Monday 15 April 1661
From my father’s, it being a very foul morning for the King and Lords to go to Windsor, I went to the office and there met Mr. Coventry and Sir Robt. Slingsby, but did no business, but only appoint to go to Deptford together tomorrow. Mr. Coventry being gone, and I having at home laid up 200l. which I had brought this morning home from Alderman Backwell’s, I went home by coach with Sir R. Slingsby and dined with him, and had a very good dinner. His lady seems a good woman and very desirous they were to hear this noon by the post how the election has gone at Newcastle, wherein he is concerned, but the letters are not come yet.
To my uncle Wight’s, and after a little stay with them he and I to Mr. Rawlinson’s, and there staid all the afternoon, it being very foul, and had a little talk with him what good I might make of these ships that go to Portugal by venturing some money by them, and he will give me an answer to it shortly. So home and sent for the Barber, and after that to bed.
39 Annotations
First Reading
Paul Brewster • Link
how the eleccion has gone at New=castle - wherein he is concerned.
L&M footnote: "The Duke of York had recommended Slingsby to the corporation of Newcastle-upon-Tyne in a letter of 5 March ... But two townsmen, Sir Francis Anderson and Sir John Marley [not the ghostly one], were returned on 10 April, a third candidate, George Liddell, unsuccessfully petitioning."
Susan • Link
No mention at the end of the day of going back to his father's to be with Elizabeth and no mention of regret at not having Elizabeth with him at home. Oh dear!
What would the 200 pounds have been that he had got from the banker? Money for the Navy? Money owed him? And where would he have "laid up" the money safely? It seems a huge amount to casually stow away in his house somewhere, though presumably he had a guard dog to bark at strangers.
Paul Brewster • Link
what good I might make of these ships that go to Portugall, by venturing some money by them;
L&M Footnote: "It was common and allowable at this time for the King's ships to carry private cargoes (usually plate or bullion), and for naval officers to receive payment for their services. Limits were imposed in 1686."
Vicente • Link
Ah! more delightful English spring weather"...it being a very foul morning... " Surely just the day for good dose of strong water, Aqua fortis [ I hope not ] A good sniffer of Spanish Brandy [would be more appropiate], is called for,in order to remove that cold & damp from the marrow of bones.All the clothes would seep of dampness like they did pre- central heating and those coalless days.
"...by venturing some money by them,..."
My guess is that He asked a good Kapitan to purchase some fine silks and Levant items that he could flog[sell] to his Friends in return for a nice prophit, as many have done thru the ages, before the Internet did offer direct sales.I remember Tangiers for cheep fags and sold in Italy for a nice return on investment, as long the bogie man did not catch thee.
Vicente • Link
Down by the Stour, the weather reported yesterday by the Rev. Jossyn "...A sweet showery, growing day for which and all mercies my soul blesses him, ..."
Wim van der Meij • Link
Warrington gives this on R. Slingsby's wife: "Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Edward Radclyffe of Dilston Northumberland, and widow of Sir William Fenwick, Bart. of Meldon. Sir R.Slingsby's first wife was Elizabeth, daughter and heir of Robert Brooke of Newcells.
Emilio • Link
"the King and Lords to go to Windsor"
This was for a meeting of the Order of the Garter, according to an L&M footnote.
Emilio • Link
"the King's ships to carry private cargoes"
As chance would have it, I was just listening to a book about 16th-century Portuguese Jesuit Matteo Ricci last week, and the book talked a bit about shipboard conditions of the period.
Taking on private cargoes could be a big problem--not just the holds but deck space as well could be filled with loot or even passengers that the crew took on to make an extra buck. This could not only make it difficult to move around on deck but also be dangerous in bad weather: imagine the effect of 50 lb of plate that has come loose and is being thrown around on deck during a storm. This is the reason why Portugal, and probably England as well, finally had to set limits on how much private cargo ships could take on.
Rich Merne • Link
Emilio'
Not familiar with your source, but as a boatie my observation. Along with what you say, there's the element of centre of gravity, or more exactly the vessel's metacentric height over the water. So the more mass you accumulate high in the boat (on deck for instance) the more inherently unstable the boat becomes. Sudden capsize is always on the cards if you overdo it. Heavy stuff to the hold or the orlop.
Ruben • Link
- Matteo Ricci was Italian, but from Portugal sailed to Goa and then to China.
- Rich Merne's contribution can be appreciated with a visit to the Wasa tallship in a ad hoc museum in Stockholm.
This ship was ordered by the Swedish King to have one more line of guns, and it capsized inmediatly after being launched. That happened in 1628.
Lawrence • Link
Henry VIII Maryrose flipped over I believe because the King had to many Men on the upper decks, see this site,
http://www.maryrose.org/ See the picture of the ship on the site, its from the Anthony rolls, Pepys owned half of the rolls given to him by Charles II, I think? They are kept at his Library at Magdalene college Cambridge, I hope somebody will correct me if I'm in error.
Ruben • Link
The Maryrose:
I looked at a few sites and there is no definitive explanation for the reason of the ships sinking. All the interpretations go more or less like this: "It appears she was overloaded or mishandled and not, as the French claim, holed by one of their cannon".
Ruben • Link
The Maryrose
The painting was done two years after the ships sinking.
Vicente • Link
'Tis why they Invented the Plimsole line. To prevent, [only one more thing, Preety Please]. There are still people like to squeeze that extra "small item " in on plane or ship[boat] with dire consequences. The Guy who controlls the the gold can have his way as long as he is on board too.
Susan • Link
The ill-fated airship the R101 crashed in the 30s because of overloading, in particular the fine carpet added for the important passengers. As well as being a warship, the Mary Rose had a large complement of marines or soldiers - she was being used partly as a troopship to get men over to the French mainland. Most of those were on deck probably raising the centre of gravity too high.
Peter • Link
Ah, the Plimsoll Line. We're back to Sellar and Yeatman and their sublime illustration of Mr. Plimsoll's invention.
Lawrence • Link
Pepys' love of books soon took its toll as he cut the Anthony Rolls up and made them into a book for his library.
Jenny Doughty • Link
Lovely picture here of the Vasa (mentioned above) and a guide to the Vasa museum. It's fascinating - well worth a visit if you happen to go to Stockholm.
http://www.vasamuseet.se/indexeng…
Susan • Link
Thank you, Jenny for this fascinating link! Excellent to compare with the Mary Rose exhibit.
Rich Merne • Link
Plimsole;
Sorry to dog the subject but, the Plimsole line will register the depth in water of the vessel which in calm conditions will give *no* indiction of the inherent stability or the tendency to turn turtle. This tendency is again a function of metacentric height. ie. in calm conditions the vessel could be grossly overladen with weight low down (in the hold), thus sinking well below the plimsole line. She would then actually become even more 'stable' against turning turtle though likely to founder or sink directly (ie. just go down) Incidentally, a vessel which has an overburden of 'high', or deck cargo; in turning turtle, may well spill some or all of the offending material or (men) (or cannonry)overboard and actually then right herself. Can we hear from somebody who actually knows more about the business, (a naval artichoke mayhap), or is it all too digressive. Sam might have had his tuppence worth.
Grahamt • Link
Re: Plimsole
Better to have a naval artichoke aboard than a bunch of leeks :-)
(sorry Rich, couldn't resist)
Vicente • Link
Rich, great insight. It was c of g that can create a roll over. The plimsole[Nike?] that stopped the overloading to the gunwhales and the first heavy seas plough the boat in to the Davy Jones Locker. Still careless loading and equalising of weight in Holds, and closure of hatches, bow doors left not quite shut, and incorrect distribution of cargos containers on box carriers still plague the Shipping Industry with disappearance of shipping upsetting LLoyds. A loading master is still a very responsible position .
Jenny Doughty • Link
The Vasa sank because the Swedish king came along and asked for another row of gunports to be put below the existing row, and the shipbuilders didn't dare argue with him. Come the launch, the vessel sailed out into Stockholm harbour, heeled over, and because the gunports were all open immediately shipped so much water through the lower rank of gunports that it sank like a stone in the harbour, where it remained until the 1950s when it was raised and restored. It had been beautifully preserved because it was very quickly covered in silt. Much interesting stuff was recovered from it (and can be seen in the Vasa museum) because it was fully equipped for a maiden voyage.
tc • Link
Plimsole line...
Even a ship loaded at dockside down to her "fully laden" Plimsole mark might come to grief when at sea if the cargo shifts due to poor packing in the hold, or even shifts due to rough weather.
Read the great, great story by Joseph Conrad entitled "Youth" to learn more about the dangers of shifting cargo (especially, in Conrad's case, a cargo of coal...)
Susan • Link
Another ship which foundered through becoming top heavy was the SS Normandie which caught on fire whilst being converted into a troop ship in the US in 1942. The ship was filled up with water to put the fire out. It was suggested she was in danger of turning over and should be allowed to sink slightly (open the seacocks) to allow the centre of gravity to be lowered. This was not heeded and she capsized. Website with pictures at http://www.geocities.com/swsodspi…
Rich Merne • Link
Ship stability; Boating fanatic as I am, I can't leave it go. Susan's water story. The most dangerous of all because of it's immense weight and even more so, it's mobility. One minute you may have a huge overturning moment to port and the next, with a roll, an even greater (live and impactive) one to stbd. Oscillations of this magnitude are usually fatal and catastrophically quick. Tell me if I'm wrong, but even recently, the ill-fated Herrald of Free Enterprise shipped vast quantities of unwanted water which caused sudden foundering.
Susan • Link
The Herald of Free Enterprise disaster happened because the car port bow doors were left open as the ship left the harbour. Water thus flowed in and once it had begun rolling back and forth, the ship was doomed. It was an entirely preventable tragedy. The design of roll-on, roll-off ferries has been changed now to include more baffles and also I think the ferries have been made so that they cannot be moved unless the doors are shut safely. I used to live in Kent and regular annotator Mary still does, so probably this tragedy is well known to her too. Human error, greed and haste still leaves people on ships as vulnerable in recent times as in the 17th century
Vicente • Link
no more broaching and lets get back on tack.
shannon lund • Link
i would like how the plimsole line bacame what it is, who it is, and why? plz send me info a.s.a.p. from Shannnon Lund. xxx
vicente • Link
Plimsoll [plimsole] was for ships instituted by Sir Samuel Plimsoll's Merchant Shipping Act of 1876, up to this time, greed vs common sense ruled.
vicente • Link
See this site for definition of plimsoll line: further reading finds that ship owners were putting the line on the hull [they be thought of as sub marines?] http://encyclopedia.thefreedictio…
Second Reading
Terry Foreman • Link
A Cheer for Samuel Plimsoll (via rb)
http://99percentinvisible.org/epi…
The waterline on a ship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wat…
Bill • Link
I went home by coach with Sir R. Slingsby and dined with him, and had a very good dinner. His lady seems a good woman.
R. Slingsby's wife Elizabeth has her own encyclopedia page. http://www.pepysdiary.com/encyclo…
Phil Gyford • Link
Good point Bill - I've added a link.
Third Reading
San Diego Sarah • Link
Charles II rides for Windsor, leaving the clerics to work out the Anglican future:
On April 15, 1661, the Savoy Conference met at Gilbert Sheldon, Bishop of London's chambers at Savoy Hospital:
it consisted of 12 Bishops (including John Cosin of Durham, Robert Sanderson of Lincoln, and Gilbert Sheldon of London), with 9 coadjutors (including John Pearson, afterwards Bishop of Chester, Peter Heylin, Peter Gunning, Anthony Sparrow, Herbert Thorndike), on the one side;
and on the other, 12 Presbyterian Divines (including Richard Baxter, author of 'The Saints' Rest', and Edmund Calamy, Edward Reynolds, Anthony Tuckney, John Conant, William Spurstowe, John Wallis, Thomas Manton, Arthur Jackson, Thomas Case, Samuel Clarke, and Matthew Newcomen), with 9 coadjutors.
...
One point emerges — the truth of John Milton's epigram that Presbyter was but old Priest writ large.
... the Puritans wished to give the minister power to refuse Baptism to a child, if he considered their parents to be heretical or notorious sinners. We may be thankful the Bishops replied, We think this to be very hard and uncharitable, and giving also too great and arbitrary a power.
Similarly, they wished to give greater liberty to the minister in the Absolution (Visitation of the Sick), and the Bishops answered the giving of absolution must not depend upon the minister's pleasure, but on the sick man's penitence.
They also desired that the minister should be urged to use full power "both to admit and to keep from the Lord's Table."
They further proposed to deprive the people of their share in the service — the repetitions and responses, the Kyries after the Commandments (the minister to say instead "a suitable prayer" at the end), and the alternate reading of the Psalms and Hymns, declaring "the people's part in public prayer to be only with silence and reverence to attend thereunto, and to declare their consent in the close, by saying Amen."
It is not surprising they desired the minister to face the people throughout the service — an obtrusive piece of clericalism from which many denominations still suffer:
to this the Bishops replied, Not so, and pointed out that in the ancient Church the minister always turned with the people when he acted as their spokesman.
The minister, thus exalted, must have the entire service in his own hands: the Puritan Divines not only wished him to have discretion to "omit part" of the appointed service and substitute extempore prayer, but also they desired that the collects should be melted down into "one methodical and entire form of prayer composed out of many of them," and that the Litany should be changed "into one solemn prayer."
If the Bishops had given way in 1661, we would today go to church and find a frock-coated gentleman confronting us to say the whole Litany without a break as one solemn prayer, while we "with silence and reverence to attend thereunto" and to say "Amen" when he had finished.
San Diego Sarah • Link
PART 2
The Ornaments Rubric was to be omitted, "forasmuch as this rubric seemeth to bring back the cope, albe, etc., and other vestments forbidden by the Common Prayer Book, 5 and 6 Edw. VI" (the Second Book);
to which the Bishops replied, We think it fit that the rubric continue as it is. The Surplice, the Cross in Baptism, and kneeling at Communion are objected to as "fountains of evil"; the wedding-ring is to be optional.
There is to be "nothing in the Liturgy which may seem to countenance the observation of Lent as a religious fast"; and the "religious observation of saints' days . . . and the vigils thereof is to be omitted."
The word "Sunday" was objected to, and not only "Priest," but even that most harmless of words, "Curate."
The Bishops replied to such criticisms as these by referring to Catholic usage, and to a Custom of the Churches of God, agreeable to the Scripture and ancient, and to the Catholic Consent of antiquity.
The Puritan Divines also objected to those phrases in the Prayer Book which assume all the congregation "to be regenerated, converted, and in an actual state of grace": the Bishops replied by pointing to St. Paul's use of the word "saints."
The Puritans objected to the charitable assumptions of the Burial Service. It is better to be charitable and hope the best, said the Bishops.
The Puritans asked for a rubric declaring that the prayers and exhortations are not for the benefit of the dead (the Bishops significantly ignored this).
They also demanded a rubric allowing ministers not to go to the graveside unless they thought fit, to which the Bishops replied that, since this was not asked for the ease of tender consciences, but of tender heads, the desire may be helped by a cap better than a rubric.
Bishops were not afraid to be witty in those days, or to speak in homely fashion, as when they met the demand for omitting all Lessons from the Apocrypha by the remark, "It is heartily to be wished that sermons were as good; for, if nothing ought to be heard in church except the Old and New Testaments, then there would be no sermons either."
Few of us today, whether Anglican or Nonconformists, would agree with these objections, many of which were undeniably fractious and captious while others depended upon a theology now obsolete.
It is a mercy the Bishops did not give way to the Puritan demand that "inheritors" in the Catechism should be altered to "heirs" — thus making the Kingdom of Heaven a future hope instead of a present inheritance; and we may be glad the Bishops left the definition of a Sacrament broad, by refusing to put "Two only," without the qualification "as generally necessary to salvation."
We may also be thankful that we are not fettered by the insertion into the Catechism of the theories current in 1661 "concerning the nature of faith, repentance, the two covenants, justification, sanctification, adoption, and regeneration."
San Diego Sarah • Link
PART 3
Who would now desire that Confirmation should not be administered by the Bishop, or that it should not be assumed in that service that the children brought have the Christian spirit and the forgiveness of their sins?
Who now would desire to omit the mention of godparents at Baptism or Confirmation? `
Who would like the minister to have power, if he chose, not to deliver the Sacrament to each communicant individually?
Who could bear to see the simple ornaments and ceremonies already mentioned — the surplice, or kneeling for communion — abolished?
Some of the Puritan criticisms were good, and some were accepted by the Bishops and their coadjutors.
The Bishops agreed
to print the Epistles and Gospels according to the Authorized Version;
to add to the rubric "The portion of Scripture appointed for the Epistle";
to give a longer time for notice by the communicants, altering "overnight, or else in the morning" to "at least some time the day before";
to add the manual acts to the Consecration in the Communion Service (the Puritans had rightly pointed out that the breaking of the bread was not so much as mentioned);
to add (and this was also an improvement) to the rubric after Confirmation the words "or be ready and desirous to be confirmed."
Besides these things, they agreed to alter in the Marriage Service "with my body I thee worship" to "with my body I thee honor" (although fortunately this was not done); but they did alter "till death us depart "to" till death us do part."
The Bishops further agreed
to add the preface ("prefixed by God himself," the Puritans had said) to the Commandments, but fortunately this also was not done;
and to omit from the Burial Service the epithets "in sure and certain hope of Resurrection to eternal life"; but mercifully this was taken back also, the sense being guarded by the insertion of the definite article.
San Diego Sarah • Link
PART 4:
We may summarize the position by two quotations.
The Puritan Divines said: "To load our public forms with the private fancies upon which we differ, is the most sovereign way to perpetuate schism to the world's end. Prayer, confession, thanksgiving, reading of the Scriptures, and administration of the Sacraments in the plainest, and simplest manner, were matter enough to furnish out a sufficient Liturgy, though nothing either of private opinion, or of church pomp, of garments, or prescribed gestures, of imagery, of musick, of matter concerning the dead, of many superfluities which creep into the Church under the name of order and decency, did interpose itself. To charge Churches and Liturgies with things unnecessary, was the first beginning of all superstition."
"If the special guides and fathers of the Church would be a little sparing of encumbering churches with superfluities, or not over-rigid, either in reviving obsolete customs, or imposing new, there would be far less cause of schism, or superstition."
The Bishops said: "It was the wisdom of our Reformers to draw up such a Liturgy as neither Romanist nor Protestant could justly except against."
"For preserving of the Churches' peace we know no better nor more efficacious way than our set Liturgy; there being no such way to keep us from schism, as to speak all the same thing, according to the Apostle. This experience of former and latter times hath taught us; when the Liturgy was duly observed we lived in peace; since that was laid aside there bath been as many modes and fashions of public worship as fancies."
"If we do not observe that golden rule of the venerable Council of Nice, 'Let ancient customs prevail,' till reason plainly requires the contrary, we shall give offence to sober Christians by a causeless departure from Catholic usage, and a greater advantage to enemies of our Church, than our brethren, I hope, would willingly grant."
In many things the Churchmen of that age were in the wrong: they were especially to blame for the penal laws and the harrying of Dissenters, which took generations and many acts of toleration to remove.
But few scholars would now refuse to admit that their theology was broader, more Christian, because less tainted by Calvinism, and truer to the New Testament than that of their opponents; and in those liturgical matters with which this little history is concerned there is now no doubt that they were right and the Puritans wrong.
San Diego Sarah • Link
CONCLUSION:
Puritanism brought to England a noble stock of moral sturdiness; and the ecclesiastical descendants of those Dissenters whom the cruelty of the Clarendon Code put outside the pale of the law, are among the best of our people today; but those descendants are themselves the surest witnesses today that the Churchmen were right in liturgical matters, for our modern Presbyterians and Nonconformists are steadily adopting the phrases and customs and ornaments to which the saintly Richard Baxter and his colleagues so strangely objected.
After the Savoy Conference the last revision of the Prayer Book was put in hand, and the long-lasting Fifth English Prayer Book was produced.
Excerpted from "Everyman's History of the Prayer Book"
by Percy Dearmer
Chapter X -- The Savoy Conference
http://justus.anglican.org/resour…
Percy Dearmer (1867 - 1936) was a Christian socialist and probably best-known as the author of 'A Parson's Handbook,' a popular guide to the ritual and conduct of Anglican liturgies.