Hhomeboy on 3 May 2003  •  Link

Our Sam: simultaneously a reliable albeit biased chronicler telling true about the officers, then eager to show all the men follow, then talking absolute trash about Monck while gushing like a teen magazine feature writer over Montagu's mostly imagined intimacies with the King and Duke of York...

"...I read the letter and declaration; and while they were discoursing upon it...which being offered, they passed.

Not one man seemed to say no to it, though I am confident many in their hearts were against it....

After this was done, I went up to the quarter-deck with my Lord and the Commanders, and there read both the papers and the vote; which done, and demanding their opinion, the seamen did all of them cry out,

David Bell on 3 May 2003  •  Link

One of the great problems for Charles and his father in the late Civil Wars was that Parliament controlled the main ports, and enough of the fleet, to make it difficult for supplies to reach the King from Europe.

It is Montagu, rather than Monck, who directly controls the fleet. At this stage, the King will take care to flatter him. And there is an obvious motive for the Duke of York to become involved with the Navy.

WKW on 3 May 2003  •  Link

"I read the letter and declaration; and while they were discoursing upon it, I seemed to draw up a vote, which being offered, they passed."

seemed = pretended to. Interpret, ad lib.

What factual basis is there for doubting that Mountagu was in close confidence with the King and the Duke of York? Someone in England had to be, for the entire "business" to have reached this stage. Name alternates, cite sources, and defend the contrary case, please.

vk on 4 May 2003  •  Link

I don't anything about Montagu's role, but it's been established that Monck was in direct contact with the King and that the King was dependent on his advice. I've quoted some of their correspondance.

vincent on 4 May 2003  •  Link

"the seamen did all of them cry out"
they wanted their pay? Who will argue with a winning leader, only naves,fools and the well heeled.

Bert Winther on 4 May 2003  •  Link

Did Sam consume more than his usual quantity of alcohol on this day or how do we explain the erroneous date in the heading? I suppose the transcriber could be the culprit.

chip on 4 May 2003  •  Link

Perhaps the letter dated at Breda threw SP or the transcriber off. I wonder how SP knows what lurks in the hearts of men. Is it from conversations he has had or just intuiton? It must have been a difficult time to trust anyone.

Todd Bernhardt on 4 May 2003  •  Link

re: More than his usual quantity of alcohol

"...and then to writing of letters till twelve at night, and so up again at three in the morning" -- this doesn't seem to me to be the kind of thing you'd be able to do with a belly (and head) full of booze!

Speaking of catching a buzz, I don't know about the rest of you, but I find this to be one of the most exciting posts in a while ... the electricity in the air fairly hums and hisses (like the bullets over Sam's head!) as the events of the day and night progress, and as Sam finds out more about the behind-the-scenes maneuvering going on. If this be gushing, then gush on!

Mary on 4 May 2003  •  Link

Imagined intimacies?

What's imaginary about the letters that Sam tells us that he has been shown?

Hhomeboy on 4 May 2003  •  Link

letters...

Because we haven't seen them; and, we all know how Sam projects his own sense of importance...

I'm no great fan of Antonia Fraser's but a perusal of the index of her biography of Charles II contains but three entries for Sam's Lord up to and including Montagu's death at sea...and one of those references is hardly propitious re: a 'special relationship' or presumed intimacy with Charles...Montagu's relationship with the Duke of York may be better founded but only with regard to Montagu's status with the fleet and York's impending responsibilities as Admiralty Lord...prior to his own demise, Montagu will disgrace himself greatly as a sea Lord.

So, my surmise is that Montagu is in the right place at the right time to become a thoroughly useful, well-placed--albeit never completely trusted--obedient servant of the Royals but no more than that...except that Montagu (aka 'Cromwell's earl') was a congenial, high-spirited philanderer and card playing gambler with a political bent and talent and taste for military adventure.

Again, I have not read Ollard's biography of Montagu and therefore do not know about extant copies of his correspondence...Three other sources might shed some light:

1.) York's Admiralty letter books;

2.) R. C. Anderson eds, The Journal of Edward Montagu, First Earl of Sandwich, (Navy Recs. Soc., 64 1929);

3.) Ollard's book on Clarendon and his immediate circle.

Unfortunately,we all seem to have missed the following recent 'Pepys weekend' with Richard Ollard:

March 22

Paul Brewster on 5 May 2003  •  Link

The letter dated at Breda, April, 4 1660, in the 12th year of his reign
From L&M: Charles II dated the beginning of his reign not from his restoration but from the death of his father.

(I wonder if our junior Bush will do the same)

Paul Brewster on 5 May 2003  •  Link

I seemed to draw up a vote
According to an L&M footnote:
"The vote ran: 'Resolved (nemine contradicente) that the Commander and Officers of the Fleet do receive the gracious Declaration of his Majesty as also the expressions of his gracious purposes towards them and the whole Fleet (communicated in a Letter to the Generals) with great joyfulness of heart; and for them do return unto his Majesty their most humble thanks, declaring and professing their exact loyalty and duty unto his Majesty, and desire the Generals of the Fleet humbly to represent the same unto him. It was also resolved That the said Letter, Declaration and Vote should be publickly read to the respective ships and Companies of the Fleet now in the Downs, to know their sense concerning the same.'"

Emilio on 5 May 2003  •  Link

A meaty entry today
I agree w/ Todd - this is a major turning point of English history during the century, and everyone seems excited about it. Not only that, but we (w/ Sam) finally get a view of what's been happening behind the scenes for months. No wonder his (and Montagu's) heads are so turned with being in the center of it all.
As for how much Sam drank today, I think possibly very little. How many ships are in the fleet, after all? At least 15 captains have been mentioned since Sam became Montagu's secretary in March, with more showing up all the time. I imagine him spending most of his day in a small boat rowing from one ship to the next, with just enough time between to read the declarations and get a response before moving on.

vk on 5 May 2003  •  Link

Charles II has styled himself King of England since 1649. His view is not there has been no king in England for 11 years, but that the king has been in exile. The republican grounds for dismissing his claim have always been very weak.

helena murphy on 5 May 2003  •  Link

Charles II did not style himself King in 1649, but he was declared King on the death of his father in the monarchical tradition. He was also recognised internationally as King of England, Ireland and Scotland.He was actually crowned King of Scotland on New Year's Day in 1651. This was an era in which people still believed in the divine right of kings. Charles II is the custodian of hundreds of years of Royal tradition and rule which the population are now happy to welcome back .

vk on 5 May 2003  •  Link

I don't know what you mean Helena. If he was declared King on the death of his father, and his father died in 1649, then he has styled himself King Charles II since 1649.

maureen on 6 May 2003  •  Link

In the wake of the execution of Charles I - tried, remember, for making war against his own people and refusing to rule within the law - the monarchy was abolished and England made a "Commonwealth and Free State."

When Charles II returned it was by invitation of the newly elected Parliament and on terms more or less dictated by them - including the promise to act within the law (Declaration of Breda).

Other rulers may have seen him as a king in exile but he could not be king of England until England said so!

It is still part of the process that the new ruler is acknowledged by the people and accepted by Parliament, now in token form. This dates back in essence to the process in Anglo-Saxon times, before primogeniture came in, when the new king was chosen from among the eligible nobility.

NB: we had to depose another Stuart king to achieve some sort of order and have removed another since then!

Transcriptions of various relevant documents are at http://www.constitution.org/eng/c…

vincent on 6 May 2003  •  Link

"Transcriptions of various relevant documents are : Thanks... Great, may it be put in government and law for the future.

Nix on 6 May 2003  •  Link

Regarding the time of Charles' accession:

English statutes historically were cited by reference to the "regnal" year of the monarch. Does anyone know whether Charles II's regnal years were numbered from 1649 or from 1660?

vk on 6 May 2003  •  Link

Maureen, the men who abolished the monarchy (who by no means were representatives of the English population) had no legal authority whatsoever to do so.

As we will see next week, Parliament does not simply invite him back. It is going to issue a declaration that Charles inherited the kingship immediately upon the death of his father, regardless of the fact that he was not proclaimed king.

Nix on 6 May 2003  •  Link

"Parliament ... is going to issue a declaration that Charles inherited the kingship immediately upon the death of his father, regardless of the fact that he was not proclaimed king."

This is where the lawyers get into the act. (Takes one to know one.) Horror vacui compels them, upon decreeing the real-world authority to have been a nullity, to create a fictitious one.

JonTom Kittredge on 6 May 2003  •  Link

The Civil War Isn't Over!
There are plenty of people in the States who are still refighting the American Civil War. I hadn't realized that was true of the English Civil War, too.

vk on 7 May 2003  •  Link

Let me state that I'm not trying to claim that Charles was right and Cromwell was wrong. I'm just trying to discourage an anachronistic reading of the situation. Because we live in an age of representative governments, there is a tendency to laugh at the idea of a monarch who had lost all power and support yet claimed to be king. In the 17th century, however, this was not implausible.

jeannine on 28 Feb 2006  •  Link

Sandwich's Journal Entry Today

"Thursday. The King's letter and Declaration were read aboard the fleet and the whole fleet unanimously declared their loyalty unto His Majesty."

Michael Robinson on 20 Nov 2008  •  Link

" ... my Lord showed me the King’s declaration and his letter to the two Generals to be communicated to the fleet. "

This particular copy:-

Declaration issued by Charles from "Our Court at Breda this 4/14 day of Aprill 1660 ..." Manuscript, 4 pp., fo., dust stained through use.
"To the people of England, Scotland & Ireland ..."
The copy sent to Gen. Monck, forwarded by Monck to Edward Montagu (Gen. of the Fleet) & read out to the fleet by Montagu's secretary, Samuel Pepys.
Sotheby's, July 22nd. 1985, Lot 357. £85,000. (At date of sale, $116,450)

Terry Foreman on 22 Apr 2013  •  Link

We seem to have been having a discussion about what was true of Charles Stuart de facto and de jure. He was in any case been referred to not until 17 February, and then as "the King" -- as though there was a position in the social order at the summit with that title, i.e., that monarchy is the natural order of things -- Pepys's republican sentiments hitherto notwithstanding.

Sasha Clarkson on 3 May 2013  •  Link

"Legal Authority"?

In the end this has always boiled down to the power of the sword and/or the consent of the governed, as was shown in 1066, 1485, 1688, etc. Law cannot exist in the absence of consent, or a framework to enforce it.

It reminds me of a conversation I heard up in co Durham once:

"That was niver a goal ref!" ... "Tha look in the 'Football Mail' on Saturday, and see whether it was a goal or not."

Bill on 3 May 2013  •  Link

G. Mountague at Sea, to whom the Letter to General Monk was also directed from the King, upon the receipt of it, and of the Declaration; he called together the Officers of the several Ships, and communicated the Letter and Declaration to them, who expressed great joy and satisfaction therein, and desired Mountague to represent the same with their humble thanks to his Majesty.

Then Mountague fired the first Gun himself, and all his Ships answered it round, with loud Acclamations as their General had done, crying God bless the King; and the General gave two Pipes of Canary to his men.

---Memorials of English Affairs. B. Whitelocke, 1682

Dick Wilson on 4 May 2013  •  Link

Pepys' personal standing received a significant boost today.

Bill on 4 May 2013  •  Link

... especially in his own mind.

Bryan on 5 May 2013  •  Link

This entry makes it fairly clear that Mountagu kept Sam in the dark about his negotiations with Charles. For example:

"And I found by the letters, and so my Lord told me too, that there had been many letters passed between them for a great while, and I perceive unknown to Monk ... This was very strange to me, that my Lord should carry all things so wisely and prudently as he do,..."

If that's the case, then the "characters" that Sam produced earlier were cypher tables used to encrypt and decrypt messages (as suggest by Dick Wilson) rather than the encrypted messages themselves.

Terry Foreman on 6 Jun 2017  •  Link

"And among the rest that had carried these letters Sir John Boys is one, and that Mr. Norwood, which had a ship to carry him over the other day, when my Lord would not have me put down his name in the book."

Correspondence between Mountagu and the King seems to have begun in the spring of 1659 while Mountagu was in the Baltic, but the earlier letters do not appear to have survived. Pepys probably here refers to the correspondence of early 1660. It was later wrongly assumed (perhaps because of Pepys's close connection with James, Duke of York, and because of his resignation from office in 1689) that Pepys himself had been an intermediary: The History of the Life and Reign of Queen Anne - Abel Boyer (1722) , App., p. 36. https://books.google.com/books?id… (Per L&M footnote)

Terry Foreman on 16 Jun 2021  •  Link

Declaration of Breda

The Declaration of Breda (dated 4 April 1660) was a proclamation by Charles II of England in which he promised a general pardon for crimes committed during the English Civil War and the Interregnum for all those who recognised Charles as the lawful king; the retention by the current owners of property purchased during the same period; religious toleration; and the payment of arrears to members of the army, and that the army would be recommissioned into service under the crown. Further, regarding the two latter points, the parliament was given the authority to judge property disputes and responsibility for the payment of the army. The first three pledges were all subject to amendment by acts of parliament.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dec…

San Diego Sarah on 19 Jun 2022  •  Link

This is what John Evelyn heard of Charles II's Declaration of Breda:

http://brittlebooks.library.illin…

John Evelyn's Diary – he and Mary Browne Evelyn live at Saye's Court, Deptford.

@@@

3 May, 1660.
Came the most happy tidings of his Majesty's gracious declaration and applications to the Parliament, General, and people, and their dutiful acceptance and acknowledgment, after a most bloody and unreasonable rebellion of near twenty years.
Praised be forever the Lord of Heaven, who only doeth wondrous things, because his mercy endureth forever.

@@@

The General was of Gen. Monck, Britain's George Washington. He could have taken power for himself, had he wanted it.
Monck was, of course, amply rewarded for not taking power. And Mrs. Monck had enough problems behaving like a Duchess, as we will hear in future episodes.

Nicolas on 19 Jun 2022  •  Link

“Praised be forever the Lord of Heaven, who only doeth wondrous things, because his mercy endureth forever.”

Evelyn is quoting Psalms 72:18 and Psalms 136 (every verse) of the Authorised Version (KJV).

San Diego Sarah on 14 Apr 2023  •  Link

"In the evening as I was going on board the Vice-Admiral, the General [MONTAGU] began to fire his guns, which he did all that he had in the ship, and so did all the rest of the Commanders, which was very gallant, and to hear the bullets go hissing over our heads as we were in the boat."

Well, that answers our question from a few days ago, whether or not there was shot or canon balls in the guns -- makes a bigger bang if there is, but it is a waste of valuable ammo.

There were bullets -- but I doubt there were cannon balls.

San Diego Sarah on 14 Apr 2023  •  Link

"I perceive his [MONTAGU] being willing to do all the honour in the world to Monk, and to let him have all the honour of doing the business, though he will many times express his thoughts of him to be but a thick-sculled fool."

OK -- now we have Pepys' word for it that Montagu at the very least was a snob. You shouldn't judge the older general by his 50-year-old appearance, or by his thick Devonian accent, Montagu. He'd conducting a fine PR campaign in London right now.

The elegant, noble courtier, a lawyer by training, was "a true Renaissance man: the generous patron, the cheerful if sometimes moody companion, the hopeless manager of money, the competent artist and musician. He had an ear for languages, mastering Spanish by the end of his embassy, and his fascination with topography, mathematics, astronomy, and navigation emerges clearly from his manuscript journals." -- https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
Montagu was 20 when he went to war in 1644.

In contrast Monck was an Army brat: "The younger son of an impoverished Devon landowner, Monck began his military career in 1625 [WHEN HE WAS 17] and served in the Eighty Years' War until 1638, when he returned to England. Posted to Ireland as part of the army sent to suppress the Irish Rebellion of 1641, he quickly gained a reputation for efficiency and ruthlessness. After Charles I agreed to a truce with the Catholic Confederacy in September 1643, he was captured fighting for the Royalists at Nantwich in January 1644 and remained a prisoner for the next two years. [I GUESS THIS IS WHEN HE MET THE QUESTIONABLE MRS. MONCK.]
"Released in 1647, he was named Parliamentarian commander in Eastern Ulster, fought in Scotland under Oliver Cromwell in the 1650 to 1652 Anglo-Scottish War, and served as General at sea during the 1652 to 1654 First Anglo-Dutch War. From 1655 to 1660, he was army commander in Scotland, and his support for moderates in Parliament who wanted to restore the monarchy proved decisive in Charles II regaining his throne in May 1660."
https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…

You don't earn a resume like that by being "a thick-sculled fool." A thick-skinned pragmatist, more like it.
Monck knew how to get the job done, using the carrot and the stick equally effectively.

(Devonians are still complaining that people from London are prejudiced against their accent. I know -- I lived in Devon as a teen, and was never accepted by the locals because I talked like a Londoner.)

San Diego Sarah on 14 Apr 2023  •  Link

mwainer has found a confirmation that Montagu did personally receive a copy of the Declaration of Breda letter from Charles II. "Five copies of the document were sent to England's centers of power -- the House of Commons, the City of London, the Army, the House of Lords and the Navy -- where they each helped gather key support for Charles II."

https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/…

JayW on 4 May 2023  •  Link

The copy of the King’s letter which was read out to the Navy by Samuel Pepys is being auctioned again at Sotheby’s in The Coronation Sale closing at 2pm BST on 4 May 2023. No bids yet with 12 hours to go.

Alter Kacker on 4 May 2023  •  Link

Answering a question I asked during the First Reading, Wikipedia says Charles’ regnal years are numbered from 1649.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reg…

Stephane Chenard on 4 May 2023  •  Link

The Mercurius Politicus (as paraphrased by Thomas Rugg much later) reads like it was right there with an embedded reporter, and has this color to add:

"The Lord Montague received a letter from his Majestie; upon this hee commanded a great gunne, upon which his officers came to him. Bein' all come aborde the Admiral [the Naseby], the letter was read in the presents of [follow the names of only nine captains]. Now at the readinge of this letter the commanders stood up and was all beare headed (...) Then the Generall fired the first gun; then he professed their due obeadince to his Majestie. This don, he said God save the King! God bless his Majesty! Then presently might you have seene the fleet in hir prid, with pendents loose, gunes roaringe, caps flyin', and loud vive le roys echoed from on ship to another. The Generall gave two pipes of conbary to the commanders and gentilmen in his shipe."

Details, details: if nine captains constitute "all" of them, then of the 32 ships which Montague had listed but recently, most indeed have departed for Gibraltar, but that's no longer very much of a fleet. No "pipes of canary" for them, too; those, if we understand well, are not ceremonial pipes inscribed "vive le roy, 3 May 1660" to smoke while reminiscing many years hence, but fairly large barrels of Madeira ("Canary") wine. Sam must have been busy, or already left, to miss My Lord firing the great gunne, which otherwise sounds too good not to be in the Diary.

Then Sam went ship to ship. Hard to believe he wasn't offered a tipple every time, but aye he may have declined at some point, because getting onto and off each ship - at least nine of them, then - must involve dealing with the rope ladder, which is a fairly hard and possibly dangerous thing to do (absent the indignity of being hauled in a basket). However our Sam has good legs and plenty of stamina, and in fact was so pumped up that he didn't even break his account between entries for May 3 and May 4, but carried on with "up again at three in the morning" still in the May 3 entry.

Stephane Chenard on 4 May 2023  •  Link

Of kings exil'd, and what they're good for: There's a long tradition. Wikipedia has a "List of heads of state or government who have been in exile". C2K is in there, between two colleagues from Portugal and China and along with over 300 others from Pisitratus of Athens to Jair Bolsonaro, including another Charles II (of Brunswick). In his exile he's certainly been recogniz'd as the King, but that didn't mean having money, or being promised some and then stiffed (by Spain), or not being used by France as a pawn against Spain, or not being snubbed by various local nobles and governors, or not having to dodge possible kidnap or arrest (recall Charles was recently advised by Monk to stay off Spanish territory, and check out this hilarious episode at the end of the duke of York's memoirs, link supplied by Susan at http://archive.org/stream/memoirs…, when he's dodging the law in Calais). It's just not the same as really being the King.

Stephane Chenard on 4 May 2023  •  Link

Venetian ambassador Giavarina has something to say, too, since he's sending his weekly report today, with Breda as an attachment (dated May 14 new style, at https://www.british-history.ac.uk…)

"The city and the whole kingdom rejoice over such news and these last nights bonfires have been lighted at every corner of London and Westminster, to the ringing of the bells and the firing of all the guns of the Tower and of the ships in the Thames. Cries of 'Long live King Charles' are heard at every moment and his health is drunk publicly in the streets. A number of people are getting ready to cross to him in Holland, and there is no doubt they will vie with one another to take offers of cash to his Majesty to relieve his most pressing needs.

"In a few weeks we shall undoubtedly see the king in England. From what they say the whole fleet, now in the Channel, will be sent to fetch him, with a stately deputation. The exact time cannot yet be known, but they insist that his entry will be on the 29th May, old style [9 June, new style], his Majesty's birthday, when he will be exactly 30 years of age."

The report then echoes most divertingly when read (we're told) in May 2023: "Not a little is required to get everything ready for the king's reception which they say will certainly be the most stately and splendid that has ever been, such is the passion of the people to pour out their treasure and their blood for their sovereign. There will follow his Majesty's coronation, which will not be less noble and costly than his entry."

Giavarina then asks the Doge and Senate for a bigger budget, because being ambassador to a proper king is going to involve a lot more expenses than ambassador to a bunch of committees.

Stephane Chenard on 4 May 2023  •  Link

The French Gazette (at https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148…, page 490), which now gives the London news top priority (big extraordinary supplements, dispatches rushed to print within days when news from elsewhere can take weekes, etc), will have on May 20 (new style) a summary of this week's events. It notes that the fleet's officers having been read Charles' letter, "they shewed a singular satisfaction, as did the rest of the Fleet: which unfurled, at the same time, its Pennants and Banners, to the sound of Artillery & cries of Vive le Roy, to which answered the cannon of the Castles of Deal & Sandwich, which are near the Dunes".

Eric the Bish on 4 May 2023  •  Link

The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary gives as an (obsolete) definition of bullet “a ball for a cannon or other piece of ordinance“. So these are proper cannonballs; quite capable of smashing Pepys’ boat, and taking the lives of two or three people with it; not mere ‘bullets’ as we think of them. With the general excitement; the chances of a partial misfire causing the ball to drop short; and the vagaries of aiming a non-rifled barrel, it must indeed have been an “interesting” experience!

San Diego Sarah on 4 May 2023  •  Link

Never thought of that possibility, Eric the Bish -- just how suicidal were they?