Tuesday 29 October 1667

Up, and at the office, my Lord Bruncker and I close together till almost 3 after noon, never stirring, making up a report for the Committee this afternoon about the business of discharging men by ticket, which it seems the House is mighty earnest in, but is a foolery in itself, yet gives me a great deal of trouble to draw up a defence for the Board, as if it was a crime; but I think I have done it to very good purpose.

Then to my Lady Williams’s, with her and my Lord, and there did eat a snapp of good victuals, and so to Westminster Hall, where we find the House not up, but sitting all this day about the method of bringing in the charge against my Lord Chancellor; and at last resolved for a Committee to draw up the heads, and so rose, and no Committee to sit tonight.

Here Sir W. Coventry and Lord Bruncker and I did in the Hall (between the two Courts at the top of the Hall) discourse about a letter of [Sir] W. Coventry’s to Bruncker, whereon Bruncker did justify his discharging men by ticket, and insists on one word which Sir W. Coventry would not seem very earnest to have left out, but I did see him concerned, and did after labour to suppress the whole letter, the thing being in itself really impertinent, but yet so it is that [Sir] W. Coventry do not desire to have his name used in this business, and I have prevailed with Bruncker for it.

Thence Bruncker and I to the King’s House, thinking to have gone into a box above, for fear of being seen, the King being there, but the play being 3 acts done we would not give 4s., and so away and parted, and I home, and there after a little supper to bed, my eyes ill, and head full of thoughts of the trouble this Parliament gives us.

15 Annotations

First Reading

Terry Foreman  •  Link

Archbishop of Canterbury to Ormond
Written from: Lambeth House
Date: 29 October 1667

Is sorry that his last letter gave the Duke disturbance. ... What he said [ of Clarendon ] "arose", he proceeds to say, "from what I observed in the carriage of his enemies - at least, of some of them; that they were resolved to be severe against all those that had, or were thought to have, a kindness for him. Of which number Your Grace and myself are. Though, God knows, for these divers years, I have had little reason to be fond of him. Whether you have had so, Your Grace best knows. ... I wish him innocent; but if he prove guilty, let him suffer." .


Grahamt  •  Link

Snap = bait = a small meal.
The food a Nottinghamshire miner takes down the pit is his snap, (in a snap tin, inside his snap-bag) for a Durham miner, it is his bait. This compares with the French term for a snack; casse-croute (snap-crust)

Robert Gertz  •  Link

My Lady Williams? Abigail's stock is up with Sam this week.

arby  •  Link

Thanks, Grahamt, saved me asking. Or worse, actually looking it up myself. I could use a good snapp.

L. K. van Marjenhoff  •  Link

The treat / snack that professional show-dog handlers use to train dogs is called a bait even today. This undoubtedly originated centuries ago in the English dog fancy.

Fern  •  Link

"about the business of discharging men by ticket,"
Some weeks ago men were being discharged by ticket because cash was in such short supply. Why is Parliament all fired up about this? And where do they think the cash was going to come from?
Perhaps I have misunderstood what is going on.

Terry Foreman  •  Link

"a report for the Committee...about the business of discharging men by ticket, which it seems the House is mighty earnest in,...as if it was a crime; but I think I have done it to very good purpose."

L&M note a copy in Pepys's hand argued that whole ships were paid with tickets
[ I.O.U.'s ] to avoid carrying large sums on board.

Terry Foreman  •  Link

"the two Courts at the top of the Hall"

I.e., King's Bench and Chancery.

Christopher Squire  •  Link

‘Snap, n.
. . 4. A slight or hasty meal or mouthful; a snack. Now dial. or spec. (cf. quot. 1883).
. . 1700 MOTTEUX Quix. (1733) II. 55 The Curate's Provision..was but a Snap among so many, for they were all very hungry.
. . 1883 GRESLEY Gloss. Coal-m. 229 Snap,..food taken by a collier during his shift.’ [OED]

Australian Susan  •  Link

More on "bait". Over here, to "bait a dog" is to leave poisoned meat out for it to kill a nuisance or feral dog. People who have lost an animal like this refer to their dog as having been "baited" not "poisoned"

The two Courts SPOILER - post Diary, Sam will appear at the Court of King's Bench when caught up in the spurious "Popish Plot." Having just read the book written about this, (The Plot against Pepys by B and C Long), it strikes me that Sam's work at this time, preparing defences and speaking at length to defend his office or a particular policy was excellent training for his defence of his very life some years later. Pepys professionalism, persistence and attention to detail all came to the fore at that time, but you can see here how he is honing and developing these skills, which were to become, literally, life-saving.

Second Reading

Harry R  •  Link

"about the business of discharging men by ticket,"

I, like Fern 10 years ago (to the day! My, how time flies!) am confused by this issue. Had money been available to pay the men and if so who had had it? Should it have been ring fenced by the Navy Board? Had they misappropriated it, greased wheels with it, or was there simply not enough money to cover all their legitimate costs? Coventry and Bruncker are at pains to avoid telling the whole truth for fear of implicating themselves, but in what?

Nick Hedley  •  Link

"...my Lord Bruncker and I close together till almost 3 after noon, never stirring, making up a report for the Committee this afternoon about the business of discharging men by ticket" ... "but I think I have done it to very good purpose".

So Samuel did not think much of my Lord Brunker's contribution to the report.

john  •  Link

L&M footnote on the ticket defence:
"[The report] argued the necessity of payment by tickets, even of whole ships, in order to avoid the necessity of carrying large sums of cash on board."

Harry R  •  Link

I had read that but that doesn't seem like much of a defence. Why couldn't procedures have been put in place to pay the men at the docks. How had men been paid before somebody came up with the bright idea of tickets?

RSGII  •  Link

On tickets. Even in the 1960’s, US Navy sailors were paid in cash and Supply Officers had to carry a $100,000 or so in their safes on a Destroyer to do so. Obtaining and transporting this cash from on shore Navy disbursement offices was a risky business involving armed guards and carrying weapons. Plus lots of safeguards against theft and verification sailors had been properly paid.

Log in to post an annotation.

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