Wednesday 16 October 1667

Up, and at home most of the morning with Sir H. Cholmly, about some accounts of his; and for news he tells me that the Commons and Lords have concurred, and delivered the King their thanks, among other things, for his removal of the Chancellor; who took their thanks very well, and, among other things, promised them, in these words, never, in any degree, to entertain the Chancellor any employment again. And he tells me that it is very true, he hath it from one that was by, that the King did, give the Duke of York a sound reprimand; told him that he had lived with him with more kindness than ever any brother King lived with a brother, and that he lived as much like a monarch as himself, but advised him not to cross him in his designs about the Chancellor; in which the Duke of York do very wisely acquiesce, and will be quiet as the King bade him, but presently commands all his friends to be silent in the business of the Chancellor, and they were so: but that the Chancellor hath done all that is possible to provoke the King, and to bring himself to lose his head by enraging of people. He gone, I to the office, busy all the morning. At noon to Broad Street to Sir G. Carteret and Lord Bruncker, and there dined with them, and thence after dinner with Bruncker to White Hall, where the Duke of York is now newly come for this winter, and there did our usual business, which is but little, and so I away to the Duke of York’s house, thinking as we appointed, to meet my wife there, but she was not; and more, I was vexed to see Young (who is but a bad actor at best) act Macbeth in the room of Betterton, who, poor man! is sick: but, Lord! what a prejudice it wrought in me against the whole play, and everybody else agreed in disliking this fellow. Thence home, and there find my wife gone home; because of this fellow’s acting of the part, she went out of the house again. There busy at my chamber with Mr. Yeabsly, and then with Mr. Lewes, about public business late, and so to supper and to bed.

13 Annotations

Terry Foreman  •  Link

"most of the morning with Sir H. Cholmly, about some accounts of his"

For the Tangier mole, note L&M.

Terry Foreman  •  Link

"Sir H. Cholmly...tells me that the Commons and Lords have concurred, and delivered the King their thanks, among other things, for his removal of the Chancellor; who took their thanks very well, and, among other things, promised them, in these words, never, in any degree, to entertain the Chancellor any employment again."

The Journal of the House of Commons says

"Answer to Address.

Mr. Speaker reports, That both Houses had Yesterday attended his Majesty; and that his Majesty, after the Address of Thanks was read, was pleased to deliver himself to this Effect following; viz.

"My Lords and Gentlemen,

"I thank you for your Thanks. I am glad the Things I have done, have given you so good Satisfaction. And, for the Earl of Clarendon, I assure you, I will never employ him again in any publick Affairs whatsoever."…

Paul E  •  Link

It may well be said that Clarendon was "thrown under the coach."

Paul Chapin  •  Link

Wikipedia says "Clarendon was impeached, in part, for blatant violations of habeas corpus; sending prisoners out of England to places like Jersey, and holding them there without benefit of trial." No longer an impeachable offense, apparently, at least in the U.S. (Apologies to LH)

Robert Gertz  •  Link

Bess and Sam Pepys, quite the theater critics...

JWB  •  Link

Heads Of The Charges Brought Against Lord Clarendon In The House Of Commons, On The 26th Day Of October, 1667.

[From the Bodleian Library.]

October 26, 67.

The heads of particulars to w*h the Earle of Clarendon was charged in ye House of Commons, were to ye effect following: —

That hee should receive 40001. for passing and supporting the Canary Patent, and shoutd say, that as long as ye King was King, and hee Chancellour, that Patent should stand.

That, to prevent ye effects of impeachmen" in the House of Commons, hee had putt ye seale to ye pdons of the Earl of Sandwich and Ld Mordent.

That hee had alienated lands from ye Crowne, pticularly Clarendon and Cornbury.

That when ye Comm" of ye Customes acted as such, hee shared £ of ye profits; afterwards, when by him made Farmers, he was allowed ^10000 yearly, to inable him to raise monuments of his greatnesse, whilst ye kingdome groaned under his oppressions.

That hee received 50000/. for ye settlement of Ireland, and had a tribute payd him from all Governors of foreign plantacons.

That hee had declared that the King was insufficient for Governm', and Popishly affected.

That when the miscarriages happned at Chatham, and all were under a consternation of spiritt, hee then took an ocasion to psuade his Maty how uselesse ye 400 men at Westmr were, fitt only to give him money, but not for governement, and advised their dissolution, and to governe by a standing army. It being objected how they should bee payd, hee ansd, as his father's army was, by free quarter and contribution.

That he had been soe insolent at s'rall times, to checque the King himselfe.

That hee hindered ye due execution of ye late Act of Uniformity; and it might bee expected hee had no kindnes for the Act, having rifled ye late murdered ArchBpp's papers.

That, upon all occasions, hee discouraged ye poor and suffering Royallists.

That hee sold places and offices, and snipt with others in publique employm'*.

That hee held correspondence with Cromwell, and reca money from him upon y' account.

That hee had often urged it as a true doctrine, to Bp Dupper, that hee being next Minister of State to ye King, noe power could inquire into his actions.

That before ye beginning of ye warre with ye Dutch, hee always assured ye King that there would bee noe warre with them, notwithstanding their preparation for warre, but y' they would come to accomodations with us in our demands; in so much, that if Providence, in great mercy, had not sent a wind that continued at a point soe long, to ye keeping ym from coming out, wee might have been ruined at first, for y' gave us time and opptunity to garde."

p 530,'Life and Administration of Edward, first Earl of Clarendon: with ..., Volume 3', Thomas H. Lister…

Australian Susan  •  Link

"......and to governe by a standing army...." [from the Charges against Clarendon kindly posted by JWB.]

Later on, post Diary, this was one of the chimeras which the H of C got paranoid about - they were convinced that if James, D of Y was allowed to become King, then he would abandon Parliamentary Government, raise a standing army and use that to collect taxes for the Royal Purse. Interesting that it is troubling people's minds 11 years before.

Michael Robinson  •  Link

……and to governe by a standing army….” [from the Charges against Clarendon kindly posted by JWB.]

The formal charge against Charles I of Jan 20 1648/9:
"That the said Charles Stuart, being admitted King of England, and therein trusted with a limited power to govern by and according to the laws of the land, and not otherwise; and by his trust, oath, and office, being obliged to use the power committed to him for the good and benefit of the people, and for the preservation of their rights and liberties; ... the said Charles Stuart, for accomplishment of such his designs, and for the protecting of himself and his adherents in his and their wicked practices, to the same ends hath traitorously and maliciously levied war against the present Parliament, and the people therein represented, ..."

The popular memory being invoked by the charge against Clarendon is that of the period ending only ten years prior, the detested 'Rule of the Major Generals' August 1655 – January 1657.

"While the Major-Generals were successful in law enforcement and in curbing security threats to the Protectorate their attempts at reforming the nation's morals varied from region to region according to the zeal of individual officers, but had no lasting effects. However, the brief period of the Rule of the Major-Generals has cast a long shadow in English history."…
For the individual generals and their regions:…

[Spoiler. The relevant prohibitory section of the Bill of Rights (1689) is still in force in the UK, so there has to be an annual vote. The US Declaration of 1776 includes among the complaints against George III 'He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures' and the US Constitution (1787) contains analogous limiting provisions, on both Federal and State Governments, Art. 1 s.8 & 10.]

Mary  •  Link

Standing army.

Perhaps a better historian than I could elaborate on this, but memory hints that the English were very much against the establishment of a standing army long before the 17th century.

cum salis grano  •  Link

A bored army is a license to create for the townsfolk, pain, most Towns did not like an army barracks nearby, dangerous for the lasses [uniforms and unlocal speech very enticing and romantic] and also for the local poor shopkeepers and even costlier for lesser estates.
The men did not have money left over to become good consumers thus they were a drag on the local economy.
Army up to Cromwell's time were raised by the Local Colonel [Landowner of import.] , thus a type of dangerous militia like many that exist in the world today. Ever since King John Paranoia there has been a fear of dictatorship, one the Elements that helped to restore the Crown with parliamentary blessing in 1660.


Terry Foreman  •  Link

THE DEBATES IN THE House of Commons, From the Year 1667 to the Year 1694.

[The Parliament met on the 10th of October 1667, when the King in a short speech told them, "that there had been some former miscarriages, which had occasioned some differences between him and them; but that he had now altered his counsels, and made no question, but that they should henceforward agree, for he was resolved to give them all satisfaction; and did not doubt, but that they would supply his necessities, and provide for the payment of his debts;" with an insinuation, that what had been formerly done amiss had been by the advice of a (fn. 1) person, whom he had removed from his councils, and with whom he should not hereafter advise."

The first debate taken notice of here was on Wednesday, October the 16th, when a Bill to prevent the Growth of Popery was read.]

MR. WALLER (fn. 2) .] It was said, that King James imposed the Oath of Allegiance not so much to discriminate Papist from Protestant, as Papist from Papist; such as were so in principles of government—For multiplying of oaths the land mourneth.

Sir John Denham (fn. 3) .] Discoursing upon this subject, told the story out of Boccace, of the Miller and his Wife: When the Mill was on fire, she bid him pray to God, and renounce the devil and his works: He said, he would pray to God, but for renouncing the devil, he would not; for then he must cease being a Miller—Oline slagitiis, nunc legibus laboramus.

Mr. Waller.] Said the Oath of Allegiance was framed by a converted Jesuit, who proffered himself to the council to frame such an oath as the Papists would never take. Blood makes any Religion thrive.

Till the bull of Pius V. the Papists did communicate with us.

The goodness of the Popes is more from their own natures than principles.

This Bill abolishes the Old Law, which will sound ill abroad.

The Oath in the Bill says, the Pope has no spiritual power—We had our ordination from that church—The Prince of the Air has power; so have the Popes; shall I say they have not?—In Queen Elizabeth's time the people chose a persecuted party—The Bishops put down by the Presbyterian party; they by the Independents; they again by the Bishops—Christ the sovereign of the Order of the Cross which we all follow, as we reverence the Blue Ribbon.

Alderman Love.] Imputes sinking of trade to the severity of proceedings in the oath of renouncing the covenant.

Mr. Vaughan (fn. 4) .] Unreasonable to punish men for what they cannot help; a man cannot believe how and what he will.…

Doug Quixote  •  Link

Greetings. I've revisited this blog recently and as a lurker caught up with every entry since virtual day one. My heartfelt thanks to you all for the annotations.

As regards the issue of a standing army, the country was then just two decades on from the Civil War between Parliament and King, with not one but two standing armies raging about the kingdom. The people are entitled to be a little concerned about a standing army in 1667.

Log in to post an annotation.

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