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.
