King Henry I produced sticks of polished wood, with notches cut along one edge to signify the denominations. The stick was then split full length so each piece still had a record of the notches.
The King kept one half for proof against counterfeiting, and then spent the other half into the market place where it would continue to circulate as money.
Because only Tally Sticks were accepted by Henry I for payment of taxes, there was a built-in demand for them, which gave people confidence to accept these as money.
Henry I could have used anything, so long as the people agreed it had value, and his willingness to accept these sticks as legal tender made it easy for the people to agree. Money is only as valuable as people’s faith in it, and without that faith even today's money is just paper.
The tally stick system worked really well for 726 years. It was the most successful form of currency in recent history and the British Empire was built under the Tally Stick system, so how is it that most of us are not aware of its existence?
Perhaps the fact that in 1694 the Bank of England at its formation attacked the Tally Stick System gives us a clue as to why most of us have never heard of them. They realized it was money outside the power of the money changers (the very thing King Henry had intended).
"In 1642, during the reign of King Charles I, the merchants in London had been in the habit of depositing their bullion and cash in the Tower of London for convenience and security, under the guardianship of the Crown; but the King, in order to pay his debts, seized their property to the amount of £30,000. This act caused great consternation, and the merchants decided in future to keep their capital under their own control.
So says Mr. Easton in the "History of a Banking House," p. 57, this is precisely what Thomas Smith did in Nottingham. He lived on the premises, and underneath the shop was a basement kitchen. Beneath this he made in the solid rock sandstone, three separate cellars, approached by a trap-door and ladder, and another set below them approached by steps, and partly under the public street, and the basement wall shows that there was once access to the basement of the adjoining house, for the business so increased that additional room had to be provided, and then the two kinds of business — the mercery and the banking, had to be divided, and other premises were secured 30 yards more to the southwest, ... "
"... and there met with Mr. Hoole my old acquaintance of Magdalen, and walked with him an hour in the Parke, discoursing chiefly of Sir Samuel Morland, whose lady is gone into France. It seems he buys ground and a farm in the country, and lays out money upon building, and God knows what! so that most of the money he sold his pension of 500l. per annum for, to Sir Arthur Slingsby, is believed is gone. It seems he hath very great promises from the King, and Hoole hath seen some of the King’s letters, under his own hand, to Morland, promising him great things (and among others, the order of the Garter, as Sir Samuel says); but his lady thought it below her to ask any thing at the King’s first coming, believing the King would do it of himself, when as Hoole do really think if he had asked to be Secretary of State at the King’s first coming, he might have had it. And the other day at her going into France, she did speak largely to the King herself, how her husband hath failed of what his Majesty had promised, and she was sure intended him; and the King did promise still, as he is a King and a gentleman, to be as good as his word in a little time, to a tittle: but I never believe it."
So Hoole -- or William Howell -- was well-placed to see Charles II's letters. I wonder what became of him.
"So home, where my wife is full of sad stories of her good-natured father and roguish brother, who is going for Holland and his wife, to be a soldier." Seems my guess at what "finding a place" for Balty meant, I was wrong is opting for lodging. It was employment.
Thanks Bill and Robert ... I think we can agree it's ambiguous. I'm coming down on the side of lodging because William 'Will' Hewer (born in 1642) was only 21 years old, and probably wasn't in a position to recommend employment to Balty (born between 1638 and 1641). However, he had just found new lodgings for himself, so he would be aware of local vacancies. As Balty recently got married, he might be looking. We may find out who's right soon.
I missed this annotation supplied by Terry Foreman for January 27, 1663/64:
"Pepys made a note of Hempson's views in his Navy White Book, p. 11. According to Hempson, Pett was a miser, prone to charge all expenses to the King (even for the banquet he gave to the King at his restoration), and disliked by the gentry of the county as 'false-hearted'. (L&M footnote)"
"This evening Mr. Hempson came and told me how Sir W. Batten his master will not hear of continuing him in his employment as Clerk of the Survey at Chatham, from whence of a sudden he has removed him without any new or extraordinary cause, and I believe (as he himself do in part write, and J. Norman do confess) for nothing but for that he was twice with me the other day and did not wait upon him." http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1…
And finally, on May 3 1664:
"I went to the ‘Change, and there meeting with Mr. Hempson, whom Sir W. Batten has lately turned out of his place, merely because of his coming to me when he came to town before he went to him, and there he told me many rogueries of Sir W. Batten, how he knows and is able to prove that Captain Cox of Chatham did give him 10l. in gold to get him to certify for him at the King’s coming in, and that Tom Newborne did make [the] poor men give him 3l. to get Sir W. Batten to cause them to be entered in the yard, and that Sir W. Batten had oftentimes said: “by God, Tom, you shall get something and I will have some on’t.” His present clerk that is come in Norman’s room has given him something for his place; that they live high and (as Sir Francis Clerk’s lady told his wife) do lack money as well as other people, and have bribes of a piece of sattin and cabinetts and other things from people that deal with him, and that hardly any body goes to see or hath anything done by Sir W. Batten but it comes with a bribe, and that this is publickly true that his wife was a whore, and that he had libells flung within his doors for a cuckold as soon as he was married; that he received 100l. in money and in other things to the value of 50l. more of Hempson, and that he intends to give him back but 50l.; that he hath abused the Chest and hath now some 1000l. by him of it." http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1…
Knowing of Pepys' interest in that Chatham Chest, Mr. Hempson must have been collecting evidence against Sir W. Batten.
However, it appears that it was not only Sir William Batten who was dissatisfied with Hempson. The following note is among the State Papers: "Jan. 21 1664. Commissioner Peter Pett to Sam. Pepys. Has sent Capt. Taylor's bills. The price of Nath. London's timber is too great. Fears Mr. Hempson is lost to the service; is not in the King's interest to give such busy officers so great a liberty [of absence]" (Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1663-64, p. 449.) -- Wheatley ed. note May 3rd. 1664
And L&M footnote: According to Commissioner Pett, Hempson was dismissed because of his repeated absences: CSPD 1663-4, p. 449.
Sounds like Pett and Batten might be in collusion? Sadly Sam doesn't tell us anything further.
Pepys clearly was friendly with Hempson, Along the way we hear:
In April 1661:
"... where we had a good dinner, and among other strangers that come, there was Mr. Hempson and his wife, a pretty woman, and speaks Latin; ..." http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1…
And the next day:
"Here much mirth, but I was a little troubled to stay too long, because of going to Hempson’s, which afterwards we did, and found it in all things a most pretty house, and rarely furnished, only it had a most ill access on all sides to it, which is a greatest fault that I think can be in a house." http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1…
A couple of months later:
"(Lord’s day). In the morning to church, and my wife not being well, I went with Sir W. Batten home to dinner, my Lady being out of town, where there was Sir W. Pen, Captain Allen and his daughter Rebecca, and Mr. Hempson and his wife." http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1…
And two days later:
"At home all day, in the afternoon came Captain Allen and his daughter Rebecca and Mr. Hempson, and by and by both Sir Williams, ..." http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1…
No mention of the Hempsons for over a year:
"... but at the Swan, finding Mr. Hemson and Lieutenant Carteret of the Foresight come to meet me, I borrowed Mr. Hemson’s horse, and he took another, and so we rode to Rochester in the dark, ..." http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1…
Eleven months later, Hempson is at Chatham at the same time as Pepys and Sir John Mennes (later we find out he is Clerk of the Survey at Chatham):
"... home to the Hillhouse, and anon to supper, and after supper, Sir J. Minnes and I had great discourse with Captain Cox and Mr. Hempson about business of the yard, and particularly of pursers’ accounts with Hempson, who is a cunning knave in that point." http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1…
On January 27, 1664:
"Commissioner Pett with me, and all alone dined together. He told me many stories of the yard, but I do know him so well, and had his character given me this morning by Hempson, as well as my own too of him before, that I shall know how to value any thing he says either of friendship or other business." http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1… CONTINUED BELOW ...
"... we met at the Committee for Tangier, a good full Committee, and agreed how to proceed in the dispatching of my Lord Rutherford, and treating about this business of Mr. Cholmely and Sir J. Lawson’s proposal for the Mole."
I wonder if this is what they discussed, or whether Charles II acted without consultation:
Earl of TEVIOT, a title in the peerage of Scotland, conferred 2 February, 1663, by Charles II on Lieutenant-General Andrew Rutherford, Lord Rutherford, with limitation to the heirs male of his body.
"In January 1664 [GEORGE DIGBY, 2nd EARL OF] Bristol appeared at his house at Wimbledon, and publicly renounced before witnesses his Roman Catholicism and declared himself a Protestant. His motive was probably to secure immunity from the charge of recusancy preferred against him."
Sunday 11 November 1660 (Lord’s day). "This morning I went to Sir W. Batten’s ..., he and I went to Church into our new gallery, ..., there came after us Sir W. Pen, Mr. Davis, and his eldest son." [The father was Clerk to Navy Board member Lord Berkeley of Stratton: http://www.pepysdiary.com/encyclo… ]
Wednesday 30 January 1660/61 (Fast day). "... Sir W. Pen and I into Moorfields ..., it being a most pleasant day, and besides much discourse did please ourselves to see young Davis and Whitton, two of our clerks, going by us in the field, who we observe to take much pleasure together, and I did most often see them at play together."
Saturday 23 May 1663 "... I had a fray with Sir J. Minnes in defence of my Will in a business where the old coxcomb would have put a foot upon him, which was only in Jack Davis and in him a downright piece of knavery in procuring a double ticket and getting the wrong one paid as well as the second was to the true party. But it appeared clear enough to the board that Will was true in it."
So young Jack was a bit wild, but his mother "Pepys referred to her as "my Lady Davis," apparently in light of her temperament and her pull in the Navy Office's Seething Lane housing-complex."
Monday 1 February 1663/64 "... I found Mr. Strutt the purser ... tells me ... how young Jack Davis has railed against Sir W. Batten for his endeavouring to turn him out of his place, at which for the fellow’s sake, because it will likely prove his ruin, I am sorry, though I do believe he is a very arch rogue."
We hear no more about young Jack the arch rogue's shenanigans, so this threat of loss of housing evidently made the right impression.
Tuesday 16 December 1662 "... and among other business was Strutt’s the purser, against Captn. Browne, Sir W. Batten’s brother-in-law, but, Lord! though I believe the Captain has played the knave, though I seem to have a good opinion of him and to mean him well, what a most troublesome fellow that Strutt is, such as I never did meet with his fellow in my life. His talking and ours to make him hold his peace set my head off akeing all the afternoon with great pain."
However, Strutt must be attached to the Navy Board in some way, because on Monday 22 June 1663:
"I came home, and meeting Strutt, the purser, he tells me for a secret that he was told by Field that he had a judgment against me in the Exchequer for 400l."
And on February 1, 1663/64 Strutt is running errands for Sir William Batten, brother-in-law of the aforementioned knave, Capt. Browne:
"I found Mr. Strutt the purser below with 12 bottles of sacke, and tells me (which from Sir W. Batten I had heard before) how young Jack Davis has railed against Sir W. Batten for his endeavouring to turn him out of his place, at which for the fellow’s sake, because it will likely prove his ruin, I am sorry, though I do believe he is a very arch rogue. I took Strutt by coach with me to White Hall, where I set him down, ..."
Clearly Strutt and Pepys knew each other quite well.
23 September, 1660. In the midst of all this joy and jubilee, the Duke of Gloucester died of the smallpox, in the prime of youth, and a prince of extraordinary hopes.
"... and so home, where by appointment I found Mr. Coventry, Sir W. Batten, and Mr. Waith met at Sir W. Batten’s, and thither I met, and so agreed upon a way of answering my Lord Treasurer’s letter. Here I found Mr. Coventry had got a letter from the Duke, sent us for looking into the business of the [CHATHAM] Chest, of which I am glad."
So Waith came in useful after all. Perhaps Pepys should have gone to the christening.
"This afternoon Mr. Waith was with me, and did tell me much concerning the [CHATHAM] Chest, which I am resolved to look into; and I perceive he is sensible of Sir W. Batten’s carriage; and is pleased to see any thing work against him."
"This afternoon after dinner comes Mr. Stephenson, one of the burgesses of the town [OF PORTSMOUTH], to tell me that the Mayor and burgesses did desire my acceptance of a burgess-ship, and were ready at the Mayor’s to make me one. So I went, and there they were all ready, and did with much civility give me my oath, and after the oath, did by custom shake me all by the hand. So I took them to a tavern and made them drink, and paying the reckoning, went away. They having first in the tavern made Mr. Waith also a burgess, he coming in while we were drinking. It cost me a piece in gold to the Town Clerk, and 10s. to the Bayliffes, and spent 6s."
So Treasurer Waith made it to Burgess of Portsmouth ahead of Pepys -- how irritating.
Comments
Second Reading
About Monday 8 February 1663/64
San Diego Sarah • Link
"... against the opinion of my Lord Treasurer and his Council, ..."
The Privy Council, I guess. Anyone know who was on that Council?
About Sunday 31 January 1663/64
San Diego Sarah • Link
More on banking for Louise:
info taken from: http://www.xat.org/xat/moneyhisto…
THE TALLY STICKS (1100 - 1854)
King Henry I produced sticks of polished wood, with notches cut along one edge to signify the denominations. The stick was then split full length so each piece still had a record of the notches.
The King kept one half for proof against counterfeiting, and then spent the other half into the market place where it would continue to circulate as money.
Because only Tally Sticks were accepted by Henry I for payment of taxes, there was a built-in demand for them, which gave people confidence to accept these as money.
Henry I could have used anything, so long as the people agreed it had value, and his willingness to accept these sticks as legal tender made it easy for the people to agree. Money is only as valuable as people’s faith in it, and without that faith even today's money is just paper.
The tally stick system worked really well for 726 years. It was the most successful form of currency in recent history and the British Empire was built under the Tally Stick system, so how is it that most of us are not aware of its existence?
Perhaps the fact that in 1694 the Bank of England at its formation attacked the Tally Stick System gives us a clue as to why most of us have never heard of them. They realized it was money outside the power of the money changers (the very thing King Henry had intended).
About Thursday 28 January 1663/64
San Diego Sarah • Link
So it is a word that has changed meaning. Thanks, Sasha.
About Sunday 31 January 1663/64
San Diego Sarah • Link
Where did merchants keep their money?
"In 1642, during the reign of King Charles I, the merchants in London had been in the habit of depositing their bullion and cash in the Tower of London for convenience and security, under the guardianship of the Crown; but the King, in order to pay his debts, seized their property to the amount of £30,000. This act caused great consternation, and the merchants decided in future to keep their capital under their own control.
So says Mr. Easton in the "History of a Banking House," p. 57, this is precisely what Thomas Smith did in Nottingham. He lived on the premises, and underneath the shop was a basement kitchen. Beneath this he made in the solid rock sandstone, three separate cellars, approached by a trap-door and ladder, and another set below them approached by steps, and partly under the public street, and the basement wall shows that there was once access to the basement of the adjoining house, for the business so increased that additional room had to be provided, and then the two kinds of business — the mercery and the banking, had to be divided, and other premises were secured 30 yards more to the southwest, ... "
For more information, mostly about Nottingham, see: http://www.nottshistory.org.uk/ar…
About Wednesday 3 February 1663/64
San Diego Sarah • Link
Pepys visited lots of people today ... but still not Tom. I've run out of excuses for him.
About William Howell
San Diego Sarah • Link
On August 13, 1663:
"... and there met with Mr. Hoole my old acquaintance of Magdalen, and walked with him an hour in the Parke, discoursing chiefly of Sir Samuel Morland, whose lady is gone into France. It seems he buys ground and a farm in the country, and lays out money upon building, and God knows what! so that most of the money he sold his pension of 500l. per annum for, to Sir Arthur Slingsby, is believed is gone. It seems he hath very great promises from the King, and Hoole hath seen some of the King’s letters, under his own hand, to Morland, promising him great things (and among others, the order of the Garter, as Sir Samuel says); but his lady thought it below her to ask any thing at the King’s first coming, believing the King would do it of himself, when as Hoole do really think if he had asked to be Secretary of State at the King’s first coming, he might have had it. And the other day at her going into France, she did speak largely to the King herself, how her husband hath failed of what his Majesty had promised, and she was sure intended him; and the King did promise still, as he is a King and a gentleman, to be as good as his word in a little time, to a tittle: but I never believe it."
So Hoole -- or William Howell -- was well-placed to see Charles II's letters. I wonder what became of him.
About Wednesday 3 February 1663/64
San Diego Sarah • Link
"So home, where my wife is full of sad stories of her good-natured father and roguish brother, who is going for Holland and his wife, to be a soldier." Seems my guess at what "finding a place" for Balty meant, I was wrong is opting for lodging. It was employment.
About Thursday 28 January 1663/64
San Diego Sarah • Link
Thanks Bill and Robert ... I think we can agree it's ambiguous. I'm coming down on the side of lodging because William 'Will' Hewer (born in 1642) was only 21 years old, and probably wasn't in a position to recommend employment to Balty (born between 1638 and 1641). However, he had just found new lodgings for himself, so he would be aware of local vacancies. As Balty recently got married, he might be looking. We may find out who's right soon.
About William Hempson
San Diego Sarah • Link
I missed this annotation supplied by Terry Foreman for January 27, 1663/64:
"Pepys made a note of Hempson's views in his Navy White Book, p. 11. According to Hempson, Pett was a miser, prone to charge all expenses to the King (even for the banquet he gave to the King at his restoration), and disliked by the gentry of the county as 'false-hearted'. (L&M footnote)"
About William Hempson
San Diego Sarah • Link
But on February 2, 1664:
"This evening Mr. Hempson came and told me how Sir W. Batten his master will not hear of continuing him in his employment as Clerk of the Survey at Chatham, from whence of a sudden he has removed him without any new or extraordinary cause, and I believe (as he himself do in part write, and J. Norman do confess) for nothing but for that he was twice with me the other day and did not wait upon him." http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1…
And finally, on May 3 1664:
"I went to the ‘Change, and there meeting with Mr. Hempson, whom Sir W. Batten has lately turned out of his place, merely because of his coming to me when he came to town before he went to him, and there he told me many rogueries of Sir W. Batten, how he knows and is able to prove that Captain Cox of Chatham did give him 10l. in gold to get him to certify for him at the King’s coming in, and that Tom Newborne did make [the] poor men give him 3l. to get Sir W. Batten to cause them to be entered in the yard, and that Sir W. Batten had oftentimes said: “by God, Tom, you shall get something and I will have some on’t.” His present clerk that is come in Norman’s room has given him something for his place; that they live high and (as Sir Francis Clerk’s lady told his wife) do lack money as well as other people, and have bribes of a piece of sattin and cabinetts and other things from people that deal with him, and that hardly any body goes to see or hath anything done by Sir W. Batten but it comes with a bribe, and that this is publickly true that his wife was a whore, and that he had libells flung within his doors for a cuckold as soon as he was married; that he received 100l. in money and in other things to the value of 50l. more of Hempson, and that he intends to give him back but 50l.; that he hath abused the Chest and hath now some 1000l. by him of it."
http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1…
Knowing of Pepys' interest in that Chatham Chest, Mr. Hempson must have been collecting evidence against Sir W. Batten.
However, it appears that it was not only Sir William Batten who was dissatisfied with Hempson. The following note is among the State Papers:
"Jan. 21 1664. Commissioner Peter Pett to Sam. Pepys. Has sent Capt. Taylor's bills. The price of Nath. London's timber is too great. Fears Mr. Hempson is lost to the service; is not in the King's interest to give such busy officers so great a liberty [of absence]" (Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1663-64, p. 449.) -- Wheatley ed. note May 3rd. 1664
And L&M footnote: According to Commissioner Pett, Hempson was dismissed because of his repeated absences: CSPD 1663-4, p. 449.
Sounds like Pett and Batten might be in collusion? Sadly Sam doesn't tell us anything further.
About William Hempson
San Diego Sarah • Link
Pepys clearly was friendly with Hempson, Along the way we hear:
In April 1661:
"... where we had a good dinner, and among other strangers that come, there was Mr. Hempson and his wife, a pretty woman, and speaks Latin; ..." http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1…
And the next day:
"Here much mirth, but I was a little troubled to stay too long, because of going to Hempson’s, which afterwards we did, and found it in all things a most pretty house, and rarely furnished, only it had a most ill access on all sides to it, which is a greatest fault that I think can be in a house." http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1…
A couple of months later:
"(Lord’s day). In the morning to church, and my wife not being well, I went with Sir W. Batten home to dinner, my Lady being out of town, where there was Sir W. Pen, Captain Allen and his daughter Rebecca, and Mr. Hempson and his wife." http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1…
And two days later:
"At home all day, in the afternoon came Captain Allen and his daughter Rebecca and Mr. Hempson, and by and by both Sir Williams, ..." http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1…
No mention of the Hempsons for over a year:
"... but at the Swan, finding Mr. Hemson and Lieutenant Carteret of the Foresight come to meet me, I borrowed Mr. Hemson’s horse, and he took another, and so we rode to Rochester in the dark, ..." http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1…
Eleven months later, Hempson is at Chatham at the same time as Pepys and Sir John Mennes (later we find out he is Clerk of the Survey at Chatham):
"... home to the Hillhouse, and anon to supper, and after supper, Sir J. Minnes and I had great discourse with Captain Cox and Mr. Hempson about business of the yard, and particularly of pursers’ accounts with Hempson, who is a cunning knave in that point." http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1…
On January 27, 1664:
"Commissioner Pett with me, and all alone dined together. He told me many stories of the yard, but I do know him so well, and had his character given me this morning by Hempson, as well as my own too of him before, that I shall know how to value any thing he says either of friendship or other business." http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1…
CONTINUED BELOW ...
About Monday 2 February 1662/63
San Diego Sarah • Link
"... we met at the Committee for Tangier, a good full Committee, and agreed how to proceed in the dispatching of my Lord Rutherford, and treating about this business of Mr. Cholmely and Sir J. Lawson’s proposal for the Mole."
I wonder if this is what they discussed, or whether Charles II acted without consultation:
Earl of TEVIOT, a title in the peerage of Scotland, conferred 2 February, 1663, by Charles II on Lieutenant-General Andrew Rutherford, Lord Rutherford, with limitation to the heirs male of his body.
http://www.electricscotland.com/h…
About Monday 1 February 1663/64
San Diego Sarah • Link
http://www.pepysdiary.com/encyclo… :
"In January 1664 [GEORGE DIGBY, 2nd EARL OF] Bristol appeared at his house at Wimbledon, and publicly renounced before witnesses his Roman Catholicism and declared himself a Protestant. His motive was probably to secure immunity from the charge of recusancy preferred against him."
About Jack Davis
San Diego Sarah • Link
Sunday 11 November 1660
(Lord’s day). "This morning I went to Sir W. Batten’s ..., he and I went to Church into our new gallery, ..., there came after us Sir W. Pen, Mr. Davis, and his eldest son."
[The father was Clerk to Navy Board member Lord Berkeley of Stratton: http://www.pepysdiary.com/encyclo… ]
Wednesday 30 January 1660/61
(Fast day). "... Sir W. Pen and I into Moorfields ..., it being a most pleasant day, and besides much discourse did please ourselves to see young Davis and Whitton, two of our clerks, going by us in the field, who we observe to take much pleasure together, and I did most often see them at play together."
Saturday 23 May 1663
"... I had a fray with Sir J. Minnes in defence of my Will in a business where the old coxcomb would have put a foot upon him, which was only in Jack Davis and in him a downright piece of knavery in procuring a double ticket and getting the wrong one paid as well as the second was to the true party. But it appeared clear enough to the board that Will was true in it."
So young Jack was a bit wild, but his mother "Pepys referred to her as "my Lady Davis," apparently in light of her temperament and her pull in the Navy Office's Seething Lane housing-complex."
Monday 1 February 1663/64
"... I found Mr. Strutt the purser ... tells me ... how young Jack Davis has railed against Sir W. Batten for his endeavouring to turn him out of his place, at which for the fellow’s sake, because it will likely prove his ruin, I am sorry, though I do believe he is a very arch rogue."
We hear no more about young Jack the arch rogue's shenanigans, so this threat of loss of housing evidently made the right impression.
About Thomas Strutt
San Diego Sarah • Link
Tuesday 16 December 1662
"... and among other business was Strutt’s the purser, against Captn. Browne, Sir W. Batten’s brother-in-law, but, Lord! though I believe the Captain has played the knave, though I seem to have a good opinion of him and to mean him well, what a most troublesome fellow that Strutt is, such as I never did meet with his fellow in my life. His talking and ours to make him hold his peace set my head off akeing all the afternoon with great pain."
However, Strutt must be attached to the Navy Board in some way, because on Monday 22 June 1663:
"I came home, and meeting Strutt, the purser, he tells me for a secret that he was told by Field that he had a judgment against me in the Exchequer for 400l."
And on February 1, 1663/64 Strutt is running errands for Sir William Batten, brother-in-law of the aforementioned knave, Capt. Browne:
"I found Mr. Strutt the purser below with 12 bottles of sacke, and tells me (which from Sir W. Batten I had heard before) how young Jack Davis has railed against Sir W. Batten for his endeavouring to turn him out of his place, at which for the fellow’s sake, because it will likely prove his ruin, I am sorry, though I do believe he is a very arch rogue. I took Strutt by coach with me to White Hall, where I set him down, ..."
Clearly Strutt and Pepys knew each other quite well.
About Thursday 13 September 1660
San Diego Sarah • Link
FROM JOHN EVELYN'S DIARY
23 September, 1660. In the midst of all this joy and jubilee, the Duke of Gloucester died of the smallpox, in the prime of youth, and a prince of extraordinary hopes.
About Thursday 28 January 1663/64
San Diego Sarah • Link
"... it was only to discourse with her about finding a place for her brother."
A place, everyone has assumed, was a position. I read it to mean housing. Could it be either, or is this a word that has changed meaning?
About Robert Waith
San Diego Sarah • Link
Monday 25 August 1662
"... and so home, where by appointment I found Mr. Coventry, Sir W. Batten, and Mr. Waith met at Sir W. Batten’s, and thither I met, and so agreed upon a way of answering my Lord Treasurer’s letter. Here I found Mr. Coventry had got a letter from the Duke, sent us for looking into the business of the [CHATHAM] Chest, of which I am glad."
So Waith came in useful after all. Perhaps Pepys should have gone to the christening.
About Robert Waith
San Diego Sarah • Link
Wednesday 6 August 1662
"This afternoon Mr. Waith was with me, and did tell me much concerning the [CHATHAM] Chest, which I am resolved to look into; and I perceive he is sensible of Sir W. Batten’s carriage; and is pleased to see any thing work against him."
About Robert Waith
San Diego Sarah • Link
Wednesday 30 April 1662
"This afternoon after dinner comes Mr. Stephenson, one of the burgesses of the town [OF PORTSMOUTH], to tell me that the Mayor and burgesses did desire my acceptance of a burgess-ship, and were ready at the Mayor’s to make me one. So I went, and there they were all ready, and did with much civility give me my oath, and after the oath, did by custom shake me all by the hand. So I took them to a tavern and made them drink, and paying the reckoning, went away. They having first in the tavern made Mr. Waith also a burgess, he coming in while we were drinking. It cost me a piece in gold to the Town Clerk, and 10s. to the Bayliffes, and spent 6s."
So Treasurer Waith made it to Burgess of Portsmouth ahead of Pepys -- how irritating.