Terry F on 21 Nov 2005  •  Link

Field, Edward, of Wapping. Over the course of early 1662 to the end of 1663, a series of accusations and suits he initiated, won and lost, against Pepys and the Navy Board resulted in a parliamentary act of 1664, giving the Board powers of magistracy within the city: www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1663/03/…

For the first events in the Field saga see www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1662/02/… and www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1662/02/…
For Field's win against Pepys
www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1662/11/…
For a guide to the rest
www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1662/02/…

TerryF on 12 Mar 2006  •  Link

Robert Gertz explains why Pepys is especially involved in the Field matter:

"One must admire Ed Field’s style…Very twenty-first century. I would guess he chose to slap Sam with the subpoena as the non-titled and most vulnerable member of the office." www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1662/02/…

Alistair J. Sinclair on 24 Feb 2014  •  Link

In fact, Field pursued Pepys because the rest were 'parliament-men' as Pepys tells us - 24th June 1662:
"At night news is brought me that Field the rogue hath this day cast me at Guildhall in L30 for his imprisonment, to which I signed his commitment with the rest of the officers; but they having been parliament-men, that he hath begun the law with me; and threatens more, but I hope the Duke of York will bear me out."

San Diego Sarah on 7 Feb 2026  •  Link

L&M: Edward Field of Wapping accused the Board of failing to act on the embezzlement of 3 pieces of timber marked with the King's broad arrow, worth £15 by one William Turpin, a laborer, of Wapping].

'Spleen' or 'hopes ... of reward', as Pepys wrote, might well inspire such allegations (*Further Corr.*, p. 4), and Turpin was later acquitted in the Admiralty Court www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1663/03/…

Field, now committed for slander, successfully sued for wrongful arrest on the technical ground that the Board had no authority as magistrates within the city. The diary tells the story. ...

"In October 1662 Field brought an action against Pepys and was awarded £30 damages;
in November 1663 he sued the whole Board and obtained £20 damages plus costs, after demanding an out-of-court settlement of £250.
Meanwhile, on an order of the Duke of York, Batten brought an action in the Exchequer on the original charge of slander and on 3 June 1663 was awarded £10 damages.

This leads to the 1664 act of Parliament, giving the Board powers of magistracy within the city: www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1663/03/…

None of the papers concerning Field have survived amongst Pepys collections.