Skip navigation

Wednesday 20 March 1660/61

At the office all the morning, dined at home and Mr. Creed and Mr. Shepley with me, and after dinner we did a good deal of business in my study about my Lord’s accounts to be made up and presented to our office. That done to White Hall to Mr. Coventry, where I did some business with him, and so with Sir W. Pen (who I found with Mr. Coventry teaching of him upon the map to understand Jamaica).1 By water in the dark home, and so to my Lady Batten’s where my wife was, and there we sat and eat and drank till very late, and so home to bed. The great talk of the town is the strange election that the City of London made yesterday for Parliament-men; viz. Fowke, Love, Jones, and … , men that are so far from being episcopall that they are thought to be Anabaptists; and chosen with a great deal of zeal, in spite of the other party that thought themselves very strong, calling out in the Hall, “No Bishops! no Lord Bishops!” It do make people to fear it may come to worse, by being an example to the country to do the same. And indeed the Bishops are so high, that very few do love them.

  1. Sir William Penn was well fitted to give this information, as it was he who took the island from the Spaniards in 1655.

Thursday 21 March 1660/61Tuesday 19 March 1660/61

Also on this day

Temperature: 6°C / 43°F

  • (Average for March 1661)

(About this data)

Annotations

  • N The Bishop on Sat 20 Mar 2004, 11:53pm

    “chosen with a great deal of zeal, in spite of the other party that thought themselves very strong, calling out in the Hall, “No Bishops! no Lord Bishops!” “

    In case it’s not clear, it was the pro-Fowke, Love and Jones party that called out “no bisops”, not “the other party”.

    Episcopal just means ‘pro-bishop’ in this context, but I don’t know when that particular word became common to describe the establishment party.

    Anabaptists was often applied loosely to any radical dissenters. I doubt Pepys or most of the people he knew could have explained precisely what set anabaptists apart from other dissenters.

  • N Louis Anthony Scarsdale on Sun 21 Mar 2004, 01:52am

    “Parliament-men; viz. Fowke, Love, Jones, and … , “


    “The Shorter Pepys” includes in square brackets the omitted name “Thompson.” More from L&M holders?

  • N vincent on Sun 21 Mar 2004, 02:36am

    One could be the former lord mayor in 1652 John FOWKE [explains the comment]
    http://www.steeljam.dircon.co.uk/lordmayorchrono.htm

    There was a Jones, sir Frances lord mayer in 1620, could be a relation[a son or nephew] they like to keep the job in the family. Where possible and the third [Love, Ald. William] was an alderman naturally.

  • N Mary on Sun 21 Mar 2004, 09:02am

    L&M supply Alderman Sir William Thompson.

    They also note that Thompson and Love were Presbyterians and the others independents. This resurgence of Puritans was alarming, coming so soon after Venner’s attempted rising.

  • N Xjy on Sun 21 Mar 2004, 11:02am

    Bishops so high, that few do love them.

    Sam in a nutshell. Trimmer extraordinary. Finger in the air to check the General Line emanating from the centre(s) of power, or anything that might affect it.

    First the respectable horror at the Puritan zeal (“They were thrown out, why don

  • N JWB on Sun 21 Mar 2004, 02:25pm

    Fowlke,Love and Jones…
    Could you choose more apt names for Anabaptists?

  • N JWB on Sun 21 Mar 2004, 02:37pm

    “By water in the dark home,..”
    Poetic phrase gave me pause. That’s life in six words.

  • N JWB on Sun 21 Mar 2004, 03:09pm

    Sects-
    Here’s short list from Geo. Fox:” but we had reasonings with all the other sects, Presbyterians, Independents, Seekers, Baptists, Episcopal men, Socinians, Brownists, Lutherans, Calvinists, Arminians, Fifth-monarchy men, Familists, Muggletonians, and Ranters; ” What a cross to bear, to give witness as a ‘Muggletonian”.

  • N David A. Smith on Sun 21 Mar 2004, 03:14pm

    “It do make people to fear it may come to worse”
    Sam’s a politician, and a politican’s principal aide. We are barely 18 months removed from a despotic theocracy established after a bloody civil war. It’s his job to have his finger in the wind, and it’s in his nature to worry, for the nation, his boss, and himself. But he consoles himself with the warm-milk thought “that very few do love them.”

  • N Alan Bedford on Sun 21 Mar 2004, 04:28pm

    “What a cross to bear, to give witness as a

  • N vincent on Sun 21 Mar 2004, 08:27pm

    JWB

  • N vincent on Sun 21 Mar 2004, 08:53pm

    The Ranters, Seekers,Levellers,Quakers all shaken up, all try to explain who should be at first base. In the end ‘tis money that talks. Then there are the Agrarians,Anabaptists, Baptists, the Anti- Clerics, Antinominians,Arians, Arminianians,Atheists,Agnostics,Astrologers,Barrowists, Behmentists, Brownists, Calvanists, Cavaliers, Royalists, Clubmen, Comenians, Diggers, Familists, Fifth-Monarchists, etc. They are now just keeping their own counsel.

  • N Josh on Sun 21 Mar 2004, 11:55pm

    Trying to “place” Pepys under this or that rubric: perhaps he lived less by “theory” than “practice”?

  • N Glyn on Mon 22 Mar 2004, 11:35am

    Just like David Smith says, Sam’s a politician’s aide and has to be able to predict what’s likely to happen.

    I think the key here is that this was an *unexpected* (strange) election victory. Their equivalent of opinion pollsters didn’t see it coming (which is a little odd, seeing how small the electorate was). These are not the people that Charles II and the Government would have chosen; and since the City was always strongly anti-Royalist before the Restoration is this a prediction of things to come? For instance, will the City be hostile to the King’s and the Government’s future policies (especially money-raising?).

    Sam is the most important political aide to one of the country’s leading statesmen: he has to keep on top of situations like these, and be able to give a political briefing to Montagu whenever so asked. (We saw a similar situation a few days ago when Montagu asked him what people knew of the King’s marriage plans.)

  • N Rex Gordon on Mon 22 Mar 2004, 01:12pm

    “…his finger in the wind …”
    This is not an unexpected trait of Sam’s. Remember when he was made uncomfortable by an old school friend who remarked, in company just after the Restoration, that Sam had been “quite the Roundhead” at school?

  • N JonTom Kittredge on Mon 22 Mar 2004, 06:31pm

    Why the Ellipsis?
    I am wondering why Wheatly omits Thompson’s name from the list of City members-elect. In the past, he has used an ellipsis only to edit passages that he thought were scatalogical or obscene. Maybe he found Thompson’s name illegible in the original? Any other theories?

  • N Emilio on Mon 22 Mar 2004, 09:10pm

    In this one case, Wheatley omits the word because Sam did.

    The L&M version has a blank there instead of an ellipsis. I guess Sam couldn’t think of the fourth name and left a blank so he could come back and fill it in later; by the time later came he had forgotten about it. That sort of thing happens to me all the time.

  • N Pedro. on Thu 25 Mar 2004, 11:25am

    Sam and the Bishops.
    Sam has twice listened to sermons by Bishops and states in the Diary:
    8/7/1660.
    “The Bishop of Chichester preached before the King, and made a great flattering sermon, which I did not like that Clergy should meddle with matters of state.”
    29/7/1660.
    “I with my Lord to White Hall Chappell, where I heard a cold sermon of the Bishop of Salisbury

Post an annotation

Before posting an annotation please read the annotation guidelines.
If your comment isn't directly relevant to this page, try the discussion group for other Pepys-related topics or the social group for general chat.

(required)

(required)

(optional)


No HTML in annotations. URLs will be turned into links. About copyright

Thursday 21 March 1660/61Tuesday 19 March 1660/61