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