Tuesday 14 February 1659/60

Called out in the morning by Mr. Moore, whose voice my wife hearing in my dressing-chamber with me, got herself ready, and came down and challenged him for her valentine, this being the day. To Westminster Hall, there being many new remonstrances and declarations from many counties to Monk and the City, and one coming from the North from Sir Thomas Fairfax. Hence I took him to the Swan and gave him his morning draft. So to my office, where Mr. Hill of Worcestershire came to see me and my partner in our office, with whom we went to Will’s to drink. At noon I went home and so to Mr. Crew’s, but they had dined, and so I went to see Mrs. Jem where I stayed a while, and home again where I stayed an hour or two at my lute, and so forth to Westminster Hall, where I heard that the Parliament hath now changed the oath so much talked of to a promise; and that among other qualifications for the members that are to be chosen, one is, that no man, nor the son of any man that hath been in arms during the life of the father, shall be capable of being chosen to sit in Parliament. To Will’s, where like a fool I staid and lost 6d. at cards. So home, and wrote a letter to my Lord by the post. So after supper to bed. This day, by an order of the House, Sir H. Vane was sent out of town to his house in Lincolnshire.

15 Annotations

M.Stolzenbach  •  Link

I wonder what the "oath so much talked of" was. And whether changing it to a "promise" was designed to make it possible for Quakers to serve.

Keith Wright  •  Link

Furthering M. Stolzenbach's query: the anti-military requirement for members of the new Parliament.

Derek  •  Link

Re: 'the oath'. Is this not the oath that Barebone's petition has demanded and that Parliament has welcomed (see diary entry for 11th February)? The 1911 Brittanica suggests that the petition

'...proposed that all officials should abjure the Stuarts, and all publicly proposing the Restoration should be deemed guilty of high treason.'

Derek  •  Link

'Challenged him for her valentine'.
Can anyone throw more light on this custom - and why it's acceptable for a married woman to 'challenge' another man in this way in front of her husband?

Judy  •  Link

Mr Hill....to see my and my partner. Who is the 'partner'? Is this G Downing or have I missed something?

john simmons  •  Link

Challanged him for her valentine...
A valentine was a special person chosen on this day, definitely not one's husband. I think in this case it was the first male she encountered, and Mr. Moore obviously suited as she quickly dressed and went down. She was young and pretty, so he probably did not repine. Am sure he would have given her some favor or token to seal the deal.

michael f vincent  •  Link

" hath now changed the oath so much talked of to a promise; and that among other qualifications for the members that are to be chosen ";
Civil rights are in the process of modification;
Only the privilege could vote and people of substance;
Of course the requirements were in transition;
privilege become unprivilege and unprivilege becoming privilege;
The sword is becoming the pen (maybe?).

Phil Gyford  •  Link

Phew, good to see it works Bill, thanks! I'll delete these annotations over the weekend, to keep things on topic, but nice to know it's all on track.

1Vikinggirl  •  Link

Oh no, please, don't delete the old annotations. They have been lovely to read the past weeks. They are just as much a diary of a time past as Sam's is. It is especially nice to see links to websites with information pre-wikipedia. Could we not just continue adding comments?

Chris Squire UK  •  Link

Hi there, Phil - thank you for sending the Diary out again and for all your sterling work in creating this site - and for restoring the comments: the challenge now is to think of something to add to the comments from 10 years ago . .

Richard Whittall  •  Link

Seconded on not deleting old annotations. Find them fascinating.

Frank G.  •  Link

I suspect that Phil is referring to test annotations. I can't imagine him deleting any of the historic annotations.

Phil Gyford  •  Link

Yes, I won't be deleting the old annotations, just the test ones, to keep things on topic about 14th February 1660! Feel free to post general comments about the annotations on the announcement: http://www.pepysdiary.com/news/2013/02/15/14007/

Now, back to the business of the diary...

Log in to post an annotation.

If you don't have an account, then register here.