Tuesday 12 May 1668

Up, and to the office, where we sat, and sat all the morning. Here Lord Anglesey was with us, and in talk about the late difference between the two Houses, do tell us that he thinks the House of Lords may be in an error, at least, it is possible they may, in this matter of Skinner; and he doubts they may, and did declare his judgement in the House of Lords against their proceedings therein, he having hindered 100 originall causes being brought into their House, notwithstanding that he was put upon defending their proceedings: but that he is confident that the House of Commons are in the wrong, in the method they take to remedy an error of the Lords, for no vote of theirs can do it; but, in all like cases, the Commons have done it by petition to the King, sent up to the Lords, and by them agreed to, and so redressed, as they did in the Petition of Right. He says that he did tell them indeed, which is talked of, and which did vex the Commons, that the Lords were “Judices nati et Conciliarii nati;” but all other judges among us are under salary, and the Commons themselves served for wages; and therefore the Lords, in reason, were the freer judges. At noon to dinner at home, and after dinner, where Creed dined with me, he and I, by water to the Temple, where we parted, and I both to the King’s and Duke of York’s playhouses, and there went through the houses to see what faces I could spy that I knew, and meeting none, I away by coach to my house, and then to Mrs. Mercer’s, where I met with her two daughters, and a pretty-lady I never knew yet, one Mrs. Susan Gayet, a very pretty black lady, that speaks French well, and is a Catholick, and merchant’s daughter, by us, and here was also Mrs. Anne Jones, and after sitting and talking a little, I took them out, and carried them through Hackney to Kingsland, and there walked to Sir G. Whitmore’s house, where I have not been many a day; and so to the old house at Islington, and eat, and drank, and sang, and mighty merry; and so by moonshine with infinite pleasure home, and there sang again in Mercer’s garden. And so parted, I having there seen a mummy in a merchant’s warehouse there, all the middle of the man or woman’s body, black and hard. I never saw any before, and, therefore, it pleased me much, though an ill sight; and he did give me a little bit, and a bone of an arme, I suppose, and so home, and there to bed.

7 Annotations

Robert Gertz  •  Link

Sam, don't you know taking a mummy's body part brings the curse of...Well, the Mummy...Upon you?

And say, with vamps and zombies rather passe now in our time, the day of the Mummy is surely at hand.

Terry Foreman  •  Link

[A News-Letter, addressed to Sir George Lane]
Written from: [Whitehall]
Date: 12 May 1668

The impeachment of Mr Brouncker [in MS.: "Brunkard"]; various proceedings in relation to matters of trade, and to the rebuilding of the City of London; the contention between the Lords and Commons, on the subject of a Petition of the East-India Company, declared by the Lords to be "scandalous"; and other parliamentary business, are noticed.

Late advices from France are added.


gingerd  •  Link

Mummy was for centuries thought to have medicinal properties and there was a thriving trade in them. When the usual sources dried up (no pun intended!) people started using parts of freshly dead bodies (hanged criminals were favourite)in their medicinal concoctions.
Sam was always willing to experiment with "alternative medicicne" and I bet he wanted the mummy for this purpose.

Horace Dripple  •  Link

Can someone tell us what the Latin phrase means, and explain it in context?

Kate Bunting  •  Link

At an educated guess, "Judges and councillors by birth", i.e. members of the House of Lords are born to be legislators, while other judges and MPs are paid by the state.

Christopher Squire  •  Link

'nascor nasci natus : to be born, spring forth.' . So '“Judices nati et Conciliarii nati;”' = 'judges born and councillors born' as Kate B surmises.

Terry Foreman  •  Link

"in all like cases, the Commons have done it by petition to the King, sent up to the Lords, and by them agreed to, and so redressed, as they did in the Petition of Right."

Petition of Right is a major English constitutional document that sets out specific liberties of the subject that the king is prohibited from infringing. Passed on 7 June 1628, the Petition contains restrictions on non-Parliamentary taxation, forced billeting of soldiers, imprisonment without cause [suspension of habeas corpus], and the use of martial law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petition_of_Right

L&M note the 1628 Petition of Right was the only occasion on which the method had been used. Anglesey was referring to the Commons' resolutions of 8 and 9 May declaring that anyone aiding or abetting the execution of the Lords' sentence in the present case should be deemed 'a betrayer of the Rights and Liberties of the Commons': Milward, p.303 n.

Log in to post an annotation.

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