Thursday 7 May 1663

Up betimes and to my office awhile, and then by water with my wife, leaving her at the new Exchange, and I to see Dr. Williams, and spoke with him about my business with Tom Trice, and so to my brother’s, who I find very careful now-a-days, more than ordinary in his business and like to do well. From thence to Westminster, and there up and down from the Hall to the Lobby, the Parliament sitting. So by coach to my Lord Crew’s, and there dined with him. He tells me of the order the House of Commons have made for the drawing an Act for the rendering none capable of preferment or employment in the State, but who have been loyall and constant to the King and Church; which will be fatal to a great many, and makes me doubt lest I myself, with all my innocence during the late times, should be brought in, being employed in the Exchequer; but, I hope, God will provide for me.

This day the new Theatre Royal begins to act with scenes the Humourous Lieutenant, but I have not time to see it, nor could stay to see my Lady Jemimah lately come to town, and who was here in the house, but dined above with her grandmother. But taking my wife at my brother’s home by coach, and the officers being at Deptford at a Pay we had no office, but I took my wife by water and so spent the evening, and so home with great pleasure to supper, and then to bed.

Sir Thomas Crew this day tells me that the Queen, hearing that there was 40,000l. per annum brought into her account among the other expences of the Crown to the Committee of Parliament, she took order to let them know that she hath yet for the payment of her whole family received but 4,000l., which is a notable act of spirit, and I believe is true.

23 Annotations

First Reading

TerryF  •  Link

Something is out of order here

First the news Sir Thomas Crew tells him, then he goes to meet him. L&M say the paragraph "Sir Thomas Crew this day tells me...and I believe is true." is in the margin of the MS, looks added, and compositionally "this day" puts it at the end of the entry.

Paul Chapin  •  Link

Sir Thomas Crew and Lord Crew
are different people - Lord Crew is Sir Thomas' father, and also Sandwich's father-in-law. So there's no anomaly in Sam's talking to Thomas, then going to meet with Lord Crew.

But I have a different problem in this entry: where did Sam take his wife by water and spent the evening, before going home? Surely the trip home by water didn't take the whole evening - or did it?

TerryF  •  Link

Let stand L&M's removal of the "this day" par. to the end of the entry.

Let not my all-too-hasty merger of the Crews vitiate that. Thanks, Paul Chapin for the correction.

Sometimes Sam leaves his wife at Lord Crew's; but today she's not mentioned between the New Exchange and the coach from Tom's; can she have spent the day shopping and socializing in that area with a companion as unmentioned as Sam's boy?

Tony Eldridge  •  Link

"more than ordinary in his business"
A fine example of being dammed with faint praise!

Stolzi  •  Link

"more than ordinary in his business"

I took this to mean, "more involved than ordinary in his business" or "spending more time than usual on his business" - good things from Sam's point of view, who desperately wants his relatives to take care of themselves and not clog his own ascent up the slippery ladder.

language hat  •  Link

Yes, I don't see that as faint praise.

jeannine  •  Link

Davidson tells us that “Already in her new life Catherine was beginning to feel the pinch of poverty that was to hurt shrewdly through the whole of her marriage. Her settlements had secured her to an income of £300,000* a year, and as yet, in May 1663, she had only had doled out to her £4,000. By whose knavery it is not known, this was entered in the Exchequer expenses as £400,000* – a considerable difference, certainly. When this was discovered by Catherine she at once informed Parliament of the fact. The truth was that her portion from Portugal still remained unpaid, and for years on years was the subject of haggling and importunity on the part of England. Fourteen years later we find the then ambassador to Lisbon trying to extract even a yearly moiety of it, and well nigh failing in his attempt….
There was little chance that any money would come to her. The exchequer of England was still low, and drained to its utmost already to supply money to Charles, which he instantly was wheedled out of by Lady Castlemaine. He went shabby, and his wardrobe was disgracefully bare, while “The Lady” gambled away at a sitting £25,000, and staked £1,000 on a cast. She blazed with costly jewels, and ate up his revenue, while his Queen had £4, 000 spend on herself and her household during the first year of her married life…...” (p 188-189)
Note: Davidson has the figures of £300,000 and £400,000 respectively. This seems to be a typographical error in her edition as all other biographical sources (Mackay, Sousa) quote the £40,000 number noted by Sam in the entry.
Mackay tells us that "She had not been able to pay her servants, or even to clothe them properly. She had only six uniforms for eight pages. Her musicians were unpaid, her laundress, and the mercer who furnished her bedchamber. She insisted on having her accounts gone into, and proved that she had kept her household for a year on £4,000, rather than the £40,000 which had been charged against her. (P 123)
Also for consideration, although her expenses seemed high, most of these roles were "assigned" to positions to serve her by the KIng and she was left to pay them from her own resources. Without any ability to choose how her house was to be run, she was basically left to pay for the people put in these positions without her concurrence.

David A. Smith  •  Link

"lest I myself, with all my innocence during the late times"
Our fervent Roundhead in earlier terms is now a fully converted Cavalier, although to be fair, Sam never took up arms against the king.

TerryF  •  Link

"lest I...should be brought in, being employed in the Exchequer;"

Can a memorious soul help clarify the last phrase? Was it as a clerk there that Mr. Pepys made an indiscrete remark? or...?

in Aqua Scripto  •  Link

McCatherisms "...being employed in the Exchequer..." Reading sumaert into something written, or has his John Handcock appeared on a document that be in support of Cromwell bill of lading?
If one reads the about the strenght of priveledge in the documentation in the H/C or H/Laudes, on can see that power of a lieing Member of the Priveledge class out ways that of the ordinary citezen or authorised member of the upholder of the Laws.

Chamberlen, L. Holles' Servant, Privilege.
Upon Oath made at this Bar this Day, by Thomas Chamberlen, menial Servant to the Lord Holles: "That, upon Friday the 17th of April, 1663, as he was standing by Fuller's Rents in Holbourne, talking with one George Cooke a Draper, with whom he had formerly some Dealings, he caused him to be arrested, by Simon Pannett, Marke Sharpe, and Daniell Higgeson, Bailiffs: Whereupon the said Chamberlen told them he had a Protection, which they slighted, and dragged him into The Three Cupps in Holbourne; where being in a Room, he demanded to see what Writ or Warrant they did it by. They told him, "They were sufficient Warrant themselves," but could not produce any; so One of them run over to the Office, and fetched a Writ. In that Interim came One Haukes a Bailiff, and told him, "That he was abused; for that there was no Officer, neither was there any Writ or Warrant out against him, and that he might lawfully go away;" whereupon he demanded to go away with him. Then the said Bailiffs called for Help; and George Cooke, John Kendall, and Robert Baddum, pulled and hauled him, and drew their Swords, and cut Hawks, and struck the said Chamberlen, and by Force detained him: So he again told them, "He was a Servant to a Peer of the Realm, the Lord Holles; and that it would cost them dear if they detained him." Then the said Daniell Higgeson and Marke Sharpe answered, "They cared not a-for any Peer's Protection; especially such a one as my Lord Holles." The said Chamberlen desired then, "That he might have a Porter, to send to acquaint his Lord;" which they denied, and told him, "That if he went to plead a Protection, they would drag him to Newgate, and lay him fast enough." Then Danyell Higgeson came to him, and told him, "In regard he was protected as a Peer's Servant, that if he would give him Forty Shillings, he would set him at Liberty in Lyncolne's Inn Walks." So he concluded to give him a Piece in Gold, and gave it him. Then he carried him down Stairs, and thought it was to set him free; but he with others forced him towards New market, and laughed at him, saying, "He would protect him, but it should be in a Gaol." Then the said Chamberlen desired him, "That he would carry him to one London's House, a Bailiff near Pickadilly, that he might be civilly used; and he would give him Twenty Shillings more when he came there." And he promised he would; but on the contrary conducted him to an Alehouse in The Butchers Rowe near Temple Barr, and there sent for one Hugh Whight, John Kempe, and others; and so conducting him to The Temple Gate, they there resigned him to the said Hugh Whight, John Kemp, and others, being then in the City Liberties; who arrested him, and carried him to the aforesaid Georg Cooke's House in the City; and when he came, he told the said Hugh Whight "He had best have a Care, because he was a menial Servant to a Peer." Then he asking him, "Whether he received Wages?" He answered, "He did." He told him, "He cared not; for that it was not the First he had arrested that had a Protection, and he would do it again." Then the said Chamberlen desired "He might send to his Friends:" They told him, "It was too late; he could have no Porter." Then he desired the said George, "That he might send his Man;" whereupon he gave the Man a Letter to a Friend, intreating him to go and acquaint the Lord Holles: But the said Cooke took the Letter from his Man and broke it open: So, going to Bed about Twelve of the Clock, he wondered he had no Answer that Night. In the Morning he desired to speak with the Messenger. They told him, "He was not within." Then he desired he might send to his Brother in Westm. or to Mr. Paulin a Draper; but they would not suffer him, nor so much as let any come near; but constantly threatened they would lay an Execution on him, and carry him immediately to The Compter. At last George Cooke came and told him, "He had been with the Lord Holles; and that he would not own him;" and forced him to give him Bonds and a Judgement for what he pleased before he would release him, and kept him to that Purpose till about Six a Clock on Saturday in the Evening."

From: 'House of Lords Journal Volume 11: 7 May 1663', Journal of the House of Lords: volume 11: 1660-1666, pp. 517-18. URL:…. Date accessed: 08 May 2006.

Cook, Kendall, & al. to be attached, for arresting and ill treating him.
Besides this, the Lord Holles averred openly in the House, "That the said Thomas Chamberlen was his Lordship's menial Servant."
Hereupon it is ORDERED, That the aforesaid George Cooke, John Kendall, Symon Pannett, Daniell Higgeson, Marke Sharpe, Robert Baddum, Hugh Whight and John Kempe, shall be attached by the Serjeant at Arms, and brought to this Bar as Delinquents, to answer their aforesaid high Crimes.

From: 'House of Lords Journal Volume 11: 7 May 1663', Journal of the House of Lords: volume 11: 1660-1666, pp. 517-18. URL:…. Date accessed: 08 May 2006.

Australian Susan  •  Link

Re David A. Smith's comment: Sam was only a schoolboy when the Civil War was on, so he was never faced with any dilemma about taking up arms.

Australian Susan  •  Link

I read the ending of this entry to mean that Sam and Elizabeth went by water taxi down to Deptford and spent the evening there.

TerryF  •  Link

Australian Susan's observation may be true, but a memory trace says he uttered his aproval of the fall of Charles I's head in a remark he recorded in the Diary, expressing concern that it might come back to haunt him.

adam w  •  Link

"...Act for the rendering none capable of preferment or employment in the State, but who have been loyall and constant to the King and Church..."

Pepys' anxiety is surely that he was a servant of the Commonwealth government, by virtue of his office in the Exchequer under the turncoat Downing, and so might be judged not to have been 'loyal and constant'. More recent history (denazification, de-ba'ath-ification) tells us that guilt by association is often all that is required - no defence that 'I was just doing my job' if you were working for the wrong side.

Robert Gertz  •  Link

"Mr. Pepys. Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Commonwealth government?"

"One must live, my lord. I had a wife, aging parents."

"So we have established that you were a traitor to our blessed and martyred late King, a key figure in the rebel government."

"But...I was only an Exchequer clerk under you, Sir George."

"That's beside the point, sir." Downing waves a hand. "As it has been long known, my involvement with the Commonwealth was merely to conceal my actions for our beloved King. I am not on trial here, Traitor Pepys."

"But...No one said."

"Now as to your membership in the radical organs of the so-called 'Commonwealth''s society. I have here in my hand the names of fifty card-carrying members of a certain political club, the Rota. A most disreputable association seeking to establish a republican government..."

"But...It was only a debating...I only joined to hear the latest gossip. I was only a member for a few..."

"Let it be recorded that Traitor Pepys admits having held a key post in the radical Rota organization, pledged to destroy the foundations of Church and Society."

Australian Susan  •  Link

"may be true"
There is no "may" about it! In the period of the Civil War (1642-1648), Sam *was* a school boy! It's a *fact*. He was 9 in 1642 and 15 in 1648. There was no question of him having borne arms against the King. He was not seeking employment until 1654.

Pedro  •  Link

“There was no question of him having borne arms against the King”

This may be true for Sam, but there must have been many boys, who never had the oppurtunity to go to school, that were fighting in the Civil War at a very early age. If not actually in combat they would have been helpers and on the battlefield.

Charles himself was at Edghill in ‘42 at the age of 12, and although he did not actually fight in the front line, he was bearing arms and ready to use them. It is reported that there were scary moments!

in Aqua Scripto  •  Link

Youths have supported organisation that appeal to their sense of follow the leader,ever since the first mention in the Bible, many of the despicable and righteous groups use this to get the tender ages [pre-teen ] to make a sling and use the stone against the giant power of another society [haves /have nots]. See the youth of the modern African nations fighting for the rebels, it is actually world wide, by my count, it be 30 + countries that the rebels be having their youth use the weapons of war [ not WMD but WOD].

Second Reading

Terry Foreman  •  Link

"makes me doubt lest I myself, with all my innocence during the late times, should be brought in, being employed in the Exchequer;"

DOUBT : to fear (L&M Large Glossary)

Phil Gyford  •  Link

Regarding the earliest annotations here – I've now re-ordered the paragraphs to match the order given in L&M.

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

Thank you, Phil. I was wondering why I wasn't confused.

Chris Squire UK  •  Link

' . . Coincidentally at about the same time (before Cromwell died in September 11658), Pepys acquired a part-time place as teller in the exchequer under George Downing, after whom the street would be named . . ' [DNB]

Terry Foreman  •  Link

"This day the new Theatre Royal begins to act with scenes the Humourous Lieutenant"

L&M: The theatre was Thomas Killigrew's new playhouse, situated between Drury Lane and Bridges St, built at a cost of £2400. Downes states (p. 3) that 'the new Theatre in Drury' was opened 'on Thursday [sic] in Easter week, being the 8th day of April 1663', but Pepys's dating here and at the following entry is almost certainly the correct one. 8 April 1663 was not in Easter Week nor did it fall on a Thursday. Pepys saw a performance by the King's Company on 22 April 1663, but does not mention its having taken place at the new Theatre Royal in Bridges St, as he probably would have done if it had then been in use. The play was a tragicomedy by John Fletcher [the humerous lieutenant or Demetrius and Enenthe] ' Killegres had not used movable painted scenery in his productions at the first Theatre Royal in Vere Street.

Log in to post an annotation.

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