of another Mind. Besides, they conceive this Proviso did not intrench upon the Act of Oblivion; and they look upon the Marquis of Winton to have done much Service for the King, and suffered much in his Estate for Him; and nothing hath been yet given him by Way of Recompence. And this Proviso gives him nothing but his own." Upon this, their Lordships ORDERED, To have a Free Conference with the House of Commons, and give them Reasons as induced this House to leave out the Proviso.
Message to H. C. for a further Conference about it. To desire a present Free Conference, with the House of Commons, in the Painted Chamber, touching the Matter of the last Conference. The Lord Treasurer, the Lord Privy Seal, the Lord Chamberlain, and the Lord Ashley, were appointed to manage this Free Conference; and to let the House of Commons know, "That One of the Reasons that moved this House to leave out the Proviso in the Bill concerning Pains and Penalties was, a Message from His Majesty, That He conceived this Proviso was so high an Intrenchment upon His Right and Prerogative, that He was resolved rather not to pass the said Bill, than to admit or allow of the said Proviso. "Another Reason was, That this House conceives that Pains and Penalties upon Crimes of so high a Nature do absolutely belong of Right to the King; and that their Lordships cannot admit the taking away any of them from His Majesty without a Violation of Justice and His Majesty's just and legal Right; and that the said Proviso is absolutely a Breach of the Act of Indemnity and Oblivion, which His Majesty is so careful to maintain."
^ Lord ASHLEY is Anthony Ashley-Cooper, Lord Ashley -- in a decade he will become the 1st Earl of Shaftesbury https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
"Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction" -- is this their way of saying the Church of England will be reclaiming all those Presbyterian parishes?
Bill for restoring Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction. A Message was sent to the H.C. To deliver to them the Bill concerning restoring Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction; which this House hath agreed to, with a Proviso, wherein their Concurrence is desired.
Message from H. C. with Bills. A Message was brought from the House of Commons; who brought up divers Bills passed the House of Commons, wherein their Lordships Concurrence is desired: 1. "An Act for paving and repairing the Highways from Charing Crosse to the Stone Bridge beyond Pickadilly, and from Charing Crosse to St. James', and from thence to the Common Road, and so round the Wall of St. James' Parke, and up to Hyde Parke." 2. "An Act to restrain unlicensed and disorderly Printing." 3. "An Act for vesting the Arrears of the Excise and New Impost in His Majesty."
Bill to vest the Arrears of the Excise in the King. Hodie 1a, 2a, et 3a vice lecta est Billa, "An Act for vesting the Arrears of the Excise and New Impost in His Majesty." It was Resolved in the Affirmative.
Bill to confirm the one for Increase of Navigation, &c. Hodie 1a vice lecta est Billa, "An Act for confirming an Act, intituled, An Act for encouraging and increasing of Shipping and Navigation; and several Acts, both Public and Private, mentioned therein."
Message from H. C. for a Conference concerning the Bill for Pains and Penalties. To desire a Conference, concerning the Amendments and Proviso in the Bill concerning Pains and Penalties. The Answer returned was: That this House will give the House of Commons a present Conference, in the Painted Chamber. The Lord Treasurer, the Lord Privy Seal, and the Lord Chamberlain, were appointed to report this Conference.
Bill to restrain disorderly Printing. Hodie 1a et 2a vice lecta est Billa, "An Act to restrain unlicensed and disorderly Printing." ORDERED, That the Consideration of this Bill is committed to these Lords following: L. Treasurer. L. Privy Seal. Dux Albemarle. L. Chamberlain. ... Their Lordships, or any Five; to meet this Afternoon, at Four of the Clock, in the Prince's Lodgings.
Edited highlights from the House of Lords for today:
Message to H. C. that the Lords agree to the Bill for regulating the Navy, and the Militia Bill. To let them know, that this House agrees with them in the Amendments in the Bill concerning Articles and Orders for the governing of His Majesty's Navies and Ships of War; and that this House hath passed the Bill concerning the Militia.
Bill for Pains and Penalties on Persons excepted from Indemnity. The Lord Ashley * reported from the Committee, "That they have taken the Bill concerning Pains, Penalties, and Forfeitures into Consideration, and have made some Alterations, which are offered to the Judgement of this House." Which Alterations were read Twice, and Agreed to. Hodie 3a vice lecta est Billa, "An Act declaring the Pains, Penalties, and Forfeitures, imposed upon the Estates and Persons of certain notorious Offenders, excepted out of the free and general Pardon and Oblivion." It was Resolved in the Affirmative.
Message to H. C. with it. To deliver to them the Bill concerning Pains and Penalties; which this House hath passed, with Alterations, wherein their Concurrence is desired.
Bill for restoring Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction. Hodie 3a vice lecta est Billa, "An Act for Explanation of a Clause contained in an Act of Parliament made in the Seventeenth Year of the late King Charles, intituled, "An Act for Repeal of a Branch of a Statute Primo Eliz. concerning Commissioners for Causes Ecclesiastical." It was Resolved in the Affirmative. Protest against it. Memorandum, That the Lord Viscount de Stafford desired Leave to enter his Dissent, if the aforesaid Question were carried in the Affirmative: Which was granted. "Stafford."
Bill concerning the Estates of Persons sequestered for adhering to the King's Party. Hodie 1a vice lecta est Billa, "An Act for discharging those whose Estates have been sold, sequestered, and decimated, for adhering to His Majesty, or His Royal Father, from all Interest exceeding Three Pounds per Cent. per Annum." Rejected.
The Messengers returned with this Answer: Answer from H. C. That they have acquainted the House of Commons, that their Lordships have passed the Bill for the Militia, and the Bill concerning the Navy.
Conference with Lords. A Message from the Lords: Mr. Speaker, The Lords desire a present free Conference in the Painted Chamber, with this House, upon the Matter of the last Conference, concerning the Proviso of the Marquis of Winchester. And this House having agreed thereto; Ordered, That Mr. Milward, Sir Edmund Peirse, and Sir Robert Howard, be added to those who were to manage the former Conference, to assist in this free Conference. Sir Thomas Meres reports from the free Conference, That the Lords did adhere to their Opinion for the same Reasons they did before; because this Proviso did intrench upon the Act of Oblivion: And that his Majesty had signified, that, upon mature Advice, he was against it; and that it would intrench upon his Prerogative, &c.: And that the Lords hoped the Commons would change their Opinion, and agree with the Lords. Resolved, That this House doth concur with the Lords, in the leaving out the said Proviso concerning the Marquis of Winchester. Resolved, That a Petition be prepared, to which the Lords Concurrence is to be desired, for recommending the Cause of the Marquis of Winchester; and the Merits and Sufferings of that Family, to the gracious Consideration of his Majesty. Resolved, That Sir Heneage Finch be desired to draw up the Petition against Monday Morning. Resolved, That, when the Message is sent up to signify the Concurrence of this House to the Amendments sent from the Lords to the Bill declaring Pains, Penalties, and Forfeitures, that this Petition shall also be carried up to the Lords for their Concurrence.
Why Parliament was delayed: Charles II had charged them with finishing up the issue of what to do with the Regicides and their 'stolen' property before he could leave on his summer holiday trip to Worcester, and other important issues. Neither house had completed that task. Today, besides the regulation of the unlicensed printing presses and the paving of roads around Westminster, the House of Commons discussed:
Pains and Penalties against Regicides. Another Message from the Lords; Mr. Speaker, The Lords have returned to you the Bill declaring Pains, Penalties, and Forfeitures, imposed upon the Estates and Persons of certain notorious Offenders; with some Amendments, to which they desire your Concurrence. Which Amendments being twice read, and compared with the Coherence in the Bill; the First and Second Amendments, were, upon the Question, agreed to. And the Third Amendment being to leave out the Provisoes belonging to the Lord Craven and the Lord Marquis of Winchester, the same was also read: And The House was then informed, by one of the Members, That the Lord Craven had withdrawn his Proviso: Whereupon this House agreed to the leaving out of his Proviso. And the House then took into Debate the other Part of that Amendment, concerning the Proviso for the Marquis of Winchester. And the Question being put, That this House doth agree to the leaving out of the Proviso for the Marquis of Winchester; It passed in the Negative: And Resolved, That this House doth adhere to the said Proviso, that it shall stand in the Bill. Resolved, That a Conference be desired with the Lords, touching the said Proviso: And Mr. Clifford is to go up to the Lords to desire a Conference: ... Which Conference was accordingly had with the Lords in the Painted Chamber.
High Commission Court. A Message from the Lords: Mr. Speaker, The Lords have sent you down the Bill for Explanation of a Clause, &c. concerning Ecclesiastical Jurisdictions, with some Amendments: To which they desire your Concurrence. And the said Amendment being a Proviso to be added to the said Bill; The same was Three times read: And Resolved, upon the Question, That this House doth concur with the Lords to have the Proviso added to the Bill. And Sir Charles Harbord is to go up to the Lords, to acquaint them with the Concurrence of this House therein.
Disbanding the Army, &c. Mr. Birch reports from the Committee for the Navy, that all paid off, save 150,000/.s, and the Accompts ready to be delivered in. Ordered, That it be referred to the Commissioners for Disbanding and Paying of the Army and Navy to continue so many of the Auditors as they shall find necessary; and to pay them for such time only as they shall be employed in the Service.
Comments
Third Reading
About Wednesday 24 July 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
Today the Savoy Conference ended. It started on April 15: a digest of what was subsequently discussed and by whom is at
https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/…
Sadly, it didn't achieve much in the way of reconciliation as both sides still wanted to "win". Since Charles II was officially CofE, the Anglican church quite predictably "won".
Notes based on "Everyman's History of the Prayer Book"
by Percy Dearmer
Chapter XI -- The Fifth English Prayer Book
http://justus.anglican.org/resour…
Percy Dearmer (1867 - 1936) was a Christian socialist and probably best-known as the author of 'A Parson's Handbook'.
THE Savoy Conference came to an end 24 July, 1661: before Christmas of that year Convocation had completed the Fifth Prayer Book; and the next year this was annexed to the Act of Uniformity.
The preceding chapter showed the conditions under which the new Prayer Book was produced and the principles which motivated the revisers. These are stated clearly in the first of the prefaces to the English Prayer Book, and is called "The Preface."
"The Preface" was written by Sanderson, Bishop of Lincoln, and is divided into 5 paragraphs:
1. A description of the previous revisions: in the often misquoted phrase, they had been meant "to keep the mean between the two extremes, of too much stiffness in refusing, and of too much easiness in admitting any variation." The loose way in which the word "Liturgy" (properly a term for the Holy Communion) is used of the service as a whole, is a sign that liturgical knowledge is not what it had been a century before.
2. A sketch of those preliminaries to the present revision (the deputation to the king, etc.) described in our last chapter. The harsh tone of a triumphant party will be noticed in the Bishop's phrases.
3. The standard by which proposed changes were accepted or rejected, with a proviso that the Book of 1604 contained nothing contrary to the Word of God.
Here is another famous and important sentence: "We have rejected all such as were either of dangerous consequence (as secretly striking at some established doctrine, or laudable practice of the Church of England, or indeed of the whole Catholick Church of Christ) or else of no consequence at all, but utterly frivolous and vain."
4. A description of the changes introduced, beginning with a statement that they were not made "to gratify this or that party in any their unreasonable demands."
5. An expression of the hope that these changes (though unwelcome to "men of factious, peevish, and perverse spirits") will be approved by "all sober, peaceable, and truly conscientious sons of the Church of England."
... [FOR THE EXACT CHANGES, PLEASE READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE -- SDS]
About Saturday 27 July 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
"... going through the bridge is fun!"
And they didn't have the London Eye or roller-coasters for thrills. Nothing wrong with getting splashed with cold water on a hot July day.
About Monday 15 April 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
CONCLUSION:
Puritanism brought to England a noble stock of moral sturdiness; and the ecclesiastical descendants of those Dissenters whom the cruelty of the Clarendon Code put outside the pale of the law, are among the best of our people today; but those descendants are themselves the surest witnesses today that the Churchmen were right in liturgical matters, for our modern Presbyterians and Nonconformists are steadily adopting the phrases and customs and ornaments to which the saintly Richard Baxter and his colleagues so strangely objected.
After the Savoy Conference the last revision of the Prayer Book was put in hand, and the long-lasting Fifth English Prayer Book was produced.
Excerpted from "Everyman's History of the Prayer Book"
by Percy Dearmer
Chapter X -- The Savoy Conference
http://justus.anglican.org/resour…
Percy Dearmer (1867 - 1936) was a Christian socialist and probably best-known as the author of 'A Parson's Handbook,' a popular guide to the ritual and conduct of Anglican liturgies.
About Monday 15 April 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
PART 4:
We may summarize the position by two quotations.
The Puritan Divines said: "To load our public forms with the private fancies upon which we differ, is the most sovereign way to perpetuate schism to the world's end. Prayer, confession, thanksgiving, reading of the Scriptures, and administration of the Sacraments in the plainest, and simplest manner, were matter enough to furnish out a sufficient Liturgy, though nothing either of private opinion, or of church pomp, of garments, or prescribed gestures, of imagery, of musick, of matter concerning the dead, of many superfluities which creep into the Church under the name of order and decency, did interpose itself. To charge Churches and Liturgies with things unnecessary, was the first beginning of all superstition."
"If the special guides and fathers of the Church would be a little sparing of encumbering churches with superfluities, or not over-rigid, either in reviving obsolete customs, or imposing new, there would be far less cause of schism, or superstition."
The Bishops said: "It was the wisdom of our Reformers to draw up such a Liturgy as neither Romanist nor Protestant could justly except against."
"For preserving of the Churches' peace we know no better nor more efficacious way than our set Liturgy; there being no such way to keep us from schism, as to speak all the same thing, according to the Apostle. This experience of former and latter times hath taught us; when the Liturgy was duly observed we lived in peace; since that was laid aside there bath been as many modes and fashions of public worship as fancies."
"If we do not observe that golden rule of the venerable Council of Nice, 'Let ancient customs prevail,' till reason plainly requires the contrary, we shall give offence to sober Christians by a causeless departure from Catholic usage, and a greater advantage to enemies of our Church, than our brethren, I hope, would willingly grant."
In many things the Churchmen of that age were in the wrong: they were especially to blame for the penal laws and the harrying of Dissenters, which took generations and many acts of toleration to remove.
But few scholars would now refuse to admit that their theology was broader, more Christian, because less tainted by Calvinism, and truer to the New Testament than that of their opponents; and in those liturgical matters with which this little history is concerned there is now no doubt that they were right and the Puritans wrong.
About Monday 15 April 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
PART 3
Who would now desire that Confirmation should not be administered by the Bishop, or that it should not be assumed in that service that the children brought have the Christian spirit and the forgiveness of their sins?
Who now would desire to omit the mention of godparents at Baptism or Confirmation? `
Who would like the minister to have power, if he chose, not to deliver the Sacrament to each communicant individually?
Who could bear to see the simple ornaments and ceremonies already mentioned — the surplice, or kneeling for communion — abolished?
Some of the Puritan criticisms were good, and some were accepted by the Bishops and their coadjutors.
The Bishops agreed
to print the Epistles and Gospels according to the Authorized Version;
to add to the rubric "The portion of Scripture appointed for the Epistle";
to give a longer time for notice by the communicants, altering "overnight, or else in the morning" to "at least some time the day before";
to add the manual acts to the Consecration in the Communion Service (the Puritans had rightly pointed out that the breaking of the bread was not so much as mentioned);
to add (and this was also an improvement) to the rubric after Confirmation the words "or be ready and desirous to be confirmed."
Besides these things, they agreed to alter in the Marriage Service "with my body I thee worship" to "with my body I thee honor" (although fortunately this was not done); but they did alter "till death us depart "to" till death us do part."
The Bishops further agreed
to add the preface ("prefixed by God himself," the Puritans had said) to the Commandments, but fortunately this also was not done;
and to omit from the Burial Service the epithets "in sure and certain hope of Resurrection to eternal life"; but mercifully this was taken back also, the sense being guarded by the insertion of the definite article.
About Monday 15 April 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
PART 2
The Ornaments Rubric was to be omitted, "forasmuch as this rubric seemeth to bring back the cope, albe, etc., and other vestments forbidden by the Common Prayer Book, 5 and 6 Edw. VI" (the Second Book);
to which the Bishops replied, We think it fit that the rubric continue as it is. The Surplice, the Cross in Baptism, and kneeling at Communion are objected to as "fountains of evil"; the wedding-ring is to be optional.
There is to be "nothing in the Liturgy which may seem to countenance the observation of Lent as a religious fast"; and the "religious observation of saints' days . . . and the vigils thereof is to be omitted."
The word "Sunday" was objected to, and not only "Priest," but even that most harmless of words, "Curate."
The Bishops replied to such criticisms as these by referring to Catholic usage, and to a Custom of the Churches of God, agreeable to the Scripture and ancient, and to the Catholic Consent of antiquity.
The Puritan Divines also objected to those phrases in the Prayer Book which assume all the congregation "to be regenerated, converted, and in an actual state of grace": the Bishops replied by pointing to St. Paul's use of the word "saints."
The Puritans objected to the charitable assumptions of the Burial Service. It is better to be charitable and hope the best, said the Bishops.
The Puritans asked for a rubric declaring that the prayers and exhortations are not for the benefit of the dead (the Bishops significantly ignored this).
They also demanded a rubric allowing ministers not to go to the graveside unless they thought fit, to which the Bishops replied that, since this was not asked for the ease of tender consciences, but of tender heads, the desire may be helped by a cap better than a rubric.
Bishops were not afraid to be witty in those days, or to speak in homely fashion, as when they met the demand for omitting all Lessons from the Apocrypha by the remark, "It is heartily to be wished that sermons were as good; for, if nothing ought to be heard in church except the Old and New Testaments, then there would be no sermons either."
Few of us today, whether Anglican or Nonconformists, would agree with these objections, many of which were undeniably fractious and captious while others depended upon a theology now obsolete.
It is a mercy the Bishops did not give way to the Puritan demand that "inheritors" in the Catechism should be altered to "heirs" — thus making the Kingdom of Heaven a future hope instead of a present inheritance; and we may be glad the Bishops left the definition of a Sacrament broad, by refusing to put "Two only," without the qualification "as generally necessary to salvation."
We may also be thankful that we are not fettered by the insertion into the Catechism of the theories current in 1661 "concerning the nature of faith, repentance, the two covenants, justification, sanctification, adoption, and regeneration."
About Monday 15 April 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
Charles II rides for Windsor, leaving the clerics to work out the Anglican future:
On April 15, 1661, the Savoy Conference met at Gilbert Sheldon, Bishop of London's chambers at Savoy Hospital:
it consisted of 12 Bishops (including John Cosin of Durham, Robert Sanderson of Lincoln, and Gilbert Sheldon of London), with 9 coadjutors (including John Pearson, afterwards Bishop of Chester, Peter Heylin, Peter Gunning, Anthony Sparrow, Herbert Thorndike), on the one side;
and on the other, 12 Presbyterian Divines (including Richard Baxter, author of 'The Saints' Rest', and Edmund Calamy, Edward Reynolds, Anthony Tuckney, John Conant, William Spurstowe, John Wallis, Thomas Manton, Arthur Jackson, Thomas Case, Samuel Clarke, and Matthew Newcomen), with 9 coadjutors.
...
One point emerges — the truth of John Milton's epigram that Presbyter was but old Priest writ large.
... the Puritans wished to give the minister power to refuse Baptism to a child, if he considered their parents to be heretical or notorious sinners. We may be thankful the Bishops replied, We think this to be very hard and uncharitable, and giving also too great and arbitrary a power.
Similarly, they wished to give greater liberty to the minister in the Absolution (Visitation of the Sick), and the Bishops answered the giving of absolution must not depend upon the minister's pleasure, but on the sick man's penitence.
They also desired that the minister should be urged to use full power "both to admit and to keep from the Lord's Table."
They further proposed to deprive the people of their share in the service — the repetitions and responses, the Kyries after the Commandments (the minister to say instead "a suitable prayer" at the end), and the alternate reading of the Psalms and Hymns, declaring "the people's part in public prayer to be only with silence and reverence to attend thereunto, and to declare their consent in the close, by saying Amen."
It is not surprising they desired the minister to face the people throughout the service — an obtrusive piece of clericalism from which many denominations still suffer:
to this the Bishops replied, Not so, and pointed out that in the ancient Church the minister always turned with the people when he acted as their spokesman.
The minister, thus exalted, must have the entire service in his own hands: the Puritan Divines not only wished him to have discretion to "omit part" of the appointed service and substitute extempore prayer, but also they desired that the collects should be melted down into "one methodical and entire form of prayer composed out of many of them," and that the Litany should be changed "into one solemn prayer."
If the Bishops had given way in 1661, we would today go to church and find a frock-coated gentleman confronting us to say the whole Litany without a break as one solemn prayer, while we "with silence and reverence to attend thereunto" and to say "Amen" when he had finished.
About Thursday 25 October 1660
San Diego Sarah • Link
Pepys may have been at Westminster today, but he missed the big news from Whitehall:
So great was the demand for Prayer Books that, before 1660 had reached its close, 5 editions of the old Book of Prayer were printed.
But the Prayer Book had not been revised since 1604, and many agreed at least in this — that a new revision was needed. It was the only point about which the two parties in the State did agree, as the Savoy Conference was soon to show.
But first, while Charles II was still in the Dutch Republic, a company of Presbyterian divines went to The Hague with the Parliamentary deputation that was to bring back Charles II (May 10, 1660), and asked that, as the Prayer Book had long been discontinued, the King should not use it when he landed. They also asked that his chaplains should give up using the surplice.
Charles II replied with his usual keenness of wit, that he would not be restrained himself when others had so much indulgence.
But after Charles II was back the Puritans continued their pressure, and asked that the Prayer Book might be made like the liturgies of the Reformed Churches.
There were 9 Bishops still alive; and they made the excellent reply that "the nearer both their forms and ours come to the liturgy of the ancient Greek and Latin Churches, the less are they liable to the objections of the common enemy."
Charles II issued a declaration on October 25, 1660, promising a conference, and allowing freedom meanwhile.
On April 15, 1661, the Savoy Conference met:" ... but you'll have to wait for that.
Excerpted from Everyman's History of the Prayer Book
by Percy Dearmer
http://justus.anglican.org/resour…
(My guess about the shortage of prayer books being a problem was right!)
About Monday 22 July 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
Meanwhile the Lords seem to have no sense of urgency:
Bill to confirm the one for draining the Great Level.
The Lord Lexington reported from the Committee, the Bill concerning the Draining the Great Level of the Fens, as fit to pass as it is, without any Alteration.
Hodie 3a vice lecta est Billa, "An Act for confirming and continuing an Act, for the necessary Maintenance of the Work of Draining the Great Level of the Fens."
Bill for preserving Deer.
The Earl of North'on reported from the Committee, the Bill against Killing of Deer, as fit to pass, with some Alterations; which, being read Twice, were agreed to.
Hodie 3a vice lecta est Billa, "An Act to prevent the unlawful coursing, hurting, and killing of Deer."
Bill to restore Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction.
The Lord Lucas reported from the Committee, the Bill concerning Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, as fit to pass, with an Alteration.
Which being read Twice;
ORDERED, That the Committee for this Bill do meet To-morrow in the Afternoon, in the Lord Chancellor's Lodgings.
Message from H. C. with Bills.
A Message was brought from the House of Commons, by Mr. Gilby and others; who brought up these Bills following:
1. A Bill for dividing Trynity Church, in Kingston upon Hull, from Hassle.
2. To return a Bill sent down from their Lordships to them, for confirming an Enclosure of Land at Parsons Green; to which the House of Commons do concur, without any Alterations.
Militia Bill.
The Lord Lucas reported from the Committee, the Bill concerning the Militia, wherein the Committee have thought fit to make some Alterations, which are offered to the Consideration of this House.
The Alterations were read Twice. And, after Debate thereof,
The Question being put, "Whether to agree with the Committee in leaving out the Proviso concerning taking the Oaths?"
It was Resolved in the Negative.
The other Proviso, brought in from the Committee, after Debate, was not Agreed to.
Hodie 3a vice lecta est Billa, "An Act declaring the sole Right of the Militia to be in the King; and for the present ordering and disposing the same."
Hampson to be attached, if he do not make up Rolls in the Stat. Office, or deliver the Books.
They can't do their work if they can't see the evidence.
@@@
Apparently even the Royalists were hesitant to give Charles II a standing army.
About Monday 22 July 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
Major considerations for the House of Commons today:
Highways.
Ordered, That the Committee to whom the Bill for Highways was committed, be revived; and do sit this Afternoon in the Place formerly appointed.
Seudamore's Losses at Play.
A Bill for making void of divers Judgments and Conveyances obtained by George Colt and Thomas Colt, and their Trustees, for Monies won at Play, was this Day read the Second time.
Resolved, upon the Question, That the said Bill be committed to Lord Cornbury, ... and all the Members that serve for Herefordshire: ... And to send for Persons, Papers, Witnesses, and Records; and to send for and examine such Persons as were present at and privy to the Frauds in winning the Monies at Play, and drawing Mr. Scudamore into the Judgments and Conveyances; and to make Report thereof to the House: And also to prepare and bring in a Bill to avoid all Judgments and Securities, given for Monies won at Play; and to prevent all Practices and Cheats in Gaming for the future.
Navy Government.
A Bill, sent from the Lords, for the establishing Articles and Orders for the Regulating and better Government of his Majesty's Navies, Ships of War, and Forces by Sea, was this Day read the Second time.
Resolved, upon the Question, That the same be committed to ... And to send for Persons, Papers, and Records: And all the Members of this House, who shall come to the said Committee, are to have Votes thereat.
Publick Revenue.
And then the House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House, to resume the Debate of the Increase of his Majesty's Revenue.
Mr. Milward made Report to the House, That the Committee having proceeded in the Matter of the Increase of his Majesty's Revenue; and that it being put to the Question, That an Imposition should be laid upon Salt, towards the Increase of his Majesty's Revenue; it passed in the Negative: After which, it was resolved, upon the Question, That Paper and Parchment be first taken into Consideration towards the Increase of his Majesty's Revenue: And that it was the Desire of the Committee, That the House might again resolve into a Committee To-morrow Morning, at Nine of the Clock, to resume the further Debate of the Increase of his Majesty's Revenue.
@@@
Yes, courtiers like John Scudamore, 1st Viscount Scudamore (22 March 1601 – 19 May 1671) gambled away fortunes, but Parliament can't provide Charles II with a decent income. Historians seem to agree Parliament always kept him under-funded, and that he spent what he had unwisely. Under-funding and thrift do not always coexist.
About Hatfield House, Hatfield
San Diego Sarah • Link
The annotators guess Pepys also visited Hatfield House on 22 July, 1661
https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/…
"So by degrees till I come to Hatfield before twelve o’clock, where I had a very good dinner with my hostess, at my Lord of Salisbury’s Inn, and after dinner though weary I walked all alone to the Vineyard, which is now a very beautiful place again; and coming back I met with Mr. Looker, my Lord’s gardener (a friend of Mr. Eglin’s), who showed me the house, the chappell with brave pictures, and, above all, the gardens, such as I never saw in all my life; nor so good flowers, nor so great gooseberrys, as big as nutmegs.
"Back to the inn, and drank with him, and so to horse again, ..."
Strange how people can amble around the gentry's houses and check out their veggies without so much as a "by your leave."
You can't do that at Hatfield House today.
About About fruit and vegetables
San Diego Sarah • Link
"So by degrees till I come to Hatfield before twelve o’clock, ... I met with Mr. Looker, my Lord’s gardener (a friend of Mr. Eglin’s), who showed me the house, the chappell with brave pictures, and, above all, the gardens, such as I never saw in all my life; nor so good flowers, nor so great gooseberrys, as big as nutmegs."
https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/…
Nutmeg has its own encyclopedia page, but for the discussion about gooseberries, start at
https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/…
About Wednesday 24 July 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
CONCLUSION:
Thanks to the military skill of Gen. Rowland Laugharne and the adept political maneuvering of Mayor Poyer, parliament's forces in Pembrokeshire were ultimately successful and in May 1646, with the surrender of King Charles to the Scots, the first Civil War ended.
Parliament had clear control of the country, and it seemed men like Poyer could enjoy the fruits of victory.
In Pembrokeshire, bad feelings continued to simmer. Mayor Poyer was called to London to answer charges of appropriating land and property to the value of £6,000. The charge eventually came to nothing but Poyer was incensed he should be called to task by parliament, the people he had risked his life to champion.
For some time Gen. Laugharne's soldiers - like many other armies across Britain - had been refusing to disband until they were paid arrears in wages.
Sir Thomas, Lord Fairfax ordered Mayor Poyer to appear again before a committee of accounts and to give up control of Pembroke and its castle.
Poyer refused and used the excuse of the unpaid soldiers. He would vacate the castle when Gen. Laugharne's men had been given the wages they were owed.
England slipped towards a second civil war. There were many other causes for this, but men like Poyer and Laugharne now declared for Prince Charles.
When parliament sent a large force under Gen. Horton to deal with the south Wales rebels, Mayor Poyer declared:
"He, who feared neither Fairfax, Cromwell or Ireton, would be the first man to charge against Ironsides."
Unfortunately for Poyer and Laugharne, their army was defeated at the Battle of St. Fagans on 4 May, 1648, and they fell back to Pembroke.
Parliamentary forces appeared outside the town walls and a 7-week siege began. Oliver Cromwell commanded the besieging troops.
Mayor John Poyer and Gen. Rowland Laugharne were tireless defenders of Pembroke, appearing on the walls and leading sorties against Cromwell's troops. Inevitably, food and water ran short, and at the end of July the town surrendered.
John Poyer, Col. Laugharne and Col. Rice Powell (who had garrisoned Tenby against Cromwell) were sent to London for trial as traitors.
A military court sat from 4-12 April, 1649, and returned a guilty verdict. All 3 were condemned to death.
However, the council of state decided on leniency -- only one man must die, his fate to be decided by a child who would draw lots to decide who would face the firing squad. The unlucky man was John Poyer.
Mayor John Poyer's execution took place at Covent Garden on 25 April, 1649.
About Wednesday 24 July 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
The first thing on the House of Common's agenda today:
Poyer's Claim.
UPON reading of the humble Petition of Elizabeth Poyer, Relict of Col. John Poyer, deceased, who was sentenced by a Court Martial, and shot to Death; setting forth her Husband's Fidelity, Services, Loss of his Life, Expence of his Estate to the Value of 8,000£. and upwards, and her Debts and Sufferings; and praying some present Relief to keep her and hers from starving; and further Provision for the Maintenance of her and her poor Family.
Ordered, That the said Condition of the Petitioner and her Children be, and is hereby humbly recommended to the pious Consideration of his Majesty; who is humbly desired by this House to grant unto her such Relief, in Compensation of her sad Sufferings and Losses, as, in his Princely Wisdom and Goodness, he shall judge her Case may deserve.
@@@
Do you think the Poyer family deserved a ROYALIST pension? The Commons sent the case back to Charles II for the decision. I include the back story to remind us all just how confusing loyalty becomes in a 10 year civil war:
Extracted from "John Poyer, the forgotten hero (or villain) of the civil war"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/wales…
When you think of the Civil Wars, you tend to think of famous men like Charles I and Oliver Cromwell. But the war is organized and fought by thousands of individuals, all of whom contribute to the outcome.
In Wales there was one man who symbolizes the turmoil of the age, supporting first parliament and then the king. He was the mayor of Pembroke, John Poyer.
Initially, Poyer was a devoted Parliamentary man.
As well as being Pembroke's mayor, before the outbreak of war he also commanded one of Pembrokeshire's Trained Bands.
Parliament needed men like Poyer and his Trained Band because by 1642 most of south Wales had come out in favor of King Charles, except Pembroke and Tenby.
Over the next few years the war in Pembrokeshire was chaotic, with first one side gaining the upper hand, then the other. John Poyer was in the thick of it all, manipulating, bribing and fighting to advance parliament's cause.
Some of Poyer’s actions were barely legal.
At Michaelmas 1642, for example, Poyer, his term of office as mayor of Pembroke at an end, refused to stand down.
The new mayor had royalist leanings so there was no way John Poyer was going to give him control. He kept the position of mayor for the next 6 years.
Pembroke castle and town, under the command of Mayor Poyer and Gen. Rowland Laugharne, became a serious threat to the royalist Welsh forces.
The local royalist commanders even declared that when they captured Mayor Poyer they would put him in a barrel pierced by nails and roll him down hill into Milford Haven.
Poyer merely shrugged and said they would have to catch him first.
About Saturday 27 July 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
CONCLUSION -- THE LORDS
Message from H. C. with a Bill.
To return the Bill concerning Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, sent down to the House of Commons, with a Proviso, to which they do concur with their Lordships.
Bill to confirm the one for Increase of Navigation, &c.
Hodie 2a et 3a vice lecta est Billa, "An Act for confirming an Act, intituled, An Act for encouraging and increasing of Shipping and Navigation; and several other Acts, both Public and Private, mentioned therein."
It was Resolved in the Affirmative.
Report of the Conference concerning the Bill for Pains and Penalties.
Then the Lord Privy Seal reported the Effect of this Conference: "That the House of Commons do agree with this House in all the Alterations in the Bill of Pains and Penalties, excepting to the leaving out the Proviso concerning the Marquis of Winton; to which they cannot agree, because, it being examined by a Committee of their House, it did appear to them to be a just Thing. And the House of Commons say, They received no Reasons from their Lordships to induce them to be of another Mind. Besides, they conceive this Proviso did not intrench upon the Act of Oblivion; and they look upon the Marquis of Winton to have done much Service for the King, and suffered much in his Estate for Him; and nothing hath been yet given him by Way of Recompence. And this Proviso gives him nothing but his own."
Upon this, their Lordships ORDERED, To have a Free Conference with the House of Commons, and give them Reasons as induced this House to leave out the Proviso.
Message to H. C. for a further Conference about it.
To desire a present Free Conference, with the House of Commons, in the Painted Chamber, touching the Matter of the last Conference.
The Lord Treasurer, the Lord Privy Seal, the Lord Chamberlain, and the Lord Ashley, were appointed to manage this Free Conference; and to let the House of Commons know, "That One of the Reasons that moved this House to leave out the Proviso in the Bill concerning Pains and Penalties was, a Message from His Majesty, That He conceived this Proviso was so high an Intrenchment upon His Right and Prerogative, that He was resolved rather not to pass the said Bill, than to admit or allow of the said Proviso.
"Another Reason was, That this House conceives that Pains and Penalties upon Crimes of so high a Nature do absolutely belong of Right to the King; and that their Lordships cannot admit the taking away any of them from His Majesty without a Violation of Justice and His Majesty's just and legal Right; and that the said Proviso is absolutely a Breach of the Act of Indemnity and Oblivion, which His Majesty is so careful to maintain."
^ Lord ASHLEY is Anthony Ashley-Cooper, Lord Ashley -- in a decade he will become the 1st Earl of Shaftesbury
https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
"Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction" -- is this their way of saying the Church of England will be reclaiming all those Presbyterian parishes?
About Saturday 27 July 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
PART 2
Bill for restoring Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction.
A Message was sent to the H.C.
To deliver to them the Bill concerning restoring Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction; which this House hath agreed to, with a Proviso, wherein their Concurrence is desired.
Message from H. C. with Bills.
A Message was brought from the House of Commons; who brought up divers Bills passed the House of Commons, wherein their Lordships Concurrence is desired:
1. "An Act for paving and repairing the Highways from Charing Crosse to the Stone Bridge beyond Pickadilly, and from Charing Crosse to St. James', and from thence to the Common Road, and so round the Wall of St. James' Parke, and up to Hyde Parke."
2. "An Act to restrain unlicensed and disorderly Printing."
3. "An Act for vesting the Arrears of the Excise and New Impost in His Majesty."
Bill to vest the Arrears of the Excise in the King.
Hodie 1a, 2a, et 3a vice lecta est Billa, "An Act for vesting the Arrears of the Excise and New Impost in His Majesty."
It was Resolved in the Affirmative.
Bill to confirm the one for Increase of Navigation, &c.
Hodie 1a vice lecta est Billa, "An Act for confirming an Act, intituled, An Act for encouraging and increasing of Shipping and Navigation; and several Acts, both Public and Private, mentioned therein."
Message from H. C. for a Conference concerning the Bill for Pains and Penalties.
To desire a Conference, concerning the Amendments and Proviso in the Bill concerning Pains and Penalties.
The Answer returned was: That this House will give the House of Commons a present Conference, in the Painted Chamber.
The Lord Treasurer, the Lord Privy Seal, and the Lord Chamberlain, were appointed to report this Conference.
Bill to restrain disorderly Printing.
Hodie 1a et 2a vice lecta est Billa, "An Act to restrain unlicensed and disorderly Printing."
ORDERED, That the Consideration of this Bill is committed to these Lords following:
L. Treasurer.
L. Privy Seal.
Dux Albemarle.
L. Chamberlain. ...
Their Lordships, or any Five; to meet this Afternoon, at Four of the Clock, in the Prince's Lodgings.
About Saturday 27 July 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
Edited highlights from the House of Lords for today:
Message to H. C. that the Lords agree to the Bill for regulating the Navy, and the Militia Bill.
To let them know, that this House agrees with them in the Amendments in the Bill concerning Articles and Orders for the governing of His Majesty's Navies and Ships of War; and that this House hath passed the Bill concerning the Militia.
Bill for Pains and Penalties on Persons excepted from Indemnity.
The Lord Ashley * reported from the Committee, "That they have taken the Bill concerning Pains, Penalties, and Forfeitures into Consideration, and have made some Alterations, which are offered to the Judgement of this House."
Which Alterations were read Twice, and Agreed to.
Hodie 3a vice lecta est Billa, "An Act declaring the Pains, Penalties, and Forfeitures, imposed upon the Estates and Persons of certain notorious Offenders, excepted out of the free and general Pardon and Oblivion."
It was Resolved in the Affirmative.
Message to H. C. with it.
To deliver to them the Bill concerning Pains and Penalties; which this House hath passed, with Alterations, wherein their Concurrence is desired.
Bill for restoring Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction.
Hodie 3a vice lecta est Billa, "An Act for Explanation of a Clause contained in an Act of Parliament made in the Seventeenth Year of the late King Charles, intituled, "An Act for Repeal of a Branch of a Statute Primo Eliz. concerning Commissioners for Causes Ecclesiastical."
It was Resolved in the Affirmative.
Protest against it.
Memorandum, That the Lord Viscount de Stafford desired Leave to enter his Dissent, if the aforesaid Question were carried in the Affirmative: Which was granted.
"Stafford."
Bill concerning the Estates of Persons sequestered for adhering to the King's Party.
Hodie 1a vice lecta est Billa, "An Act for discharging those whose Estates have been sold, sequestered, and decimated, for adhering to His Majesty, or His Royal Father, from all Interest exceeding Three Pounds per Cent. per Annum."
Rejected.
The Messengers returned with this Answer:
Answer from H. C.
That they have acquainted the House of Commons, that their Lordships have passed the Bill for the Militia, and the Bill concerning the Navy.
About Saturday 27 July 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
CONCLUSION -- THE COMMONS:
Conference with Lords.
A Message from the Lords:
Mr. Speaker, The Lords desire a present free Conference in the Painted Chamber, with this House, upon the Matter of the last Conference, concerning the Proviso of the Marquis of Winchester.
And this House having agreed thereto;
Ordered, That Mr. Milward, Sir Edmund Peirse, and Sir Robert Howard, be added to those who were to manage the former Conference, to assist in this free Conference.
Sir Thomas Meres reports from the free Conference, That the Lords did adhere to their Opinion for the same Reasons they did before; because this Proviso did intrench upon the Act of Oblivion: And that his Majesty had signified, that, upon mature Advice, he was against it; and that it would intrench upon his Prerogative, &c.: And that the Lords hoped the Commons would change their Opinion, and agree with the Lords.
Resolved, That this House doth concur with the Lords, in the leaving out the said Proviso concerning the Marquis of Winchester.
Resolved, That a Petition be prepared, to which the Lords Concurrence is to be desired, for recommending the Cause of the Marquis of Winchester; and the Merits and Sufferings of that Family, to the gracious Consideration of his Majesty.
Resolved, That Sir Heneage Finch be desired to draw up the Petition against Monday Morning.
Resolved, That, when the Message is sent up to signify the Concurrence of this House to the Amendments sent from the Lords to the Bill declaring Pains, Penalties, and Forfeitures, that this Petition shall also be carried up to the Lords for their Concurrence.
(These notes are abbreviated.)
About Saturday 27 July 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
Why Parliament was delayed: Charles II had charged them with finishing up the issue of what to do with the Regicides and their 'stolen' property before he could leave on his summer holiday trip to Worcester, and other important issues.
Neither house had completed that task.
Today, besides the regulation of the unlicensed printing presses and the paving of roads around Westminster, the House of Commons discussed:
Pains and Penalties against Regicides.
Another Message from the Lords;
Mr. Speaker, The Lords have returned to you the Bill declaring Pains, Penalties, and Forfeitures, imposed upon the Estates and Persons of certain notorious Offenders; with some Amendments, to which they desire your Concurrence.
Which Amendments being twice read, and compared with the Coherence in the Bill; the First and Second Amendments, were, upon the Question, agreed to.
And the Third Amendment being to leave out the Provisoes belonging to the Lord Craven and the Lord Marquis of Winchester, the same was also read: And
The House was then informed, by one of the Members, That the Lord Craven had withdrawn his Proviso: Whereupon this House agreed to the leaving out of his Proviso.
And the House then took into Debate the other Part of that Amendment, concerning the Proviso for the Marquis of Winchester.
And the Question being put, That this House doth agree to the leaving out of the Proviso for the Marquis of Winchester;
It passed in the Negative: And
Resolved, That this House doth adhere to the said Proviso, that it shall stand in the Bill.
Resolved, That a Conference be desired with the Lords, touching the said Proviso: And Mr. Clifford is to go up to the Lords to desire a Conference: ... Which Conference was accordingly had with the Lords in the Painted Chamber.
High Commission Court.
A Message from the Lords:
Mr. Speaker, The Lords have sent you down the Bill for Explanation of a Clause, &c. concerning Ecclesiastical Jurisdictions, with some Amendments: To which they desire your Concurrence.
And the said Amendment being a Proviso to be added to the said Bill;
The same was Three times read: And
Resolved, upon the Question, That this House doth concur with the Lords to have the Proviso added to the Bill.
And Sir Charles Harbord is to go up to the Lords, to acquaint them with the Concurrence of this House therein.
Disbanding the Army, &c.
Mr. Birch reports from the Committee for the Navy, that all paid off, save 150,000/.s, and the Accompts ready to be delivered in.
Ordered, That it be referred to the Commissioners for Disbanding and Paying of the Army and Navy to continue so many of the Auditors as they shall find necessary; and to pay them for such time only as they shall be employed in the Service.
About Saturday 27 July 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
"So, either the vow has been forgotten entirely, or "merriment" can in fact be had in the absence of alcohol."
Once you've fallen off the wagon, it's hard to get back on it -- especially at birthday parties and with friends.