Eels were used not only as food but also rent for centuries (dried and smoked, of course). This was ending in Diary times, but there are a few records of eel rents to be found.
Also, there are stories about people dying from eating raw eels.
And there are rumors, believed by John Milton for one, that live eels were used as suppositories to make a horse seem more perky when presented for sale.
Nicholas Culpepper, in the Complete Herbal, wrote about eels’ virtue as a cure for alcoholism, “being put into wine or beer, and suffered to die in it, he that drinks it will never endure that sort of liquor again." Yup, that might do it for me, too.
In a city bisected by the Thames, the eel’s population was plentiful, cheap and, when most meat or fish had to be preserved in salt, eels could be kept alive in puddles of water.
Rev. David Badham reports in his ‘Prose Halieutics Or Ancient & Modern Fish Tattle’ in 1854 – “London steams and teems with eels alive and stewed. For one halfpenny, a man of the million may fill his stomach with six or seven long pieces and wash them down with a sip of the glutinous liquid they are stewed in.
Such was the demand that eels were brought over from The Netherlands in great quantities by Dutch eel schuyts, commended for helping feed London after the Great Fire. Although they were seen as inferior to domestic eels, the British government rewarded the Dutch for their charity by Act of Parliament in 1699, granting them exclusive rights to sell eels from their barges on the Thames.
For a look at John Maitland, Duke of Lauderdale's home, much enlarged by Elizabeth Murray Tollemache Maitland, Countess of Dysart and Duchess of Lauderdale, see https://www.thirlestanecastle.co.… What a dining room!
CORRECTION: This site tells me that Charles Maitland was the younger brother of John, and not his nephew. Charles went on to be the 3rd Earl of Lauderdale as the Dukedom died with John in August 1682.
His enemies described John Maitland, Duke of Lauderdale as an uncouth oaf, although they conceded his scholarship: He was literate in English, French, Latin, Greek and Hebrew.
His taste in furnishing, art and architecture was impeccable.
He married Elizabeth Murray Tollemache, the Countess of Dysart in her own right, and a wealthy and beautiful widow who was free to choose any man at the glittering Caroline court, and could have succeeded at the court of Louis XIV at Versailles if she had wanted to. He cannot have been an oaf. But there is no doubt he used course language. The words “arse” and “fart” are frequently quoted in his conversations.
After his marriage in 1672, John Maitland, Duke of Lauderdale's character deteriorated, possibly due to the influence of his wife (as people believed at the time), or to the advance of disease – kidney stones are painful.
In addition to a high income, the Duchess used her position to sell influence in conjunction with Lauderdale's nephew, Charles Maitland and corruption (a common practice at the time) was rampant.
Overall, Lauderdale was a man of conscience who supported King Charles at a time when this was of no advantage for him, who risked his life and suffered imprisonment for Prince Charles, and advised him as Charles II from 1649 until 1680 – 31 years, and who held office for an unparalleled 20 years after the Restoration.
He was ruined in King Charles I’s service, and repaired his fortunes as a minister to Charles II. Educated and cultivated, he had a rough side, but was one of the most able men of his generation.
John Maitland, Duke of Lauderdale, was unfortunate that his enemies included the two best historical sources of information on the late 17th century – Gilbert Burnet and Chancellor Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon. They detested him, and their commentaries have been taken by subsequent writers as an accurate account of his character and abilities.
The facts are more complex.
John Maitland started his political career in 1638, just back from his studies in the Calvinist city of Geneva, by signing the Covenant which called on King Charles to respect the decisions of the Scots Parliament and of the general assembly of the Church.
He continued as a Covenanter, commanded a regiment of cavalry at the Battle of Marston Moor in the Parliamentary army in 1644 and represented the Kirk in London until 1645.
Then, after the Scots had sold their King to the English Parliament, and realizing the Charles I’s life was in danger, John Maitland, now 2nd Earl of Lauderdale, became a Royalist.
Lauderdale’s conversion to the royal cause was a defining moment, and a guide to his character. He became a royalist to protect his King, not to gain personal advantage – the King was a prisoner and could give him nothing. His support put him in conflict with the Kirk, and finally into an English prison, with all his estates confiscated.
When released from Windsor just before the Restoration, the Earl of Lauderdale could not buy a pair of boots.
At the Restoration in 1660, Charles II rewarded Lauderdale with political advancement as the Secretary of State for Scotland, and the recovery of his estates. For 12 years until 1672 he was a skilled and efficient politician who took advantage of the political atmosphere of the restoration era and ensured Charles’ policies were implemented.
His career declined as Charles II’s policy of war with Holland in 1672 aroused opposition. Parliament and opponents became more assertive, and Lauderdale had no parliamentary management skills.
The Popish Plot in 1679 shook the monarchy, and Lauderdale was no longer able to keep order in Scotland. This failure led to his supersession, and the collapse of his health led to his resignation. He had retained Charles II’s confidence for an unparalleled 20 years, whilst other ministers rose and fell. Some fled the country, others went to prison. Twenty years is a long period of office for any politician, and Lauderdale was successful for the bulk of it.
At 17 [he was born c. 1650, so this could be any time during the second Anglo-Dutch war, the future Admiral] Cloudesley Shovell became a midshipman on the Royal Prince, the flagship of the Duke of York. Highly capable and well liked, he saw action from his teens on and his family cherished a story of him as a boy swimming under enemy fire carrying dispatches in his mouth.
Commissioner Middleton’s patent was issued on 25 November, 1667 and he was paid from 25 December.
25 December is a Quarter Day, and as such it was appropriate that was when Commissioner Thomas Middleton's salary would start. He's taking over Batten's position as the Surveyor for the Navy Board.
"The House then proceeded to the hearing of the Cause upon a Bill for erecting a Pest House near Cambridge: And the Counsel on both sides, and some Witnesses, being called in; and heard; and the ingrossed Bill read; The Question being put, That the Bill do pass; It passed in the Negative."
I don't understand ... will there or won't there by a new Pest House near Cambridge?
"To emphasise his status he and Lord Cornwallis, a junior officer in the King’s Troop, beat up the sentries in St. James’s Park, and then murdered a footboy." https://www.google.com/books/edit…
According to Charles, Lord Gerard's Parliamentary Bio: "Gerard, who was born in Paris, was naturalized in 1660. Embracing the profession of arms, he first saw service under the great Condé. On his return to London he killed a footboy with his bare hands while under the influence of drink, but he was granted a free pardon." https://www.historyofparliamenton…
Doesn't sound like a nice fellow; but he and the other Life Guards had protected Charles II from assassination for 10 years, and I do not doubt they were all quite capable of deadly force.
Wikipedia tells us that The Worshipful Company of Mercers is the premier Livery Company of the City of London and ranks first in the order of precedence of the Companies. It is the first of the Great Twelve City Livery Companies.
Although of even older origin, the company was incorporated under a Royal Charter in 1394, the company's earliest extant Charter. The company's aim was to act as a trade association for general merchants, and especially for exporters of wool and importers of velvet, silk and other luxurious fabrics (mercers).
By the 16th century many members of the company had lost connection with the original trade.
The Mercers' Company is still based at Mercers' Hall, 6 Frederick's Place in the City of London. Between 1517 and 1524 the Company built the Mercer's Chapel on this land, with the first Mercers' Hall above it, fronting Cheapside. The building was destroyed in the Great Fire of London in 1666. The second Hall, designed by Edward Jarman and John Oliver, opened in May 1676.
L&M Companion had this information about Pepys' stationer: John Cade's Stationer, at the Globe in Cornhill. Cade was a Presbyterian and conducted a prosperous business. His shop (the Globe, taxed on seven hearths) was, before the Great Fire, immediately to the west of the Royal Exchange, where he also owned the lease of four houses, one of them with stables, and also a warehouse. One of the houses was a tavern -- the three Golden Lions. The buildings were destroyed in the Great Fire, when his landlords (the Mercers' Company) provided him with temporary accommodation in Gresham College. (Membership has its advantages.)
SOME MEMBERS William Caxton, printer Richard "Dick" Whittington, Mayor of the City of London John Colet (1467–1519), founder of St. Paul's School, London and dean of St. Paul's Cathedral 1509 Sir Thomas More, before he worked for Henry VIII 1555 John Dee (1527–1608), mathematician and Queen Elizabeth's astrologer Sir John Gresham, Mayor of the City of London Sir Richard Gresham, merchant and Mayor of the City of London Sir Thomas Gresham, merchant, financier and founder of Gresham College Winston Churchill https://www.mercers.co.uk/search/…
And the Masters during Pepys Diary: 1660 Thomas Chambrelan 1661 Richard Ford 1662 Rowland Wynn 1663 James Hawley 1664 Henry Spurstowe 1665 Thomas Culling -- probably in charge during the Fire 1666 John Godden -- organized the response to the Fire 1667 Thomas Carleton 1668 John Dethick 1669 Richard Clutterbuck 1670 John Dogett https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mas…
Gingerbread and gingerbread people were very popular under Queen Elizabeth, but took a dark turn under James I and the Stuarts. Since Pepys doesn't mention it, I won't go into further detail, but a nice article about its general evolution is at https://crimereads.com/the-surpri…
In Barbados there were 6,000 slaves in 1645, but 42,000 in 1698; in Jamaica, 1,500 in 1656 and more than 41,000 at the end of the century.
As the slave trade developed, the code governing ownership of slaves tightened.
In 1655 the addition of Jamaica to English overseas territories, a bigger land mass than the combined size of all the Caribbean colonies mentioned so far in this article, added to the sugar producing capacity of this region of the Americas and introduced a fresh stimulus to the slave trade.
After the introduction of the Slave Codes of 1661, slaves could be designated as real estate, by which they were regarded as unalienable parts of the estates from which they were forbidden to leave.
The distinction between offering the native American/Carib peoples the opportunities presented by European ideas of education and conversion to Christianity, exemplified in the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in New England (1649) were never extended to those who in the Slave Codes were called ‘heathenish’ and ‘brutish’.
As slavery advanced, there was still no significant discussion in Parliament, where Members were preoccupied with defining the rights and liberties of the English, and not with extending privileges to others.
Between 1624 and 1632, St. Christopher (St. Kitts), Barbados, Nevis, Monserrat, Providence and Antigua were settled by the English. The typical arrangement governing settlement was a grant by the king to a trading company, and the grant defined the parameters of settlement.
Wherever they settled, the English quickly asserted their rights and liberties against the mother country, and saw themselves as English abroad, whatever their motives for emigration.
In the Caribbean, the native Carib peoples with whom the settlers came into contact were subject to episodic violence by the English and French.
More slaves from West Africa were brought to Providence Island, off Columbia, than to any other English colony before 1640. Qualms by some of the investors and colonists over the legitimacy of slavery was overcome by the perceived need to acquire more labor than emigration from England could provide.
When the Spanish overran Providence Island in 1641, ending English rule there, they captured 350 English and 381 slaves.
In England, the opening of the Parliament in November 1640 provided the new arena for conflict between King Charles and the Puritan opposition, compared to which the failure of Providence Island was of no consequence, and the jarring discord of Black slavery in a colony founded to promote Puritan English liberties was simply not perceived or articulated at Westminster.
The Caribbean colonies were intended to be engines of trade, and in terms of the labor market, Barbados was by far the most significant. White labor there was provided by indentured servants. But neither the scale of white immigrant labor, nor the principles upon which it rested, were sufficient to service the new booming sugar industry, which took over from tobacco and cotton cultivation in the West Indies from the 1640s.
Sugar production was highly profitable, supplying an insatiable European market: by the mid-1650s sugar accounted for nearly half the cargoes imported into Bristol, England’s second largest port, and it all came from the Caribbean.
The scale and the processes involved in sugar production (crushing and boiling in continuous, 24-7 shifts, plus back-breaking cultivation, all in searing, humid heat) required cheap, expendable labor (European workers could not withstand the conditions), and West Africans were the answer. Slave labor grew in parallel with the scale of sugar production.
Slaves were regarded as the moveable property (chattels) of their white owners. The practice of chattel slavery in English colonies barely impinged on the consciousness of MPs in Parliament. Curiously the scale of chattel slavery in the Caribbean expanded when the champions of English liberties came into power, and then the scale increased dramatically after the Restoration.
In Barbados there were 6,000 slaves in 1645, but 42,000 in 1698; in Jamaica, 1,500 in 1656 and more than 41,000 at the end of the 17th century.
As the slave trade developed, the code governing ownership of slaves tightened. After the introduction of the Slave Codes of 1661, slaves could be designated as real estate, by which they were regarded as unalienable parts of the estates from which they were forbidden to leave.
The distinction between offering the native American/Carib peoples the opportunities presented by European ideas of education and conversion to Christianity, exemplified in the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in New England (1649) were never extended to those who in the Slave Codes were called ‘heathenish’ and ‘brutish’.
As slavery advanced, there was still no significant discussion in Parliament, where Members were preoccupied with the rights and liberties of the English, and not with extending privileges to others.
Since you mention Nevis ... Between 1624 and 1632, St. Christopher (St. Kitts), Barbados, Nevis, Monserrat, Providence and Antigua were settled by the English. The typical arrangement governing settlement was a grant by the king to a trading company, and the grant defined the parameters of settlement.
Wherever they settled, the English quickly asserted their rights and liberties against the mother country, and saw themselves as English abroad, whatever their motives for emigration.
In the Caribbean, the native Carib peoples with whom the settlers came into contact were subject to episodic violence by the English and French.
More slaves from West Africa were brought to Providence Island, off Columbia, than to any other English colony before 1640. Qualms by some of the investors and colonists over the legitimacy of slavery was overcome by the perceived need to acquire more labor than emigration from England could provide.
When the Spanish overran Providence Island in 1641, ending English rule there, they captured 350 English and 381 slaves.
In England, the opening of the Parliament in November 1640 provided the new arena for conflict between King Charles and the Puritan opposition, compared to which the failure of Providence Island was of no consequence, and the jarring discord of Black slavery in a colony founded to promote Puritan English liberties was simply not perceived or articulated at Westminster.
The Caribbean colonies were intended to be engines of trade, and in terms of the labor market, Barbados was by far the most significant. White labor there was provided by indentured servants. But neither the scale of white immigrant labor, nor the principles upon which it rested, were sufficient to service the new booming sugar industry, which took over from tobacco and cotton cultivation in the West Indies from the 1640s.
Sugar production was highly profitable, supplying an insatiable European market: by the mid-1650s sugar accounted for nearly half the cargoes imported into Bristol, England’s second largest port, and it all came from the Caribbean.
The scale and the processes involved in sugar production (crushing and boiling in continuous, 24-7 shifts, plus back-breaking cultivation, all in searing, humid heat) required cheap, expendable labor (European workers could not withstand the conditions), and West Africans were the answer. Slave labor grew in parallel with the scale of sugar production.
Slaves were regarded as the moveable property (chattels) of their white owners. The practice of chattel slavery in English colonies barely impinged on the consciousness of MPs in Parliament. Curiously the scale of chattel slavery in the Caribbean expanded when the champions of English liberties came into power, and then the scale increased dramatically after the Restoration.
After the introduction of the Slave Codes of 1661, slaves could be designated as real estate, by which they were regarded as unalienable parts of the estates from which they were forbidden to leave.
The distinction between offering the native American/Carib peoples the opportunities presented by European ideas of education and conversion to Christianity, exemplified in the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in New England (1649) were never extended to those who in the Slave Codes were called ‘heathenish’ and ‘brutish’.
As slavery advanced, there was still no significant discussion in Parliament, where Members were preoccupied with the rights and liberties of the English, and not with extending privileges to others.
Between 1624 and 1632, St. Christopher (St. Kitts), Barbados, Nevis, Monserrat, Providence and Antigua were settled by the English. The typical arrangement governing settlement was a grant by the king to a trading company, and the grant defined the parameters of settlement.
Wherever they settled, the English quickly asserted their rights and liberties against the mother country, and saw themselves as English abroad, whatever their motives for emigration.
In the Caribbean, the native Carib peoples with whom the settlers came into contact were subject to episodic violence by the English and French.
More slaves from West Africa were brought to Providence Island, off Columbia, than to any other English colony before 1640. Qualms by some of the investors and colonists over the legitimacy of slavery was overcome by the perceived need to acquire more labor than emigration from England could provide.
When the Spanish overran Providence Island in 1641, ending English rule there, they captured 350 English and 381 slaves.
In England, the opening of the Parliament in November 1640 provided the new arena for conflict between King Charles and the Puritan opposition, compared to which the failure of Providence Island was of no consequence, and the jarring discord of Black slavery in a colony founded to promote Puritan English liberties was simply not perceived or articulated at Westminster.
The Caribbean colonies were intended to be engines of trade, and in terms of the labor market, Barbados was by far the most significant. White labor there was provided by indentured servants. But neither the scale of white immigrant labor, nor the principles upon which it rested, were sufficient to service the new booming sugar industry, which took over from tobacco and cotton cultivation in the West Indies from the 1640s.
Sugar production was highly profitable, supplying an insatiable European market: by the mid-1650s sugar accounted for nearly half the cargoes imported into Bristol, England’s second largest port, and it all came from the Caribbean.
The scale and the processes involved in sugar production (crushing and boiling in continuous, 24-7 shifts, plus back-breaking cultivation, all in searing, humid heat) required cheap, expendable labor (European workers could not withstand the conditions), and West Africans were the answer. Slave labor grew in parallel with the scale of sugar production.
Slaves were regarded as the moveable property (chattels) of their white owners. The practice of chattel slavery in English colonies barely impinged on the consciousness of MPs in Parliament. Curiously the scale of chattel slavery in the Caribbean expanded when the champions of English liberties came into power, and then the scale increased dramatically after the Restoration.
In Barbados there were 6,000 slaves in 1645, but 42,000 in 1698. As the slave trade developed, the code governing ownership of slaves tightened.
Between 1624 and 1632, St. Christopher (St. Kitts), Barbados, Nevis, Monserrat and Antigua were settled by the English. The typical arrangement governing settlement was a grant by the king to a trading company, and the grant defined the parameters of settlement.
Wherever they settled, the English quickly asserted their rights and liberties against the mother country, and saw themselves as English abroad, whatever their motives for emigration.
One English colony, part of the early rapid expansion of settlement in the Caribbean, was unusual, in that its proprietors shared the lofty ideals of the New England Puritan founders.
Founded in 1629, Providence Island (Providencia, between Costa Rica and Jamaica, off what is now Columbia), was the prospective colony promoted by the most determined Puritan opponents of King Charles (Adm. Robert Rich, 2nd Earl of Warwick, 1587-1619-1658, Robert Greville, 2nd Baron Brooke 1608-1628-1643, William 'Old Subtlety' Fiennes, Viscount Saye and Sele (d. 1662), Oliver St.John, John Pym). It was intended to be a godly commonwealth -- but the settlers needed to trade.
In the Caribbean, the native Carib peoples with whom the settlers came into contact were subject to episodic violence by the English and French.
But in some new colonies, including Providence Island, the Caribs were recognized as a trading people, with whom the English needed to do business. However, they were treated very differently from European trading partners.
Providence Island settlers were forbidden from enslaving the Caribs; instead they became the objects of Christian missionary endeavors.
Yet another ethic applied to Africans. More slaves from West Africa were brought to Providence Island than to any other English colony before 1640. Qualms by some of the investors and colonists over the legitimacy of slavery had been overcome by the perceived need to acquire more labor than emigration from England could provide.
When the Spanish overran Providence Island in 1641, ending English rule there, they took 350 English people captive and 381 slaves.
Back in England, the opening of the Parliament in November 1640 provided the new arena for conflict between King Charles and the Puritan opposition, compared to which the failure of Providence Island was of no consequence, and the jarring discord of Black slavery in a colony founded to safeguard and promote English liberties was simply not perceived or articulated at Westminster.
Between 1624 and 1632, St. Christopher (St. Kitts), Barbados, Nevis, Monserrat and Antigua were settled by the English. The typical arrangement governing settlement was a grant by the king to a trading company, and the grant defined the parameters of settlement.
Wherever they settled, the English quickly asserted their rights and liberties against the mother country, and saw themselves as English abroad, whatever their motives for emigration.
One English colony, part of the early rapid expansion of settlement in the Caribbean, was unusual, in that its proprietors shared the lofty ideals of the New England Puritan founders.
Founded in 1629, Providence Island (Providencia, between Costa Rica and Jamaica, off what is now Columbia), was the prospective colony promoted by the most determined Puritan opponents of King Charles (Adm. Robert Rich, 2nd Earl of Warwick, 1587-1619-1658, Robert Greville, 2nd Baron Brooke 1608-1628-1643, William 'Old Subtlety' Fiennes, Viscount Saye and Sele (d. 1662), Oliver St.John, John Pym). It was intended to be a godly commonwealth -- but the settlers needed to trade.
In the Caribbean, the native Carib peoples with whom the settlers came into contact were subject to episodic violence by the English and French.
But in some new colonies, including Providence Island, the Caribs were recognized as a trading people, with whom the English needed to do business. However, they were treated very differently from European trading partners.
Providence Island settlers were forbidden from enslaving the Caribs; instead they became the objects of Christian missionary endeavors.
Yet another ethic applied to Africans. More slaves from West Africa were brought to Providence Island than to any other English colony before 1640. Qualms by some of the investors and colonists over the legitimacy of slavery had been overcome by the perceived need to acquire more labor than emigration from England could provide.
When the Spanish overran Providence Island in 1641, ending English rule there, they took 350 English people captive and 381 slaves.
Back in England, the opening of the Parliament in November 1640 provided the new arena for conflict between King Charles and the Puritan opposition, compared to which the failure of Providence Island was of no consequence, and the jarring discord of Black slavery in a colony founded to safeguard and promote English liberties was simply not perceived or articulated at Westminster.
Comments
Second Reading
About Dictionaries
San Diego Sarah • Link
Titles ... this is a handy cheat-sheet for the current rules about aristocratic titles. How accurately it reflects Diary times, I do not know:
http://laura.chinet.com/html/titl…
About Eels
San Diego Sarah • Link
Eels were used not only as food but also rent for centuries (dried and smoked, of course). This was ending in Diary times, but there are a few records of eel rents to be found.
Also, there are stories about people dying from eating raw eels.
And there are rumors, believed by John Milton for one, that live eels were used as suppositories to make a horse seem more perky when presented for sale.
Nicholas Culpepper, in the Complete Herbal, wrote about eels’ virtue as a cure for alcoholism, “being put into wine or beer, and suffered to die in it, he that drinks it will never endure that sort of liquor again."
Yup, that might do it for me, too.
In a city bisected by the Thames, the eel’s population was plentiful, cheap and, when most meat or fish had to be preserved in salt, eels could be kept alive in puddles of water.
Rev. David Badham reports in his ‘Prose Halieutics Or Ancient & Modern Fish Tattle’ in 1854 – “London steams and teems with eels alive and stewed. For one halfpenny, a man of the million may fill his stomach with six or seven long pieces and wash them down with a sip of the glutinous liquid they are stewed in.
Such was the demand that eels were brought over from The Netherlands in great quantities by Dutch eel schuyts, commended for helping feed London after the Great Fire.
Although they were seen as inferior to domestic eels, the British government rewarded the Dutch for their charity by Act of Parliament in 1699, granting them exclusive rights to sell eels from their barges on the Thames.
Much more about these slippery things:
https://www.historyextra.com/peri…
https://eels.historiacartarum.org… https://eels.historiacartarum.org…
http://spitalfieldslife.com/2018/…
https://eels.historiacartarum.org…
https://historiacartarum.org/eel-…
About Tuesday 20 March 1659/60
San Diego Sarah • Link
Titles ... this is a handy cheat-sheet for the current rules. How accurately it reflects Diary times, I do not know:
http://laura.chinet.com/html/titl…
About John Maitland (2nd Earl of Lauderdale)
San Diego Sarah • Link
For a look at John Maitland, Duke of Lauderdale's home, much enlarged by Elizabeth Murray Tollemache Maitland, Countess of Dysart and Duchess of Lauderdale, see
https://www.thirlestanecastle.co.…
What a dining room!
CORRECTION: This site tells me that Charles Maitland was the younger brother of John, and not his nephew. Charles went on to be the 3rd Earl of Lauderdale as the Dukedom died with John in August 1682.
About John Maitland (2nd Earl of Lauderdale)
San Diego Sarah • Link
PART 2
His enemies described John Maitland, Duke of Lauderdale as an uncouth oaf, although they conceded his scholarship: He was literate in English, French, Latin, Greek and Hebrew.
His taste in furnishing, art and architecture was impeccable.
He married Elizabeth Murray Tollemache, the Countess of Dysart in her own right, and a wealthy and beautiful widow who was free to choose any man at the glittering Caroline court, and could have succeeded at the court of Louis XIV at Versailles if she had wanted to.
He cannot have been an oaf.
But there is no doubt he used course language. The words “arse” and “fart” are frequently quoted in his conversations.
After his marriage in 1672, John Maitland, Duke of Lauderdale's character deteriorated, possibly due to the influence of his wife (as people believed at the time), or to the advance of disease – kidney stones are painful.
In addition to a high income, the Duchess used her position to sell influence in conjunction with Lauderdale's nephew, Charles Maitland and corruption (a common practice at the time) was rampant.
Overall, Lauderdale was a man of conscience who supported King Charles at a time when this was of no advantage for him, who risked his life and suffered imprisonment for Prince Charles, and advised him as Charles II from 1649 until 1680 – 31 years, and who held office for an unparalleled 20 years after the Restoration.
He was ruined in King Charles I’s service, and repaired his fortunes as a minister to Charles II. Educated and cultivated, he had a rough side, but was one of the most able men of his generation.
Excerpted from https://clanmaitland.uk/history/c…
About John Maitland (2nd Earl of Lauderdale)
San Diego Sarah • Link
John Maitland, Duke of Lauderdale, was unfortunate that his enemies included the two best historical sources of information on the late 17th century – Gilbert Burnet and Chancellor Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon. They detested him, and their commentaries have been taken by subsequent writers as an accurate account of his character and abilities.
The facts are more complex.
John Maitland started his political career in 1638, just back from his studies in the Calvinist city of Geneva, by signing the Covenant which called on King Charles to respect the decisions of the Scots Parliament and of the general assembly of the Church.
He continued as a Covenanter, commanded a regiment of cavalry at the Battle of Marston Moor in the Parliamentary army in 1644 and represented the Kirk in London until 1645.
Then, after the Scots had sold their King to the English Parliament, and realizing the Charles I’s life was in danger, John Maitland, now 2nd Earl of Lauderdale, became a Royalist.
Lauderdale’s conversion to the royal cause was a defining moment, and a guide to his character. He became a royalist to protect his King, not to gain personal advantage – the King was a prisoner and could give him nothing. His support put him in conflict with the Kirk, and finally into an English prison, with all his estates confiscated.
When released from Windsor just before the Restoration, the Earl of Lauderdale could not buy a pair of boots.
At the Restoration in 1660, Charles II rewarded Lauderdale with political advancement as the Secretary of State for Scotland, and the recovery of his estates. For 12 years until 1672 he was a skilled and efficient politician who took advantage of the political atmosphere of the restoration era and ensured Charles’ policies were implemented.
His career declined as Charles II’s policy of war with Holland in 1672 aroused opposition. Parliament and opponents became more assertive, and Lauderdale had no parliamentary management skills.
The Popish Plot in 1679 shook the monarchy, and Lauderdale was no longer able to keep order in Scotland. This failure led to his supersession, and the collapse of his health led to his resignation. He had retained Charles II’s confidence for an unparalleled 20 years, whilst other ministers rose and fell. Some fled the country, others went to prison.
Twenty years is a long period of office for any politician, and Lauderdale was successful for the bulk of it.
About The Royal Prince
San Diego Sarah • Link
At 17 [he was born c. 1650, so this could be any time during the second Anglo-Dutch war, the future Admiral] Cloudesley Shovell became a midshipman on the Royal Prince, the flagship of the Duke of York. Highly capable and well liked, he saw action from his teens on and his family cherished a story of him as a boy swimming under enemy fire carrying dispatches in his mouth.
For more on the Adm. http://www.historytoday.com/richa…
About Tuesday 10 December 1667
San Diego Sarah • Link
Commissioner Middleton’s patent was issued on 25 November, 1667 and he was paid from 25 December.
25 December is a Quarter Day, and as such it was appropriate that was when Commissioner Thomas Middleton's salary would start. He's taking over Batten's position as the Surveyor for the Navy Board.
About Monday 9 December 1667
San Diego Sarah • Link
From the House of Commons for today:
"The House then proceeded to the hearing of the Cause upon a Bill for erecting a Pest House near Cambridge:
And the Counsel on both sides, and some Witnesses, being called in; and heard; and the ingrossed Bill read;
The Question being put, That the Bill do pass;
It passed in the Negative."
I don't understand ... will there or won't there by a new Pest House near Cambridge?
About Sir Charles Gerard (1st Baron Gerard of Brandon)
San Diego Sarah • Link
"To emphasise his status he and Lord Cornwallis, a junior officer in the King’s Troop, beat up the sentries in St. James’s Park, and then murdered a footboy."
https://www.google.com/books/edit…
According to Charles, Lord Gerard's Parliamentary Bio:
"Gerard, who was born in Paris, was naturalized in 1660. Embracing the profession of arms, he first saw service under the great Condé. On his return to London he killed a footboy with his bare hands while under the influence of drink, but he was granted a free pardon."
https://www.historyofparliamenton…
Doesn't sound like a nice fellow; but he and the other Life Guards had protected Charles II from assassination for 10 years, and I do not doubt they were all quite capable of deadly force.
About Mercers' Company
San Diego Sarah • Link
Wikipedia tells us that The Worshipful Company of Mercers is the premier Livery Company of the City of London and ranks first in the order of precedence of the Companies. It is the first of the Great Twelve City Livery Companies.
Although of even older origin, the company was incorporated under a Royal Charter in 1394, the company's earliest extant Charter. The company's aim was to act as a trade association for general merchants, and especially for exporters of wool and importers of velvet, silk and other luxurious fabrics (mercers).
By the 16th century many members of the company had lost connection with the original trade.
The Mercers' Company is still based at Mercers' Hall, 6 Frederick's Place in the City of London.
Between 1517 and 1524 the Company built the Mercer's Chapel on this land, with the first Mercers' Hall above it, fronting Cheapside.
The building was destroyed in the Great Fire of London in 1666.
The second Hall, designed by Edward Jarman and John Oliver, opened in May 1676.
L&M Companion had this information about Pepys' stationer: John Cade's Stationer, at the Globe in Cornhill. Cade was a Presbyterian and conducted a prosperous business. His shop (the Globe, taxed on seven hearths) was, before the Great Fire, immediately to the west of the Royal Exchange, where he also owned the lease of four houses, one of them with stables, and also a warehouse. One of the houses was a tavern -- the three Golden Lions.
The buildings were destroyed in the Great Fire, when his landlords (the Mercers' Company) provided him with temporary accommodation in Gresham College.
(Membership has its advantages.)
SOME MEMBERS
William Caxton, printer
Richard "Dick" Whittington, Mayor of the City of London
John Colet (1467–1519), founder of St. Paul's School, London and dean of St. Paul's Cathedral
1509 Sir Thomas More, before he worked for Henry VIII
1555 John Dee (1527–1608), mathematician and Queen Elizabeth's astrologer
Sir John Gresham, Mayor of the City of London
Sir Richard Gresham, merchant and Mayor of the City of London
Sir Thomas Gresham, merchant, financier and founder of Gresham College
Winston Churchill
https://www.mercers.co.uk/search/…
And the Masters during Pepys Diary:
1660 Thomas Chambrelan
1661 Richard Ford
1662 Rowland Wynn
1663 James Hawley
1664 Henry Spurstowe
1665 Thomas Culling -- probably in charge during the Fire
1666 John Godden -- organized the response to the Fire
1667 Thomas Carleton
1668 John Dethick
1669 Richard Clutterbuck
1670 John Dogett
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mas…
About Friday 1 March 1666/67
San Diego Sarah • Link
Gingerbread and gingerbread people were very popular under Queen Elizabeth, but took a dark turn under James I and the Stuarts. Since Pepys doesn't mention it, I won't go into further detail, but a nice article about its general evolution is at
https://crimereads.com/the-surpri…
About Jamaica
San Diego Sarah • Link
PART 2
In Barbados there were 6,000 slaves in 1645, but 42,000 in 1698; in Jamaica, 1,500 in 1656 and more than 41,000 at the end of the century.
As the slave trade developed, the code governing ownership of slaves tightened.
In 1655 the addition of Jamaica to English overseas territories, a bigger land mass than the combined size of all the Caribbean colonies mentioned so far in this article, added to the sugar producing capacity of this region of the Americas and introduced a fresh stimulus to the slave trade.
After the introduction of the Slave Codes of 1661, slaves could be designated as real estate, by which they were regarded as unalienable parts of the estates from which they were forbidden to leave.
The distinction between offering the native American/Carib peoples the opportunities presented by European ideas of education and conversion to Christianity, exemplified in the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in New England (1649) were never extended to those who in the Slave Codes were called ‘heathenish’ and ‘brutish’.
As slavery advanced, there was still no significant discussion in Parliament, where Members were preoccupied with defining the rights and liberties of the English, and not with extending privileges to others.
Highlights and excerpts from Slavery, the Caribbean and English Liberties, 1620-1640
https://thehistoryofparliament.wo…
About Jamaica
San Diego Sarah • Link
Between 1624 and 1632, St. Christopher (St. Kitts), Barbados, Nevis, Monserrat, Providence and Antigua were settled by the English. The typical arrangement governing settlement was a grant by the king to a trading company, and the grant defined the parameters of settlement.
Wherever they settled, the English quickly asserted their rights and liberties against the mother country, and saw themselves as English abroad, whatever their motives for emigration.
In the Caribbean, the native Carib peoples with whom the settlers came into contact were subject to episodic violence by the English and French.
More slaves from West Africa were brought to Providence Island, off Columbia, than to any other English colony before 1640. Qualms by some of the investors and colonists over the legitimacy of slavery was overcome by the perceived need to acquire more labor than emigration from England could provide.
When the Spanish overran Providence Island in 1641, ending English rule there, they captured 350 English and 381 slaves.
In England, the opening of the Parliament in November 1640 provided the new arena for conflict between King Charles and the Puritan opposition, compared to which the failure of Providence Island was of no consequence, and the jarring discord of Black slavery in a colony founded to promote Puritan English liberties was simply not perceived or articulated at Westminster.
The Caribbean colonies were intended to be engines of trade, and in terms of the labor market, Barbados was by far the most significant. White labor there was provided by indentured servants. But neither the scale of white immigrant labor, nor the principles upon which it rested, were sufficient to service the new booming sugar industry, which took over from tobacco and cotton cultivation in the West Indies from the 1640s.
Sugar production was highly profitable, supplying an insatiable European market: by the mid-1650s sugar accounted for nearly half the cargoes imported into Bristol, England’s second largest port, and it all came from the Caribbean.
The scale and the processes involved in sugar production (crushing and boiling in continuous, 24-7 shifts, plus back-breaking cultivation, all in searing, humid heat) required cheap, expendable labor (European workers could not withstand the conditions), and West Africans were the answer. Slave labor grew in parallel with the scale of sugar production.
Slaves were regarded as the moveable property (chattels) of their white owners. The practice of chattel slavery in English colonies barely impinged on the consciousness of MPs in Parliament. Curiously the scale of chattel slavery in the Caribbean expanded when the champions of English liberties came into power, and then the scale increased dramatically after the Restoration.
About Monday 5 October 1668
San Diego Sarah • Link
PART 2
In Barbados there were 6,000 slaves in 1645, but 42,000 in 1698; in Jamaica, 1,500 in 1656 and more than 41,000 at the end of the 17th century.
As the slave trade developed, the code governing ownership of slaves tightened. After the introduction of the Slave Codes of 1661, slaves could be designated as real estate, by which they were regarded as unalienable parts of the estates from which they were forbidden to leave.
The distinction between offering the native American/Carib peoples the opportunities presented by European ideas of education and conversion to Christianity, exemplified in the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in New England (1649) were never extended to those who in the Slave Codes were called ‘heathenish’ and ‘brutish’.
As slavery advanced, there was still no significant discussion in Parliament, where Members were preoccupied with the rights and liberties of the English, and not with extending privileges to others.
Highlights and excerpts from Slavery, the Caribbean and English Liberties, 1620-1640
https://thehistoryofparliament.wo…
About Monday 5 October 1668
San Diego Sarah • Link
Since you mention Nevis ... Between 1624 and 1632, St. Christopher (St. Kitts), Barbados, Nevis, Monserrat, Providence and Antigua were settled by the English. The typical arrangement governing settlement was a grant by the king to a trading company, and the grant defined the parameters of settlement.
Wherever they settled, the English quickly asserted their rights and liberties against the mother country, and saw themselves as English abroad, whatever their motives for emigration.
In the Caribbean, the native Carib peoples with whom the settlers came into contact were subject to episodic violence by the English and French.
More slaves from West Africa were brought to Providence Island, off Columbia, than to any other English colony before 1640. Qualms by some of the investors and colonists over the legitimacy of slavery was overcome by the perceived need to acquire more labor than emigration from England could provide.
When the Spanish overran Providence Island in 1641, ending English rule there, they captured 350 English and 381 slaves.
In England, the opening of the Parliament in November 1640 provided the new arena for conflict between King Charles and the Puritan opposition, compared to which the failure of Providence Island was of no consequence, and the jarring discord of Black slavery in a colony founded to promote Puritan English liberties was simply not perceived or articulated at Westminster.
The Caribbean colonies were intended to be engines of trade, and in terms of the labor market, Barbados was by far the most significant. White labor there was provided by indentured servants. But neither the scale of white immigrant labor, nor the principles upon which it rested, were sufficient to service the new booming sugar industry, which took over from tobacco and cotton cultivation in the West Indies from the 1640s.
Sugar production was highly profitable, supplying an insatiable European market: by the mid-1650s sugar accounted for nearly half the cargoes imported into Bristol, England’s second largest port, and it all came from the Caribbean.
The scale and the processes involved in sugar production (crushing and boiling in continuous, 24-7 shifts, plus back-breaking cultivation, all in searing, humid heat) required cheap, expendable labor (European workers could not withstand the conditions), and West Africans were the answer. Slave labor grew in parallel with the scale of sugar production.
Slaves were regarded as the moveable property (chattels) of their white owners. The practice of chattel slavery in English colonies barely impinged on the consciousness of MPs in Parliament. Curiously the scale of chattel slavery in the Caribbean expanded when the champions of English liberties came into power, and then the scale increased dramatically after the Restoration.
About Barbados
San Diego Sarah • Link
PART 2
After the introduction of the Slave Codes of 1661, slaves could be designated as real estate, by which they were regarded as unalienable parts of the estates from which they were forbidden to leave.
The distinction between offering the native American/Carib peoples the opportunities presented by European ideas of education and conversion to Christianity, exemplified in the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in New England (1649) were never extended to those who in the Slave Codes were called ‘heathenish’ and ‘brutish’.
As slavery advanced, there was still no significant discussion in Parliament, where Members were preoccupied with the rights and liberties of the English, and not with extending privileges to others.
Highlights and excerpts from Slavery, the Caribbean and English Liberties, 1620-1640
https://thehistoryofparliament.wo…
About Barbados
San Diego Sarah • Link
Between 1624 and 1632, St. Christopher (St. Kitts), Barbados, Nevis, Monserrat, Providence and Antigua were settled by the English. The typical arrangement governing settlement was a grant by the king to a trading company, and the grant defined the parameters of settlement.
Wherever they settled, the English quickly asserted their rights and liberties against the mother country, and saw themselves as English abroad, whatever their motives for emigration.
In the Caribbean, the native Carib peoples with whom the settlers came into contact were subject to episodic violence by the English and French.
More slaves from West Africa were brought to Providence Island, off Columbia, than to any other English colony before 1640. Qualms by some of the investors and colonists over the legitimacy of slavery was overcome by the perceived need to acquire more labor than emigration from England could provide.
When the Spanish overran Providence Island in 1641, ending English rule there, they captured 350 English and 381 slaves.
In England, the opening of the Parliament in November 1640 provided the new arena for conflict between King Charles and the Puritan opposition, compared to which the failure of Providence Island was of no consequence, and the jarring discord of Black slavery in a colony founded to promote Puritan English liberties was simply not perceived or articulated at Westminster.
The Caribbean colonies were intended to be engines of trade, and in terms of the labor market, Barbados was by far the most significant. White labor there was provided by indentured servants. But neither the scale of white immigrant labor, nor the principles upon which it rested, were sufficient to service the new booming sugar industry, which took over from tobacco and cotton cultivation in the West Indies from the 1640s.
Sugar production was highly profitable, supplying an insatiable European market: by the mid-1650s sugar accounted for nearly half the cargoes imported into Bristol, England’s second largest port, and it all came from the Caribbean.
The scale and the processes involved in sugar production (crushing and boiling in continuous, 24-7 shifts, plus back-breaking cultivation, all in searing, humid heat) required cheap, expendable labor (European workers could not withstand the conditions), and West Africans were the answer. Slave labor grew in parallel with the scale of sugar production.
Slaves were regarded as the moveable property (chattels) of their white owners. The practice of chattel slavery in English colonies barely impinged on the consciousness of MPs in Parliament. Curiously the scale of chattel slavery in the Caribbean expanded when the champions of English liberties came into power, and then the scale increased dramatically after the Restoration.
In Barbados there were 6,000 slaves in 1645, but 42,000 in 1698. As the slave trade developed, the code governing ownership of slaves tightened.
About St Kitts
San Diego Sarah • Link
Between 1624 and 1632, St. Christopher (St. Kitts), Barbados, Nevis, Monserrat and Antigua were settled by the English. The typical arrangement governing settlement was a grant by the king to a trading company, and the grant defined the parameters of settlement.
Wherever they settled, the English quickly asserted their rights and liberties against the mother country, and saw themselves as English abroad, whatever their motives for emigration.
One English colony, part of the early rapid expansion of settlement in the Caribbean, was unusual, in that its proprietors shared the lofty ideals of the New England Puritan founders.
Founded in 1629, Providence Island (Providencia, between Costa Rica and Jamaica, off what is now Columbia), was the prospective colony promoted by the most determined Puritan opponents of King Charles (Adm. Robert Rich, 2nd Earl of Warwick, 1587-1619-1658, Robert Greville, 2nd Baron Brooke 1608-1628-1643, William 'Old Subtlety' Fiennes, Viscount Saye and Sele (d. 1662), Oliver St.John, John Pym). It was intended to be a godly commonwealth -- but the settlers needed to trade.
In the Caribbean, the native Carib peoples with whom the settlers came into contact were subject to episodic violence by the English and French.
But in some new colonies, including Providence Island, the Caribs were recognized as a trading people, with whom the English needed to do business. However, they were treated very differently from European trading partners.
Providence Island settlers were forbidden from enslaving the Caribs; instead they became the objects of Christian missionary endeavors.
Yet another ethic applied to Africans. More slaves from West Africa were brought to Providence Island than to any other English colony before 1640. Qualms by some of the investors and colonists over the legitimacy of slavery had been overcome by the perceived need to acquire more labor than emigration from England could provide.
When the Spanish overran Providence Island in 1641, ending English rule there, they took 350 English people captive and 381 slaves.
Back in England, the opening of the Parliament in November 1640 provided the new arena for conflict between King Charles and the Puritan opposition, compared to which the failure of Providence Island was of no consequence, and the jarring discord of Black slavery in a colony founded to safeguard and promote English liberties was simply not perceived or articulated at Westminster.
Excerpted from Slavery, the Caribbean and English Liberties, 1620-1640
https://thehistoryofparliament.wo…
About Antigua, West Indies
San Diego Sarah • Link
Between 1624 and 1632, St. Christopher (St. Kitts), Barbados, Nevis, Monserrat and Antigua were settled by the English. The typical arrangement governing settlement was a grant by the king to a trading company, and the grant defined the parameters of settlement.
Wherever they settled, the English quickly asserted their rights and liberties against the mother country, and saw themselves as English abroad, whatever their motives for emigration.
One English colony, part of the early rapid expansion of settlement in the Caribbean, was unusual, in that its proprietors shared the lofty ideals of the New England Puritan founders.
Founded in 1629, Providence Island (Providencia, between Costa Rica and Jamaica, off what is now Columbia), was the prospective colony promoted by the most determined Puritan opponents of King Charles (Adm. Robert Rich, 2nd Earl of Warwick, 1587-1619-1658, Robert Greville, 2nd Baron Brooke 1608-1628-1643, William 'Old Subtlety' Fiennes, Viscount Saye and Sele (d. 1662), Oliver St.John, John Pym). It was intended to be a godly commonwealth -- but the settlers needed to trade.
In the Caribbean, the native Carib peoples with whom the settlers came into contact were subject to episodic violence by the English and French.
But in some new colonies, including Providence Island, the Caribs were recognized as a trading people, with whom the English needed to do business. However, they were treated very differently from European trading partners.
Providence Island settlers were forbidden from enslaving the Caribs; instead they became the objects of Christian missionary endeavors.
Yet another ethic applied to Africans. More slaves from West Africa were brought to Providence Island than to any other English colony before 1640. Qualms by some of the investors and colonists over the legitimacy of slavery had been overcome by the perceived need to acquire more labor than emigration from England could provide.
When the Spanish overran Providence Island in 1641, ending English rule there, they took 350 English people captive and 381 slaves.
Back in England, the opening of the Parliament in November 1640 provided the new arena for conflict between King Charles and the Puritan opposition, compared to which the failure of Providence Island was of no consequence, and the jarring discord of Black slavery in a colony founded to safeguard and promote English liberties was simply not perceived or articulated at Westminster.
Excerpted from Slavery, the Caribbean and English Liberties, 1620-1640
https://thehistoryofparliament.wo…