I found this annotation which might explain why the Duke of York was so attentive this evening: ✹ Bill on 13 Sep 2015 • Link “my Lady Chesterfield is gone into the country for it” Peter Cunningham thinks that this banishment was only temporary, for, according to the Grammont Memoirs, Elizabeth Butler Stanhope, Countess of Chesterfield was in town when the Russian ambassador was in London, December, 1662, and January, 1663.
Am I right in thinking these pirates went on to be the Barbary Pirates in the 19th Century ... and possibly ISIS today? Looks like the same area and tribes to me ... ?
I recall Pepys promised Elizabeth that he would not go to Court or see the new Queen until she could go with him. He did not keep his word. Now she's bored and restless, and Ms. Gosnell made her aware of being kept at home as Pepys social climbs. So now Pepys has found a few excuses to stay at the Montagu's Whitehall housing when he can, but not to flaunt her before people who might introduce her to Court "properly". Note he did not take her to see the New Year's ball. Tomorrow I bet we find out he has an early meeting at Whitehall, and since the weather is awful, staying at Montagu's means he won't be late, By having Elizabeth with him he can save money at home, and make her think she is at Court. Win win win. Will she figure it out?
Why does Pepys refer to James Crofts as the Duke of Monmouth in December 1662? I have paraphrased from the encyclopedia entry:
James Crofts was created Duke of Monmouth on 14 February 1663, at the age of 14, shortly after having been brought to England, with the subsidiary titles of Earl of Doncaster and Baron Scott of Tynedale, all three in the Peerage of England, and on 28 March 1663 he was appointed a Knight of the Garter. On 20 April 1663, Sir James Crofts, Duke of Monmouth was married to the heiress Anne Scott, 4th Countess of Buccleuch, at which time he took the last name of Scott.
Henry VIII's dissolution of the monasteries, many of which had their own vineyards, ended large-scale English wine production. But isolated enthusiasts kept some vine-growing alive. Samuel Pepys records drinking wines from several vineyards around London.
The English invented the process which turns still wine into sparkling wine. The first mention of Sparkling Champagne was in 1676 by Sir George Etherege in The Man of the Mode: "...To the Mall and the Park where we love till 'tis dark, Then sparkling Champaign puts an end to their reign; It quickly recovers poor languishing lovers..."
This was 20 years before the French claim to have made their first sparkling Champagne, in a 1718 document referring to this type of wine around 1695. The essential difference between a still wine and either Champagne or Sparkling wine is the bubbles arise from a second fermentation taking place in the bottle. The carbon dioxide cannot escape and dissolves in the wine, to be released when the wine is drunk. The bottle is under high pressure and 16th century bottles and wooden bungs could not contain it. This did not matter to the French who kept their wine in casks, but the English liked their wine in bottles, and second fermentation caused the bottle to fail. Still wines from Champagne were prone to this because the wine was made in a cool climate and the initial fermentation often stopped prematurely, only to re-start in warm buildings just before consumption. However the sparkling effect improved an otherwise mediocre regional wine. The problem facing English wine coopers was how to control the process.
An accidental improvement in bottle technology gave the English the lead. In 1615 Admiral Sir Robert Mansell persuaded James I to ban the use of wood-fired furnaces, forcing the use of coal. The higher temperatures from coal-fired furnaces produced a stronger glass which, coupled with the re-discovery of cork stoppers, gave the English a wine bottle capable of withstanding gas pressures produced by making the wine sparkling. Mansell retired, built a glassworks, obtained a Royal Patent for the use of coal, and hence a monopoly on making the new glass. English wine coopers now had what they needed for the sparkling method, and in a 1662 paper to the Royal Society by Christopher Merritt entitled ‘The Ordering of Wines’ refers to making sparkling wine by English wine coopers as an established practice. This was 30 years before the French made their first Sparkling Champagne, and 70 years before the first Champagne House was established. The French attribute the process to Dom Perignon, but the only records of his work show he spent his life trying to stop the wine fermenting in the bottle. The historical record shows the French perfected the process, and made Champagne famous. The British invented it. http://www.moorlynch.com/History%…
West Country farmer Christopher Merrett used techniques from the cider industry to control the second fermentation which makes wine fizzy and - crucially - invented the stronger glass needed to prevent the bottle exploding. He gave a paper to the Royal Society in 1662 describing how adding 'vast quantities of sugar and molasses' to French wine made it taste 'brisk and sparkling'. That was more than 30 years before Dom Perignon's work at the Abbey of Hautvillers at Epernay marked the 'official' beginning of a multi-million-pound industry which the French have jealously protected ever since. Christopher Merrett also carried out experiments which led to his masterwork, The Art of Glass, explaining how stronger bottles could be blown by adding iron, manganese or carbon to the molten mixture. Tough glass was essential to prevent the pressure created by the fermenting wine causing the bottles to explode. Early French accounts of champagne production describe the revolutionary bottles as being made of 'verre anglais', or English glass.
1662 Somerset farmer presents to the Royal Society a way to make alcoholic sparkling cider -- which leads to Champagne ...
Pardon Messieurs, but champagne was a BRITISH invention, claims new research By James Tozer UPDATED: 21:01 EST, 26 September 2008 Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/a… It is the most quintessentially French drink, and the pride of a whole nation. But there could be consternation across the Channel after a claim that champagne was invented by an Englishman. Born in 1614, self-taught West Country scientist Christopher Merrett came from an area better known for producing cider. However, records show Christopher Merrett devised two techniques that were fundamental to making champagne decades before Benedictine monk Dom Perignon, who is usually associated with the invention of the ultimate luxury drink. Christopher Merrett used techniques from the cider industry to control the second fermentation which makes wine fizzy and - crucially - invented the stronger glass needed to prevent the bottle exploding. Christopher Merrett, also spelled Merret, gave a paper to the Royal Society in 1662 describing how adding 'vast quantities of sugar and molasses' to French wine made it taste 'brisk and sparkling'. That was more than 30 years before Dom Perignon's work at the Abbey of Hautvillers at Epernay marked the 'official' beginning of a multi-million-pound industry which the French have jealously protected ever since. Christopher Merrett also carried out experiments which led to his masterwork, The Art of Glass, explaining how stronger bottles could be blown by adding iron, manganese or carbon to the molten mixture. Tough glass was essential to prevent the pressure created by the fermenting wine causing the bottles to explode. Early French accounts of champagne production describe the revolutionary bottles as being made of 'verre anglais', or English glass. Christopher Merrett's crucial contribution to the history of both champagne and cider is recounted by author James Crowden in his new book, Ciderland. Crowden said yesterday: 'The French will no doubt guard their rights to the methode champenoise to the last cork and rigorously prevent anyone using the champagne name outside their tightly-controlled region. But they cannot claim, however ingenious they are, to have invented the method for the simple reason they did not have the new stronger English bottles. It is the invention and manufacture of these bottles that is the key to the whole enigma as much as the addition of the extra sugar.'
Just a reminder, Pepys saw the Russian ambassador and followers arrive on November 23. At that time language hat identified them as: ✹ language hat on 28 Nov 2005 • Link • Flag The Russian ambassadors The main ambassador was Prince Pyotr Semyonovich Prozorovsky ... with his sons: http://www.elibron.com/english/ot…... The other ambassador was much younger, Ivan Afanasyevich Zhelyabuzhsky. Discussions did not actually get under way until the following January; there's a description of the mission, for those who read Russian, here: http://www.kreml.ru/ru/main/scien…... I haven't found anything in English.
Up and, with my wife to church, and coming out, went out both before my Lady Batten, he not being there, which I believe will vex her.
I read this snub as being entirely intentional, and only done because Sir William was not there. Pepys has a very low opinion of Lady Elizabeth Turner Woodstocke Batten (Sir William's second wife. They married in 1659; she was the widow of William Woodstocke of Westminster. Pepys quickly developed a low opinion of her: e.g. Thursday 1 August 1661: "I hear how nurse’s husband has spoken strangely of my Lady Batten how she was such a man’s whore" http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1…)
I suspect Samuel is provoking Sir William to act rashly in retaliation.
8 January, 1668. I saw deep and prodigious gaming at the Groom Porter's, vast heaps of gold squandered away in a vain and profuse manner. This I looked on as a horrid vice, and unsuitable in a Christian Court.
✹ Mary on 23 Dec 2005 • Link new way of the Call Book. Call-books recorded the allocation of men to jobs. In this entry we see Pepys introducing his new system of call-books on a trial basis for the next quarter, initially in the Deptford Yards. The experiment was successful, Pepys' system replaced the older system from the summer of 1663 onwards and he took pride in this particular piece of administrative reorganisation. (per L&M).
✹ celtcahill on 24 Dec 2005 • Link The call books would also document who was working and who not. Prevent overbilling for wages of nonexistant staff, and prevent payment to those who didn't work, but might send the sister or wife 'round on the odd errand....
"...I walked together a good while in the Matted Gallery...", so called because it be matted [not dull] with reeds, along with sweet smelling fragranced brushes from the country side along withe scrubs of wormwood for killing of the lice [ escapees from passers bye]. A titbit lifted from E.Picard Elizabeths London. [Then everything be recycled]
Oh, that's why it took Pepys six months to read Hollond's book ... he was copying it. Now he's taken it to the book-binders for a nice leather cover to match the rest of his library.
My guess why Pepys didn't go home: according to the good Rev. " ... a clear freezing morning after it began to thaw, and carry away the ice, ..." Pepys stays in bed until he has to go to Church, giving the downstairs servants a break after a busy week cleaning up. The weather is fine, and after lunch he walks many miles to Whitehall to see the King in church, and to meet with Montagu. He lingers playing music and gossiping with his friends. By 4 p.m. it is dark, cold, wet and there are no carriages available, and going by water is unthinkable. Then Montagu calls him back, so he decides to camp with friends. Let's hope he dispatched The Boy to tell Elizabeth he wouldn't be home; Pepys usually omits mention of Wayneman's services, and I doubt he would have set out that afternoon to see Montagu without a servant in tow. Besides Elizabeth knew where he was going.
My annotation disappeared, so this may be a duplicate: Pepys seems to be having a hard time with this book:
http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1… Friday, 25 July, 1662 -- At the office all the morning, reading Mr. Hollond’s discourse of the Navy, lent me by Mr. Turner, and am much pleased with them, they hitting the very diseases of the Navy, which we are troubled with now-a-days. I shall bestow writing of them over and much reading thereof.
I'm shocked ... Elizabeth returned from Brampton on Saturday, 27 September, 1662, and this is the first time she has gone to church? That's 10 Sundays ... I would have thought that the turmoil caused by the adoption of the new Book of Common Prayer would mean there was more scrutiny of attendance than usual ... but apparently not.
To save others from searching for this information, here's a repost about the letter that was keeping Pepys awake at night: ✹ Terry F on 6 Nov 2005 • Link • Flag "my Lord Treasurer’s letter" -- L&M note on 11 December referring to "our great letter, so long in doing, to my Lord Treasurer": "This was a statement of account, dated this day, relating to a parliamentary grant of 29 January 1662 for wages, paid and payable, for the period 19 March-10 September. The grant had amounted to £417,220 and the expenditure to £142,446. ... It had been in preparation since 6 November. http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1… Thomas Wriothesley (4th Earl of Southampton, Lord Treasurer 1660-1667)
Pepys worked until 10 at night, then home for supper, and then read a play before going to bed. I wonder who stayed up to feed him. It must have been after 1 a.m. when he hit the sack. That's a lot of candles, which were expensive. I wonder what Elizabeth was up to all that time. No wonder she was bored.
And the Diary continues "... and that he was very angry and hot, and said he would speak to the Duke. To which, knowing that all this was but to scare me, and to get him to put off his resolution of making up the entry, I did tell him plainly how I did not value his anger more, than he did mine, and that I should be willing to do what the Duke commanded, and I was sure to have justice of him, and that was all I did say to him about it, though I was much vexed, and after a little stay went home; and there telling my wife she did put me into heart, and resolve to offer him to change lodgings, and believe that that will one way or other bring us to some end in this dispute."
I read Pepys as saying that he recognized this gossip was designed to upset Sam, provoking him into doing something stupid. However, Pepys called Penn's bluff by saying he was so sure of the Duke's sense of Justice he was willing to offer to swap housing. However, Pepys was upset by the conversation and cooled his heels in the garden before going home and persuading Elizabeth that this was the only way to kick the argument far enough upstairs that the dispute could be ended in their favor. A gutsy move.
Comments
Second Reading
About Monday 5 January 1662/63
San Diego Sarah • Link
I found this annotation which might explain why the Duke of York was so attentive this evening:
✹ Bill on 13 Sep 2015 • Link
“my Lady Chesterfield is gone into the country for it” Peter Cunningham thinks that this banishment was only temporary, for, according to the Grammont Memoirs, Elizabeth Butler Stanhope, Countess of Chesterfield was in town when the Russian ambassador was in London, December, 1662, and January, 1663.
About Mediterranean (The Straits)
San Diego Sarah • Link
Am I right in thinking these pirates went on to be the Barbary Pirates in the 19th Century ... and possibly ISIS today? Looks like the same area and tribes to me ... ?
About Sunday 4 January 1662/63
San Diego Sarah • Link
I recall Pepys promised Elizabeth that he would not go to Court or see the new Queen until she could go with him. He did not keep his word. Now she's bored and restless, and Ms. Gosnell made her aware of being kept at home as Pepys social climbs. So now Pepys has found a few excuses to stay at the Montagu's Whitehall housing when he can, but not to flaunt her before people who might introduce her to Court "properly". Note he did not take her to see the New Year's ball. Tomorrow I bet we find out he has an early meeting at Whitehall, and since the weather is awful, staying at Montagu's means he won't be late, By having Elizabeth with him he can save money at home, and make her think she is at Court. Win win win. Will she figure it out?
About James Scott ("Mr Crofts", 1st Duke of Monmouth)
San Diego Sarah • Link
Why does Pepys refer to James Crofts as the Duke of Monmouth in December 1662? I have paraphrased from the encyclopedia entry:
James Crofts was created Duke of Monmouth on 14 February 1663, at the age of 14, shortly after having been brought to England, with the subsidiary titles of Earl of Doncaster and Baron Scott of Tynedale, all three in the Peerage of England, and on 28 March 1663 he was appointed a Knight of the Garter. On 20 April 1663, Sir James Crofts, Duke of Monmouth was married to the heiress Anne Scott, 4th Countess of Buccleuch, at which time he took the last name of Scott.
About Wine
San Diego Sarah • Link
Henry VIII's dissolution of the monasteries, many of which had their own vineyards, ended large-scale English wine production. But isolated enthusiasts kept some vine-growing alive. Samuel Pepys records drinking wines from several vineyards around London.
The English invented the process which turns still wine into sparkling wine. The first mention of Sparkling Champagne was in 1676 by Sir George Etherege in The Man of the Mode:
"...To the Mall and the Park where we love till 'tis dark,
Then sparkling Champaign puts an end to their reign;
It quickly recovers poor languishing lovers..."
This was 20 years before the French claim to have made their first sparkling Champagne, in a 1718 document referring to this type of wine around 1695.
The essential difference between a still wine and either Champagne or Sparkling wine is the bubbles arise from a second fermentation taking place in the bottle. The carbon dioxide cannot escape and dissolves in the wine, to be released when the wine is drunk. The bottle is under high pressure and 16th century bottles and wooden bungs could not contain it. This did not matter to the French who kept their wine in casks, but the English liked their wine in bottles, and second fermentation caused the bottle to fail.
Still wines from Champagne were prone to this because the wine was made in a cool climate and the initial fermentation often stopped prematurely, only to re-start in warm buildings just before consumption. However the sparkling effect improved an otherwise mediocre regional wine. The problem facing English wine coopers was how to control the process.
An accidental improvement in bottle technology gave the English the lead. In 1615 Admiral Sir Robert Mansell persuaded James I to ban the use of wood-fired furnaces, forcing the use of coal. The higher temperatures from coal-fired furnaces produced a stronger glass which, coupled with the re-discovery of cork stoppers, gave the English a wine bottle capable of withstanding gas pressures produced by making the wine sparkling.
Mansell retired, built a glassworks, obtained a Royal Patent for the use of coal, and hence a monopoly on making the new glass.
English wine coopers now had what they needed for the sparkling method, and in a 1662 paper to the Royal Society by Christopher Merritt entitled ‘The Ordering of Wines’ refers to making sparkling wine by English wine coopers as an established practice.
This was 30 years before the French made their first Sparkling Champagne, and 70 years before the first Champagne House was established. The French attribute the process to Dom Perignon, but the only records of his work show he spent his life trying to stop the wine fermenting in the bottle.
The historical record shows the French perfected the process, and made Champagne famous. The British invented it.
http://www.moorlynch.com/History%…
About Wednesday 31 December 1662
San Diego Sarah • Link
West Country farmer Christopher Merrett used techniques from the cider industry to control the second fermentation which makes wine fizzy and - crucially - invented the stronger glass needed to prevent the bottle exploding. He gave a paper to the Royal Society in 1662 describing how adding 'vast quantities of sugar and molasses' to French wine made it taste 'brisk and sparkling'. That was more than 30 years before Dom Perignon's work at the Abbey of Hautvillers at Epernay marked the 'official' beginning of a multi-million-pound industry which the French have jealously protected ever since.
Christopher Merrett also carried out experiments which led to his masterwork, The Art of Glass, explaining how stronger bottles could be blown by adding iron, manganese or carbon to the molten mixture. Tough glass was essential to prevent the pressure created by the fermenting wine causing the bottles to explode. Early French accounts of champagne production describe the revolutionary bottles as being made of 'verre anglais', or English glass.
About Cider
San Diego Sarah • Link
1662 Somerset farmer presents to the Royal Society a way to make alcoholic sparkling cider -- which leads to Champagne ...
Pardon Messieurs, but champagne was a BRITISH invention, claims new research
By James Tozer
UPDATED: 21:01 EST, 26 September 2008
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/a…
It is the most quintessentially French drink, and the pride of a whole nation. But there could be consternation across the Channel after a claim that champagne was invented by an Englishman.
Born in 1614, self-taught West Country scientist Christopher Merrett came from an area better known for producing cider.
However, records show Christopher Merrett devised two techniques that were fundamental to making champagne decades before Benedictine monk Dom Perignon, who is usually associated with the invention of the ultimate luxury drink.
Christopher Merrett used techniques from the cider industry to control the second fermentation which makes wine fizzy and - crucially - invented the stronger glass needed to prevent the bottle exploding.
Christopher Merrett, also spelled Merret, gave a paper to the Royal Society in 1662 describing how adding 'vast quantities of sugar and molasses' to French wine made it taste 'brisk and sparkling'. That was more than 30 years before Dom Perignon's work at the Abbey of Hautvillers at Epernay marked the 'official' beginning of a multi-million-pound industry which the French have jealously protected ever since.
Christopher Merrett also carried out experiments which led to his masterwork, The Art of Glass, explaining how stronger bottles could be blown by adding iron, manganese or carbon to the molten mixture.
Tough glass was essential to prevent the pressure created by the fermenting wine causing the bottles to explode. Early French accounts of champagne production describe the revolutionary bottles as being made of 'verre anglais', or English glass.
Christopher Merrett's crucial contribution to the history of both champagne and cider is recounted by author James Crowden in his new book, Ciderland.
Crowden said yesterday: 'The French will no doubt guard their rights to the methode champenoise to the last cork and rigorously prevent anyone using the champagne name outside their tightly-controlled region. But they cannot claim, however ingenious they are, to have invented the method for the simple reason they did not have the new stronger English bottles.
It is the invention and manufacture of these bottles that is the key to the whole enigma as much as the addition of the extra sugar.'
About Monday 29 December 1662
San Diego Sarah • Link
Just a reminder, Pepys saw the Russian ambassador and followers arrive on November 23. At that time language hat identified them as:
✹ language hat on 28 Nov 2005 • Link • Flag
The Russian ambassadors The main ambassador was Prince Pyotr Semyonovich Prozorovsky ... with his sons: http://www.elibron.com/english/ot…...
The other ambassador was much younger, Ivan Afanasyevich Zhelyabuzhsky. Discussions did not actually get under way until the following January; there's a description of the mission, for those who read Russian, here: http://www.kreml.ru/ru/main/scien…... I haven't found anything in English.
About Sunday 28 December 1662
San Diego Sarah • Link
Up and, with my wife to church, and coming out, went out both before my Lady Batten, he not being there, which I believe will vex her.
I read this snub as being entirely intentional, and only done because Sir William was not there. Pepys has a very low opinion of Lady Elizabeth Turner Woodstocke Batten (Sir William's second wife. They married in 1659; she was the widow of William Woodstocke of Westminster. Pepys quickly developed a low opinion of her: e.g. Thursday 1 August 1661: "I hear how nurse’s husband has spoken strangely of my Lady Batten how she was such a man’s whore" http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1…)
I suspect Samuel is provoking Sir William to act rashly in retaliation.
About Groom-Porter
San Diego Sarah • Link
John Evelyn's Diary –
8 January, 1668. I saw deep and prodigious gaming at the Groom Porter's, vast heaps of gold squandered away in a vain and profuse manner. This I looked on as a horrid vice, and unsuitable in a Christian Court.
http://brittlebooks.library.illin…
About Call-book
San Diego Sarah • Link
✹ Mary on 23 Dec 2005 • Link
new way of the Call Book. Call-books recorded the allocation of men to jobs. In this entry we see Pepys introducing his new system of call-books on a trial basis for the next quarter, initially in the Deptford Yards. The experiment was successful, Pepys' system replaced the older system from the summer of 1663 onwards and he took pride in this particular piece of administrative reorganisation. (per L&M).
✹ celtcahill on 24 Dec 2005 • Link
The call books would also document who was working and who not. Prevent overbilling for wages of nonexistant staff, and prevent payment to those who didn't work, but might send the sister or wife 'round on the odd errand....
About Long/Matted Gallery (Whitehall Palace)
San Diego Sarah • Link
in Aqua Scripto on 21 Dec 2005 • Link • Flag
"...I walked together a good while in the Matted Gallery...", so called because it be matted [not dull] with reeds, along with sweet smelling fragranced brushes from the country side along withe scrubs of wormwood for killing of the lice [ escapees from passers bye]. A titbit lifted from E.Picard Elizabeths London. [Then everything be recycled]
About Thursday 18 December 1662
San Diego Sarah • Link
Oh, that's why it took Pepys six months to read Hollond's book ... he was copying it. Now he's taken it to the book-binders for a nice leather cover to match the rest of his library.
About Sunday 14 December 1662
San Diego Sarah • Link
My guess why Pepys didn't go home: according to the good Rev. " ... a clear freezing morning after it began to thaw, and carry away the ice, ..." Pepys stays in bed until he has to go to Church, giving the downstairs servants a break after a busy week cleaning up. The weather is fine, and after lunch he walks many miles to Whitehall to see the King in church, and to meet with Montagu. He lingers playing music and gossiping with his friends. By 4 p.m. it is dark, cold, wet and there are no carriages available, and going by water is unthinkable. Then Montagu calls him back, so he decides to camp with friends. Let's hope he dispatched The Boy to tell Elizabeth he wouldn't be home; Pepys usually omits mention of Wayneman's services, and I doubt he would have set out that afternoon to see Montagu without a servant in tow. Besides Elizabeth knew where he was going.
About Friday 12 December 1662
San Diego Sarah • Link
"... sat talking with her all the afternoon ..." Given Gosnell, Sarah, and Susan, I wish we were in on this conversation!
And add to that list Balty's involvement and lies. Sam and Elizabeth better be talking.
About Friday 12 December 1662
San Diego Sarah • Link
My annotation disappeared, so this may be a duplicate: Pepys seems to be having a hard time with this book:
http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1…
Friday, 25 July, 1662 -- At the office all the morning, reading Mr. Hollond’s discourse of the Navy, lent me by Mr. Turner, and am much pleased with them, they hitting the very diseases of the Navy, which we are troubled with now-a-days. I shall bestow writing of them over and much reading thereof.
About Sunday 7 December 1662
San Diego Sarah • Link
I'm shocked ... Elizabeth returned from Brampton on Saturday, 27 September, 1662, and this is the first time she has gone to church? That's 10 Sundays ... I would have thought that the turmoil caused by the adoption of the new Book of Common Prayer would mean there was more scrutiny of attendance than usual ... but apparently not.
About Wednesday 19 November 1662
San Diego Sarah • Link
To save others from searching for this information, here's a repost about the letter that was keeping Pepys awake at night:
✹ Terry F on 6 Nov 2005 • Link • Flag
"my Lord Treasurer’s letter" -- L&M note on 11 December referring to "our great letter, so long in doing, to my Lord Treasurer":
"This was a statement of account, dated this day, relating to a parliamentary grant of 29 January 1662 for wages, paid and payable, for the period 19 March-10 September. The grant had amounted to £417,220 and the expenditure to £142,446. ... It had been in preparation since 6 November. http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1…
Thomas Wriothesley (4th Earl of Southampton, Lord Treasurer 1660-1667)
About Saturday 15 November 1662
San Diego Sarah • Link
Pepys worked until 10 at night, then home for supper, and then read a play before going to bed. I wonder who stayed up to feed him. It must have been after 1 a.m. when he hit the sack. That's a lot of candles, which were expensive. I wonder what Elizabeth was up to all that time. No wonder she was bored.
About Wednesday 5 November 1662
San Diego Sarah • Link
And the Diary continues "... and that he was very angry and hot, and said he would speak to the Duke. To which, knowing that all this was but to scare me, and to get him to put off his resolution of making up the entry, I did tell him plainly how I did not value his anger more, than he did mine, and that I should be willing to do what the Duke commanded, and I was sure to have justice of him, and that was all I did say to him about it, though I was much vexed, and after a little stay went home; and there telling my wife she did put me into heart, and resolve to offer him to change lodgings, and believe that that will one way or other bring us to some end in this dispute."
I read Pepys as saying that he recognized this gossip was designed to upset Sam, provoking him into doing something stupid. However, Pepys called Penn's bluff by saying he was so sure of the Duke's sense of Justice he was willing to offer to swap housing. However, Pepys was upset by the conversation and cooled his heels in the garden before going home and persuading Elizabeth that this was the only way to kick the argument far enough upstairs that the dispute could be ended in their favor. A gutsy move.