Tuesday 21 February 1659/60

In the morning going out I saw many soldiers going towards Westminster, and was told that they were going to admit the secluded members again. So I to Westminster Hall, and in Chancery Row I saw about twenty of them who had been at White Hall with General Monk, who came thither this morning, and made a speech to them, and recommended to them a Commonwealth, and against Charles Stuart. They came to the House and went in one after another, and at last the Speaker came. But it is very strange that this could be carried so private, that the other members of the House heard nothing of all this, till they found them in the House, insomuch that the soldiers that stood there to let in the secluded members, they took for such as they had ordered to stand there to hinder their coming in. Mr. Prin came with an old basket-hilt sword on, and had a great many great shouts upon his going into the Hall. They sat till noon, and at their coming out Mr. Crew saw me, and bid me come to his house, which I did, and he would have me dine with him, which I did; and he very joyful told me that the House had made General Monk, General of all the Forces in England, Scotland, and Ireland; and that upon Monk’s desire, for the service that Lawson had lately done in pulling down the Committee of Safety, he had the command of the Sea for the time being. He advised me to send for my Lord forthwith, and told me that there is no question that, if he will, he may now be employed again; and that the House do intend to do nothing more than to issue writs, and to settle a foundation for a free Parliament. After dinner I back to Westminster Hall with him in his coach. Here I met with Mr. Lock and Pursell, Masters of Music, and with them to the Coffee House, into a room next the water, by ourselves, where we spent an hour or two till Captain Taylor came to us, who told us, that the House had voted the gates of the City to be made up again, and the members of the City that are in prison to be set at liberty; and that Sir G. Booth’s case be brought into the House to-morrow.

Here we had variety of brave Italian and Spanish songs, and a canon for eight voices, which Mr. Lock had lately made on these words: “Domine salvum fac Regem,” an admirable thing.

Here also Capt. Taylor began a discourse of something that he had lately writ about Gavelkind in answer to one that had wrote a piece upon the same subject; and indeed discovered a great deal of study in antiquity in his discourse. Here out of the window it was a most pleasant sight to see the City from one end to the other with a glory about it, so high was the light of the bonfires, and so thick round the City, and the bells rang everywhere. Hence home and wrote to my Lord, afterwards came down and found Mr. Hunt (troubled at this change) and Mr. Spong, who staid late with me singing of a song or two, and so parted. My wife not very well, went to bed before.

This morning I met in the Hall with Mr. Fuller, of Christ’s, and told him of my design to go to Cambridge, and whither. He told me very freely the temper of Mr. Widdrington, how he did oppose all the fellows in the College, and that there was a great distance between him and the rest, at which I was very sorry, for that he told me he feared it would be little to my brother’s advantage to be his pupil.

31 Annotations

Keith Wright   Link to this

"Capt. Taylor began a discourse of something that he had lately writ about Gavelkind":

gavelkind, noun
[Middle English,=family tenure],
custom of inheritance of lands held in socage tenure, whereby all the sons of a holder of an estate in land share equally in such lands upon the death of the father. Most of the lands in England were held in gavelkind tenure prior to the Norman Conquest in 1066, and the custom of dividing lands among the male heirs is still preserved in parts of England, notably the county of Kent. This system of inheritance of lands is to be contrasted with borough-English and primogeniture.
—-The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001.

>>>There will be a quiz on this material tomorrow.

language hat   Link to this

gavelkind (OED):

1 The name of a land-tenure existing chiefly in Kent.The name implies that it was originally a tenure by 'gavel', i.e. by the payment of rent or fixed services other than military; this agrees with the indentification of it with socage (quot. 1253). After the Conquest, the Kentish form of socage was distinguished by certain customs elsewhere generally disused (cf. quot. 1702). Of these the most conspicuous was the custom by which a tenant's land at his death was divided equally among his sons; hence, even in early times, 'gavelkind' and 'partible land' are used as equivalent terms.

1253 Close Roll 37 Hen. III in C. J. Elton Tenures Kent (1867) 49 Terræ quæ tenentur in socagio vel gavelikende. 1702 E. Chamberlayne St. Gt. Brit. i. i. iii. (1707) 19 The privileges of gavel-kind belonging to this Country [Kent] are threefold: 1. The Heirs Male share all the Lands alike. 2. The Heir is at 15 at full Age to sell or alienate. 3. Tho’ the Father were convicted of Treason..yet the Son enjoys his Inheritance.

2 From the 16th c., often used to denote the custom of dividing a deceased man’s property equally among his sons, whether as an incident of the Kentish tenure or otherwise.

1531 Dial. on Laws Eng. i. x. (1638) 21 There is a custome in Kent that is called Gavelkind, that all the brethren shall inherit together, as sisters at the Common Law. 1754-61 Hume Hist. Eng. I. App. i. 104 In the Saxon times, land was divided equally among all the male children of the deceased, according to the custom of Gavelkind.
fig. 1627 Donne Serm. clvii. VI. 268 For God shall impart to us all a mysterious Gavel-kind, a mysterious Equality of fulness of Glory to us all.

In unrelated news, my Companion volume of the Latham edition arrived today. Whee!

Emilio   Link to this

Domine salvum fac Regem

Not entirely sure about this (never having properly studied Latin), but in context "God save(s?) the King" would seem appropriate. More of our man Sam's royalist leanings showing through.

Roger Miller   Link to this

God save the King! The text is the beginning of the last verse of Psalm 19 (20)

Domine salvum fac regem et exaudi nos in die qua invocaverimus te.

O Lord, save the king: and hear us in the day that we shall call upon thee.

Matthew Locke was someone who did well out of the Restoration, becoming composer in ordinary to Charles II in 1661 and writing a great deal of music for the theatre.

This is the 1911 encyclopedia article on him: http://54.1911encyclopedia.org/L/LO/LOCKE_MATTH...

He was a teacher of the famous Henry Purcell, son of the man he was drinking coffee with.

Glyn   Link to this

Language Hat has told us that John Crew was Montagu's father-in-law: he is now Speaker of the House of Commons which is one of the very top positions in the constitution.

But was he the Speaker before today's events, or has he just got the job as a result of what has happened? Is that why he telling Pepys to get his boss down to London as soon as possible, because he will now be able to get a prestigious job for him (and of course for Pepys)? And is that why Pepys is suddenly planning to go to Cambridge - is that where Montagu is living?

I'm still impressed at how our Samuel can make friends with people at the very top and bottom of English society: John Crew has a son precisely Samuel's age (26 years) so maybe he is taking a fatherly interest in him as well.

Glyn   Link to this

So Monck has surprised everyone and sent troops to make sure that the secluded/excluded MPs have finally been readmitted to Parliament (though I suppose it's only taken a week), so from now on they'll be making the decisions rather than the Rump MPs.

In return, they've confirmed Monck as commander-in-chief of the army, so outranking any radical generals who would disagree with him; and that they are now going to rebuild the City Walls that Monck only just knocked down and get the City leaders out of prison (although I'm surprised that they were still there after their arrest last week). Other than that, it seems to have been a quiet day but the world is changing.

This discussion of gavelkind in the coffee shop (and thanks for explaining what it was). Since it was something of historical interest even then, does that mean that this was one of the educational and debating meetings that Samuel Pepys seems to have attended for self-improvement?

Glyn   Link to this

I've just noticed that yesterday Pepys was still referring to Mr Lenthall as Speaker of the Commons, not John Crew. I'm really getting confused here - who is currently the Speaker?

grahamt   Link to this

This from a site - http://ingeb.org/songs/godsaveo.html - about the British national anthem ("God save the King/Queen")
"According to the French encyclopaedia, Quid, the music is by Giam Battista Lulli (Jean-Baptiste Lully in the French form). It was loosely based on a hymn sung when the (French) king arrived at an event, Domine Salvum Fac Regem."
Though that was composed in 1686 so couldn't be the song Pepys was singing. Strange coincidence though

Mary   Link to this

Who's who

Don't overlook the handy reference heads beside each day's entry. The 'People' section explains Crewe, Lenthall et al quite succinctly

language hat   Link to this

Speakers of the House:
The "People" section explains them a bit too succinctly for this purpose. Here are the details of Lenthall's service in this period (his name, by the way, is pronounced "Lentall"):

7 May 1659, elected Speaker by the Parliament
13 Oct 1659, Parliament dissolved by the military; Lenthall did not formally give up his authority as Speaker
24 Dec 1659, the revolted army units approached Lenthall asking him to resume his authority, which he did by taking possession of the Tower and appointed commissioners for its government the same day (Parliament re-convened on 26 Dec 1659)
13 Jan 1660, Lenthall incapacitated by illness (resumed the chair on 21 Jan 1660)

I won't continue for fear of spoilage.

By the way, I can't find a complete list of Speakers anywhere online, which astonishes me; there have only been 156 of them, so you'd think it would be easy to compile.

Pauline   Link to this

Lenthal is the Speaker of the House
I'm pretty confused too. Holding on to the idea that the armies have had the greater power and are now in the process of joining with the civil government. The City Council seems to have had the greater power here in the metropolis (in absense of king or protectorate), so that too has to be brought in. And it is not a straight question of King or Commonwealth. Who is in the Parliament and what its powers will be seem to be main questions now. There must be some common ground in this for both sides, and players who can go King or Not as long as the Parliament is free.

M. Bobryk   Link to this

Clarification please: Who is recommning a Commonwealth against Charles Suart? Is it the twenty soldiers or is it General Monk? If the latter, isn't this a significant change from the general feeling for restoration that Sam has been describing previously. Especially since Monck seems to have just been appointed El Supremo by Parliament.

Also, it seems to me that Sam is careful not to explicitly choose sides in his diary. If he were called to account, the diary itself wouldn't convict him of strong feelings either way - "I just described what I saw." Perhaps no more than wise in dangerous times. I wonder if his tone was different in those coded letters he sends to "my lord."

Susanna   Link to this

Going to Cambridge

Pepys may have a double purpose in going to Cambridge. He wishes to see his younger brother settled in at starting his studies at the university, and "my lord" Montague lives at Hinchingbroke, which is nearby. Very convenient.

Pauline   Link to this

I'm looking for clarification too
I read it as Monck "recommending" the soldiers to the Commonwealth and against Charles Stuart. Then the soldiers allow the excluded members into the house, to the surprise of those who thought the soldiers were there to prevent them from going in. Then the other members come in (or were already in there, sitting) and they give supreme military title to Monck. Mr. Crew comes out pleased and says it is now safe for Montagu to return to town. So did Monck say that to the soldiers to force the situation, to get all the members seated and down to business? Anyone have this figured out?

Susanna   Link to this

"About 20 of them..."

I don't think it was General Monck who gave the speech promoting a commonwealth; I think it was some of the formerly secluded members of Parliament. (I'd hate to have to diagram that sentence!)

David Quidnunc   Link to this

Monck politicking

I've read somewhere that Monck said at this time that he advocated a commonwealth and didn't want to see Charles Stuart put on the throne. There's a good reason for him saying it now, although his actions seem to completely contradict what he's saying.

Monck is in a difficult situation, essentially with three political players: The Army, the People and the Rump (and some of the influential politicians in it, even now that it's essentially destroyed).

THE ARMY: Its strength is that it can mutiny or side with rival generals. Its weaknesses are that it's not united, hasn't been paid and can't pay itself without brutalizing the entire country. The recent executions show what can happen if you mutiny and don't succeed. The army has a lot of hardline puritans in it, and they don't want to see the monarchy restored.

THE PEOPLE: Its strength (someone correct me if I'm wrong) is that it can, through its local officials, delay in making tax payments to the government in Westminster -- or even refuse to pay. Apprentices can also riot and make it difficult for the Army. The People want a free parliament and they like the idea of installing Charles Stuart as king because they want a stable government, and the puritans demonstrated in 1658-59 that they aren't able to provide that -- that's why the Rump is unpopular. The bonfire nights we've seen are a demonstration of how united and determined the People are.

THE RUMP: It has official control of the government (until just the past few days) and individual members, such as Arthur Haslerig, can harrangue the troops to get their support. Haslerig did just that in late 1659 and effectively stole them away from Generals Lambert and Fleetwood, bringing the Rump back into power. The Rump's weakness is that it is unpopular with the People.

Monck has acted to mollify all three players: He declared himself in favor of the authority of Parliament when he started marching south from Scotland. He made sure his own Army was paid by the Scots before he marched (but the Army will need to be paid again). He reversed himself on pulling down London's defenses when he found out how unpopular that could be with the People.

But he can't mollify everyone forever. By demanding the reinsertion of the secluded members (essentially at swordpoint), Monck has used the puritan Army to (largely) defang the puritan Rump: With the addition of the secluded members, there's a new majority in parliament which will now support a new election. The People love this, and their tax money should eventually go toward paying the back wages of the soldiers.

But the Rump is not entirely defanged: What if Haslerig or someone like him goes to the Army and points out that the next election will mean the end of puritan political control of the country?

So Monck tells the parliament in public that they should stick with a commonwealth and reject Charles Stuart -- even though a truly representative parliament would likely put Charles on the throne. In fact, one of the requirements for being elected to this parliament will be a pledge in favor of a commonwealth and against reinstating the monarchy. That should mollify the hardline puritans in the Army.

So Monck's statement has nothing to do with political ideals and everything to do with political hardball. The question now is: Who will be screwed in the upcoming election -- the People or the hardline elements of the Army? Both can't be satisfied at the same time. Has Monck even decided what he'll do in the future?

David Quidnunc   Link to this

Almost forgot . . .

I hope I never again type in such a long post as the one above. But I didn't see any shorter way of saying it, and I think it helps in understanding a situation that a lot of us are confused about. I'm one of the confused, by the way, and my post above is only a half-educated guess. Anyone's help in correcting whatever I got wrong is much appreciated.

Nix   Link to this

Don't bother yourself over the length of that post, Quidnunc -- it's a smart analysis of a complex situation, and a model of conciseness.

michael f vincent   Link to this

David you are mostly right except the people come in different classes;
the Poor: if they were misbehaving were being indentured and sent to the New England to help on the plantations (USA) or the West Indies;
The Merchant class were looking for the great rewards from the trading with the Levant, West Africa, India; but there were problems with shipping in the med. "barbery coast" and the other seas .
Time of expantion, more people living in London. Science was showing up ways to do do new things:
It was always the lessor of two evils Charles I was taxing too much, so off came his head. Would Royalty do it again ? How to limit their power. The Rump were not much better some say there was a lot of inflation: At the same time new foods and plants were being brought back from the Americas. So there was a lot of promise for the future, also the Navy was being quite successful.
Remember Monck was offered kingship but the merchants had given him some better ideas about his future. Monck also did not like absolute power, not in his personality.

Derek   Link to this

Making sense of the prose and the politics: it's been a confusing day and an interesting discussion - but here's how I read it:

'In the morning going out I saw many soldiers going towards Westminster, and was told that they (sc. 'the soldiers') were going to admit the secluded members again. So I to Westminster Hall, and in Chancery Row I saw about twenty of them (sc. 'the secluded members') who had been at White Hall with General Monk, who came thither this morning, and (sc. 'Monk') made a speech to them (sc. 'secluded members'), and recommended to them a Commonwealth, and against Charles Stuart. They (sc.'secluded members' and Monk) came to the House and went in one after another, and at last the Speaker (Lenthall - not Crew - who the previous day has refused to issue the writs for new elections to fill the secluded members' seats) came.'

From the diary entries for the previous few days, it's clear that it's been a very uncertain time, full of tension, focused mainly on Monk and his intentions. Initially he has acted on Parliament's (that is, the Rump's) behalf (staunchly pro Commonwealth) against the City (supporting a return to monarchy). On Parliament's orders he has torn down the city gates. Then he's had a change of heart - or at least listened to the City's point of view - and the balance of power has shifted. He's also been lobbied continually by the secluded members, as Sam has told us in some detail. They have been lobbying Monk and Parliament, as Sam reports on 19 Feb, not for any revenge on the Rump but to be allowed to take their seats briefly so that Parliament can be formally dissolved and new elections called for a 'free Parliament'.

Monk offers himself as an honest broker. (Precisely how honest remains to be seen - yesterday Sam reports that he seems to be moving to the 'restoration' postion, but today he announces himself pro-Commonwealth.) However, today the secluded members are re-admitted; those imprisoned are freed; the enlarged Parliament reverses its position on the City defences; Monk consolidates his military authority; and it's clear that there's been an agreement to dissolve Parliament and hold new elections.

The remarks about Sam going to Cambridge seem to me to relate wholly to his interest in John's academic progress rather than to political matters, given the observation about Mr Widdrington. He's already going to communicate with Montague by letter.

Martin K. Foys   Link to this

to see the City from one end to the other

"Here out of the window it was a most pleasant sight to see the City from one end to the other"

Is the Coffee House in Southwerk, and is Pepys enjoying the famous "long view"? If not, where does would he have such a view of the city?

Martin K. Foys   Link to this

Nevermind . . .

I just realized he could be in Westminster as well, where the bend might afford him a good view. He'd still need some height, though. . .

Paul   Link to this

Mr Prin with the old fashioned basket-hilt sword is probably the Bath attorney & Member of Parliament William Prynne, 1600-1669. An irrepressibly long-winded propagandist for the secluded members, a hardline Puritan (& a particular enemy of the theatre) he was imprisoned & tortured for his anti-Royalist pamphlets (both ears lopped off and SL for 'seditious libeller' branded on both cheeks) but as an equally vehement Parliamentarian he fell out with Cromwell & the Army and was imprisoned by them in the 1650s. He supported the Restoration & damned the Rump an an 'Unparliamentary Junto'. He had opposed the execution of Charles I and in 1660 was rewarded with the post of official archivist to the Tower.

Mary   Link to this

"here we had a variety of brave Italian and Spanish songs...."

Probably more acceptable to other customers than today's muzack and everlasting pop "background" music. Though, of course, there's no accounting for taste.

Arthur Perry   Link to this

... Just want to clarify an encyclopedia link: "He (Crew) advised me to send for my Lord forthwith". The link for "my Lord" points to Monck but should it not be Montagu, the Earl of Sandwich?

Dick Wilson   Link to this

Arthur: Yes; it it certainly Montagu. A minor scdrew up in the link. Montagu has been lying low at Hinchingbroke, keeping Pepys in London. Pepys is to keep Montague informed of shifting loyalties. Some of their correspondance was dangerous enough for them to use cipher, but not all of it. Most of the great families at this time were secretly "making their peace" with the king. Downing is in Holland, trying to improve his opportunities by offering his services to Charles II.

Terry Foreman   Link to this

"Lenthall now supported the Restoration. He strongly opposed the oath abjuring the House of Stuart, sought by the republican faction in parliament, and absented himself from the House for ten days, to avoid any responsibility for the bill. He had been in communication with George Monck for some time, and on Monck entering London with his army (3 February 1660) Lenthall met him in front of Somerset House. On 6 February Monck visited the House of Commons, when Lenthall pronounced a speech of thanks." And the beat goes on -- sub rosa.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lenthall#R...

cris f   Link to this

FYI - the Matthew Locke link to the 1911 Encyclopedia upthread is now: http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Matthew_Locke

Richard Whittall   Link to this

And just to further underline how the "Pursell" in question is in fact Henry Purcell Sr, as Roger Miller noted ten years ago. The famous Henry Purcell Jr. would have been born supposedly born in and around this year.

Phil Gyford   Link to this

Thanks Arthur - I've corrected the link for "my Lord" now.

Bill   Link to this

"and the members of the City that are in prison to be set at liberty"

Richard Brown, William Wilde, John Robinson, and William Vincent
Wheatley (1896)

Brown: http://www.pepysdiary.com/encyclopedia/1348/
Wilde: http://www.pepysdiary.com/encyclopedia/1344/
Robinson: http://www.pepysdiary.com/encyclopedia/1156/
Vincent: http://www.pepysdiary.com/encyclopedia/13794/

Log in to post an annotation.

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