The Complete Diary of Samuel Pepys

The Complete Diary of Samuel Pepys

Samuel Pepys

Shrine of Knowledge

© Shrine of Knowledge 2020

A publishing centre dectated to publishing of human treasures.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior written consent of the succession or as expressly permitted by law or under the conditions agreed with the person concerned. copy rights organization. Requests for reproduction outside the above scope must be sent to the Rights Department, Shrine of Knowledge, at the address above.

ISBN 10: 599892447

ISBN 13: 9780599892446

PREFACE

Although the Diary of Samuel Pepys has been in the hands of the public for nearly seventy years, it has not hitherto appeared in its entirety. In the original edition of 1825 scarcely half of the manuscript was printed. Lord Braybrooke added some passages as the various editions were published, but in the preface to his last edition he wrote: there appeared indeed no necessity to amplify or in any way to alter the text of the Diary beyond the correction of a few verbal errors and corrupt passages hitherto overlooked.

The public knew nothing as to what was left unprinted, and there was therefore a general feeling of gratification when it was announced some eighteen years ago that a new edition was to be published by the Rev. Mynors Bright, with the addition of new matter equal to a third of the whole. It was understood that at last the Diary was to appear in its entirety, but there was a passage in Mr. Bright’s preface which suggested a doubt respecting the necessary completeness. He wrote: It would have been tedious to the reader if I had copied from the Diary the account of his daily work at the office.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Bright left roughly speaking about one-fifth of the whole Diary still unprinted, although he transcribed the whole, and bequeathed his transcript to Magdalene College.

It has now been decided that the whole of the Diary shall be made public, with the exception of a few passages which cannot possibly be printed. It may be thought by some that these omissions are due to an unnecessary squeamishness, but it is not really so, and readers are therefore asked to have faith in the judgment of the editor. Where any passages have been omitted marks of omission are added, so that in all cases readers will know where anything has been left out.

Lord Braybrooke made the remark in his Life of Pepys, that the cipher employed by him greatly resembles that known by the name of ‘Rich’s system.’ When Mr. Bright came to decipher the MS., he discovered that the shorthand system used by Pepys was an earlier one than Rich’s, viz., that of Thomas Shelton, who made his system public in 1620.

In his various editions Lord Braybrooke gave a large number of valuable notes, in the collection and arrangement of which he was assisted by the late Mr. John Holmes of the British Museum, and the late Mr. James Yeowell, sometime sub-editor of Notes and Queries. Where these notes are left unaltered in the present edition the letter B. has been affixed to them, but in many instances the notes have been altered and added to from later information, and in these cases no mark is affixed. A large number of additional notes are now supplied, but still much has had to be left unexplained. Many persons are mentioned in the Diary who were little known in the outer world, and in some instances it has been impossible to identify them. In other cases, however, it has been possible to throw light upon these persons by reference to different portions of the Diary itself. I would here ask the kind assistance of any reader who is able to illustrate passages that have been left unnoted. I have received much assistance from the various books in which the Diary is quoted. Every writer on the period covered by the Diary has been pleased to illustrate his subject by quotations from Pepys, and from these books it has often been possible to find information which helps to explain difficult passages in the Diary.

Much illustrative matter of value was obtained by Lord Braybrooke from the Diurnall of Thomas Rugge, which is preserved in the British Museum (Add. MSS. 10,116, 10,117). The following is the description of this interesting work as given by Lord Braybrooke

                    "MERCURIUS POLITICUS REDIVIVUS;

  or, A Collection of the most materiall occurrances and transactions

            in Public Affairs since Anno Dni, 1659, untill

                            28 March, 1672,

      serving as an annuall diurnall for future satisfaction and

                            information,

                            BY THOMAS RUGGE.

            Est natura hominum novitatis avida.—Plinius.

    "This MS. belonged, in 1693, to Thomas Grey, second Earl of

    Stamford.  It has his autograph at the commencement, and on the

    sides are his arms (four quarterings) in gold.  In 1819, it was sold

    by auction in London, as part of the collection of Thomas Lloyd,

    Esq.  (No. 1465), and was then bought by Thomas Thorpe, bookseller.

    Whilst Mr. Lloyd was the possessor, the MS. was lent to Dr. Lingard,

    whose note of thanks to Mr. Lloyd is preserved in the volume.  From

    Thorpe it appears to have passed to Mr. Heber, at the sale of whose

    MSS. in Feb.  1836, by Mr. Evans, of Pall Mall, it was purchased by

    the British Museum for L8 8s.

    "Thomas Rugge was descended from an ancient Norfolk family, and two

    of his ancestors are described as Aldermen of Norwich.  His death

    has been ascertained to have occurred about 1672; and in the Diary

    for the preceding year he complains that on account of his declining

    health, his entries will be but few.  Nothing has been traced of his

    personal circumstances beyond the fact of his having lived for

    fourteen years in Covent Garden, then a fashionable locality."

Another work I have found of the greatest value is the late Mr. J. E. Doyle’s Official Baronage of England (1886), which contains a mass of valuable information not easily to be obtained elsewhere. By reference to its pages I have been enabled to correct several erroneous dates in previous notes caused by a very natural confusion of years in the case of the months of January, February, and March, before it was finally fixed that the year should commence in January instead of March. More confusion has probably been introduced into history from this than from any other cause of a like nature. The reference to two years, as in the case of, say, Jan. 5, 1661-62, may appear clumsy, but it is the only safe plan of notation. If one year only is mentioned, the reader is never sure whether or not the correction has been made. It is a matter for sincere regret that the popular support was withheld from Mr. Doyle’s important undertaking, so that the author’s intention of publishing further volumes, containing the Baronies not dealt with in those already published, was frustrated.

My labours have been much lightened by the kind help which I have

received from those interested in the subject. Lovers of Pepys are

numerous, and I have found those I have applied to ever willing to

give me such information as they possess. It is a singular pleasure,

therefore, to have an opportunity of expressing publicly my thanks

to these gentlemen, and among them I would especially mention Messrs.

Fennell, Danby P. Fry, J. Eliot Hodgkin, Henry Jackson, J. K. Laughton,

Julian Marshall, John Biddulph Martin, J. E. Matthew, Philip Norman,

Richard B. Prosser, and Hugh Callendar, Fellow of Trinity College,

who verified some of the passages in the manuscript. To the Master

and Fellows of Magdalene College, also, I am especially indebted for

allowing me to consult the treasures of the Pepysian Library, and more

particularly my thanks are due to Mr. Arthur G. Peskett, the Librarian.

                                        H. B. W.

BRAMPTON, OPPIDANS ROAD,          LONDON, N.W.

              February, 1893.

PREVIOUS EDITIONS OF THE DIARY.

I. Memoirs of Samuel Pepys, Esq., F.R.S., Secretary to the Admiralty in the reigns of Charles II. and James II., comprising his Diary from 1659 to 1669, deciphered by the Rev. John Smith, A.B., of St. John’s College, Cambridge, from the original Shorthand MS. in the Pepysian Library, and a Selection from his Private Correspondence. Edited by Richard, Lord Braybrooke. In two volumes. London, Henry Colburn... 1825. 4vo.

2. Memoirs of Samuel Pepys, Esq., F.R.S.... Second edition. In five volumes. London, Henry Colburn.... 1828. 8vo.

3. Diary and Correspondence of Samuel Pepys, F.R.S., Secretary to the Admiralty in the reigns of Charles II. and James II.; with a Life and Notes by Richard, Lord Braybrooke; the third edition, considerably enlarged. London, Henry Colburn.... 1848-49. 5 vols. sm. 8vo.

4. Diary and Correspondence of Samuel Pepys, F.R.S.... The fourth edition, revised and corrected. In four volumes. London, published for Henry Colburn by his successors, Hurst and Blackett... 1854. 8vo.

The copyright of Lord Braybrooke’s edition was purchased by the late Mr. Henry G. Bohn, who added the book to his Historical Library.

5. Diary and Correspondence of Samuel Pepys, Esq., F.R.S., from his MS. Cypber in the Pepysian Library, with a Life and Notes by Richard, Lord Braybrooke. Deciphered, with additional notes, by the Rev. Mynors Bright, M.A.... London, Bickers and Son, 1875-79. 6 vols. 8vo.

Nos. 1, 2 and 3 being out of copyright have been reprinted by various publishers.

No. 5 is out of print.

                PARTICULARS OF THE LIFE OF SAMUEL PEPYS.

The family of Pepys is one of considerable antiquity in the east of England, and the Hon. Walter Courtenay Pepys

    [Mr. W.  C.  Pepys has paid great attention to the history of his

    family, and in 1887 he published an interesting work entitled

    Genealogy of the Pepys Family, 1273-1887, London, George Bell and

    Sons, which contains the fullest pedigrees of the family yet

    issued.]

says that the first mention of the name that he has been able to find is in the Hundred Rolls (Edw. I, 1273), where Richard Pepis and John Pepes are registered as holding lands in the county of Cambridge. In the next century the name of William Pepis is found in deeds relating to lands in the parish of Cottenham, co. Cambridge, dated 1329 and 1340 respectively (Cole MSS., British Museum, vol. i., p. 56; vol. xlii., p. 44). According to the Court Roll of the manor of Pelhams, in the parish of Cottenham, Thomas Pepys was bayliffe of the Abbot of Crowland in 1434, but in spite of these references, as well as others to persons of the same name at Braintree, Essex, Depedale, Norfolk, &c., the first ancestor of the existing branches of the family from whom Mr. Walter Pepys is able to trace an undoubted descent, is William Pepis the elder, of Cottenham, co. Cambridge, whose will is dated 20th March, 1519.

In 1852 a curious manuscript volume, bound in vellum, and entitled Liber Talboti Pepys de instrumentis ad Feoda pertinentibus exemplificatis, was discovered in an old chest in the parish church of Bolney, Sussex, by the vicar, the Rev. John Dale, who delivered it to Henry Pepys, Bishop of Worcester, and the book is still in the possession of the family. This volume contains various genealogical entries, and among them are references to the Thomas Pepys of 1434 mentioned above, and to the later William Pepys. The reference to the latter runs thus:—

    A Noate written out of an ould Booke of my uncle William Pepys.

    "William Pepys, who died at Cottenham, 10 H. 8, was brought up by

    the Abbat of Crowland, in Huntingdonshire, and he was borne in

    Dunbar, in Scotland, a gentleman, whom the said Abbat did make his

    Bayliffe of all his lands in Cambridgeshire, and placed him in

    Cottenham, which William aforesaid had three sonnes, Thomas, John,

    and William, to whom Margaret was mother naturallie, all of whom

    left issue."

In illustration of this entry we may refer to the Diary of June 12th, 1667, where it is written that Roger Pepys told Samuel that we did certainly come out of Scotland with the Abbot of Crowland. The references to various members of the family settled in Cottenham and elsewhere, at an early date already alluded to, seem to show that there is little foundation for this very positive statement.

With regard to the standing of the family, Mr. Walter Pepys writes:—

    "The first of the name in 1273 were evidently but small copyholders.

    Within 150 years (1420) three or four of the name had entered the

    priesthood, and others had become connected with the monastery of

    Croyland as bailiffs, &c.  In 250 years (1520) there were certainly

    two families: one at Cottenham, co. Cambridge, and another at

    Braintree, co. Essex, in comfortable circumstances as yeomen

    farmers.  Within fifty years more (1563), one of the family, Thomas,

    of Southcreeke, co. Norfolk, had entered the ranks of the gentry

    sufficiently to have his coat-of-arms recognized by the Herald

    Cooke, who conducted the Visitation of Norfolk in that year.  From

    that date the majority of the family have been in good

    circumstances, with perhaps more than the average of its members

    taking up public positions."

There is a very general notion that Samuel Pepys was of plebeian birth because his father followed the trade of a tailor, and his own remark, But I believe indeed our family were never considerable,—[February 10th, 1661-62.] has been brought forward in corroboration of this view, but nothing can possibly be more erroneous, and there can be no doubt that the Diarist was really proud of his descent. This may be seen from the inscription on one of his book-plates, where he is stated to be:—

    "Samuel Pepys of Brampton in Huntingdonshire, Esq., Secretary of the

    Admiralty to his Matr. King Charles the Second: Descended from ye

    antient family of Pepys of Cottenham in Cambridgeshire."

Many members of the family have greatly distinguished themselves since the Diarist’s day, and of them Mr. Foss wrote (Judges of England, vol. vi., p. 467):—

    "In the family of Pepys is illustrated every gradation of legal rank

    from Reader of an Inn of Court to Lord High Chancellor of England."

The William Pepys of Cottenham who commences the pedigree had three sons and three daughters; from the eldest son (Thomas) descended the first Norfolk branch, from the second son (John Pepys of Southcreeke) descended the second Norfolk branch, and from the third son (William) descended the Impington branch. The latter William had four sons and two daughters; two of these sons were named Thomas, and as they were both living at the same time one was distinguished as the black and the other as the red. Thomas the red had four sons and four daughters. John, born 1601, was the third son, and he became the father of Samuel the Diarist. Little is known of John Pepys, but we learn when the Diary opens that he was settled in London as a tailor. He does not appear to have been a successful man, and his son on August 26th, 1661, found that there was only L45 owing to him, and that he owed about the same sum. He was a citizen of London in 1650, when his son Samuel was admitted to Magdalene College, but at an earlier period he appears to have had business relations with Holland.

In August, 1661, John Pepys retired to a small property at Brampton (worth about L80 per annum), which had been left to him by his eldest brother, Robert Pepys, where he died in 1680.

The following is a copy of John Pepys’s will:

                            "MY FATHER’S WILL.

                        [Indorsement by S. Pepys.]

    "Memorandum.  That I, John Pepys of Ellington, in the county of

    Huntingdon, Gent.", doe declare my mind in the disposall of my

    worldly goods as followeth:

    "First, I desire that my lands and goods left mee by my brother,

    Robert Pepys, deceased, bee delivered up to my eldest son, Samuell

    Pepys, of London, Esqr., according as is expressed in the last Will

    of my brother Robert aforesaid.

    "Secondly, As for what goods I have brought from London, or procured

    since, and what moneys I shall leave behind me or due to me, I

    desire may be disposed of as followeth:

    "Imprimis, I give to the stock of the poore of the parish of

    Brampton, in which church I desire to be enterred, five pounds.

    "Item.  I give to the Poore of Ellington forty shillings.

    "Item.  I desire that my two grandsons, Samuell and John Jackson,

    have ten pounds a piece.

    "Item.  I desire that my daughter, Paulina Jackson, may have my

    largest silver tankerd.

    "Item.  I desire that my son John Pepys may have my gold seale-ring.

    "Lastly.  I desire that the remainder of what I shall leave be

    equally distributed between my sons Samuel and John Pepys and my

    daughter Paulina Jackson.

    "All which I leave to the care of my eldest son Samuel Pepys, to see

    performed, if he shall think fit.

    In witness hereunto I set my hand.

His wife Margaret, whose maiden name has not been discovered, died on the 25th March, 1667, also at Brampton. The family of these two consisted of six sons and five daughters: John (born 1632, died 1640), Samuel (born 1633, died 1703), Thomas (born 1634, died 1664), Jacob (born 1637, died young), Robert (born 1638, died young), and John (born 1641, died 1677); Mary (born 1627), Paulina (born 1628), Esther (born 1630), Sarah (born 1635; these four girls all died young), and Paulina (born 1640, died 1680), who married John Jackson of Brampton, and had two sons, Samuel and John. The latter was made his heir by Samuel Pepys.

Samuel Pepys was born on the 23rd February, 1632-3, but the place of birth is not known with certainty. Samuel Knight, D.D., author of the Life of Colet, who was a connection of the family (having married Hannah Pepys, daughter of Talbot Pepys of Impington), says positively that it was at Brampton. His statement cannot be corroborated by the registers of Brampton church, as these records do not commence until the year 1654.

Samuel’s early youth appears to have been spent pretty equally between town and country. When he and his brother Tom were children they lived with a nurse (Goody Lawrence) at Kingsland, and in after life Samuel refers to his habit of shooting with bow and arrow in the fields around that place. He then went to school at Huntingdon, from which he was transferred to St. Paul’s School in London. He remained at the latter place until 1650, early in which year his name was entered as a sizar on the boards of Trinity Hall, Cambridge. He was admitted on the 21st June, but subsequently he transferred his allegiance to Magdalene College, where he was admitted a sizar on the 1st October of this same year. He did not enter into residence until March 5th, 1650-51, but in the following month he was elected to one of Mr. Spendluffe’s scholarships, and two years later (October 14th, 1653) he was preferred to one on Dr. John Smith’s foundation.

Little or nothing is known of Pepys’s career at college, but soon after obtaining the Smith scholarship he got into trouble, and, with a companion, was admonished for being drunk.

    [October 21st, 1653.  "Memorandum: that Peapys and Hind were

    solemnly admonished by myself and Mr. Hill, for having been

    scandalously over-served with drink ye night before.  This was done

    in the presence of all the Fellows then resident, in Mr. Hill’s

    chamber.—JOHN WOOD, Registrar."  (From the Registrar’s-book of

    Magdalene College.)]

His time, however, was not wasted, and there is evidence that he carried into his busy life a fair stock of classical learning and a true love of letters. Throughout his life he looked back with pleasure to the time he spent at the University, and his college was remembered in his will when he bequeathed his valuable library. In this same year, 1653, he graduated B.A. On the 1st of December, 1655, when he was still without any settled means of support, he married Elizabeth St. Michel, a beautiful and portionless girl of fifteen. Her father, Alexander Marchant, Sieur de St. Michel, was of a good family in Anjou, and son of the High Sheriff of Bauge (in Anjou). Having turned Huguenot at the age of twenty-one, when in the German service, his father disinherited him, and he also lost the reversion of some L20,000 sterling which his uncle, a rich French canon, intended to bequeath to him before he left the Roman Catholic church. He came over to England in the retinue of Henrietta Maria on her marriage with Charles I, but the queen dismissed him on finding that he was a Protestant and did not attend mass. Being a handsome man, with courtly manners, he found favour in the sight of the widow of an Irish squire (daughter of Sir Francis Kingsmill), who married him against the wishes of her family. After the marriage, Alexander St. Michel and his wife having raised some fifteen hundred pounds, started, for France in the hope of recovering some part of the family property. They were unfortunate in all their movements, and on their journey to France were taken prisoners by the Dunkirkers, who stripped them of all their property. They now settled at Bideford in Devonshire, and here or near by were born Elizabeth and the rest of the family. At a later period St. Michel served against the Spaniards at the taking of Dunkirk and Arras, and settled at Paris. He was an unfortunate man throughout life, and his son Balthasar says of him: My father at last grew full of whimsies and propositions of perpetual motion, &c., to kings, princes and others, which soaked his pocket, and brought all our family so low by his not minding anything else, spending all he had got and getting no other employment to bring in more. While he was away from Paris, some deluding papists and pretended devouts persuaded Madame St. Michel to place her daughter in the nunnery of the Ursulines. When the father heard of this, he hurried back, and managed to get Elizabeth out of the nunnery after she had been there twelve days. Thinking that France was a dangerous place to live in, he removed his family to England, where soon afterwards his daughter was married, although, as Lord Braybrooke remarks, we are not told how she became acquainted with Pepys. St. Michel was greatly pleased that his daughter had become the wife of a true Protestant, and she herself said to him, kissing his eyes: Dear father, though in my tender years I was by my low fortune in this world deluded to popery, by the fond dictates thereof I have now (joined with my riper years, which give me some understanding) a man to my husband too wise and one too religious to the Protestant religion to suffer my thoughts to bend that way any more.

    [These particulars are obtained from an interesting letter from

    Balthasar St. Michel to Pepys, dated Deal, Feb. 8, 1673-4, and

    printed in Life, Journals, and Correspondence of Samuel Pepys,

      1841, vol. i., pp. 146-53.]

Alexander St. Michel kept up his character for fecklessness through life, and took out patents for curing smoking chimneys, purifying water, and moulding bricks. In 1667 he petitioned the king, asserting that he had discovered King Solomon’s gold and silver mines, and the Diary of the same date contains a curious commentary upon these visions of wealth:—

    "March 29, 1667.  4s. a week which his (Balty St. Michel’s) father

    receives of the French church is all the subsistence his father and

    mother have, and about; L20 a year maintains them."

As already noted, Pepys was married on December 1st, 1655. This date is given on the authority of the Registers of St. Margaret’s Church, Westminster,

    [The late Mr. T. C. Noble kindly communicated to me a copy of the

    original marriage certificate, which is as follows: "Samuell Peps

    of this parish Gent. & Elizabeth De Snt. Michell of Martins in the

    fields, Spinster.  Published October 19tn, 22nd, 29th 1655, and

    were married by Richard Sherwin Esqr one of the justices of the

    Peace of the Cittie and Lyberties of Westm.  December 1st.  (Signed)

    Ri. Sherwin."]

but strangely enough Pepys himself supposed his wedding day to have been October 10th. Lord Braybrooke remarks on this,

    "It is notorious that the registers in those times were very ill

    kept, of which we have here a striking instance....  Surely a

    man who kept a diary could not have made such a blunder."

What is even more strange than Pepys’s conviction that he was married on October 10th is Mrs. Pepys’s agreement with him: On October 10th, 1666, we read,

    "So home to supper, and to bed, it being my wedding night, but how

    many years I cannot tell; but my wife says ten."

Here Mrs. Pepys was wrong, as it was eleven years; so she may have been wrong in the day also. In spite of the high authority of Mr. and Mrs. Pepys on a question so interesting to them both, we must accept the register as conclusive on this point until further evidence of its incorrectness is forthcoming.

Sir Edward Montage (afterwards Earl of Sandwich), who was Pepys’s first cousin one remove (Pepys’s grandfather and Montage’s mother being brother and sister), was a true friend to his poor kinsman, and he at once held out a helping hand to the imprudent couple, allowing them to live in his house. John Pepys does not appear to have been in sufficiently good circumstances to pay for the education of his son, and it seems probable that Samuel went to the university under his influential cousin’s patronage. At all events he owed his success in life primarily to Montage, to whom he appears to have acted as a sort of agent.

On March 26th, 1658, he underwent a successful operation for the stone, and we find him celebrating each anniversary of this important event of his life with thanksgiving. He went through life with little trouble on this score, but when he died at the age of seventy a nest of seven stones was found in his left kidney.

    ["June 10th, 1669.  I went this evening to London, to carry Mr.

    Pepys to my brother Richard, now exceedingly afflicted with the

    stone, who had been successfully cut, and carried the stone, as big

    as a tennis ball, to show him and encourage his resolution to go

    thro’ the operation."—Evelyn’s Diary.]

In June, 1659, Pepys accompanied Sir Edward Montage in the Naseby, when the Admiral of the Baltic Fleet and Algernon Sidney went to the Sound as joint commissioners. It was then that Montage corresponded with Charles II., but he had to be very secret in his movements on account of the suspicions of Sidney. Pepys knew nothing of what was going on, as he confesses in the Diary:

    "I do from this raise an opinion of him, to be one of the most

    secret men in the world, which I was not so convinced of before."

On Pepys’s return to England he obtained an appointment in the office of Mr., afterwards Sir George Downing, who was one of the Four Tellers of the Receipt of the Exchequer. He was clerk to Downing when he commenced his diary on January 1st, 1660, and then lived in Axe Yard, close by King Street, Westminster, a place on the site of which was built Fludyer Street. This, too, was swept away for the Government offices in 1864-65. His salary was L50 a year. Downing invited Pepys to accompany him to Holland, but he does not appear to have been very pressing, and a few days later in this same January he got him appointed one of the Clerks of the Council, but the recipient of the favour does not appear to have been very grateful. A great change was now about to take place in Pepys’s fortunes, for in the following March he was made secretary to Sir Edward Montage in his expedition to bring about the Restoration of Charles II., and on the 23rd he went on board the Swiftsure with Montage. On the 30th they transferred themselves to the Naseby. Owing to this appointment of Pepys we have in the Diary a very full account of the daily movements of the fleet until, events having followed their natural course, Montage had the honour of bringing Charles II. to Dover, where the King was received with great rejoicing. Several of the ships in the fleet had names which were obnoxious to Royalists, and on the 23rd May the King came on board the Naseby and altered there—the Naseby to the Charles, the Richard to the Royal James, the Speaker to the Mary, the Winsby to the Happy Return, the Wakefield to the Richmond, the Lambert to the Henrietta, the Cheriton to the Speedwell, and the Bradford to the Success. This portion of the Diary is of particular interest, and the various excursions in Holland which the Diarist made are described in a very amusing manner.

When Montagu and Pepys had both returned to London, the former told the latter that he had obtained the promise of the office of Clerk of the Acts for him. Many difficulties occurred before Pepys actually secured the place, so that at times he was inclined to accept the offers which were made to him to give it up. General Monk was anxious to get the office for Mr. Turner, who was Chief Clerk in the Navy Office, but in the end Montagu’s influence secured it for Pepys. Then Thomas Barlow, who had been appointed Clerk of the Acts in 1638, turned up, and appeared likely to become disagreeable. Pepys bought him off with an annuity of too, which he did not have to pay for any length of time, as Barlow died in February, 1664-65. It is not in human nature to be greatly grieved at the death of one to whom you have to pay an annuity, and Pepys expresses his feelings in a very naive manner:—

    "For which God knows my heart I could be as sorry as is possible for

    one to be for a stranger by whose death he gets L100 per annum, he

    being a worthy honest man; but when I come to consider the

    providence of God by this means unexpectedly to give me L100 a year

    more in my estate, I have cause to bless God, and do it from the

    bottom of my heart."

This office was one of considerable importance, for not only was the holder the secretary or registrar of the Navy Board, but he was also one of the principal officers of the navy, and, as member of the board, of equal rank with the other commissioners. This office Pepys held during the whole period of the Diary, and we find him constantly fighting for his position, as some of the other members wished to reduce his rank merely to that of secretary. In his contention Pepys appears to have been in the right, and a valuable MS. volume in the Pepysian library contains an extract from the Old Instructions of about 1649, in which this very point is argued out. The volume appears to have been made up by William Penn the Quaker, from a collection of manuscripts on the affairs of the navy found in his father’s, Sir William Penn’s closet. It was presented to Charles II., with a dedication ending thus:—

    "I hope enough to justifie soe much freedome with a Prince that is

    so easie to excuse things well intended as this is

                        "BY

                              "Great Prince,

                                  "Thy faithfull subject,

                                        WM. PENN

    London, the 22 of the Mo. called June, 1680.

It does not appear how the volume came into Pepys’s possession. It may have been given him by the king, or he may have taken it as a perquisite of his office. The book has an index, which was evidently added by Pepys; in this are these entries, which show his appreciation of the contents of the MS.:—

              "Clerk of the Acts,

                    his duty,

                    his necessity and usefulness."

The following description of the duty of the Clerk of the Acts shows the importance of the office, and the statement that if the clerk is not fitted to act as a commissioner he is a blockhead and unfit for his employment is particularly racy, and not quite the form of expression one would expect to find in an official document:

                          "CLERKE OF THE ACTS.

    "The clarke of the Navye’s duty depends principally upon rateing (by

    the Board’s approbation) of all bills and recording of them, and all

    orders, contracts & warrants, making up and casting of accompts,

    framing and writing answers to letters, orders, and commands from

    the Councell, Lord High Admirall, or Commissioners of the Admiralty,

    and he ought to be a very able accomptant, well versed in Navall

    affairs and all inferior officers dutyes.

    "It hath been objected by some that the Clarke of the Acts ought to

    be subordinate to the rest of the Commissioners, and not to be

    joyned in equall power with them, although he was so constituted

    from the first institution, which hath been an opinion only of some

    to keep him at a distance, least he might be thought too forward if

    he had joynt power in discovering or argueing against that which

    peradventure private interest would have concealed; it is certaine

    no man sees more of the Navye’s Transactions than himselfe, and

    possibly may speak as much to the project if required, or else he is

    a blockhead, and not fitt for that imployment.  But why he should

    not make as able a Commissioner as a Shipp wright lett wise men

    judge."

In Pepys’s patent the salary is stated to be L33 6s. 8d., but this was only the ancient fee out of the Exchequer, which had been attached to the office for more than a century. Pepys’s salary had been previously fixed at L350 a-year.

Neither of the two qualifications upon which particular stress is laid in the above Instructions was possessed by Pepys. He knew nothing about the navy, and so little of accounts that apparently he learned the multiplication table for the first time in July, 1661. We see from the particulars given in the Diary how hard he worked to obtain the knowledge required in his office, and in consequence of his assiduity he soon became a model official. When Pepys became Clerk of the Acts he took up his residence at the Navy Office, a large building situated between Crutched Friars and Seething Lane, with an entrance in each of those places. On July 4th, 1660, he went with Commissioner Pett to view the houses, and was very pleased with them, but he feared that the more influential officers would jockey him out of his rights. His fears were not well grounded, and on July 18th he records the fact that he dined in his own apartments, which were situated in the Seething Lane front.

On July 24th, 1660, Pepys was sworn in as Lord Sandwich’s deputy for a Clerkship of the Privy Seal. This office, which he did not think much of at first, brought him in for a time L3 a day. In June, 1660, he was made Master of Arts by proxy, and soon afterwards he was sworn in as a justice of the Peace for Middlesex, Essex, Kent, and Hampshire, the counties in which the chief dockyards were situated.

Pepys’s life is written large in the Diary, and it is not necessary here to do more than catalogue the chief incidents of it in chronological order. In February, 1661-62, he was chosen a Younger Brother of the Trinity House, and in April, 1662, when on an official visit to Portsmouth Dockyard, he was made a burgess of the town. In August of the same year he was appointed one of the commissioners for the affairs of Tangier. Soon afterwards Thomas Povy, the treasurer, got his accounts into a muddle, and showed himself incompetent for the place, so that Pepys replaced him as treasurer to the commission.

In March, 1663-64, the Corporation of the Royal Fishery was appointed, with the Duke of York as governor, and thirty-two assistants, mostly very great persons. Through Lord Sandwich’s influence Pepys was made one of these.

The time was now arriving when Pepys’s general ability and devotion to business brought him prominently into notice. During the Dutch war the unreadiness of the ships, more particularly in respect to victualling, was the cause of great trouble. The Clerk of the Acts did his utmost to set things right, and he was appointed Surveyor-General of the Victualling Office. The kind way in which Mr. Coventry proposed him as the fittest man in England for the office, and the Duke of York’s expressed approval, greatly pleased him.

During the fearful period when the Plague was raging, Pepys stuck to his business, and the chief management of naval affairs devolved upon him, for the meetings at the Navy Office were but thinly attended. In a letter to Coventry he wrote:—

    "The sickness in general thickens round us, and particularly upon

    our neighbourhood.  You, sir, took your turn of the sword; I must

    not, therefore, grudge to take mine of the pestilence."

At this time his wife was living at Woolwich, and he himself with his clerks at Greenwich; one maid only remained in the house in London.

Pepys rendered special service at the time of the Fire of London. He communicated the king’s wishes to the Lord Mayor, and he saved the Navy Office by having up workmen from Woolwich and Deptford Dockyards to pull down the houses around, and so prevent the spread of the flames.

When peace was at length concluded with the Dutch, and people had time to think over the disgrace which the country had suffered by the presence of De Ruyter’s fleet in the Medway, it was natural that a public inquiry into the management of the war should be undertaken. A Parliamentary Committee was appointed in October, 1667, to inquire into the matter. Pepys made a statement which satisfied the committee, but for months afterwards he was continually being summoned to answer some charge, so that he confesses himself as mad to become the hackney of this office in perpetual trouble and vexation that need it least.

At last a storm broke out in the House of Commons against the principal officers of the navy, and some members demanded that they should be put out of their places. In the end they were ordered to be heard in their own defence at the bar of the House. The whole labour of the defence fell upon Pepys, but having made out his case with great skill, he was rewarded by a most unexpected success. On the 5th March, 1667-68, he made the great speech of his life, and spoke for three hours, with the effect that he so far removed the prejudice against the officers of the Navy Board, that no further proceedings were taken in parliament on the subject. He was highly praised for his speech, and he was naturally much elated at his brilliant success.

About the year 1664 we first hear of a defect in Pepys’s eyesight. He consulted the celebrated Cocker, and began to wear green spectacles, but gradually this defect became more pronounced, and on the 31st of May, 1669, he wrote the last words in his Diary:

    "And thus ends all that I doubt I shall ever be able to do with my

    own eyes in the keeping of my journal, I being not able to do it any

    longer, having done now as long as to undo my eyes almost every time

    that I take a pen in my hand."

He feared blindness and was forced to desist, to his lasting regret and our great loss.

At this time he obtained leave of absence from the duties of his office, and he set out on a tour through France and Holland accompanied by his wife. In his travels he was true to the occupation of his life, and made collections respecting the French and Dutch navies. Some months after his return he spoke of his journey as having been full of health and content, but no sooner had he and his wife returned to London than the latter became seriously ill with a fever. The disease took a fatal turn, and on the 10th of November, 1669, Elizabeth Pepys died at the early age of twenty-nine years, to the great grief of her husband. She died at their house in Crutched Friars, and was buried at St. Olave’s Church, Hart Street, where Pepys erected a monument to her memory.

Pepys’s successful speech at the bar of the House of Commons made him anxious to become a member, and the Duke of York and Sir William Coventry heartily supported him in his resolution. An opening occurred in due course, at Aldborough, in Suffolk, owing to the death of Sir Robert Brooke in 1669, but, in consequence of the death of his wife, Pepys was unable to take part in the election. His cause was warmly espoused by the Duke of York and by Lord Henry Howard (afterwards Earl of Norwich and sixth Duke of Norfolk), but the efforts of his supporters failed, and the contest ended in favour of John Bruce, who represented the popular party. In November, 1673, Pepys was more successful, and was elected for Castle Rising on the elevation of the member, Sir Robert Paston, to the peerage as Viscount Yarmouth. His unsuccessful opponent, Mr. Offley, petitioned against the return, and the election was determined to be void by the Committee of Privileges. The Parliament, however, being prorogued the following month without the House’s coming to any vote on the subject, Pepys was permitted to retain his seat. A most irrelevant matter was introduced into the inquiry, and Pepys was charged with having a crucifix in his house, from which it was inferred that he was a papist or popishly inclined. The charge was grounded upon reported assertions of Sir John Banks and the Earl of Shaftesbury, which they did not stand to when examined on the subject, and the charge was not proved to be good.

    ["The House then proceeding upon the debate touching the Election

    for Castle Rising, between Mr. Pepys and Mr. Offley, did, in the

    first place, take into consideration what related personally to Mr.

    Pepys.  Information being given to the House that they had received

    an account from a person of quality, that he saw an Altar with a

    Crucifix upon it, in the house of Mr. Pepys; Mr. Pepys, standing up

    in his place, did heartily and flatly deny that he ever had any

    Altar or Crucifix, or the image or picture of any Saint whatsoever

    in his house, from the top to the bottom of it; and the Members

    being called upon to name the person that gave them the information,

    they were unwilling to declare it without the order of the House;

    which, being made, they named the Earl of Shaftesbury; and the House

    being also informed that Sir J. Banks did likewise see the Altar, he

    was ordered to attend the Bar of the House, to declare what he knew

    of this matter.  ‘Ordered that Sir William Coventry, Sir Thomas

    Meeres, and Mr. Garraway do attend Lord Shaftesbury on the like

    occasion, and receive what information his Lordship, can give on

    this matter.’"—Journals of the House of Commons, vol. ix., p.

    306.—" 13th February, Sir W. Coventry reports that they attended

    the Earl of Shaftesbury, and received from him the account which

    they had put in writing.  The Earl of Shaftesbury denieth that he

    ever saw an Altar in Mr. Pepys’s house or lodgings; as to the

    Crucifix, he saith he hath, some imperfect memory of seeing somewhat

    which he conceived to be a Crucifix.  When his Lordship was asked

    the time, he said it was before the burning of the Office of the

    Navy.  Being asked concerning the manner, he said he could not

    remember whether it were painted or carved, or in what manner the

    thing was; and that his memory was so very imperfect in it, that if

    he were upon his oath he could give no testimony."—.  Ibid., vol.

    ix., p. 309.—" 16th February—Sir John Banks was called in—The

    Speaker desired him to answer what acquaintance he had with; Mr.

    Pepys, and whether he used to have recourse to him to his house and

    had ever seen there any Altar or Crucifix, or whether he knew of his

    being a Papist, or Popishly inclined.  Sir J. Banks said that he had

    known and had been acquainted with Mr. Pepys several years, and had

    often visited him and conversed with him at the Navy Office, and at

    his house there upon several occasions, and that he never saw in his

    house there any Altar or Crucifix, and that he does not believe him

    to be a Papist, or that way inclined in the least, nor had any

    reason or ground to think or believe it."—Ibid., vol, ix., p. 310.]

It will be seen from the extracts from the Journals of the House of Commons given in the note that Pepys denied ever having had an altar or crucifix in his house. In the Diary there is a distinct statement of his possession of a crucifix, but it is not clear from the following extracts whether it was not merely a varnished engraving of the Crucifixion which he possessed:

    July 20, 1666.  "So I away to Lovett’s, there to see how my picture

    goes on to be varnished, a fine crucifix which will be very fine."

      August 2. "At home find Lovett, who showed me my crucifix, which

    will be very fine when done.  Nov. 3.  This morning comes Mr.

    Lovett and brings me my print of the Passion, varnished by him, and

    the frame which is indeed very fine, though not so fine as I

    expected; but pleases me exceedingly."

Whether he had or had not a crucifix in his house was a matter for himself alone, and the interference of the House of Commons was a gross violation of the liberty of the subject.

In connection with Lord Shaftesbury’s part in this matter, the late Mr. W. D. Christie found the following letter to Sir Thomas Meres among the papers at St. Giles’s House, Dorsetshire:—

                              "Exeter House, February 10th, 1674.

    "Sir,—That there might be no mistake, I thought best to put my

    answer in writing to those questions that yourself, Sir William

    Coventry, and Mr. Garroway were pleased to propose to me this

    morning from the House of Commons, which is that I never designed to

    be a witness against any man for what I either heard or saw, and

    therefore did not take so exact notice of things inquired of as to

    be able to remember them so clearly as is requisite to do in a

    testimony upon honour or oath, or to so great and honourable a body

    as the House of Commons, it being some years distance since I was at

    Mr. Pepys his lodging.  Only that particular of an altar is so

    signal that I must needs have remembered it had I seen any such

    thing, which I am sure I do not.  This I desire you to communicate

    with Sir William Coventry and Mr. Garroway to be delivered as my

    answer to the House of Commons, it being the same I gave you this

    morning.

              "I am, Sir,

                        "Your most humble servant,

                                            SHAFTESBURY.

After reading this letter Sir William Coventry very justly remarked, There are a great many more Catholics than think themselves so, if having a crucifix will make one. Mr. Christie resented the remarks on Lord Shaftesbury’s part in this persecution of Pepys made by Lord Braybrooke, who said, Painful indeed is it to reflect to what length the bad passions which party violence inflames could in those days carry a man of Shaftesbury’s rank, station, and abilities. Mr. Christie observes, It is clear from the letter to Meres that Shaftesbury showed no malice and much scrupulousness when a formal charge, involving important results, was founded on his loose private conversations. This would be a fair vindication if the above attack upon Pepys stood alone, but we shall see later on that Shaftesbury was the moving spirit in a still more unjustifiable attack.

Lord Sandwich died heroically in the naval action in Southwold Bay, and on June 24th,1672, his remains were buried with some pomp in Westminster Abbey. There were eleven earls among the mourners, and Pepys, as the first among the six Bannerolles, walked in the procession.

About this time Pepys was called from his old post of Clerk of the Acts to the higher office of Secretary of the Admiralty. His first appointment was a piece of favouritism, but it was due to his merits alone that he obtained the secretaryship. In the summer of 1673, the Duke of York having resigned all his appointments on the passing of the Test Act, the King put the Admiralty into commission, and Pepys was appointed Secretary for the Affairs of the Navy.

    [The office generally known as Secretary of the Admiralty dates back

    many years, but the officer who filled it was sometimes Secretary to

    the Lord High Admiral, and sometimes to the Commission for that

    office.  "His Majesties Letters Patent for ye erecting the office of

    Secretary of ye Admiralty of England, and creating Samuel Pepys,

    Esq., first Secretary therein," is dated June 10th, 1684.]

He was thus brought into more intimate connection with Charles II., who took the deepest interest in shipbuilding and all naval affairs. The Duke of Buckingham said of the King:—

    "The great, almost the only pleasure of his mind to which he seemed

    addicted was shipping and sea affairs, which seemed to be so much

    his talent for knowledge as well as inclination, that a war of that

    kind was rather an entertainment than any disturbance to his

    thoughts."

When Pepys ceased to be Clerk of the Acts he was able to obtain the appointment for his clerk, Thomas Hayter, and his brother, John Pepys, who held it jointly. The latter does not appear to have done much credit to Samuel. He was appointed Clerk to the Trinity House in 1670 on his brother’s recommendation, and when he died in 1677 he was in debt L300 to his employers, and this sum Samuel had to pay. In 1676 Pepys was Master of the Trinity House, and in the following year Master of the Clothworkers’ Company, when he presented a richly-chased silver cup, which is still used at the banquets of the company. On Tuesday, 10th September, 1677, the Feast of the Hon. Artillery Company was held at Merchant Taylors’ Hall, when the Duke of York, the Duke of Somerset, the Lord Chancellor, and other distinguished persons were present. On this occasion Viscount Newport, Sir Joseph Williamson, and Samuel Pepys officiated as stewards.

About this time it is evident that the secretary carried himself with some haughtiness as a ruler of the navy, and that this was resented by some. An amusing instance will be found in the Parliamentary Debates. On May 11th, 1678, the King’s verbal message to quicken the supply was brought in by Mr. Secretary Williamson, when Pepys spoke to this effect:

    "When I promised that the ships should be ready by the 30th of May,

    it was upon the supposition of the money for 90 ships proposed by

    the King and voted by you, their sizes and rates, and I doubt not by

    that time to have 90 ships, and if they fall short it will be only

    from the failing of the Streights ships coming home and those but

    two.....

    "Sir Robert Howard then rose and said, ‘Pepys here speaks rather

    like an Admiral than a Secretary, I and we.  I wish he knows

    half as much of the Navy as he pretends.’"

Pepys was chosen by the electors of Harwich as their member in the short Parliament that sat from March to July, 1679, his colleague being Sir Anthony Deane, but both members were sent to the Tower in May on a baseless charge, and they were superseded in the next Parliament that met on the 17th October, 1679.

The high-handed treatment which Pepys underwent at this time exhibits a marked instance of the disgraceful persecution connected with the so-called Popish plot. He was totally unconnected with the Roman Catholic party, but his association with the Duke of York was sufficient to mark him as a prey for the men who initiated this Terror of the seventeenth century. Sir. Edmund Berry Godfrey came to his death in October, 1678, and in December Samuel Atkins, Pepys’s clerk, was brought to trial as an accessory to his murder. Shaftesbury and the others not having succeeded in getting at Pepys through his clerk, soon afterwards attacked him more directly, using the infamous evidence of Colonel Scott. Much light has lately been thrown upon the underhand dealings of this miscreant by Mr. G. D. Scull, who printed privately in 1883 a valuable work entitled, Dorothea Scott, otherwise Gotherson, and Hogben of Egerton House, Kent, 1611-1680.

John Scott (calling himself Colonel Scott) ingratiated himself into acquaintance with Major Gotherson, and sold to the latter large tracts of land in Long Island, to which he had no right whatever. Dorothea Gotherson, after her husband’s death, took steps to ascertain the exact state of her property, and obtained the assistance of Colonel Francis Lovelace, Governor of New York. Scott’s fraud was discovered, and a petition for redress was presented to the King. The result of this was that the Duke of York commanded Pepys to collect evidence against Scott, and he accordingly brought together a great number of depositions and information as to his dishonest proceedings in New England, Long Island, Barbadoes, France, Holland, and England, and these papers are preserved among the Rawlinson Manuscripts in the Bodleian. Scott had his revenge, and accused Pepys of betraying the Navy by sending secret particulars to the French Government, and of a design to dethrone the king and extirpate the Protestant religion. Pepys and Sir Anthony Deane were committed to the Tower under the Speaker’s warrant on May 22nd, 1679, and Pepys’s place at the Admiralty was filled by the appointment of Thomas Hayter. When the two prisoners were brought to the bar of the King’s Bench on the 2nd of June, the Attorney-General refused bail, but subsequently they were allowed to find security for L30,000.

Pepys was put to great expense in collecting evidence against Scott and obtaining witnesses to clear himself of the charges brought against him. He employed his brother-in-law, Balthasar St. Michel, to collect evidence in France, as he himself explains in a letter to the Commissioners of the Navy:—

    "His Majesty of his gracious regard to me, and the justification of

    my innocence, was then pleased at my humble request to dispence with