was James II's 'establishment about plate carriage and allowance
for captains' tables,'[281] dated 15 July, 1686. The title of the
establishment gives little indication of its real scope; it was
designed to give the Admiralty a better control over ships on foreign
service, and at the same time so to improve the position of the
commanders as to put them beyond the reach of temptations to neglect
their public duty for private gain. The preamble refers to the 'general
disorder' into which the discipline of the navy has 'of late years'
fallen, and especially to the particular evil arising from 'the liberty
taken by commanders of our ships (upon all opportunities of private
profit) of converting the service of our said ships to their own use,
and the total neglect of the public ends for which they, at our great
charge, are set forth and maintained, namely, the annoying of our
enemies, the protecting the estates of our trading subjects, and the
support of our honour with foreign princes.' Commanders are accordingly
forbidden to convey money, jewels, merchandise, or passengers without
the King's warrant; and copies of orders given by admirals or
commanders-in-chief are to be sent to the Secretary of the Admiralty,
as also interim reports of proceedings, and a complete journal at the
end of the voyage. In consideration of these requirements, commanders
are to receive substantial additional allowances 'for the support of
their tables,' ranging from £83 a year to £250 according to the ship's
rate.
The reign of James II was in a peculiar degree a period of the
framing and revising of 'establishments,' and on 13 April, 1686, a
new establishment was made concerning 'volunteers and midshipmen
extraordinary.'[282] This appears to be a confirmation of an earlier
establishment of 4 May, 1676, designed to afford encouragement
'to families of better quality ... to breed up their younger sons
to the art and practice of navigation' by 'the bearing several
young gentlemen, to the ends aforesaid' on board the King's ships
as 'volunteers,' and to provide employment for ex-commanders or
lieutenants by carrying them as 'midshipmen extraordinary' over and
above the ordinary complement assigned to the ship in which they
sailed. Another 'establishment' of the same period is that of November,
1686, for boatswains' and carpenters' sea stores[283].
During the earlier part of Pepys's second Secretaryship, drunkenness
gave a good deal of trouble. For instance, in 1685 the commander of
the _Diamond_ complained that his officers were 'sottish, and unfit
to serve the King,' particularly the gunner, who was 'dead drunk in
his cabin when the powder was to be taken out.'[284] Pepys refers on
5 August, 1684, to 'the generality of that vice, now running through
the whole navy,'[285] and on 4 February, 1685, he writes, 'Till that
vice be cured, which I find too far spread in the navy, both by sea
and land, I do despair of ever seeing his Majesty's service therein to
thrive, and as I have given one or two instances of my care therein
already, so shall I not fail by the grace of God to persevere in it, as
far as I am able, till it be thoroughly cured, let it light where it
will.'[286] In these efforts the Secretary of the Admiralty, was soon
to be powerfully supported by the new King, 'there being no one vice,'
Pepys writes on 15 February, 1685, 'which can give more just occasion
of offence to his Majesty than that of drunkenness, for the restraining
which, as well in the navy as in every other part of the service, I
well know he has immoveably determined to have the severest means used,
nor shall I in my station fail (according to his commands and my duty)
to give my helping hand thereto.'[287]
In connexion with discipline it may be mentioned that even as early as
the Restoration there were labour troubles in the dockyards. In 1663
a separate room was applied for in the new storehouse at Portsmouth
for use as a workroom, 'as seamen and carpenters will never agree to
work together.'[288] In the same year the clerk of the Portsmouth
ropeyard complained of the workmen employed there. By hasty spinning
they finished what they called a day's work by dinner-time, and then
refused to work again till four o'clock. 'Yesterday,' he writes,
'about twenty-five of them left the work to go to the alehouse,
where, I think, they remain.'[289] On 26 March, 1664, the shipwrights
and caulkers at Deptford are complained of because they work very
slowly, and 'give ill language' when pressed to work[290]. Later on,
in January, 1671, Commissioner John Cox appears to have had almost as
much trouble with the master workmen and their instruments in Chatham
dockyard. They were remiss in their attendance, and met his efforts at
their amendment by passive resistance[291].
The two great shipbuilding years of our period were 1666 and 1679—the
first accounted for by the Second Dutch War, and the latter by the Act
of 1677 for thirty new ships to which I have already referred[292].
How much was done during the Restoration period to strengthen the navy
on its material side can be realised by a comparison made in tabular
form in Pepys's _Register of Ships_[293]. In 1660 the navy consisted
of 156 vessels, in 1688 of 173; but a comparison of numbers gives no
adequate idea of relative strength. In 1660 there were only 3 first
rates as against 9 in 1688; second rates, 11 at both dates; third
rates, 16 against 39; fourth rates, 45 against 41; fifth rates, 37
against 2; sixth rates, 23 against 6—shewing that the tendency had been
to build bigger ships. In 1660 there were only 30 ships of the first
three rates, but in 1688 the number was nearly doubled, rising to 59.
Another feature in the table is the development of the fireship and the
yacht[294]. In 1660 there were no fireships in the navy; in 1688, 26.
In 1660 there was one yacht, and in 1688 there were 14. The strength
of the fleet may also be tested in another way, by comparing tonnage,
men, and guns[295]. In 1660 the tonnage was 62,594; in 1688, 101,032.
In 1660 the number of men borne on the sea establishment was 19,551; in
1688,41,940. In 1660 the total number of guns was 4,642; in 1688, 6,954.
In connexion with guns, the important achievement of the period
was the systematising, under the methodical hand of Pepys, of the
arrangements for determining the number and type of the armament of
each rate, and the number of men required to work it. In 1677 he
drew up a 'general establishment' of men and guns[296], and this was
officially adopted as 'a solemn, universal, and unalterable adjustment
of the gunning and manning of the whole fleet[297].'
Let me now sum up briefly our general conclusions.
In the light of the facts which I have endeavoured to set out in
these lectures, the old notion that the naval administration of the
Interregnum was pious and efficient and that of the Restoration immoral
and slack appears crude and unsatisfying. But there is this element
of truth in it—that vigorous efforts for the regeneration of the
navy were to a certain extent rendered abortive by the corruption of
the Court and the lowness of the prevailing political tone. Able and
energetic reformers were baffled by want of money, and this was due
partly to royal extravagance and partly to unsatisfactory relations
with Parliament, which suspected peculation and waste. Discipline
also was undermined by the introduction into the service of unfit
persons, who obtained admission and were protected from the adequate
punishment of their delinquencies by the interest of persons of
quality at Court. Further, an atmosphere was created which enervated
some of the reformers themselves. It is remarkable that in spite of
these drawbacks so much should have been accomplished. The facts and
figures contained in the naval manuscripts in the Pepysian Library
go a long way to justify the claims made by Pepys on behalf of the
administrations with which he himself was connected, and particularly
on behalf of the Special Commission of 1686, which, as he says,
'raised the Navy of England from the lowest state of impotence to
the most advanced step towards a lasting and solid prosperity that
(all circumstances considered) this nation had ever seen it at.'[298]
The characteristic vices of the Restoration, as he describes them,
are all there—'the laziness of one, the private business or love
of pleasure in another, want of method in a third, and zeal to the
affair in most'—but except during the period 1679 to 1684 there was
no abject incompetence and some steady progress. Even Charles II
understood 'the business of the sea,'[299] 'possessed a transcendent
mastery in all maritime knowledge,'[300] and when he was acting as
Lord High Admiral transacted a good deal of naval business with his
own hand[301]. James II was a real authority upon shipbuilding[302],
took an interest in the details of administration[303], recognised the
importance of discipline, and might have restored it if destiny had
not intervened. But much more is to be attributed to the methodical
industry of their great subordinate, and to his 'daily eye and hand'
upon all departments of naval affairs. His vitality of character and
variety of interests appear in the _Diary_, but from his official
correspondence we get something different; for in a document which is
so true to human nature as the _Diary_, it is almost inevitable that
the diarist, although sufficiently self-satisfied, should be quite
unconscious of his strongest points. We should expect business habits
in a Government official, but in his correspondence Pepys exhibits a
methodical devotion to business which is beyond praise. We have here
sobriety and soundness of judgment; a sense of the paramount importance
of discipline, and the exercise of a steady pressure upon others
to restore it in the navy; a high standard of personal duty, which
permits no slackness and spares no pains; and a remarkable capacity
for tactful diplomacy. The decorous self-satisfaction of the _Diary_
has been replaced in later years by professional pride; and an outlook
upon business affairs which had always been intelligent, has become
profoundly serious. The agreeable vices of the _Diary_ suggest the
light irresponsible cavalier. The official correspondence suggests that
Pepys was a Puritan at heart, although without the Puritan rigidity of
practice or narrowness of view. In his professional career he exhibits
precisely those virtues which had made the naval administration of
Blake's time a success—the virtues of the Independent colonels who
manned the administrative offices during the First Dutch War. The
change is that from the rather dissolute-looking young Royalist painted
by Lely about 1669 to the ample wig and pursed official lips of the
later portrait by Kneller[304].
It is not surprising that a man so observant, so experienced, and so
absorbed in the navy should have drawn the moral of the naval history
of his own time. In his _Memoires of the Royal Navy_[305], the only
work which he ever acknowledged[306], Pepys states the essential
'truths' of the 'sea œconomy' of England, which are as valid to-day as
when he wrote them down—'that integrity and general (but unpractised)
knowledge are not alone sufficient to conduct and support a Navy
so as to prevent its declension into a state little less unhappy
than the worst that can befall it under the want of both'; 'that not
much more (neither) is to be depended on even from experience alone
and integrity, unaccompanied with vigour of application, assiduity,
affection, strictness of discipline, and method'; but that what is
really needed is 'a strenuous conjunction of all these.' For himself
he claims due credit, for it was 'a strenuous conjunction of all these
(and that conjunction only)' that redeemed the navy in 1686.
An anonymous admirer[307] wrote of Pepys as 'the great treasurer
of naval and maritime knowledge,' who was 'aequiponderous' to his
colleagues 'in moral, and much superior in philosophical knowledge and
the universal knowledge of the œconomy of the navy.' Modern eulogies
are phrased more simply, but we may fairly claim for this great public
servant that he did more than anyone else under a King who hated 'the
very sight or thoughts of business'[308] to apply business principles
to naval administration.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] _Diary_, 13 June, 1664.
[2] Vols. ii.-v. of these letters have been calendared already, and
calendars of vols. vi. and vii. are in preparation: see the writer's
_Catalogue of Pepysian MSS._ (Navy Records Society's Publications),
vols. ii. and iii.
[3] See Hollond's _Discourses of the Navy_, ed. J. R. Tanner, published
by the Navy Records Society in 1896. This volume also includes
Slyngesbie's _Discourse of the Navy_.
[4] Pepysian MSS., _Miscellanies_, x. 273.
[5] _Naval Tracts_ (ed. M. Oppenheim), iv. 143.
[6] See Appendix to Hollond's _Discourses_, pp. 361-406.
[7] _Diary_, 25 July, 1662.
[8] 'Interim Report of a Committee to inquire into abuses in the
Victualling Department at Portsmouth' (_House of Commons Miscellaneous
Reports_, vol. xxxvi. No. 55).
[9] _Discourses_, p. 131.
[10] _Discourses_, p. 149.
[11] _A Large and Severe Discourse_, &c. (Pepysian MSS.,
_Miscellanies_, x. 226).
[12] _A Large and Particular Complaint against Phineas Pett_, &c.
(Pepysian MSS., _Miscellanies_, x. 257).
[13] _Discourses_, p. 140 _n._
[14] _An Account of Particular Abuses to be proved against the Officers
of the Navy_ (Pepysian MSS., _Miscellanies_, x. 271).
[15] C. N. Robinson, _The British Fleet_, p. 347. There are two
copies of the Report of 1608 in the Pepysian Library—MSS. 2165, and
_Miscellanies_, iii. 355.
[16] _Discourses_, p. 100.
[17] _Naval Tracts_, iv. 147.
[18] _Naval Tracts_, iv. 143.
[19] _Discourses_, p. 154.
[20] Pepysian MSS., No. 2735, p. 65.
[21] Hollond, _First Discourse_ (_Discourses_, p. 78).
[22] _Ib._ p. 67.
[23] On 1 January, 1660.
[24] _Diary_, 31 May, 1669.
[25] _Diary_, 24 April, 1665.
[26] _Diary_, 13 June, 1666.
[27] See for instance a letter of 17 December, 1678, courteously
discouraging a commander from sending his chaplain's sermon to the
Bishop of London for his perusal, as owing to the pressing nature of
his Parliamentary engagements the Bishop might not be 'at leisure to
overlook it' (Pepysian MSS., _Admiralty Letters_, viii. 432).
[28] Pepysian MSS., _Admiralty Letters_, vi. 43.
[29] Historical MSS. Commission, _Fifteenth Report_, Appendix, pt. ii.
p. 153.
[30] A list of Lord High Admirals and Admiralty Commissions
from August, 1628, to March, 1689, is given in Pepysian MSS.,
_Miscellanies_, xi. 211-26.
[31] _Naval Tracts_, iv. 141.
[32] _History of England_ (2 vols. Longman, 1880), i. 218.
[33] Pepysian MSS., _Admiralty Letters_, xii. 71. We also find him
desiring 'for his own satisfaction and use to have an account of the
just rake of all the upright-stemmed ships in his royal navy, and the
present seat of the step of each main-mast' (_ib._ xi. 200); and his
pocket-book in the Pepysian Library (MSS. No. 488) contains a number
of facts about the navy. For his interest in inventions see _Admiralty
Letters_, xii. 91 and xiii. 23.
[34] Pepysian MSS. No. 2866, _Naval Minutes_, p. 175.
[35] _Calendar of State Papers, Domestic_, 1667-8, p. xxxvi; _cf._ also
_Diary_, 8 July, 1668 ('I to the Duke of York to attend him about the
business of the Office; and find him mighty free to me, and how he is
concerned to mend things in the Navy himself, and not leave it to other
people').
[36] _Dictionary of National Biography_, ix. 208.
[37] _Diary_, 30 October, 1662.
[38] _Ib._ 12 April, 1667.
[39] _Calendar of State Papers, Domestic_, 1631-3, p. 546.
[40] _State Papers, Domestic, Charles II_, i. 153.
[41] _Diary_, 31 July, 1661.
[42] _Ib._ 5 November, 1662.
[43] _Ib._ 28 December, 1662.
[44] _Diary_, 10 March, 1663.
[45] _Ib._ 11 March, 1663.
[46] _Ib._ 25 July, 1662.
[47] _Ib._ 5 July, 1664.
[48] _Ib._ 23 May, 1664.
[49] _Ib._ 13 June, 1663.
[50] _Ib._ 4 October, 1667.
[51] _Ib._ 17 July, 1660.
[52] _Diary_, 9 February, 1665.
[53] _Dictionary of National Biography_, iv. 361-2.
[54] _Ib._ xliv. 308-9.
[55] The Commissions of 1653 and 1659 (Pepysian MSS., _Miscellanies_,
xi. 216, 218, 219).
[56] _Dictionary of National Biography_, xlv. 103.
[57] _Ib._ xlv. 102.
[58] H. B. Wheatley, _Samuel Pepys and the World he lived in_, p. 285.
[59] x. 358.
[60] _Report of the Navy Commissioners to the Duke of York_, 17 April,
1669; printed in Charnock, _Marine Architecture_, ii. 406.
[61] _Observations on the Navy and Sea Service_ (_Works_, viii. 336).
[62] _Dictionary of National Biography_, ii. 2-3.
[63] 'So home again, and in the evening news was brought that Sir R.
Slingsby, our Comptroller, (who hath this day been sick a week) is
dead; which put me into so great trouble of mind that all the night I
could not sleep, he being a man that loved me, and had many qualities
that made me love him above all the Officers and Commissioners in the
Navy' (_Diary_, 26 October, 1661).
[64] _Dictionary of National Biography_, xxxvii. 253-4.
[65] _Diary_, 2 January, 1666.
[66] _Ib._ 20 August, 1666.
[67] _Ib._ 7 April, 1663; 5 October, 1663; 6 October, 1666; 4 January,
1669.
[68] _Ib._ 2 April, 1664.
[69] _Dictionary of National Biography_, i. 332.
[70] Pepys joined with Penn in recommending him as 'a most honest and
understanding man, and fit for that place' (_Diary_, 5 October, 1667).
[71] _Calendar of State Papers, Domestic_, 1672, p. 551.
[72] _Dictionary of National Biography_, xii. 363.
[73] _E.g._ 14 September, 1662 ('found him to admiration good and
industrious, and I think my most true friend in all things that are
fair'); 18 November, 1662 ('I am still in love more and more with him
for his real worth'); and elsewhere.
[74] _Dictionary of National Biography_, vi. 470.
[75] _Diary_, 29 January, 1667.
[76] _Ib._ 25 August, 1668.
[77] _Naval Tracts_, iii. 398.
[78] Pepysian MSS. No. 2611, Sir William Penn's _Collections_, p. 4.
[79] These were founded upon earlier instructions issued in 1640 by the
Earl of Northumberland when Lord High Admiral. They were printed in
1717 from an imperfect copy under the title _The Œconomy of H.M.'s Navy
Office_, but there are two complete copies in the Pepysian Library, one
among _Naval Precedents_ (No. 2867, pp. 356-98) and the other in Sir
William Penn's _Collections_ (No. 2611, pp. 127-90).
[80] H. B. Wheatley, _Samuel Pepys and the World he lived in_, p. 138.
[81] _Diary_, 31 October, 1665.
[82] _Ib._ 31 May, 1667.
[83] _Ib._ 6 February, 1665.
[84] _Diary_, 16 September, 1664.
[85] _Ib._ 3 April, 1663.
[86] _Ib._ 21 July, 1664; 4 February, 1667; 2 August, 1667.
[87] _Ib._ 16 July, 1664; 10 September, 1664; 16 March, 1665; 31
October, 1667; 27 December, 1667.
[88] _Ib._ 25 May, 27 June, 14 August, and 10 November, 1666.
[89] _Ib._ 27 November, 1664; 28 January, 1665; 28 May, 1669.
[90] _Ib._ 17 July, 1667; 14 August, 1667; 3 February, 1668.
[91] _Ib._ 28 November, 1664; 9 December, 1664; 29 March, 1665.
[92] _E.g._ _Ib._ 5 January, 2 May, 27 May, 3 June, 10 June, 22 June,
18 July, 21 July, 1664; 21 March, 1665; 21 February, 1668; 24 February,
1668.
[93] _Ib._ 1 January, 1669.
[94] _Ib._ 10 December, 1663. _Cf._ 5 January, 10 September, 24
September, and 12 October, 1664, where the same mental attitude is
indicated.
[95] Pepysian MSS., _Miscellanies_, xi. 221, and _Calendar of State
Papers, Domestic_, 1673, p. 415.
[96] The Duke's presence 'behind the throne' is confirmed by a number
of references in the _Admiralty Letters_ (_e.g._ ii. 60, 90; iii. 231,
234, 235, 301, 319, 329, 331).
[97] Cobbett, _Parliamentary History_, iv. 587.
[98] The substance of this speech is reported in Grey's _Debates_ (iv.
115), but there is in the Pepysian _Miscellanies_ (ii. 453) a copy of
notes for this or some other speech, entitled 'Heads for a Discourse in
Parliament upon the business of the Navy, Anno 1676,' which, though it
differs from the report, does not do so more widely than what an orator
actually says often differs from what he intended to say. An abstract
is given in _Catalogue of Pepysian MSS._, i. 48.
[99] Pepysian MSS., _Admiralty Letters_, v. 345.
[100] 29 Car. II, c. 1.
[101] _Dictionary of National Biography_, xliv. 363.
[102] Pepysian MSS., _Admiralty Letters_, ix. 282.
[103] Pepysian MSS., _Miscellanies_, ii. 411. There are two copies of
their commission in the Pepysian Library (_Naval Precedents_, p. 236,
and _Miscellanies_, ii. 413).
[104] _Dictionary of National Biography_, ix. 17.
[105] _Dictionary of National Biography_, xix. 1.
[106] _Ib._ xxxii. 383.
[107] Pepysian MSS., No. 2866, _Naval Minutes_, p. 76.
[108] Pepys, _Memoires of the Royal Navy, 1679-88_ (Oxford reprint), p.
6.
[109] _Ib._ p. 18.
[110] Pepys, _Memoires of the Royal Navy, 1679-88_ (Oxford reprint), p.
9.
[111] _History of England_ (Longmans, 2 vols., 1880), i. 146.
[112] It is often said that the office of Lord High Admiral was
restored to the Duke; but this is clearly not the view of Pepys
(Pepysian MSS., _Miscellanies_, xi. 225).
[113] Materials for the history of this experiment are to be found
in a manuscript volume in the Pepysian Library entitled, _My Diary
relating to the Commission constituted by King James II, Anno 1686, for
the Recovery of the Navy, with a Collection of the Principal Papers
incident to and conclusive of the same_ (Pepysian MSS., No. 1490).
[114] Pepys's 'Proposition' is printed in his _Memoires_ (pp. 18-23);
and further details of the exact distribution of the £400,000 a year
are given in a paper entitled 'Measures supporting my Proposition'
(Pepysian MSS., No. 1490, p. 123). See also the writer's Introduction
to the Oxford reprint of the _Memoires_.
[115] Pepysian MSS., No. 1490, p. 131.
[116] _Ib._ p. 145.
[117] Pepysian MSS., No. 1490, p. 16.
[118] The precise nature of these does not transpire, but Deane had
stated that, in justice to his family, he could not value his whole
time at less than £1000 a year (_Ib._ p. 139). The King's first offer
was £500.
[119] _Ib._ p. 17.
[120] Pepysian MSS., _Admiralty Letters_, xv. 470.
[121] _Ib._ xv. 472.
[122] _Dictionary of National Biography_, xliv. 364.
[123] A. W. Tedder, _The Navy of the Restoration_, p. 41.
[124] _Ib._ p. 41 _n._
[125] _State Papers, Domestic, Charles II_, cii. 123.
[126] _Calendar of State Papers, Domestic_, 1665-6, p. 189. See also
_ib._ 1666-7, p. 233, and _Diary_, 20 June, 1667.
[127] _Ib._ 1665-6, p. xxxix.
[128] _Ib._ 1666-7, p. 228, and 1665-6, p. 189.
[129] Even in 1658 the Navy Commissioners had been obliged to buy at
from 30 to 50 per cent. above the market price (M. Oppenheim, _The
Administration of the Royal Navy_, 1509-1660, p. 351).
[130] _Calendar of State Papers, Domestic_, 1664-5, p. 353.
[131] _State Papers, Domestic, Charles II_, ccxlii. 56; _Calendar of
State Papers, Domestic_, 1667-8, p. 563.
[132] _Calendar of State Papers, Domestic_, 1667, p. 454.
[133] _Cf._ _ib._ 1667-8, p. 455 and 1666-7, p. 233.
[134] _Diary._
[135] Pepysian MSS., No. 2589, pp. 1-3.
[136] Another statement of the expenditure of the navy during the
Second Dutch War is to be found in a letter from the Navy Board to
the Lord Treasurer, dated 24 September, 1666, which gives for the
information of Parliament, just then about to meet, an estimate for the
period 1 September, 1664, to 29 September, 1666. This calculation is
given in the writer's _Catalogue of Pepysian MSS._, i. 102.
[137] Pepysian MSS., No. 2589, p. 118.
[138] Ranke, _History of England_, iii. 449-50; see also the _Diary_.
[139] _State Papers, Domestic, Charles II_, ccxiii. 65.
[140] Penn, _Memorials of Sir William Penn_, ii. 528; _Calendar of
State Papers, Domestic_, 1667, p. 420. On Coventry's connexion with
the scheme see _Diary_, 19 August, 1667. Particulars of it are given
in _Catalogue of Pepysian MSS._, i. 104. With this calculation should
be compared a detailed estimate of the annual charge of 'his Majesty's
navy in harbour' for the year 1684 (Pepysian MSS., No. 2867, _Naval
Precedents_, p. 402), the substance of which is given in _Catalogue of
Pepysian MSS._, i. 111. The total is £135,084. 6_s._ 11_d._, but this
is exclusive of ships at sea.
[141] Estimated at the end of the war as £1,100,000 (_Calendar of State
Papers, Domestic_, 1667, p. 471).