"I know that he was a cheque to their engrossing the whole trade of the Navy office."
We've been chiding Pepys for not being in the office enough. Now Sir Bob is gone, he'll have to stand up to the Sir Wills alone for the time being -- which may cost him and Elizabeth their friendly relationships with the Penns and Battens.
Let's hope Charles II appoints Pepys a colleague who can become a new ally. And if that person has his own house nearby, perhaps Pepys can keep his house after all!?
In the same dispatch, Francesco Giavarina, Venetian Resident in England, reports to the Doge and Senate that the "Presbyterians and Calvinists, who have always been fatal to this country, as the past miseries clearly showed, of which the scars remain, are still studying how to rekindle the fire, working in conjunction with fanatics and other turbulent spirits whose object is to overthrow the Episcopalians and destroy the Anglican Church, although they dissimulate and play the hypocrite. "These designs being discovered by his Majesty, to prevent the disorder which might ensue, they have taken suitable measures, arresting some of the leaders in this city and the country and laying hands on a number of horses which belonged to them. In this way they hope to preserve the peace of this sorely tried country."
Come on Pepys -- we crave details. Are they blaming the Quakers again?
A history of the first Jewish settlers in New York -- they were refugees from the Portuguese taking Brazil. This was the first time I found out that Peter Stuyvesant was an antisemite, but the directors of the Dutch West India Company protected them. https://www.jewishpress.com/secti…
Alongside [THOMAS] Cromwell in terms of prominence are the likes of Sir Thomas More and Sir Francis Walsingham, but rather less well known is Robert Cecil, son of Elizabeth I’s chief adviser, Lord Burghley.
Born in 1563, Cecil not only served during the reign of Virgin Queen, but also became lord high treasurer to her successor James VI and I, helping to foil numerous assassination plots and curb social unrest.
One historian keen to raise Robert Cecil's profile is Stephen Alford, who appeared on an episode of the HistoryExtra podcast to discuss his biography of the statesman. The Watchers: A Secret History of the Reign of Elizabeth I -- BY Alford, Stephen ISBN 10: 1608190099 / ISBN 13: 9781608190096 Published by Bloomsbury Press, 2012 https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/…
Speaking with Rob Attar, Alford argues that Cecil was not a dull, faceless bureaucrat, but one of the most gifted political operators of his age. To listen to the full, fascinating interview – which also covers Cecil's role as spymaster.
Podcast – Tudor spymaster: the secret machinations of Robert Cecil Stephen Alford reveals how Robert Cecil played a vital role in steering late-16th century England through some particularly perilous waters Listen now https://www.historyextra.com/memb…
The message so eagerly awaited from Portugal has also arrived at last. Russel, interpreter of the Ambassador Mello has come. He is a priest of English nationality, who has lived a long time at Lisbon. He has conducted all the negotiations so far, and as a reward has been nominated by the duke of Braganza to a bishopric in the Indies, (fn. 2) for which they are asking the Pope's confirmation, and God knows if they will ever get it. Fn. 2. Dr. Richard Russel was made bishop of Cape Verde. Evelyn: Diary, page 280. Gams: Series Episcoporum.
He brings satisfaction upon all the points of the treaty, fair words and great promises, but for money, which is the most important, nothing definite is heard. They speak of some bill payable by Jews of Amsterdam but it does not seem to be to the amount promised and expected or to be met with the promptness that is desired seeing the scarcity of cash.
A few days will bring more light to this affair, which I will keep in view.
London, the 7th October, 1661. [Italian.]
FROM 'Venice: October 1661', in Calendar of State Papers Relating To English Affairs in the Archives of Venice, Volume 33, 1661-1664, ed. Allen B Hinds (London, 1932), British History Online https://www.british-history.ac.uk…
@@@
"... and was commanded by a renegade" I believe that means the ship had a Christian-turned-Turk captain. Lawson would have shown him no mercy. A firing squad was used, I believe.
The Duke of Braganza is Alfonso VI, King of Portugal -- our Portuguese annotator Pedro always calls him "Afonso" -- https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl… I wonder why the Venetians consistently refer to him as the Duke of Braganza, and not the King of Portugal?
CORRECTION: Alfonso VI is King of Portugal, not Spain! Sorry. The link is correct: https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl… I wonder why the Venetians consistently referto him pnly as the Duke of Braganza.
Ambassador Mello had an English Catholic interpretor named Dr. Richard Russel(l):
Russell, RICHARD, Bishop of Vizéu in Portugal, b. in Berkshire, 1630; d. at Vizéu, November 15, 1693. He was of humble station, and when 12 years old became servant to Dr. Edward Daniel, newly appointed President of Lisbon College.
Five years later [1647], having meanwhile applied his leisure to study, he was admitted an alumnus of the college and took the oath, 14 Aug, 1647. In 1653 he went to Douai College, and thence to Paris, where he was ordained. In 1655 he returned to Lisbon as procurator, but two years later was summoned by the Chapter to England, where he spent three years as a chaplain to the Portuguese ambassador. On his return to Portugal he received the title of Secretary to the Queen, and a pension, in consideration of his services to the crown of Portugal. Shortly afterwards he was again in England on business connected with the marriage treaty of Charles II and Catharine of Braganza, and on this occasion he was elected a Canon of the English Chapter (June 26, 1661).
Having declined the Bishopric of the Cape Verde Islands, Russell accompanied the Infanta to England. The English Chapter hoped that he might be consecrated bishop of a Portuguese see and that then he would return to England, resign his diocese and become head of the English clergy with episcopal powers; for the English Catholics had long been without a resident bishop, and they had had no episcopal superior at all since the death of Bishop Smith in 1655. This plan came to nothing. [DOES THIS MEAN RUSSELL STAYED WITH QUEEN CATHERINE IN LONDON FOR 10 YEARS?]
When Russell was persuaded to accept the see of Portalegre in 1671 he decided to remain in his diocese. He was consecrated bishop in the chapel of the English College, Lisbon, on September 27, 1671. Overcoming the first opposition of his clergy to a foreign bishop, he spent ten years in zealous and apostolic labor and effected a complete reformation of the diocese.
In 1682 he was transferred to the diocese of Vizéu where he spent the last 11 years of his life. His portrait is preserved at the English College, Lisbon. FROM: https://www.catholic.com/encyclop…
Oct. 7. 1661 O.S –Sept. 29 N.S. 62. Francesco Giavarina, Venetian Resident in England, to the Doge and Senate.
Letters have been received from the fleet beyond the Strait of the 8th September, from which it appears that the previous reports were all false because the English have not been beaten and there was no adjustment.
Hostilities were falling into the background, but God grant they may increase, to the benefit of Christendom and the republic in particular. The letters relate that General Montagu, in obedience to the king's orders, left the fleet on the 13th August for Lisbon with some sail, leaving in command of the rest of the fleet Vice Admiral Lawson, a brave soldier, experienced in the military art and in navigation as well.
When passing the Strait Montagu had encountered four Barbary ships, which he engaged, sinking two, and one was forced to run itself aground on the coast of Tituan.
Lawson, putting out to sea with some ships, leaving the others to pursue hostilities against Algiers, had captured two enemy ships with a Genoese laden with oil, which the Barbary pirates had taken a few days before. One of these carried 24 bronze pieces and was commanded by a renegade. They made 125 slaves on this occasion and released more than 30 Christians of various nations.
He returned later to Algiers to attend to the enterprise there. The differences would not be settled very soon as the pirates showed steadfastness in their resistance and courage and would not yield as easily as was expected.
They do not hear that anything of moment has happened under Algiers. The Court is greatly delighted at the news and expects better at any moment, especially as they have the co-operation of Vice Admiral Ruiter, who is there with a powerful Dutch squadron with the intention of remaining in those parts for the destruction of the pirates, having for this purpose established a magazine at Malaga where he has provisions for more than a year.
The ten ships making ready here to go to Algiers to replace those now there, have not yet sailed, and it seems they are waiting for further letters from Montagu. They have decided here to keep some ships at the Strait and to have others cruising in the Mediterranean to hunt pirates so these, being also pursued by the Dutch may the more easily be driven off and extirpated.
It is believed that the English will remove from Algiers where they cannot do the hurt they would like, owing to the precautions taken by the Barbary pirates, and are merely exposed to attack and great inconvenience, whereas by keeping the sea they are bound to win advantages and harass the enemy considerably.
Penn is following up in a timely manner on his Irish estates because, according to Francesco Giavarina, the Venetian Resident in England:
"Although the king has made many orders for the restoration in Ireland of the goods of many gentlemen who were dispossessed in the time of the rebellion, yet these have never been obeyed by those now enjoying the property by usurpation.
"The rightful owners have made lively representations to the king for a more prompt remedy to relieve their miserable condition, and he referred the matter to the Council.
"This body has spent some days the present week over it, but with no decision so far, to the intense disgust of these unfortunate individuals."
FROM 'Venice: October 1661', in Calendar of State Papers Relating To English Affairs in the Archives of Venice, Volume 33, 1661-1664, ed. Allen B Hinds (London, 1932), British History Online https://www.british-history.ac.uk… Oct. 28 1661 N.S. -- Oct. 18 O.S. 73. Francesco Giavarina. Venetian Resident in England, to the Doge and Senate.
"a former Republican ambassador to Holland ("le Sieur Olivier S. Jean"," Oliver St.John was more of a Special Envoy than an Ambassador, Stephane, which is why he doesn't make your helpful list:
On 14 Feb. 1651 the parliament selected Oliver St.John MP (with Walter Strickland for his colleague) to negotiate a close alliance between the United Provinces and England. Their instructions directed them to propose not only ‘a confederacy perpetual,’ but, if that were accepted, ‘a further and more intrinsecal union’ between the two nations.
Great hopes were built upon the embassy. Marvell addressed St.John in a copy of Latin verses, dwelling upon the significance of his name and his mission, while a suite of nearly 250 persons showed the desire of the English government to enhance the prestige of its negotiators and secure their safety (MARVELL, Works, ed. Grosart, i. 413).
St.John arrived at The Hague on 17 March, but 3 months of negotiating ended in failure. The servants of the ambassador were assaulted in the streets by exiled cavaliers, and the lives of their masters were threatened.
The proposed league failed because the Dutch refused to expel the English royalists from their dominions, or to make Mary, Princess of Orange answerable for their intrigues against the English commonwealth. The political union of the two republics was in consequence never proposed.
On 20 June St.John left Holland, haughtily telling the Dutch commissioners that they would repent of having rejected his offers (GARDINER, Commonwealth and Protectorate, i. 357–65; GEDDES, John De Witt, i. 157; Report on the Duke of Portland's MSS. i. 557, 605; THURLOE, i. 174–195; GREY, Examination of Neal's Puritans, iv. App. li.; Rawlinson MS. C. 366, Bodleian Library).
He had shown no great skill as a diplomatist, but he was full of wrath at his failure, and contemporaries asserted that the passing of the Navigation Act was largely due to his resentment (LUDLOW, Memoirs, i. 267, ed. 1894; CLARENDON, Rebellion, xiii. 155, 169).
Vincent, above, says Googling for Sir Oliver St.John is confusing -- and then cites the wrong one! https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl… He was NOT 6th Baron St. John Of Bletso And 2nd Earl Of Bolingbroke -- but they were related.
Oct. 8, 1661 NS – Sept. 29 OS Senato, Secreta. Dispacci, Firenze. Venetian Archives. 65. Domenico Vico, Venetian Resident at Florence, to the Doge and Senate.
News has come from Alicante that Montagu is gone with six ships to Lisbon to join with the fleet from England and fetch the queen.
Vice Admiral Lawson remains off Algiers with sixteen ships, divided into squadrons, hunting for Barbary corsairs. He has already taken some which he has sold to the Spaniards, but putting to death Christian renegades. Florence, the 8th October, 1661. [Italian.]
FROM 'Venice: October 1661', in Calendar of State Papers Relating To English Affairs in the Archives of Venice, Volume 33, 1661-1664, ed. Allen B Hinds( London, 1932), British History Online https://www.british-history.ac.uk…
@@@
Old news to us, yes. What's new is that Lawson sold captive Barbary pirates into slavery for the Spanish, and executed European Christians who had "turned Turk" (converted to Islam in order to be free and as pirates were obligated to fight their own countrymen).
Both of these events horrify me, but what else was Lawson to do with captives? Ship them back to England - how? And what would Charles II do with them? A prisoner exchange would seem to be a good alternative, but that would not be a clear deterant to the pirates or to any English sailors taken by the Barbary pirates in the future who might consider abandoning Christianity and fighting for the enemy .
Thanks Nate and LKvM. Part of life's rich pageant I have not experienced.
"... instantly we slipped one cable and weighed our other anchor and stood after them, ..." The Royal James must be using 2 anchors to stay in place. Today she lost one. I trust she had at least a third aboard, just in case.
"To weigh anchor" has taken on additional meaning.
A new illustrated edition of the bestselling, conversation-driving anthology featuring some of our top journalists, historians, poets, essayists, and photographers examining the lasting impacts of slavery in America.
An illustrated edition of The 1619 Project, with newly commissioned artwork and archival images, The New York Times Magazine’s award-winning reframing of the American founding and its contemporary echoes, placing slavery and resistance at the center of the American story.
In these pages, Black art provides refuge. The marriage of beautiful, haunting and profound words and imagery creates an experience for the reader, a wanting to reflect, to sit in both the discomfort and the joy, to contemplate what a nation owes a people who have contributed so much and yet received so little, and maybe even, to act. — Nikole Hannah-Jones, from the Preface
Curated by the editors of The New York Times Magazine, led by Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones, this illustrated edition of The 1619 Project features 7 chapters from the original book that lend themselves to beautiful, engaging visuals, deepening the experience of the content. The 1619 Project: A Visual Experience offers the same revolutionary idea as the original book, an argument for a new national origin story that begins in August 1619, when a cargo ship of people stolen from Africa arrived on the shores of Point Comfort, Virginia. Only by reckoning with this difficult history and understanding its powerful influence on our present can we prepare ourselves for a more just future.
Filled with original art by 13 Black artists like Carrie Mae Weems, Calida Rawles, Vitus Shell, Xaviera Simmons, on the themes of resistance and freedom, a brand-new photo essay about slave auction sites, vivid photos of Black Americans celebrating their own forms of patriotism, and a collection of archival images of Black families by Black photographers, this volume offers readers a dynamic new way of experiencing the impact of The 1619 Project.
Complete with many of the powerful essays and vignettes from the original edition, written by some of the most brilliant journalists, scholars, and thinkers of our time, The 1619 Project: A Visual Experience brings to life a fuller, more comprehensive understanding of American history and culture.
By the end of the 19th century a free thought movement rejected religion as a guide for reason. They embraced the public critiquing of Christianity and challenged laws that favored Christians, such as blasphemy laws and mandatory Bible readings in public schools. Members regularly faced threats of blasphemy charges. By this time, even in cases where freethinkers were convicted of blasphemy, judges appeared to offer leniency.
By 1917, Michael X. Mockus, who had previously been convicted of blasphemy in Connecticut for his free thought lectures, was acquitted in a similar case in Illinois. While expressing a dislike for blasphemy, Judge Perry L. Persons argued that the court’s job is not to determine which religion is right. He said “the Protestant, Catholic, Mormon, Mahammedan, the Jew, the Freethinker, the Atheist” must “all stand equal before the law.”
In 1952 the US Supreme Court heard the case of Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson after New York rescinded the license for the film “The Miracle.” The film was deemed sacrilegious because of its supposed mockery of Catholism. The Court ruled that states could not ban sacrilegious films. That would be a violation of the separation of church and state, it ruled, and an unconstitutional restriction on freedom of religion and speech.
Even after the Supreme Court decision, in 1968, when Irving West, a 20-year-old veteran, told a policeman to “Get your goddam hands off me” after getting in a fight, he was charged with disorderly conduct and violating Maryland’s blasphemy law. When West appealed, a circuit court judge ruled the law was an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment.
Then in 1977, Pennsylvania enacted a blasphemy statute banning businesses from having blasphemous names after a local businessman wanted to name his gun store “The God Damn Gun Shop.” In 2010 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court finally deemed this statute unconstitutional. The decision followed a case in which the owner of a film production company sued the state after his request to register his company under the name “I Choose Hell Productions, LLC” was denied on the grounds that it was blasphemous. Citing the 1952 Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson case, the judge ruled that the statute was a violation of First Amendment rights.
As historian David Sehat highlights in “The Myth of American Religious Freedom,” since the USA was founded there have been arguments over what religious freedom looks like. The blasphemy laws have been key to this.
Many of the original plantations established blasphemy laws, which became state laws. The U.S. Supreme Court did not rule that blasphemy was a form of protected speech until 1952. Even then, it has not always been protected.
The plantations/early states often developed legal protections for Christians to practice their specific version of the Christian religion so these safeguards often did not extend to non-Christians.
Maryland’s Toleration Act of 1649 was the first Colonial act to refer to the “free exercise” of religion and was designed to protect Christians from religious persecution from state officials. It did not extend that “free exercise” of religion to non-Christians, instead declaring that anyone who blasphemes against God by cursing him or denying the existence of Jesus can be punished by death or the forfeiture of their lands to the state.
In 1811, the U.S. held one of its most infamous blasphemy trials, People v. Ruggles, at the New York Supreme Court. John Ruggles received a 3-month prison sentence and a $500 fine — about $12,000 in 2024 — for stating in public that “Jesus Christ was a bastard, and his mother must be a whore.” Chief Justice James Kent argued that people have freedom of religious opinion, but opinions that were malicious toward the majority stance of Christianity were an abuse of that right. He also stated that similar attacks on other religions, such as Islam and Buddhism, would not be punishable by law, because “we are a Christian people” whose country does not draw on the doctrines of “those imposters.”
In 1824, a member of a debating society was convicted of blasphemy by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for saying during a debate: “The Holy Scriptures were a mere fable, that they were a contradiction, and that although they contained a number of good things, yet they contained a great many lies.” In this case — Updegraph v. Commonwealth — the court argued it was a “vulgarly shocking and insulting” statement that reflected “the highest offence” against public morals and was a disturbance to “public peace.”
The last person in Britain to be sent to prison for blasphemy was John William Gott in 1921. He had 3 previous convictions for blasphemy when he was prosecuted for publishing 2 pamphlets called 'Rib Ticklers, or Questions for Parsons and God and Gott'. Gott satirised the biblical story of Jesus entering Jerusalem (Matthew 21:2–7) comparing Jesus to a circus clown. He was sentenced to 9 months' hard labor despite suffering from an incurable illness; he died shortly after release. The case caused public outrage.
In a 1949 speech, Lord Denning placed the blasphemy laws in the past, saying "The reason for this law was because it was thought that a denial of Christianity was liable to shake the fabric of society, which was itself founded upon Christian religion. There is no such danger to society now and the offence of blasphemy is a dead letter".
Not so fast: in 1977 Whitehouse v Lemon (involving the periodical Gay News publishing James Kirkup's poem 'The Love that Dares to Speak its Name') demonstrated that the offence of blasphemous libel, long thought to be dormant, was still in force. During the House of Lords appeal Lord Scarman said that "I do not subscribe to the view that the common-law offence of blasphemous libel serves no useful purpose in modern law. ... The offence belongs to a group of criminal offences designed to safeguard the internal tranquillity of the kingdom." In 2002, a well-publicised public reading of 'The Love that Dares to Speak its Name' was held on the steps of St. Martin-in-the-Fields in Trafalgar Square and failed to lead to any prosecution.
In R v Chief Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Choudhury (1991), a divisional court held that the blasphemy offence prohibited attacks only on the Christian religion, and did not prohibit attacks on the Islamic religion. It was also held that the failure of these offences to prohibit attacks on non-Christian religions did not violate article 9 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (which relates to freedom of religion).
On 5 March 2008, an amendment was passed to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 which abolished the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel in England and Wales. The peers also voted for the laws to be abandoned during March, and the relevant section came into force on 8 July 2008.
In 1656, two weavers, William Bond and Thomas Hibbord were indicted in Wiltshire for atheistic statements. Also in 1656, Alexander Agnew, known as "Jock of Broad Scotland", was convicted and hanged for blasphemy in Dumfries. And also in 1656, the Quaker James Naylor was sentenced by the Second Protectorate Parliament to flogging, to be pilloried, branded on the forehead and the piercing of his tongue by a red-hot poker, and thereafter kept in prison on hard labour indefinitely. In sentencing Naylor, the judge, Lord Commissioner Whitelock, makes the distinction between heresy and blasphemy.
All acts passed during the Interregnum were void after the Restoration because of lack of royal assent.
The death penalty for blasphemy in the UK was abolished in 1676.
Taylor's Case in 1676 was the first reported case of the common law offence of blasphemy. There may have been unreported earlier cases. Lord Sumner said "Taylor's case is the foundation stone of this part of the law". The report by Ventris contains this: "Hale said that such kind of wicked blasphemous words were not only an offence to God and religion, but a crime against the laws, State and Government, and therefore punishable in this Court. For to say, religion is a cheat, is to dissolve all those obligations whereby the civil societies are preserved, and that Christianity is parcel of the laws of England; and therefore to reproach the Christian religion is to speak in subversion of the law.
Those denying the Trinity were deprived of the benefit of the Toleration Act 1688.
The Blasphemy Act 1697 enacted that if any person, educated in or having made profession of the Christian religion, should by writing, preaching, teaching or advised speaking, deny that the members of the Holy Trinity were God, or should assert that there is more than one god, or deny the Christian religion to be true, or the Holy Scriptures to be of divine authority, he should, upon the first offence, be rendered incapable of holding any office or place of trust, and for the second incapable of bringing any action, of being guardian or executor, or of taking a legacy or deed of gift, and should suffer 3 years imprisonment without bail.
Profane cursing and swearing was made punishable by the Profane Oaths Act 1745, which directed that the offender be brought before a JP, and fined an amount that depended on his social rank. It was repealed by the Criminal Law Act 1967.
Since 1838, blasphemy was considered only to be a crime against the beliefs of the Church of England. All blasphemies against God, including denying his being or providence, all contumelious reproaches of Jesus Christ, all profane scoffing at the Holy Scriptures, and exposing any part thereof to contempt or ridicule, were punishable by the temporal courts with death, imprisonment, corporal punishment and fine.
From our Wiki page about Puritanism: "The marriage service was criticised for using a wedding ring (which implied that marriage was a sacrament) and having the groom vow to his bride "with my body I thee worship", which Puritans considered blasphemous. "Swearing and blasphemy were illegal. In 1636, Massachusetts made blasphemy — defined as "a cursing of God by atheism, or the like" — punishable by death. "In 1649, English colonist William Pynchon, the founder of Springfield, Massachusetts, wrote a critique of Puritanical Calvinism, entitled 'The Meritorious Price of Our Redemption'. Published in London in 1650, when the book reached Boston it was immediately ruled as blasphemous by the Massachusetts Bay Colony and was burned on Boston Common. The colony pressed Pynchon to return to England which he did."
@@@
Some 79 countries continue to enforce blasphemy laws. In Afghanistan, Brunei, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, violation can result in the death penalty. https://theconversation.com/what-…
Laws prohibiting blasphemy and blasphemous libel in the UK date to medieval times as common law and, in some special cases, as enacted legislation. The common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel were formally abolished in England and Wales in 2008 and Scotland in 2024. Equivalent laws remain in Northern Ireland.
An Act of Edward VI (the Sacrament Act 1547) set a punishment of imprisonment for reviling the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. It was repealed in 1553 and revived in 1558.
From the 16th century to the mid-19th century, blasphemy against Christianity was held as an offence against common law.
When formulating his new Church of England's doctrines in the 1530s, Henry VIII made it an offence to say or print any opinion that contradicted the Six Articles (1539).
Blasphemy was also used as a legal instrument to persecute atheists, Unitarians, and others.
The interregnum Parliament in 1650, "holding it to be [its] duty, by all good ways and means to propagate the Gospel in this Commonwealth, to advance Religion in all Sincerity, Godliness, and Honesty" passed "An Act against several Atheistical, Blasphemous and Execrable Opinions, derogatory to the honor of God, and destructive to humane Society", known as the Blasphemy Act of 1650 and intended to punish those "who should abuse and turn into Licentiousness, the liberty given in matters of Conscience".
Comments
Third Reading
About Sunday 27 October 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
"I know that he was a cheque to their engrossing the whole trade of the Navy office."
We've been chiding Pepys for not being in the office enough. Now Sir Bob is gone, he'll have to stand up to the Sir Wills alone for the time being -- which may cost him and Elizabeth their friendly relationships with the Penns and Battens.
Let's hope Charles II appoints Pepys a colleague who can become a new ally. And if that person has his own house nearby, perhaps Pepys can keep his house after all!?
About Sunday 29 September 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
In the same dispatch, Francesco Giavarina, Venetian Resident in England, reports to the Doge and Senate that the
"Presbyterians and Calvinists, who have always been fatal to this country, as the past miseries clearly showed, of which the scars remain, are still studying how to rekindle the fire, working in conjunction with fanatics and other turbulent spirits whose object is to overthrow the Episcopalians and destroy the Anglican Church, although they dissimulate and play the hypocrite.
"These designs being discovered by his Majesty, to prevent the disorder which might ensue, they have taken suitable measures, arresting some of the leaders in this city and the country and laying hands on a number of horses which belonged to them. In this way they hope to preserve the peace of this sorely tried country."
Come on Pepys -- we crave details. Are they blaming the Quakers again?
About New Netherland, America
San Diego Sarah • Link
A history of the first Jewish settlers in New York -- they were refugees from the Portuguese taking Brazil.
This was the first time I found out that Peter Stuyvesant was an antisemite, but the directors of the Dutch West India Company protected them.
https://www.jewishpress.com/secti…
About William Cecil (1st Baron Burghley)
San Diego Sarah • Link
Alongside [THOMAS] Cromwell in terms of prominence are the likes of Sir Thomas More and Sir Francis Walsingham, but rather less well known is Robert Cecil, son of Elizabeth I’s chief adviser, Lord Burghley.
Born in 1563, Cecil not only served during the reign of Virgin Queen, but also became lord high treasurer to her successor James VI and I, helping to foil numerous assassination plots and curb social unrest.
One historian keen to raise Robert Cecil's profile is Stephen Alford, who appeared on an episode of the HistoryExtra podcast to discuss his biography of the statesman.
The Watchers: A Secret History of the Reign of Elizabeth I -- BY Alford, Stephen
ISBN 10: 1608190099 / ISBN 13: 9781608190096
Published by Bloomsbury Press, 2012
https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/…
Speaking with Rob Attar, Alford argues that Cecil was not a dull, faceless bureaucrat, but one of the most gifted political operators of his age. To listen to the full, fascinating interview – which also covers Cecil's role as spymaster.
Podcast – Tudor spymaster: the secret machinations of Robert Cecil
Stephen Alford reveals how Robert Cecil played a vital role in steering late-16th century England through some particularly perilous waters
Listen now
https://www.historyextra.com/memb…
About Sunday 29 September 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
CONCLUSION:
The message so eagerly awaited from Portugal has also arrived at last. Russel, interpreter of the Ambassador Mello has come. He is a priest of English nationality, who has lived a long time at Lisbon. He has conducted all the negotiations so far, and as a reward has been nominated by the duke of Braganza to a bishopric in the Indies, (fn. 2) for which they are asking the Pope's confirmation, and God knows if they will ever get it.
Fn. 2. Dr. Richard Russel was made bishop of Cape Verde. Evelyn: Diary, page 280. Gams: Series Episcoporum.
He brings satisfaction upon all the points of the treaty, fair words and great promises, but for money, which is the most important, nothing definite is heard. They speak of some bill payable by Jews of Amsterdam but it does not seem to be to the amount promised and expected or to be met with the promptness that is desired seeing the scarcity of cash.
A few days will bring more light to this affair, which I will keep in view.
London, the 7th October, 1661.
[Italian.]
FROM 'Venice: October 1661', in Calendar of State Papers Relating To English Affairs in the Archives of Venice, Volume 33, 1661-1664, ed. Allen B Hinds (London, 1932), British History Online
https://www.british-history.ac.uk…
@@@
"... and was commanded by a renegade"
I believe that means the ship had a Christian-turned-Turk captain. Lawson would have shown him no mercy. A firing squad was used, I believe.
A short bio about Dr. Richard Russell
https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
The Duke of Braganza is Alfonso VI, King of Portugal -- our Portuguese annotator Pedro always calls him "Afonso" --
https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
I wonder why the Venetians consistently refer to him as the Duke of Braganza, and not the King of Portugal?
About Wednesday 31 July 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
CORRECTION:
Alfonso VI is King of Portugal, not Spain! Sorry.
The link is correct:
https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
I wonder why the Venetians consistently referto him pnly as the Duke of Braganza.
About Francisco de Mello (Marquez de Sande, Portugese Ambassador)
San Diego Sarah • Link
Ambassador Mello had an English Catholic interpretor named Dr. Richard Russel(l):
Russell, RICHARD, Bishop of Vizéu in Portugal, b. in Berkshire, 1630; d. at Vizéu, November 15, 1693.
He was of humble station, and when 12 years old became servant to Dr. Edward Daniel, newly appointed President of Lisbon College.
Five years later [1647], having meanwhile applied his leisure to study, he was admitted an alumnus of the college and took the oath, 14 Aug, 1647.
In 1653 he went to Douai College, and thence to Paris, where he was ordained.
In 1655 he returned to Lisbon as procurator, but two years later was summoned by the Chapter to England, where he spent three years as a chaplain to the Portuguese ambassador.
On his return to Portugal he received the title of Secretary to the Queen, and a pension, in consideration of his services to the crown of Portugal. Shortly afterwards he was again in England on business connected with the marriage treaty of Charles II and Catharine of Braganza, and on this occasion he was elected a Canon of the English Chapter (June 26, 1661).
Having declined the Bishopric of the Cape Verde Islands, Russell accompanied the Infanta to England.
The English Chapter hoped that he might be consecrated bishop of a Portuguese see and that then he would return to England, resign his diocese and become head of the English clergy with episcopal powers; for the English Catholics had long been without a resident bishop, and they had had no episcopal superior at all since the death of Bishop Smith in 1655.
This plan came to nothing.
[DOES THIS MEAN RUSSELL STAYED WITH QUEEN CATHERINE IN LONDON FOR 10 YEARS?]
When Russell was persuaded to accept the see of Portalegre in 1671 he decided to remain in his diocese. He was consecrated bishop in the chapel of the English College, Lisbon, on September 27, 1671.
Overcoming the first opposition of his clergy to a foreign bishop, he spent ten years in zealous and apostolic labor and effected a complete reformation of the diocese.
In 1682 he was transferred to the diocese of Vizéu where he spent the last 11 years of his life.
His portrait is preserved at the English College, Lisbon.
FROM:
https://www.catholic.com/encyclop…
About Sunday 29 September 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
Oct. 7. 1661 O.S –Sept. 29 N.S.
62. Francesco Giavarina, Venetian Resident in England, to the Doge and Senate.
Letters have been received from the fleet beyond the Strait of the 8th September, from which it appears that the previous reports were all false because the English have not been beaten and there was no adjustment.
Hostilities were falling into the background, but God grant they may increase, to the benefit of Christendom and the republic in particular.
The letters relate that General Montagu, in obedience to the king's orders, left the fleet on the 13th August for Lisbon with some sail, leaving in command of the rest of the fleet Vice Admiral Lawson, a brave soldier, experienced in the military art and in navigation as well.
When passing the Strait Montagu had encountered four Barbary ships, which he engaged, sinking two, and one was forced to run itself aground on the coast of Tituan.
Lawson, putting out to sea with some ships, leaving the others to pursue hostilities against Algiers, had captured two enemy ships with a Genoese laden with oil, which the Barbary pirates had taken a few days before.
One of these carried 24 bronze pieces and was commanded by a renegade. They made 125 slaves on this occasion and released more than 30 Christians of various nations.
He returned later to Algiers to attend to the enterprise there.
The differences would not be settled very soon as the pirates showed steadfastness in their resistance and courage and would not yield as easily as was expected.
They do not hear that anything of moment has happened under Algiers. The Court is greatly delighted at the news and expects better at any moment, especially as they have the co-operation of Vice Admiral Ruiter, who is there with a powerful Dutch squadron with the intention of remaining in those parts for the destruction of the pirates, having for this purpose established a magazine at Malaga where he has provisions for more than a year.
The ten ships making ready here to go to Algiers to replace those now there, have not yet sailed, and it seems they are waiting for further letters from Montagu. They have decided here to keep some ships at the Strait and to have others cruising in the Mediterranean to hunt pirates so these, being also pursued by the Dutch may the more easily be driven off and extirpated.
It is believed that the English will remove from Algiers where they cannot do the hurt they would like, owing to the precautions taken by the Barbary pirates, and are merely exposed to attack and great inconvenience, whereas by keeping the sea they are bound to win advantages and harass the enemy considerably.
About Wednesday 23 October 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
Penn is following up in a timely manner on his Irish estates because, according to Francesco Giavarina, the Venetian Resident in England:
"Although the king has made many orders for the restoration in Ireland of the goods of many gentlemen who were dispossessed in the time of the rebellion, yet these have never been obeyed by those now enjoying the property by usurpation.
"The rightful owners have made lively representations to the king for a more prompt remedy to relieve their miserable condition, and he referred the matter to the Council.
"This body has spent some days the present week over it, but with no decision so far, to the intense disgust of these unfortunate individuals."
FROM 'Venice: October 1661', in Calendar of State Papers Relating To English Affairs in the Archives of Venice, Volume 33, 1661-1664, ed. Allen B Hinds (London, 1932), British History Online
https://www.british-history.ac.uk…
Oct. 28 1661 N.S. -- Oct. 18 O.S.
73. Francesco Giavarina. Venetian Resident in England, to the Doge and Senate.
About Oliver St John
San Diego Sarah • Link
An story of Oliver St.John MP's life during the Interregnum is at
https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/…
About Thursday 24 October 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
"a former Republican ambassador to Holland ("le Sieur Olivier S. Jean","
Oliver St.John was more of a Special Envoy than an Ambassador, Stephane, which is why he doesn't make your helpful list:
On 14 Feb. 1651 the parliament selected Oliver St.John MP (with Walter Strickland for his colleague) to negotiate a close alliance between the United Provinces and England. Their instructions directed them to propose not only ‘a confederacy perpetual,’ but, if that were accepted, ‘a further and more intrinsecal union’ between the two nations.
Great hopes were built upon the embassy. Marvell addressed St.John in a copy of Latin verses, dwelling upon the significance of his name and his mission, while a suite of nearly 250 persons showed the desire of the English government to enhance the prestige of its negotiators and secure their safety (MARVELL, Works, ed. Grosart, i. 413).
St.John arrived at The Hague on 17 March, but 3 months of negotiating ended in failure. The servants of the ambassador were assaulted in the streets by exiled cavaliers, and the lives of their masters were threatened.
The proposed league failed because the Dutch refused to expel the English royalists from their dominions, or to make Mary, Princess of Orange answerable for their intrigues against the English commonwealth. The political union of the two republics was in consequence never proposed.
On 20 June St.John left Holland, haughtily telling the Dutch commissioners that they would repent of having rejected his offers (GARDINER, Commonwealth and Protectorate, i. 357–65; GEDDES, John De Witt, i. 157; Report on the Duke of Portland's MSS. i. 557, 605; THURLOE, i. 174–195; GREY, Examination of Neal's Puritans, iv. App. li.; Rawlinson MS. C. 366, Bodleian Library).
He had shown no great skill as a diplomatist, but he was full of wrath at his failure, and contemporaries asserted that the passing of the Navigation Act was largely due to his resentment (LUDLOW, Memoirs, i. 267, ed. 1894; CLARENDON, Rebellion, xiii. 155, 169).
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Di…
https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
About Oliver St John
San Diego Sarah • Link
Vincent, above, says Googling for Sir Oliver St.John is confusing -- and then cites the wrong one!
https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
He was NOT 6th Baron St. John Of Bletso And 2nd Earl Of Bolingbroke -- but they were related.
About Sunday 29 September 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
Oct. 8, 1661 NS – Sept. 29 OS
Senato, Secreta.
Dispacci, Firenze.
Venetian Archives.
65. Domenico Vico, Venetian Resident at Florence, to the Doge and Senate.
News has come from Alicante that Montagu is gone with six ships to Lisbon to join with the fleet from England and fetch the queen.
Vice Admiral Lawson remains off Algiers with sixteen ships, divided into squadrons, hunting for Barbary corsairs. He has already taken some which he has sold to the Spaniards, but putting to death Christian renegades.
Florence, the 8th October, 1661.
[Italian.]
FROM 'Venice: October 1661', in Calendar of State Papers Relating To English Affairs in the Archives of Venice, Volume 33, 1661-1664, ed. Allen B Hinds( London, 1932), British History Online
https://www.british-history.ac.uk…
@@@
Old news to us, yes. What's new is that Lawson sold captive Barbary pirates into slavery for the Spanish, and executed European Christians who had "turned Turk" (converted to Islam in order to be free and as pirates were obligated to fight their own countrymen).
Both of these events horrify me, but what else was Lawson to do with captives? Ship them back to England - how? And what would Charles II do with them?
A prisoner exchange would seem to be a good alternative, but that would not be a clear deterant to the pirates or to any English sailors taken by the Barbary pirates in the future who might consider abandoning Christianity and fighting for the enemy .
Pragmatism wins.
About Thursday 24 October 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
Thanks Nate and LKvM. Part of life's rich pageant I have not experienced.
"... instantly we slipped one cable and weighed our other anchor and stood after them, ..." The Royal James must be using 2 anchors to stay in place. Today she lost one. I trust she had at least a third aboard, just in case.
"To weigh anchor" has taken on additional meaning.
About Samuel Pepys and Slaves
San Diego Sarah • Link
A new illustrated edition of the bestselling, conversation-driving anthology featuring some of our top journalists, historians, poets, essayists, and photographers examining the lasting impacts of slavery in America.
An illustrated edition of The 1619 Project, with newly commissioned artwork and archival images, The New York Times Magazine’s award-winning reframing of the American founding and its contemporary echoes, placing slavery and resistance at the center of the American story.
In these pages, Black art provides refuge. The marriage of beautiful, haunting and profound words and imagery creates an experience for the reader, a wanting to reflect, to sit in both the discomfort and the joy, to contemplate what a nation owes a people who have contributed so much and yet received so little, and maybe even, to act. — Nikole Hannah-Jones, from the Preface
Curated by the editors of The New York Times Magazine, led by Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones, this illustrated edition of The 1619 Project features 7 chapters from the original book that lend themselves to beautiful, engaging visuals, deepening the experience of the content. The 1619 Project: A Visual Experience offers the same revolutionary idea as the original book, an argument for a new national origin story that begins in August 1619, when a cargo ship of people stolen from Africa arrived on the shores of Point Comfort, Virginia.
Only by reckoning with this difficult history and understanding its powerful influence on our present can we prepare ourselves for a more just future.
Filled with original art by 13 Black artists like Carrie Mae Weems, Calida Rawles, Vitus Shell, Xaviera Simmons, on the themes of resistance and freedom, a brand-new photo essay about slave auction sites, vivid photos of Black Americans celebrating their own forms of patriotism, and a collection of archival images of Black families by Black photographers, this volume offers readers a dynamic new way of experiencing the impact of The 1619 Project.
Complete with many of the powerful essays and vignettes from the original edition, written by some of the most brilliant journalists, scholars, and thinkers of our time, The 1619 Project: A Visual Experience brings to life a fuller, more comprehensive understanding of American history and culture.
ISBN-13: 9780593232255
Publisher: Clarkson Potter/Ten Speed
Publication date: 10/22/2024
Pages: 288
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/…
About Puritanism
San Diego Sarah • Link
CONCLUSION OF US BLASPHEMY LAWS:
By the end of the 19th century a free thought movement rejected religion as a guide for reason. They embraced the public critiquing of Christianity and challenged laws that favored Christians, such as blasphemy laws and mandatory Bible readings in public schools.
Members regularly faced threats of blasphemy charges.
By this time, even in cases where freethinkers were convicted of blasphemy, judges appeared to offer leniency.
By 1917, Michael X. Mockus, who had previously been convicted of blasphemy in Connecticut for his free thought lectures, was acquitted in a similar case in Illinois.
While expressing a dislike for blasphemy, Judge Perry L. Persons argued that the court’s job is not to determine which religion is right. He said “the Protestant, Catholic, Mormon, Mahammedan, the Jew, the Freethinker, the Atheist” must “all stand equal before the law.”
In 1952 the US Supreme Court heard the case of Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson after New York rescinded the license for the film “The Miracle.” The film was deemed sacrilegious because of its supposed mockery of Catholism.
The Court ruled that states could not ban sacrilegious films. That would be a violation of the separation of church and state, it ruled, and an unconstitutional restriction on freedom of religion and speech.
Even after the Supreme Court decision, in 1968, when Irving West, a 20-year-old veteran, told a policeman to “Get your goddam hands off me” after getting in a fight, he was charged with disorderly conduct and violating Maryland’s blasphemy law.
When West appealed, a circuit court judge ruled the law was an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment.
Then in 1977, Pennsylvania enacted a blasphemy statute banning businesses from having blasphemous names after a local businessman wanted to name his gun store “The God Damn Gun Shop.”
In 2010 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court finally deemed this statute unconstitutional.
The decision followed a case in which the owner of a film production company sued the state after his request to register his company under the name “I Choose Hell Productions, LLC” was denied on the grounds that it was blasphemous.
Citing the 1952 Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson case, the judge ruled that the statute was a violation of First Amendment rights.
As historian David Sehat highlights in “The Myth of American Religious Freedom,” since the USA was founded there have been arguments over what religious freedom looks like. The blasphemy laws have been key to this.
Adapted from
https://theconversation.com/what-…
About Puritanism
San Diego Sarah • Link
US BLASOHEMY LAWS:
The USA has a long history of blasphemy laws.
Many of the original plantations established blasphemy laws, which became state laws. The U.S. Supreme Court did not rule that blasphemy was a form of protected speech until 1952. Even then, it has not always been protected.
The plantations/early states often developed legal protections for Christians to practice their specific version of the Christian religion so these safeguards often did not extend to non-Christians.
Maryland’s Toleration Act of 1649 was the first Colonial act to refer to the “free exercise” of religion and was designed to protect Christians from religious persecution from state officials. It did not extend that “free exercise” of religion to non-Christians, instead declaring that anyone who blasphemes against God by cursing him or denying the existence of Jesus can be punished by death or the forfeiture of their lands to the state.
In 1811, the U.S. held one of its most infamous blasphemy trials, People v. Ruggles, at the New York Supreme Court. John Ruggles received a 3-month prison sentence and a $500 fine — about $12,000 in 2024 — for stating in public that “Jesus Christ was a bastard, and his mother must be a whore.”
Chief Justice James Kent argued that people have freedom of religious opinion, but opinions that were malicious toward the majority stance of Christianity were an abuse of that right.
He also stated that similar attacks on other religions, such as Islam and Buddhism, would not be punishable by law, because “we are a Christian people” whose country does not draw on the doctrines of “those imposters.”
In 1824, a member of a debating society was convicted of blasphemy by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for saying during a debate: “The Holy Scriptures were a mere fable, that they were a contradiction, and that although they contained a number of good things, yet they contained a great many lies.”
In this case — Updegraph v. Commonwealth — the court argued it was a “vulgarly shocking and insulting” statement that reflected “the highest offence” against public morals and was a disturbance to “public peace.”
About Puritanism
San Diego Sarah • Link
CONCLUSION OF UK BLASPHEMY LAWS:
The last person in Britain to be sent to prison for blasphemy was John William Gott in 1921. He had 3 previous convictions for blasphemy when he was prosecuted for publishing 2 pamphlets called 'Rib Ticklers, or Questions for Parsons and God and Gott'.
Gott satirised the biblical story of Jesus entering Jerusalem (Matthew 21:2–7) comparing Jesus to a circus clown.
He was sentenced to 9 months' hard labor despite suffering from an incurable illness; he died shortly after release. The case caused public outrage.
In a 1949 speech, Lord Denning placed the blasphemy laws in the past, saying "The reason for this law was because it was thought that a denial of Christianity was liable to shake the fabric of society, which was itself founded upon Christian religion. There is no such danger to society now and the offence of blasphemy is a dead letter".
Not so fast: in 1977 Whitehouse v Lemon (involving the periodical Gay News publishing James Kirkup's poem 'The Love that Dares to Speak its Name') demonstrated that the offence of blasphemous libel, long thought to be dormant, was still in force.
During the House of Lords appeal Lord Scarman said that "I do not subscribe to the view that the common-law offence of blasphemous libel serves no useful purpose in modern law. ... The offence belongs to a group of criminal offences designed to safeguard the internal tranquillity of the kingdom."
In 2002, a well-publicised public reading of 'The Love that Dares to Speak its Name' was held on the steps of St. Martin-in-the-Fields in Trafalgar Square and failed to lead to any prosecution.
In R v Chief Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Choudhury (1991), a divisional court held that the blasphemy offence prohibited attacks only on the Christian religion, and did not prohibit attacks on the Islamic religion.
It was also held that the failure of these offences to prohibit attacks on non-Christian religions did not violate article 9 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (which relates to freedom of religion).
On 5 March 2008, an amendment was passed to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 which abolished the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel in England and Wales. The peers also voted for the laws to be abandoned during March, and the relevant section came into force on 8 July 2008.
Excerpted from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bla…
About Puritanism
San Diego Sarah • Link
PART 2 OF UK BLASPHEMY LAWS:
In 1656, two weavers, William Bond and Thomas Hibbord were indicted in Wiltshire for atheistic statements.
Also in 1656, Alexander Agnew, known as "Jock of Broad Scotland", was convicted and hanged for blasphemy in Dumfries.
And also in 1656, the Quaker James Naylor was sentenced by the Second Protectorate Parliament to flogging, to be pilloried, branded on the forehead and the piercing of his tongue by a red-hot poker, and thereafter kept in prison on hard labour indefinitely.
In sentencing Naylor, the judge, Lord Commissioner Whitelock, makes the distinction between heresy and blasphemy.
All acts passed during the Interregnum were void after the Restoration because of lack of royal assent.
The death penalty for blasphemy in the UK was abolished in 1676.
Taylor's Case in 1676 was the first reported case of the common law offence of blasphemy. There may have been unreported earlier cases. Lord Sumner said "Taylor's case is the foundation stone of this part of the law".
The report by Ventris contains this: "Hale said that such kind of wicked blasphemous words were not only an offence to God and religion, but a crime against the laws, State and Government, and therefore punishable in this Court. For to say, religion is a cheat, is to dissolve all those obligations whereby the civil societies are preserved, and that Christianity is parcel of the laws of England; and therefore to reproach the Christian religion is to speak in subversion of the law.
Those denying the Trinity were deprived of the benefit of the Toleration Act 1688.
The Blasphemy Act 1697 enacted that if any person, educated in or having made profession of the Christian religion, should by writing, preaching, teaching or advised speaking, deny that the members of the Holy Trinity were God, or should assert that there is more than one god, or deny the Christian religion to be true, or the Holy Scriptures to be of divine authority, he should, upon the first offence, be rendered incapable of holding any office or place of trust, and for the second incapable of bringing any action, of being guardian or executor, or of taking a legacy or deed of gift, and should suffer 3 years imprisonment without bail.
Profane cursing and swearing was made punishable by the Profane Oaths Act 1745, which directed that the offender be brought before a JP, and fined an amount that depended on his social rank.
It was repealed by the Criminal Law Act 1967.
Since 1838, blasphemy was considered only to be a crime against the beliefs of the Church of England.
All blasphemies against God, including denying his being or providence, all contumelious reproaches of Jesus Christ, all profane scoffing at the Holy Scriptures, and exposing any part thereof to contempt or ridicule, were punishable by the temporal courts with death, imprisonment, corporal punishment and fine.
About Puritanism
San Diego Sarah • Link
From our Wiki page about Puritanism:
"The marriage service was criticised for using a wedding ring (which implied that marriage was a sacrament) and having the groom vow to his bride "with my body I thee worship", which Puritans considered blasphemous.
"Swearing and blasphemy were illegal. In 1636, Massachusetts made blasphemy — defined as "a cursing of God by atheism, or the like" — punishable by death.
"In 1649, English colonist William Pynchon, the founder of Springfield, Massachusetts, wrote a critique of Puritanical Calvinism, entitled 'The Meritorious Price of Our Redemption'. Published in London in 1650, when the book reached Boston it was immediately ruled as blasphemous by the Massachusetts Bay Colony and was burned on Boston Common. The colony pressed Pynchon to return to England which he did."
@@@
Some 79 countries continue to enforce blasphemy laws. In Afghanistan, Brunei, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, violation can result in the death penalty.
https://theconversation.com/what-…
Laws prohibiting blasphemy and blasphemous libel in the UK date to medieval times as common law and, in some special cases, as enacted legislation.
The common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel were formally abolished in England and Wales in 2008 and Scotland in 2024. Equivalent laws remain in Northern Ireland.
An Act of Edward VI (the Sacrament Act 1547) set a punishment of imprisonment for reviling the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. It was repealed in 1553 and revived in 1558.
From the 16th century to the mid-19th century, blasphemy against Christianity was held as an offence against common law.
When formulating his new Church of England's doctrines in the 1530s, Henry VIII made it an offence to say or print any opinion that contradicted the Six Articles (1539).
Blasphemy was also used as a legal instrument to persecute atheists, Unitarians, and others.
The interregnum Parliament in 1650, "holding it to be [its] duty, by all good ways and means to propagate the Gospel in this Commonwealth, to advance Religion in all Sincerity, Godliness, and Honesty" passed "An Act against several Atheistical, Blasphemous and Execrable Opinions, derogatory to the honor of God, and destructive to humane Society", known as the Blasphemy Act of 1650 and intended to punish those "who should abuse and turn into Licentiousness, the liberty given in matters of Conscience".