Tuesday 17 January 1659/60

Early I went to Mr. Crew’s, and having given Mr. Edward money to give the servants, I took him into the coach that waited for us and carried him to my house, where the coach waited for me while I and the child went to Westminster Hall, and bought him some pictures. In the Hall I met Mr. Woodfine, and took him to Will’s and drank with him. Thence the child and I to the coach, where my wife was ready, and so we went towards Twickenham. In our way, at Kensington we understood how that my Lord Chesterfield had killed another gentleman about half an hour before, and was fled. We went forward and came about one of the clock to Mr. Fuller’s, but he was out of town, so we had a dinner there, and I gave the child 40s. to give to the two ushers.

After that we parted and went homewards, it being market day at Brainford.1 I set my wife down and went with the coach to Mr. Crew’s, thinking to have spoke with Mr. Moore and Mrs. Jane, he having told me the reason of his melancholy was some unkindness from her after so great expressions of love, and how he had spoke to her friends and had their consent, and that he would desire me to take an occasion of speaking with her, but by no means not to heighten her discontent or distaste whatever it be, but to make it up if I can.

But he being out of doors, I went away and went to see Mrs. Jem, who was now very well again, and after a game or two at cards, I left her. So I went to the Coffee Club, and heard very good discourse; it was in answer to Mr. Harrington’s answer, who said that the state of the Roman government was not a settled government, and so it was no wonder that the balance of propriety2 was in one hand, and the command in another, it being therefore always in a posture of war; but it was carried by ballot, that it was a steady government, though it is true by the voices it had been carried before that it was an unsteady government; so to-morrow it is to be proved by the opponents that the balance lay in one hand, and the government in another.

Thence I went to Westminster, and met Shaw and Washington, who told me how this day Sydenham was voted out of the House for sitting any more this Parliament, and that Salloway was voted out likewise and sent to the Tower, during the pleasure of the House.

Home and wrote by the Post, and carried to Whitehall, and coming back turned in at Harper’s, where Jack Price was, and I drank with him and he told me, among other, things, how much the Protector is altered, though he would seem to bear out his trouble very well, yet he is scarce able to talk sense with a man; and how he will say that “Who should a man trust, if he may not trust to a brother and an uncle;” and “how much those men have to answer before God Almighty, for their playing the knave with him as they did.” He told me also, that there was; 100,000l. offered, and would have been taken for his restitution, had not the Parliament come in as they did again; and that he do believe that the Protector will live to give a testimony of his valour and revenge yet before he dies, and that the Protector will say so himself sometimes.

Thence I went home, it being late and my wife in bed.

21 Annotations

crouchback  •  Link

okay, i'll bite ...
what child? was he babysitting or something? i don't get it. what did i miss?

crouchback  •  Link

duh ...
okay, i get it. edward is the child. that's what i get for reading this late in the day at work ...

Fred Coleman  •  Link

Did anyone pick up on Pepy's reference to "the child", first mentioned yesterday, but referred to again today? I did a bit of searching through the copious notes provided by the Latham and Matthews edition and discovered that the "child" was the eldest son and heir of the Earl of Sandwich, Edward Mountagu (not "Montagu", apparently), one of Pepy's patrons. This would be Edward, Jr. and he was twelve years old at the time. Imagine a lad of 12 "expressing his mind concerning things of state" as we learned yesterday! He probably already had a grounding in Latin and Greek and, who knows, perhaps had written a sonnet or two!

crouchback  •  Link

um, fred, i believe the person talking to s.p. 'concerning things of state' was in fact crews in the course of giving s.p. instructions on the twickenham excursion with young edward ...

Charles Weng  •  Link

Lord Chesterfield's duel

The annotation for Lord Chesterfield here provided some background for this duelist, who fled to get a pardon from Charles II. Was this just another "news item" of the day, for which Pepys could just take it or leave it?

Pepys heard the news at Kensington, where the duel took place not too long ago (he certainly had an affinity for gossip!). Would he receive this information as any other commoner would (say, a conversation in a pub), or did Pepys enjoy privileged sources in this case?

Fred Coleman  •  Link

I stand corrected, crouchback! More on Edward, Jr. Apparently the trip to Twickenham to investigate it as a possible place for his schooling didn't work out. The following year (1661) he and his younger brother Sidney (who was 10) were sent to be schooled in France. By the way, the prolific Earl had nine other children. I rather like the thought of Pepy's taking it upon himself to assist his boss in this way. Could it be that this act of kindness displays a special fondness for children brought about by the fact that he (probably) couldn't have children of his own [due to his appalling kidney stone operation????]. We'll never know for sure. Maybe he was just sucking up to his boss!

Eric Walla  •  Link

I'm more intrigued by the line relating how Sam was, " ... thinking to have spoke with Mr. Moore and Mrs. Jem, he having told me the reason of his melancholy was some unkindness from her after so great expressions of love ...." Are we talking about a suitor for Mrs. Jem, whom we discussed earlier as being 13 years old? And who are the friends to whom he had spoke and received their consent? Consent for what?

I hope we get a clearer picture soon, but seeing as how we have no annotations for Mr. Moore, perhaps he is a bit player in this drama.

Phil  •  Link

If a person doesn't have a page for annotations, this doesn't necessarily mean they're not important or they don't appear very often. A person gets a page to themselves if the 1893 edition of the text had footnotes about them and these tended to be erratic. If anyone wants to annotate a person I'm happy to create new pages as desired!

Glyn  •  Link

Eric: re "thinking to have spoken with Mr Moore and Mrs Jem"

I think this is a case of mistaken identity - the most recent edition says this was Mrs JANE not Mrs JEM, i.e. tis someone else entirely. What we have here is Moore courting Jane and there being some sort of a lovers' quarrel, so Samuel is trying to help them back together.

Incidentally, this is no criticism of this version of the diary that we are reading on-line. Everyone describes it as being the best of the older versions, and until recently it was the standard version.

Glyn  •  Link

"And who are the friends to whom he had spoke and received their consent? Consent for what?"

FRIENDS at this time also meant PARENTS and CLOSE FAMILY. Moore had asked their permission to get engaged and they had agreed. Like I said, lover's tiff.

Moore was a lawyer and a pal of Samuel, so he no doubt felt he could offer some friendly advice.

Phil  •  Link

Thanks for the clarification about Mrs Jane and Mrs Jem, Glyn! That makes much more sense. I should have noticed that, but I don't always get the chance to read Latham & Matthews prior to posting entries.

David QuidnuncGurliaci  •  Link

". . . if he may not trust to a brother . . ."

The "Protector," Richard Cromwell, apparently is talking about Charles Fleetwood, who was Richard's brother-in-law. Fleetwood was one of the military leaders who overthrew Cromwell in the spring of 1659.

"Charles Fleetwood, Lord Deputy of Ireland during the Usurpation, became [Oliver] Cromwell's son-in-law by his marrying with Ireton's widow, and a member of the Council of State." -- annotation for this passage in the Everyman's Library edition of the Diary, edited by John Warrington.

David QuidnuncGurliacci  •  Link


An annotation here in Warrington's "Everyman's" edition says Major Richard Salway was still a Tower prisoner, 1663-4.

david  •  Link

Who was Mr Fuller? And why did he have usher?

Roger Miller  •  Link

This Mr Fuller was WILLIAM FULLER (1608–1675), dean of St Patrick’s (1660), bishop of Limerick (1663), and bishop of Lincoln (1667).

He was very friendly with Pepys and probably merits a page of his own as his name crops up quite often.

There is a reference later to him having given Mr. Edward instruction in Latin so perhaps he was running the school in Twickenham.

Ushers are doorkeepers. See http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=usher&... Apparently the Queen has several.

Roger Miller  •  Link

Usher: I've just seen that an archaic meaning of usher is 'an assistant teacher in a school'.

M.Stolzenbach  •  Link

Here's a most useful URL for looking up things. It's where I got the information about Lord Chesterfield, for instance.


The pages are simply scanned in, so you might need to scroll down to see the index item you choose; but there's all the information here that you would find in the real-life edition of the 1911 "Scholars' Edition" of the Britannica - my absolutely best wedding present, from a librarian friend.

Terry Foreman  •  Link

"I hope we get a clearer picture soon, but seeing as how we have no annotations for Mr. Moore, perhaps he is a bit player in this drama."

Click on the link for Moore in this entry and it shows how many times he is referenced and when http://www.pepysdiary.com/encyclopedia/340/

Log in to post an annotation.

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