According to O'Neile's 1663 grant, no postmaster or anyone else except the one to whom a letter was directed or returned was to open the letter unless ordered so to do by an express warrant from one of the Secretaries of State. If any letter was overcharged, the excess was to be returned to the person to whom it was directed. Nothing was said about letters which were lost or stolen in the post, which was a problem: e.g., John Pawlett complained that of 16 letters which he had posted, not one was delivered in London although the postage was prepaid.1 1 Cal. S. P. D., 1664-65, p. 457. Although letters might be prepaid, it was not compulsory that they be delivered, and the vast majority were not.
An incentive to letter delivery was provided by the penny payment which it was customary to give the postmasters for each letter delivered, over and above the regular postage. The postmasters were required to remit the postage collected to London every month and give bonds for the performance of their duties.3 3 Cal. S. P. D., 1667, p. 80.
The postal service was hampered by the plague in 1665, and in 1666 by the Great Fire. James Hicks, the clerk, said to prevent contagion the building was so "fumed" that they could hardly see each other.4 4 Ibid., 1664-65, p. 51.
The letters were aired over vinegar or in front of large fires and Hicks remarks that had the pestilence been carried by letters they would have been dead long ago. While the plague was still dangerous, Charles II’s letters were not allowed to pass through London.1 1 Hist. MSS. Com., Rep., 12, app., pt. 7, pp. 14, 93; Col. S. P. D., 1665-66, p. 14. Cal. S. P. D. Add., 1600-70, p. 713.
After the Great Fire the headquarters of the London Post Office moved to Gresham College.
When O'Neale's lease expired in 1667, Secretary of State Henry Bennet, Lord Arlington was appointed Postmaster-General.2 2 Cai. S. P. D., 1665-66, p. 573.
The person really running the Post Office was Sir John Bennet, with whom James Hicks disagreed. He accused Bennet of "scurviness" and condemned him for the reductions in wages, e.g., the postmasters' salaries were reduced from £40 to £20 a year. 3 3 Ibid., 1667, p. 260.
It was difficult to tell the relative position of places in England from the post towns. The Post Office had a table of places along the great roads, and from the middle of the 17th century people started publishing road maps. On these the post towns are marked by a castle with a flag flying from it. Some maps are artistic, and show every important road in England with their branch roads. One map has each road outlined on a long scroll, and shows rivers, brooks, bridges, elevations, villages, post towns, forests, and branch roads throughout the whole distance.
In 1660 many old Royalist claimants to farm the Post Office petitioned Charles II and Parliament for reappointment to their old places and incomes. James Hicks [Hickes], a clerk who had worked directly for King Charles and Thurloe, was asked to investigate how many of the old deputy postmasters were eligible for positions.
Hicks found many of the real claimants were dead, and many of the applicants had been enemies of the King.
Finally, Henry Bishop was appointed by royal patent Postmaster General of England for 7 years at a rent of £21,500 a year.
For the time being Bishop was to charge the same rates as those in the "pretended Act of 1657," to defray all postal expenses and to carry free all public letters and letters of members of Parliament during the present session.
He agreed also to allow the Secretaries of State to examine letters, not to change old routes or set up new without their consent, to dismiss all officials objected to on reasonable grounds. If his income should be lessened by war or plague, or if this grant should prove ineffectual, the Secretaries agreed to allow such abatement in his farm as should seem reasonable to them.1 1 Rep. Com., 1844, xiv, app., pp. 75, 76 (32, 53).
Bishop's regime was unpopular with the postmasters, and 300 of them (representing themselves to be "all the postmasters in England, Scotland, and Ireland") petitioned Parliament to protest his actions. They claimed that unless they submitted to his orders, they were dismissed at once. He had decreased their wages by more than one half, made them pay for their places again, and demanded bonds from them that they should not disclose any of these things.2 2 Hist. MSS. Com., Rep., 7, p. 140.
In 1663, Bishop resigned his grant to Daniel O'Neale for £8,000. O'Neale offered £2,000 and, in addition, promised £1,000 a year, during the lease, to Henry Bennet, Secretary of State, if he would have the assignment confirmed. He promised this would not hurt the Duke of York's interest, who could expect no increase until the expiration of the original contract, which had over 4 years to run.3 3 Cal. S. P. D., 1663-64, p. 122; Rep. Com., 1844, xiv, app., pp. 86, 91 (60, 64).
This refers to an act of Parliament which had just been passed, settling the £21,500 post revenue upon James, Duke of York and his male heirs,4 with the exception of some £5,000 which had been assigned by Charles II to his mistresses and favorites. 4 Ibid., 1844, xiv, app., p. 91 (64). Confirmed in 1685 (Hist. MSS. Com., Rep., 11, app., 2, p. 315; 1 Jas. ii, c. 12).
O'Neale died before his lease expired, so his wife, Lady Katherine Wotton Stanhope van der Kerckhove O'Neill, Countess of Chesterfield, filled in until 1667.
"James Hickes to Williamson." We all know who Under Secretary of State Joseph Williamson is.
Here's my nomination for James Hick(e)s:
"Over 70,000 Londoners were left homeless in 1666 when, in the early hours of September 2nd, a fire that began in a bakery on Pudding Lane swiftly grew to consume and devastate the entire city. It is believed that approximately 13,000 residences burnt to the ground.
"As London’s first Post Office at Cloak Lane surrendered to what we now know as the Great Fire Of London, Postmaster James Hicks quickly salvaged as much of the city’s correspondence as physically possible, and fled with his family to Barnet. Once there, still shaken, he sent this letter to his fellow Postmasters and informed them of the unfolding catastrophe.
"This letter, along with 124 other fascinating pieces of correspondence, can be found in the bestselling book, Letters of Note:
"To my good friends ye Postmasters betwixt London & Chester & Holly Head
"Gentlemen,
"it hath pleased Almighty God to visit this famous city of London with most raging fire which began on Sunday morning last about 2 a clock in Pudding Lane in a baker’s house behind the Kings Head tavern in New Fish Street & though all the means possible was used yet it could not be obstructed but before night it had burnt most part of ye City with St Magnus Church & part of ye Bridge to Q Hith to the water side, Canon Street, Dowgate, & upon Monday struck up Gratious Street, Lombard Street, Cornhill, Poultry, Bartholomew Lane, Throgmorton Street, Lothbury, & the last night & this day rages through all parts of the city as far as Temple Bar, Holborn Bridge, Smithfield & by all conjecture is not by any means to be stopped from further ruin except God in his infinite wisdom prevent it.
"I am at ye Red Lyon in Barnet with my family, & God in reasonable good health, notwithstanding great loss and sufferings by the distraction of our office yet I am commanded to let you know yet what little come to your hands from any ministers of State yet again give you all quick and speedy dispatch to me hither yet I may convey you home to Court or such places as I may receive directions for, & I am also to intimate to you which letters are sent to you from Court & shall see them sent forwards from here to you with speedy care & conveyance & so soone as pleasith God to put an end to ye violence of this fire some place will be picked on for ye general correspondence as formerly of which you shall God willing have advice at present this is all
"Your sorrowfull friend "James Hicks "Barnet Sep. 4. 11 at night
I may be wrong of course, but this is the sort of useful gossip Hick(e)s would have access to by reading the mail. Either way, now at least we know what became of the post office after the fire.
"He says that he hears 400,000l. hath gone into the Privypurse since this warr; and that that hath consumed so much of our money, and makes the King and Court so mad to be brought to discover it."
And the Privy Purse, ladies and gentlemen, is what good ol' Baptist May is in charge of.
To be fair, his wikipedia page does say: "Despite being Keeper of the Privy Purse, May did not enjoy control over the king's private finances. Surviving documents show that the payments by May were routine payments. However, he enjoyed the king's confidence throughout his reign, despite May's offhand remarks. For example, according to Clarendon's biography, after the Great Fire of London in 1666, he remarked that it was welcomed, to make the city more controllable. This shocked those around him, including the king."
Baptist May was born at the end of Oct. 1628, the sixth son of Sir Humphrey May MP (a trusted courtier to James VI and I, and a follower of George Villiers, Ist Duke of Buckingham). Therefore, May said he was ‘bred about the King ever since he was a child’.
May attended James, Duke of York in exile.
At the Restoration, Baptist May was granted a valuable post in Chancery, together with the 1st Earl of St. Albans, with whom he was also associated in the Jermyn Street development.
In 1665 Baptist May became Keeper of the Privy Purse to Charles II, in which capacity he enjoyed: “the greatest and longest share in the King’s secret confidence of any man in that time ... though ... in his actions against everything that the King was for, both France, Popery, and arbitrary government; but a particular sympathy of temper and his serving the King in his vices created a confidence much envied.”
May stood for Winchelsea in October 1666 with the support of James, Duke of York, the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, but ‘the people chose a private gentleman in spite of him, and cried out they would have no court pimp to be their burgess’.
Perhaps because of this rebuff, he was ‘heard to say that £300 a year is enough for any country gentleman’.
As one of Barbara Villiers Palmer, Countess of Castlemaine’s ‘wicked crew,’ Baptist May actively promoted the fall of Chancellor Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon, upon which he ‘catched the King about the legs and joyed him, and said that this was the first time that ever he could call him King of England’. (!)
Samuel Pepys considered this ‘most ridiculous’, but Baptist May was probably anticipating the reversal of Clarendon’s foreign policy and the formation of the Triple Alliance against France.
Baptist May was returned for Midhurst at a by-election during the Christmas recess of 1669-70. His purpose was to introduce a bill following the precedent set by John Manners, Lord Roos so Charles II could to divorce Catherine of Braganza.
No orator, May formed plans for ‘managing those who would undertake the debate; but three days before the motion was to be made, the King called for him, and told him the matter must be let alone’.
May's "good intentions" were rewarded with the keepership of Windsor Park, worth £1,500 p.a.
"Gifts to Lady Castlemaine (and with them her extravagance) are said to have increased after she had arranged for the appointment of her friend Baptist May as Keeper of the Privy Purse. Cf. Clarendon, Life, iii. 61-2."
Baptist May was born at the end of Oct. 1628, the sixth son of Sir Humphrey May MP (a trusted courtier to James VI and I, and a follower of George Villiers, Ist Duke of Buckingham). Therefore, May said he was ‘bred about the King ever since he was a child’.
May attended James, Duke of York in exile.
At the Restoration, Baptist May was granted a valuable post in Chancery, together with the 1st Earl of St. Albans, with whom he was also associated in the Jermyn Street development.
In 1665 Baptist May became Keeper of the Privy Purse to Charles II, in which capacity he enjoyed: “the greatest and longest share in the King’s secret confidence of any man in that time ... though ... in his actions against everything that the King was for, both France, Popery, and arbitrary government; but a particular sympathy of temper and his serving the King in his vices created a confidence much envied.”
May stood for Winchelsea in October 1666 with the support of James, Duke of York, the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, but ‘the people chose a private gentleman in spite of him, and cried out they would have no court pimp to be their burgess’. Perhaps because of this rebuff, he was ‘heard to say that £300 a year is enough for any country gentleman’.
As one of Barbara Villiers Palmer, Countess of Castlemaine’s ‘wicked crew,’ Baptist May actively promoted the fall of Chancellor Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon, upon which he ‘catched the King about the legs and joyed him, and said that this was the first time that ever he could call him King of England’. (!)
Samuel Pepys considered this ‘most ridiculous’, but Baptist May was probably anticipating the reversal of Clarendon’s foreign policy and the formation of the Triple Alliance against France.
Baptist May was returned for Midhurst at a by-election during the Christmas recess of 1669-70. His purpose was to introduce a bill following the precedent set by John Manners, Lord Roos so Charles II could to divorce Catherine of Braganza. No orator himself, he formed plans for ‘managing those who would undertake the debate; but three days before the motion was to be made, the King called for him, and told him the matter must be let alone’.
May's "good intentions" were rewarded with the keepership of Windsor Park, worth £1,500 p.a.
"James Hickes to [Williamson]. Is told that Lord Brouncker, a Navy Comr., has made the seamen exceeding outrageous, by detaining thousands of seamen’s tickets, and ordering the men to other ships, without tickets or money; several seamen have sworn to do for him it they meet him. He is said to have got 30,000l. out of the two great Dutch prizes."
I have to think this isn't about OUR William, 2nd Viscount Brouncker, FRS. It must refer to his nasty kid brother, Henry about whom we will hear more during the enquiries into the conduct of the Second Anglo-Dutch War:
Henry Brouncker was Member of Parliament for New Romney from 1665 to 21 April, 1668, but was expelled when charges were brought against him for allowing the Dutch to escape during the Battle of Lowestoft and ordering the sails of the English fleet to be slackened in the name of James, Duke of York. Such a decision, taken without the Duke's authority, was an incident seemingly without parallel, especially as his apparent motive was simply that he was fatigued with the stress and noise of the battle. https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
"a Navy Comr." could be an abbreviation for Commissioner OR Commander. I hope I'm right.
Just to be clear, Jane Pepys Turner was married to John Turner. It is thought likely that John's brother was Lord Mayor of London William Turner. Therefore, William is probably Jane's brother-in-law, and the sisters no blood relation of Pepys. But they are sufficiently family to be able to plan a trip to France with him.
"House of C tried to scupper the Navy boys. "...A Proviso tendered, for taking away all Fees, Salaries, and Rewards, from the Treasurer of the Navy, and Officers of Exchequer,"
Carteret is the Navy Treasurer, and Anthony Ashley-Cooper, Lord Ashley served as Chancellor of the Exchequer (1661 – 1672).
"... for Monies paid by Anticipation, was twice read ..."
This has become a cause for impeachment in the USA. It means the collection of taxes/fees/money for a stated purpose, but used for something else. In Pepys' time they voted money to fight the Second Dutch War, and no doubt we will find out in the next few years how the money was really spent.
Both gents were wealthy, but were the rest of the Officers of the Exchequor? Wikipedia is the only source I could find:
• Auditor of the imprests – Bartholomew Beale from 1641 – 1674 when he died
• Auditor of the Receipt of the Exchequer - Sir Robert Pye 25 June 1660 Sir Robert Long, 1st Baronet 21 May 1662 Sir Robert Howard 14 July 1673
• Chancellor of the Exchequer - Anthony Ashley-Cooper, Lord Ashley
• Chamberlains of the Exchequer - Sir Nicholas Steward, 1st Baronet 1 October 1660 – 15 February 1710 Henry Hildyard 10 July 1660 – 8 January 1675
• Chief Baron of the Exchequer in Ireland - 1660 John Wilde 1660 Sir Orlando Bridgeman 1660 Sir Matthew Hale 1671 Sir Edward Turnor 1676 Sir William Montagu
• Clerk of the Pells - 1660–?1698: William Wardour
• Queen's Remembrancer - Thomas Fanshawe, 1st Viscount Fanshawe, 7 August 1660 – 26 March 1665 Thomas Fanshawe, 2nd Viscount Fanshawe, 26 March 1665 – 19 May 1674
• Teller of the Receipt of the Exchequer – Sir George Downing 1660 – 1684 (with help as he was frequently deployed as an Ambassador at the same time)
• Treasurer of the Exchequer - 4th Earl of Southampton (1660–1667) 1st Duke of Albemarle (1667–1670) 1st Baron Clifford of Chudleigh (1672–1673)
• Clerk of the Pipe - 1659–1680: Robert Croke
Looking at their dates of service, it appears no one got fired.
"But at last one after another they come, many more than I bid: and my reckoning that I bid was one hundred and twenty; but I believe there was nearer one hundred and fifty. Their service was six biscuits apiece, and what they pleased of burnt claret. My cosen Joyce Norton kept the wine and cakes above ..."
I found this information about biscuits in an American magazine, hence "cookies":
"Cookies were originally made to test oven temperature. According to culinary historians, cookies as we know them today were first made not to eat but to test the temperature of an oven. Cooks would take a small dollop of cake batter and bake it as a means of gauging whether the oven was ready or not."
In this situation, serving a few biscuits to the masses, and keeping the cake upstairs for the family and close mourners, makes sense.
"But at last one after another they come, many more than I bid: and my reckoning that I bid was one hundred and twenty; but I believe there was nearer one hundred and fifty. Their service was six biscuits apiece, and what they pleased of burnt claret. My cosen Joyce Norton kept the wine and cakes above ..."
I found this information about biscuits in an American magazine, hence "cookies":
"Cookies were originally made to test oven temperature. According to culinary historians, cookies as we know them today were first made not to eat but to test the temperature of an oven. Cooks would take a small dollop of cake batter and bake it as a means of gauging whether the oven was ready or not."
In this situation, serving a few biscuits to the masses, and keeping the cake upstairs for the family and close mourners, makes sense.
Further thoughts about "But I was in mighty pain lest I should be seen by any body to be at a play." ...
Maybe Pepys had knowledge of the debate CGS reported on 8 Dec 2009? "Interesting debate "House of C tried to scupper the Navy boys. "...A Proviso tendered, for taking away all Fees, Salaries, and Rewards, from the Treasurer of the Navy, and Officers of Exchequer, for Monies paid by Anticipation, was twice read..." "voted on."
Many people blamed the lack of victualing for Rupert not being able to blockade the Dutch for the full six weeks last summer ... eventually resulting in the last disasterous battle. Pepys appears not to be included in the above list, but he was the Victualler-in-Chief. Paranoia is appropriate when someone of Rupert's distinction has been raving about your incompetence for six months.
Rupert had written to Charles II that "unless some course" were taken with the victualler -- viz. Pepys -- the whole fleet would be ruined.[40] [40] Dom. State Papers, Chas. II. 156. 100. 22 May, 1666.
When the fleet came into refit, the first thing Rupert did on meeting Charles II was to reiterate his complaints. "Which," wrote Pepys, "I am troubled at, and do fear may in violence break out upon this office some time or other, and we shall not be able to carry on the business."[41] [41] Pepys. June 20, 1666.
But Rupert's time on shore was short, and the victualling storm was deferred. By July 22, 1666 the fleet was again at sea.
Well, Rupert's been back for months and the conversation's deferred no longer ...
Aussie Susan's comment surprised me: "Royalty and Courtiers have always changed outer clothes frequently, often during the same day, but not the undergarments." She cites Napoleon, so maybe habits changed over the decades?
Dr. Thomas Moulton's "This is the Mirror or Glass of Health" (1545) recommends: ‘Also use no baths or stoves; nor swet too much, for all openeth the pores of a man’s body and maketh the venomous ayre to enter and for to infect the blood.’
His advice was to avoid places where the air was stagnant, or vapors rose (marshes, pools, tan yards and muck heaps); keep the air fresh and sweet-smelling; keep the pores of the skin tightly sealed, and to fully cover the body.
Sickness was viewed as an imbalance within the body, but infection was seen as an outside agency that arose from places of putrefaction and drifted in the air, like seeds or spores.
There were several ways noxious fumes could enter the body, the main infection route being through the mouth and nose. The pores of the skin were a secondary route, but one could guard against this by adopting a sensible personal hygiene routine that maintained the skin as a solid barrier.
Clean clothes were essential for health, in particular the layer that touched the skin.
Ideally no wool, leather or silk would be in direct contact with your body, as these items were difficult to clean. Linen shirts, smocks, under-breeches, hose, ruffs, cuffs, bands, coifs (skull-caps) and caps could be combined by the two sexes to give total coverage in a form that permitted regular vigorous laundry.
Every time this linen layer was changed (or ‘shifted’), accumulated dirt, grease and sweat was removed. The more you changed your underwear, the healthier and cleaner you would be.
Especially effective for this was linen, as it was absorbent, and drew the grease and sweat away from the skin into the weave of the cloth, like a sponge soaking up liquid.
Linen was also employed to clean the body. Sir Thomas Elyot’s "The Castel of Helth" (1534) recommends the morning routine include a session when a man should ‘rub the body with a course lynen clothe, first softly and easily, and after to increase more and more, to a hard and swyft rubbyng, untyl the flesh do swelle, and be somewhat ruddy, and that not only down ryght, but also overthwart and round’. This ensured ‘his body is clensed’.
Vigorous rubbing, especially after exercise, drew out the body’s toxins through the open pores, with unwanted bodily matter being removed away by the coarse linen cloth. ‘Rubbing cloths’ or ‘body cloths’, despite low financial value, can be found in the inventories of people’s goods.
In the 17th century single women (particularly those over 25) began to be labelled 'spinster' or 'old maid'.
Pepys' unmarried sister, Pal, was 20 when the Diary opens.
A demographer in the 1960's identified the “Northwestern European Marriage Pattern,” in which people in 17th century northwestern European countries began marrying in their 30s and even 40s. A significant proportion of the populace didn’t marry at all. Traditionally couples start a new household when they marry, which requires accumulating either money or owning property. His theory was that that became more difficult at this time, which delayed marriage. If people couldn’t accumulate enough wealth, they might not marry at all, or the older men married the much younger child-bearing aged women.
Before the 17th century, unmarried women were called maids, virgins or “puella” (Latin word for “girl”), words that imply youth and chastity, and presumed that girls would only be single for the short period of “pre-marriage.”
By the 17th century terms like “spinster” and “singlewoman,” emerged. The numbers of unwed women – and women who never married – grew. "Spinster" now became a legal term for an unmarried, independent woman.
Amy Froide, Professor of History at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County says, "Single women made up, on average, 30% of the adult female population in early modern England. My own research on the town of Southampton found that in 1698, 34.2% of women over 18 were single, another 18.5% were widowed, and less than half, or 47.3%, were married." ... "my work shows that in 17th-century England, at any given time, more women were unmarried than married. It was a normal part of the era’s life and culture. In the late 1690s, the term ‘old maid’ became common."
'Old maid’ expressed the paradox of being old, virginal and unmarried. Literature also poked fun at ‘superannuated virgins.’ In 1713 an anonymous pamphlet, “A Satyr upon Old Maids,” referred to never-married women as “odious,” “impure” and "repugnant." Another common trope was that old maids would be punished for not marrying by “leading apes in hell.”
When did a young, single woman become an 'old maid'? Jane Barker (1652–1732), a single poet, wrote in her 1688 poem, “A Virgin Life,” that she hoped she could remain “Fearless of twenty-five and all its train, Of slights or scorns, or being called Old Maid.”
In the 1690s and early 1700s, population decline prompted the House of Commons to levy a Marriage Duty Tax, requiring bachelors, widowers and some wealthy single women to pay a fine for being unmarried.
Interestingly enough, Pepys never writes "spinster" or "old maid," and the only "unmarried" reference is to the requirement of a male clerk to be unwed. But his concern about marrying off Pal, aged 25 in 1665, is clear.
"But I was in mighty pain lest I should be seen by any body to be at a play."
I think he was in such a fit he went to the theater to "punish" Elizabeth and the mayds for messing up, hense arriving in the third act. Having thus made a spectacle of himself, he became ashamed of himself for being there.
Pepys has gone through this desire not to be seen before: One Christmas (1663?) he and Elizabeth stayed in Sandwich's Whitehall apartments, and he hid behind pillars making efforts not to be seen for several days.
London was a small place ... he takes a lot of risks with his womanizing. Being invisible to his betters must be getting more and more difficult. Or maybe he was worried about an unpaid sailor seeing him ... or a widow ... or a victualler. He has no protection detail.
"Now we need some eager, data-seeking Pepysian to trawl back through every mention of our man's two-minute ditty and see just how often he mentions its high quality "without flattery." Might we even get the score on the site here? Is that possible, Phil?"
Bradford should be annotating today. All we have to do is go to the search bar (upper right) and type in "Beauty Retire" and press GO. Voila, every Diary entry for it is displayed.
OR, since the song's name is in blue, we can tap through to the Encyclopedia, and read the 3 Annotations, or go to the References page and see that is mentioned 7 times and on which dates, and can easily click through to any of those Diary entries.
Comments
Second Reading
About General Post Office
San Diego Sarah • Link
Part 2
According to O'Neile's 1663 grant, no postmaster or anyone else except the one to whom a letter was directed or returned was to open the letter unless ordered so to do by an express warrant from one of the Secretaries of State. If any letter was overcharged, the excess was to be returned to the person to whom it was directed. Nothing was said about letters which were lost or stolen in the post, which was a problem: e.g., John Pawlett complained that of 16 letters which he had posted, not one was delivered in London although the postage was prepaid.1
1 Cal. S. P. D., 1664-65, p. 457. Although letters might be prepaid, it was not compulsory that they be delivered, and the vast majority were not.
An incentive to letter delivery was provided by the penny payment which it was customary to give the postmasters for each letter delivered, over and above the regular postage. The postmasters were required to remit the postage collected to London every month and give bonds for the performance of their duties.3
3 Cal. S. P. D., 1667, p. 80.
The postal service was hampered by the plague in 1665, and in 1666 by the Great Fire. James Hicks, the clerk, said to prevent contagion the building was so "fumed" that they could hardly see each other.4
4 Ibid., 1664-65, p. 51.
The letters were aired over vinegar or in front of large fires and Hicks remarks that had the pestilence been carried by letters they would have been dead long ago. While the plague was still dangerous, Charles II’s letters were not allowed to pass through London.1
1 Hist. MSS. Com., Rep., 12, app., pt. 7, pp. 14, 93; Col. S. P. D., 1665-66, p. 14. Cal. S. P. D. Add., 1600-70, p. 713.
After the Great Fire the headquarters of the London Post Office moved to Gresham College.
When O'Neale's lease expired in 1667, Secretary of State Henry Bennet, Lord Arlington was appointed Postmaster-General.2
2 Cai. S. P. D., 1665-66, p. 573.
The person really running the Post Office was Sir John Bennet, with whom James Hicks disagreed. He accused Bennet of "scurviness" and condemned him for the reductions in wages, e.g., the postmasters' salaries were reduced from £40 to £20 a year. 3
3 Ibid., 1667, p. 260.
It was difficult to tell the relative position of places in England from the post towns. The Post Office had a table of places along the great roads, and from the middle of the 17th century people started publishing road maps. On these the post towns are marked by a castle with a flag flying from it. Some maps are artistic, and show every important road in England with their branch roads. One map has each road outlined on a long scroll, and shows rivers, brooks, bridges, elevations, villages, post towns, forests, and branch roads throughout the whole distance.
About General Post Office
San Diego Sarah • Link
In 1660 many old Royalist claimants to farm the Post Office petitioned Charles II and Parliament for reappointment to their old places and incomes. James Hicks [Hickes], a clerk who had worked directly for King Charles and Thurloe, was asked to investigate how many of the old deputy postmasters were eligible for positions.
Hicks found many of the real claimants were dead, and many of the applicants had been enemies of the King.
Finally, Henry Bishop was appointed by royal patent Postmaster General of England for 7 years at a rent of £21,500 a year.
For the time being Bishop was to charge the same rates as those in the "pretended Act of 1657," to defray all postal expenses and to carry free all public letters and letters of members of Parliament during the present session.
He agreed also to allow the Secretaries of State to examine letters, not to change old routes or set up new without their consent, to dismiss all officials objected to on reasonable grounds. If his income should be lessened by war or plague, or if this grant should prove ineffectual, the Secretaries agreed to allow such abatement in his farm as should seem reasonable to them.1
1 Rep. Com., 1844, xiv, app., pp. 75, 76 (32, 53).
Bishop's regime was unpopular with the postmasters, and 300 of them (representing themselves to be "all the postmasters in England, Scotland, and Ireland") petitioned Parliament to protest his actions. They claimed that unless they submitted to his orders, they were dismissed at once. He had decreased their wages by more than one half, made them pay for their places again, and demanded bonds from them that they should not disclose any of these things.2
2 Hist. MSS. Com., Rep., 7, p. 140.
In 1663, Bishop resigned his grant to Daniel O'Neale for £8,000. O'Neale offered £2,000 and, in addition, promised £1,000 a year, during the lease, to Henry Bennet, Secretary of State, if he would have the assignment confirmed. He promised this would not hurt the Duke of York's interest, who could expect no increase until the expiration of the original contract, which had over 4 years to run.3
3 Cal. S. P. D., 1663-64, p. 122; Rep. Com., 1844, xiv, app., pp. 86, 91 (60, 64).
This refers to an act of Parliament which had just been passed, settling the £21,500 post revenue upon James, Duke of York and his male heirs,4 with the exception of some £5,000 which had been assigned by Charles II to his mistresses and favorites.
4 Ibid., 1844, xiv, app., p. 91 (64). Confirmed in 1685 (Hist. MSS. Com., Rep., 11, app., 2, p. 315; 1 Jas. ii, c. 12).
O'Neale died before his lease expired, so his wife, Lady Katherine Wotton Stanhope van der Kerckhove O'Neill, Countess of Chesterfield, filled in until 1667.
About General Post Office
San Diego Sarah • Link
For a comprehensive description of the development of the Post Office I found a free book on line:
THE HISTORY OF THE BRITISH POST OFFICE by J. C. HEMMEON, Ph.D., published by CAMBRIDGE HARVARD UNIVERSITY in 1912
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4…
The first two chapters cover the early years and Pepys' times.
About Wednesday 12 December 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
"James Hickes to Williamson." We all know who Under Secretary of State Joseph Williamson is.
Here's my nomination for James Hick(e)s:
"Over 70,000 Londoners were left homeless in 1666 when, in the early hours of September 2nd, a fire that began in a bakery on Pudding Lane swiftly grew to consume and devastate the entire city. It is believed that approximately 13,000 residences burnt to the ground.
"As London’s first Post Office at Cloak Lane surrendered to what we now know as the Great Fire Of London, Postmaster James Hicks quickly salvaged as much of the city’s correspondence as physically possible, and fled with his family to Barnet. Once there, still shaken, he sent this letter to his fellow Postmasters and informed them of the unfolding catastrophe.
"This letter, along with 124 other fascinating pieces of correspondence, can be found in the bestselling book, Letters of Note:
"To my good friends ye Postmasters betwixt London & Chester & Holly Head
"Gentlemen,
"it hath pleased Almighty God to visit this famous city of London with most raging fire which began on Sunday morning last about 2 a clock in Pudding Lane in a baker’s house behind the Kings Head tavern in New Fish Street & though all the means possible was used yet it could not be obstructed but before night it had burnt most part of ye City with St Magnus Church & part of ye Bridge to Q Hith to the water side, Canon Street, Dowgate, & upon Monday struck up Gratious Street, Lombard Street, Cornhill, Poultry, Bartholomew Lane, Throgmorton Street, Lothbury, & the last night & this day rages through all parts of the city as far as Temple Bar, Holborn Bridge, Smithfield & by all conjecture is not by any means to be stopped from further ruin except God in his infinite wisdom prevent it.
"I am at ye Red Lyon in Barnet with my family, & God in reasonable good health, notwithstanding great loss and sufferings by the distraction of our office yet I am commanded to let you know yet what little come to your hands from any ministers of State yet again give you all quick and speedy dispatch to me hither yet I may convey you home to Court or such places as I may receive directions for, & I am also to intimate to you which letters are sent to you from Court & shall see them sent forwards from here to you with speedy care & conveyance & so soone as pleasith God to put an end to ye violence of this fire some place will be picked on for ye general correspondence as formerly of which you shall God willing have advice at present this is all
"Your sorrowfull friend
"James Hicks
"Barnet Sep. 4. 11 at night
see http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009…
I may be wrong of course, but this is the sort of useful gossip Hick(e)s would have access to by reading the mail.
Either way, now at least we know what became of the post office after the fire.
About Wednesday 12 December 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
"He says that he hears 400,000l. hath gone into the Privypurse since this warr; and that that hath consumed so much of our money, and makes the King and Court so mad to be brought to discover it."
And the Privy Purse, ladies and gentlemen, is what good ol' Baptist May is in charge of.
To be fair, his wikipedia page does say:
"Despite being Keeper of the Privy Purse, May did not enjoy control over the king's private finances. Surviving documents show that the payments by May were routine payments. However, he enjoyed the king's confidence throughout his reign, despite May's offhand remarks. For example, according to Clarendon's biography, after the Great Fire of London in 1666, he remarked that it was welcomed, to make the city more controllable. This shocked those around him, including the king."
https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
About Baptist May
San Diego Sarah • Link
Baptist May was born at the end of Oct. 1628, the sixth son of Sir Humphrey May MP (a trusted courtier to James VI and I, and a follower of George Villiers, Ist Duke of Buckingham). Therefore, May said he was ‘bred about the King ever since he was a child’.
May attended James, Duke of York in exile.
At the Restoration, Baptist May was granted a valuable post in Chancery, together with the 1st Earl of St. Albans, with whom he was also associated in the Jermyn Street development.
In 1665 Baptist May became Keeper of the Privy Purse to Charles II, in which capacity he enjoyed: “the greatest and longest share in the King’s secret confidence of any man in that time ... though ... in his actions against everything that the King was for, both France, Popery, and arbitrary government; but a particular sympathy of temper and his serving the King in his vices created a confidence much envied.”
May stood for Winchelsea in October 1666 with the support of James, Duke of York, the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, but ‘the people chose a private gentleman in spite of him, and cried out they would have no court pimp to be their burgess’.
Perhaps because of this rebuff, he was ‘heard to say that
£300 a year is enough for any country gentleman’.
As one of Barbara Villiers Palmer, Countess of Castlemaine’s ‘wicked crew,’ Baptist May actively promoted the fall of Chancellor Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon, upon which he ‘catched the King about the legs and joyed him, and said that this was the first time that ever he could call him King of England’. (!)
Samuel Pepys considered this ‘most ridiculous’, but Baptist May was probably anticipating the reversal of Clarendon’s foreign policy and the formation of the Triple Alliance against France.
Baptist May was returned for Midhurst at a by-election during the Christmas recess of 1669-70. His purpose was to introduce a bill following the precedent set by John Manners, Lord Roos so Charles II could to divorce Catherine of Braganza.
No orator, May formed plans for ‘managing those who would undertake the debate; but three days before the motion was to be made, the King called for him, and told him the matter must be let alone’.
May's "good intentions" were rewarded with the keepership of Windsor Park, worth £1,500 p.a.
https://www.historyofparliamenton…
About Wednesday 12 December 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
"Gifts to Lady Castlemaine (and with them her extravagance) are said to have increased after she had arranged for the appointment of her friend Baptist May as Keeper of the Privy Purse. Cf. Clarendon, Life, iii. 61-2."
Baptist May was born at the end of Oct. 1628, the sixth son of Sir Humphrey May MP (a trusted courtier to James VI and I, and a follower of George Villiers, Ist Duke of Buckingham). Therefore, May said he was ‘bred about the King ever since he was a child’.
May attended James, Duke of York in exile.
At the Restoration, Baptist May was granted a valuable post in Chancery, together with the 1st Earl of St. Albans, with whom he was also associated in the Jermyn Street development.
In 1665 Baptist May became Keeper of the Privy Purse to Charles II, in which capacity he enjoyed: “the greatest and longest share in the King’s secret confidence of any man in that time ... though ... in his actions against everything that the King was for, both France, Popery, and arbitrary government; but a particular sympathy of temper and his serving the King in his vices created a confidence much envied.”
May stood for Winchelsea in October 1666 with the support of James, Duke of York, the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, but ‘the people chose a private gentleman in spite of him, and cried out they would have no court pimp to be their burgess’. Perhaps because of this rebuff, he was ‘heard to say that £300 a year is enough for any country gentleman’.
As one of Barbara Villiers Palmer, Countess of Castlemaine’s ‘wicked crew,’ Baptist May actively promoted the fall of Chancellor Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon, upon which he ‘catched the King about the legs and joyed him, and said that this was the first time that ever he could call him King of England’. (!)
Samuel Pepys considered this ‘most ridiculous’, but Baptist May was probably anticipating the reversal of Clarendon’s foreign policy and the formation of the Triple Alliance against France.
Baptist May was returned for Midhurst at a by-election during the Christmas recess of 1669-70. His purpose was to introduce a bill following the precedent set by John Manners, Lord Roos so Charles II could to divorce Catherine of Braganza. No orator himself, he formed plans for ‘managing those who would undertake the debate; but three days before the motion was to be made, the King called for him, and told him the matter must be let alone’.
May's "good intentions" were rewarded with the keepership of Windsor Park, worth £1,500 p.a.
https://www.historyofparliamenton…
About Wednesday 12 December 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
"James Hickes to [Williamson]. Is told that Lord Brouncker, a Navy Comr., has made the seamen exceeding outrageous, by detaining thousands of seamen’s tickets, and ordering the men to other ships, without tickets or money; several seamen have sworn to do for him it they meet him. He is said to have got 30,000l. out of the two great Dutch prizes."
I have to think this isn't about OUR William, 2nd Viscount Brouncker, FRS. It must refer to his nasty kid brother, Henry about whom we will hear more during the enquiries into the conduct of the Second Anglo-Dutch War:
Henry Brouncker was Member of Parliament for New Romney from 1665 to 21 April, 1668, but was expelled when charges were brought against him for allowing the Dutch to escape during the Battle of Lowestoft and ordering the sails of the English fleet to be slackened in the name of James, Duke of York. Such a decision, taken without the Duke's authority, was an incident seemingly without parallel, especially as his apparent motive was simply that he was fatigued with the stress and noise of the battle.
https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
"a Navy Comr." could be an abbreviation for Commissioner OR Commander. I hope I'm right.
About Lady Elizabeth Mordaunt
San Diego Sarah • Link
Just to be clear, Jane Pepys Turner was married to John Turner. It is thought likely that John's brother was Lord Mayor of London William Turner. Therefore, William is probably Jane's brother-in-law, and the sisters no blood relation of Pepys. But they are sufficiently family to be able to plan a trip to France with him.
About Friday 7 December 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
"House of C tried to scupper the Navy boys.
"...A Proviso tendered, for taking away all Fees, Salaries, and Rewards, from the Treasurer of the Navy, and Officers of Exchequer,"
Carteret is the Navy Treasurer, and Anthony Ashley-Cooper, Lord Ashley served as Chancellor of the Exchequer (1661 – 1672).
"... for Monies paid by Anticipation, was twice read ..."
This has become a cause for impeachment in the USA. It means the collection of taxes/fees/money for a stated purpose, but used for something else. In Pepys' time they voted money to fight the Second Dutch War, and no doubt we will find out in the next few years how the money was really spent.
Both gents were wealthy, but were the rest of the Officers of the Exchequor? Wikipedia is the only source I could find:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exc…
Officers
• Auditor of the imprests – Bartholomew Beale from 1641 – 1674 when he died
• Auditor of the Receipt of the Exchequer - Sir Robert Pye 25 June 1660
Sir Robert Long, 1st Baronet 21 May 1662
Sir Robert Howard 14 July 1673
• Chancellor of the Exchequer - Anthony Ashley-Cooper, Lord Ashley
• Chamberlains of the Exchequer - Sir Nicholas Steward, 1st Baronet 1 October 1660 – 15 February 1710
Henry Hildyard 10 July 1660 – 8 January 1675
• Chief Baron of the Exchequer in Ireland - 1660 John Wilde
1660 Sir Orlando Bridgeman
1660 Sir Matthew Hale
1671 Sir Edward Turnor
1676 Sir William Montagu
• Clerk of the Pells - 1660–?1698: William Wardour
• Queen's Remembrancer - Thomas Fanshawe, 1st Viscount Fanshawe, 7 August 1660 – 26 March 1665
Thomas Fanshawe, 2nd Viscount Fanshawe, 26 March 1665 – 19 May 1674
• Teller of the Receipt of the Exchequer – Sir George Downing 1660 – 1684 (with help as he was frequently deployed as an Ambassador at the same time)
• Treasurer of the Exchequer - 4th Earl of Southampton (1660–1667)
1st Duke of Albemarle (1667–1670)
1st Baron Clifford of Chudleigh (1672–1673)
• Clerk of the Pipe - 1659–1680: Robert Croke
Looking at their dates of service, it appears no one got fired.
About Sunday 9 December 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
You're welcome, Colin Squared. And a very Merry London Christmas to you -- I beat you to it this year!
About Friday 18 March 1663/64
San Diego Sarah • Link
"But at last one after another they come, many more than I bid: and my reckoning that I bid was one hundred and twenty; but I believe there was nearer one hundred and fifty. Their service was six biscuits apiece, and what they pleased of burnt claret. My cosen Joyce Norton kept the wine and cakes above ..."
I found this information about biscuits in an American magazine, hence "cookies":
"Cookies were originally made to test oven temperature. According to culinary historians, cookies as we know them today were first made not to eat but to test the temperature of an oven. Cooks would take a small dollop of cake batter and bake it as a means of gauging whether the oven was ready or not."
In this situation, serving a few biscuits to the masses, and keeping the cake upstairs for the family and close mourners, makes sense.
About Friday 18 March 1663/64
San Diego Sarah • Link
"But at last one after another they come, many more than I bid: and my reckoning that I bid was one hundred and twenty; but I believe there was nearer one hundred and fifty. Their service was six biscuits apiece, and what they pleased of burnt claret. My cosen Joyce Norton kept the wine and cakes above ..."
I found this information about biscuits in an American magazine, hence "cookies":
"Cookies were originally made to test oven temperature. According to culinary historians, cookies as we know them today were first made not to eat but to test the temperature of an oven. Cooks would take a small dollop of cake batter and bake it as a means of gauging whether the oven was ready or not."
In this situation, serving a few biscuits to the masses, and keeping the cake upstairs for the family and close mourners, makes sense.
About Saturday 8 December 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
We need a laugh emoji, John
About Sunday 9 December 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
"Weather"
Diary of Ralph Josselin
9 December 1666
document 70015365
... sad afflictive rainy weather, ...
Not good for skirt chasing.
About Friday 7 December 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
Further thoughts about "But I was in mighty pain lest I should be seen by any body to be at a play." ...
Maybe Pepys had knowledge of the debate CGS reported on 8 Dec 2009?
"Interesting debate
"House of C tried to scupper the Navy boys.
"...A Proviso tendered, for taking away all Fees, Salaries, and Rewards, from the Treasurer of the Navy, and Officers of Exchequer, for Monies paid by Anticipation, was twice read..."
"voted on."
Many people blamed the lack of victualing for Rupert not being able to blockade the Dutch for the full six weeks last summer ... eventually resulting in the last disasterous battle. Pepys appears not to be included in the above list, but he was the Victualler-in-Chief. Paranoia is appropriate when someone of Rupert's distinction has been raving about your incompetence for six months.
Rupert had written to Charles II that "unless some course" were taken with the victualler -- viz. Pepys -- the whole fleet would be ruined.[40]
[40] Dom. State Papers, Chas. II. 156. 100. 22 May, 1666.
When the fleet came into refit, the first thing Rupert did on meeting Charles II was to reiterate his complaints. "Which," wrote Pepys, "I am troubled at, and do fear may in violence break out upon this office some time or other, and we shall not be able to carry on the business."[41]
[41] Pepys. June 20, 1666.
But Rupert's time on shore was short, and the victualling storm was deferred. By July 22, 1666 the fleet was again at sea.
Well, Rupert's been back for months and the conversation's deferred no longer ...
About Thursday 6 December 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
Aussie Susan's comment surprised me: "Royalty and Courtiers have always changed outer clothes frequently, often during the same day, but not the undergarments." She cites Napoleon, so maybe habits changed over the decades?
Dr. Thomas Moulton's "This is the Mirror or Glass of Health" (1545) recommends: ‘Also use no baths or stoves; nor swet too much, for all openeth the pores of a man’s body and maketh the venomous ayre to enter and for to infect the blood.’
His advice was to avoid places where the air was stagnant, or vapors rose (marshes, pools, tan yards and muck heaps); keep the air fresh and sweet-smelling; keep the pores of the skin tightly sealed, and to fully cover the body.
Sickness was viewed as an imbalance within the body, but infection was seen as an outside agency that arose from places of putrefaction and drifted in the air, like seeds or spores.
There were several ways noxious fumes could enter the body, the main infection route being through the mouth and nose. The pores of the skin were a secondary route, but one could guard against this by adopting a sensible personal hygiene routine that maintained the skin as a solid barrier.
Clean clothes were essential for health, in particular the layer that touched the skin.
Ideally no wool, leather or silk would be in direct contact with your body, as these items were difficult to clean. Linen shirts, smocks, under-breeches, hose, ruffs, cuffs, bands, coifs (skull-caps) and caps could be combined by the two sexes to give total coverage in a form that permitted regular vigorous laundry.
Every time this linen layer was changed (or ‘shifted’), accumulated dirt, grease and sweat was removed. The more you changed your underwear, the healthier and cleaner you would be.
Especially effective for this was linen, as it was absorbent, and drew the grease and sweat away from the skin into the weave of the cloth, like a sponge soaking up liquid.
Linen was also employed to clean the body. Sir Thomas Elyot’s "The Castel of Helth" (1534) recommends the morning routine include a session when a man should ‘rub the body with a course lynen clothe, first softly and easily, and after to increase more and more, to a hard and swyft rubbyng, untyl the flesh do swelle, and be somewhat ruddy, and that not only down ryght, but also overthwart and round’. This ensured ‘his body is clensed’.
Vigorous rubbing, especially after exercise, drew out the body’s toxins through the open pores, with unwanted bodily matter being removed away by the coarse linen cloth. ‘Rubbing cloths’ or ‘body cloths’, despite low financial value, can be found in the inventories of people’s goods.
Someone tried this regime for a month, and reported no one complained:
https://newrepublic.com/article/1…
I think the King changed outerwear to show off his wealth, not for hygiene.
About Paulina Jackson (b. Pepys, "Pall", sister)
San Diego Sarah • Link
In the 17th century single women (particularly those over 25) began to be labelled 'spinster' or 'old maid'.
Pepys' unmarried sister, Pal, was 20 when the Diary opens.
A demographer in the 1960's identified the “Northwestern European Marriage Pattern,” in which people in 17th century northwestern European countries began marrying in their 30s and even 40s. A significant proportion of the populace didn’t marry at all. Traditionally couples start a new household when they marry, which requires accumulating either money or owning property. His theory was that that became more difficult at this time, which delayed marriage. If people couldn’t accumulate enough wealth, they might not marry at all, or the older men married the much younger child-bearing aged women.
Before the 17th century, unmarried women were called maids, virgins or “puella” (Latin word for “girl”), words that imply youth and chastity, and presumed that girls would only be single for the short period of “pre-marriage.”
By the 17th century terms like “spinster” and “singlewoman,” emerged. The numbers of unwed women – and women who never married – grew. "Spinster" now became a legal term for an unmarried, independent woman.
Amy Froide, Professor of History at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County says, "Single women made up, on average, 30% of the adult female population in early modern England. My own research on the town of Southampton found that in 1698, 34.2% of women over 18 were single, another 18.5% were widowed, and less than half, or 47.3%, were married." ... "my work shows that in 17th-century England, at any given time, more women were unmarried than married. It was a normal part of the era’s life and culture. In the late 1690s, the term ‘old maid’ became common."
'Old maid’ expressed the paradox of being old, virginal and unmarried. Literature also poked fun at ‘superannuated virgins.’ In 1713 an anonymous pamphlet, “A Satyr upon Old Maids,” referred to never-married women as “odious,” “impure” and "repugnant." Another common trope was that old maids would be punished for not marrying by “leading apes in hell.”
When did a young, single woman become an 'old maid'? Jane Barker (1652–1732), a single poet, wrote in her 1688 poem, “A Virgin Life,” that she hoped she could remain
“Fearless of twenty-five and all its train,
Of slights or scorns, or being called Old Maid.”
In the 1690s and early 1700s, population decline prompted the House of Commons to levy a Marriage Duty Tax, requiring bachelors, widowers and some wealthy single women to pay a fine for being unmarried.
Information from https://historynewsnetwork.org/ar…
Interestingly enough, Pepys never writes "spinster" or "old maid," and the only "unmarried" reference is to the requirement of a male clerk to be unwed. But his concern about marrying off Pal, aged 25 in 1665, is clear.
About Friday 7 December 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
"But I was in mighty pain lest I should be seen by any body to be at a play."
I think he was in such a fit he went to the theater to "punish" Elizabeth and the mayds for messing up, hense arriving in the third act. Having thus made a spectacle of himself, he became ashamed of himself for being there.
Pepys has gone through this desire not to be seen before: One Christmas (1663?) he and Elizabeth stayed in Sandwich's Whitehall apartments, and he hid behind pillars making efforts not to be seen for several days.
London was a small place ... he takes a lot of risks with his womanizing. Being invisible to his betters must be getting more and more difficult. Or maybe he was worried about an unpaid sailor seeing him ... or a widow ... or a victualler. He has no protection detail.
Present-day 'personalities' must identify.
About Wednesday 5 December 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
We have it so easy these days!
"Now we need some eager, data-seeking Pepysian to trawl back through every mention of our man's two-minute ditty and see just how often he mentions its high quality "without flattery." Might we even get the score on the site here? Is that possible, Phil?"
Bradford should be annotating today. All we have to do is go to the search bar (upper right) and type in "Beauty Retire" and press GO. Voila, every Diary entry for it is displayed.
OR, since the song's name is in blue, we can tap through to the Encyclopedia, and read the 3 Annotations, or go to the References page and see that is mentioned 7 times and on which dates, and can easily click through to any of those Diary entries.
THANK YOU PHIL. THIS IS AWESOME.