Saturday 5 December 1668

Up, after a little talk with my wife, which troubled me, she being ever since our late difference mighty watchful of sleep and dreams, and will not be persuaded but I do dream of Deb., and do tell me that I speak in my dreams and that this night I did cry, Huzzy, and it must be she, and now and then I start otherwise than I used to do, she says, which I know not, for I do not know that I dream of her more than usual, though I cannot deny that my thoughts waking do run now and then against my will and judgment upon her, for that only is wanting to undo me, being now in every other thing as to my mind most happy, and may still be so but for my own fault, if I be catched loving any body but my wife again. So up and to the office, and at noon to dinner, and thence to office, where late, mighty busy, and despatching much business, settling papers in my own office, and so home to supper, and to bed. No news stirring, but that my Lord of Ormond is likely to go to Ireland again, which do shew that the Duke of Buckingham do not rule all so absolutely; and that, however, we shall speedily have more changes in the Navy: and it is certain that the Nonconformists do now preach openly in houses, in many places, and among others the house that was heretofore Sir G. Carteret’s, in Leadenhall Streete, and have ready access to the King. And now the great dispute is, whether this Parliament or another; and my great design, if I continue in the Navy, is to get myself to be a Parliament-man.

11 Annotations

First Reading

Glyn  •  Link

Does this mean that he wants to become an MP (Member of Parliament) to represent the Navy there?

Terry Foreman  •  Link

"my Lord of Ormond is likely to go to Ireland again, which do shew that the Duke of Buckingham do not rule all so absolutely...."

Ormond has thought this for awhile. See his letter of last 30 June to Ossory: http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1…

Chris Squire  •  Link

‘parliament man, n.
1. a. A Member of Parliament, esp. one well versed in parliamentary procedure and experienced in debate; a parliamentarian. In the U.K. applied occas. to a member of the House of Lords, but more commonly, like Member of Parliament, used to denote a member of the House of Commons.
. . 1603–4 Commons Jrnls. 23 Mar. 3 44 A third grave person and an ancient Parliament man, remembreth and alloweth the motions made by Sir Rober Wroth and Sir Edward Mountague.
. . a1684 J. Evelyn Diary anno 1660 (1955) III. 250 All the Parliament men, both Lords & Comm:.
. . 1995 Herald (Glasgow) (Nexis) 13 July 4 There were today's politicians from the Cabinet and shadow Cabinets paying tribute to a great parliament man.’ [OED]

Robert Gertz  •  Link

"...my Lord of Ormond is likely to go to Ireland again, which do shew that the Duke of Buckingham do not rule all so absolutely..." Charles playing the factions off against each other?

Well, Sam...At least you haven't started crying out various mistresses' names. I wonder if the "hussy" might have been your church pin-girl...It's not like you to label your more willing ladies so. On the other hand, it's probably a mercy so many of your girls are named Elisabeth...Just don't start dreaming of Diana Crisp.

George Mosley  •  Link

"Nonconformists" :: "Fanatics"

"Nonconformist" was not the preferred term for a fanatic in the 1660's - 1710's. More common, if the author had meant religious extremists of the displaced side, would be "dissenter." Nonconformist is a broader term that encompasses those who do not conform to the Established Church for a variety of reasons. (Soon (1689), terminology would get more convoluted with non-jurors and the like.)

Charles II had to play his own established interests against the emergent mercantile interests of the 'stock jobbers' and 'cits,' largely because he suffered the problem of every Stuart king: no money. However, this always made the high church faction, and the lower ranking broad church people, react in alarm.

Second Reading

Terry Foreman  •  Link

"it is certain that the Nonconformists do now preach openly in houses, in many places, and among others the house that was heretofore Sir G. Carteret’s, in Leadenhall Streete, and have ready access to the King."

Such conduct had been subject to the Conventicle Act of 1664: The Conventicle Act of 1664 was an Act of the Parliament of England (16 Charles II c. 4) that forbade conventicles, defined as religious assemblies of more than five people other than an immediate family, outside the auspices of the Church of England. These prohibitions led many, such as the Covenanters, to vacate their parishes rather than submit to the new Episcopal authorities. Just as the ministers left so too did the congregations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Con…

The Act was now allowed by parliament in May 1668 and summer 1669 to lapse and Dissenters enjoyed some liberty; http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1… and
http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1…

In September 1668 a deputation of London Presbyterian ministers had thanked the King for their freedom. There are records of three Independent congregations meeting in Leadenhall Street in 1669. (Per L&M footnote)

Stephane Chenard  •  Link

On the phanaticks, their more or less overt huddlings and the nervousness all this ferment currently inspires, we had seen on November 27 this letter from a Mr. Ralph Grey, of Newcastle, to "Henry Brabant" (State Papers at https://play.google.com/books/rea…): "I entreat you to buy me a sword to walk in town with, for if the fanatics hold on, it will not be safe to be without one. They are mighty high since you went to London, and had a fast last Wednesday", at which "upwards of 500 were present".

Additional problem to always keep in mind, in any case, while in the city bustle (for instance, if you're a government official with a pretty new coach): "persons marched off to them who have received the Sacrament according to the Church of England", and perhaps they had more than Bibles in their hands. Mr. Grey, however, isn't just any bystander: In 1667 he was the sheriff of Newcastle, and Brabant was its mayor (list at https://www.newcastle.gov.uk/site…. You'd think an ex-sheriff would have or could buy his own sword, though).

Gerald Berg  •  Link

...I did cry, Huzzy...

Hilarious. Who would dream up a word like that? Are we sure it wasn't a self recrimination?

James Morgan  •  Link

I wondered what they thought of dreams in his time, and why Elizabeth was so suspicous, so searched the diary and found this wonderful passage from 8/15/1665:

"Up by 4 o’clock and walked to Greenwich, where called at Captain Cocke’s and to his chamber, he being in bed, where something put my last night’s dream into my head, which I think is the best that ever was dreamt, which was that I had my Lady Castlemayne in my armes and was admitted to use all the dalliance I desired with her, and then dreamt that this could not be awake, but that it was only a dream; but that since it was a dream, and that I took so much real pleasure in it, what a happy thing it would be if when we are in our graves (as Shakespeere resembles it) we could dream, and dream but such dreams as this, that then we should not need to be so fearful of death, as we are this plague time."

Of course "Huzzy" doesn't sound very complimentary, so perhaps he's resisting temptation in his dreams as well.

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

"and my great design, if I continue in the Navy, is to get myself to be a Parliament-man."

Strangely enough, yesterday the House of Commons history department sent me a notification about their work with Oxford University on "democracy" through the ages and around the world.
Pepys never uses the word in the Diary, but it was used widely by the end of the 17th century. However, Democracy meant something different from how we use the word today. By running for office, Pepys will be participating in their form of Democracy. The widespread pursuit of public office and responsibility (and the associated power and status, of course) was the key, be it as a church warden, JP, MP, judge, etc.
But as we have seen, a lot of energy was spent making sure the "right" people were in power. No women, no Catholics or Quakers, only people who owned property, etc. Their idea of Democracy had nothing to do with voting or fair representation.

Poke around as there are many associated papers on different aspects of the discussion ... I found the ones on Democracy in 17th century Poland and Venice, and the one about the Levellers particularly interesting, with the promise of more to come.
https://intellectualhistory.web.o…

Log in to post an annotation.

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