Thursday 3 May 1660

This morning my Lord showed me the King’s declaration and his letter to the two Generals to be communicated to the fleet. The contents of the letter are his offer of grace to all that will come in within forty days, only excepting them that the Parliament shall hereafter except. That the sales of lands during these troubles, and all other things, shall be left to the Parliament, by which he will stand. The letter dated at Breda, April, 4 1660, in the 12th year of his reign. Upon the receipt of it this morning by an express, Mr. Phillips, one of the messengers of the Council from General Monk, my Lord summoned a council of war, and in the mean time did dictate to me how he would have the vote ordered which he would have pass this council. Which done, the Commanders all came on board, and the council sat in the coach (the first council of war that had been in my time), where I read the letter and declaration; and while they were discoursing upon it, I seemed to draw up a vote, which being offered, they passed. Not one man seemed to say no to it, though I am confident many in their hearts were against it.

After this was done, I went up to the quarter-deck with my Lord and the Commanders, and there read both the papers and the vote; which done, and demanding their opinion, the seamen did all of them cry out, “God bless King Charles!” with the greatest joy imaginable.

That being done, Sir R. Stayner, who had invited us yesterday, took all the Commanders and myself on board him to dinner, which not being ready, I went with Captain Hayward to the Plimouth and Essex, and did what I had to do there and returned, where very merry at dinner. After dinner, to the rest of the ships (staid at the Assistance to hear the harper a good while) quite through the fleet. Which was a very brave sight to visit all the ships, and to be received with the respect and honour that I was on board them all; and much more to see the great joy that I brought to all men; not one through the whole fleet showing the least dislike of the business. In the evening as I was going on board the Vice-Admiral, the General began to fire his guns, which he did all that he had in the ship, and so did all the rest of the Commanders, which was very gallant, and to hear the bullets go hissing over our heads as we were in the boat. This done and finished my Proclamation, I returned to the Nazeby, where my Lord was much pleased to hear how all the fleet took it in a transport of joy, showed me a private letter of the King’s to him, and another from the Duke of York in such familiar style as to their common friend, with all kindness imaginable. And I found by the letters, and so my Lord told me too, that there had been many letters passed between them for a great while, and I perceive unknown to Monk. And among the rest that had carried these letters Sir John Boys is one, and that Mr. Norwood, which had a ship to carry him over the other day, when my Lord would not have me put down his name in the book. The King speaks of his being courted to come to the Hague, but do desire my Lord’s advice whither to come to take ship. And the Duke offers to learn the seaman’s trade of him, in such familiar words as if Jack Cole and I had writ them. This was very strange to me, that my Lord should carry all things so wisely and prudently as he do, and I was over joyful to see him in so good condition, and he did not a little please himself to tell me how he had provided for himself so great a hold on the King.

After this to supper, and then to writing of letters till twelve at night, and so up again at three in the morning. My Lord seemed to put great confidence in me, and would take my advice in many things. I perceive his being willing to do all the honour in the world to Monk, and to let him have all the honour of doing the business, though he will many times express his thoughts of him to be but a thick-sculled fool. So that I do believe there is some agreement more than ordinary between the King and my Lord to let Monk carry on the business, for it is he that must do the business, or at least that can hinder it, if he be not flattered and observed. This, my Lord will hint himself sometimes. My Lord, I perceive by the King’s letter, had writ to him about his father, Crew,1 and the King did speak well of him; but my Lord tells me, that he is afeard that he hath too much concerned himself with the Presbyterians against the House of Lords, which will do him a great discourtesy.

  1. When only seventeen years old, Montagu had married Jemima, daughter of John Crew, created afterwards Baron Crew of Stene.

31 Annotations

Hhomeboy   Link to this

Our Sam: simultaneously a reliable albeit biased chronicler telling true about the officers, then eager to show all the men follow, then talking absolute trash about Monck while gushing like a teen magazine feature writer over Montagu's mostly imagined intimacies with the King and Duke of York...

"...I read the letter and declaration; and while they were discoursing upon it...which being offered, they passed.

Not one man seemed to say no to it, though I am confident many in their hearts were against it....

After this was done, I went up to the quarter-deck with my Lord and the Commanders, and there read both the papers and the vote; which done, and demanding their opinion, the seamen did all of them cry out,

David Bell   Link to this

One of the great problems for Charles and his father in the late Civil Wars was that Parliament controlled the main ports, and enough of the fleet, to make it difficult for supplies to reach the King from Europe.

It is Montagu, rather than Monck, who directly controls the fleet. At this stage, the King will take care to flatter him. And there is an obvious motive for the Duke of York to become involved with the Navy.

WKW   Link to this

"I read the letter and declaration; and while they were discoursing upon it, I seemed to draw up a vote, which being offered, they passed."

seemed = pretended to. Interpret, ad lib.

What factual basis is there for doubting that Mountagu was in close confidence with the King and the Duke of York? Someone in England had to be, for the entire "business" to have reached this stage. Name alternates, cite sources, and defend the contrary case, please.

vk   Link to this

I don't anything about Montagu's role, but it's been established that Monck was in direct contact with the King and that the King was dependent on his advice. I've quoted some of their correspondance.

vincent   Link to this

"the seamen did all of them cry out"
they wanted their pay? Who will argue with a winning leader, only naves,fools and the well heeled.

Bert Winther   Link to this

Did Sam consume more than his usual quantity of alcohol on this day or how do we explain the erroneous date in the heading? I suppose the transcriber could be the culprit.

chip   Link to this

Perhaps the letter dated at Breda threw SP or the transcriber off. I wonder how SP knows what lurks in the hearts of men. Is it from conversations he has had or just intuiton? It must have been a difficult time to trust anyone.

Todd Bernhardt   Link to this

re: More than his usual quantity of alcohol

"...and then to writing of letters till twelve at night, and so up again at three in the morning" -- this doesn't seem to me to be the kind of thing you'd be able to do with a belly (and head) full of booze!

Speaking of catching a buzz, I don't know about the rest of you, but I find this to be one of the most exciting posts in a while ... the electricity in the air fairly hums and hisses (like the bullets over Sam's head!) as the events of the day and night progress, and as Sam finds out more about the behind-the-scenes maneuvering going on. If this be gushing, then gush on!

Mary   Link to this

Imagined intimacies?

What's imaginary about the letters that Sam tells us that he has been shown?

Hhomeboy   Link to this

letters...

Because we haven't seen them; and, we all know how Sam projects his own sense of importance...

I'm no great fan of Antonia Fraser's but a perusal of the index of her biography of Charles II contains but three entries for Sam's Lord up to and including Montagu's death at sea...and one of those references is hardly propitious re: a 'special relationship' or presumed intimacy with Charles...Montagu's relationship with the Duke of York may be better founded but only with regard to Montagu's status with the fleet and York's impending responsibilities as Admiralty Lord...prior to his own demise, Montagu will disgrace himself greatly as a sea Lord.

So, my surmise is that Montagu is in the right place at the right time to become a thoroughly useful, well-placed--albeit never completely trusted--obedient servant of the Royals but no more than that...except that Montagu (aka 'Cromwell's earl') was a congenial, high-spirited philanderer and card playing gambler with a political bent and talent and taste for military adventure.

Again, I have not read Ollard's biography of Montagu and therefore do not know about extant copies of his correspondence...Three other sources might shed some light:

1.) York's Admiralty letter books;

2.) R. C. Anderson eds, The Journal of Edward Montagu, First Earl of Sandwich, (Navy Recs. Soc., 64 1929);

3.) Ollard's book on Clarendon and his immediate circle.

Unfortunately,we all seem to have missed the following recent 'Pepys weekend' with Richard Ollard:

March 22

Paul Brewster   Link to this

The letter dated at Breda, April, 4 1660, in the 12th year of his reign
From L&M: Charles II dated the beginning of his reign not from his restoration but from the death of his father.

(I wonder if our junior Bush will do the same)

Paul Brewster   Link to this

I seemed to draw up a vote
According to an L&M footnote:
"The vote ran: 'Resolved (nemine contradicente) that the Commander and Officers of the Fleet do receive the gracious Declaration of his Majesty as also the expressions of his gracious purposes towards them and the whole Fleet (communicated in a Letter to the Generals) with great joyfulness of heart; and for them do return unto his Majesty their most humble thanks, declaring and professing their exact loyalty and duty unto his Majesty, and desire the Generals of the Fleet humbly to represent the same unto him. It was also resolved That the said Letter, Declaration and Vote should be publickly read to the respective ships and Companies of the Fleet now in the Downs, to know their sense concerning the same.'"

Emilio   Link to this

A meaty entry today
I agree w/ Todd - this is a major turning point of English history during the century, and everyone seems excited about it. Not only that, but we (w/ Sam) finally get a view of what's been happening behind the scenes for months. No wonder his (and Montagu's) heads are so turned with being in the center of it all.
As for how much Sam drank today, I think possibly very little. How many ships are in the fleet, after all? At least 15 captains have been mentioned since Sam became Montagu's secretary in March, with more showing up all the time. I imagine him spending most of his day in a small boat rowing from one ship to the next, with just enough time between to read the declarations and get a response before moving on.

vk   Link to this

Charles II has styled himself King of England since 1649. His view is not there has been no king in England for 11 years, but that the king has been in exile. The republican grounds for dismissing his claim have always been very weak.

helena murphy   Link to this

Charles II did not style himself King in 1649, but he was declared King on the death of his father in the monarchical tradition. He was also recognised internationally as King of England, Ireland and Scotland.He was actually crowned King of Scotland on New Year's Day in 1651. This was an era in which people still believed in the divine right of kings. Charles II is the custodian of hundreds of years of Royal tradition and rule which the population are now happy to welcome back .

vk   Link to this

I don't know what you mean Helena. If he was declared King on the death of his father, and his father died in 1649, then he has styled himself King Charles II since 1649.

maureen   Link to this

In the wake of the execution of Charles I - tried, remember, for making war against his own people and refusing to rule within the law - the monarchy was abolished and England made a "Commonwealth and Free State."

When Charles II returned it was by invitation of the newly elected Parliament and on terms more or less dictated by them - including the promise to act within the law (Declaration of Breda).

Other rulers may have seen him as a king in exile but he could not be king of England until England said so!

It is still part of the process that the new ruler is acknowledged by the people and accepted by Parliament, now in token form. This dates back in essence to the process in Anglo-Saxon times, before primogeniture came in, when the new king was chosen from among the eligible nobility.

NB: we had to depose another Stuart king to achieve some sort of order and have removed another since then!

Transcriptions of various relevant documents are at http://www.constitution.org/eng/conpur_.htm

vincent   Link to this

"Transcriptions of various relevant documents are : Thanks... Great, may it be put in government and law for the future.

Nix   Link to this

Regarding the time of Charles' accession:

English statutes historically were cited by reference to the "regnal" year of the monarch. Does anyone know whether Charles II's regnal years were numbered from 1649 or from 1660?

vk   Link to this

Maureen, the men who abolished the monarchy (who by no means were representatives of the English population) had no legal authority whatsoever to do so.

As we will see next week, Parliament does not simply invite him back. It is going to issue a declaration that Charles inherited the kingship immediately upon the death of his father, regardless of the fact that he was not proclaimed king.

Nix   Link to this

"Parliament ... is going to issue a declaration that Charles inherited the kingship immediately upon the death of his father, regardless of the fact that he was not proclaimed king."

This is where the lawyers get into the act. (Takes one to know one.) Horror vacui compels them, upon decreeing the real-world authority to have been a nullity, to create a fictitious one.

JonTom Kittredge   Link to this

The Civil War Isn't Over!
There are plenty of people in the States who are still refighting the American Civil War. I hadn't realized that was true of the English Civil War, too.

vk   Link to this

Let me state that I'm not trying to claim that Charles was right and Cromwell was wrong. I'm just trying to discourage an anachronistic reading of the situation. Because we live in an age of representative governments, there is a tendency to laugh at the idea of a monarch who had lost all power and support yet claimed to be king. In the 17th century, however, this was not implausible.

jeannine   Link to this

Sandwich's Journal Entry Today

"Thursday. The King's letter and Declaration were read aboard the fleet and the whole fleet unanimously declared their loyalty unto His Majesty."

Michael Robinson   Link to this

" ... my Lord showed me the King’s declaration and his letter to the two Generals to be communicated to the fleet. "

This particular copy:-

Declaration issued by Charles from "Our Court at Breda this 4/14 day of Aprill 1660 ..." Manuscript, 4 pp., fo., dust stained through use.
"To the people of England, Scotland & Ireland ..."
The copy sent to Gen. Monck, forwarded by Monck to Edward Montagu (Gen. of the Fleet) & read out to the fleet by Montagu's secretary, Samuel Pepys.
Sotheby's, July 22nd. 1985, Lot 357. £85,000. (At date of sale, $116,450)

Terry Foreman   Link to this

We seem to have been having a discussion about what was true of Charles Stuart de facto and de jure. He was in any case been referred to not until 17 February, and then as "the King" -- as though there was a position in the social order at the summit with that title, i.e., that monarchy is the natural order of things -- Pepys's republican sentiments hitherto notwithstanding.

Sasha Clarkson   Link to this

"Legal Authority"?

In the end this has always boiled down to the power of the sword and/or the consent of the governed, as was shown in 1066, 1485, 1688, etc. Law cannot exist in the absence of consent, or a framework to enforce it.

It reminds me of a conversation I heard up in co Durham once:

"That was niver a goal ref!" ... "Tha look in the 'Football Mail' on Saturday, and see whether it was a goal or not."

Bill   Link to this

G. Mountague at Sea, to whom the Letter to General Monk was also directed from the King, upon the receipt of it, and of the Declaration; he called together the Officers of the several Ships, and communicated the Letter and Declaration to them, who expressed great joy and satisfaction therein, and desired Mountague to represent the same with their humble thanks to his Majesty.

Then Mountague fired the first Gun himself, and all his Ships answered it round, with loud Acclamations as their General had done, crying God bless the King; and the General gave two Pipes of Canary to his men.

---Memorials of English Affairs. B. Whitelocke, 1682

Dick Wilson   Link to this

Pepys' personal standing received a significant boost today.

Bill   Link to this

... especially in his own mind.

Bryan   Link to this

This entry makes it fairly clear that Mountagu kept Sam in the dark about his negotiations with Charles. For example:

"And I found by the letters, and so my Lord told me too, that there had been many letters passed between them for a great while, and I perceive unknown to Monk ... This was very strange to me, that my Lord should carry all things so wisely and prudently as he do,..."

If that's the case, then the "characters" that Sam produced earlier were cypher tables used to encrypt and decrypt messages (as suggest by Dick Wilson) rather than the encrypted messages themselves.

Log in to post an annotation.

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