At his regicide trial on October 12, 1660, Rev. Hugh Peters responded angrily to Dr, William Yonge's testimony. He averred that he had been guided by his concern for 'sound Religion … Learning and Laws … and that the poor might be cared for' (Stephen, 1.155)."
Who was Dr. Yonge? William Yonge, M.D. wrote the earliest biography of Peters "England's Shame, or the unmasking of a politic Atheist, being a full and faithful relation of the life and death of that grand impostor Hugh Peter", 12mo, 1663. "This is a scurrilous collection of fabrications" in the opinion of the ODNB. Yonge had treated Peter for some illness in Wales, and Peter said he was angry at not receiving preferments as a result of this episode.
On June 18, 1660, the regicide, Rev. Hugh Peter was excepted from the Act of Indemnity and he was apprehended on September 2 at Southwark.
Peters was one of the men from New England who returned home to England to participate in the Civil Wars on the side of Parliament. Downing and Vane were others. This expression of defiance continued for generations.
In the meantime, to the Tower with him: "Although technically not a regicide, Peter was exempt from royal pardon and was listed by parliament for revenge to be exacted for his prominent if largely unofficial role. His arrest was ordered on 7 June 1660, and he was caught on 31 August, reportedly betrayed by his servant. His daughter, by then aged 20, visited him daily in prison. "A committee also visited him to investigate what had become of the contents of St. James's Palace. "In a petition to the House of Lords Peter argued that due to the illness that kept him away from the execution he had had no hand in the king's death. "While in prison, he wrote perhaps his best work, "A Dying Fathers Last Legacy to an Onely Child" (1660). It includes an autobiographical statement and denies the charge of sedition. 'Sedition is the heating of mans minds against the present Authority, in that I never was, yet sorry, Authority should have had any thoughts of me, or know so inconsiderable a creature as myself' (p. 111). https://www.oxforddnb.com/display…
Hugh Peters was one of the men from New England who returned home to England to participate in the Civil Wars on the side of Parliament. Downing and Vane were others.
This expression of New England's sentiments continued for generations: In 19th-century New England, defending Hugh Peter became a point of honor. The editor of the New England Historical and Genealogical Register fulminated:
"Mr. Peters perished by the hand of the mercenary murderer, but his memory should be safe in the hands of a faithful historian of New England … The cause of Peters was the cause of New England and he perished for doing more than many others had courage to do."
"... we lay in Sir R. Slingsby’s lodgings in the dining room there in one green bed, ..."
That nixes my idea that Slingsby had a mansion complete with bowling green/alley.
Beds were portable, so the Slingsby's could have had one stacked away in the attic for use like this -- put your guests in the diningroon. I've seen an oval 17th century dining table which had a central stand, and the top would pivot so it could be neatly stored by the wall, taking up about a foot of space. No, my husband wouldn't let me buy it -- our modern dining room was too small to have it opened up.
New theory: Slingsby was looking for larger quarters because of all their guests.
Mackworth is an unusual name, but there was one representing Rutland in Parliament under James II.
Thomas Mackworth (1624-94)'s Parliamentary bio MIGHT give us some background on Pepys' Mackworth????:
"Mackworth’s ancestor, who took his name from a village in Derbyshire and sat for that county in 1408 and 1418, acquired Normanton by marriage early in the 15th century, but the family had never previously sat for Rutland. [THOMAS] Mackworth, a nephew of the Cavalier general, Sir Ralph Hopton, was a Royalist in the Civil War, although still under age. ... One of his brothers was killed in Booth’s Rising, but he [THOMAS] took no known part in royalist conspiracy, although at the Restoration he signed the loyal address from Rutland.
"Mackworth was returned for his county at the first general election of 1679 ..."
Probably Lionel Walden MP and his son lost all their local offices, except those on the Bedford level corporation, after ‘the most miraculous, strange and memorable Revolution; since which there has appeared more violence than respect from the people in power to their memory’. [i.e. Under William and Mary]
A Jacobite sympathizer, Lionel Walden died on 23 Mar. 1698, and was buried at All Saints, Huntingdon.
Lionel Walden married Elizabeth, daughter and coheir of Charles Balaam of Elm, Cambs., and had a son and 2 daughters. He was knighted on 29 Jan. 1673.
Walden received the government whip from Secretary Coventry in 1675, and his name appeared on the list of ‘servants and officers’, but his parliamentary performance was highly unsatisfactory. There can be no doubt that this was a well-calculated hint to the Treasury to come to some arrangement about his accounts. Sir Richard Wiseman reported to the lord treasurer: ‘Sir Lionel Walden hath been made to juggle and prevaricate in the King’s service, ...’
On 12 July 1676, Danby ordered process to be stayed against Walden, and this respite was continued until after the dissolution.
Shaftesbury noted him as ‘thrice vile’, and his 1678 record was unimpeachable: he was a court supporter in both lists, and, for only the second time in 18 years, was named to a committee of political importance, that to prepare instructions for disbanding the new-raised forces, in which he had been given a regiment.
Walden was defeated at the general election of February 1679, and no report was made on his petition. In March, Danby, now in need of friends, signed an acquittance for £6,693 12s. 10d. plus interest at 12 per cent. Of the principal, £1,226 10s.8d. represented his deliveries to the victuallers and £383 0s.6d. was struck off by assigning his pension. The remainder was harder to justify: £1,600 was cancelled in respect of loans to King Charles I and Sir George Lisle during the Civil Wars, £610 was lost through forgery and defalcation among Walden’s subordinates, and the balance of £2,874 1s. 8d. Charles II was pleased to remit in consideration of the good services of Walden and his father. Blacklisted among the ‘unanimous club’ of court supporters, Walden retired into private life with his ill-gotten gains.
By Whitsun, he had purchased at least 200 acres in the Bedford level, the minimum qualification for a conservator of the corporation.
Walden remained in touch with the Government, reporting on local affairs in Hunts., and Cams., and hosted the Duke of York on his journey to Scotland. With the assistance of Robert Bruce, Lord Ailesbury he was returned for the county in 1685 without a contest.
An active Member of James II’s Parliament, Lionel Walden MP was named to 17 committees. He was chairman for 2 naturalization bills, and was appointed to the committee for taking the accounts of the disbandment commissioners. On 4 June he was one of 7 Members ordered to bring in a bill for using part of the revenue from hackney carriage licences for the benefit of Chelsea Hospital.
Lionel Walden MP was named mayor of Huntingdon under the new charter of 1686, and returned affirmative answers on the repeal of the Test Act and Penal Laws. He was nominated as court candidate for Huntingdonshire in 1688. On 8 Dec. a Huntingdon maltster called him a pensioner and a Papist: ‘when he is at home he goes to church, but when he is in London he goes to mass’. He recovered damages on the latter charge.
The Walden pedigree recorded at the 1613 heralds’ visitation shows advantageous marriages in the 16th century, but the family seems to have wained with a move from Kent to Huntingdonshire.
Lionel Walden MP's father, the first mayor of Huntingdon, helped to make the town too hot for its former MP, Oliver Cromwell, in 1631, and during the Civil Wars allegedly contributed £1,200 to the royalist coffers.
Lionel Walden served in both wars under Sir George Lisle, escaping with a nominal fine for his delinquency. Nothing further is heard of him until the Restoration, when he was recommended for a knighthood of the Royal Oak.
He was credited with an income of £600 a year, from no known source as no property in Huntingdonshire or the Isle of Ely is recorded for him.
Walden was returned for Huntingdon at the general election of 1661, probably on the Earl of Manchester’s interest. The first of the family to sit, he was a moderately active Member of the Cavalier Parliament, with 74 committees, including the corporations bill. He was granted the excise farm for the county, which he held without partners for longer than most provincial farmers. He was also receiver of assessments for 5 years, and probably used the proceeds to pay the rent of the excise farm when returns were affected by the closing of alehouses during the plague.
He opposed the Bedford level bill in 1664, acting as teller with Roger Pepys against 2 corporation bailiffs.
At Oxford, he was appointed to the Five Mile Bill committee.
Walden’s first recorded speech was made in the debate of 20 Feb. 1668 on the miscarriages of the war, in which he scored off his enemies by affirming that Sandwich had blamed want of victuals for his failure to press home the attack at Bergen.
On 13 Dec. 1670, on being named by Sir George Downing as £7,040 in debt to the crown, he replied that the victuallers owed him much more. He usually voted for supply, and was regarded at this time as a court supporter by both sides of the House.
Lionel Walden MP was given a regular commission in the third Anglo-Dutch Dutch war. His smartness at the review on Blackheath won the approval of Gen. Schomberg, who commended him to Charles II ‘for as good an officer as ever he served with’. His continued inability to present his accounts as receiver of taxes forced him to look for a patron, and shrewdly attached himself to Sir Robert Carr, by whom he was treated with condescension.
Walden was included in the Paston list, and in "A Seasonable Argument" he was described as being ‘£8,000 in the King’s debt, a Blackheath captain and a Papist: at present has a company of foot and £1,000 a year given him’.
The charge of Popery was later held to be a libel, and his excise pension as compensation for loss of the county farm was only £300 a year; but the comment is as accurate as can be expected.
SYDSERFF, THOMAS (1581–1663), bishop of Galloway, born in 1581, the eldest son of James Sydserff, merchant, Edinburgh He was educated at Edinburgh University, and graduated M.A. on 22 Feb. 1602 His first charge was St. Giles, Edinburgh, to which he was admitted on 30 May 1611; when the city was reconstituted ecclesiastically in 1626 he was translated to Trinity College church He was one of the bishops and ministers hwho met at Holyrood on 30 June 1633 to discuss the introduction of the English prayer-book. Sydserff advocated the measure, and in 1634 was made dean of Edinburgh. In that year he was removed to the high church, Edinburgh. This position he held for a few months; on the recommendation of Archbishop Laud he was promoted to the bishopric of Brechin, and consecrated on 29 July 1634. On 21 Oct. 1634 he was admitted burgess of Dundee ‘for his services to the Commonweal,’ and made a member of the Court of High Commission. He exercised his powers with rigor, and in 1637 had high words with Lord Lorne for sentencing one of his followers to a fine and imprisonment. His appointment to the see of Galloway was signed by King Charles on 30 Aug. 1635, and he was installed in Nov. The active part he took in the establishment of prelacy and his intimacy with Laud made him a target for the violence by Presbyterians. The introduction of the service-book made him very unpopular At Stirling in Feb. 1638 he was attacked by a Presbyterian mob; the intervention of the magistrates stopped severe injury A few days later he was assaulted in the streets of Falkirk, Dalkeith, and Edinburgh. On 13 Dec. 1638 he was formally deposed and excommunicated by the general assembly.
After his deposition Sydserff joined Charles I, and was with him at Newcastle in 1645 The overthrow of King Charles led to his retirement, and he remained in seclusion until after the Restoration
When episcopacy was re-established in Scotland he was promoted to the bishopric of Orkney in 1661, being the only survivor of the bishops deposed in 1638
He died at Edinburgh on 29 Sept. 1663
He married, on 27 April 1614, Rachel, daughter of John Byers, an Edinburgh magistrate. By her he had 4 sons and 4 daughters
One of the sons was Thomas Sydserff, a popular dramatist, and the compiler of ‘Mercurius Caledonius,’ the first newspaper printed in Scotland
Keith describes the bishop as ‘a learned and worthy prelate,’ and Bishop Burnet alludes to him (under the name of ‘Saintserf’) in complimentary terms in his ‘History of his own Time.’ His name appears several times in the presbyterian lampoons of the period (see Maidment, Book of Scottish Pasquils). https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Di…
Bishop Sydserff doesn't sound like a disaffected Royalist bishop who ordained unqualified non-conformist criminals. Maybe Roundtree was a man fallen on unfortunate times, and Sandwich was giving him a deserved second chance.
L&M: Ralph Roundtree on 6 June, 1661, was in the Fleete prison when he was appointed chaplain of The Breda: PRO, Adm. 2/1745, f45r.
Sydserff of Galloway, the only Scottish bishop to survive the interregnum, was then in London angling (in vain) for advancement to the primacy of Scotland.
Burnet (i, 236) tells how his reputation suffered from these at best Non-conformist indiscriminate ordinations.
Taking a dancing master to sea -- well, this is a special trip. If the Portuguese courtiers know the latest dances, Sandwich and his captains must be able to match them. If, on the other hand, the Infanta Katerina doesn't know the latest dances, here's something they can share with her which will be useful when she arrives, which can easily be done during their months at sea.
Sandwich didn't attend the Lords today, and no mention of his being given a leave of absence.
The Lords were upset by the Commons inviting them to a meeting this afternoon in the Painted Chamber, and showed it by inviting them back to the same location and subject.
"To Whitehall to my Lord, who did tell me that he would have me go to Mr. Townsend, whom he had ordered to discover to me the whole mystery of the Wardrobe, and none else but me, and that he will make me deputy with him for fear that he should die in my Lord’s absence, of which I was glad."
Sandwich seriosly thinks Pepys can run the Navy and the Wardrobe! Of course, it would only be a temporary appointment. But paid. I wonder if it's the money or Sandwich's esteem which pleases Pepys more.
L&M: A comedy by Ben Jonson, first acted in 1614, and published in 1631; in 1661 performed at the King's House/Theater Royal, Vere St. This was the first record of a post-Restoration performance; according to 'Roscius Anglicanus, or, An historical review of the stage from 1660 to 1706' by Downes, John, fl. 1661-1719; p. 17 https://archive.org/details/rosci… The role of Cokes was one of Wintersel's best interpretations. On this occasion the puppet-show in Act V was omitted. Much of the satire in the play was directed against Puritans, hence its popularity after the Restoration.
Since Pepys writes mostly in shorthand, do we know if he had adopted the "J" in his alphabet/index?
It wasn’t until after the life of William Shakespeare (1564-1616) that the English alphabet welcomed “J” as its 26th and final letter. First-edition copies of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet from 1597 were titled Romeo and Iuliet, as the letter “I” was often used as a written substitute for words with a “J” sound in English.
In order to fully understand the letter’s origins, however, we need to go all the way back to ancient Roman times. In Roman numerals, a swash was sometimes used to denote the end of sequences — for instance, the number 13 often visually appeared in handwritten text as “XIIJ” instead of “XIII.” In classical Latin and in various European languages through the medieval era, the letter “I” was used as both a vowel and as a consonant, and the constant version of “I” morphed over the years and eventually began appearing as a “J” shape.
In the late 15th century and early 16th century, a few scholars wrote treatises on grammar in which they suggested using “J” as the constant version of “I.” In English, this change took hold in the early 17th century.
A good illustration of this is the King James Bible, one of the first modern English texts to print “J” as a unique letter. The 1611 edition uses the consonant “I” in words such as “Iesus” and “Ioseph,” while the 1629 edition uses the letter “J,” paving the way for the eventual widespread inclusion of “J” in the English alphabet. https://historyfacts.com/arts-cul…
Today the Commons continues to grapple with the big kahuna: the reinstatement of the Church of England:
"Clergy's temporal Jurisdiction. The Bill for the Repeal of an Act of Parliament, intituled, An Act for disenabling all Persons in Holy Orders to exercise any temporal Jurisdiction or Authority, was this Day read the Second time.
And the said Act for disabling all Persons in Holy Orders to exercise any temporal Jurisdiction or Authority, was also read.
And the Question being put, That the said Bill for Repeal thereof should be referred to a Committee of the whole House;
The same passed in the Negative."
I.E. the first step is to repeal the 1640 Act of Parliament entitled "An Act for disenabling all Persons in Holy Orders to exercise any temporal Jurisdiction or Authority". In part it says, "Be it enacted that no Archbishop or Bishop or other person that now is or hereafter shall be in Holy Orders shall at any time after the fifteenth day of February in the yeare of our Lord One thousand six hundred forty one have any Seat or place suffrage or Voice or use or execute any power or authority in the Parliaments of this Realm nor shall be of the Privy Councell of his Majestie his heires or successours or Justice of the Peace of Oyer and Terminer or Goal Delivery or execute any temporall authoritie by vertue of any Commission but shall be wholly disabled and be uncapable to have receive use or execute any of the said Offices Places Powers Authorities and things aforesaid." https://www.british-history.ac.uk…
The Lords wants to include the Bishops in their number, as was customary -- but does this Act make the Archbishop and Bishops who just crowned Charles II also technically 'illegal'? Better clarify this before some bright non-conformist spreads some rumors!
Adapted from GEORGE VILLIERS, SECOND DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM -- 1628-1687 : A STUDY IN THE HISTORY OF THE RESTORATION By WINIFRED Anne Henrietta Christine Herbert Gardner, LADY BURGHCLERE JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET, W. LONDON 1903 https://archive.org/stream/cu3192…
* In February 1664 Pepys wrote about efforts to marry Lady Mary Stuart to the letch Harry Jermyn, and that she had been shelted from that outcome by Charles II. https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/…
Sadly, it seems probable that Richard Butler, 1st Earl of Arran treated Lady Mary no better that Harry Jermyn would have done: https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
Letters are being exchanged at the Whitehall end of town:
Although the world marveled that Mary "Mall" Villiers Herbert Stuart, Dowager Duchess of Richmond should bestow herself on so inconsiderable a personage as "northern Tom Howard,'' yet it was evident that they were "the fondest couple that can be. George Villiers, 2nd Duke of Buckingham was mightily troubled at the match." 1 1 "Hatton Correspondence" (Camden Soc), vol. i. p. 42. Sir Charles Lyttleton to Lady Hatton, 26 Nov. 1664.
Nor was Buckingham better pleased when James Butler, Duke of Ormonde sent him a polite request to settle his estates on Mary Stuart Butler*, who had recently married his son, Richard Butler, 1st Earl of Arran .
For once, Buckingham had public opinion with him in his contention that if his sister [now Mary "Mall" Howard] had a son, it would only be reasonable that as this child must succeed to the Dukedom, the Villiers estates should also be his; and the world considered that Richard Butler, 1st Earl of Arran deserved no pity, since he received ^20,000 dowry with a "high-born pritty lady."
Unfortunately, as the following letter shows, indiscreet friends were widening the breach between Buckingham and Ormonde, and much of their subsequent enmity was probably caused by the quarrels which took place over Mary Stuart Butler, Countess of Arran's settlement:
"My Lord, — I received yours of the 10th of this month, but since my return to the Fleet, otherwise I should have waited upon your Grace when I was last in town to give you myself this answer.
"First that I wonder very much at the discourse George Porter had with you, since though it had been all true with you upon his own knowledge, methinks he might have forborne the speaking of it.
“That I did once make a settlement very much to the advantage of my niece and my lord her husband, he did know, but whether I have altered it since I conceive he does not know, neither do I think myself obliged to give him or anybody else an account of it. What guesses he may make either of your Lordship's behavior to me or my sense of it, I cannot tell; perhaps his kindness may make him judge more in my favor than I do myself; for I have been myself so long accustomed to be ill-used, that I may very well begin to think I deserve no better; and that it is high time for me to leave off the pursuit of those things I have had so little success in to look after the repairing of my own private fortune.
“This humble opinion I have of myself hinders me from making any complaints only I shall assure your Grace, that my professions and kindness to you were so real, that if it laid in my power to do you service, I should not have left a possibility for you or the world to doubt of my being, My Lord,— Your Grace's Most faithful and obedient servant, "Buckingham." 2 2 Carte, MSS. 34, fol. 160. 26 April, 1665.
"Mall has borne a secret feeling for the Earl of St. Albans."
That answers a lot. And he was very wealthy. Always good to have money in the family.
Agreed Buckingham and Mary Fairfax had not produced a legitimate living heir yet.
Your comment about Ephelia needs clarification: Ladies were supposed to be seen and not heard in those days. And ladies certainly did not write poetry and have it published under their real names.
But some excellent apparently-female poets in the Restoration times were published. Of course, they might have been Buckingham's "Merry Wits" teasing us from afar as pseudonyms hide their identities.
One of these poets used the pseudonyms of "Ephelia": 'In 1885, H. B. Wheatley contributed an undocumented, one-line identification of "Ephelia" as "Mrs. Joan Phillips" to A Dictionary of Anonymous and Pseudonymous English Literature edited by Halkett and Laing (VIII: 1885).'
'But who was "Joan Phillips"? It is not entirely preposterous, in view of Ephelia's probable identity in the tricksy 'Mall' Villiers, that "Joan Phillips" was yet another alter-ego of Mary Villiers Herbert Stuart, Duchess of Richmond, an urban identity or cover which allowed this inventive Duchess easy access to the colorful street culture of Restoration London.
'Within the constricted confines of the Court, the Duchess of Richmond was the pseudonymous writer, "Ephelia"; on the streets of Restoration London, she was "Joan Phillips."
'A woman of imposed multiple identities all her long life, the Duchess of Richmond, in the 1660s and 1670s, finally had the freedom, time, and personal space to recreate herself through multiple poetic voices and identities. From her privileged position at Court, 'Mall' had the resources and surely the talent to bring off such trickery.'
Also arguing against it being Mary "Mall" Villiers Stuart: 'The strongly promoted attribution of the verse of late-17th century woman poet ‘Ephelia’ to Mary Stuart, Duchess of Richmond and Lennox, should be rejected. Maureen E. Mulvihill's arguments for it are vitiated by circular reasoning and uncritical use of evidence. They also require explaining away much apparently autobiographical reference in the works as fraudulent or part of an elaborate private code. Taking these references at their face value is more likely to bring about a satisfactory identification.' https://academic.oup.com/res/arti…
We will never know for sure. Time travel doesn't appear to be a possibility yet.
Comments
Third Reading
About Friday 12 October 1660
San Diego Sarah • Link
At his regicide trial on October 12, 1660, Rev. Hugh Peters responded angrily to Dr, William Yonge's testimony. He averred that he had been guided by his concern for 'sound Religion … Learning and Laws … and that the poor might be cared for' (Stephen, 1.155)."
Who was Dr. Yonge? William Yonge, M.D. wrote the earliest biography of Peters "England's Shame, or the unmasking of a politic Atheist, being a full and faithful relation of the life and death of that grand impostor Hugh Peter", 12mo, 1663. "This is a scurrilous collection of fabrications" in the opinion of the ODNB. Yonge had treated Peter for some illness in Wales, and Peter said he was angry at not receiving preferments as a result of this episode.
Info from
https://www.oxforddnb.com/display…
You don't need AI to get lies printed.
About Sunday 2 September 1660
San Diego Sarah • Link
On June 18, 1660, the regicide, Rev. Hugh Peter was excepted from the Act of Indemnity and he was apprehended on September 2 at Southwark.
Peters was one of the men from New England who returned home to England to participate in the Civil Wars on the side of Parliament. Downing and Vane were others.
This expression of defiance continued for generations.
In the meantime, to the Tower with him:
"Although technically not a regicide, Peter was exempt from royal pardon and was listed by parliament for revenge to be exacted for his prominent if largely unofficial role. His arrest was ordered on 7 June 1660, and he was caught on 31 August, reportedly betrayed by his servant. His daughter, by then aged 20, visited him daily in prison.
"A committee also visited him to investigate what had become of the contents of St. James's Palace.
"In a petition to the House of Lords Peter argued that due to the illness that kept him away from the execution he had had no hand in the king's death.
"While in prison, he wrote perhaps his best work, "A Dying Fathers Last Legacy to an Onely Child" (1660). It includes an autobiographical statement and denies the charge of sedition. 'Sedition is the heating of mans minds against the present Authority, in that I never was, yet sorry, Authority should have had any thoughts of me, or know so inconsiderable a creature as myself' (p. 111).
https://www.oxforddnb.com/display…
About Hugh Peters
San Diego Sarah • Link
Hugh Peters was one of the men from New England who returned home to England to participate in the Civil Wars on the side of Parliament. Downing and Vane were others.
This expression of New England's sentiments continued for generations:
In 19th-century New England, defending Hugh Peter became a point of honor. The editor of the New England Historical and Genealogical Register fulminated:
"Mr. Peters perished by the hand of the mercenary murderer, but his memory should be safe in the hands of a faithful historian of New England … The cause of Peters was the cause of New England and he perished for doing more than many others had courage to do."
https://www.oxforddnb.com/display…
About Monday 10 June 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
"... we lay in Sir R. Slingsby’s lodgings in the dining room there in one green bed, ..."
That nixes my idea that Slingsby had a mansion complete with bowling green/alley.
Beds were portable, so the Slingsby's could have had one stacked away in the attic for use like this -- put your guests in the diningroon.
I've seen an oval 17th century dining table which had a central stand, and the top would pivot so it could be neatly stored by the wall, taking up about a foot of space.
No, my husband wouldn't let me buy it -- our modern dining room was too small to have it opened up.
New theory: Slingsby was looking for larger quarters because of all their guests.
About Mr Mackworth
San Diego Sarah • Link
Mackworth is an unusual name, but there was one representing Rutland in Parliament under James II.
Thomas Mackworth (1624-94)'s Parliamentary bio MIGHT give us some background on Pepys' Mackworth????:
"Mackworth’s ancestor, who took his name from a village in Derbyshire and sat for that county in 1408 and 1418, acquired Normanton by marriage early in the 15th century, but the family had never previously sat for Rutland.
[THOMAS] Mackworth, a nephew of the Cavalier general, Sir Ralph Hopton, was a Royalist in the Civil War, although still under age. ... One of his brothers was killed in Booth’s Rising, but he [THOMAS] took no known part in royalist conspiracy, although at the Restoration he signed the loyal address from Rutland.
"Mackworth was returned for his county at the first general election of 1679 ..."
Idea from
https://www.historyofparliamenton…
About Lionel Walden
San Diego Sarah • Link
CONCLUSION:
Probably Lionel Walden MP and his son lost all their local offices, except those on the Bedford level corporation, after ‘the most miraculous, strange and memorable Revolution; since which there has appeared more violence than respect from the people in power to their memory’. [i.e. Under William and Mary]
A Jacobite sympathizer, Lionel Walden died on 23 Mar. 1698, and was buried at All Saints, Huntingdon.
Lionel Walden married Elizabeth, daughter and coheir of Charles Balaam of Elm, Cambs., and had a son and 2 daughters. He was knighted on 29 Jan. 1673.
Excerpted from his Parliamentary bio
https://www.historyofparliamenton…
About Lionel Walden
San Diego Sarah • Link
PART 2
Walden received the government whip from Secretary Coventry in 1675, and his name appeared on the list of ‘servants and officers’, but his parliamentary performance was highly unsatisfactory.
There can be no doubt that this was a well-calculated hint to the Treasury to come to some arrangement about his accounts.
Sir Richard Wiseman reported to the lord treasurer: ‘Sir Lionel Walden hath been made to juggle and prevaricate in the King’s service, ...’
On 12 July 1676, Danby ordered process to be stayed against Walden, and this respite was continued until after the dissolution.
Shaftesbury noted him as ‘thrice vile’, and his 1678 record was unimpeachable: he was a court supporter in both lists, and, for only the second time in 18 years, was named to a committee of political importance, that to prepare instructions for disbanding the new-raised forces, in which he had been given a regiment.
Walden was defeated at the general election of February 1679, and no report was made on his petition.
In March, Danby, now in need of friends, signed an acquittance for £6,693 12s. 10d. plus interest at 12 per cent.
Of the principal, £1,226 10s.8d. represented his deliveries to the victuallers and £383 0s.6d. was struck off by assigning his pension. The remainder was harder to justify: £1,600 was cancelled in respect of loans to King Charles I and Sir George Lisle during the Civil Wars, £610 was lost through forgery and defalcation among Walden’s subordinates, and the balance of £2,874 1s. 8d. Charles II was pleased to remit in consideration of the good services of Walden and his father.
Blacklisted among the ‘unanimous club’ of court supporters, Walden retired into private life with his ill-gotten gains.
By Whitsun, he had purchased at least 200 acres in the Bedford level, the minimum qualification for a conservator of the corporation.
Walden remained in touch with the Government, reporting on local affairs in Hunts., and Cams., and hosted the Duke of York on his journey to Scotland.
With the assistance of Robert Bruce, Lord Ailesbury he was returned for the county in 1685 without a contest.
An active Member of James II’s Parliament, Lionel Walden MP was named to 17 committees. He was chairman for 2 naturalization bills, and was appointed to the committee for taking the accounts of the disbandment commissioners.
On 4 June he was one of 7 Members ordered to bring in a bill for using part of the revenue from hackney carriage licences for the benefit of Chelsea Hospital.
Lionel Walden MP was named mayor of Huntingdon under the new charter of 1686, and returned affirmative answers on the repeal of the Test Act and Penal Laws.
He was nominated as court candidate for Huntingdonshire in 1688.
On 8 Dec. a Huntingdon maltster called him a pensioner and a Papist: ‘when he is at home he goes to church, but when he is in London he goes to mass’.
He recovered damages on the latter charge.
About Lionel Walden
San Diego Sarah • Link
The Walden pedigree recorded at the 1613 heralds’ visitation shows advantageous marriages in the 16th century, but the family seems to have wained with a move from Kent to Huntingdonshire.
Lionel Walden MP's father, the first mayor of Huntingdon, helped to make the town too hot for its former MP, Oliver Cromwell, in 1631, and during the Civil Wars allegedly contributed £1,200 to the royalist coffers.
Lionel Walden served in both wars under Sir George Lisle, escaping with a nominal fine for his delinquency. Nothing further is heard of him until the Restoration, when he was recommended for a knighthood of the Royal Oak.
He was credited with an income of £600 a year, from no known source as no property in Huntingdonshire or the Isle of Ely is recorded for him.
Walden was returned for Huntingdon at the general election of 1661, probably on the Earl of Manchester’s interest.
The first of the family to sit, he was a moderately active Member of the Cavalier Parliament, with 74 committees, including the corporations bill.
He was granted the excise farm for the county, which he held without partners for longer than most provincial farmers.
He was also receiver of assessments for 5 years, and probably used the proceeds to pay the rent of the excise farm when returns were affected by the closing of alehouses during the plague.
He opposed the Bedford level bill in 1664, acting as teller with Roger Pepys against 2 corporation bailiffs.
At Oxford, he was appointed to the Five Mile Bill committee.
Walden’s first recorded speech was made in the debate of 20 Feb. 1668 on the miscarriages of the war, in which he scored off his enemies by affirming that Sandwich had blamed want of victuals for his failure to press home the attack at Bergen.
On 13 Dec. 1670, on being named by Sir George Downing as £7,040 in debt to the crown, he replied that the victuallers owed him much more.
He usually voted for supply, and was regarded at this time as a court supporter by both sides of the House.
Lionel Walden MP was given a regular commission in the third Anglo-Dutch Dutch war.
His smartness at the review on Blackheath won the approval of Gen. Schomberg, who commended him to Charles II ‘for as good an officer as ever he served with’.
His continued inability to present his accounts as receiver of taxes forced him to look for a patron, and shrewdly attached himself to Sir Robert Carr, by whom he was treated with condescension.
Walden was included in the Paston list, and in "A Seasonable Argument" he was described as being ‘£8,000 in the King’s debt, a Blackheath captain and a Papist: at present has a company of foot and £1,000 a year given him’.
The charge of Popery was later held to be a libel, and his excise pension as compensation for loss of the county farm was only £300 a year; but the comment is as accurate as can be expected.
About Friday 10 August 1660
San Diego Sarah • Link
Good catch, 徽柔. Three husbands.
About Sunday 9 June 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
SYDSERFF, THOMAS (1581–1663), bishop of Galloway, born in 1581, the eldest son of James Sydserff, merchant, Edinburgh
He was educated at Edinburgh University, and graduated M.A. on 22 Feb. 1602
His first charge was St. Giles, Edinburgh, to which he was admitted on 30 May 1611; when the city was reconstituted ecclesiastically in 1626 he was translated to Trinity College church
He was one of the bishops and ministers hwho met at Holyrood on 30 June 1633 to discuss the introduction of the English prayer-book. Sydserff advocated the measure, and in 1634 was made dean of Edinburgh. In that year he was removed to the high church, Edinburgh. This position he held for a few months; on the recommendation of Archbishop Laud he was promoted to the bishopric of Brechin, and consecrated on 29 July 1634.
On 21 Oct. 1634 he was admitted burgess of Dundee ‘for his services to the Commonweal,’ and made a member of the Court of High Commission.
He exercised his powers with rigor, and in 1637 had high words with Lord Lorne for sentencing one of his followers to a fine and imprisonment.
His appointment to the see of Galloway was signed by King Charles on 30 Aug. 1635, and he was installed in Nov.
The active part he took in the establishment of prelacy and his intimacy with Laud made him a target for the violence by Presbyterians. The introduction of the service-book made him very unpopular
At Stirling in Feb. 1638 he was attacked by a Presbyterian mob; the intervention of the magistrates stopped severe injury
A few days later he was assaulted in the streets of Falkirk, Dalkeith, and Edinburgh. On 13 Dec. 1638 he was formally deposed and excommunicated by the general assembly.
After his deposition Sydserff joined Charles I, and was with him at Newcastle in 1645
The overthrow of King Charles led to his retirement, and he remained in seclusion until after the Restoration
When episcopacy was re-established in Scotland he was promoted to the bishopric of Orkney in 1661, being the only survivor of the bishops deposed in 1638
He died at Edinburgh on 29 Sept. 1663
He married, on 27 April 1614, Rachel, daughter of John Byers, an Edinburgh magistrate. By her he had 4 sons and 4 daughters
One of the sons was Thomas Sydserff, a popular dramatist, and the compiler of ‘Mercurius Caledonius,’ the first newspaper printed in Scotland
Keith describes the bishop as ‘a learned and worthy prelate,’ and Bishop Burnet alludes to him (under the name of ‘Saintserf’) in complimentary terms in his ‘History of his own Time.’
His name appears several times in the presbyterian lampoons of the period (see Maidment, Book of Scottish Pasquils).
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Di…
Bishop Sydserff doesn't sound like a disaffected Royalist bishop who ordained unqualified non-conformist criminals.
Maybe Roundtree was a man fallen on unfortunate times, and Sandwich was giving him a deserved second chance.
About Mr Roundtree
San Diego Sarah • Link
L&M: Ralph Roundtree on 6 June, 1661, was in the Fleete prison when he was appointed chaplain of The Breda: PRO, Adm. 2/1745, f45r.
Sydserff of Galloway, the only Scottish bishop to survive the interregnum, was then in London angling (in vain) for advancement to the primacy of Scotland.
Burnet (i, 236) tells how his reputation suffered from these at best Non-conformist indiscriminate ordinations.
About Sunday 9 June 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
Taking a dancing master to sea -- well, this is a special trip. If the Portuguese courtiers know the latest dances, Sandwich and his captains must be able to match them.
If, on the other hand, the Infanta Katerina doesn't know the latest dances, here's something they can share with her which will be useful when she arrives, which can easily be done during their months at sea.
About Saturday 8 June 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
Sandwich didn't attend the Lords today, and no mention of his being given a leave of absence.
The Lords were upset by the Commons inviting them to a meeting this afternoon in the Painted Chamber, and showed it by inviting them back to the same location and subject.
Therefore no one thought it was their job to post the minutes.
https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
About Saturday 8 June 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
"To Whitehall to my Lord, who did tell me that he would have me go to Mr. Townsend, whom he had ordered to discover to me the whole mystery of the Wardrobe, and none else but me, and that he will make me deputy with him for fear that he should die in my Lord’s absence, of which I was glad."
Sandwich seriosly thinks Pepys can run the Navy and the Wardrobe! Of course, it would only be a temporary appointment. But paid. I wonder if it's the money or Sandwich's esteem which pleases Pepys more.
About Bartholomew Fair (Ben Jonson)
San Diego Sarah • Link
L&M: A comedy by Ben Jonson, first acted in 1614, and published in 1631; in 1661 performed at the King's House/Theater Royal, Vere St. This was the first record of a post-Restoration performance; according to 'Roscius Anglicanus, or, An historical review of the stage from 1660 to 1706' by Downes, John, fl. 1661-1719; p. 17 https://archive.org/details/rosci…
The role of Cokes was one of Wintersel's best interpretations. On this occasion the puppet-show in Act V was omitted. Much of the satire in the play was directed against Puritans, hence its popularity after the Restoration.
About Monday 9 June 1662
San Diego Sarah • Link
Since Pepys writes mostly in shorthand, do we know if he had adopted the "J" in his alphabet/index?
It wasn’t until after the life of William Shakespeare (1564-1616) that the English alphabet welcomed “J” as its 26th and final letter.
First-edition copies of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet from 1597 were titled Romeo and Iuliet, as the letter “I” was often used as a written substitute for words with a “J” sound in English.
In order to fully understand the letter’s origins, however, we need to go all the way back to ancient Roman times.
In Roman numerals, a swash was sometimes used to denote the end of sequences — for instance, the number 13 often visually appeared in handwritten text as “XIIJ” instead of “XIII.”
In classical Latin and in various European languages through the medieval era, the letter “I” was used as both a vowel and as a consonant, and the constant version of “I” morphed over the years and eventually began appearing as a “J” shape.
In the late 15th century and early 16th century, a few scholars wrote treatises on grammar in which they suggested using “J” as the constant version of “I.” In English, this change took hold in the early 17th century.
A good illustration of this is the King James Bible, one of the first modern English texts to print “J” as a unique letter. The 1611 edition uses the consonant “I” in words such as “Iesus” and “Ioseph,” while the 1629 edition uses the letter “J,” paving the way for the eventual widespread inclusion of “J” in the English alphabet.
https://historyfacts.com/arts-cul…
About Friday 7 June 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
Today the Commons continues to grapple with the big kahuna: the reinstatement of the Church of England:
"Clergy's temporal Jurisdiction.
The Bill for the Repeal of an Act of Parliament, intituled, An Act for disenabling all Persons in Holy Orders to exercise any temporal Jurisdiction or Authority, was this Day read the Second time.
And the said Act for disabling all Persons in Holy Orders to exercise any temporal Jurisdiction or Authority, was also read.
And the Question being put, That the said Bill for Repeal thereof should be referred to a Committee of the whole House;
The same passed in the Negative."
I.E. the first step is to repeal the 1640 Act of Parliament entitled "An Act for disenabling all Persons in Holy Orders to exercise any temporal Jurisdiction or Authority".
In part it says, "Be it enacted that no Archbishop or Bishop or other person that now is or hereafter shall be in Holy Orders shall at any time after the fifteenth day of February in the yeare of our Lord One thousand six hundred forty one have any Seat or place suffrage or Voice or use or execute any power or authority in the Parliaments of this Realm nor shall be of the Privy Councell of his Majestie his heires or successours or Justice of the Peace of Oyer and Terminer or Goal Delivery or execute any temporall authoritie by vertue of any Commission but shall be wholly disabled and be uncapable to have receive use or execute any of the said Offices Places Powers Authorities and things aforesaid."
https://www.british-history.ac.uk…
The Lords wants to include the Bishops in their number, as was customary -- but does this Act make the Archbishop and Bishops who just crowned Charles II also technically 'illegal'? Better clarify this before some bright non-conformist spreads some rumors!
About Wednesday 26 April 1665
San Diego Sarah • Link
CITATIONS FOR THE ABOVE:
Adapted from
GEORGE VILLIERS, SECOND DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM -- 1628-1687 : A STUDY IN THE HISTORY OF THE RESTORATION
By WINIFRED Anne Henrietta Christine Herbert Gardner, LADY BURGHCLERE
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET, W. LONDON
1903
https://archive.org/stream/cu3192…
* In February 1664 Pepys wrote about efforts to marry Lady Mary Stuart to the letch Harry Jermyn, and that she had been shelted from that outcome by Charles II.
https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/…
Sadly, it seems probable that Richard Butler, 1st Earl of Arran treated Lady Mary no better that Harry Jermyn would have done:
https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
About Wednesday 26 April 1665
San Diego Sarah • Link
Letters are being exchanged at the Whitehall end of town:
Although the world marveled that Mary "Mall" Villiers Herbert Stuart, Dowager Duchess of Richmond should bestow herself on so inconsiderable a personage as "northern Tom Howard,'' yet it was evident that they were "the fondest couple that can be. George Villiers, 2nd Duke of Buckingham was mightily troubled at the match." 1
1 "Hatton Correspondence" (Camden Soc), vol. i. p. 42. Sir Charles Lyttleton to Lady Hatton, 26 Nov. 1664.
Nor was Buckingham better pleased when James Butler, Duke of Ormonde sent him a polite request to settle his estates on Mary Stuart Butler*, who had recently married his son, Richard Butler, 1st Earl of Arran .
For once, Buckingham had public opinion with him in his contention that if his sister [now Mary "Mall" Howard] had a son, it would only be reasonable that as this child must succeed to the Dukedom, the Villiers estates should also be his; and the world considered that Richard Butler, 1st Earl of Arran deserved no pity, since he received ^20,000 dowry with a "high-born pritty lady."
Unfortunately, as the following letter shows, indiscreet friends were widening the breach between Buckingham and Ormonde, and much of their subsequent enmity was probably caused by the quarrels which took place over Mary Stuart Butler, Countess of Arran's settlement:
"My Lord, — I received yours of the 10th of this month, but since my return to the Fleet, otherwise I should have waited upon your Grace when I was last in town to give you myself this answer.
"First that I wonder very much at the discourse George Porter had with you, since though it had been all true with you upon his own knowledge, methinks he might have forborne the speaking of it.
“That I did once make a settlement very much to the advantage of my niece and my lord her husband, he did know, but whether I have altered it since I conceive he does not know, neither do I think myself obliged to give him or anybody else an account of it. What guesses he may make either of your Lordship's behavior to me or my sense of it, I cannot tell; perhaps his kindness may make him judge more in my favor than I do myself; for I have been myself so long accustomed to be ill-used, that I may very well begin to think I deserve no better; and that it is high time for me to leave off the pursuit of those things I have had so little success in to look after the repairing of my own private fortune.
“This humble opinion I have of myself hinders me from making any complaints only I shall assure your Grace, that my professions and kindness to you were so real, that if it laid in my power to do you service, I should not have left a possibility for you or the world to doubt of my being, My Lord,—
Your Grace's Most faithful and obedient servant,
"Buckingham." 2
2 Carte, MSS. 34, fol. 160. 26 April, 1665.
About Monday 22 February 1663/64
San Diego Sarah • Link
"Mall has borne a secret feeling for the Earl of St. Albans."
That answers a lot. And he was very wealthy. Always good to have money in the family.
Agreed Buckingham and Mary Fairfax had not produced a legitimate living heir yet.
Your comment about Ephelia needs clarification: Ladies were supposed to be seen and not heard in those days. And ladies certainly did not write poetry and have it published under their real names.
But some excellent apparently-female poets in the Restoration times were published. Of course, they might have been Buckingham's "Merry Wits" teasing us from afar as pseudonyms hide their identities.
One of these poets used the pseudonyms of "Ephelia":
'In 1885, H. B. Wheatley contributed an undocumented, one-line identification of "Ephelia" as "Mrs. Joan Phillips" to A Dictionary of Anonymous and Pseudonymous English Literature edited by Halkett and Laing (VIII: 1885).'
'But who was "Joan Phillips"? It is not entirely preposterous, in view of Ephelia's probable identity in the tricksy 'Mall' Villiers, that "Joan Phillips" was yet another alter-ego of Mary Villiers Herbert Stuart, Duchess of Richmond, an urban identity or cover which allowed this inventive Duchess easy access to the colorful street culture of Restoration London.
'Within the constricted confines of the Court, the Duchess of Richmond was the pseudonymous writer, "Ephelia"; on the streets of Restoration London, she was "Joan Phillips."
'A woman of imposed multiple identities all her long life, the Duchess of Richmond, in the 1660s and 1670s, finally had the freedom, time, and personal space to recreate herself through multiple poetic voices and identities. From her privileged position at Court, 'Mall' had the resources and surely the talent to bring off such trickery.'
This article also proposes other theories, including Ephra/Joan Phillips being Aphra Behn.
http://www.ephelia.com/textual_li…
www.poetryfoundation.org
Also arguing against it being Mary "Mall" Villiers Stuart:
'The strongly promoted attribution of the verse of late-17th century woman poet ‘Ephelia’ to Mary Stuart, Duchess of Richmond and Lennox, should be rejected. Maureen E. Mulvihill's arguments for it are vitiated by circular reasoning and uncritical use of evidence. They also require explaining away much apparently autobiographical reference in the works as fraudulent or part of an elaborate private code. Taking these references at their face value is more likely to bring about a satisfactory identification.'
https://academic.oup.com/res/arti…
We will never know for sure. Time travel doesn't appear to be a possibility yet.