Early in Feb. 1661 it was reported Bristol was to visit to Flanders and Germany. The purpose was variously given as personal business relating to his daughter’s marriage, or to the ‘unhandsome disbanding of British regiments’ by the king of Spain, but it was widely suspected to relate to the choice of a bride for the king, particularly the need to provide convincing proof that serious consideration had been given to finding a suitable Protestant bride. According to the French ambassador there was another reason: Clarendon’s desire to get Bristol out of the way so he could increase his influence over the king. Despite his earlier protestations of support for the French, Bristol, who was born and brought up in Spain, advocated a Spanish match for the king. Clarendon and Ormonde had initially agreed, but by the time Bristol returned to England (early May, 1661) Clarendon had switched his support to an alliance with Portugal, a policy that Bristol vehemently opposed.
Differences between Clarendon and Bristol also reflected larger rivalries at court. Bristol enjoyed the friendship of the king’s mistress, Barbara Villiers, Lady Palmer, as well as Queen Mother Henrietta Maria, who were both against Clarendon.
Bristol again took his seat in the House on 10 May, 1661, 2 days after the opening of the new session. He was present on 75 per cent of sitting days and was named to many committees, which included some on the most significant issues of the day: the reversal of the attainder of Thomas Wentworth, earl of Strafford, on 14 May, the security of the king’s person and government on 24 May, the regulation of corporations on 18 July and the restoration of ecclesiastical jurisdiction on 19 July. In July it was thought Bristol would support the attempt of Aubrey de Vere, 20th earl of Oxford, to secure the great chamberlaincy.
Differences with Clarendon were becoming more obvious. In June 1661 the House debated Catholic demands for inclusion in the benefits of the Declaration of Breda, a modification of the oath of allegiance and the removal of the penal laws. Such demands faced considerable opposition especially as it was widely believed that Catholics did not consider themselves bound by oaths that conflicted with their obedience to the pope. As Bristol admitted during the debates, ‘there is little hopes for us to obtain any ease from penalties till your lordships be satisfied what security we will give by oath of our duty and allegiance to his majesty.’ The debates did produce a committee to draft a bill to repeal the sanguinary laws against Catholics on 28 June to which Bristol was named. The resultant proposals would have reduced rather than abolish the various restrictions on Catholics but were never introduced. Just who was responsible for the failure remains unclear. Clarendon blamed divisions amongst the Catholics. The Catholics, including Bristol, blamed Clarendon.
He is known to have been present at at least one gathering of Catholic nobility and gentry, in Nov. 1660; this may have been the meeting called to discuss a general toleration described by William Howard, Viscount Stafford, in his ‘confession’ of Dec. 1680, although the presence of Ormonde suggests that Irish interests rather than purely Catholic ones may have been the focus of the meeting. On 6 Dec. he sought further direction from the House for the benefit of the committee considering the bill to vacate Sir Edward Powell’s fines and reported the bill itself as fit to pass on 8 Dec. On 12 Dec. after a debate in a committee of the whole he was named to the subcommittee to consider provisos to the bill against the regicides.
Given that the most substantial part of Bristol’s claims related to his father’s unpaid pension and the wardship of Lord Brooke, he was naturally extremely concerned about the prospect of the formal abolition of the court of wards. The Commons passed a bill to this effect in Dec. 1660 and backdated it to the last sitting of the court in Feb, 1646. Bristol prepared a petition against the bill, asking it be revised either to secure his claim to the wardship of Lord Brooke or to provide him with compensation, but when he told Clarendon of his intention he was persuaded to take no action on the grounds ‘that it might be of great ill consequence to his majesty’s service to set on foot, in the House of Commons, a claim to such a compensation, since it might be of example to divers others to do the like’. Bristol’s compliance was secured by a promise from Clarendon, given in the king’s name, that he would be provided for in other ways.
Clarendon’s failure to keep his promise, aggravated by subsequent political and factional differences, led to a rapid deterioration in the relationship between the two.
The passage of the bill to abolish the court of wards was speedy – it was brought up from the Commons on 17 Dec. and received the royal assent on 24 Dec. –- but Clarendon was probably correct in thinking that Bristol had raised a potentially controversial issue that could have delayed it. The House received a petition against it from the dowager duchess of Somerset as well as two provisos on 18 Dec. and a petition from the officers of the court the following day. The alterations made in the Lords became the subject of a conference with the Commons on 21 Dec.
In Jan. 1661, Bristol together with York joined Albemarle in the suppression of Venner’s uprising.
He also emphatically restated his willingness to serve the interests of the French at the English court. Despite his professions of poverty and ruin, he was able to buy a magnificent house in Wimbledon, which he described as the ‘noblest place in England’, from the queen mother for £4,000. He later sent her a diamond valued at £500 by way of thanks.
Contrary to his statements to Lady Bristol about sublimating his private interests to the wider public good, Bristol was determined to extract revenge and reparation from his own old enemies. He also put considerable effort into securing the rewards to which he believed himself entitled. He obtained a grant in reversion of the office of writer of the tallies (auditor of the receipt of the exchequer) for his younger son, Francis Digby. His countess petitioned for a lease of Theobald’s Park as compensation for giving up her jointure to raise the £30,000 demanded after the Civil Wars for the ‘redemption’ of her son John Digby, later the 3rd Earl of Bristol (1634 –1698) .
On 2 Aug. 1660 Bristol introduced a bill to recover £6,500 given ‘by the late pretended Parliament’ to Carew Raleigh; it received its third reading on 22 Aug. but failed to pass the Commons. Bristol also, on 11 Aug. obtained an order of the House putting him into possession of all lands formerly belonging either to himself or his father and which had been confiscated and sold for delinquency.
The question of reparations and how far they could or should be pursued was a sensitive one. On 6 Aug. in the course of debates on private provisos in the act of indemnity, Bristol’s support of the merits and sufferings of William Cavendish, marquess (later duke) of Newcastle over and above those of George Villiers, 2nd duke of Buckingham, caused an open quarrel in the House and fears of a duel, forcing Charles II to order the men to confine themselves to their lodgings. They appear to have been reconciled by the end of the month.
On 10 Sept. Bristol reported from the committee for the potentially controversial bill to restore Sir George Lane (Ormonde’s secretary) to possession of Rathclyne, Lisduff and other lands in Ireland. The following day he was named to the committee to amend the contentious bill for restoring ministers, apparently as part of an alliance with York and Clarendon that aimed to conciliate the Presbyterians and offer the hope that a more general toleration would follow. He was also named to the committees for the annexation of Dunkirk, Mardyke and Jamaica to the crown and, after reporting from the committee for the bill for disbanding the army, was named to assist Hyde in managing the consequent conference on the subject.
The Abbé Montagu’s hopes for securing Bristol’s support for France seemed to have been borne out, for by late Sept. at the latest Bristol was in regular communication with the French court, telling Mazarin that his desire to serve him was second only to his desire to serve Charles II.
Bristol was active in court life, entertaining the king of Spain’s representative, Claude Lamoral, Prince de Ligne, accompanying Charles II on state occasions and welcoming the royal household to his London house.
Bristol had considerable expectations. Whilst in exile, he had been granted the wardship of his wife’s nephew, Francis Greville, 3rd Baron Brooke of Beauchamps Court. This, ‘the only thing he relied upon to repair the losses of his family in his service, and to pay his debts, without being burdensome to the crown’, was valued at £30,000. He also had a claim to the arrears of a pension of £2,000 a year that had been granted to his father and which by the Restoration came to £36,000. He also alleged that he and his family had lost £16,000 as the price of their loyalty to the crown during the Civil Wars and Interregnum. The gap between these expectations and what he received would soon engender an implacable hostility to Edward Hyde.
Bristol returned to England in time to take his seat in the Lords on 16 June, 1660. His willingness to attend Parliament coupled with his access to the king and his Catholicism led the Abbé Montagu (the Catholic brother of Edward Montagu, 2nd earl of Manchester and high in the esteem of the queen mother) to tell Cardinal Mazarin that Bristol ‘could be useful to cultivate, even if he does not realize it’. Mazarin welcomed the abbé’s offer to influence and manage Bristol.
Bristol attended 72 per cent of the remaining sittings in the Lords that session, becoming a significant member of the House involved in debate on crucial post-restoration issues; over the course of the session he was named to 23 committees. On 19 June, 1660 he was named to the committee for privileges, the subcommittee for the Journal, and the committee to examine the acts and ordinances of the Interregnum. On 4 July he was named to the committee to confirm the privileges of Parliament and the fundamental laws of the kingdom; he also obtained an order of the House for the restoration of goods that he had lost during the ‘late wars’. Bristol’s hard-line attitude to the king’s former enemies and inability to accept the case for moderation was soon apparent. On 7, 11 and 14 July he reported from the committee for privileges on the executions of James Hamilton, duke of Hamilton, Henry Rich, earl of Holland, and James Stanley, 7th earl of Derby, as a result of which the House ordered those responsible to be secured.
On 20 July, 1660 during the debate on the bill of indemnity he told the House of his rage, ‘That many of the wickedest and meanest of the people should remain, as it were, rewarded for their treasons, rich and triumphant in the spoils of the most eminent in virtue and loyalty, of all the nobility and gentry of the kingdom’. Although he would be ‘irreparably ruined’ in his fortune by the bill, the public interest nevertheless called for it to be passed quickly. He argued, successfully, that the murder of the late king had to be washed away by the ‘blood of the guilty’ and should be dealt with as a particular issue in a separate bill.
This is extracted from a very long biography which seems to be from the House of Lords. This is the time covered by the Diary; the detail explains the tensions which Pepys experiences but often doesn't understand:
George Digby succeeded to the earldom of Bristol in 1653, but even after that date his contemporaries sometimes referred to him as Lord Digby or earl of Digby, thus creating some confusion between Bristol and another branch of the family who held the barony of Digby of Gleashill in the Irish peerage (but who were English and resident in England).
Bristol was a prominent member of the court in exile and equally prominent in the factional rivalries that beset it. ... Given his earlier defence of the Church of England, Bristol’s conversion to Catholicism early in 1659 was a matter of astonishment that embarrassed Charles II and forced him to remove Bristol from the post of secretary of state.
As the Restoration unfolded, Bristol, involved in negotiations in Spain, found himself left behind by the pace of developments. Nevertheless, he naturally expected to reap the rewards of loyalty, including compensation for his losses in the king’s service, the restitution of his estates and payment of the arrears of his salary as secretary of state, which he estimated at £8,500.
Initially fearful that Monck would insist on some form of conditional restoration, Lady Bristol began to press Charles II for what she perceived as Bristol’s well-earned reward, apparently afraid that her husband’s absence would lead to him being overlooked. Bristol was far more confident of the king’s favour and feared only that his wife’s importunities might backfire to his discredit He counselled discretion, assuring her that, "I cannot fail to succeed in all that we reasonably propose to our selves for my person, fortune and family; so certain am I of his Majesty’s favourable kindness, unalterable, by any thing but by your letting him see, that we precipitating prefer the satisfying our own vanity and ambition, the consideration of drawing inconveniences upon by pressing to be near him, before he is master enough of his affairs to be able to admit it without ill consequence unto them."
He did not doubt there might be obstacles to his advancement. These included his Catholicism but, more importantly, the rivalry of those who were jealous of his credit with the king and of his ‘parts and ambitions’. He suggested that an emphasis on a desire to live quietly at Sherborne rather than to pursue places at court would persuade even his enemies ‘to be forwardest as a matter of justice, to counsel his majesty to repair my losses liberally.’
He was also convinced that Edward Hyde, the future earl of Clarendon, and James Butler, Marquis of Ormonde in the Irish peerage and subsequently also in the English peerage, would support his pretensions.
The Parliamentary bio of George Digby's son, John, gives us a more personal look into his life:
JOHN "Digby’s grandfather, the 1st Earl of Bristol, came from a cadet branch of the Midland family. He was granted the Sherborne Castle estate as a reward for diplomatic services in 1616. "His father [GEORGE] sat for the county in both Parliaments of 1640 before being called up to the Lords, having made the Lower House too hot to hold him by his unexpected and well-publicized opposition to Strafford’s attainder. "During the Interregnum, when [GEORGE] was in exile he became a convert to Rome, [JOHN] Digby seems to have lived with his Puritan mother [Lady Anne Russell, da. of Francis, 4th Earl of Bedford], whose ‘zeal cannot suffer a Catholic under her roof’. She bought back the estates from the Treason Trustees by selling her own jointure, and settled it on [JOHN] Digby on his marriage." https://www.historyofparliamenton…
L&M: George Digby, 2nd Earl of Bristol 1612-77. Politician, soldier, playwrite -- a man of brilliant gifts, but of almost no achievements, having, in Burnet's words, "no judgment or steadiness". He served King Charles, shortly and disasterously, as a Secretary of State in 1643, and was appointed to the same position by Charles II in 1657, but was made to resign on becoming a Roman Catholic. His religion excluded him from high office thereafter, and he played a spoiling game during the Diary years making himself unpopular and distrusted by everyone. The Diary has several revealing entries about his vendetta against Clarendon. The only play he published is called "Elvira" (1667).
An excerpt from GEORGE VILLIERS, SECOND DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM 1628-1687 : A STUDY IN THE HISTORY OF THE RESTORATION By WINIFRED, LADY BURGHCLERE https://archive.org/stream/cu3192…
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET, W. LONDON 1903
Page 250 BUCKINGHAM'S VAGARIES [chap. x.
'The usual profusion which marked the entertainments of that period was not lacking on this occasion; and with his French chef, George Villiers, 2nd Duke of Buckingham had evidently imported the Parisian fashion of serving his table. All the dishes of "costly meats both hot and cold, the sweetmeats also, and the fruit," were placed simultaneously on high stands erected to receive them down the board — an arrangement we can see depicted in the sketches of French banquets still preserved at the Musee Carnavalet.'
@@@
I think “the board” either means the sideboard, or on the table itself of which I think I remember seeing pictures.
The website for Musee Carnavalet has fabulous pictures of 17th century French art, but not of these sketches or of pictures of dining at the time. https://www.thegeographicalcure.c…
"... does this mean that the restoration norm was having the prawn cocktail, steak and Black Forest gateaux all served at once?"
Apparently, yes. An excerpt from GEORGE VILLIERS, SECOND DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM 1628-1687 : A STUDY IN THE HISTORY OF THE RESTORATION By WINIFRED, LADY BURGHCLERE https://archive.org/stream/cu3192…
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET, W. LONDON 1903
Page 250 BUCKINGHAM'S VAGARIES [chap. x.
'The usual profusion which marked the entertainments of that period was not lacking on this occasion; and with his French chef, George Villiers, 2nd Duke of Buckingham had evidently imported the Parisian fashion of serving his table. All the dishes of "costly meats both hot and cold, the sweetmeats also, and the fruit," were placed simultaneously on high stands erected to receive them down the board — an arrangement we can see depicted in the sketches of French banquets still preserved at the Musee Carnavalet.'
Diary of Ralph Josselin (Private Collection) 1.4.1661 (Monday 1 April 1661) document 70013010
April. 1. 2. 3.
I sow oats on ley, and other land. lord command a blessing for my hope is in thee.
went towards London on Mr H. account, a sad providence, [PRESUMABLY ON THE 3RD - SDS]
oh lord melt my bowels, accept my praises for my families health, reason, return to them in favour: die.
@@@
This tells us the weather was fine.
Ley -- noun 1. a piece of land put down to grass, clover, etc., for a single season or a limited number of years, in contrast to permanent pasture.
Mr. H = one of the Mr. Harlakandens who lived in London must have received bad news or suffered bad health. His mother/sister/aunt/cousin lives in the Manor house, and is a friend of Josselin's.
Onto the bowels question -- this meant something different in the 17th century. American Google hasn't the foggiest idea what I'm asking about. Anyone know?
And presumably he never finished the entry -- or he had suicidal thoughts after his return from London and wrote this entry!?!?
On the maid debate -- mom stays home all day, so having to deal with someone she doesn't like is a big deal. Dad has his tailoring business -- probably in one of the street-level rooms -- and has other people to interact with during his days.
Mom's vote counts the most. No matter how irrational or petty, if mom isn't happy, no-one will be happy.
Pictures of extraordinary French craftsmanship in this article, which also mentions Louis XIV's efforts to be friends with the Emperor of China (after the Diary). https://en.chateauversailles.fr/n…
Easter Sunday traditions ... are based on pagan superstitions, which of course is why the Puritans didn’t celebrate the holiday. (The Puritans didn’t like Christmas, either.) For the early Puritans, celebrating the Lord’s Day 52 times a year was quite enough. https://newenglandhistoricalsocie…
The Habsburgs were one of Europe's most formidable – and durable – dynasties, ruling over swathes of the continent for centuries. Speaking to Spencer Mizen, Pieter Judson tells the story of this powerhouse of a family on History Extra, from their championing of Catholicism to the disastrous effects of their incestuous marriages.
Pineapples, sometimes known as “king’s fruit,” were one of British society’s most sought-after status symbols for 250 years. They were often displayed at dinner parties on special plates but typically weren’t eaten. Hosts saved thousands of dollars by renting pineapples instead of buying them — one pineapple cost a whopping £60 (around $17,000 today) in the mid-17th century.
The fruit earned its luxurious reputation during the 16th century, when it was first imported from the Caribbean, and by the 18th century, growing pineapples became a pastime of the upper class.
If you'd like to see how the Doge lived -- apartments fit for a King -- and pictures of Venice and info on how life was there in Shakespeare's time, I recommend a documentary: NOTHING IS TRUER THAN TRUTH
It lasts 75 minutes and is on ROKU now -- March 2024. It's about the Bard and his pals, Elizabeth I and James I, Oxford and Southampton, and is a visual representation of the book, "Shakespeare By Another Name" by Mark Anderson https://www.amazon.com/Shakespear…
The British -- not that they called themselves that -- avoided Antwerp because it was in the Catholic Spanish Netherlands. It was also in what they referred to as Flanders. And it was a center for fine art.
In the late 16th and 17th centuries, Antwerp was a design studio for the world. The port city, in what was then the Habsburg Spanish Netherlands, suffered from the religious conflicts of the time, but weathered sack and damage from armies on both sides of the long wars of religion to reinvent itself as a center of art, engraving and publication. Antwerp was also a hub of typography and printing, especially after the establishment of the mighty international firm of Officina Plantiniana in 1555.
The city’s artists excelled in many spheres, but especially in the arts of drawing and design: Antwerp prints travelled throughout the Habsburg realms and beyond. Designs derived from them can be found in mission churches in the Andes, on tombstones in remote Scottish graveyards, on Chinese ceramics made under Jesuit auspices, and on metalwork and title pages throughout the early modern world.
‘Bruegel to Rubens: Great Flemish Drawings’ at the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford until 23 June, 2024 offers a glimpse of the multiple possibilities and uses of drawing in Flanders, and takes a broad view of what might be defined as a drawing.
Preparatory studies for grand paintings are represented here, as in Rubens’ casually massive charcoal study of a nude male torso, which reappears in his Raising of the Cross (1610–11) in Antwerp Cathedral.
There are delicate, sardonic pages from friendship albums; designs for tapestries, title pages, stained glass; jewel-colored studies of tulips, roses and insects painted on vellum by Joris Hoefnagel; delicate watercolor landscapes, glimmering like enamel, that are finished works in themselves, such as The Fall of Icarus (1590) by Hans Bol.
Re Vincent and bubbles, on wondering whether Sam knew about the tulip bubble of 1637 ...
I expect Pepys knew many rich people lost money buying tulip bulbs when the market crashed 25 years ago -- and he must have enjoyed looking at tulips in rich people's gardens. But whether he, or anyone else, appreciated what a bubble was/is, probably not. He did observe, for instance, the problems with obtaining mourning clothes when everyone in the nation went into mourning at the same time. That's a form of bubble.
An unusual look at some of Wren's work -- the view from the rooves (or roofs if you prefer) and some historical notes from his major works: https://londonist.substack.com/p/…
Comments
Third Reading
About George Digby (2nd Earl of Bristol)
San Diego Sarah • Link
PART 5
Early in Feb. 1661 it was reported Bristol was to visit to Flanders and Germany. The purpose was variously given as personal business relating to his daughter’s marriage, or to the ‘unhandsome disbanding of British regiments’ by the king of Spain, but it was widely suspected to relate to the choice of a bride for the king, particularly the need to provide convincing proof that serious consideration had been given to finding a suitable Protestant bride.
According to the French ambassador there was another reason: Clarendon’s desire to get Bristol out of the way so he could increase his influence over the king.
Despite his earlier protestations of support for the French, Bristol, who was born and brought up in Spain, advocated a Spanish match for the king.
Clarendon and Ormonde had initially agreed, but by the time Bristol returned to England (early May, 1661) Clarendon had switched his support to an alliance with Portugal, a policy that Bristol vehemently opposed.
Differences between Clarendon and Bristol also reflected larger rivalries at court. Bristol enjoyed the friendship of the king’s mistress, Barbara Villiers, Lady Palmer, as well as Queen Mother Henrietta Maria, who were both against Clarendon.
Bristol again took his seat in the House on 10 May, 1661, 2 days after the opening of the new session.
He was present on 75 per cent of sitting days and was named to many committees, which included some on the most significant issues of the day: the reversal of the attainder of Thomas Wentworth, earl of Strafford, on 14 May,
the security of the king’s person and government on 24 May,
the regulation of corporations on 18 July
and the restoration of ecclesiastical jurisdiction on 19 July.
In July it was thought Bristol would support the attempt of Aubrey de Vere, 20th earl of Oxford, to secure the great chamberlaincy.
Differences with Clarendon were becoming more obvious.
In June 1661 the House debated Catholic demands for inclusion in the benefits of the Declaration of Breda, a modification of the oath of allegiance and the removal of the penal laws.
Such demands faced considerable opposition especially as it was widely believed that Catholics did not consider themselves bound by oaths that conflicted with their obedience to the pope.
As Bristol admitted during the debates, ‘there is little hopes for us to obtain any ease from penalties till your lordships be satisfied what security we will give by oath of our duty and allegiance to his majesty.’
The debates did produce a committee to draft a bill to repeal the sanguinary laws against Catholics on 28 June to which Bristol was named.
The resultant proposals would have reduced rather than abolish the various restrictions on Catholics but were never introduced.
Just who was responsible for the failure remains unclear. Clarendon blamed divisions amongst the Catholics. The Catholics, including Bristol, blamed Clarendon.
About George Digby (2nd Earl of Bristol)
San Diego Sarah • Link
PART 4
He is known to have been present at at least one gathering of Catholic nobility and gentry, in Nov. 1660; this may have been the meeting called to discuss a general toleration described by William Howard, Viscount Stafford, in his ‘confession’ of Dec. 1680, although the presence of Ormonde suggests that Irish interests rather than purely Catholic ones may have been the focus of the meeting.
On 6 Dec. he sought further direction from the House for the benefit of the committee considering the bill to vacate Sir Edward Powell’s fines and reported the bill itself as fit to pass on 8 Dec.
On 12 Dec. after a debate in a committee of the whole he was named to the subcommittee to consider provisos to the bill against the regicides.
Given that the most substantial part of Bristol’s claims related to his father’s unpaid pension and the wardship of Lord Brooke, he was naturally extremely concerned about the prospect of the formal abolition of the court of wards. The Commons passed a bill to this effect in Dec. 1660 and backdated it to the last sitting of the court in Feb, 1646.
Bristol prepared a petition against the bill, asking it be revised either to secure his claim to the wardship of Lord Brooke or to provide him with compensation, but when he told Clarendon of his intention he was persuaded to take no action on the grounds ‘that it might be of great ill consequence to his majesty’s service to set on foot, in the House of Commons, a claim to such a compensation, since it might be of example to divers others to do the like’.
Bristol’s compliance was secured by a promise from Clarendon, given in the king’s name, that he would be provided for in other ways.
Clarendon’s failure to keep his promise, aggravated by subsequent political and factional differences, led to a rapid deterioration in the relationship between the two.
The passage of the bill to abolish the court of wards was speedy – it was brought up from the Commons on 17 Dec. and received the royal assent on 24 Dec. –- but Clarendon was probably correct in thinking that Bristol had raised a potentially controversial issue that could have delayed it.
The House received a petition against it from the dowager duchess of Somerset as well as two provisos on 18 Dec. and a petition from the officers of the court the following day. The alterations made in the Lords became the subject of a conference with the Commons on 21 Dec.
In Jan. 1661, Bristol together with York joined Albemarle in the suppression of Venner’s uprising.
He also emphatically restated his willingness to serve the interests of the French at the English court.
Despite his professions of poverty and ruin, he was able to buy a magnificent house in Wimbledon, which he described as the ‘noblest place in England’, from the queen mother for £4,000. He later sent her a diamond valued at £500 by way of thanks.
About George Digby (2nd Earl of Bristol)
San Diego Sarah • Link
PART 3
Contrary to his statements to Lady Bristol about sublimating his private interests to the wider public good, Bristol was determined to extract revenge and reparation from his own old enemies.
He also put considerable effort into securing the rewards to which he believed himself entitled. He obtained a grant in reversion of the office of writer of the tallies (auditor of the receipt of the exchequer) for his younger son, Francis Digby.
His countess petitioned for a lease of Theobald’s Park as compensation for giving up her jointure to raise the £30,000 demanded after the Civil Wars for the ‘redemption’ of her son John Digby, later the 3rd Earl of Bristol (1634 –1698) .
On 2 Aug. 1660 Bristol introduced a bill to recover £6,500 given ‘by the late pretended Parliament’ to Carew Raleigh; it received its third reading on 22 Aug. but failed to pass the Commons.
Bristol also, on 11 Aug. obtained an order of the House putting him into possession of all lands formerly belonging either to himself or his father and which had been confiscated and sold for delinquency.
The question of reparations and how far they could or should be pursued was a sensitive one.
On 6 Aug. in the course of debates on private provisos in the act of indemnity, Bristol’s support of the merits and sufferings of William Cavendish, marquess (later duke) of Newcastle over and above those of George Villiers, 2nd duke of Buckingham, caused an open quarrel in the House and fears of a duel, forcing Charles II to order the men to confine themselves to their lodgings. They appear to have been reconciled by the end of the month.
On 10 Sept. Bristol reported from the committee for the potentially controversial bill to restore Sir George Lane (Ormonde’s secretary) to possession of Rathclyne, Lisduff and other lands in Ireland.
The following day he was named to the committee to amend the contentious bill for restoring ministers, apparently as part of an alliance with York and Clarendon that aimed to conciliate the Presbyterians and offer the hope that a more general toleration would follow.
He was also named to the committees for the annexation of Dunkirk, Mardyke and Jamaica to the crown and, after reporting from the committee for the bill for disbanding the army, was named to assist Hyde in managing the consequent conference on the subject.
The Abbé Montagu’s hopes for securing Bristol’s support for France seemed to have been borne out, for by late Sept. at the latest Bristol was in regular communication with the French court, telling Mazarin that his desire to serve him was second only to his desire to serve Charles II.
Bristol was active in court life, entertaining the king of Spain’s representative, Claude Lamoral, Prince de Ligne, accompanying Charles II on state occasions and welcoming the royal household to his London house.
About George Digby (2nd Earl of Bristol)
San Diego Sarah • Link
PART 2
Bristol had considerable expectations.
Whilst in exile, he had been granted the wardship of his wife’s nephew, Francis Greville, 3rd Baron Brooke of Beauchamps Court. This, ‘the only thing he relied upon to repair the losses of his family in his service, and to pay his debts, without being burdensome to the crown’, was valued at £30,000.
He also had a claim to the arrears of a pension of £2,000 a year that had been granted to his father and which by the Restoration came to £36,000.
He also alleged that he and his family had lost £16,000 as the price of their loyalty to the crown during the Civil Wars and Interregnum.
The gap between these expectations and what he received would soon engender an implacable hostility to Edward Hyde.
Bristol returned to England in time to take his seat in the Lords on 16 June, 1660.
His willingness to attend Parliament coupled with his access to the king and his Catholicism led the Abbé Montagu (the Catholic brother of Edward Montagu, 2nd earl of Manchester and high in the esteem of the queen mother) to tell Cardinal Mazarin that Bristol ‘could be useful to cultivate, even if he does not realize it’. Mazarin welcomed the abbé’s offer to influence and manage Bristol.
Bristol attended 72 per cent of the remaining sittings in the Lords that session, becoming a significant member of the House involved in debate on crucial post-restoration issues; over the course of the session he was named to 23 committees.
On 19 June, 1660 he was named to the committee for privileges, the subcommittee for the Journal, and the committee to examine the acts and ordinances of the Interregnum.
On 4 July he was named to the committee to confirm the privileges of Parliament and the fundamental laws of the kingdom; he also obtained an order of the House for the restoration of goods that he had lost during the ‘late wars’.
Bristol’s hard-line attitude to the king’s former enemies and inability to accept the case for moderation was soon apparent.
On 7, 11 and 14 July he reported from the committee for privileges on the executions of James Hamilton, duke of Hamilton, Henry Rich, earl of Holland, and James Stanley, 7th earl of Derby, as a result of which the House ordered those responsible to be secured.
On 20 July, 1660 during the debate on the bill of indemnity he told the House of his rage, ‘That many of the wickedest and meanest of the people should remain, as it were, rewarded for their treasons, rich and triumphant in the spoils of the most eminent in virtue and loyalty, of all the nobility and gentry of the kingdom’.
Although he would be ‘irreparably ruined’ in his fortune by the bill, the public interest nevertheless called for it to be passed quickly.
He argued, successfully, that the murder of the late king had to be washed away by the ‘blood of the guilty’ and should be dealt with as a particular issue in a separate bill.
About George Digby (2nd Earl of Bristol)
San Diego Sarah • Link
This is extracted from a very long biography which seems to be from the House of Lords. This is the time covered by the Diary; the detail explains the tensions which Pepys experiences but often doesn't understand:
George Digby succeeded to the earldom of Bristol in 1653, but even after that date his contemporaries sometimes referred to him as Lord Digby or earl of Digby, thus creating some confusion between Bristol and another branch of the family who held the barony of Digby of Gleashill in the Irish peerage (but who were English and resident in England).
Bristol was a prominent member of the court in exile and equally prominent in the factional rivalries that beset it. ...
Given his earlier defence of the Church of England, Bristol’s conversion to Catholicism early in 1659 was a matter of astonishment that embarrassed Charles II and forced him to remove Bristol from the post of secretary of state.
As the Restoration unfolded, Bristol, involved in negotiations in Spain, found himself left behind by the pace of developments. Nevertheless, he naturally expected to reap the rewards of loyalty, including compensation for his losses in the king’s service, the restitution of his estates and payment of the arrears of his salary as secretary of state, which he estimated at £8,500.
Initially fearful that Monck would insist on some form of conditional restoration, Lady Bristol began to press Charles II for what she perceived as Bristol’s well-earned reward, apparently afraid that her husband’s absence would lead to him being overlooked.
Bristol was far more confident of the king’s favour and feared only that his wife’s importunities might backfire to his discredit He counselled discretion, assuring her that, "I cannot fail to succeed in all that we reasonably propose to our selves for my person, fortune and family; so certain am I of his Majesty’s favourable kindness, unalterable, by any thing but by your letting him see, that we precipitating prefer the satisfying our own vanity and ambition, the consideration of drawing inconveniences upon by pressing to be near him, before he is master enough of his affairs to be able to admit it without ill consequence unto them."
He did not doubt there might be obstacles to his advancement. These included his Catholicism but, more importantly, the rivalry of those who were jealous of his credit with the king and of his ‘parts and ambitions’. He suggested that an emphasis on a desire to live quietly at Sherborne rather than to pursue places at court would persuade even his enemies ‘to be forwardest as a matter of justice, to counsel his majesty to repair my losses liberally.’
He was also convinced that Edward Hyde, the future earl of Clarendon, and James Butler, Marquis of Ormonde in the Irish peerage and subsequently also in the English peerage, would support his pretensions.
About George Digby (2nd Earl of Bristol)
San Diego Sarah • Link
The Parliamentary bio of George Digby's son, John, gives us a more personal look into his life:
JOHN "Digby’s grandfather, the 1st Earl of Bristol, came from a cadet branch of the Midland family. He was granted the Sherborne Castle estate as a reward for diplomatic services in 1616.
"His father [GEORGE] sat for the county in both Parliaments of 1640 before being called up to the Lords, having made the Lower House too hot to hold him by his unexpected and well-publicized opposition to Strafford’s attainder.
"During the Interregnum, when [GEORGE] was in exile he became a convert to Rome, [JOHN] Digby seems to have lived with his Puritan mother [Lady Anne Russell, da. of Francis, 4th Earl of Bedford], whose ‘zeal cannot suffer a Catholic under her roof’. She bought back the estates from the Treason Trustees by selling her own jointure, and settled it on [JOHN] Digby on his marriage."
https://www.historyofparliamenton…
About George Digby (2nd Earl of Bristol)
San Diego Sarah • Link
L&M: George Digby, 2nd Earl of Bristol 1612-77.
Politician, soldier, playwrite -- a man of brilliant gifts, but of almost no achievements, having, in Burnet's words, "no judgment or steadiness".
He served King Charles, shortly and disasterously, as a Secretary of State in 1643, and was appointed to the same position by Charles II in 1657, but was made to resign on becoming a Roman Catholic.
His religion excluded him from high office thereafter, and he played a spoiling game during the Diary years making himself unpopular and distrusted by everyone.
The Diary has several revealing entries about his vendetta against Clarendon.
The only play he published is called "Elvira" (1667).
About Wednesday 11 March 1667/68
San Diego Sarah • Link
More about the French style of food delivery:
An excerpt from GEORGE VILLIERS, SECOND DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM 1628-1687 : A STUDY IN THE HISTORY OF THE RESTORATION
By WINIFRED, LADY BURGHCLERE
https://archive.org/stream/cu3192…
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET, W. LONDON
1903
Page 250 BUCKINGHAM'S VAGARIES [chap. x.
'The usual profusion which marked the entertainments of that period was not lacking on this occasion; and with his French chef, George Villiers, 2nd Duke of Buckingham had evidently imported the Parisian fashion of serving his table. All the dishes of "costly meats both hot and cold, the sweetmeats also, and the fruit," were placed simultaneously on high stands erected to receive them down the board — an arrangement we can see depicted in the sketches of French banquets still preserved at the Musee Carnavalet.'
@@@
I think “the board” either means the sideboard, or on the table itself of which I think I remember seeing pictures.
The website for Musee Carnavalet has fabulous pictures of 17th century French art, but not of these sketches or of pictures of dining at the time.
https://www.thegeographicalcure.c…
About Wednesday 5 June 1667
San Diego Sarah • Link
"... does this mean that the restoration norm was having the prawn cocktail, steak and Black Forest gateaux all served at once?"
Apparently, yes. An excerpt from GEORGE VILLIERS, SECOND DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM 1628-1687 : A STUDY IN THE HISTORY OF THE RESTORATION
By WINIFRED, LADY BURGHCLERE
https://archive.org/stream/cu3192…
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET, W. LONDON
1903
Page 250 BUCKINGHAM'S VAGARIES [chap. x.
'The usual profusion which marked the entertainments of that period was not lacking on this occasion; and with his French chef, George Villiers, 2nd Duke of Buckingham had evidently imported the Parisian fashion of serving his table. All the dishes of "costly meats both hot and cold, the sweetmeats also, and the fruit," were placed simultaneously on high stands erected to receive them down the board — an arrangement we can see depicted in the sketches of French banquets still preserved at the Musee Carnavalet.'
About Monday 1 April 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
Diary of Ralph Josselin (Private Collection)
1.4.1661 (Monday 1 April 1661)
document 70013010
April. 1. 2. 3.
I sow oats on ley, and other land. lord command a blessing for my hope is in thee.
went towards London on Mr H. account, a sad providence, [PRESUMABLY ON THE 3RD - SDS]
oh lord melt my bowels, accept my praises for my families health, reason, return to them in favour: die.
@@@
This tells us the weather was fine.
Ley -- noun
1. a piece of land put down to grass, clover, etc., for a single season or a limited number of years, in contrast to permanent pasture.
Mr. H = one of the Mr. Harlakandens who lived in London must have received bad news or suffered bad health. His mother/sister/aunt/cousin lives in the Manor house, and is a friend of Josselin's.
Onto the bowels question -- this meant something different in the 17th century. American Google hasn't the foggiest idea what I'm asking about. Anyone know?
And presumably he never finished the entry -- or he had suicidal thoughts after his return from London and wrote this entry!?!?
About Sunday 31 March 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
Correct, 徽柔.
About Monday 1 April 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
On the maid debate -- mom stays home all day, so having to deal with someone she doesn't like is a big deal.
Dad has his tailoring business -- probably in one of the street-level rooms -- and has other people to interact with during his days.
Mom's vote counts the most. No matter how irrational or petty, if mom isn't happy, no-one will be happy.
Pepys should known that.
About Louis XIV (King of France, 1643-1715)
San Diego Sarah • Link
Pictures of extraordinary French craftsmanship in this article, which also mentions Louis XIV's efforts to be friends with the Emperor of China (after the Diary).
https://en.chateauversailles.fr/n…
About Easter
San Diego Sarah • Link
Easter Sunday traditions ... are based on pagan superstitions, which of course is why the Puritans didn’t celebrate the holiday. (The Puritans didn’t like Christmas, either.)
For the early Puritans, celebrating the Lord’s Day 52 times a year was quite enough.
https://newenglandhistoricalsocie…
About Charles II (King of Spain, 1665-1700)
San Diego Sarah • Link
The Habsburgs were one of Europe's most formidable – and durable – dynasties, ruling over swathes of the continent for centuries. Speaking to Spencer Mizen, Pieter Judson tells the story of this powerhouse of a family on History Extra, from their championing of Catholicism to the disastrous effects of their incestuous marriages.
https://www.historyextra.com/memb…
Yes, you need a subscription. They do discount them from time-to-time.
About About fruit and vegetables
San Diego Sarah • Link
More on pineapples ...
Pineapples, sometimes known as “king’s fruit,” were one of British society’s most sought-after status symbols for 250 years. They were often displayed at dinner parties on special plates but typically weren’t eaten. Hosts saved thousands of dollars by renting pineapples instead of buying them — one pineapple cost a whopping £60 (around $17,000 today) in the mid-17th century.
The fruit earned its luxurious reputation during the 16th century, when it was first imported from the Caribbean, and by the 18th century, growing pineapples became a pastime of the upper class.
https://historyfacts.com/world-hi…
It's the second article on the page.
About Venice, Italy
San Diego Sarah • Link
If you'd like to see how the Doge lived -- apartments fit for a King -- and pictures of Venice and info on how life was there in Shakespeare's time, I recommend a documentary: NOTHING IS TRUER THAN TRUTH
It lasts 75 minutes and is on ROKU now -- March 2024.
It's about the Bard and his pals, Elizabeth I and James I, Oxford and Southampton, and is a visual representation of the book, "Shakespeare By Another Name" by Mark Anderson
https://www.amazon.com/Shakespear…
About Antwerp, Belgium
San Diego Sarah • Link
The British -- not that they called themselves that -- avoided Antwerp because it was in the Catholic Spanish Netherlands. It was also in what they referred to as Flanders. And it was a center for fine art.
In the late 16th and 17th centuries, Antwerp was a design studio for the world.
The port city, in what was then the Habsburg Spanish Netherlands, suffered from the religious conflicts of the time, but weathered sack and damage from armies on both sides of the long wars of religion to reinvent itself as a center of art, engraving and publication.
Antwerp was also a hub of typography and printing, especially after the establishment of the mighty international firm of Officina Plantiniana in 1555.
The city’s artists excelled in many spheres, but especially in the arts of drawing and design: Antwerp prints travelled throughout the Habsburg realms and beyond. Designs derived from them can be found in mission churches in the Andes, on tombstones in remote Scottish graveyards, on Chinese ceramics made under Jesuit auspices, and on metalwork and title pages throughout the early modern world.
‘Bruegel to Rubens: Great Flemish Drawings’ at the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford until 23 June, 2024 offers a glimpse of the multiple possibilities and uses of drawing in Flanders, and takes a broad view of what might be defined as a drawing.
Preparatory studies for grand paintings are represented here, as in Rubens’ casually massive charcoal study of a nude male torso, which reappears in his Raising of the Cross (1610–11) in Antwerp Cathedral.
There are delicate, sardonic pages from friendship albums; designs for tapestries, title pages, stained glass; jewel-colored studies of tulips, roses and insects painted on vellum by Joris Hoefnagel; delicate watercolor landscapes, glimmering like enamel, that are finished works in themselves, such as The Fall of Icarus (1590) by Hans Bol.
Photos and more info at https://www.apollo-magazine.com/b…
About Wednesday 27 March 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
Re Vincent and bubbles, on wondering whether Sam knew about the tulip bubble of 1637 ...
I expect Pepys knew many rich people lost money buying tulip bulbs when the market crashed 25 years ago -- and he must have enjoyed looking at tulips in rich people's gardens. But whether he, or anyone else, appreciated what a bubble was/is, probably not.
He did observe, for instance, the problems with obtaining mourning clothes when everyone in the nation went into mourning at the same time. That's a form of bubble.
About Christopher Wren
San Diego Sarah • Link
An unusual look at some of Wren's work -- the view from the rooves (or roofs if you prefer) and some historical notes from his major works:
https://londonist.substack.com/p/…