Wednesday 25 March 1668

Up, and walked to White Hall, there to wait on the Duke of York, which I did: and in his chamber there, first by hearing the Duke of York call me by my name, my Lord Burlington did come to me, and with great respect take notice of me and my relation to my Lord Sandwich, and express great kindness to me; and so to talk of my Lord Sandwich’s concernments. By and by the Duke of York is ready; and I did wait for an opportunity of speaking my mind to him about Sir J. Minnes, his being unable to do the King any service, which I think do become me to do in all respects, and have Sir W. Coventry’s concurrence therein, which I therefore will seek a speedy opportunity to do, come what will come of it.

The Duke of York and all with him this morning were full of the talk of the ’prentices, who are not yet [put] down, though the guards and militia of the town have been in armes all this night, and the night before; and the ’prentices have made fools of them, sometimes by running from them and flinging stones at them. Some blood hath been spilt, but a great many houses pulled down; and, among others, the Duke of York was mighty merry at that of Damaris Page’s, the great bawd of the seamen; and the Duke of York complained merrily that he hath lost two tenants, by their houses being pulled down, who paid him for their wine licenses 15l. a year. But here it was said how these idle fellows have had the confidence to say that they did ill in contenting themselves in pulling down the little bawdyhouses, and did not go and pull down the great bawdy-house at White Hall. And some of them have the last night had a word among them, and it was “Reformation and Reducement.” This do make the courtiers ill at ease to see this spirit among people, though they think this matter will not come to much: but it speaks people’s minds; and then they do say that there are men of understanding among them, that have been of Cromwell’s army: but how true that is, I know not.

Thence walked a little to Westminster, but met with nobody to spend any time with, and so by coach homeward, and in Seething Lane met young Mrs. Daniel, and I stopt, and she had been at my house, but found nobody within, and tells me that she drew me for her Valentine this year, so I took her into the coach, and was going to the other end of the town, thinking to have taken her abroad, but remembering that I was to go out with my wife this afternoon, … and so to a milliner at the corner shop going into Bishopsgate and Leadenhall Street, and there did give her eight pair of gloves, and so dismissed her, and so I home and to dinner, and then with my wife to the King’s playhouse to see “The Storme,” which we did, but without much pleasure, it being but a mean play compared with “The Tempest,” at the Duke of York’s house, though Knepp did act her part of grief very well. Thence with my wife and Deb. by coach to Islington, to the old house, and there eat and drank till it was almost night, and then home, being in fear of meeting the ’prentices, who are many of them yet, they say, abroad in the fields, but we got well home, and so I to my chamber a while, and then to supper and to bed.


31 Annotations

Terry Foreman  •  Link

What the ellipsis suppressed

"...in Seething Lane met young Mrs. Daniel, and I stopped; and she had been at my house but found nobody within, and tells me that she drew me for her Valentine this year; so I took her into the coach, and was going to the other end of the town, thinking to have taken her abroad; but remembering that I was to go out with my wife this afternoon, I only did hazer her para tocar my prick con her hand which did hazer me hazer; and so to a milliner at the corner shop...."

L&M text.

Terry Foreman  •  Link

"the ‘prentices, who are not yet [put] down, though the guards and militia of the town have been in armes all this night, and the night before; and the ‘prentices have made fools of them, sometimes by running from them and flinging stones at them. Some blood hath been spilt"

Apparently this guerrilla warfare raged for five days, an unwelcome post-Easter reign of misrule punished harshly, "fifteen of the ringleaders were tried for high treason, on a rather dubious interpretation of the law, and four were eventually hanged, drawn and quartered.” http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1668/03/24/#c3232…

Robert Gertz  •  Link

London Gazette...All the news the government allows you to know...

"Extra! Extra! Radical youths on rampage in London! Lawless mobs threaten 'entertainment district'! Duke scoffs at threat! Roundheadists suspected behind violence! Lord Craven to use all force to crush the apprentices! Vows ringleaders will be subject to harshest penalties! Read our commentator on whether the sinister hand of the Bishop of Rome #as if you didn't know# is at work again here!"

Terry Foreman  •  Link

RG, I'm glad someone's reporting these events for the Gazette: there's lots of news in today's Gazette about the Pope, but his hand in this is not mentioned (censorship, no doubt). http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/344/pages/1

Indeed there's no mention of the riots in the next few issues of the Gazette (check it out).

Carl in Boston  •  Link

these idle fellows have had the confidence to say that they did ill in contenting themselves in pulling down the little bawdyhouses
This is a mystery to me. How could a crowd pull down a house, being timber framed? I suppose they had a big rope, (from a ship) looped it through an upper window casement, and the crowd pulled, huffing and puffing until the wall came down. I would think there was some sway bracing from the floor and ceiling. There must have been too much lack of diagonal bracing in the houses. Quite a mystery.

Mary  •  Link

These bawdy houses in Moorfields were not necessarily the more solidly built constructions that would have been expected (before the Fire, at least) closer to the heart of the city and so may have been comparatively easy to vandalise or pull down.

Terry Foreman  •  Link

Is "pull down" a house or other building an idiom?

Here's a sturdy building standing still. "There was an attempt to pull down the Red Hall in 1892 when the railway company needed more space to build freight sidings but the public outcry that ensued...forced the company to shelve its plans and the building was saved." http://www.bourneunitedcharities.co.uk/red_hall.p…

Robert Gertz  •  Link

I'd wonder if pull down actually meant tear them down in this context. Perhaps just defacing and damaging them enough to force closure, as opposed to what poor Sir John Robinson and his overwhelmed boys were doing during the Fire?

Robert Gertz  •  Link

When does a place like Sam's favorite hang-out the Swan cross the bawdy house line for the apprentices? Surely they're not all that inclined to draw careful distinctions...

"Oh, Sarah..."

"Oh, Mr. Pepys...We'd best stop before...Oh! My!"

Howls from outside, leering faces at window.

"Mr Pepys!"

"Smith! My name is Smith!" Sam retains that presence of mind we all love him for.

More cries...

"Look, Fred! There's another un!! Get the torches!! Fetch the hooks and ropes, we'll pull'er down with the fornicators themselves in 'er!!"

"Go and tell them this is a tavern, not a bawdy house!"

"Me, Mr. Pepys?!"

"Smith! Girl, I just tole you...Oh, very well..." frowning Sam makes for doorway.

"Toss that hook over here, lads! We'll have 'er down in a min!"

"I say, see here, boys! This is not..." ducks hurled stone...

"Kill the fornicators!! Down with the house!"

"Oh, we're going to die!" Sarah howls.

"What? AFter I've just made a speech that could change the whole course of my already astonishing career? The most brilliant oration heard in Parliament...Let me get...Ah, yes..." Pulls out sheet... "Here...'The most brilliant oration heard in Parliament in the last forty years...' and this gentleman ought to know..."

"They're smashing the windows and they've hooked the roof! Stop them, Mr...."

Sam gives stern glance...

"...Smith..." Sarah frowns. "Enough about your speech, do something!"

"Give it the ole heave-ho, lads!!! One...Two..."

Sighing, Sam to doorway... "Now lads, I want you to stop this. You're frightening the young lady, Mistress Sarah..."

"Kill the...What?" "Sarah...?" "Sarah?" "'ey, Sarah?"

"Lads, this be the Swan, our favorite tavern..." "The Swan?" "It's Mistress Udall inside. Haul down, leave off, lads!" "How'd we get to the Swan?" "'ey, Sarah?!"

"Mistress Sarah...? With the little bug-eyed fellow?" "Tain't right." "'ey, Sarah..."

"All right, then..." Sam sighs...Turning back to...Business at hand. Sarah sighing with relief as well.

Renewed calls...

"How's about a drink then, bug-eyes!" "Ay, one for the lads like a gent, Smith, or maybe we'll string ye up for fornication!" "String him up anyway!" "'ey, Sarah?! Answer a fellow, will ye?" Crowd makes for tavern door... "It's all on Mr. 'Smith', Sarah!" shoving Sam aside.

"What!"

Paul Chapin  •  Link

It belatedly occurred to me that this was Lady Day (and thus the first day since January 1 when the year appears as 1668 simpliciter). In past years Sam has been all astir to settle his accounts on this day, but no mention of that at all today. A few days ago he made a passing comment about settling a couple of accounts, so he must be all caught up. And the excitement of the 'prentice riot, and the liaison with Mrs. Daniel, and the evening out, crowded out any thoughts of the calendar.

Bryan M  •  Link

Is “pull down” a house or other building an idiom?

Possibly not. The link below shows "firehooks" being used by 17th C firefighters to pull down burning buildings. Young people are naturally such lateral thinkers and the 'prentices might even had the opportunity to hone their technique during the late conflagration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Firehooks.1612.…

Mary  •  Link

pulling down the bawdy houses.

We lack evidence, but I'm not sure that these were houses in the full, permanent, domestic sense of the word. You wouldn't need a massive timber frame to enable a wooden structure to stand sufficiently well to cope with this kind of passing trade. My fairly capacious garden tool-store is a wooden structure that has stood for years, but it wouldn't take a huge effort to pull it down if one were bent on mischief yet it's weatherproof. It doesn't afford a huge amount of headroom, but the Moorfields clients might not have been troubled by that lack.

Bryan M  •  Link

Below is an extract from a paper by Tim Harris that sheds a little more light on this fascinating topic. (I think they really pulled those houses down.)

THE BAWDY HOUSE RIOTS OF 1668*
by TIM HARRIS
The Historical Journal (1986), 29: 537-556

"The riots broke out on Easter Monday, 23 March 1668, when a group attacked bawdy houses in Poplar. The next day crowds of about 500 pulled 'down similar establishments in Moorfields, East Smithfield, St Leonard's, Shoreditch, and also St Andrew's, Holborn, the main bawdy house districts of London. The final assaults came on Wednesday, mainly in the Moorfields area, one report claiming there were now 40,000 rioters - surely an exaggeration, but indicating that abnormally large numbers of people were involved. … On all days the crowds were supposedly armed with ' iron bars, polaxes, long staves, and other weapons', presumably the sort of tools necessary for house demolition. The rioters organized themselves into regiments, headed by a captain, and marching behind colours."

Terry Foreman  •  Link

Thanks, Bryan, for the lede:

Bawdy House Riots of 1668
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The 1668 Bawdy House Riots took place in 17th century London following repression of a series of annual Shrove Tuesday attacks against brothels.

Samuel Pepys records the events in his Diary 24th to 25th March mentioning that they were perceived as an anti-Royal demonstration of working class apprentices centre on Moorfields with echoes of the Puritanism of the Cromwellian era and specifcally targeted at the immoral behaviour of King Charles II and his court, who had been engaged with a series of extra-marital affairs with high profile courtesans, noting; " how these idle fellows have had the confidence to say that they did ill in contenting themselves in pulling down the little bawdy-houses, and did not go and pull down the great bawdy-house at Whitehall." Nine of the ringleaders were sentenced to death.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bawdy_House_Riots_of…

Terry Foreman  •  Link

"my Lord Burlington did come to me, and with great respect take notice of me and my relation to my Lord Sandwich"

L&M: Burlington's daughter had recently married Sandwich's son, Viscount Hinchingbrooke.

Terry Foreman  •  Link

"the Duke of York complained merrily that he hath lost two tenants, by their houses being pulled down, who paid him for their wine licenses 15l. a year."

L&M: Since 1661 the Duke of York had enjoyed all the profits from the sale of licences for the retailing of wine: CTB, i.269-70.

Terry Foreman  •  Link

"to the King’s playhouse to see “The Storme,” which we did, but without much pleasure, it being but a mean play compared with “The Tempest,” at the Duke of York’s house, though Knepp did act her part of grief very well."

L&M: Mrs Knepp played the part of Aminta: Genest, i. 82. The play was The sea voyage, a comedy by Fletcher and Massinger. The Tempest was Shakespeare's play as altered by Dryden and Davenant.

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

March 25. 1668
H. H. to Sir Rob. Carr.
[Robert Carr was a MP for Lincolnshire.]

I went to Southwark and found an unexpected stillness, and the parties aimed at for intelligence extraordinarily mute, pretending themselves strangers to the business.
One said there were 40,000 of them in conjunction, and he did not know to what it would lead.
I returned to the city, and met with one of the Prudential Rant, who was very inquisitive after the bottom of the business, and said they were to have a meeting in Whitecross Street to consult;
I shall attend it and inform you of the proceedings.

In Golding Lane was a shoemaker reporting the same story about the French, who spoke much of that King's wisdom; I am jealous whether he was not employed to preach up the King of France.

I went to Moorfields and found the apprentices gathering, and one of them made a flag of his apron, whereupon there were thousands of them together;
they seized on 2 or 3 houses in the alleys, in the upper quarter of Moorfields, but my Lord Mayor came with his officers, and seized 7 of them;
upon this, the others took their run to the other side of the fields and consulted, and then took their run down by Finsbury and so into Lower Moorfields, and coasted about to meet the Lord Mayor and rescue the prisoners;
but the Mayor's officers bestirred themselves and took 3 more, and carried them through Little Moorgate, and the apprentices returned to their former work.

My staying to see this occasioned its being one o'clock before I got to your house.
[S.P. Dom., Car. II. 237, No. 59.]

'Charles II: March 1668', in Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles II, 1667-8, ed. Mary Anne Everett Green (London, 1893), pp. 262-320. British History Online
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers…

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

March 25. 1668
Petition of the poor whores, bauds, pimps, and panders,
to the most splendid, illustrious, serene, and eminent lady of pleasure, the Countess of Castlemaine,
for protection against the company of London apprentices, through whom they have sustained the loss of habitations, trades, and employments, and for a guard of "French, Irish, and English Hectors," who are their approved friends.

Will contribute to her, as their sisters at Rome and Venice do the Pope.

"Signed by us, Madam Cresswell and Damaris Page,
in the behalf of our sisters and fellow sufferers (in this day of our calamity), in Dog and Bitch Yard, Lukener's Lane, Saffron Hill, Moorfields, Chiswell Street, Rosemary Lane, Nightingale Lane, Ratcliffe Highway, Well Close, Church Lane, East Smithfield," &c.
[Printed. S.P. Dom., Car. II. 237, No. 60.]

'Charles II: March 1668', in Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles II, 1667-8, ed. Mary Anne Everett Green (London, 1893), pp. 262-320. British History Online
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers…

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

Probably I'm putting 2 and 2 together, and making 12, BUT:

Sir Joseph Williamson just receive information from the printing capitol of the world:

March 13/23. 1668
Rotterdam.
––— to Williamson.

I send a copy of some factious work printed, 5,000 copies of which have been reprinted, some shipped by George Gospright for London,
some by Burton for Yarmouth,
some by our intelligencer general, Justice Washington, for his son Moody, at London,
some for Hull, and some for Scotland, &c.

As it is such a trumpet to rebellion, it will be well to be eyeing it.

There is another sheet in prose, but not being one of the clan, I cannot obtain a copy; I will send it if I do.

I hear it is by way of queries, grating and reflecting hard upon the prelates, &c., so it must needs be fire and vinegar in folio.

As Lord Arlington and Sir George Downing have friends at Rotterdam, I am confident if the sore was searched to the bottom, the cure would be easy.

I speak for the love of my country, which is much affronted and traduced by these vermin that know not when they are well, and cannot acquiesce in God's providence and his Majesty's amnesty.
I have no malice against any of the persons, but hate their practices, though I have heretofore been one of their party.
[S.P. Dom., Car. II. 236, No. 107.]
@@@

Suppose "they" printed the Whore's Petition and distributed it in advance, hoping to trigger a country-wide nonconformist Rising?
Or are the Stuart Brothers now expecting other riots?
And having had this advanced warning, how come they were not more prepared? Apparently the Stuarts learned nothing from Chatham.
Or did Williamson not read his mail yet?

And who are "they"?
If it's an internationally-inspired plot, maybe Louis XIV has paid someone to punish Charles for participating in the Triple Alliance?

Since the letter says 'reflecting hard upon the prelates, &c.,' "they" are inflaming the nonconformists who don't like either Lady Castlemaine or the madams, who are reputed to be paying off Catholics and the Duke of York.

Which ever of the above scenarios is right (or any other scenario) would account for:
"... the response of the authorities to apprentice attacks on bawdy houses that occurred in Easter week of 1668 seems excessive. Here, fifteen of the ringleaders were tried for high treason, on a rather dubious interpretation of the law, and four were eventually hanged, drawn and quartered." -- Tim Harris (1986). The Bawdy House Riots of 1668.
https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1668/03/24/#c323…

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

This seems a good summary:
https://pasttenseblog.wordpress.com/2019/03/23/to…

The participants of these riots were the apprentices working in London, who were estimated to have numbered 20,000 in 1660. It's unlikely the number of apprentices doubled in the last 8 years. These were highly motivated people from out of town.

The JSTOR article on the subject says the authorities believed those out of towners were previously Cromwellian soldiers, and Peter Messenger lead 'troops' of rioters for three of the five days. The authorities were surprised because (1) this wasn't Shrove Tuesday, and (2) no such riots had happened since the Restoration. One target seems to have been the Duke of York; many of the rioters wore green (the color favored by The Levellers 20 years ago).

Lord Chief Justice Keeling presided at the trial, and interpreted the Treason law in a very creative way, opposed by Judge Sir Matthew Hale, who said their offences were only felonies. Keeling won that argument, which bade badly for future riots. Curiously few of the prosecuted were apprentices. JSTOR concludes it was a spontaneous collection of people disappointed with Charles II going back on his word AGAIN on religious tolerance.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2639047?read-now=1&r…

It takes money and organization to get 40,000 people into London at the same time to riot for 5 days. I've seen a picture of the printed Castlemaine "Petition", and it's no spontaneous, over-night joke.

I rest my case.

Terry Foreman  •  Link

The 1668 Bawdy House Riots (also called the Messenger riots after rioter Peter Messenger) took place in 17th-century London over several days in March during Easter Week, 1668.[1] They were sparked by Dissenters who resented the King's proclamation against conventicles (private lay worship)[2] while turning a blind eye to the equally illegal brothels.[3] Thousands of young men besieged and demolished brothels throughout the East End, assaulting the prostitutes and looting the properties.[4] As the historian Tim Harris describes it:

"The riots broke out on Easter Monday, 23 March 1668, when a group attacked bawdy houses in Poplar. The next day crowds of about 500 pulled down similar establishments in Moorfields, East Smithfield, St Leonard's, Shoreditch, and also St Andrew's, Holborn, the main bawdy house districts of London. The final assaults came on Wednesday, mainly in the Moorfields area, one report claiming there were now 40,000 rioters - surely an exaggeration, but indicating that abnormally large numbers of people were involved. ... On all days the crowds were supposedly armed with 'iron bars, polaxes, long staves, and other weapons', presumably the sort of tools necessary for house demolition. The rioters organized themselves into regiments, headed by a captain, and marching behind colours."[5]

These were not the first anti-brothel riots in 17th-century London. Between 1603 and 1642, Shrove Tuesday riots (mostly involving attacks by apprentices on brothels and playhouses ostensibly to remove sources of temptation during Lent) had occurred at least twenty-four times.[6] They were to some degree tolerated and the people involved had rarely been punished severely.[7] However, the 1668 riots were different in both size and duration, involving thousands of people and lasting for several days.[8] In their aftermath, fifteen of the rioters were indicted for high treason, and four suspected ringleaders were convicted and hanged.[4]

Samuel Pepys recorded the events in his Diary on 24th[9] and 25th[10] March. He documented the attack on the property of brothel keeper Damaris Page, "the great bawd of the seamen", "the most Famous Bawd in the Towne."[11] She was a deeply unpopular figure because of her practice of press-ganging her dock worker clientele into the navy, and her bawdy house was an early target of the riots.[12] She appeared before a local magistrate, Robert Manley, as a victim of the riots who had lost significant property; she was one of the main witnesses brought against Robert Sharpless, a central instigator of the riots. Her evidence was notably given significant weight during the court case, despite her being an unmarried woman and a brothel keeper.[13]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bawdy_House_Riots_o…

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

"my Lord Burlington did come to me, and with great respect take notice of me and my relation to my Lord Sandwich, and express great kindness to me; and so to talk ..."

Anne Boyle Montagu, Viscountess Hinchingbrooke's father was Richard Boyle, 1st Earl of Burlington, 2nd Earl of Cork (1612 – 1698). The Anglo-Irish nobleman served as Lord High Treasurer of Ireland and was a Cavalier. He also was one of the richest men in England and loaned Charles a lot over the years.

Pepys is using Cork's English title, which I never thought about before, as the English thought their titles superior to those of Scotland and Ireland.

Which made me question Welsh nobility:
"With the Laws in Wales Acts 1535-1542, Wales was formally annexed by England, with the full implementation of English Common Law for civil cases. Both native Welsh and Marcher lordships were fully incorporated into the English Peerage. Eventually, succeeding peerage divisions emerged.[clarification needed] Wales does not have a separate peerage, but Welsh peers are included in the English, Great Britain, and finally the United Kingdom peerages.

"In 1793 the title "Earl of the Town and County of Carnarvon in the Principality of Wales" was created, the only mention of the "Principality of Wales" in a title. After the deposition by the English parliament in February 1689 of James II and VII from the thrones of England and Ireland (the Scottish Estates followed suit on 11 April 1689), he and his successors continued to create peers and baronets, which became known as the Jacobite Peerage.

"Some lords, the Earl Lloyd George of Dwyfor, and the Marquess of Anglesey, make their principal seat within Wales, while others, such as the Marquess of Abergavenny have their seat outside Wales."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_peers_and_bar…

So at this time there are no Welsh titles being recognized.

mountebank  •  Link

One could read "Petition of the poor whores, bauds, pimps, and panders, to the most splendid, illustrious, serene, and eminent lady of pleasure, the Countess of Castlemaine" as being a terrific bit of leg-pulling relating to how Castlemaine is perceived.

Mary K  •  Link

Not just "could read" but "should read" I think.

Stephane Chenard  •  Link

Actually there was a brief notice of the riots in the Gazette, the last one at the bottom of page 2, before the Advertisement, in No. 246 (March 23-26):

**** London, Mart. 25. Several Apprentices of this City, with whom some other idle persons joyned themselves, abusing the liberty given them these Holydayes, tumultuously got together, according to their former practices, to endeavour the pulling down of some houses of ill fame about the suburbs; but were upon the appearance of the Guards dispersed, and some of the number seized, and may in little time receive the just reward of their riotous and disorderly motions. ****

And now, the weather. Now, the article is at the very end after the shipping news and the dispatches from Warsaw, but that's often where it puts the good stuff, and it's rare when the Gazette covers the London street. Nobody in "this City" would have needed the news, so it's aimed at the good folks in the provinces and abroad who heard all those crazily distorted out-of-context rumors about... "riots", you say? Ha ha. Nothing to see here. No, we the Gazette-writing establishment absolutely did not get quite a nasty fright.

On the 28th however, possibly after reading this "nothing-wrong-in-Chernobyl" article, but wanting to check anyway, a Rich. Forster of faraway Newcastle still wrote to Williamson he "hears of the insurrection of the London apprentices, but hopes it is not true" (State Papers No. 97, https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=gCk5AQAAM…).

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

March 25. 1668
Jersey.
R. Manley to [Rob. Francis].
[Robt. Francis worked in Arlington’s office, Stone Gallery, Whitehall.]

Your letter, with the good news of my dear brother, who speaks kindly of you, is "as welcome as this day is to rich landlords."
Letters from France cannot come because of the winds.
My daughter is gone to fetch a little boy whom we left at Liège before the Dutch war, but she waits a wind.
Preserve me in your good master's favour, which I shall deserve, if opportunity offers.
The post by Southampton is safe, but slow.
Send me the Gazette by France.

I am redoubling my vigilance to prevent surprises from the French;
the inhabitants are forward in their own defence;
the King's indulgence has rendered them the happiest people in the world;
we will make our coasts impregnable.

Is it true that our governor is going for Flanders?

1 April. –– This has been delayed by the winds.
We had an alarm through a fleet of 34 vessels from St. Malo, but they were merchantmen with 3 or 4 convoys. We took arms and waited till they got clear of the island.
Our militia men were very forward in this encounter.
On the return of our governor, my wife and I may make a turn into England.
[3 pages. S.P. Dom., Car. II. 237, No. 63.]

@@@

Capt. Roger Manley was appointed Deputy Governor of Jersey on 2 Nov., 1667. This letter was to his cousin, Robert Francis.

These extracts show the high degree of efficiency achieved by the Jersey Militia as a military force.

The Governor referred to was Sir Thomas Morgan, who was in England from February 1668-April 1668.

The London Gazette for 27 March to 2 April, 1668 reported:
"Sir Thos. Morgan has orders to return to his command at Jersey, and to carry with him all necessaries for the supply and defence of that island, and a recruit of men."

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

Whatever conversations took place between Charles II and Gov. Morgan have not been recorded but the King sent the following letter to "the Bailiff and Jurats of Jersey" on 7 April, 1668:
"From our gracious regard for the safety of Our Island, we have ordered the return thither of Sir Thomas Morgan, Governor, confiding in his abilities and diligence. We inform you to hold a strict hand with him for keeping the trained bands in good form, particularly the Militia troops and to assist him in whatever else he thinks to the advantage of the Island."

@@@

April 27. 1668
Castle Elizabeth, Jersey.
Sir Thos. Morgan to Williamson.

I arrived here on the 22nd, and found all quiet.
We daily expect the issue of the treaty between France and Spain.
I have appointed a rendezvous of the troops and trained bands, and we shall be vigilant till we hear more of the treaty.
I have ordered the Roebuck to fetch the stores from Southampton for these castles.
My service to Lord Arlington.
[S.P. Dom., Car. II. 239, No. 14A.]

For more about these times in Jersey, see https://www.theislandwiki.org/index.php/Sir_Thoma…
And Sir Thomas Morgan
https://www.pepysdiary.com/encyclopedia/11028/#c5…

Log in to post an annotation.

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