Tuesday 13 March 1659/60

Annotations

• N David Quidnunc on Fri 14 Mar 2003, 12:57am

  Brothers: John and Richard Creed

  Latham & Matthews edition renders the words this way:

  ” … where I talked with Mr. Creed, both [NOT “till”] the Brothers, and they were very seemingly willing and glad … “

  — The “till” in the older version makes no sense and must be someone’s mistake.
  — The brothers are John and Richard Creed.
  — That odd capital “B” in “Brothers” is also in the L&M edition. Wild speculation: The capital “B” is an indication he’s intimidated by them, but capital letters were sprinkled all over the place back then.
  — In modern times, the phrase “both the Brothers” would be punctuated by dash marks, not mere commas, to reflect the jolting shift — or perhaps this was some 17th century usage. Or maybe Pepys had already written “John Creed” and didn’t want to cross the name out (in which case he could just as easily written “and his brother”). Maybe the writing style (the jolting nature of it or the possible mistake or both) reflects the tension Pepys must be feeling about the situation with the Creeds.
  — That “seemingly willing and glad” shows he’s not sure how sincere they are (who would be?). He must’ve been watching them like a hawk.

• N Keith Wright on Fri 14 Mar 2003, 01:38am

  Click “Luellin” link for biographical blurb.

• N Mary on Fri 14 Mar 2003, 08:34am

  Mr. Creed, both the Brothers.

  There’s no great disjunction here, if you mentally supply “indeed” or “in fact” before “both”. It’s Mr. John who is of primary concern to Sam, but both brothers happen to be present when he calls at the Admiralty.

  Richard Creed was a clerk to the Admiralty Committee from c.1653 according to L&M and served as the Admiral’s secretary and Deputy Treasurer to the fleet 1657-60 approx.

• N KVK on Fri 14 Mar 2003, 10:22am

  “all that had been done by the former Rump against the House of Lords”

  Specifically: on February 6, 1649 (one week after the King’s execution), the Rump declared that “the House of Peers in Parliament is useless and dangerous, and ought to be abolished.”

  On March 19 it issued the following Act abolishing the upper House:

  http://www.constitution.org/eng/conpur089.htm

  The Lords were abolished only because they refused to cooperate with the Rump in bringing the King to trial. They unanimously rejected the January 1 Ordinance that arranged a trial for the King, and so the Commons, who were determined to try the king, declared themselves sufficient to manage affairs of state on their own. This made the Lords superfluous, and it was only a matter of time before they were formally dismissed.

  At the time the House of Lords was dismissed, there were only twelve lords left sitting in it. The rest had abandoned Parliament over the previous seven years.

• N Hhomeboy on Fri 14 Mar 2003, 02:28pm

  “… Things seem very doubtful what will be the end of all; for the Parliament seems to be strong for the King, while the soldiers do all talk against.”

  So Sam’s got butterflies and the city is semi-chaotic and awash with soldiers acting like riff-raff…hence the need to stash Elizabeth well out-of-town…

  Also, were the King’s return mission— on which Sam is embarking under Montagu—to fail, Sam must have feared that as Montagu’s official secretary, he might end up being pursued or hunted down…Sam’s must have received counsel that he should keep his wife in a safe house with no apparent associations with Montagu’s or Pepys’s…
  

• N j a gioia on Fri 14 Mar 2003, 02:53pm

  It rained hard and I got up early, and got to London by 8 o

• N Brian on Fri 14 Mar 2003, 03:21pm

  Up until this point it appeared as though Sam was the financier to his Lord. Now he is Secretary not Treasurer and appears quite upset. Had something happened recently to change his position?

• N Alan Bedford on Fri 14 Mar 2003, 03:41pm

  Brian - Sam’s most recent official position was as a teller in the office of the Navy paymaster. Unofficially, he has also been an errand boy, carrying messages, paying and collecting bills, for Lord Mountagu, who is a distant relative and has served as Sam’s patron in London. If I understand correctly, Mountagu got Sam his official position.

  Mountagu has been appointed by Parliament to escort Charles II back to England to assume the throne. Now Sam is becoming (temporarily) Mountagu’s personal secretary, which is a position that can get him favorably noticed by those in power. There is also a potential downside, as Hhomeboy noted above.

• N Nix on Fri 14 Mar 2003, 04:00pm

  At this point, has Parliament requested or authorized Charles’ return? My impression was that it was still under negotiation, and Montague was to be part of the negotiating team (but perhaps my atttention wandered at some key point — wouldn’t be the first time!).

• N Glyn on Fri 14 Mar 2003, 04:26pm

  No, Nix, your attention hasn’t wandered: Parliament does not have the authority to request or authorize Charles’ return, and certainly has not done so. All that it is doing is to dissolve itself and call new elections for a new Parliament.

  But as Pepys writes today, the writs (for new elections) “to-night … go out without any qualification” i.e. there is no bar on former Royalists campaigning to be elected.

  You don’t have to be a weatherman to know how the wind blows. So long as they don’t mess things up for themselves or hold out for too hard a deal.
  

• N JonTom Kittredge on Fri 14 Mar 2003, 04:33pm

  “At which I was troubled…”
  I’m still confused about why Pepys was troubled when Montagu told him he would be his secretary. Was it because
  1) It was a lesser position than he hoped for, or
  2) He felt he was supplanting Mr Creed, who would be offended?

• N Glyn on Fri 14 Mar 2003, 04:39pm

  Actually, I was misstating the position slightly. Parliament can do whatever it wants under the constitution, but in fact it has NOT so far formally had dealings with Charles. It has only agreed to arrange new elections.

  Hhomeboy: “were the King’s return mission— on which Sam is embarking under Montagu—to fail, Sam must have feared that as Montagu’s official secretary, he might end up being pursued or hunted down” Nah, don’t see that myself - Sam is a very small fish at the end of a very long line. If (hopefully) Charles is not invited back, then he might lose his job because of Montagu’s loss of prestige, but no more than that.

  Off-hand, I can’t think of any examples of wives being harassed in that proposed way, and it doesn’t sound as if Elizabeth’s address is any kind of a secret (certainly not a “safe house with no apparent associations with Montagu’s or Pepys’s”) especially if it is only 20 miles away.

  I still think that Huntsmore might be somewhere a bit nearer than that - in view of the speed that Pepys got there and back again, but really don’t have any evidence either way.

• N Julia on Fri 14 Mar 2003, 04:55pm

  “At which I was troubled …”
  Could Sam be concerned about Creed’s coming along on the voyage? See lh’s entry under Creed in the background pages: “John Creed was Pepys

• N Alan Bedford on Fri 14 Mar 2003, 04:59pm

  Thanks to Nix & Glyn for the subtle correction concerning the Parliament’s current position vis a vis Charles II.

  Mr. Kittredge: I think that Sam perceives that John Creed had been a little put off that Sam got the secretary position that previously belonged to him (Creed), but is somewhat mollified by the deputy treasurer position. Note Julia’s post, directly above. In addition Sam seems to be taking a bit of a chance in accepting the secretary position, given that he had been in a pretty safe, non-demanding job in London. Plus, he’s leaving home and family.

  Both of these factors probably have contributed to his recent unease.

• N Glyn on Fri 14 Mar 2003, 05:03pm

  I’m as puzzled as JTK by this comment. It doesn’t sound from the biographical link as if Pepys was a strong friend of John Creed’s (but maybe that reflects later judgements), and this is surely a prestigious and important appointment. So is he troubled because he is taking the other Creed brother’s job; or because the first Creed has got a better one than him (deputy treasurer to the whole Fleet would surely be a profitable position in a lot of ways); or is he just showing a sensitive restraint from celebrating getting his friend’s job?

• N Hhomeboy on Fri 14 Mar 2003, 05:35pm

  Re: Creed bros…

  My read is that Sam was mollifying the Creeds who were trying to make things difficult for Sam; he notes that he told them “lookit, if I don’t take the secretarys’ post, it will go to someone else and not to either of you—so let’s be pragmatic, make the best of an unneasy situation and cooperate together for our mutual benefit and keep out any interlopers…”

  Sam knows that time is on his side: he has Montagu’s sympathy and ear and Creed’s quite pronounced religious views are not going to stand him in good stead with Montagu in the near future.

  As for Sam being a small fry, that may be so, but he has been a very visible go-between for Crewe/Montagu/Downing (and may have also been pasing messages between Crewe/Thurlow and Downing, who is already plotting the arrest of regicides, performing royalist counterintgelligence and spying on the Dutch, whom Montagu will have to deal with militarily)…and if army elements or republicans pulled off another coup, they would likely arrest or hold hostage any and all Royalist ‘spies and plotters’ they could get their hands on…

  Our Sam is about to embark on a great adventure with enormous future possibilities for personal gain, social enhancement and position….Btw, as Montagu’s secretary, Sam will deal directly with the King’s retinue, including Charles’ brother….

• N Pauline on Fri 14 Mar 2003, 05:36pm

• N Keith Wright on Fri 14 Mar 2003, 05:38pm

  Quick remarks stolen from the Companion re:
  “John Creed (d. 1701) was Pepys’s principal rival for Sandwich’s favour” (i.e., Montagu’s). By March 1659 Creed was a secretary on Montagu’s staff, and that summer accompanied him to the Baltic on business; but for this “upcoming” voyage in 1660 Montagu preferred Pepys, possibly put off by Creed’s puritanism, as his pre-Restoration letters to his lord “drip with sanctimonious jargon.” (p. 79)

• N David Quidnunc on Sat 15 Mar 2003, 12:49am

  RE: “at which I was troubled”

  L&M note referencing this sentence says that the secretary and deputy treasurer duties were usually held by one person.

  The tension between Pepys and the Creeds is the obvious one that goes on in any office where one employee has been removed from some assignment that he wanted and another has been put in his place — and both are expected to work together. All parties must either try to work together or make it look that way for the boss, and one or both parties may try to stab the other surreptitiously. Sam has every reason to be worried about the Creeds.

  And his pride is probably hurt that Mountagu didn’t give all of Creed’s job to him, only part. He might be wondering if Mountagu thinks he’s less able than Creed.

• N michael f vincent on Sat 29 Mar 2003, 08:45pm

  “I talked with Mr. Creed till the Brothers, and they were very seemingly willing and glad that I have the place since my Lord would dispose of it otherwise than to them.”
  I read this differently
  1: They did not get the position (v prestigeous)
  2: They still had an in with sp to the man

• N michael f vincent on Wed 2 Apr 2003, 10:58pm

  “at drink with them at Roberts “
  on the 8th SP wrote “no strong waters for a week” -oh! well