Monday 23 July 1660

Annotations

• N upper_left_hand_corner on Wed 23 Jul 2003, 11:11pm

  “I was troubled all this day with Mr. Cooke”
  Am I forgetting something? Last I recall, Mr. Cooke was at sea. What is the business Same means to do for him?

• N Bullus Hutton on Thu 24 Jul 2003, 12:43am

  ”.. took our oaths..I am not likely to get anything by it at present; but I do desire it, for fear of a turn- out of our office.” Phew, this is scary stuff, implying he has become some sort of a “made man” in the upper echelons of power, who can no longer be got rid of easily. Or is it just like getting tenure in a faculty?
  It’s going to take some vincent, Glyn or Language Hat to sort out the significance of ” oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy and the Oath of the Privy Seal” ..
  “Bated breath” can only describe the anticipation..

• N john lauer on Thu 24 Jul 2003, 02:48am

  “He urged to have these words …”
  must mean “He wanted the words ‘in consideration whereof’ to be inserted …”. The parentheses, but no quotes, confused me awhile.

• N chip on Thu 24 Jul 2003, 04:55am

  Thinking of Sam on his knees uttering his oath, thinking he is not gaining a shilling by the act, is comical. And then later saying his prayers (and probably not gaining anything by that either). I too wonder what ‘in consideration whereof’ referred to and why Pepys objects. Any chance of this document surviving I imagine is slim.

• N Paul Brewster on Thu 24 Jul 2003, 05:24am

  He urged to have these words (in Consideracion whereof)
  This passage has several textual issues worth noting.

  — According to L&M, the word “these” represents a substitution that SP has made for what appears to be the word, “this”. Good catch, SP.

  — The parentheses are probably SP

• N Pauline on Thu 24 Jul 2003, 06:55am

  “…(in consideration whereof) to be interlined…”
  Two days ago Sam met with Barlow with a form of how their agreement would be stated. Barlow “liked it very well.” With this approval, Sam took it to be engrossed in duplicate. Now with the final copies ready to sign, the scrivener wants to get in the act and insert this phrase, messing up the copy a bit and making no difference. I’m with Sam, I’d be impatient with it too.

  I take the scrivener’s role to be like a notary public, witnessing the signatures.

• N Pauline on Thu 24 Jul 2003, 07:16am

  If “he” = Barlow
  All the more reason for Sam to be against it. In either case he shows the good sense to cede a small issue to the man of lesser power. But he and Barlow do go on to be “very pleasant and pleased.”

• N Mary on Thu 24 Jul 2003, 07:42am

  …in consideration whereof..
  could,perhaps, be significant if it ties Sam’s payments to a specific condition rather than leaving them on a more good-will type of basis, which he might eventually be able to slide out of. Or am I just being cynical? Any lawyers out there who would care to comment?

• N Alex Workman on Thu 24 Jul 2003, 08:53am

• N Chris Starr on Thu 24 Jul 2003, 11:49am

  The Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy where a device to prevent Catholics from becoming civil servants by several means including takeing scarement according to the Church of England, denying the physical change of wine and bread into the blood and body of Christ and various other clauses to prevent any possible way for a Catholic to cheat by taking Catholic scarement after the oath.

• N David A. Smith on Thu 24 Jul 2003, 02:16pm

  “in consideration whereof”
  Very simply, Barlow wants the record to show that Sam’s payment is a contract, not charity, and thus enforceable in the event that Sam decides to repudiate it. Sam, in turn, is probably (a) uncomfortable because the phrase implies that Barlow had standing (which he probably did but which Sam wishes he does not have to acknowledge), and (b) nettled that, having done Barlow a good turn (as he sees it), Barlow now comes back a couple of days later and isn’t quite as grateful as he first made out. (In other words, maybe Barlow was a little shrewd in his supplication ….)

  This contretemps is classic morning-after contractual minutiae and yet another example of how (x) human motivation never changes, and (y) why it’s so rewarding and so much fun to read the diary closely — everyone in it comes brilliantly to life.
  

• N brad w on Thu 24 Jul 2003, 02:16pm

• N Brian McMullen on Thu 24 Jul 2003, 02:36pm

  The annotation for the Privy Seal indicates that the ‘holder’ of the seal is know as Lord Privy Seal. I take it that the Earl is the person given the power of the seal. To me SP is now very comfortable that his connection with the Earl can withstand the test of time (or loss of office).

• N Paul Brewster on Thu 24 Jul 2003, 02:46pm

  Just a note
  The Earl of Sandwich is not the Lord Privy Seal but is instead one of the four clerks in the Pivy Seal Office.
  See the entry for E Montagu on the page:
  http://www.history.ac.uk/office/privyseal.html

• N Brian McMullen on Thu 24 Jul 2003, 04:15pm

  Paul, thank you for the clarification and thank you for the link (lots of useful information). I think I found the four ‘clerks’ you mentioned and they are (in alphabetical order) Hartgill Baron, John Castle, Edward Montagu, and Williams Watkins. There appeared to be ‘some discussion’ as to who was a ‘clerk’ at the time of restoration. The four ‘clerks’ probably had to ‘negotitate’ with the clerks from Charles I reign. I found the information on another link at the same site:

  http://www.history.ac.uk/office/privyseal_alpha.html#top

• N martha wishart on Thu 24 Jul 2003, 04:45pm

  It is not clear to me whether Barlow has asked for the words “in consideration whereof” to be inserted, or whether the scrivener has recommended it. “Consideration” is a legal term meaning a thing of value given in return for a promise. Consideration is required to make a contract binding. Here, Barlow has given up his reversionary interest in Sam’s office in return for the promise to pay the annuity.

• N Brian McMullen on Thu 24 Jul 2003, 05:16pm

  I believe that Barlow has asked for the words to be inserted. If you read the first sentence the scrivener has acted as a notary, job done. SP, in the second sentence, then fulminates a bit about having to add words to the document he thought completed and paid to have copied (not by the scrivener). This appears to be last minute hesitation on Barlow’s part. Just trying to make extra sure that he will get what SP has promised.

• N Nix on Thu 24 Jul 2003, 06:19pm

  The scrivener’s role —

  was probably a bit more than just copying down the parties’ words. English law was very form-bound, which is why a whole class of form experts arose. “In consideration whereof” would fall under the class of technical requirements, compliance with which was one of the reasons you hired a scrivener.

• N Pauline on Thu 24 Jul 2003, 06:19pm

  Who “he”?
  We might not be able to say for sure which is meant, Barlow or the scrivener. Unless we can determine that a scrivener did not have the power to suggest added wording to something he was witnessing.

  And we don’t know how important the interlined words were in the legal context of that time. I was seeing it as one incident in the early history of burgeoning legalese — a phrase that some are beginning to insist on and that will become standard.

  I think Sam is very accepting of the fact that he must provide this annuity to Barlow. For example, it is the other side of the coin by which his Privy Seal position gives him security — you get the position and it comes with privileges and built-in protection regardless of what happens. He was pleased to find that Barlow wasn’t interested in retaking the Clerk of Acts position and that he is old and not likely to be around to collect the annuity for very many years. But he respects Barlow’s right to the annuity.

  And David A. Smith is right on: “classic morning-after contractual minutiae.”

• N vincent on Thu 24 Jul 2003, 09:35pm

  ‘HE” If it was not for Barlow then there would be no need to get the document adjusted by the correct legal wording, so my vote is he = Barlow. I’m sure the Scrivener could and would have a say in the where and how to make it legal, based on his position and experience.
  SP Likes to watch his pennies( he has shown that he is very careful in the distribution of his funds).

• N Roger Miller on Fri 25 Jul 2003, 12:03am

  Which boy?

  Isn’t it more likely that the boy is not Will Hewer but the Will mentioned for the first time on the 30th June?

  http://www.pepysdiary.com/p/1036.php

• N Caroline on Fri 1 Aug 2003, 09:27pm

  I really enjoy reading the diary and the comments, but people should take more care to spell things correctly as often the meaning is unclear, as in this segment:
  The Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy where a device to prevent Catholics from becoming civil servants by several means including takeing scarement according to the Church of England, denying the physical change of wine and bread into the blood and body of Christ and various other clauses to prevent any possible way for a Catholic to cheat by taking Catholic scarement after the oath.

• N Pauline on Sat 2 Aug 2003, 03:02pm

  Ah, Caroline
  People who type with ease and haven’t succumbed to spell-checker reliance over the computer years do turn out nicer copy, but a message place such as this must welcome thumb typers and creative spellers as well.

• N vincent on Sat 2 Aug 2003, 10:34pm

  a) The Oath of allegiance was to eliminate those who did not agree with The Kings version of Religion: Some did find it hard to change, but did change their thinking. But others were definely on the the wrong side of the royal opinion:The Quakers for one, along many other sects of protestant thinking , beside the Roman Catholics.
  What is Scarement? ( do you mean the action of blasting pedantic schoolmasters?) (from websters)
  My mispellings are 1) I am dysletic sometimes , 2 )I cannot make up my mind if its a(N) english word or henglish word or may its from my ilgooten youth;or I am too lazy too look it up in the dictionary. I apologise if my diction is poor.

• N language hat on Sun 3 Aug 2003, 01:35am

  I don’t think anybody has trouble figuring out what you’re saying, and it’s always worth listening to!

• N Pauline on Sun 3 Aug 2003, 02:26am

  Gee, Vincent
  Here I thought you were typing with your thumbs. I’m with language hat, always worth reading.

  I do hope my above message isnt’ misread. “Must” as in ‘it is by far the most rewarding and reasonable’, not as in ‘have to’.

  And with that, a sigh of relief — I have forgotten how to spell and want to skip all this dictionary grabbing and just post ad hastium.