Tuesday 24 July 1660

Annotations

• N Paul Brewster on Thu 24 Jul 2003, 11:49pm

  Baron hath got a grant beyond sea to come in before the Reversioners of the Privy Seal.
  The above reproduces the wording from L&M. They add the following footnote: “The dispute was about a Privy Seal clerkship. Usually reversionary interests were respected at the Restoration. This was an exception made because of Baron’s services to King in exile. (He had brought him news of his restoration.)”

  OED: reversioner, n One who possesses the reversion to an estate, office, etc.; an heir in reversion.
  

• N vincent on Fri 25 Jul 2003, 01:02am

  “…where I did acquaint Mr. Watkins with my being sworn into the Privy Seal, at which he was much troubled, but put it up and did offer me a kinsman of his to be my clerk, which I did give him some hope of, though I never intend it….”
  Is this fair?

• N M.Stolzenbach on Fri 25 Jul 2003, 02:45am

  “Is this fair?”

  No, but it’s very, very human.

• N Pauline on Fri 25 Jul 2003, 04:31am

  “…a grant beyond sea…”
  So, Paul, a grant beyond sea is a grant made by the king when he was in exile (beyond the English Channel). And in this case a grant that will supersede the reversions to pre-Commonwealth grants such as Barlow’s reversion as Clerk of the Acts which Sam has just bought out.

  Trying to get it all straight.

• N Vera on Fri 25 Jul 2003, 08:41am

  …did offer me a kinsman of his to be my clerk…
  Is it just my nasty suspecious mind? Mr Watkins isn’t happy with Sam in his new role so then offers him a clerk … to keep an eye on him perhaps ?????? I don’t blame Sam for not wanting to take the offer, but he doesn’t want to offend.
  

• N Ann on Fri 25 Jul 2003, 02:11pm

  I’ve been reading right along, and maybe I’m just dense, but I really don’t get this Privy Seal thing. I read the link, and understand the seal itself, but what, exactly is Sam’s role? Surely, he’s not the “keeper” spoken of in the link? Why are people disturbed by his being sworn into it? I’m terribly confused….

• N John on Fri 25 Jul 2003, 02:43pm

  Ann- I’m not really sure, but I think that the warrant that the Pepys needs in order to secure him the job has to be made legitimate by the addition of the privy seal (it must be one of the minor documents mentioned in the link.) So the swearing in is simply the formal act of getting the seal affixed to the warrent so that he has legal claim to the job (something like signing a document with a notary public present.) That’s my guess…
  The reason people are upset by it is because they want the job themselves or they want someone closer to themselves to be given the job. It’s all based on patronage. What friends or family you know in what important positions. Everyone is scrambling to get the good jobs or get their people in somewhere..

  This is a very nice site layout and a great story!

• N Brian McMullen on Fri 25 Jul 2003, 02:52pm

  The ‘Clerk’ of the Privy Seal is a position held by the Earl not SP. The Earl is one of four ‘clerks’. The other three are Hartgill Baron (mentioned in this entry), John Castle, and Williams Watkins (also mentioned).

  Paul Webster had an entry for the 23rd which gave some more information reagrding the Privy Seal:

  http://www.history.ac.uk/office/privyseal.html

  I followed that one and found information on the four ‘clerks’ at:

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

• N Pauline on Fri 25 Jul 2003, 05:15pm

  Sam’s Privy Seal power
  I thought Sam was being given the right to use (or order the affixing of) the Privy Seal on documents coming across his desk in his position as Clerk of the Acts. A requirement of his new position, or an added plus Montagu/Sandwich wrangled for so that the job is less encumbered and has more status — Sam won’t have to take documents to someone else everytime he needs a Privy Seal.

• N Brian McMullen on Fri 25 Jul 2003, 07:37pm

  Pauline, remember that on the 23rd SP took the Oath of the Privy Seal along with Montagu (who is the real ‘clerk’). This was important to SP in that it gave him (and Montagu) an additional ‘office’ and if they were to lose the first they still had the second.

  For me, it seems very important to SP that Montagu gain as much ‘power’ as he can and that SP is glad to follow his leader. Much of the official title ‘stuff’ seems to belong to Montagu while SP gains most of the practical business end. In that sense SP will proably be the one doing the ‘work’ of the Privy Seal (and sharing his compensation with Montagu).

• N vincent on Fri 25 Jul 2003, 09:57pm

  Thanks to Brian McMullen I have better understanding of the Power play thats going on:The set up is ? Watkins vs Baron , Sandwich and Bickerstaffe

  Politics as usual?

• N vincent on Fri 25 Jul 2003, 10:38pm

  Sorry a booboo: it should read
  Thanks to Brian McMullen I have better understanding of the Power play thats going on:The set up is ? Watkins vs Baron , Sandwich and
  Castle(neutral?)

  
  

• N Pauline on Fri 25 Jul 2003, 11:08pm

  Brian, I don’t think it is an office, as in a post or job. I think it is an office in the sense of having the authority to grant the Privy Seal. It appears to be a lifetime authority. And I don’t think his weilding this authority has to be restricted to his current job. Upandcomers rushing around to get a seal for their patents and warrants can now come to Sam.

  And it is easy to assume that it is a money maker.
  

• N vincent on Sat 26 Jul 2003, 12:48am

  My understanding is that it is a life time tenure till the ‘ead falls off naturally or removed by axe: It is a better form of Sabatical leave or leave of absence. To have other activities ( like being able to go off to be a general and enjoying the battle then having a secure income to come back to ( reversion )when you decide that it would be nice) knowing you had complete security..then you are in possession(again). It used to be Civil service right of being established,no firing unless you were excised for a major crime, like blowing up the HP:

• N Mary on Sat 26 Jul 2003, 06:41am

  Clerkship of the Privy Seal
  Think of the modern position of a member of the Privy Council, who has similar tenure. He is normally appointed for life and acquires certain political benefits (such as being able to claim priority in speaking in the House of Commons)though no longer has the same direct political clout as was the case before the Cabinet style of government grew preeminent.