THE NAVY.
“Our seamen, whom no danger’s shape could fright,
Unpaid, refuse to mount their ships for spite,
Or to their fellows swim on board the Dutch,
Who show the tempting metal in their clutch.”
MARVELL’S _Instructions to a Painter_.
Our literature is singularly deficient in accounts of the official
history of the navy. There are numerous books containing lives of
seamen and the history of naval actions, but little has been written
on the management at home. The best account of naval affairs is to be
found in the valuable “Tracts” of the stout old sailor Sir William
Monson, which are printed in “Churchill’s Voyages.”[188]
Sir William was sent to the Tower in 1616, and his zeal in promoting an
inquiry into the state of the navy, contrary to the wishes of the Earl
of Nottingham, then Lord High Admiral, is supposed to have been the
cause of his trouble.
The establishment of the navy, during a long period of English history,
was of a very simple nature. The first admiral by name in England was
W. de Leybourne, who was appointed to that office by Edward I., in the
year 1286, under the title of “Admiral de la Mer du Roy d’Angleterre,”
and the first Lord High Admiral was created by Richard II. about a
century afterwards. This word “admiral” was introduced into Europe
from the East, and is nothing more than the Arabic _amir-al_[189] (in
which form the article is incorporated with the noun). The intrusive
_d_, however, made its appearance at a very early period. The office of
“Clerk of the King’s Ships,” or “of the Navy,” afterwards “Clerk of the
Acts of the Navy,” is in all probability a very ancient one, but the
first holder of the office whose name Colonel Pasley, R.E.,[190] has
met with, is Thomas Roger or Rogiers, who lived in the reigns of Edward
IV., Edward V., and Richard III. In the third volume of Pepys’s MS.
“Miscellanies” (page 87) is an entry of an order, dated 18th May, 22
Edw. IV. (1482), to the Treasurer and Chamberlain of the Exchequer, to
examine and clear the account of “our well beloved Thomas Roger, Esq.,
Clerk of our Ships.” In Harleian manuscript 433, which is believed to
have belonged to Lord Burghley, there is a register of grants passing
the Great Seal during the reigns of Edward V. and Richard III., and
No. 1690 contains the appointment of “Thomas Rogiers to be clerc of
all maner shippes to the King belonging.” It has no date, but is very
probably a reappointment by Richard III. on his assumption of the crown.
The navy owes much to Henry VIII., who reconstituted the Admiralty,
founded the Trinity House, and established the dockyards at Deptford,
Woolwich, and Portsmouth. The origin of the board of “Principal
Officers and Commissioners of the Navy,” commonly called in later times
“the Navy Board,” dates from his reign. His predecessors had usually
themselves managed whatever naval force they possessed, assisted by
their Privy Council, and by the officer already alluded to, who was
styled “Clerk” or “Keeper” of the King’s ships, but in Henry’s time
the rapidly increasing magnitude and importance of the navy rendered a
more complete and better organized system of management necessary. To
supply this want several new offices were created, and before Henry’s
death we find, in addition to the Lord High Admiral and the Clerk of
the Ships, a Lieutenant (or Vice-Admiral), a Treasurer, a Comptroller,
and a Surveyor of the Navy,[191] as well as a Keeper of the Naval
Storehouses at Erith and Deptford.[192] A few years later we meet with
a “Master of the Ordnance of the Ships.” This last office, which had
been held by Sir William Woodhouse, was granted by Philip and Mary in
1557 to William (afterwards Sir William) Winter in addition to that of
Surveyor, to which he had been appointed by Edward VI.[193]
Each of these officers must have received some sort of instructions for
his guidance, but no general code of rules for the administration of
the navy was framed until after the accession of Elizabeth, who issued,
about 1560, a set of regulations for “the Office of the Admiralty and
Marine Causes,” with the following preamble:[194]--“Forasmuch as since
the erection of the said office by our late dear father Henry VIII.,
there hath been no certain ordinance established so as every officer in
his degree is appointed to his charge: and considering that in these
our days our navy is one of the chiefest defences of us and our realm
against the malice of any foreign potentate: we have therefore thought
good by great advice and deliberation to make certain ordinances and
decrees, which our pleasure and express commandment is that all our
officers shall on their parts execute and follow as they tender our
pleasure, and will answer to the contrary.”
Then follows a list of the several officers at that time forming the
Board, viz.:--
1. The Vice-Admiral.
2. The Master of the Ordnance and Surveyor of the Navy: one officer.
3. The Treasurer.
4. The Comptroller.
5. The General Surveyor of the Victuals.
6. The Clerk of the Ships.
7. The Clerk of the Stores.[195]
The officers were to meet at least once a week at the office on Tower
Hill, to consult, and take measures for the benefit of the navy, and
were further directed to make a monthly report of their proceedings to
the Lord Admiral.
The particular instructions which follow are brief, and by no means
explicit:--
1. The Master of the Ordnance is to take care to make the wants of his
department known to the Lord Admiral in good time, and he is to obtain
the signatures of three of his colleagues every quarter to his books
and accounts, which are then to be submitted to the Court of Exchequer.
2. The Treasurer is to make no payments except on the warrant of at
least two of his colleagues, and his books are to be made up and
certified by a similar number of the officers every quarter.
3. The Surveyor-General of the Victuals is to have his issues
warranted, and his accounts certified in the same manner. He is to take
care always to have in store a sufficient stock of victuals to supply a
thousand men at sea for one month at a fortnight’s notice.
4. The Surveyor, Comptroller, Clerk of the Ships, and Clerk of the
Stores are to see the Queen’s ships grounded and trimmed from time to
time, and to keep them in such order that upon fourteen days’ warning
twelve or sixteen sail may be ready for sea, and the rest soon after.
They are to make a monthly report of the state of the ships to the
Vice-Admiral and the other officers.
5. The Clerk of the Ships is to provide timber and other materials for
building and repairing ships.
6. The Clerk of the Stores is to keep a perfect record of receipts and
issues: the latter to be made on the warrant of at least two of the
officers.
This most interesting and important document is concluded in the
following words:--
“Item, our pleasure and commandment is that all our said officers do
agree in one consultation, and all such necessary orders as shall be
taken amongst them from time to time to be entered in a ledger book for
the whole year, to remain on record.
“The assistants not to be accounted any of our head officers, but yet
to travel in our courses when they shall be thereunto commanded or
appointed by our Lord Admiral or Vice Admiral, or other our officers.
“Item, our mind and pleasure is that every of our said officers shall
see into their fellows’ offices, to the intent that when God shall
dispose His will upon any of them they living may be able, if we prefer
any of them, to receive the same.
“These our ordinances to be read once a quarter amongst our officers,
so as thereby every of them may the better understand his duty, and to
be safely kept in our Consultation house at Tower Hill.”
We will now return to Sir William Monson, who, in his “Naval Tracts,”
answers the question what kind of men are to be chosen for the various
offices. He suggests that “the Comptroller’s and Clerk’s places be
reduced into one, who should be an experienced clerk, _long bred in
the office_.... Provided always, that besides their experience and
abilities to perform the active part of His Majesty’s service, these
men be of good substance and esteem in their estates.”
Such a rule as this would have excluded Pepys from the service, as he
knew nothing of the navy when he was made Clerk of the Acts. He soon,
however, made himself master of his business, and at the time of his
death he was esteemed the greatest authority on naval affairs. In
illustration of Monson’s recommendation, it may be remarked that in
1585 the two offices of Clerk and Comptroller were held by the same
man, William Borough.
The salaries received by the various officers are set down by Monson as
follows:--
_£ s. d._
Treasurer 220 13 4
Comptroller 155 6 8
Surveyor 146 6 8
Clerk 102 3 4[196]
Although the salary of the Clerk of the Acts is here put at over one
hundred pounds, yet the ancient “fee out of the Exchequer,” which was
attached to the office, did not amount to more than _£_33 6_s._ 8_d._
per annum, and this sum is specially set forth in Pepys’s patent.
In July, 1660, the salaries of the officers of the navy (with the
exception of that of the Treasurer) were advanced, Pepys’s being raised
to _£_350.[197] The salary of the Treasurer remained the same, but
this was but a small part of his emoluments, which amounted in all to
several thousand pounds a year.[198]
In the Pepysian Library there is preserved the pocket-book of James
II., from which I have been allowed to extract the following memorandum
of salaries:--
_£ s. d._
Treasurer of the Navy 220 13 4
Comptroller 500 0 0
Surveyor 490 0 0
Clerk of the Acts 350 0 0
Three Commissioners
at _£_500 and one at 350 0 0
Messenger to the Admiralty 20 0 0
When the Duke of Buckingham was assassinated, in 1628, the office of
Lord High Admiral was for the first time put into commission. All the
great officers of State were Commissioners, and Edward Nicholas, who
had been secretary to Lord Zouch and to the Duke of Buckingham, was
appointed Secretary of the Admiralty.
During the Commonwealth both the Admiralty and the Navy Office were
administered by bodies of Commissioners. The offices of Comptroller,
Surveyor, and Clerk of the Acts were abolished, and although the
Treasurer remained, he was not a member of the Navy Board. Robert
Blackburne, who was Secretary to most of the Commissions of the
Admiralty, entertained Pepys after the Restoration with an account
of the doings of the members. He told him that Sir William Penn got
promotion by making a pretence of sanctity; and he then mimicked the
actions of the Commissioners, who, he affirmed, would ask the admirals
and captains respecting certain men, and say with a sigh and a casting
up of the eyes, “Such a man fears the Lord;” or, “I hope such a man
hath the Spirit of God.”[199]
At the Restoration the Duke of York was appointed Lord High Admiral,
and all powers formerly granted to the Admiralty and Navy Board
were recalled.[200] By the Duke’s advice a committee was named to
consider a plan proposed by himself for the future regulation of the
affairs of the navy; and at a court held on July 4th, 1660, three new
commissioners (John Lord Berkeley, Sir William Penn, and Peter Pett)
were appointed to assist the four principal officers. Pett was to be
employed at Chatham dockyard, but the other two had no special duties
assigned to them, although their appointment gave them equal power
with the original members when they attended at the Board. As there
was at this time no half-pay, these appointments were considered as
affording a convenient means of granting a comfortable subsistence to
an admiral when not at sea. Lord Clarendon strongly disapproved of
this innovation, and attributed the idea to Sir William Coventry, who
wished to reduce the power and emoluments of the Treasurer.[201]
In January, 1661–62, James Duke of York issued Instructions which
were founded on those drawn up by the Earl of Northumberland, Lord
High Admiral from 1638 to 1644, and remained in force until the
reorganization of the Admiralty at the beginning of the present century.
It is here necessary to stop a moment for the purpose of noticing
Pepys’s relation to these Instructions. Before the publication of the
“Diary” it was supposed that he was the chief author of the Rules. In
the first Report of the Commissioners of Naval Revision (13th June,
1805) it is distinctly stated that he drew them up under the direction
of the Duke, and even Lord Braybrooke makes the claim in regard to
Pepys’s authorship. This is an error, and Colonel Pasley points out
that at the date of the issue of the Regulations Pepys was by no means
on intimate terms with James. Even two years later (4th March, 1633–34)
he writes, “I never had so much discourse with the Duke before, and
till now did ever fear to meet him;” but what really settles the
matter is, that under date February 5th, 1661–62, Pepys writes: “Sir
G. Carteret, the two Sir Williams, and myself all alone reading of
the Duke’s institutions for the settlement of our office, whereof we
read as much as concerns our own duties, and left the other officers
for another time.” The latter of these important passages was not
printed by Lord Braybrooke, and is only to be found in the Rev. Mynors
Bright’s transcript.[202]
The Navy Office, as we see from the “Diary,” was by no means a happy
family. Each officer was jealous of his fellow, and this jealousy was
somewhat fostered by the duties enjoined. Pepys constantly complains
of the neglect by his colleagues of their several duties, and when
the Duke of York returned from his command at the end of the first
great Dutch war, he found the office in the greatest disorder. This
caused the preparation of the Diarist’s “great letter” to the Duke,
which is referred to in the “Diary,” on November 17th, 1666. A still
more important letter, on the same subject, written by Pepys, but
purporting to come from the pen of the Duke of York, was not prepared
until nearly two years after this.[203] We learn from the “Diary” all
the stages of progress of this letter, the effect it produced when read
out at the office,[204] and the way in which the officers prepared
their answers.[205] In his allusion to this letter, Lord Braybrooke
again does some injustice to James, for he writes: “We even find in the
‘Diary,’ as early as 1668, that a long letter of regulation, produced
before the Commissioners of the Navy by the Duke of York _as his own
composition_, was entirely written by the Clerk of the Acts.”
Colonel Pasley very justly observes, in commenting on this view of the
Lord High Admiral’s position:--“There is nothing unusual or improper
in a minister, or head of a department, employing his subordinates to
prepare documents for his signature, and in this particular instance
it was evidently of importance that the actual author should remain
unknown. Not only was Pepys himself most anxious to avoid being
known in the matter, but it is obvious that the authority and effect
of the reprimand and warning would have been much lessened, if the
other members of the Board had been aware that the Duke had no other
knowledge of the abuses of the office than what Pepys told him. It
seems from the ‘Diary,’ that about 1668 Pepys first obtained the
complete confidence of the Duke--a confidence which he always after
retained and never abused. It is evident from numerous remarks in his
manuscripts that Pepys had the highest respect for James’s opinion in
naval matters. In fact, the mutual respect and friendship of these two
men was equally honourable to both, and it is a mistake to endeavour to
magnify one at the expense of the other.”
The letter referred to is in the British Museum,[206] and as it is of
considerable interest in the life of Pepys, it will be worth while to
devote a small space to a few notes on its contents.
James refers to his former letter of January 2nd, 1661, sent with
the “Instructions,” as well as to that of March 22nd, 1664, and,
after some general remarks, he points out the particular duty of each
officer, finishing with remarks on their joint duties as a Board. The
letter is drawn up in so orderly a manner, and discovers so thorough a
knowledge of the details of the office, that there is little cause for
surprise that the officers suspected Pepys to be the author. Article
by article of the “Instructions” are set down, and following each of
them are remarks on the manner in which it had been carried out. It
is very amusing to notice the tact with which our Diarist gets over
the difficulty of criticizing his own deeds. The Duke is made to say
that although he has inquired as to the execution of the office of
Clerk of the Acts, he cannot hear of any particular to charge him
with failure in his duty, and as he finds that the Clerk had given
diligent attendance, he thinks that the duty must have been done well,
particularly during the time of the war, when, in spite of the work
being greater, the despatch was praiseworthy. Yet he would not express
further satisfaction, but would be willing to receive any information
of the Clerk’s failures which otherwise might have escaped his
knowledge. The officers were informed that an answer was required from
each of them within fourteen days. When these answers were received,
Pepys set to work to write a reply for the Duke to acknowledge.
Matthew Wren, the Duke’s secretary, smoothed down the language of this
letter[207] a little, but it still remained a very stinging reprimand.
These two letters form, probably, the most complete instance of a
severe “wigging” given by the head of an office to his staff.
We will now return to the consideration of the business management of
the navy, and it is necessary for us to bear in mind that the offices
of the Admiralty and of the Navy Board were quite distinct in their
arrangements. The Navy Board formed the Council of the Lord High
Admiral, and the Admiralty was, originally, merely his personal office,
the locality of which changed with his own change of residence, or that
of his secretary. It was at one time in Whitehall, at another in Cannon
Row, Westminster; and when Pepys was secretary, it was attached to his
house in York Buildings.
When, however, there was a Board of Admiralty in place of a Lord High
Admiral, the Admiralty Office became of more importance, and the Navy
Office relatively of less.
According to Pepys, there was some talk of putting the office of
Lord High Admiral into commission in the year 1668,[208] but it was
not so treated until June, 1673, when the Duke of York laid down all
his offices. The Commissioners on this occasion were Prince Rupert,
the three great officers of State, three dukes, two secretaries, Sir
G. Carteret, and Edward Seymour (afterwards Speaker of the House of
Commons); and Pepys was the secretary. Before the commission passed the
Great Seal, the King did the business through the medium of Pepys.[209]
Lords of the Admiralty were occasionally appointed to assist the Lord
High Admiral, or to fill his place while he was abroad. Pepys refers to
such Lords on November 14th, 1664, and in March of the following year
he remarks: “The best piece of news is, that instead of a great many
troublesome Lords, the whole business is to be left with the Duke of
Albemarle to act as Admiral.”[210]
These lords were not properly commissioners, as a commission was only
appointed by the King when the office of Lord High Admiral was vacant,
but they formed a deputation or committee appointed by the Admiral to
act as his deputies.
Pepys was with the Duke of York previous to the reinstatement of the
latter as Lord High Admiral, he returned to the office with his patron,
and he continued secretary until the Revolution, when he retired into
private life. On the Duke’s accession to the throne a new board was
formed and the navy was again raised to a state of efficiency.
Pepys was Clerk of the Acts from 1660 to 1672, that is, during the
whole period of the “Diary,” and three years afterwards. He was
succeeded by his clerk, Thomas Hayter, and his brother John Pepys, who
held the office jointly. As already stated, Pepys was promoted to be
Secretary of the Admiralty in 1672, and continued in office until 1679,
when he was again succeeded for a time by Hayter. We know comparatively
little of him in the higher office, and it is as Clerk of the Acts that
he is familiar to us. With regard to this position it is necessary to
bear in mind that the “so-called” clerk, as well as being secretary,
was also a member of the Board, and one of the “principal officers.”
On one occasion Pepys met Sir G. Carteret, Sir J. Minnes, and Sir W.
Batten at Whitehall, and when the King spied them out, he cried, “Here
is the Navy Office!”[211]
I have already mentioned that the principal officers were superseded
during the Commonwealth. Again, in 1686, they were suspended, and the
offices were temporarily placed under a body of equal commissioners.
The Navy Office, where Pepys lived during the whole period over
which the “Diary” extends, was situated between Crutched Friars and
Seething Lane, with an entrance in each of these places. The ground was
originally occupied by a chapel and college attached to the church of
Allhallows, Barking, but these buildings were pulled down in the year
1548, and the land was used for some years as a garden plot.
In Elizabeth’s reign, when the celebrated Sir William Wynter, Surveyor
of Her Majesty’s Ships, brought home from sea much plunder of
merchants’ goods, a storehouse of timber and brick was raised on this
site for their reception. In course of time the storehouse made way
for the Navy Office, a rather extensive building, in which the civil
business of the navy was transacted until the last quarter of the
eighteenth century. On July 4th, 1660, Pepys went with Commissioner
Pett to view the houses, and was very pleased with them, but he feared
that the more influential officers would shuffle him out of his rights.
Two days afterwards, however, he went with Mr. Coventry and Sir G.
Carteret to take possession of the place; still, although his mind was
a little cheered, his hopes were not great. On July 9th, he began to
sign bills in his office, and on the 18th he records the fact that he
dined in his own apartments.
Pepys’s house was a part of the Seething Lane front, and that occupied
by Sir William Penn was on the north side of the garden, a house which
was afterwards occupied by Lord Brouncker.[212] When the new Somerset
House was finished, the Navy Office was removed there, and the old
buildings in the city were sold and destroyed.
In course of time the work of the navy could not be properly carried
out with the old machinery, and, at last, the Admiralty Office,
which had largely grown in importance, swallowed up the Navy Office.
By an Act of Parliament, 2 William IV., the principal officers
and commissioners of the navy were abolished, as were also the
commissioners for victualling the navy; and all power and authority was
vested in the Admiralty.
I have attempted to give in a few pages as clear an account as possible
of the kind of machinery by which the navy was governed, and I now
propose to pass rapidly in review a few of the points raised by Pepys.
To do more than glance at some of these would require a volume. The
“Diary” is filled with information respecting the office and the petty
squabbles of the officers, and we obtain from it a gloomy notion of the
condition of the navy. In fact, it would be hardly possible to believe
the wretched details if we had them from a less trustworthy authority.
The whole system of money-getting was unsatisfactory in the extreme,
and the officers of the navy were often expected to perform the task
of making bricks without straw. The Treasurer, not being able to get
money from the Treasury, floated bills, and these were often in very
bad repute. We read in the “Diary,” that on August 31st, 1661, the
bills were offered to be sold on the Exchange at 10 per cent. loss;
and on April 14th, 1663, things were even worse, for it was reported
that they were sold at a reduction of 15 per cent. In December of the
latter year Pepys could hardly believe the evidence of his ears when he
learned the “extraordinary good news,” that the credit of the office
was “as good as any merchant’s upon Change;” but these bright days
did not last long. Parliament being very dissatisfied with the way in
which the money was spent by the officers of the navy, appointed, a few
years afterwards, a commission to look into the accounts. This gave
Pepys much trouble, which he did not relish, and we find him busy in
making things as pleasant as possible during the latter part of 1666.
He was in “mighty fear and trouble” when called before the committee,
the members of which appeared to be “in a very ill humour.” Three years
after this he drew up a letter to the Commissioners of Accounts on
the state of the office, a transcript of which, addressed to “H. R. H.
the Lord High Admiral,” and dated January 8th, 1669–70, is now in the
library of the British Museum.[213]
One of the most unsatisfactory divisions of the naval accounts
related to the pursers. Pepys was early interested in the Victualling
Department, out of which he afterwards made much money; and on
September 12th, 1662, we find him trying “to understand the method
of making up Purser’s Accounts, which is very needful for me and
very hard.” On November 22nd, 1665, he remarks that he was pleased
to have it demonstrated “that a Purser without professed cheating
is a professed loser twice as much as he gets.” Pepys received his
appointment of Surveyor-General of the Victualling Office chiefly
through the influence of Sir William Coventry, and on January 1st,
1665–6, he addressed a letter and “New Yeares Guift” on the subject of
pursers to his distinguished friend. He relates in the “Diary” how he
wrote the letter, and how Sir William praised his work to the Duke.[214]
The want of money led to other evils that brought the greatest
discredit upon the Navy Office. The tickets that were given to the
men in place of money, were received with the greatest disgust, and
during the time of the Dutch war the scarcity of sailors was so great
that a wholesale system of pressing was resorted to. We learn that on
June 30th, 1666, Sir Thomas Bludworth, the Lord Mayor, impressed a
large number of persons wholly unfit for sea, and when we are further
told that some of them were “people of very good fashion,” it is not
surprising that Pepys should call the Mayor “a silly man.”
So great was the disgust of the unpaid men, that during the war with
Holland English sailors positively preferred to serve in the ships of
the enemies of England rather than fight for their own country, and
when the Dutch were in the Medway English voices were heard from Dutch
ships.[215]
The seamen were not likely to learn much good from their superiors,
for throughout the whole fleet swearing, drinking, and debauchery were
rampant.[216]
A great part of the evils arose from the appointment of so-called
“gentlemen captains,” men who were unacquainted with maritime affairs,
and treated the sailor captains with contempt, calling them tarpaulins,
a name which now only remains to us in the reduced form of tar. This
evil was well known in the reign of Elizabeth, and was pointed out by
Gibson, who wrote memoirs of the expeditions of the navy from 1585 to
1603,[217] and all readers are familiar with Macaulay’s remarks on
the same subject. Captain Digby, a son of the Earl of Bristol, and one
of these “ornamental officers,” after he had been in the fleet about a
year expressed the wish that he might not again see a tarpaulin have
the command of a ship.[218] These useless captains, who could make
bows, but could not navigate a ship, raised the ire of old Nan Clarges,
otherwise Duchess of Albemarle, who “cried out mightily against the
having of gentlemen captains with feathers and ribbands, and wished the
king would send her husband to sea with the old plain sea captains that
he served with formerly, that would make their ships swim with blood,
though they could not make legs as captains now-a-days can.”[219]
The common custom of employing indiscriminately land officers as
admirals, and naval officers as generals, often led to disasters.
There can be no doubt of the bravery of Monk and Rupert, but when on
shipboard they made many blunders and endangered the safety of the
fleet.
All this confusion caused dire disasters, which culminated in the
presence of the hostile Dutch fleet in our rivers; a national disgrace
which no Englishman can think of even now without a feeling of shame.
While reading the “Diary,” we are overwhelmed with the instances
of gross mismanagement in naval affairs. Many of the men whose
carelessness helped to increase the amount of rampant blundering
were, however, capable of deeds of pluck and bravery. In one of the
engagements with the Dutch, Prince Rupert sent his pleasure-boat, the
“Fanfan,” with two small guns on board, against the Dutch admiral, De
Ruyter. With great daring, the sailors brought their little boat near,
and fired at De Ruyter’s vessel for two hours, but at last a ball did
them so much damage that the crew were forced to row briskly to save
their lives.[220]
Another instance of bravery more deserving of honour is that recorded
of Captain Douglas, of the “Royal Oak,” who had received orders to
defend his ship at Chatham. This he did with the utmost resolution,
but, having had no order to retire, he chose rather to be burnt in his
ship than live to be reproached with having deserted his command. It
is reported that Sir William Temple expressed the wish that Cowley had
celebrated this noble deed before he died.[221]
Pepys tells us that on July 21st, 1668, he went to his “plate-makers,”
and spent an hour in contriving some plates for his books of the King’s
four yards, and that on the 27th of the same month the four plates
came home. They cost him five pounds, and he was in consequence both
troubled and pleased.
No account of the state of the navy in Charles II.’s time, however
short, would be complete without some notice of the four dockyards
(Chatham, Deptford, Portsmouth, and Woolwich), which necessarily
occupy a very prominent place in the “Diary.” Chatham yard was founded
by Queen Elizabeth, and it remained under the special charge of the
Surveyor of the Navy until a Special Commissioner was appointed in
1630. This explains a passage in the “Diary” which has not hitherto
been illustrated. When, in April, 1661, Sir William Batten, the
Surveyor of the Navy, and Pepys were on a visit to Chatham, they went
“to see Commissioner Pett’s house, he and his family being absent, and
here I wondered how my Lady Batten walked up and down, with envious
looks, to see how neat and rich everything is, saying that she would
get it, for it belonged formerly to the Surveyor of the Navy.”[222]
The first Commissioner was Phineas Pett, who died in 1647, and was
succeeded by his son, Peter Pett, who figures so frequently in the
“Diary.” Peter was continued in office at the Restoration, but he was
suspended in 1667 in consequence of the success of the Dutch attack
upon Chatham. He was sent to the Tower and threatened with impeachment,
but, although the threat was not carried out, he was never restored to
office. The appointment remained in abeyance for two years after, when,
in March, 1669, Captain John Cox, the master attendant at Deptford,
was made resident Commissioner at Chatham. In January, 1672, he was
appointed flag captain to the Duke of York, in the “Prince,” without
vacating his office at Chatham, was knighted in April, and killed at
the battle of Solebay in May, all in the same year.
The Hill-house that Pepys visited for the first time on the 8th of
April, 1661, is frequently mentioned on subsequent pages of the
“Diary.”[223] The “old Edgeborrow,” whose ghost was reported to haunt
the place, was Kenrick Edisbury, Surveyor of the Navy from 1632 to
1638. Pepys does not seem quite to have appreciated the story of the
ghost which was told him as he went to bed after a merry supper,
although he affirms that he was not so much afraid as for mirth’s sake
he seemed.[224] In the “Memoirs of English Affairs, chiefly Naval,
from the year 1660 to 1673, written by James, Duke of York,” there is
a letter from James to the principal officers of the navy (dated May
10th, 1661), in which he recommends that the lease of the Hill-house
should be bought by them, if it can be obtained at a reasonable rate,
as the said house “is very convenient for the service of his Majesty’s
Navy.”[225]
After the defeat of the Spanish Armada, Sir Francis Drake and Sir
John Hawkins advised the establishment of a chest at Chatham for the
relief of seamen wounded in their country’s service, and the sailors
voluntarily agreed to have certain sums “defalked” out of their wages
in order to form this fund. In July, 1662, Pepys was told of the abuse
of the funds, and advised to look into the business.[226] At the end
of the same year a commission was appointed to inspect the chest,[227]
but the commissioners do not seem to have done much good, for in 1667
there was positively no money left to pay the poor sailors what was
owed to them.[228] After a time the property became considerable, but
unfortunately the abuses grew as well. In 1802 the chest was removed to
Greenwich, and in 1817 the stock is said to have amounted to _£_300,000
consols.
Deptford dockyard was founded about the year 1513. Pepys made
occasional visits to it, and on one occasion he and Coventry took the
officers (of whose honesty he had not a very high opinion) by surprise.
On June 16th, 1662, he mentions going to see “in what forwardness the
work is for Sir W. Batten’s house and mine.” He found the house almost
ready, but we hear no more of it in the subsequent pages of the “Diary.”
Portsmouth dockyard was established by Henry VIII., but it did not
hold a foremost position until, in the reign of William III., Edmund
Dummer contrived a simple and ingenious method of pumping water from
dry docks below the level of low tide, which enabled Portsmouth for
the first time to possess a dry dock capable of taking in a first-rate
man-of-war. It was Dummer who also designed and constructed the first
docks at Plymouth.[229]
Sir Edward Montague first chose Portsmouth as the place from which to
draw his title, but he afterwards gave the preference to Sandwich.
When Pepys visited Portsmouth in May, 1661, he was very pleased with
his reception by the officers of the dockyard, who treated him with
much respect.
Although the date of the foundation of Woolwich dockyard is not
recorded, it is known to have been of considerable importance in Henry
VIII.’s reign. It figures very frequently in the “Diary.”[230]
Very soon after Pepys was settled in his office, he thought it
advisable to give his attention to the question of the British dominion
of the seas, and he made a special study of Selden’s “Mare Clausum.”
He intended to write a treatise on the rights of the English flag,
and present it to the Duke of York. His reason for doing this was
that it promised to be a good way to make himself known.[231] The
right of making foreign vessels strike their sails to the English flag
had been insisted upon from early times. Selden’s work, in which the
case was strongly urged, met therefore with great favour. Charles I.
made an order in council that a copy should be kept in the council
chest, another in the Court of Exchequer, and a third in the Court of
Admiralty. The upholders of this right triumphed when, in the treaty of
peace with the Dutch (February 9th, 1674), the States-General confessed
that to be a right which before had been styled courtesy, and they
agreed that not only separate ships, but whole fleets should strike
sails to any fleet or ship carrying the king’s flag.[232] John Evelyn
argued strongly in favour of England’s right to the dominion of the sea
in his “Navigation and Commerce” (1674), but he privately confessed to
Pepys that he did not consider there was any sufficient evidence of the
right.[233]
We must now turn our attention to the Diarist’s colleagues at the Navy
Office, and it is here very needful to caution the reader against
putting implicit faith in all the adverse remarks that fill the
“Diary.” It is a curious fact that, with the exception of Sir William
Coventry, scarcely any of the officers come off with a good character.
Pepys held Coventry in profound respect, and was never prouder than
when he received a word of praise from him, and yet we do not obtain a
very favourable idea of the secretary to the Duke of York from other
writers, and in the pages of Clarendon we are presented with a very
adverse character of him.
Those officers with whom Pepys came most in contact were Sir George
Carteret, the Treasurer; Sir Robert Slingsby and Sir John Minnes,
successive Comptrollers; Sir William Batten and Colonel Thomas
Middleton, successive Surveyors; and Sir William Penn and Lord Viscount
Brouncker, additional Commissioners.
Pepys did not hold Carteret in much esteem, and we read constant
disparaging remarks respecting him, such as that on one occasion
he wanted to know what the four letters S. P. Q. R. meant, “which
ignorance is not to be borne in a Privy Counsellor,”[234] but after Sir
George’s son had married a daughter of Lord Sandwich, and he had thus
become a near connection of Pepys’s family, we read of “his pleasant
humour,” and are told that he is “a most honest man.” Sir Robert
Slingsby died in 1661, and therefore does not occupy a very prominent
position in the “Diary,” but Pepys grieved for his loss.
Sir John Minnes was better known as a wit than as a sailor, and it
was he who taught Pepys to appreciate Chaucer. He does not, however,
come off very handsomely in the “Diary.” Captain Holmes called him
“the veriest knave and rogue and coward in the world,”[235] and Sir
William Coventry likened him to a lapwing, who was always in a flutter
to keep others from the nest.[236] Pepys himself, after a few quarrels,
hints pretty plainly that he was an old coxcomb, a mere jester or
ballad-monger, and quite unfit for business.
We are told of Sir William Batten’s corruption and underhand
dealing,[237] of his knavery,[238] and of his inconsequent action
in objecting to lighthouses generally, and then proposing one for
Harwich;[239] but Pepys’s two chief enemies were Sir William Penn and
Lord Brouncker.
Sir William Penn and Pepys were much thrown together, and were
alternately very friendly and very jealous of each other. When Pepys
first associated with Penn, he found him sociable but cunning, and ever
after the pages of the “Diary” are filled with vituperation respecting
this successful admiral. Considering the eminent position of William
Penn the son, as a leader among the Quakers, it is curious to note that
before the Restoration, and when Monk was coming from the North, it was
reported that Penn, the father, had turned Quaker.[240] In May, 1660,
Charles II. wrote to Monk: “I have so good an opinion of General Penn,
that if you had not recommended him to me I would have taken care of
all his interests;”[241] and we cannot doubt that he possessed some
eminent qualities of which we learn nothing in the “Diary.”
Lord Brouncker was a good mathematician in his own day, and his name
has come down with credit to ours as the first President of the Royal
Society, but his portrait as painted by Pepys is far from a pleasing
one--let us hope that it was not a true likeness. He was not a rich
man, for his mother was a gamester, and his father a land-lacking peer,
and he was probably not over particular as to the means he took to
obtain money. We may believe this, however, without agreeing with Pepys
that he was “a rotten-hearted, false man.”[242] Aubrey says that the
following lines were written on his parents:--
“Here’s a health to my Lady Brouncker, and the best card in her hand;
And a health to my Lord her husband, with ne’er a foot of land.”[243]
These were some of the men who helped to carry on the work of the
English navy. It would have been well for the fame of most of them if
Pepys had never put pen to paper.
FOOTNOTES:
[188] Vol. iii. There is a MS. copy of these “Tracts” in the Pepysian
Library.
[189] Thus _Amir-al-moumenim_ is the Arabic for Commander of the
Faithful.
[190] It is to Colonel Pasley’s kindness that I owe the greater
portion of the information contained in this chapter. That officer,
who is Director of Works at the Admiralty, has made large collections
relating to the early history of the administration of the navy, and to
him I am also indebted for the valuable lists in the Appendix, which
he has compiled for me with great labour from original sources. No
such lists were previously in existence. Colonel Pasley has further
kindly supplied me with the notes that follow which are signed in each
instance “C. P.”
[191] Harl. MS. 249.
[192] Letters and Papers, Henry VIII. vol. iv. pt. 1, p. 309.
[193] Add. MS. 5752, fol. 6ᵇ (Brit. Mus.).
[194] State Papers, Dom. Eliz. vol. xv. No. 4. There is a copy of these
regulations in the British Museum, Add. MS. 9295, fol. 17.
[195] The number of principal officers was afterwards fixed at four,
viz.:--1. Treasurer; 2. Comptroller; 3. Surveyor; 4. Clerk of the Acts.
[196] These amounts were made up of the “Fee out of the Exchequer” (or
salary proper); the Allowance for one or more Clerks; “Boat-hire,” and
“Riding Costs” (or travelling expenses).--C. P.
[197] “Diary,” July 7, 1660.
[198] The emoluments of the Treasurer arose chiefly from “poundage” on
all sums passing through his hands. In time of war his profits were
often very large.--C. P.
[199] “Diary,” Nov. 9, 1663.
[200] In the “Succession of the Lords High Admiral,” &c., in Pepys’s
“Naval Collections,” it is stated that on the Restoration the
existing Commissioners of the Admiralty and of the Navy respectively
were temporarily continued in office by order in council of the
31st May, 1660. By a subsequent order (7th July following) a Board
of Principal Officers and Commissioners of the Navy on the ancient
model was appointed, and the Duke of York was directed to revoke the
authority _he_ had granted “unto the former Treasurer, Officers, and
Commissioners of the Navy.” It would appear, therefore, that the
Admiralty Commissioners had been suppressed, and the Duke appointed
Admiral at some intermediate date between the 31st May and the 7th
July, 1660; although, according to Pepys’s list, quoted above, his
patent under the Great Seal bore date the 29th January, 1660–61.--C. P.
[201] Life of Clarendon, 1827, vol. ii. p. 331.
[202] The Regulations were printed in 1717, under the title of “The
Œconomy of His Majesty’s Navy Office.... By an Officer of the Navy.”
[203] _See_ “Diary,” Aug. 16, 21, 23, 25, 30, 1668.
[204] Aug. 29, Sept. 8th, 1668.
[205] Sept. 12, 18, 1668.
[206] “The Duke’s Reflections on the severall Members of the Navy
Boards Duty,” dated “St. James, 28 Aug., 1668.” “The Duke’s Answer to
their severall Excuses,” dated “Whitehall, 25 Nov., 1668” (both in
Harleian MS. 6003).
[207] _See_ “Diary,” Nov. 25, 1668.
[208] “Diary,” Nov. 5, 1668.
[209] Williamson Letters (Camden Society), vol. i. pp. 47, 51, 56.
[210] “Diary,” March 17, 1664–65.
[211] “Diary,” Nov. 2, 1663.
[212] P. Gibson in “Life of Penn,” ii. 616.
[213] Sloane MS. 2751.
[214] The letter, signed “S. Pepyes,” and dated “Greenwich, 1st
January, 1665,” is in the British Museum (Add. MS. 6287). There is also
a copy in Harl. MS. 6003.
[215] The “Englishmen on board the Dutch ships” were heard to say, “We
did heretofore fight for tickets; now we fight for dollars!”--“Diary,”
June 14, 1667.
[216] “Diary,” Oct. 20, 1666.
[217] Gibson was a contemporary of Pepys, and a clerk in the Navy
Office. He was somewhat of a _laudator temporis acti_, and fonder of
drawing his illustrations from events of Queen Elizabeth’s time than
from those of more recent days. See his paper in praise of “Seamen
Captains,” printed in the preface to Charnock’s “History of Marine
Architecture,” pp. lxxiv.-xcv.--C. P.
[218] “Diary,” Oct. 20, 1666.
[219] Jan. 10, 1665–66.
[220] Campbell’s “Naval History,” 1818, vol. ii. p. 165.
[221] Ibid. p. 177.
[222] “Diary,” April 10, 1661. This house (of which there is a plan
in King’s MS. 43) was pulled down in 1703, and the house now occupied
by the Admiral Superintendent of Chatham Dockyard was built in its
place.--C. P.
[223] A plan, with front and side elevations of the Hill-house as it
was in 1698, is in King’s MS. 43. The ground on which it stood is now
included in the Marine Barracks.--C. P.
[224] “Diary,” April 8, 1661.
[225] 1729, p. 23.
[226] “Diary,” July 3, 1662.
[227] Nov. 13, 1662.
[228] June 18, 1667.
[229] Dummer was Assistant to the Surveyor of the Navy when he designed
these works. The improvement of Portsmouth and the foundation of a
dockyard at Plymouth were called for by the political changes arising
out of the Revolution. Previously our great naval wars had been waged
against the Dutch, and the Thames and Medway were then the most
convenient localities for fitting and repairing ships of war. After
the Revolution, the Dutch became our allies, and the French our most
formidable enemies. The naval ports on the Channel then became more
important than those on the east coast.--C. P.
[230] King’s MS. 43 (Brit. Mus.) contains plans of all the dockyards
in 1688 and 1698, and detailed drawings of the principal buildings as
they were in the latter year, as well as of the Navy Office in Seething
Lane, and the Hill-house at Chatham.--C. P.
[231] “Diary,” Nov. 29, 1661.
[232] Campbell’s “Naval History,” 1818, vol. ii. p. 217.
[233] “Evelyn’s Diary,” ed. 1879, vol. iii. p. 414. (Letter dated Sept.
19, 1682.)
[234] “Diary,” July 4, 1663.
[235] “Diary,” Dec. 7, 1661.
[236] Nov. 4, 1664.
[237] June 13, 1663.
[238] May 5, 1664.
[239] Nov. 4, 1664.
[240] Nov. 9, 1663.
[241] Lister’s “Life of Clarendon,” vol. iii. p. 107.
[242] “Diary,” Jan. 29, 1666–67.
[243] Aubrey’s “Lives,” 1813, vol. ii. p. 260.
[Illustration: Decoration]
[Illustration: Decoration]