Monday 4 March 1666/67

Up, and with Sir J. Minnes and [Sir] W. Batten by barge to Deptford by eight in the morning, where to the King’s yard a little to look after business there, and then to a private storehouse to look upon some cordage of Sir W. Batten’s, and there being a hole formerly made for a drain for tarr to run into, wherein the barrel stood still, full of stinking water, Sir W. Batten did fall with one leg into it, which might have been very bad to him by breaking a leg or other hurt, but, thanks be to God, he only sprained his foot a little. So after his shifting his stockings at a strong water shop close by, we took barge again, and so to Woolwich, where our business was chiefly to look upon the ballast wharfe there, which is offered us for the King’s use to hire, but we do not think it worth the laying out much money upon, unless we could buy the fee-simple of it, which cannot be sold us, so we wholly flung it off. So to the Dockyard, and there staid a while talking about business of the yard, and thence to the Rope-yard, and so to the White Hart and there dined, and Captain Cocke with us, whom we found at the Rope-yard, and very merry at dinner, and many pretty tales of Sir J. Minnes, which I have entered in my tale book. But by this time Sir W. Batten was come to be in much pain in his foot, so as he was forced to be carried down in a chair to the barge again, and so away to Deptford, and there I a little in the yard, and then to Bagwell’s, where I find his wife washing, and also I did ‘hazer tout que je voudrais con’ her, and then sent for her husband, and discoursed of his going to Harwich this week to his charge of the new ship building there, which I have got him, and so away, walked to Redriffe, and there took boat and away home, and upon Tower Hill, near the ticket office, meeting with my old acquaintance Mr. Chaplin, the cheesemonger, and there fell to talk of news, and he tells me that for certain the King of France is denied passage with his army through Flanders, and that he hears that the Dutch do stand upon high terms with us, and will have a promise of not being obliged to strike the flag to us before they will treat with us, and other high things, which I am ashamed of and do hope will never be yielded to. That they do make all imaginable preparations, but that he believes they will be in mighty want of men; that the King of France do court us mightily. He tells me too that our Lord-Treasurer is going to lay down, and that Lord Arlington is to be Lord Treasurer, but I believe nothing of it, for he is not yet of estate visible enough to have the charge I suppose upon him. So being parted from him I home to the office, and after having done business there I home to supper, and there mightily pleased with my wife’s beginning the flagellette, believing that she will come to very well thereon. This day in the barge I took Berckenshaw’s translation of Alsted his Templum, but the most ridiculous book, as he has translated it, that ever I saw in my life, I declaring that I understood not three lines together from one end of the book to the other.


21 Annotations

Terry Foreman  •  Link

Lord Dillon to Ormond
Written from: At the foot of Crohan mountain, in Gallen
Date: 4 March 1667

May it please his Grace that the writer place [ Chief of the Connaught or Mayo tories Colonel ] Dudley [ Dualtache ] Costello's head at Castlemore, where it shall remain, until his Grace's further pleasure or that of the Lord President of Connaught be notified concerning it. ... An enclosed letter will give the Lord Lieutenant a narrative of the encounter.
[ http://bit.ly/9ff35L scroll up for the whole story of Costello ]

Adds further particulars of recent military operations; and also, by P.S., says that he "understands that Dudley did believe that his, Lord Dillon's, men were raw soldiers, newly raised; but the party with Captain Dillon were mostly reformed officer and soldiers of Charles Dillon's."

http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/dept/scwmss/projects/c…

Terry Foreman  •  Link

"the Dutch do stand upon high terms with us,...and other high things"

high = high-handed, arrogant (~L&M Large Glossary)

Michael L  •  Link

"... which I have entered in my tale book."

Does anyone know if this tale book has been preserved? It might have some amusing anecdotes.

tg  •  Link

At last he's back to Bagwell. How long has it been since he hazered her? And then to call for mister and actually give him the promotion they've been hankering for. Life is good in the restoration. I think that Mr. Bagwell knew about Pepys and the Mrs. but that Mr. Mitchell did not know about Sam and his young pregnant wife. Any others agree or not?

Terry Foreman  •  Link

"my tale book"

L&M say "Not extant, alas; possibly the 'Anecdotes' referred to by Pepys in a memo of ca. 1698: *Priv. Corr., i, 165."

cum salis grano  •  Link

"...Sir W. Batten did fall with one leg into it,..."
And what were his off the cuff sayings?

NJM.  •  Link

Hi,

When Sam goes into the mixture of "language" to describe his " adventures" with the ladies could someone translate please - I am never sure if he is going the whole hog or just toying with them.
I am afraid I am not a language scholar so am missing out on the scandals !
Thanks.

GrahamT  •  Link

"I did ‘hazer tout que je voudrais con’ her" is approximately
"I did do all that I wanted with her" so it is still left to our imaginations just how far that is.

A. De Araujo  •  Link

"The King of France is denied passage with his army through Flanders"
Couldn't he just go to Frankfurt and then procceed to Poland,or was it just an excuse to invade the Netherlands?

Robert Gertz  •  Link

"...which I have entered in my tale book." I wonder if that would be separate from his collection of tales of the infamous Captain John Scott which I understand has been preserved.

JWB  •  Link

...just go to Frankfort?

There was "Bernnie Bombs", von Galen, prince-bishop of Munster, fresh from his victory over the Turks, who was allied to Chas II in this the 2d Dutch war.

A. De Araujo  •  Link

Thank you JWB

cum salis grano  •  Link

A. De Araujo : it be a question of allies, terrain and finding fodder for the troops, the PBI had to walk , hills be a problem.
No bailey bridges for easy passage.
Rivers and the crossings defined the conquering hero, 'twas a problem for the Romans too.

see map of Germany [1660] for all those potential friends and foes.

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/…
Just a thought.

A. De Araujo  •  Link

Thank you cum grano salis,no wonder the Benelux were part of the original Treaty of Rome

Terry Foreman  •  Link

"to Woolwich, where our business was chiefly to look upon the ballast wharfe there, which is offered us for the King’s use to hire, but we do not think it worth the laying out much money upon, unless we could buy the fee-simple of it, which cannot be sold us, so we wholly flung it off."

Fee-simple
In English law, a fee simple or fee simple absolute is an estate in land, a form of freehold ownership. It is a way that real estate may be owned in common law countries, and is the highest possible ownership interest that can be had in real property. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_simple

Terry Foreman  •  Link

"he hears that the Dutch do stand upon high terms with us, and will have a promise of not being obliged to strike the flag to us before they will treat with us, and other high things, which I am ashamed of and do hope will never be yielded to."

The dipping of flags to indicate deference was a point of naval custom and treaty Pepys had studied. L&M note in a treaty of September 1662 the Dutch had agreed that their ships (both merchantmen and men-of-war) would strike flags and lower topsails on meeting a British man-of-war in British seas. This agreement was in fact repeated in the peace of August 1667.

Here is a fair indication of the status when Britannia ruled the waves : http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/xf-nvtd.html#d…

Terry Foreman  •  Link

"He tells me too that our Lord-Treasurer is going to lay down, and that Lord Arlington is to be Lord Treasurer"

Arlington was a younger son and his elder brother now owned the family house at Harlington, Middlesex. It was stated in his marriage contract (1666) that in five years he would have £4000 p.a. clear in hand. It had been common knowledge for months that he aimed at the Lord Treasurershp. But Southampton, despite illness, hung on to the office until his death in May 1667, and was succeeded by a commission of which Arlington was not a member. In 1672 and 1673 he was again twice disappointed of his hopes. (Per L&M note)

Tonyel  •  Link

At last he's back to Bagwell.

I think this is the first indication that Mr Bagwell knew of his wife's "arrangement" with Sam and presumably encouraged it as a means to improving their lot.
Otherwise Sam was taking a big risk if he knew that Bagwell was within calling distance while he had his wicked way.

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

"... this is the first indication that Mr Bagwell knew of his wife's "arrangement" with Sam ..."

Tonyel, as I recall Mr. Bagwell nearly walked in on them last time, and Mrs. B. had been petitioning for this job for a while. Pepys had good news: You're off to Harwich, Mr. B. Out of town and employed.

This is a time when divorce wasn't possible. The Bagwells probably had an "arrangement" where they helped each other out in these matters. That men put ropes around their wives' necks and took them to Smithfield and sold them to their lovers indicates the lengths poor people went to solve this problem.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thu…

From 1640 to 1642 more than 1,966 pamphlets were published which questioned traditional institutions such as the family, marriage and property. These were read to the illiterate in taverns. What was previously regarded as heresy was freely debated and available -- such as Socinianism (which questioned the divinity of Christ), Millenarianism, The Koran, polygamy, free love and divorce. Milton even weighed in on the subject, so the geni was out of the bottle. But as we saw with the Roos trial, the Anglican Church and the Government wasn't listening.

Things were different north of the border. Scotland in the 16th century decided to allow divorce. Furthermore, the issue of divorce was transferred out of the ecclesiastic courts and given to lawmen, which makes sense because most marriages at the time were contractual arrangements that involved property changing hands. (The powerful Scottish Kirk kept its eye on proceedings.) However, divorce was still a last remedy, and was essentially only granted for two reasons, one of which was adultery.

Scots were relatively progressive about gender equality. How else can we explain their decision that both men and women could demand a divorce on account of adultery? This was unheard of in a world where a man’s indiscretions were just that: indiscretions – while a woman’s adventures with a man other than her husband were a sin, a grievous sin, in keeping with the female lack of morality and propensity for uncontrolled lust.

But thanks to the antics of Archibald Campbell, Earl of Argyll and his wife, Lady Jean Stewart who had the powerful combination of money and clout, Scottish divorce legislation came to recognize another reason for divorce, namely desertion -- by either party. This was easier to arrange and prove, plus it did not tar one of the parties as being unfaithful.

The Bagwells needed to move to Scotland.

http://englishhistoryauthors.blogspot.com/2016/09…

Log in to post an annotation.

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