Thanks, Bryan ... but what was a solicitor in 1666? I was a legal secretary in Torquay eons ago and dated quite a few of the current variety.
The Admiralty being responsible for operational matters, i.e. going out to sea to fight for king/queen and country is a good clarification. Who were the people on the Admiralty Board? In our encyclopedia someone listed the Navy Board personnel as of 1660 for the Admiralty as well, and I hope that wasn't the case by 1666, or our gang is surely hoisted on their own petard. Albemarle and Rupert -- for instance -- must have been Admiralty.
"Thence to Sir Robert Viner’s, and there paid for the plate I have bought to the value of 94l., with the 100l. Captain Cocke did give me to that purpose, and received the rest in money."
It's a Quarter Day ... I'm surprised he doesn't mention paying more vendors and tradesmen.
Briefly, it says England's admiralty courts date to at least the 1360s and Edward III. At that time there were three courts with admirals responsible for the seas to the north, south and west of England. In 1483 the courts were amalgamated into the High Court of Admiralty, administered by the Lord High Admiral of England (i.e. James, Duke of York in Pepys' time).
The Lord High Admiral appointed judges to the court, and remove them at will. This was amended from 1673, with appointments falling within the purview of the Crown, and from 1689 judges also received an annual stipend and a degree of tenure, holding their positions subject to effective delivery of their duties rather than at the Lord High Admiral's pleasure.
From its inception in 1483 until 1657 the court sat in a disused church in Southwark, and from then until 1665 in Montjoy House (private premises leased from the Dean of St. Paul's Cathedral). In order to escape the plague in 1665, the court was briefly relocated to Winchester and then to Jesus College at Oxford. The plague subsided by 1666, so the court returned to London and until 1671 was located at Exeter House on The Strand before returning to Montjoy House near St. Paul's.
The sole survivor of the independent courts of admiralty is the Court of Admiralty for the Cinque Ports. The jurisdiction of the Court of Admiralty of the Cinque Ports extends in an area with boundaries running from the Naze Tower, Essex along the shore to Brightlingsea, then to Shoe Beacon (or Shore Beacon), (to the east of Shoeburyness, Essex), across the mouth of the Thames Estuary to Shellness, Kent, and around the coast to Redcliffe, near Seaford, Sussex. It covers all the sea from Seaford to a point five miles off Cape Grisnez on the coast of France, and the Galloper Sands off the coast of Essex. The last full sitting was in 1914.
"Knowing the difference between the responsibilities of the Navy Board and the Admiralty in Pepys' time would help."
It occurs to me that the Admiralty didn't do much. That's why the Admiralty wiki page tells us more about the Navy Board than it does the Admiralty. But this page about the Admiralty COURT is more helpful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adm…
Briegly, it says England's admiralty courts date to at least the 1360s and Edward III. At that time there were three courts with admirals responsible for the seas to the north, south and west of England. In 1483 the courts were amalgamated into the High Court of Admiralty, administered by the Lord High Admiral of England (i.e. James, Duke of York). The Lord High Admiral appointed judges to the court, and remove them at will. This was amended from 1673, with appointments falling within the purview of the Crown, and from 1689 judges also received an annual stipend and a degree of tenure, holding their positions subject to effective delivery of their duties rather than at the Lord High Admiral's pleasure.
From its inception in 1483 until 1657 the court sat in a disused church in Southwark, and from then until 1665 in Montjoy House (private premises leased from the Dean of St. Paul's Cathedral). In order to escape the plague in 1665, the court was briefly relocated to Winchester and then to Jesus College at Oxford. The plague subsided by 1666, so the court returned to London and until 1671 was located at Exeter House on The Strand before returning to Montjoy House near St Paul's."
The sole survivor of the independent courts of admiralty is the Court of Admiralty for the Cinque Ports. The jurisdiction of the Court of Admiralty of the Cinque Ports extends in an area with boundaries running from the Naze Tower, Essex along the shore to Brightlingsea, then to Shoe Beacon (or Shore Beacon), (to the east of Shoeburyness, Essex), across the mouth of the Thames Estuary to Shellness, Kent, and around the coast to Redcliffe, near Seaford, Sussex. It covers all the sea from Seaford to a point five miles off Cape Grisnez on the coast of France, and the Galloper Sands off the coast of Essex. The last full sitting was in 1914."
Our encyclopedia says, "In December, 1664, the Navy Committee appointed themselves the Commissioners for Prize Goods, Sir Henry Bennet being appointed comptroller, and Lord Ashley treasurer." I don't think Pepys, Penn, Forde and Batten would benefit from Arlington and Ashley's input on the disposition of their prize ship and it's contents.
So I think they are off to the Admiralty Court with their solicitor to get a ruling which will cover their backs and stay out of the purview of Lords Ashley and Arlington.
"I with all my clerks and Carcasse and Whitfield to the ticket-office, there to be informed in the method and disorder of the office, which I find infinite great, of infinite concernment to be mended, and did spend till 12 at night to my great satisfaction, it being a point of our office I was wholly unacquainted in."
I don't think Pepys was “wholly unacquainted” with the Navy Ticket Office: "Monday 12 November 1666 Lay long in bed, and then up, and Mr. Carcasse brought me near 500 tickets to sign, which I did, and by discourse find him a cunning, confident, shrewd man, but one that I do doubt hath by his discourse of the ill will he hath got with my Lord Marquess of Dorchester (with whom he lived), he hath had cunning practices in his time, and would not now spare to use the same to his profit."
Our Wikipedia page on the Admiralty says: “ The Navy Board was responsible for dockyard management, building and repairing ships, recruitment and *seamen's pay,* and the appointment of warrant officers.”
L&M Companion says the ticket-office was “Conveniently placed for seamen, between the river and the Navy Office -- until the Fire in a rented house on Tower Hill; afterwards in a house built for the purpose in Colchester Street close by."
We know the Ticket Office was near by because the autumn 1666 pay riots spilled over to the Navy Board building.
I think Pepys means that he had been sufficiently occupied figuring out mathematics, the hemp and victualling businesses, improving his house, and how to dress/speak/act/write in a Courtly manner while cooking the books, to leave the task of paying tickets to the Controller and others on the Navy Board. With Coventry warning him that the wrath of the House of Commons was about to descend on them, it behooved him to find out what a mess Carteret and Mennes had made of that department. But he had been well aware of the function before now, and probably chose to be uninformed.
L&M Companion: 'Conveniently placed for seamen, between the river and the Navy Office -- until the Fire in a rented house on Tower Hill; afterwards in a house built for the purpose in Colchester Street close by.
In 1683 it moved to a two story wing of the new Navy Office, with a separate entrance from Seething Lane."
James Carkesse -- from the L&M Companion and the Diary -- Carkesse began his career as a household official of Henry Pierrepont, Marquess of Dorchester (an original F.R.S.), and first appears in the Navy office as a clerk to the Extra Commissioner Brouncker, who was probably responsible for bringing him into the Navy's service.
Possibly by Brouncker or Dorchester's influence, Carkesse was elected as a F.R.S. in 1664. Pepys first records meeting him in August, 1665 “(among others Mr. Carcasse, my Lord’s clerk, a very civil gentleman).” In March, 1666 Mrs. Carkesse socialized with the Battens and toured Pepys’ home.
In the Great Fire the ticket office burned down; since Pepys spent time with Carkesse that day and no mention is made of the ticket office, presumably he was not employed there at that time. But by November 11, 1666 Carkesse was employed in the ticket office, as he brought 500 tickets for Pepys to sign and they had a long chat, with Pepys concluding that “he hath had cunning practices in his time, and would not now spare to use the same to his profit.”
Pepys instincts proved right: Carkesse was dismissed in 1667 for corruption, only to be reinstated a few months later through the intervention of friends in the House of Commons. (Sir Edward Turnor, the Speaker, was godfather to Carkesse’s son William born in 1667.)
Carkesse last appears in the Navy Office as a clerk to Edward Seymour, Extra Commissioner, in 1672-3. Thereafter he disappears into Bedlam.
(By the way, the Marquess of Dorchester is the father-in-law of John Manners, Lord Roos, featured in another Diary story line. It was a small world.)
"Hereupon concluded what to write to Hogg and Middleton, which I did, and also with Mr. Oviatt (Sir R. Ford’s son, who is to be our solicitor), to fee some counsel in the Admiralty, but none in town."
Can anyone help me unravel this one:
ONE: L&M says Forde had two sons, John and Samuel, and two daughters (Grace, wife of Peter Proby, a painter, and Mary, wife of Thomas Ducke) alive when his widow Grace died at Bexley, Kent in 1681. So in 1666 another daughter must have been alive and married to John Oviatt, a merchant.
TWO: Our Encyclopedia doesn't have a page for a generic "solicitor," but the common denominator of the available info. indicates that there were specialized clerks employed doing paperwork and interfacing between the public and the bureaucrats in various government offices. For John Oviatt to be both a solicitor and a merchant indicates to me that his father-in-law had so much of this work, his son-in-law was qualified to represent Forde's interests, possibly exclusively. An in-house council, so to speak.
THREE The partners needed Oviatt's help with some Admiralty concerns. Our encyclopedia Admiralty page indicates that the personnel on the Navy Board were the same as, and also known as, the Admiralty. So they were pulling in someone they trusted but appeared to be an outside council to fee/pay for an Admiralty ruling explaining to themselves some legal technicality regarding a prize ship? That sounds like a good idea considering the trouble Sandwich et al were in over prizes, and the current temper of the House of Commons.
FOUR But since the prize ship is in Portsmouth, there was no need to involve anyone in the City of London, just someone discrete who knows the law.
Knowing the difference between the responsibilities of the Navy Board and the Admiralty in Pepys' time would help. Of course, the Diary may explain things better going forward.
And finally, I thought Pepys had sold his interest in the Flying Greyhound weeks ago.
ALTERNATIVELY, The Maypole was the name of an inn on the Strand:
"The History of the London Black Taxi Trade
"The first black taxi in London was the hackney coach in the 17th Century. ... In 1625 there were as few as 20 available for hire, operating out of inn yards. In 1636, the owner of four hackney coaches brought them into the Strand outside the Maypole Inn, and the first taxi rank had appeared." ...
Recently people were annotating on what to do when the Diary "ends" ... perhaps we should annotate our way through Andrew Marvell's "Last Instructions to a Painter"!
"He says all must come to ruin at this rate, and I believe him."
I hope Pepys gave his old friend, Mr. John Hingston the organist, a nice big Christmas box for helping him with his composition. Then he can run home and check on his 30 silver platters, Elizabeth's pearl necklace, and the trunks full of gold coin.
"Sam seems to have no fear at all that Mary might spill the beans to Bess about his groping...Possibly suggesting that Bess is well aware of it and takes it more or less in stride so long as it's not more than that. Though he also seems to have no great interest in pursuing Mercer...Caution in dealing with one who has become a family friend or lack of interest?"
Robert Gertz, you make sexual exploitation far too complicated. Pepys would just say, "Who me? No." and move on. If Bess pushed it, Pepys would say the teenager had fantasies and read far too much into a couple of completely innocent morning accidental bumps. If Bess questioned that, Pepys would have a temper tantrum, throw something that couldn't break, and then take out the household accounts to prove that Bess is a thief.
He needs to be caught in flagrante delicto.
Holding men accountable in those days was very difficult. It's damned hard these days. I'm surprised Mercer is coming around; that shows me how desperate she is for a good reference.
"Spent the evening in fitting my books, to have the number set upon each, in order to my having an alphabet of my whole, which will be of great ease to me."
This seems to answer a question someone asked after the Great Fire: Did Pepys have a catalog of his books? The answer is no, apparently he did not.
33 MP's missed roll call, so they don't know that Charles II cancelled Christmas recess because the Supply Bill MUST be funded. They have until Tuesday to pay a fine or be arrested:
"Mr. Secretary Morice delivers a Message, in Writing, from his Majesty to Mr. Speaker: Which was twice read; and is as followeth; "HIS Majesty is sorry, that the Difficulty his House of Commons hath met with, hath detained them so long, without perfecting his Supply. His Majesty could wish, That the Posture of His Affairs would permit the giving His Two Houses a short Recess at Christmas: But the Season of the Year being considered, and how much the necessary Preparations against the Spring depend upon the Dispatch of the Supply He assures Himself is preparing for Him, He cannot think it consistent with His Service, and the public Safety, to permit any Adjournment (except for the chief Festival Days), until That, and the other most public Bills, be perfected; which he desires may be hastened; and which his Majesty should be glad, if possible, might be finished by Christmas, as well for their Ease, as for his own Service. Given at the Court at Whitehall, the 15 Day of December, 1666.
"Defaulters at Call of the House. "The House then proceeded to Call over the Names of such Members as were Defaulters in attending the Service of the House, according to former Order. "Resolved, &c. That these Persons following be sent for in Custody of the Serjeant at Arms, for their Default in not attending the Service of the House; viz. Sir Edmond Pye, Sir John Roll, Sir Geo. S. Sonds, Mr. Hen. Williams, Mr. Wm. Stanley, Mr. Robert Pierpoint, Mr. Hen. Wallop, Mr. John Elliot, Mr. John Harris, Sir Thomas Hele, Mr. John George, Mr. Jeffery Rishton, Sir Wm. Fenwicke, Sir Wm. Oglander, Sir Edw. Littleton, Mr. Wm. Blois, Mr. Richard Cooke, Sir John Lewknor, Mr. Edw. Blaker, Mr. Henry Goreing, Mr. Henry Baynton, Sir John Hotham, Mr. Roger Talbott, Lord Herbert of Cardiffe, Sir John Rouse, Mr. Charles Cornwallis, Sir John Stapeley, Sir Cecil Bishopp, Sir Clement Fisher, Mr. Wm. Thompson, Mr. John Vaughan, Mr. Wm. Griffith, Mr. Edgcome. "Resolved, &c. That the Serjeant shall not go, or send, to take any of the Persons Defaulters into Custody, till Tuesday next."
"the most definite news from Braganza.... He must be recognised as king or else as an enemy..... The earl of Sanduich....expressed regret at a difficulty which has now been rendered insurmountable...."
Recently I questioned why we call the Queen "Catherine of Braganza" and not Catherine of Portugal. This indicates that her brother, Carlos II, called himself "of Braganza" also. If recognized as a King, I'm thinking it would mark Spain's recognition of the independence of Portugal from Spain, at which time he might change to Carlos II of Portugal? We shall see, no doubt.
Carlos has thus made England's desired alliance with Spain -- to counter-balance the French/Dutch alliance -- more difficult. Crazy brothers-in-law can be so inconsiderate, considering that Charles II kept his word and sent the English troops to help free Portugal.
No wonder Charles II left Sandwich in Spain for another year, despite needing his talent to lead the Navy since Rupert seems to have blackened Monck's reputation, and Monck is having a hissy fit. Diplomatic continuity counts.
In 1668, Hicks wrote to Arlington's secretary, advising him not to have a new map of the post roads printed, because: "When Parliament sees how all the branches lie and most of them carried on at the charge of those in the country concerned, they will try to have them carried through by the Postmaster-General, which will be very chargeable (expensive)."
At the close of the 17th century there were 49 men employed in the Inland Dept. of the Post Office in London. The Postmaster-General (or Controller) was nominally the manager, but the accountant and treasurer were independent.
There were 8 clerks of the roads who had charge of the mails coming and going on the 6 great roads to Holyhead, Bristol, Plymouth, Edinburgh, Yarmouth, and Dover. The veteran clerk, James Hicks, was their head until his resignation in 1670.
The new General Post Office was in Lombard Street.4 4 Stow, London, bk. ii, p. 163.
Letters might be mailed there, or at receiving stations at Westminster, Charing Cross, Pall Mall, Covent Garden, and the Inns of Court. From there, letters were dispatched to the General Office twice on mail nights. For this 32 letter carriers were employed, but they did not deliver letters.
The mails left London for all parts of the country on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday late at night or early the next morning. On these days all officials had to be at 6 p.m. and generally worked all night.
On Monday, Wednesday and Friday, when the mail arrived from all parts of England, they had to be at work at 4 or 5 a.m.
The postage to be paid was stamped on the letters by the clerks of the roads.
In addition, 3 sorters and 3 window-men were employed. The window-men receive the letters and collected prepaid postage.
There were an alphabet-men, who posted the names of merchants for whom letters had arrived, a sorter of paid letters, and a clerk of undertaxed letters.
Overseas mail went through the Foreign Office, where there was a controller, 2 sorters, an alphabetman, and 8 letter receivers (of whom 2 were women). The Foreign Office also had a rebate man who corrected the overcharged letters. Both offices shared the carriers.
But who was Sir John Bennet? The book is silent. I suspect he was a trusted relative of Henry Bennet, Lord Arlington, whose grandfather was named John, so this one might be a brother or cousin???
Comments
Second Reading
About Saturday 22 December 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
Thanks, Bryan ... but what was a solicitor in 1666? I was a legal secretary in Torquay eons ago and dated quite a few of the current variety.
The Admiralty being responsible for operational matters, i.e. going out to sea to fight for king/queen and country is a good clarification. Who were the people on the Admiralty Board? In our encyclopedia someone listed the Navy Board personnel as of 1660 for the Admiralty as well, and I hope that wasn't the case by 1666, or our gang is surely hoisted on their own petard. Albemarle and Rupert -- for instance -- must have been Admiralty.
About Monday 24 December 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
"Thence to Sir Robert Viner’s, and there paid for the plate I have bought to the value of 94l., with the 100l. Captain Cocke did give me to that purpose, and received the rest in money."
It's a Quarter Day ... I'm surprised he doesn't mention paying more vendors and tradesmen.
About Admiralty
San Diego Sarah • Link
The Admiralty COURT page is helpful:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adm…
Briefly, it says England's admiralty courts date to at least the 1360s and Edward III. At that time there were three courts with admirals responsible for the seas to the north, south and west of England. In 1483 the courts were amalgamated into the High Court of Admiralty, administered by the Lord High Admiral of England (i.e. James, Duke of York in Pepys' time).
The Lord High Admiral appointed judges to the court, and remove them at will. This was amended from 1673, with appointments falling within the purview of the Crown, and from 1689 judges also received an annual stipend and a degree of tenure, holding their positions subject to effective delivery of their duties rather than at the Lord High Admiral's pleasure.
From its inception in 1483 until 1657 the court sat in a disused church in Southwark, and from then until 1665 in Montjoy House (private premises leased from the Dean of St. Paul's Cathedral). In order to escape the plague in 1665, the court was briefly relocated to Winchester and then to Jesus College at Oxford. The plague subsided by 1666, so the court returned to London and until 1671 was located at Exeter House on The Strand before returning to Montjoy House near St. Paul's.
The sole survivor of the independent courts of admiralty is the Court of Admiralty for the Cinque Ports. The jurisdiction of the Court of Admiralty of the Cinque Ports extends in an area with boundaries running from the Naze Tower, Essex along the shore to Brightlingsea, then to Shoe Beacon (or Shore Beacon), (to the east of Shoeburyness, Essex), across the mouth of the Thames Estuary to Shellness, Kent, and around the coast to Redcliffe, near Seaford, Sussex. It covers all the sea from Seaford to a point five miles off Cape Grisnez on the coast of France, and the Galloper Sands off the coast of Essex. The last full sitting was in 1914.
About Saturday 22 December 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
"Knowing the difference between the responsibilities of the Navy Board and the Admiralty in Pepys' time would help."
It occurs to me that the Admiralty didn't do much. That's why the Admiralty wiki page tells us more about the Navy Board than it does the Admiralty. But this page about the Admiralty COURT is more helpful:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adm…
Briegly, it says England's admiralty courts date to at least the 1360s and Edward III. At that time there were three courts with admirals responsible for the seas to the north, south and west of England. In 1483 the courts were amalgamated into the High Court of Admiralty, administered by the Lord High Admiral of England (i.e. James, Duke of York). The Lord High Admiral appointed judges to the court, and remove them at will. This was amended from 1673, with appointments falling within the purview of the Crown, and from 1689 judges also received an annual stipend and a degree of tenure, holding their positions subject to effective delivery of their duties rather than at the Lord High Admiral's pleasure.
From its inception in 1483 until 1657 the court sat in a disused church in Southwark, and from then until 1665 in Montjoy House (private premises leased from the Dean of St. Paul's Cathedral). In order to escape the plague in 1665, the court was briefly relocated to Winchester and then to Jesus College at Oxford. The plague subsided by 1666, so the court returned to London and until 1671 was located at Exeter House on The Strand before returning to Montjoy House near St Paul's."
The sole survivor of the independent courts of admiralty is the Court of Admiralty for the Cinque Ports. The jurisdiction of the Court of Admiralty of the Cinque Ports extends in an area with boundaries running from the Naze Tower, Essex along the shore to Brightlingsea, then to Shoe Beacon (or Shore Beacon), (to the east of Shoeburyness, Essex), across the mouth of the Thames Estuary to Shellness, Kent, and around the coast to Redcliffe, near Seaford, Sussex. It covers all the sea from Seaford to a point five miles off Cape Grisnez on the coast of France, and the Galloper Sands off the coast of Essex. The last full sitting was in 1914."
Our encyclopedia says, "In December, 1664, the Navy Committee appointed themselves the Commissioners for Prize Goods, Sir Henry Bennet being appointed comptroller, and Lord Ashley treasurer." I don't think Pepys, Penn, Forde and Batten would benefit from Arlington and Ashley's input on the disposition of their prize ship and it's contents.
So I think they are off to the Admiralty Court with their solicitor to get a ruling which will cover their backs and stay out of the purview of Lords Ashley and Arlington.
About Saturday 22 December 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
"I with all my clerks and Carcasse and Whitfield to the ticket-office, there to be informed in the method and disorder of the office, which I find infinite great, of infinite concernment to be mended, and did spend till 12 at night to my great satisfaction, it being a point of our office I was wholly unacquainted in."
I don't think Pepys was “wholly unacquainted” with the Navy Ticket Office:
"Monday 12 November 1666
Lay long in bed, and then up, and Mr. Carcasse brought me near 500 tickets to sign, which I did, and by discourse find him a cunning, confident, shrewd man, but one that I do doubt hath by his discourse of the ill will he hath got with my Lord Marquess of Dorchester (with whom he lived), he hath had cunning practices in his time, and would not now spare to use the same to his profit."
Our Wikipedia page on the Admiralty says:
“ The Navy Board was responsible for dockyard management, building and repairing ships, recruitment and *seamen's pay,* and the appointment of warrant officers.”
L&M Companion says the ticket-office was “Conveniently placed for seamen, between the river and the Navy Office -- until the Fire in a rented house on Tower Hill; afterwards in a house built for the purpose in Colchester Street close by."
We know the Ticket Office was near by because the autumn 1666 pay riots spilled over to the Navy Board building.
I think Pepys means that he had been sufficiently occupied figuring out mathematics, the hemp and victualling businesses, improving his house, and how to dress/speak/act/write in a Courtly manner while cooking the books, to leave the task of paying tickets to the Controller and others on the Navy Board. With Coventry warning him that the wrath of the House of Commons was about to descend on them, it behooved him to find out what a mess Carteret and Mennes had made of that department. But he had been well aware of the function before now, and probably chose to be uninformed.
About Ticket
San Diego Sarah • Link
the ticket-office,
L&M Companion: 'Conveniently placed for seamen, between the river and the Navy Office -- until the Fire in a rented house on Tower Hill; afterwards in a house built for the purpose in Colchester Street close by.
In 1683 it moved to a two story wing of the new Navy Office, with a separate entrance from Seething Lane."
About James Carkesse
San Diego Sarah • Link
James Carkesse now has a Wikipedia page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jam…
About James Carkesse
San Diego Sarah • Link
James Carkesse -- from the L&M Companion and the Diary -- Carkesse began his career as a household official of Henry Pierrepont, Marquess of Dorchester (an original F.R.S.), and first appears in the Navy office as a clerk to the Extra Commissioner Brouncker, who was probably responsible for bringing him into the Navy's service.
Possibly by Brouncker or Dorchester's influence, Carkesse was elected as a F.R.S. in 1664. Pepys first records meeting him in August, 1665 “(among others Mr. Carcasse, my Lord’s clerk, a very civil gentleman).” In March, 1666 Mrs. Carkesse socialized with the Battens and toured Pepys’ home.
In the Great Fire the ticket office burned down; since Pepys spent time with Carkesse that day and no mention is made of the ticket office, presumably he was not employed there at that time. But by November 11, 1666 Carkesse was employed in the ticket office, as he brought 500 tickets for Pepys to sign and they had a long chat, with Pepys concluding that “he hath had cunning practices in his time, and would not now spare to use the same to his profit.”
Pepys instincts proved right: Carkesse was dismissed in 1667 for corruption, only to be reinstated a few months later through the intervention of friends in the House of Commons. (Sir Edward Turnor, the Speaker, was godfather to Carkesse’s son William born in 1667.)
Carkesse last appears in the Navy Office as a clerk to Edward Seymour, Extra Commissioner, in 1672-3. Thereafter he disappears into Bedlam.
(By the way, the Marquess of Dorchester is the father-in-law of John Manners, Lord Roos, featured in another Diary story line. It was a small world.)
About Saturday 22 December 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
"Hereupon concluded what to write to Hogg and Middleton, which I did, and also with Mr. Oviatt (Sir R. Ford’s son, who is to be our solicitor), to fee some counsel in the Admiralty, but none in town."
Can anyone help me unravel this one:
ONE: L&M says Forde had two sons, John and Samuel, and two daughters (Grace, wife of Peter Proby, a painter, and Mary, wife of Thomas Ducke) alive when his widow Grace died at Bexley, Kent in 1681. So in 1666 another daughter must have been alive and married to John Oviatt, a merchant.
TWO: Our Encyclopedia doesn't have a page for a generic "solicitor," but the common denominator of the available info. indicates that there were specialized clerks employed doing paperwork and interfacing between the public and the bureaucrats in various government offices. For John Oviatt to be both a solicitor and a merchant indicates to me that his father-in-law had so much of this work, his son-in-law was qualified to represent Forde's interests, possibly exclusively. An in-house council, so to speak.
THREE The partners needed Oviatt's help with some Admiralty concerns. Our encyclopedia Admiralty page indicates that the personnel on the Navy Board were the same as, and also known as, the Admiralty. So they were pulling in someone they trusted but appeared to be an outside council to fee/pay for an Admiralty ruling explaining to themselves some legal technicality regarding a prize ship? That sounds like a good idea considering the trouble Sandwich et al were in over prizes, and the current temper of the House of Commons.
FOUR But since the prize ship is in Portsmouth, there was no need to involve anyone in the City of London, just someone discrete who knows the law.
Knowing the difference between the responsibilities of the Navy Board and the Admiralty in Pepys' time would help. Of course, the Diary may explain things better going forward.
And finally, I thought Pepys had sold his interest in the Flying Greyhound weeks ago.
About Maypole (The Strand)
San Diego Sarah • Link
ALTERNATIVELY, The Maypole was the name of an inn on the Strand:
"The History of the London Black Taxi Trade
"The first black taxi in London was the hackney coach in the 17th Century. ... In 1625 there were as few as 20 available for hire, operating out of inn yards. In 1636, the owner of four hackney coaches brought them into the Strand outside the Maypole Inn, and the first taxi rank had appeared." ...
I bet the Maypole Inn was close to the maypole.
Lots more information about hackney cabs at https://h2g2.com/edited_entry/A74…
About Wednesday 19 December 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
Recently people were annotating on what to do when the Diary "ends" ... perhaps we should annotate our way through Andrew Marvell's "Last Instructions to a Painter"!
About Wednesday 19 December 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
"He says all must come to ruin at this rate, and I believe him."
I hope Pepys gave his old friend, Mr. John Hingston the organist, a nice big Christmas box for helping him with his composition. Then he can run home and check on his 30 silver platters, Elizabeth's pearl necklace, and the trunks full of gold coin.
About Tuesday 18 December 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
"... which is a sad fortune, and do make me afeard, and will do, more than ever I was."
Does Pepys fear foul play? Does he think the Dutch / Catholics murdered Capt. Batters? What will he do more of? What an odd paragraph.
About Monday 17 December 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
"Sam seems to have no fear at all that Mary might spill the beans to Bess about his groping...Possibly suggesting that Bess is well aware of it and takes it more or less in stride so long as it's not more than that. Though he also seems to have no great interest in pursuing Mercer...Caution in dealing with one who has become a family friend or lack of interest?"
Robert Gertz, you make sexual exploitation far too complicated. Pepys would just say, "Who me? No." and move on. If Bess pushed it, Pepys would say the teenager had fantasies and read far too much into a couple of completely innocent morning accidental bumps. If Bess questioned that, Pepys would have a temper tantrum, throw something that couldn't break, and then take out the household accounts to prove that Bess is a thief.
He needs to be caught in flagrante delicto.
Holding men accountable in those days was very difficult. It's damned hard these days. I'm surprised Mercer is coming around; that shows me how desperate she is for a good reference.
About Monday 17 December 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
"Spent the evening in fitting my books, to have the number set upon each, in order to my having an alphabet of my whole, which will be of great ease to me."
This seems to answer a question someone asked after the Great Fire: Did Pepys have a catalog of his books? The answer is no, apparently he did not.
I want to know if he has dug up the cheese yet.
About Saturday 15 December 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
33 MP's missed roll call, so they don't know that Charles II cancelled Christmas recess because the Supply Bill MUST be funded. They have until Tuesday to pay a fine or be arrested:
"Mr. Secretary Morice delivers a Message, in Writing, from his Majesty to Mr. Speaker: Which was twice read; and is as followeth;
"HIS Majesty is sorry, that the Difficulty his House of Commons hath met with, hath detained them so long, without perfecting his Supply. His Majesty could wish, That the Posture of His Affairs would permit the giving His Two Houses a short Recess at Christmas: But the Season of the Year being considered, and how much the necessary Preparations against the Spring depend upon the Dispatch of the Supply He assures Himself is preparing for Him, He cannot think it consistent with His Service, and the public Safety, to permit any Adjournment (except for the chief Festival Days), until That, and the other most public Bills, be perfected; which he desires may be hastened; and which his Majesty should be glad, if possible, might be finished by Christmas, as well for their Ease, as for his own Service. Given at the Court at Whitehall, the 15 Day of December, 1666.
"Defaulters at Call of the House.
"The House then proceeded to Call over the Names of such Members as were Defaulters in attending the Service of the House, according to former Order.
"Resolved, &c. That these Persons following be sent for in Custody of the Serjeant at Arms, for their Default in not attending the Service of the House; viz. Sir Edmond Pye, Sir John Roll, Sir Geo. S. Sonds, Mr. Hen. Williams, Mr. Wm. Stanley, Mr. Robert Pierpoint, Mr. Hen. Wallop, Mr. John Elliot, Mr. John Harris, Sir Thomas Hele, Mr. John George, Mr. Jeffery Rishton, Sir Wm. Fenwicke, Sir Wm. Oglander, Sir Edw. Littleton, Mr. Wm. Blois, Mr. Richard Cooke, Sir John Lewknor, Mr. Edw. Blaker, Mr. Henry Goreing, Mr. Henry Baynton, Sir John Hotham, Mr. Roger Talbott, Lord Herbert of Cardiffe, Sir John Rouse, Mr. Charles Cornwallis, Sir John Stapeley, Sir Cecil Bishopp, Sir Clement Fisher, Mr. Wm. Thompson, Mr. John Vaughan, Mr. Wm. Griffith, Mr. Edgcome.
"Resolved, &c. That the Serjeant shall not go, or send, to take any of the Persons Defaulters into Custody, till Tuesday next."
About Saturday 15 December 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
"the most definite news from Braganza.... He must be recognised as king or else as an enemy.....
The earl of Sanduich....expressed regret at a difficulty which has now been rendered insurmountable...."
Recently I questioned why we call the Queen "Catherine of Braganza" and not Catherine of Portugal. This indicates that her brother, Carlos II, called himself "of Braganza" also. If recognized as a King, I'm thinking it would mark Spain's recognition of the independence of Portugal from Spain, at which time he might change to Carlos II of Portugal? We shall see, no doubt.
Carlos has thus made England's desired alliance with Spain -- to counter-balance the French/Dutch alliance -- more difficult. Crazy brothers-in-law can be so inconsiderate, considering that Charles II kept his word and sent the English troops to help free Portugal.
No wonder Charles II left Sandwich in Spain for another year, despite needing his talent to lead the Navy since Rupert seems to have blackened Monck's reputation, and Monck is having a hissy fit. Diplomatic continuity counts.
About Wednesday 12 December 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
Good one Mountebank ... first real laugh of the day.
About Thursday 13 December 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
The Richard Browne plotted against here was probably the former Lord Mayor of London 1660-61, Sir Richard Browne M.P.
https://www.historyofparliamenton…
I'm guessing that "his Grace the Lord General" would be Gen. George Monck, Duke of Albemarle.
About General Post Office
San Diego Sarah • Link
Part 3
In 1668, Hicks wrote to Arlington's secretary, advising him not to have a new map of the post roads printed, because: "When Parliament sees how all the branches lie and most of them carried on at the charge of those in the country concerned, they will try to have them carried through by the Postmaster-General, which will be very chargeable (expensive)."
At the close of the 17th century there were 49 men employed in the Inland Dept. of the Post Office in London. The Postmaster-General (or Controller) was nominally the manager, but the accountant and treasurer were independent.
There were 8 clerks of the roads who had charge of the mails coming and going on the 6 great roads to Holyhead, Bristol, Plymouth, Edinburgh, Yarmouth, and Dover. The veteran clerk, James Hicks, was their head until his resignation in 1670.
The new General Post Office was in Lombard Street.4
4 Stow, London, bk. ii, p. 163.
Letters might be mailed there, or at receiving stations at Westminster, Charing Cross, Pall Mall, Covent Garden, and the Inns of Court. From there, letters were dispatched to the General Office twice on mail nights. For this 32 letter carriers were employed, but they did not deliver letters.
The mails left London for all parts of the country on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday late at night or early the next morning. On these days all officials had to be at 6 p.m. and generally worked all night.
On Monday, Wednesday and Friday, when the mail arrived from all parts of England, they had to be at work at 4 or 5 a.m.
The postage to be paid was stamped on the letters by the clerks of the roads.
In addition, 3 sorters and 3 window-men were employed. The window-men receive the letters and collected prepaid postage.
There were an alphabet-men, who posted the names of merchants for whom letters had arrived, a sorter of paid letters, and a clerk of undertaxed letters.
Overseas mail went through the Foreign Office, where there was a controller, 2 sorters, an alphabetman, and 8 letter receivers (of whom 2 were women). The Foreign Office also had a rebate man who corrected the overcharged letters. Both offices shared the carriers.
Consolidated from http://www.gbps.org.uk/informatio…
But who was Sir John Bennet? The book is silent. I suspect he was a trusted relative of Henry Bennet, Lord Arlington, whose grandfather was named John, so this one might be a brother or cousin???