Monday 1 July 1661

This morning I went up and down into the city, to buy several things, as I have lately done, for my house. Among other things, a fair chest of drawers for my own chamber, and an Indian gown for myself. The first cost me 33s., the other 34s. Home and dined there, and Theodore Goodgroome, my singing master, with me, and then to our singing. After that to the office, and then home.

23 Annotations

First Reading

A. De Araujo  •  Link

"up and down into the city,to buy several things" Shop until you drop Sam! I wonder if he took Elisabeth along! Women love to shop.

Bradford  •  Link

Whereas men, the fools, just love to spend money.

dirk  •  Link

expensive purchases

(indicative) conversions by
http://eh.net/htmit/ppowerbp/
(see background info "Money")

£157.87 (2002)= 33s (1661)
£162.66 (2002)= 34s (1661)

vicente  •  Link

"...a fair chest of drawers for my own chamber..." by to-days prices, dirt cheap, It's 800$ and up for the real wood and for genuine 17c version, one is talking 1000 quid +[depending on the number 'un trou du bois les vers']. Now he has 'is own chambre with a place for 'is smalls. So I'm under the impression that Sam is bent on being an English Gent and let the lady of the house be in peace, reserving the nursery for fun days and nuptials? [only one view point, out of the misogynistic possibilities]

daniel  •  Link

what would an "indian gown" be, esp. at the price of 162.66 quid?

Alan Bedford  •  Link

Daniel asks "what would an 'indian gown' be…”

Well, Sam will rent one for a portait sitting in about five years. It will look like this: http://www.npg.org.uk/live/search…

Ruben  •  Link

expensive purchases
if you consider the interest on the 33s., I think 800 $ today is cheap indeed.

daniel  •  Link

the indian gown in the famous portrait is cool but would you buy it for that price?
i suppose fine textiles were more costly before the industrial age.

Mary  •  Link

Sam's Indian gown.

The gown in the portrait above looks as if it is made of a plain silk. Such gowns could be very sumptuous indeed, especially when made of gorgeous silk brocade. The term 'Indian' could be applied to almost any exotic, Eastern origin; Turkey, India, China etc. Fabrics imported from these countries were beginning to appear on the London market during the 1660s.

Sorcha  •  Link

Up until around the start of the nineteenth century, the decoration of the home would have been a male role, so Sam would have been expected to be in charge of buying furniture, rather than Elizabeth. It's pretty much only with the Victorians that we get the male=work, home=female split - up until then it would have been a gentlemanly pursuit (the reason for the title of the Gentleman and Cabinet Maker's Director, a century later).

A. De Araujo  •  Link

Thanks for the explanation ,Sorcha.

merle315  •  Link

The indian gown refered to is made of chinz, hand painted cotton, which was imported from India and a cheaper altenative for the silk 'kimono'type gown. (two years later he gets another one as a present from his wife)

Second Reading

Chris Squire UK  •  Link

OED offers:

' . . ‘Indian . . 1. b. Manufactured in India; of Indian material, pattern, or design.
. . 1673 Dryden Marriage a-la-Mode iii. i. 37 That word shall be mine too, and my last Indian-Gown thine for 't. . .
. . 1825 in W. Hone Every-day Bk. (1826) I. 967 Flowered Indian gowns, formerly in use with schoolmasters . . ‘

A garment like a modern dressing gown to be worn indoors at home when no company was present.

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

Welcome to the gang of volunteers who post every day, Kyle. It is a never-ending job.

Kyle in San Diego  •  Link

Thanks I appreciate that. So how do we know that he's wearing an Indian gown in that picture?

Third Reading

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

Sandwich's log:

"July 1st. Monday. In the afternoon we made the Cape St. Vincent."

Copied from
The Journal of Edward Mountagu,
First Earl of Sandwich
Admiral and General-at-Sea 1659 - 1665

Edited by RC Anderson
Printed for the Navy Records Society
MDCCCCXXIX

Section III - Mediterranean 1661/62

Cape St. Vincent (37deg N Latitude) or Cabo de São Vicente in Portuguese is the southwestern point of Portugal and continental Europe. The dramatic landscape and breathtaking views make the cape one of the not-to-miss places in the Algarve. It's also known as the End of the World.
https://thealgarvefamily.com/cabo…

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

E[dward] M[ontagu] to Sandwich
Written from: [London]
Date: 1 July 1661
Shelfmark: MS. Carte 223, fol(s). 246-247
Document type: Holograph

In obedience to the Earl's commands, had promised to M. Frezendorff that he, the writer, will do his best to serve Frezendorff's kinsman in the pending business; and particularly in recommending him to the Lord Chancellor; to whom he has already spoken upon the affair of the town of Huntingdon, and respecting the Patents for Major Walden & Mr. Heron ...

FROM:
Carte Calendar Volume 32, June - December 1661
Bodleian Library, University of Oxford
Edward Edwards, 2005
Shelfmark: MS. Carte Calendar 32
Extent: 464 pages
https://wayback.archive-it.org/or…

@@@

I think of all the Edward Montagus available to us, I vote for "Ned" who is housesitting the Whitehall apartments.
https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…

The Fresendorff letter, and an explanation as to why it was important, is at
https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/…

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

Charles II may be able to take his summer trip to Worcester after all. The Commons begins to debate what to do with the rest of the Regicides:

Pains and Penalties against Regicides.
And then this House proceeded to hear the Evidence against Peregrine Pelham, Sir William Constable, Humphry Edwards, Richard Dean, Sir John Danvers, John Aldred, alias Alured, John Moore, Anthony Stapeley, John Fry, Francis Aleyn, Sir Thomas Maleverer, Sir Gregory Norton, John Blackston, Sir John Bourcher, William Purefoye, Thomas Horton, Isaack Ewre, John Ven, Thomas Andrewes Alderman, Thomas Hamond, Twenty of the Persons who, in the Month of January 1648, acted and proceeded against the Life of our late Sovereign King Charles I, of blessed Memory; and, being dead when the Act of Indemnity was made, being thereby reserved to such Pains, Penalties, and Forfeitures, as by another Act of Parliament, intended to be hereafter passed for that Purpose, should be expressed and declared:
And also against James Challoner, since deceased,

and William Lord Mounson, Sir Henry Mildmay, Sir James Harrington, John Phelps, and Robert Wallop, who did sit, and act in that traiterous Assembly, within the said Month of January 1648; acted and proceeded against the Life of our said late Sovereign Lord King Charles I, of blessed Memory; and were therefore, by the said Act of Indemnity, reserved to such Pains, Penalties, and Forfeitures, not extending to Life, as by another Act, intended to be passed for that Purpose, should be imposed upon them.

And his Majesty's Council being called in;
Sir Jeffery Palmer Knight, his Majesty's Attorney General, Sir John Glin, and Sir William Wyld, Two of his Majesty's Serjeants at Law, were brought into this House, with the Mace before them; and took their Places on the Right Hand of the Side Bar:

And produced several Witnesses, who, at the Bar of this House, gave Evidence, as well against the said 21 Persons deceased,
as also against the said Sir Henry Mildmay and Robert Wallop, who were now brought in Custody to the Bar of this House;
as also against the said John Phelps, who is fled;
and Sir James Harrington, who cannot be found:
That they did sit and act, in that traiterous Assembly, against the Life of our said late Sovereign Lord King Charles I, of blessed Memory:
And offered to have produced the like Evidence against the said Lord Mounson; who, being at the Bar, confessed the Fact.

After which, his Majesty's Council, and the Witnesses, were caused to withdraw.

And, after full Debate of the said Evidence,
Resolved, upon the Question, Nemire contradicente, That a Bill be prepared and brought in, for the Confiscation of all the Estates, real and personal, of the said 21 Persons deceased:

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

CONCLUSION:

With a like Proviso (nevertheless respect being had to the several Times from which the Estates of the said several Persons, shall be confiscated) as was contained in the former Act of Attainder, in reference to such Persons as have Conveyances, or claim any Estate, as Purchasers, for valuable Considerations, from the Persons before-named.

Resolved also, upon the Question, That the Bill to be presented against the said 21 Traitors that are dead, shall also be enlarged and extended to Lord Viscount Mounson, Sir Henry Mildmay, Sir James Harrington, Robert Wallop, and John Phelps, for a Confiscation of all their Estates, both real and personal, with the like Proviso (respect being had to the Times from which the real and personal Estates of the said Persons shall be confiscate) as was contained in the former Act of Attainder, in relation to such Persons as have Conveyances, or claim any Lands or Estates of the Persons before-named as Purchasers for valuable Considerations.

Resolved further, That the Bill shall contain a further Pain against the said Persons that are in Custody; and against Sir James Harrington and John Phelps, when they can be apprehended; that they shall be kept and remain Prisoners during their Lives.

Resolved also, That Lord Mounson, Sir Henry Mildmay, and Sir James Harrington, and every of them, shall be degraded from their several Honours and Titles; and that the Bill to be brought do make Provision for the same.

Resolved further, That the Bill shall provide this further Pain and Punishment; That the said Persons and the other Persons now alive, shall be drawn from the Tower of London, upon Sledges and Hurdles, through the Streets, to and under the Gallows at Tiborne, with Ropes about their Necks, and from thence to be conveyed back to the Tower, there to remain Prisoners during their Lives.

Resolved, That the said Bill shall, according to the former Vote, contain a Clause for the Execution of those 19 Traitors in the Tower, that are convicted and condemned:
And Sir Heneage Finch, his Majesty's Solicitor General is desired to prepare the said Bill.

Resolved, also, That the Serjeant at Arms attending this House, or his Deputy, do forthwith apprehend, and take into Custody, Sir James Harrington and John Philps.

Ordered, That Sir Henry Vane and John Lambert, that are excepted and foreprised out of the Act of Indemnity, be left to be proceeded against according to Law: And it is recommended to Mr. Attorney General, to take care of the Proceeding against them.

Ordered, That Mr. Attorney General do prepare the Evidence against Sir Arthur Haslerig, being another of the Persons excepted by the said Act, as to Pains, Penalties, and Forfeitures, not extending to Life, as soon as he can, that the Pains and Penalties against him may be made Part of the Bill directed to be brought in.

@@@

Pepys knew James Harrington:
https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

In the Lords they discussed "Sanguinary Laws concerning Priests, &c.
Upon Report of the Earl of Portland, from the Committee concerning the Sanguinary Laws against Priests:

"It is ORDERED, That the said Committee do meet again on Wednesday Morning next, to consider whether they think fit to add any Thing to this Report; and the Committee hath Power to consider of the Penal Laws concerning Priests and other Recusants, which reach to Blood; also to consider of those Penal Laws which concern Protestants in relation to the aforesaid Laws reaching unto Priests and Recusants: And it is further ORDERED, That on Friday next this House will take this Report into Consideration."

The Catholic New Advent Encyclopedia says this in general about the Sanguinary Laws -- which I didn't find very helpful, so please weigh in if you have Diary-time info:

"By a series of statutes, successive sovereigns and Parliaments from Elizabeth to George III, sought to prevent the practice of the Catholic Faith in England.
To the sanguinary laws passed by Elizabeth further measures, sometimes inflicting new disqualifications and penalties, sometimes reiterating previous enactments, were added until this persecuting legislation made its effects felt in every department of human life.
Catholics lost not only freedom of worship, but civil rights as well; their estates, property, and sometimes even lives were at the mercy of any informer. The fact that these laws were passed as political occasion demanded deprived them of any coherence or consistency; nor was any codification ever attempted, so that the task of summing up this long and complicated course of legislation is a difficult one.
In his historical account of the penal laws, published at the time when partial relief had only just been granted, the eminent lawyer, Charles Butler, the first Catholic to be called to the Bar after the Catholic Relief Act of 1791, and the first to be appointed King's Counsel after the Catholic Emancipation Act, thought it best to group these laws under 5 heads:
those which subjected Catholics to penalties and punishments for practising their religious worship;
those which punished them for not conforming to the Established Church (Statutes of Recusancy)
those regulating the penalties or disabilities attending the refusal to take the Oath of Supremacy (1559; 1605; 1689),
the declarations against Transubstantiation (Test Act, 1673)
and against Popery (1678);
the act passed with respect to receiving the sacrament of the Lord's Supper;
statutes affecting landed property."
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/…

Log in to post an annotation.

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