If I were writing my above annotations today, I'd be less sure that Penn's son was William Jr.
According to Adm. Sir William Penn MP's website https://www.historyofparliamenton… he has 2 sons. The younger one is never mentioned by name in Pepys' Diary, so we have no Encyclopedia page for him. We have no independent corroberation that William Jr. came to the Coronation.
Has anyone read a biography of either Penns with more info???
The building belongs to the Navy. The recently-departed plasterers and painters were Navy employees, and someone had found the official accounting entry which covered the payment. So I had assumed these carpenters were also Navy employees, and the work approved by Treasurer Slingsby.
If this was correct, I would think all the carpenters were technically "foreigners" and not members of the City of London guild, but obviously that's not the case. I am kerfuffled.
I recently broke my right arm, and find typing really hard. If someone can find those account's link, maybe we can find out who paid for the staircase? That might give us some clues.
Brits have a problem with American plain speaking. Saying YES when you really mean NO doesn't work on a continent where people speak over 50 languages at home. Keeping it simple and clear in unequivical English is essential.
Meghan probably hadn't "lost her temper" -- she didn't know how to phrase her instructions to a lady-in-waiting in such a way that they didn't sound like instructions, couched with please, maybe, whenever, if, possibly, please. I can testify that we do speak different dialects, and what's 'normal' and polite is frequently different. Being an immigrant on top of joining the RF would be a lot for the strongest ego to endure. It took over 5 years for me to feel any level of comfort -- and I didn't have any of Meghan's learning curve requirements. The Queen would have been more effective by taking Meghan aside and telling her quietly how to phrase whatever, rather than telling her not to do something. And then leaking unkind apocryphal stories like this finally broke the poor woman, and the result was Britain lost their Harry.
Sorry, Phil, I know you hate it when we go off on tangents like this. Feel free to delete.
"... Presbyterian clergy in Samuel Pepys's day were typically well-educated individuals who had undergone formal theological training and held university degrees ... and that the preacher did not do the hard work ..."
My theory is that Pepys wanted to know what this new-fangled State religion was all about, and was frustrated when the same old rant he'd lived with for 15-plus years was delivered. Charles II opted to unravel the Universities before tackling the parishes.
"... in our way met with two country fellows upon one horse, which I did, without much ado, give the way to, but Sir W. Pen would not, but struck them and they him, and so passed away, but they giving him some high words, he went back again and struck them off their horse, in a simple fury, and without much honour, in my mind, and so came away."
One way the Upper Classes kept control was by never turning a blind eye to any breach of privilege. Pepys hasn't adjusted to that yet, and doesn't find it alarming to share the road. But Adm. Penn knows these country bumpkins need a lesson in civility -- and he probably thinks Pepys needs to smarten up and learn how it's done -- so he acts as an Admiral of the Realm would.
When thinking about slavery in the 17th century, remember how they were accustomed to treating their British servants -- it wasn't pretty.
Date Candidate 11 Apr. 1660 ROBERT ELLISON WILLIAM CALVERLEY 29 Aug. 1660 SIR FRANCIS ANDERSON vice Calverley, deceased 10 Apr. 1661 SIR FRANCIS ANDERSON SIR JOHN MARLAY Sir Robert Slingsby, Bt. 3 Dec. 1673 WILLIAM BLACKETT vice Marlay, deceased
The corporation of Newcastle consisted of the mayor, the recorder and the sheriff, who acted as returning officer, 10 aldermen and a common council of 24. Both the corporation and the Members of Parliament were elected by the freemen, although the indirect method used in municipal elections favored control by the merchant oligarchy. All the successful candidates at this time came from this class, and all except William Calverley were in trade.
Newcastle’s Members were active in defending the interests of the local merchant adventurers and the hostmen, or coal exporters, on whose trade the prosperity of the town depended. Consequently the payment of parliamentary wages continued until 1685.
At the 1660 general election, Robert Ellison, a Presbyterian, was returned with Calverley, an obscure lawyer who took out his freedom on the occasion.
The Restoration was greeted with a loyal address expressing the hope that Charles II might prove ‘the instrument to unite a divided church, compose a distracted kingdom, and ease an oppressed people’.
A new writ was ordered on 23 July after Calverley’s death; but the by-election was not held until the franchise had been restored to Sir John Marlay, hero of the Scottish siege in 1644, and 9 other Royalists. The new Member was a Cavalier officer, Sir Francis Anderson, whose election set the political tone for the rest of the period. A further royalist success followed at the municipal elections on 1 Oct., when they wrested control from the close-knit group that had governed Newcastle during the Interregnum.
Anderson stood for reelection in 1661 with Marlay, although the latter had been compromised during the Protectorate. The Duke of York recommended another Cavalier, Sir Robert Slingsby, the comptroller of the navy, who was connected with the Northumberland gentry by marriage, and considered it both easy and proper for the principal officers ‘to labour to get into the Parliament’. The labor had to be performed by deputy, as Slingsby was in London on election day and never even took out his freedom. Anderson and Marlay were returned by ‘the greater part of the burgesses’, and when George Liddell, a royalist conspirator, petitioned on 15 May, he alleged no electoral irregularities but only Marlay’s betrayal in 1658. The Commons spent the whole morning on the affair, then rejected the petition, and Liddell took no further action.
On Marlay’s death in 1673 he was succeeded by William Blackett, a prominent coal-owner, who was re-elected with Anderson at the first election of 1679. ...
"I went to the Banquethouse, and there saw the King heal, the first time that ever I saw him do it; which he did with great gravity, and it seemed to me to be an ugly office and a simple one."
L&M: “A highwayman: it was common to erect gallows at the scene of the crime. The body of the malefactor would sometimes be soaked in tar to preserve it. Shooter’s Hill, about eight miles out of London, was one of the most dangerous points on the Dover Road; the way was steep, narrow and fringed by woods. Many robberies were committed there until, under an act of 1739, a new road was built up the hill.”
For an organization with a Holy Ghost, that sounds reasonable to us post-Enlightenment spirits. But they were a superstitious lot, with an incomplete understanding of cause-and-effect -- besides which, although I profess not to believe in ghosts, I have experienced one event that defies logical explanation.
There are situations which defy all understanding. Where is your Bible when you need it? On a shelf somewhere. Which passage do you read?
"... I put my Lady, Mrs. Turner, Mrs. Hempson, and the two Mrs. Allens into the lanthorn and I went in and kissed them, demanding it as a fee due to a principall officer, ..."
Attaboy! Pepys is getting the hang of how to behave in his new role in life.
L&M: Vincent Delabarr (a merchant) had been the collector of customs at Sandwich -- an office from which he had been dismissed for alleged disloyalty to the Commonwealth.
One thing not reflected in the early years of the Diary is that courtiers were trying to get rid of Chancellor Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon from day one. One man who was a consistant opponent was George Digby, 2nd Earl of Bristol. https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
This long set of annotations gives lots of background info. on issues covered in the Diary from 1550-1669. For the whole of Bristol's strange life, see https://dev.historyofparliamenton…
Having spent the afternoon with this strange tale of George Digby, 2nd Earl of Bristol, I have great sympathy with his wife, Anne Russell Digby, Lady Bristol. She married a Protestant, threw him out of the house when he became a Catholic -- but still had to cooperate with him in petitioning Charles II to protect son John's future. Then she had to spend her own money buying back the rights, presumably because Digby was too stubborn to do so? His mansion in Wimbledon was a palace, see https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
In Feb. 1668 Edward, Viscount Conway remarked of the uncertainties and chaos afflicting government policy that ‘Lord Bristol thinks himself in as good favour as ever, but Lord A[rlington], says he is not, and never will be employed. The king gives good words and good countenance to friends and foes alike, without any distinction’.
Bristol was influential enough to be credited with the reconciliation between Charles II and his namesake Charles Stuart, 3rd duke of Richmond.
In April Bristol was granted the superintendence of banks and monts de piété (a form of pawnbroker) in London, Westminster and other cities.
In Parliament also in April he was named as one of the managers of the conference on the impeachment of Adm. Sir William Penn. On 8 May during the debate relating to the conference over the dispute arising from Skinner’s case Bristol was said to have spoken ‘excellently well, and in favour of the Commons’ which probably explains why his name was deleted from the list of managers in the manuscript minutes.
That Bristol was now in favour with Charles II is confirmed by a warrant for the payment of £1,000 issued to him in June 1668. In July a further £200 was granted and there was a report that he was to go ambassador to Spain.
Although he and Buckingham had taken opposite sides during Skinner’s case, Bristol was still reckoned to be one of Buckingham’s followers in Jan. 1669.
That same month his growing confidence in Charles II’s goodwill led him to draw up a petition to the crown for recompense in which he pointedly referred both to his own merits and to his frustrations at Clarendon’s hands. His claims were referred to a small committee consisting of Sir Orlando Bridgeman, Anglesey and the two secretaries of state. They reported in his favour recommending that his £10,000 grant should be renewed and that he should be given a pension of £2,000 ‘so that after his eminent services, he may be comfortable the remainder of his life.’ The king subsequently turned this into a grant of a pension of £2,000 plus a second pension to Lady Bristol of £1,000 with a reversion after her death to their younger son, Francis, until he in turn succeeded to his own reversion of a place as auditor of the receipt.
During the short 1669 session Bristol was present on 64 per cent of sitting days. Although still considered an ally of Buckingham, in Nov. 1669 the 2 peers were again at odds over the bill spawned in the Commons as a result of Skinner’s case and designed to prevent the House of Lords from hearing original causes. Bristol and George, 9th Baron Berkeley were said to be the only peers who voted in its favour.
Military reverses over the summer of 1667 also strengthened Bristol’s position by discrediting the ministry in which Clarendon had played so important a part.
Bristol took his seat again on 29 June, 1667 for the prorogation. He and Clarendon saluted each other, but Bristol did not wear his robes and carefully absented himself from the chamber whilst the king was present.
Ominously for Clarendon, Bristol returned to the House on 16 Oct. 1667, a few days after the opening of the 1667-9 session. He was then present for just over 82 per cent of sitting days and was named to 16 committees. His return took place amidst reports that he was rising in the king’s favour. By mid-Nov. 1667 Pepys wrote that Bristol and Buckingham provided ‘the only counsel the king follows’. Bristol was also reported to have encouraged Lady Dacres to petition for a private bill which suggests that his intention to return to public life was well known.
The business of the House for the remainder of 1667 was dominated by the attack on Clarendon. Bristol was named as one of the managers of the conferences with the Commons concerning Clarendon’s impeachment that were held on 15, 19, 25, 28 Nov. and 4, 6 and 14 Dec. 1667.
He was not present for the conference on 21 Nov. On 22 Nov. he was appointed to the committee to draw up reasons for a conference about procedural issues relating to conferences but did not attend the House on 23 Nov. when the conference was held. His involvement in the attack on Clarendon was underlined by his signature to the protest of 20 Nov. against the resolution not to commit Clarendon without a specific charge. During a debate in the House on 27 Nov. about the conference to be held the following day, he repeated his belief that the House should reverse its vote and commit Clarendon, ‘but the generality of the House disliked that and it was ordered without a question that we should give them a free conference’.
With Bristol threatening to attend the new session, its opening was delayed as troops laid in wait to arrest him as he arrived at the House; when he did not, they went to search his house in Wimbledon -- but he escaped through a back door.
Bristol wrote a further letter to his ally James Compton, 3rd earl of Northampton. During the ensuing debate on 22 Mar. Northampton, with the backing of John, Baron Lucas of Shenfield, spoke of Bristol’s rights and privileges as a peer, but the House decided to deliver the letters unopened to the king. The following day Lady Bristol approached several peers in the lobby in an attempt to deliver a petition; all refused to accept it. The king declared that ‘no age had produced so false and shameless a person’ and rumors circulated that Bristol would be impeached.
Bristol was now ‘flying on only one wing’; in a last desperate attempt to justify himself he circulated copies of his letters, but the failure of the House to defend his claim to privilege had handed victory to the king and Clarendon. Further searches were made for him, but Bristol had fled and was, wrote Sir Thomas Brathwaite, ‘looked upon as a lost man’.
Payment of the £10,000 that had been ordered towards his arrears as secretary of state was suspended.
Bristol's health broke down and in Oct. 1664 he petitioned Charles II for readmission to his presence or for the right to return to his own house. Lady Bristol presented a further petition in Nov. asking for her husband to be allowed to return home for health reasons. The queen mother supported the request, and Bristol was allowed to return to Sherborne. Slowly Killigrew’s prediction about Bristol’s rehabilitation proved to be correct.
By Jan. 1665 Lady Bristol was being ‘graciously received at court’. By Feb., the king would once again allow Bristol’s name to be mentioned in his presence, although those who visited him still took care to let it be known that it was Lady Bristol who was the object of their attentions.
Bristol stayed away from Parliament but his allies Lauderdale and Ashley were increasingly in favour. A further sign of Bristol’s restoration to favour came with Sunderland’s marriage to Anne Digby in June 1665.
In Aug. 1666 Pepys reported that ‘Bristol’s faction is getting ground apace against my lord chancellor.’
In Jan. 1667 when the Commons’ decision to investigate 3 chancery decrees signalled that Clarendon’s position was once more under threat, there were some who believed that despite his absence from Parliament, Bristol’s hand was again at work.
Charles II’s fickle nature left some of his courtiers convinced that, for all his protestations, Bristol’s disgrace might not be a lasting one. In March 1664 even as the king fulminated against Bristol, Thomas Killigrew made him and the rest of the court laugh as he waved two sixpences and demanded to know what the king would give him ‘for this money, when you believe him again?’
Almost simultaneously Bristol wrote letters to several of the king’s ministers. In his letter to Secretary Morrice he explained that his actions in the previous session had been prompted ‘by an excess of zeal … beyond the bounds of that great reverence with which subjects ought to tender even their best and most affectionate advices to their sovereign’ and that having been forbidden the court he naturally withdrew to a ‘strict retirement’ which meant that he was entirely ignorant of the proclamation for his apprehension. Determined to appear immediately before the Privy Council, he had been prevented from doing so by illness and with the approach of the session was now in a quandary knowing, "not which way to govern my self betwixt the duty which I owe unto his majesty’s proclamation, obliging me to appear before the honourable board, and that regard which at the same time I owe to the high and important privilege of the house of peers; It is that wherein I humbly desire the direction of the honourable board; how a person so resigned as I am to duty and obedience in all kinds ought to behave himself." Morrice appears to have given his letter to Clarendon. A letter directed to Albemarle is also amongst Clarendon’s papers. Arthur Annesley, earl of Anglesey, left his sick bed and took his straight to the king.
In a letter addressed to the king, Bristol requested a private audience to reveal a ‘great secret’ that had been kept from him by Clarendon; he threatened that the king would be ‘lost’ if the matter were revealed in Parliament and offered to surrender to Albemarle or Oxford. Comminges reported that, behind the scenes, first d’Aubigny and then Henry Jermyn, earl of St. Albans, and Sir John Berkeley attempted to act as mediators. Charles II and York were prepared to settle for a recantation in Parliament but Clarendon considered this would reduce the king’s authority and strengthen that of Parliament. An offer from Bristol to apologize verbally or in writing to the king and volunteer to stay away from court until permitted to return was also refused by Clarendon. Bristol volunteered to go into exile, but only if he could have an act of indemnity so he could eventually return to England without fear of further proceedings. This was refused by Clarendon who considered it ‘prejudicial to royal authority and shameful to his dignity.’ Bristol had not abandoned his attempts at intimidation for he maintained he had evidence against Clarendon ‘but that he would never make use of it out of the respect he had for his majesty’.
But Bristol had not stopped trying to find evidence against Clarendon; it was reported in Sept. that he had sent an agent to the Dutch Republic, looking for a financial connection between de Witt and Clarendon.
He also prepared his defence. His papers include an undated fragment in which he wrote: "In case an imaginary charge of treason should be brought in to the House against the earl of Bristol to keep him from coming to the Parliament as was done heretofore to his father. It is hoped the lords will do him the same justice they did to the lord chancellor that it may be put to the judges to know whether his charge amount to treason or no before their lordships proceed to remove him from his place in the house. If he be charged of any lesser crime it is hoped he shall according to the constant practice of the peers be heard speak for himself in his place, before there be any proceeding against him."
At the Old Bailey in late Aug. or early Sept. 1663, Bristol and John Digby, son of Sir Kenelm Digby, were indicted for recusancy. John Digby’s estate was sequestered, more as an affront to Bristol than as a punishment for Digby. Bristol’s estates were safe as he had protected his property by transferring them to his son.
Bristol also reconverted to the Anglican church. Rumors of his conversion surfaced in Nov. when he was said to be in London ‘and bottoms himself mostly on the Presbyterian interest being now turned Protestant again’.
At first the accuracy of the story was doubted; as one observer remarked, no versions agreed ‘in the circumstances of time, place, or accidents contributory to the publication of his conversion.’
The rumors were confirmed in Jan. 1664 when Bristol attended the parish church in Wimbledon. The following month the minister and 3 of Bristol’s servants were arrested and imprisoned for failing to obey the king’s proclamation, as were the churchwardens and parish constable, but Bristol’s recusancy was discharged.
Rumors that Charles II was still fond of Bristol, and that the attack on Clarendon would be renewed continued to circulate. As the new session of Parliament approached there were reports that Bristol’s agent was preparing ‘rich liveries coaches and other equipage’ so his master could make a magnificent entrance. Bristol, apparently unrepentant, was making ‘great brags’ about what he would do in the new session leading Clarendon to insist the session open on 16 Mar. as planned rather than be postponed as might have been appropriate. The king tried to dispel any belief that he still had a lingering regard for Bristol by declaring, "that if any of his privy council abet my Lord Bristol he will remove him from the council, if any of his servants he will dismiss them his service, if any other person he will forbid them his presence: and take such farther course against my lord and all that appear for him as the indignities offered to his person and government deserve."
That Charles II wanted Bristol arrested was widely known; questions about whether this could or could not be achieved without a breach of parliamentary privilege were being asked. Conscious of the danger in which he stood, Bristol refused to request the protection of the House in the interval between sessions, ‘as being to doubt his majesty’s justice, and to no purpose, for that if they denied him he was undone, but if granted it would give no more security than their order to proceed, which is an implicit protection, and his restraint will do the other person more injury than it can do him’. With the assistance of Buckingham and Philip, 4th Baron Wharton, he was lobbying behind the scenes in an attempt to secure a resolution ‘that no member ought to be questioned elsewhere, for what passes within those walls’. He also made a determined effort to secure wider support, presumably aiming at influencing opinion in the Commons.
From 9 July, "and some days after, he quitted his ordinary way of going to the Lords house, and came through the great hall and exchequer chamber with his hat in his hand saluting with a sad and humble countenance all the crowd that followed, wishing him all success, he showed himself several days upon the exchange and told many considerable merchants his story, which is but too well received and credited."
For the rest of the session Bristol continued to parade himself in public, ‘playing on the bowling green every day’. He was also paying attention to his own personal affairs. French ambassador Comminges wrote that, "the very day that he caused all this uproar he married his elder son, a man of less than mediocre talent, to an advocate’s daughter, a great friend of the late Cromwell, who is giving him ten thousand jacobus in cash, ten thousand at the birth of the first child and ten thousand after his death, which is a fine marriage, especially only having one son who might die."
The session ended on 27 July, 1663. Attempts were then made to arrest Bristol ‘for attempts of a high nature by him committed against our person and government and to the end he might be brought to answer, and to a legal trial’. No specific crime was imputed, but according to Secretary Morrice, Bristol’s offence was to have told Charles II in July 1663 that ‘if he suffered his enemies to have such an access to and credit with his majesty, he would raise such a storm as he should feel the effects thereof.’
Bristol vanished. A proclamation for his apprehension was issued on 25 Aug. and, balked of its prey, the Privy Council also ordered that Bristol be prosecuted in his absence for recusancy. According to French ambassador Comminges, this was yet another sign of the government’s weakness that ‘will assuredly serve only to undermine royal power and blame the conduct of his ministers.’
Comments
Third Reading
About Monday 22 April 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
If I were writing my above annotations today, I'd be less sure that Penn's son was William Jr.
According to Adm. Sir William Penn MP's website
https://www.historyofparliamenton…
he has 2 sons. The younger one is never mentioned by name in Pepys' Diary, so we have no Encyclopedia page for him.
We have no independent corroberation that William Jr. came to the Coronation.
Has anyone read a biography of either Penns with more info???
About Sunday 21 April 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
This foreigner word is a puzzle.
The building belongs to the Navy. The recently-departed plasterers and painters were Navy employees, and someone had found the official accounting entry which covered the payment. So I had assumed these carpenters were also Navy employees, and the work approved by Treasurer Slingsby.
If this was correct, I would think all the carpenters were technically "foreigners" and not members of the City of London guild, but obviously that's not the case. I am kerfuffled.
I recently broke my right arm, and find typing really hard. If someone can find those account's link, maybe we can find out who paid for the staircase? That might give us some clues.
About Thursday 18 April 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
Brits have a problem with American plain speaking. Saying YES when you really mean NO doesn't work on a continent where people speak over 50 languages at home. Keeping it simple and clear in unequivical English is essential.
Meghan probably hadn't "lost her temper" -- she didn't know how to phrase her instructions to a lady-in-waiting in such a way that they didn't sound like instructions, couched with please, maybe, whenever, if, possibly, please.
I can testify that we do speak different dialects, and what's 'normal' and polite is frequently different. Being an immigrant on top of joining the RF would be a lot for the strongest ego to endure. It took over 5 years for me to feel any level of comfort -- and I didn't have any of Meghan's learning curve requirements.
The Queen would have been more effective by taking Meghan aside and telling her quietly how to phrase whatever, rather than telling her not to do something.
And then leaking unkind apocryphal stories like this finally broke the poor woman, and the result was Britain lost their Harry.
Sorry, Phil, I know you hate it when we go off on tangents like this. Feel free to delete.
About Sunday 14 April 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
"... Presbyterian clergy in Samuel Pepys's day were typically well-educated individuals who had undergone formal theological training and held university degrees ... and that the preacher did not do the hard work ..."
My theory is that Pepys wanted to know what this new-fangled State religion was all about, and was frustrated when the same old rant he'd lived with for 15-plus years was delivered. Charles II opted to unravel the Universities before tackling the parishes.
About Thursday 18 April 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
"... in our way met with two country fellows upon one horse, which I did, without much ado, give the way to, but Sir W. Pen would not, but struck them and they him, and so passed away, but they giving him some high words, he went back again and struck them off their horse, in a simple fury, and without much honour, in my mind, and so came away."
One way the Upper Classes kept control was by never turning a blind eye to any breach of privilege. Pepys hasn't adjusted to that yet, and doesn't find it alarming to share the road. But Adm. Penn knows these country bumpkins need a lesson in civility -- and he probably thinks Pepys needs to smarten up and learn how it's done -- so he acts as an Admiral of the Realm would.
When thinking about slavery in the 17th century, remember how they were accustomed to treating their British servants -- it wasn't pretty.
About Newcastle Upon Tyne
San Diego Sarah • Link
Number of voters: c 1,250 in 1710
Date Candidate
11 Apr. 1660 ROBERT ELLISON
WILLIAM CALVERLEY
29 Aug. 1660 SIR FRANCIS ANDERSON vice Calverley, deceased
10 Apr. 1661 SIR FRANCIS ANDERSON
SIR JOHN MARLAY
Sir Robert Slingsby, Bt.
3 Dec. 1673 WILLIAM BLACKETT vice Marlay, deceased
The corporation of Newcastle consisted of the mayor, the recorder and the sheriff, who acted as returning officer, 10 aldermen and a common council of 24.
Both the corporation and the Members of Parliament were elected by the freemen, although the indirect method used in municipal elections favored control by the merchant oligarchy. All the successful candidates at this time came from this class, and all except William Calverley were in trade.
Newcastle’s Members were active in defending the interests of the local merchant adventurers and the hostmen, or coal exporters, on whose trade the prosperity of the town depended. Consequently the payment of parliamentary wages continued until 1685.
At the 1660 general election, Robert Ellison, a Presbyterian, was returned with Calverley, an obscure lawyer who took out his freedom on the occasion.
The Restoration was greeted with a loyal address expressing the hope that Charles II might prove ‘the instrument to unite a divided church, compose a distracted kingdom, and ease an oppressed people’.
A new writ was ordered on 23 July after Calverley’s death; but the by-election was not held until the franchise had been restored to Sir John Marlay, hero of the Scottish siege in 1644, and 9 other Royalists.
The new Member was a Cavalier officer, Sir Francis Anderson, whose election set the political tone for the rest of the period.
A further royalist success followed at the municipal elections on 1 Oct., when they wrested control from the close-knit group that had governed Newcastle during the Interregnum.
Anderson stood for reelection in 1661 with Marlay, although the latter had been compromised during the Protectorate.
The Duke of York recommended another Cavalier, Sir Robert Slingsby, the comptroller of the navy, who was connected with the Northumberland gentry by marriage, and considered it both easy and proper for the principal officers ‘to labour to get into the Parliament’.
The labor had to be performed by deputy, as Slingsby was in London on election day and never even took out his freedom.
Anderson and Marlay were returned by ‘the greater part of the burgesses’, and when George Liddell, a royalist conspirator, petitioned on 15 May, he alleged no electoral irregularities but only Marlay’s betrayal in 1658. The Commons spent the whole morning on the affair, then rejected the petition, and Liddell took no further action.
On Marlay’s death in 1673 he was succeeded by William Blackett, a prominent coal-owner, who was re-elected with Anderson at the first election of 1679. ...
FROM https://www.historyofparliamenton…
About Saturday 13 April 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
"I went to the Banquethouse, and there saw the King heal, the first time that ever I saw him do it; which he did with great gravity, and it seemed to me to be an ugly office and a simple one."
We have a page for The King's Evil aka Scrofula:
https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
About Shooter's Hill, Kent
San Diego Sarah • Link
L&M: “A highwayman: it was common to erect gallows at the scene of the crime. The body of the malefactor would sometimes be soaked in tar to preserve it. Shooter’s Hill, about eight miles out of London, was one of the most dangerous points on the Dover Road; the way was steep, narrow and fringed by woods. Many robberies were committed there until, under an act of 1739, a new road was built up the hill.”
About Monday 8 April 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
For an organization with a Holy Ghost, that sounds reasonable to us post-Enlightenment spirits. But they were a superstitious lot, with an incomplete understanding of cause-and-effect -- besides which, although I profess not to believe in ghosts, I have experienced one event that defies logical explanation.
There are situations which defy all understanding. Where is your Bible when you need it? On a shelf somewhere. Which passage do you read?
About Tuesday 9 April 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
"... I put my Lady, Mrs. Turner, Mrs. Hempson, and the two Mrs. Allens into the lanthorn and I went in and kissed them, demanding it as a fee due to a principall officer, ..."
Attaboy! Pepys is getting the hang of how to behave in his new role in life.
About Vincent Delabarr
San Diego Sarah • Link
L&M: Vincent Delabarr (a merchant) had been the collector of customs at Sandwich -- an office from which he had been dismissed for alleged disloyalty to the Commonwealth.
About Sir Edward Hyde (Earl of Clarendon, Lord Chancellor 1658-67)
San Diego Sarah • Link
Oooops, that should be 1660-1669, obviously!
About Sir Edward Hyde (Earl of Clarendon, Lord Chancellor 1658-67)
San Diego Sarah • Link
One thing not reflected in the early years of the Diary is that courtiers were trying to get rid of Chancellor Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon from day one.
One man who was a consistant opponent was George Digby, 2nd Earl of Bristol.
https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
This long set of annotations gives lots of background info. on issues covered in the Diary from 1550-1669.
For the whole of Bristol's strange life, see
https://dev.historyofparliamenton…
About George Digby (2nd Earl of Bristol)
San Diego Sarah • Link
Having spent the afternoon with this strange tale of George Digby, 2nd Earl of Bristol, I have great sympathy with his wife, Anne Russell Digby, Lady Bristol. She married a Protestant, threw him out of the house when he became a Catholic -- but still had to cooperate with him in petitioning Charles II to protect son John's future.
Then she had to spend her own money buying back the rights, presumably because Digby was too stubborn to do so?
His mansion in Wimbledon was a palace, see
https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
About George Digby (2nd Earl of Bristol)
San Diego Sarah • Link
PART 17
In Feb. 1668 Edward, Viscount Conway remarked of the uncertainties and chaos afflicting government policy that ‘Lord Bristol thinks himself in as good favour as ever, but Lord A[rlington], says he is not, and never will be employed. The king gives good words and good countenance to friends and foes alike, without any distinction’.
Bristol was influential enough to be credited with the reconciliation between Charles II and his namesake Charles Stuart, 3rd duke of Richmond.
In April Bristol was granted the superintendence of banks and monts de piété (a form of pawnbroker) in London, Westminster and other cities.
In Parliament also in April he was named as one of the managers of the conference on the impeachment of Adm. Sir William Penn.
On 8 May during the debate relating to the conference over the dispute arising from Skinner’s case Bristol was said to have spoken ‘excellently well, and in favour of the Commons’ which probably explains why his name was deleted from the list of managers in the manuscript minutes.
That Bristol was now in favour with Charles II is confirmed by a warrant for the payment of £1,000 issued to him in June 1668.
In July a further £200 was granted and there was a report that he was to go ambassador to Spain.
Although he and Buckingham had taken opposite sides during Skinner’s case, Bristol was still reckoned to be one of Buckingham’s followers in Jan. 1669.
That same month his growing confidence in Charles II’s goodwill led him to draw up a petition to the crown for recompense in which he pointedly referred both to his own merits and to his frustrations at Clarendon’s hands.
His claims were referred to a small committee consisting of Sir Orlando Bridgeman, Anglesey and the two secretaries of state.
They reported in his favour recommending that his £10,000 grant should be renewed and that he should be given a pension of £2,000 ‘so that after his eminent services, he may be comfortable the remainder of his life.’
The king subsequently turned this into a grant of a pension of £2,000 plus a second pension to Lady Bristol of £1,000 with a reversion after her death to their younger son, Francis, until he in turn succeeded to his own reversion of a place as auditor of the receipt.
During the short 1669 session Bristol was present on 64 per cent of sitting days.
Although still considered an ally of Buckingham, in Nov. 1669 the 2 peers were again at odds over the bill spawned in the Commons as a result of Skinner’s case and designed to prevent the House of Lords from hearing original causes.
Bristol and George, 9th Baron Berkeley were said to be the only peers who voted in its favour.
Excerpted from:
https://dev.historyofparliamenton…
About George Digby (2nd Earl of Bristol)
San Diego Sarah • Link
PART 16
Military reverses over the summer of 1667 also strengthened Bristol’s position by discrediting the ministry in which Clarendon had played so important a part.
Bristol took his seat again on 29 June, 1667 for the prorogation. He and Clarendon saluted each other, but Bristol did not wear his robes and carefully absented himself from the chamber whilst the king was present.
Ominously for Clarendon, Bristol returned to the House on 16 Oct. 1667, a few days after the opening of the 1667-9 session. He was then present for just over 82 per cent of sitting days and was named to 16 committees.
His return took place amidst reports that he was rising in the king’s favour.
By mid-Nov. 1667 Pepys wrote that Bristol and Buckingham provided ‘the only counsel the king follows’.
Bristol was also reported to have encouraged Lady Dacres to petition for a private bill which suggests that his intention to return to public life was well known.
The business of the House for the remainder of 1667 was dominated by the attack on Clarendon.
Bristol was named as one of the managers of the conferences with the Commons concerning Clarendon’s impeachment that were held on 15, 19, 25, 28 Nov. and 4, 6 and 14 Dec. 1667.
He was not present for the conference on 21 Nov.
On 22 Nov. he was appointed to the committee to draw up reasons for a conference about procedural issues relating to conferences but did not attend the House on 23 Nov. when the conference was held.
His involvement in the attack on Clarendon was underlined by his signature to the protest of 20 Nov. against the resolution not to commit Clarendon without a specific charge.
During a debate in the House on 27 Nov. about the conference to be held the following day, he repeated his belief that the House should reverse its vote and commit Clarendon, ‘but the generality of the House disliked that and it was ordered without a question that we should give them a free conference’.
About George Digby (2nd Earl of Bristol)
San Diego Sarah • Link
PART 15
With Bristol threatening to attend the new session, its opening was delayed as troops laid in wait to arrest him as he arrived at the House; when he did not, they went to search his house in Wimbledon -- but he escaped through a back door.
Bristol wrote a further letter to his ally James Compton, 3rd earl of Northampton.
During the ensuing debate on 22 Mar. Northampton, with the backing of John, Baron Lucas of Shenfield, spoke of Bristol’s rights and privileges as a peer, but the House decided to deliver the letters unopened to the king.
The following day Lady Bristol approached several peers in the lobby in an attempt to deliver a petition; all refused to accept it.
The king declared that ‘no age had produced so false and shameless a person’ and rumors circulated that Bristol would be impeached.
Bristol was now ‘flying on only one wing’; in a last desperate attempt to justify himself he circulated copies of his letters, but the failure of the House to defend his claim to privilege had handed victory to the king and Clarendon.
Further searches were made for him, but Bristol had fled and was, wrote Sir Thomas Brathwaite, ‘looked upon as a lost man’.
Payment of the £10,000 that had been ordered towards his arrears as secretary of state was suspended.
Bristol's health broke down and in Oct. 1664 he petitioned Charles II for readmission to his presence or for the right to return to his own house.
Lady Bristol presented a further petition in Nov. asking for her husband to be allowed to return home for health reasons.
The queen mother supported the request, and Bristol was allowed to return to Sherborne.
Slowly Killigrew’s prediction about Bristol’s rehabilitation proved to be correct.
By Jan. 1665 Lady Bristol was being ‘graciously received at court’.
By Feb., the king would once again allow Bristol’s name to be mentioned in his presence, although those who visited him still took care to let it be known that it was Lady Bristol who was the object of their attentions.
Bristol stayed away from Parliament but his allies Lauderdale and Ashley were increasingly in favour.
A further sign of Bristol’s restoration to favour came with Sunderland’s marriage to Anne Digby in June 1665.
In Aug. 1666 Pepys reported that ‘Bristol’s faction is getting ground apace against my lord chancellor.’
In Jan. 1667 when the Commons’ decision to investigate 3 chancery decrees signalled that Clarendon’s position was once more under threat, there were some who believed that despite his absence from Parliament, Bristol’s hand was again at work.
About George Digby (2nd Earl of Bristol)
San Diego Sarah • Link
PART 14
Charles II’s fickle nature left some of his courtiers convinced that, for all his protestations, Bristol’s disgrace might not be a lasting one.
In March 1664 even as the king fulminated against Bristol, Thomas Killigrew made him and the rest of the court laugh as he waved two sixpences and demanded to know what the king would give him ‘for this money, when you believe him again?’
Almost simultaneously Bristol wrote letters to several of the king’s ministers.
In his letter to Secretary Morrice he explained that his actions in the previous session had been prompted ‘by an excess of zeal … beyond the bounds of that great reverence with which subjects ought to tender even their best and most affectionate advices to their sovereign’ and that having been forbidden the court he naturally withdrew to a ‘strict retirement’ which meant that he was entirely ignorant of the proclamation for his apprehension.
Determined to appear immediately before the Privy Council, he had been prevented from doing so by illness and with the approach of the session was now in a quandary knowing, "not which way to govern my self betwixt the duty which I owe unto his majesty’s proclamation, obliging me to appear before the honourable board, and that regard which at the same time I owe to the high and important privilege of the house of peers; It is that wherein I humbly desire the direction of the honourable board; how a person so resigned as I am to duty and obedience in all kinds ought to behave himself."
Morrice appears to have given his letter to Clarendon.
A letter directed to Albemarle is also amongst Clarendon’s papers.
Arthur Annesley, earl of Anglesey, left his sick bed and took his straight to the king.
In a letter addressed to the king, Bristol requested a private audience to reveal a ‘great secret’ that had been kept from him by Clarendon; he threatened that the king would be ‘lost’ if the matter were revealed in Parliament and offered to surrender to Albemarle or Oxford.
Comminges reported that, behind the scenes, first d’Aubigny and then Henry Jermyn, earl of St. Albans, and Sir John Berkeley attempted to act as mediators.
Charles II and York were prepared to settle for a recantation in Parliament but Clarendon considered this would reduce the king’s authority and strengthen that of Parliament.
An offer from Bristol to apologize verbally or in writing to the king and volunteer to stay away from court until permitted to return was also refused by Clarendon.
Bristol volunteered to go into exile, but only if he could have an act of indemnity so he could eventually return to England without fear of further proceedings.
This was refused by Clarendon who considered it ‘prejudicial to royal authority and shameful to his dignity.’
Bristol had not abandoned his attempts at intimidation for he maintained he had evidence against Clarendon ‘but that he would never make use of it out of the respect he had for his majesty’.
About George Digby (2nd Earl of Bristol)
San Diego Sarah • Link
PART 13
But Bristol had not stopped trying to find evidence against Clarendon; it was reported in Sept. that he had sent an agent to the Dutch Republic, looking for a financial connection between de Witt and Clarendon.
He also prepared his defence. His papers include an undated fragment in which he wrote: "In case an imaginary charge of treason should be brought in to the House against the earl of Bristol to keep him from coming to the Parliament as was done heretofore to his father. It is hoped the lords will do him the same justice they did to the lord chancellor that it may be put to the judges to know whether his charge amount to treason or no before their lordships proceed to remove him from his place in the house. If he be charged of any lesser crime it is hoped he shall according to the constant practice of the peers be heard speak for himself in his place, before there be any proceeding against him."
At the Old Bailey in late Aug. or early Sept. 1663, Bristol and John Digby, son of Sir Kenelm Digby, were indicted for recusancy. John Digby’s estate was sequestered, more as an affront to Bristol than as a punishment for Digby. Bristol’s estates were safe as he had protected his property by transferring them to his son.
Bristol also reconverted to the Anglican church. Rumors of his conversion surfaced in Nov. when he was said to be in London ‘and bottoms himself mostly on the Presbyterian interest being now turned Protestant again’.
At first the accuracy of the story was doubted; as one observer remarked, no versions agreed ‘in the circumstances of time, place, or accidents contributory to the publication of his conversion.’
The rumors were confirmed in Jan. 1664 when Bristol attended the parish church in Wimbledon.
The following month the minister and 3 of Bristol’s servants were arrested and imprisoned for failing to obey the king’s proclamation, as were the churchwardens and parish constable, but Bristol’s recusancy was discharged.
Rumors that Charles II was still fond of Bristol, and that the attack on Clarendon would be renewed continued to circulate.
As the new session of Parliament approached there were reports that Bristol’s agent was preparing ‘rich liveries coaches and other equipage’ so his master could make a magnificent entrance.
Bristol, apparently unrepentant, was making ‘great brags’ about what he would do in the new session leading Clarendon to insist the session open on 16 Mar. as planned rather than be postponed as might have been appropriate.
The king tried to dispel any belief that he still had a lingering regard for Bristol by declaring, "that if any of his privy council abet my Lord Bristol he will remove him from the council, if any of his servants he will dismiss them his service, if any other person he will forbid them his presence: and take such farther course against my lord and all that appear for him as the indignities offered to his person and government deserve."
About George Digby (2nd Earl of Bristol)
San Diego Sarah • Link
PART 12
That Charles II wanted Bristol arrested was widely known; questions about whether this could or could not be achieved without a breach of parliamentary privilege were being asked.
Conscious of the danger in which he stood, Bristol refused to request the protection of the House in the interval between sessions, ‘as being to doubt his majesty’s justice, and to no purpose, for that if they denied him he was undone, but if granted it would give no more security than their order to proceed, which is an implicit protection, and his restraint will do the other person more injury than it can do him’.
With the assistance of Buckingham and Philip, 4th Baron Wharton, he was lobbying behind the scenes in an attempt to secure a resolution ‘that no member ought to be questioned elsewhere, for what passes within those walls’.
He also made a determined effort to secure wider support, presumably aiming at influencing opinion in the Commons.
From 9 July, "and some days after, he quitted his ordinary way of going to the Lords house, and came through the great hall and exchequer chamber with his hat in his hand saluting with a sad and humble countenance all the crowd that followed, wishing him all success, he showed himself several days upon the exchange and told many considerable merchants his story, which is but too well received and credited."
For the rest of the session Bristol continued to parade himself in public, ‘playing on the bowling green every day’. He was also paying attention to his own personal affairs.
French ambassador Comminges wrote that, "the very day that he caused all this uproar he married his elder son, a man of less than mediocre talent, to an advocate’s daughter, a great friend of the late Cromwell, who is giving him ten thousand jacobus in cash, ten thousand at the birth of the first child and ten thousand after his death, which is a fine marriage, especially only having one son who might die."
The session ended on 27 July, 1663.
Attempts were then made to arrest Bristol ‘for attempts of a high nature by him committed against our person and government and to the end he might be brought to answer, and to a legal trial’.
No specific crime was imputed, but according to Secretary Morrice, Bristol’s offence was to have told Charles II in July 1663 that ‘if he suffered his enemies to have such an access to and credit with his majesty, he would raise such a storm as he should feel the effects thereof.’
Bristol vanished.
A proclamation for his apprehension was issued on 25 Aug. and, balked of its prey, the Privy Council also ordered that Bristol be prosecuted in his absence for recusancy.
According to French ambassador Comminges, this was yet another sign of the government’s weakness that ‘will assuredly serve only to undermine royal power and blame the conduct of his ministers.’