Sunday 29 April 1660

(Sunday). This day I put on first my fine cloth suit made of a cloak that had like to have been [dirted] a year ago, the very day that I put it on.

After sermon in the morning Mr. Cook came from London with a packet, bringing news how all the young lords that were not in arms against the Parliament do now sit. That a letter is come from the King to the House, which is locked up by the Council ‘till next Tuesday that it may be read in the open House when they meet again, they having adjourned till then to keep a fast tomorrow. And so the contents is not yet known.

13,000l. of the 20,000l. given to General Monk is paid out of the Exchequer, he giving 12l. among the teller clerks of Exchequer.

My Lord called me into the great cabin below, where I opened my letters and he told me that the Presbyterians are quite mastered by the Cavaliers, and that he fears Mr. Crew did go a little too far the other day in keeping out the young lords from sitting. That he do expect that the King should be brought over suddenly, without staying to make any terms at all, saying that the Presbyterians did intend to have brought him in with such conditions as if he had been in chains. But he shook his shoulders when he told me how Monk had betrayed him, for it was he that did put them upon standing to put out the lords and other members that came not within the qualifications, which he [Montagu] did not like, but however he [Monk] had done his business, though it be with some kind of baseness.

After dinner I walked a great while upon the deck with the chyrurgeon and purser, and other officers of the ship, and they all pray for the King’s coming, which I pray God send.

31 Annotations

Nix  •  Link

I hope someone can parse the last part of this entry --

Why does Montague think Monck has betrayed him?

"[F]or it was he that did put them upon standing to put out the lords and other members that came not within the qualifications, which he [Montagu] did not like, but however he [Monk] had done his business, though it be with some kind of baseness."

What does that mean?

Paul Brewster  •  Link

Not sure this will help ...
L&M Footnote: "Bordeaux, the French Ambassador, wrote on the 30th: 'Those [of the Lords] even who have borne arms against the Parliament will take their seats. He [Monck] has consented to the admission of all the members of the House of Commons without regard to qualifications; which leads the army to murmur, and weakens the credit of the Presbyterian party, the leaders of which accuse the general of having duped them';"

Paul Brewster  •  Link

Another bit of L&M stuff: Note that L&M changes the wording ...
"But he shook his shoulders when he told me how Monke had betrayed them [NOT him], for it was he that did put them upon standing to keep [NOT put] out the Lords and the other members that came not within the Qualificacions -- which he [Footnote: Montagu] did not like; but however he hath done his business, though it be with some kind of baseness.

language hat  •  Link

"had like to have been [dirted] a year ago"
Anybody know what the bracketed word was?

WKW  •  Link

At your command, L. Hat:
"Sunday [underlined]. This day I put on first my fine cloth suit, made of a cloak that had like to have been beshit behind a year ago the very day that I put it on."
---"The Shorter Pepys," p. 37, come scritto

WKW  •  Link

chyrurgeon = surgeon

language hat  •  Link

Ah, thank you, WKW!
Nice to be able to get the full Monty, as it were. And "beshit behind" is so much more... vivid... than "dirted." (Dirted?? The last OED citation for "to dirt" is from 1833!)

Nix  •  Link

So -- Monck convinced the Presbyterians to try to exclude from the House of Lords everyone who had been on the royalist side in the civil war, but the Presbyterians lost that battle -- and as a result, lost their attempt to put strings on the King's return to power. The result is that the King returns with all rights intact. Montague doesn't think Monck has betrayed HIM, but that it was a low piece of deception against the Presbyterians. Am I reading it right?

Does this mean that, by allowing the king to come back without restriction (it looks like that will be the result, whether or not it was Monck's intention) Monck is setting up a return to Stuart absolutism, that will lead in turn to the fall of James II and the rise of constitutional monarchy? I'm sure there are a lot of other circumstances involved, but it sure sounds like an instance of the law of unintended consequences.

qB  •  Link

How strange about the OED and "to dirt". Perhaps it has been replaced in common usage by "to dirty" - babies still regularly, and very actively, dirty their nappies. Amongst other things.

I am still utterly confused as to who has been deceived by Monk and for what reason.

Emilio  •  Link

Montagu and Monk
Here's my reading . . .
The Presbyterians have been the more moderate republicans throughout the commonwealth period; unlike the hardcore republicans of the Rump, they were willing to keep a king with certain constitutional checks on his power. For this they were purged from the Rump, and now they are a danger to the royalists, who want a king with no strings attached.
Sam's first inkling of the current struggle was on Fri, when Moore brought news that he feared the Presbyterians may join forces with Monk (few still know whether he can be trusted), and thus will create more strife by offering unacceptable terms to the king. Remember that back in the 1640s the Presbyterians had forced Ch I to sign an agreement to (among other conditions) make Presbyterianism the established church, and they want the new king to stick by that agreement.
Montagu, however, assured Sam that he needn't worry. Montagu had grown up a Presbyterian, and had been a very powerful one during the commonwealth. But after living through the last year of chaos (and reading Sam's letters from London), he's become aware how out of touch w/ the popular mood his party has become. Before, he himself had been unsure of Monk, but now he has become confident that Monk wants the quick return of the king as much as he does.
Today Montagu feels that Monk has suckered the Presbyterians, by promising support he had no intention of giving them. I thus incline toward L&M's reading, that the Presbyterians were primarily the ones betrayed rather than Montagu himself. However, Montagu did grow up a Presbyterian, and he still has many friends among them, including Crewe his father-in-law. Montagu thus can't help but be personally offended at the betrayal - he still feels loyalty to his old friends, and doesn't want to see them completely discredited.

Emilio  •  Link

A contrast
L&M remark in a footnote to the 26th that Monk had persuaded the young Lords (those who were not yet lords when the house was dissolved in 1649) to keep a low profile until the house was more firmly established. Thus he was urging them (including Montagu's cousin, a Presbyterian) to avoid backlash at a critical moment, while he was simultaneously egging other Presbyterians on. No wonder Montagu is peeved.

Brian  •  Link

That a letter is come from the King...

Is this the first mention of the Declaration of Breda in the diary? If I read this passage correctly the existence of the letter is known but not its contents. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the days ahead.

Paul Brewster  •  Link

Another light on this from L&M:
"The cavaliers dominated the crucial Committee for Privilege and Elections, which scrutinised the returns and interpreted in their own interest the Act for Qualifications passed by the last parliament."
Rather than a betrayal, it may just have been that Monk had underestimated the real power of the cavaliers. He may simply have trusted that the Young Lords would follow his advice.

Hhomeboy  •  Link

Monk & Montagu...eminent pragamatists and rivals (4 paragrpahs)...

If you will recall the principal plotters some months ago were Montagu's father-in-law, Crew, and Montagu coz Manchester, also an erstwhile Cromwell family rival and then an associate albeit as a parliamentary faction moderate in the civil war. The Presbyterians made the mistake of complacency while assuming that their all-too-brief parliamentary dominance gave them the upper hand--even though they could not rest easy due to Monk's control of the council, the army and at least a good part of the the meantime as the Presbies dithered and fretted, Monk courted all of the influential London trade guild members who feted him like a Roman consul or even a Caesar (had he wished).

The King's courtiers had been busy for more than a year and a half playing divide-and-conquer, working separately and assiduously on Montagu and Monk; Montagu, the lesser of the two in terms of military power and political abilities, was the first to come onside, whereas Monk kept a lot of people guessing. Montagu has no particularly strong religious affiliations, nor was he convinced even a few months ago that the king would survive very long upon his restoration (a remark dutifully recorded by our Sam). But Montagu was living above his means and needed the funds/patronage that come with pomp and circumstance. As we shall see, Montagu becomes a high court official as well as continuing as a warrior who saw war as a glorious extraganza of booty. As we have already seen, Monk, via his wife, also was extremely avaricious.

A quasi-constitutional monarch fettered by the Presbyterians would not have had the freedom to create new honours and to do as he pleased with the rewarding of lands and estates all across the land to his cronies and loyalists, including all the new peers of state and church the king is already planning to elevate/appoint. In this context, is it any wonder that cavaliers have been emerging from the woodwork and scurrying towards the continent in the preceding first, one by one, then by the dozens....The Presbyterians would have hindered Charles's spoils-based loyalty system, thereby weakening his ability to rule forcefully. And Charles is already well prepared for a brute show of force upon his landing on English soil.

Remember the Breda document discussed here earlier: it should be seen as so much apple polishing but basically a document without the force of law, thereby allowing the king to pay lip service to the still prevalent politico-secular cant, while affording him unfettered perogative to do as he pleases, his and his brothers's excesses culminating in the downfall of the Stuart dynasty, the end of unlimited royal perogative, and the century's second, much more successful revolution.

Hhomeboy  •  Link

Avararice over blood, politics or religion...

"... My Lord called me... he told me that the Presbyterians are quite mastered by the Cavaliers...he fears Mr. Crew did go a little too far the other day in keeping out the young lords from sitting. "

Politically, Monk and the King have been the most adept players, with Montagu a desirable and malleable military and political figure who now has straddled the camps and formed a working alliance with Monk in order to curb any dissident forces/voices within the army and navy.

In political terms, one might say that the pragmatic Montagu (with his faithful family retainer along for the ride--literally and figuratively--and anxious to rise with the new tide and enrich himself) was the target of a skillfully executed 'carve-out' strategy.

Once the restoration has been effected, the ruthless courtiers will emasculate self-important Presbyterian grandees such as Manchester, while Montagu and Monk are rewarded in many ways and by several means. As Sam's diary entry today notes, the humbling of the Presbyterians (who have neither armies, nor infliuence over Monk or the eminently pragmatic Montagu) is so complete that all they can do is splutter with indignation over the purported perfidity of their social inferior Monk.

N.B. I do not have access to a Monk biography. Perhaps someone who does might cull a couple of passages and post them re: Monk's state-of-mind in recent weeks and his adroit handling of the Presbyterian faction.

Emilio  •  Link

"Montagu, the lesser of the two in terms of military power and political abilities"
I'd put more emphasis on Monk and Montagu as pragmatists: Monk supports the king as the only means to get his troops paid, and Montagu saw months ago which side of the bread was buttered for him personally. If we do get hold of the Monk bio, I think we will find him a lot less calculating than he's given credit for above.
Monk strikes me as a soldier first and foremost - a fan of security and orderly rule. Currently he plays a big part because he controls the army, but his BG page is filled with people who disparage him as a political player, from Macaulay to Henry Wheatley. Both Montagu and Pepys have already begun to express their low opinions.
Every one of the critics admits Monk has the gift of being loved, though, and I don't think we need to assume more than that and the strength of the army are behind his success during the Restoration.

Nix  •  Link

Thanks, Emilio and Hhomeboy, for your illuminating discussion. It really brings the fluidity of the situation into focus.

Dai B  •  Link

Re chyrurgeon: from French chirugerie. The basic medical degree awarded at many UK medical schools is still MB.BCh ("Batchelor of Medicine, Batchelor of Chirugerie")

Jenny Doughty  •  Link

A pedant writes... I hate to nitpick on an excellent post, but as the word is undoubtedly going to crop up again over the next few years, could we please get the spelling of 'prerogative' right? The common misspelling - perogative - makes no etymological sense.

Hhomeboy  •  Link


I've been asking our mod moderator to implement a re-edit I knew i'd mispelled after posting--but thanks for the korektion--I guess I'd been thinking about perogies...

Hhomeboy  •  Link

re: Nix-- "...sure sounds like an instance of the law of unintended consequences."

1. Your read in yr. 04/30/03/6:25 am post above was quite correct; my two subsequent posts were written in response...

Monk was a master of ambiguity and as such was at this point playing the role of Royal Protector or de facto ruler--stroking & probing the various estates general, testing loyalties and setting up the vainglorious and treacherous for subsequent just desserts...vicious internecine factionalism had been the order f the day for the previous 20 yrs and old habits die hard...

Almost everyone was vying for power and/or preferment; those who were tempted to o'er reach (eg. Manchester) should have known the consequences... those who betrayed the monarchy and actively/enthusastically/rabidly participated in the regicide will soon serve as grim icons of gibbet and prison there are no British monuments to Cromwell, whose very remains would not be left interred.

2. re: Pierogies--'guess that brand is made to beconsumed by pi enthusiasts/geek mathematicians on an oceanside boardwalk or jetty!

vincent  •  Link

To Lead needs An Authority but Whose ?
Divine right of Kings from Heritage or by the People from the people( army or Parliament). Not ready for that Yet, too much freedom for the Hoi Poloi, too many differing concepts, I guess stay with the tried and true, despite the proven track record, but the pass 10 years or so years, are filled with troubles( and lack of funds). And besides this, who has the funds to run the land ? The Overseas trade appears to very profitable compared with the home grown business of wool and food etc.

jean-paul buquet  •  Link

More nitpicking!!
My contribution will pale compared to today's fare - it is not "chirugerie", but "chirurgie", and a surgeon is in France "un chirurgien".
Aaah, I feel better!

Hhomeboy  •  Link

Yikes...mea culpa...

I actually remember walking by Rosebery's Westminster statue of OC as a tyke...

the Cambridgeshire and Bradford tributes and the 400th anniversary activities are curious examples of feeble attempts at restoring Cromwell's reputation.

Where o where are his remains?

Susanna  •  Link

Cromwell's Remains

The head is probably buried, in an undisclosed location, at his old alma mater, Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge. The fate of the rest of the body is unknown. For more grisly details of the history of Cromwell's head, complete with pictures:…

vk  •  Link

Important note about the Presbyterians

It's absolutely necessary to remember that the term Presbyterian had two distinct meanings at this time (that is, 1644-1660). It could refer to the religious movement, or it could refer to one of the two political parties in the Commons. In late 1644 the entire Commons divided into Presbyterians vs. Independants.

The Presbyterians had two major goals: 1) they wanted a single national church , with a Presbyterian government, instead of toleration for sects independant of the national church; and they wanted to negotiate for peace with the King. The Independants wanted toleration and they wanted to defeat the King on the field and then force demands on him.

By late 1648, when the King had been defeated, the Presbyterians were the majority in the Commons, and were pressing Charles I to accept the Treaty of Newport. The Independants were the minority, but they had almost complete influence over the army. The army wanted to put the King on trial and the Presbyterian majority was blocking this. So the army threw the Presbyterians out of the House and they had no role for ten years.

Once the Presbyterians came back in February - and presumably formed the majority again - they picked up where they left off: they wanted a King who accepted the terms of the Treaty of Newport, which included the establishment of a national Presbyterian church among other things.

Now the new election has also reintroduced the 'cavaliers', those who never wanted to tamper with the Episcopal church in the first place. The presumably want episcopacy back. The Independants want toleration: they don't want to be forced to join any church, Episcopal or Presbyterian.

Emilio  •  Link

Interesting note, Vincent.
I'm fascinated (and horrified sometimes) by how closely religion was connected to political party at this time. It's interesting to think, though, that all Presbyterians may not have identified with what their leaders did in their name.

vincent  •  Link

Religion and Politics are on the same coin; one be heads, one be tails, Soul or body only separated by the edge or the center; Just look at the world, especialy the 3rd. Then for most of the populace just one source of thought or reference to explain their pain. If you Google up Names, you will see how many quit the land either voluntary or evicted(convicted) to try a new and better way,away from their betters. The Broadsheets were a new dangerous souce of Information. In the hands of untrained they did protest(tant) rant,cant, seek, purify, dig and quake for a better life, unfortunately it was a little chaotic.
This is why Sp's Diary is great. You see a successful way of improving your slice of life. (still a good guide for today Educate one self , LISTEN, be pleasant, socialise and plan) London grew only because of the inports from everywhere seeking a life like Dick Whittington of yore. There they died in the squalor of the failed.
Note: SP gave no thought to the Crew which could be in the hundreds. We (He)only Identify with the succesful.

Tonyel  •  Link

" But he shook his shoulders when he told me how Monk had betrayed them,"

Strange, I associate this expression with laughter. Could it be that Montagu was amused by Monk's roguery?

Log in to post an annotation.

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