Chapter XIV: The Last Years of the Stuart Dynasty (1)

The main sources of information for the period included in this chapter are Pepys' _Memoirs relating to the State of the Royal Navy of England for the Ten Years determined December 1688_, and the Diary of his Journey to Tangier, included in Mr. Smith's edition of his _Letters_. For the naval events of the Revolution we possess the Memoirs of Lord Torrington, edited by Mr. Laughton for the Camden Society.

The fourteen years between the conclusion of the third Dutch war and the Revolution of 1688 saw no new war. The operations against the pirates of the Barbary coast have already been described. The events of this interval were first the fall of the navy to a disgraceful pitch of weakness through pure corruption and mismanagement; then its restoration to a sounder condition through the efforts of King James II.; and lastly, those intrigues which deprived the king of his fleet when the country rose upon him in the autumn of the year of the Revolution. There was, it is true, an alarm of war in 1678, and some show of preparation for hostilities was made. It was directed against France. The country would have been willing enough to see itself engaged in a war with France. It feared the ambition of the French king, and would, moreover, have considered hostilities directed against him as a guarantee against Roman Catholic intrigues at home. Commercial disputes also embittered the relations of the two countries. The third Dutch war had been very disastrous to English shipping. The Dutch, having been compelled to suspend regular commerce, had taken to privateering on a large scale, and in the general inefficiency of our management little had been done to check them. Thus our trade had suffered severely. At the close of the war the Government had allowed English shipowners to buy foreign-built vessels, contrary to the provisions of the Navigation Act. As the war between France and Holland went on for years after England had made peace, it is probable that many Dutch owners took the opportunity to make collusive sales. They, in fact, pretended to sell the vessels when they were only transferring them to an English name, in order to secure protection against French privateers. The French, at anyrate, insisted in treating the transfer of Dutch-built vessels as a mere manoeuvre, and in considering them lawful prize. These captures caused great irritation in England, and went to strengthen the general desire for war. But the king would not quarrel with his cousin--at least he would not go further than was necessary to induce the King of France to continue his allowance. The war scare passed over, and the navy was left to rot to within a measurable distance of complete destruction.

It would indeed have been wonderful if a service requiring at once the regular expenditure of money and a constant vigilant administrative control had not fallen into a thoroughly bad condition during the last years of the reign of Charles II. The king never had enough money, and he grew daily less capable of controlling his own Government. His health was worn out for some years before his death, and he could no longer give constant attention to the affairs of the State, even if he had been willing to make the effort. It is true that the king was not left wholly without pecuniary assistance from Parliament. He obtained one grant by consenting to pass the Test Act, and in 1677 Parliament gave him £700,000 to pay for the construction of thirty men-of-war. But these aids were entirely insufficient. The Dutch war, adding to the burdens already upon him, had swollen the king's debt to no less a sum than four millions sterling. The closing of the Exchequer had made it certain that the king could expect no assistance from the commercial class. Thus he suffered from continual penury. It may be allowed that it was his own fault he was not better supplied. It cannot be denied that even what he had, the fixed revenue of the Crown and the pensions doled out to him irregularly by the King of France, was wasted. At a time when he was compelled to reduce the salaries of the servants of his household, and when his troops and his fleet were being starved for want of money, the Duchess of Portsmouth, and other less favoured instruments of his pleasures, drew a very large sum of money. It is a matter of record that they received among them not much less than half of the sum--namely, £400,000 a year--estimated as necessary for the support of the navy in peace. It would be rash indeed to affirm that their gains were limited to the sums of money entered into the accounts. When a treasury is made a prey to harpies of both sexes of this order, there is hardly any limit to be placed to their rapacity. Subordinate officers will profess to have received money for their departments, when, in point of fact, it has really passed into the hands of some courtier who has secured their compliance by a bribe. Pepys, indeed, in his _Memoirs relating to the State of the Royal Navy of England for Ten Years determined December 1688_, asserts that, during the worst time of King Charles's reign, the Lord High Treasurer did annually pay out £400,000 for the service of the navy. But Pepys was a strong Royalist, and was writing in 1690, at a time when all partisans of the House of Stuart had the most powerful motive for making out a case for the dethroned royal family; and then Pepys could only know that the money was formally paid for that service, and not whether it ever reached the hand of the naval officers for any other purpose than to be immediately returned, in part, if not in whole, to the courtiers and the favourites and their agents.

Pepys' evidence is, at anyrate, conclusive as to this, that whoever stole the money, or whatever sums were set apart for the service of the navy, the king's ships did, during the last years of his reign, sink into abject weakness. Between 1672 and 1679 the king took the administration of the navy into his own hands. In practice, this meant that he was keeping the office of Lord High Admiral open for his brother, if ever the anti-papal excitement of the time made it safe to restore the duke to his office. The king himself could not, even if he would, give his navy the constant attention required from the chief of an administration. What the king could not do was not done at all. The Duke of York, though excluded from office by the Test Act, appears to have exercised a species of informal control over the navy until 1679, but by that year the country had been worked into a paroxysm of madness by the supposed discovery of the Popish Plot in 1678, and the duke was believed to be in so much danger that the king persuaded him to retire to the Netherlands. In the same year, Pepys, who had continued to hold his post on the Navy Board, was imprisoned in the Tower, on a charge of being a convert to Popery and a favourite with the Papists. He lost his office, and had no further connection with the navy for five years. The king, who lived in terror while the Popish Plot was still believed to be a real danger, and whose health began to fail about this time, rid himself of even the appearance of trouble in connection with his navy. He appointed a Commission to discharge the whole office of the Lord High Admiral; in other words, he suspended both the office of Lord High Admiral and the Navy Office, and gave the whole of the administration of the service to such a Board as had ruled the navy for Charles I. between the death of the Duke of Buckingham and the nomination of the Earl of Northumberland.

Under the control of these men the navy was all but destroyed. It would be perhaps unjust to lay the blame entirely on their deficiencies. The king had not the money required to pay the expenses of his Government, and what he had was pilfered on all hands by servants of all ranks and both sexes. But if they cannot be made to bear the blame alone, they certainly must share it. It is significant that during the years this Commission lasted no accounts were kept, nor could any afterwards be obtained. Where no accounts were kept, it was doubtless because nobody concerned ventured to say what had really been done with the money: that it was not spent in maintaining the fleet is certain. When Pepys was committed to prison in 1679, the king had in commission seventy-six ships, carrying 12,040 men. Those of the king's ships that were not in commission could, it was estimated, be put to sea at an expense of £50,000 sterling. The dockyards contained stores to the value of £60,000 over and above the six months' provisions of war served out to the ships in commission. The thirty ships designed to be built out of the money granted by Parliament in 1677 were all in course of construction, and eleven of them had just been launched.

This picture of the state of the navy in 1679 is possibly much flattered. Pepys asserts that it must be accepted as trustworthy, because in 1679 a report was made to the House of Commons which shows the condition of the navy at the time, and is identical with his account of it. He does not add that the report to the Commons was made by the navy officers, and was not checked. It is probable that there were a great many suppressions in Pepys' account. He had made out a plausible case for the Navy Office in 1668, when it was found necessary to throw dust in the eyes of the House of Commons. Yet at that very time he was drawing up a confidential statement for the benefit of the Duke of York, in which he shows that the members of the Board neglected their duty, that the Lord High Admiral's instructions of 1661-62 were disregarded, and that the department was in need of a thorough overhaul if it was to escape falling into total inefficiency. There was exactly the same reverse to the fine portrait which Pepys drew of the navy in 1679. Yet, though it was wastefully maintained and suffered from many defects, there at least was a navy in that year. Five years later there was hardly any navy in existence. Twenty-four ships only were in commission. They were all small, and carried among them only 3070 men. The ships not in commission were so out of repair, not through service, but through pure neglect, that £120,000 would have been required to fit them for sea; while the whole of the stores in the magazines hardly amounted in value to £5000. The state of the thirty new ships in hand when Mr. Pepys was imprisoned was worse even than that of the old vessels. Most of them had never even been in commission, and yet they were ready to sink at their moorings from pure rottenness.

"The greatest part nevertheless of these _Thirty Ships_ (without having ever yet lookt out of _Harbour_) were let to sink into such Distress, through _Decays_ contracted in their _Buttocks_, _Quarters_, _Bows_, _Thickstuff_ without _Board_, and _Spirkettings_ upon their _Gun-decks_ within; their _Buttock-Planks_ some of them _started_ from their _Transums_, _Tree-nails_ burnt and rotted, and _Planks_ thereby become ready to drop into the _Water_, as being (with their neighbouring _Timbers_) in many places perish'd to _powder_, to the rendring them unable with safety to admit of being _breem'd_, for fear of taking _Fire_; and their whole _sides_ more disguised by _Shot-boards_ nail'd, and _Plaisters_ of _Canvas_ pitch'd thereon (for hiding their _Defects_, and keeping them above _Water_) than has been usually seen upon the coming in of a _Fleet_ after a Battle; that several of them had been newly reported by the _Navy-Board_ itself, to lye in danger of _sinking_ at their very _Moorings_."

The breeming or, according to modern spelling, breaming of a ship was the act of cleaning the bottom by burning off the ooze, sedge, shells, or seaweed which adhered to it during a long stay in harbour. When vessels were not coppered, they easily became foul. The fire, applied by faggots of wood or reed, melted the ship's coating of pitch, and whatever adhered to it could easily be scraped off, and the ship covered with a new coating of tar or tallow. Of course, if the ship had been allowed to rot until she was in the condition of tinder, this could not possibly be done without danger. This was the return for £670,000 of money voted by the Parliament and actually paid into the hands of the Treasurer of the Navy. "The strict provision made by Parliament, the repeated injunctions of His Majesty, the orders of the then Lord Treasurer and ampleness of the helps purposely allowed (to the full of their own demands and undertakings) for securing a satisfactory account of the charge and build of the said ships," were all useless. Such was the state of the navy when the king, just before his death, in February 1685, resumed the administration into his own hands, and decided to govern it once more by the advice of his brother, the Duke of York. The duke brought back Pepys, who was living in retirement at Windsor. Nothing could be done during the brief remainder of the life of Charles II., and not much was effected during the first year of King James's reign. In the January of 1686 the condition of the fleet, if not worse, was as bad as ever. Ninety thousand pounds had been spent on the repair of ships, and yet the navy officers were demanding as much more before they could undertake to put the ships in a state of repair. Not a quarter of the ships were graved, that is, docked and cleaned so as to be fit for service. During Monmouth's rebellion the navy could hardly contrive to fit out a squadron; nothing had been done to the thirty new ships, and the magazines of stores were empty. It was clear that, unless strong measures were taken, the navy would perish utterly. King James was certainly not a great commander, and he was a very bad king. Still he had so far a genuine interest in the navy, and the feelings becoming an English king, that he was willing to save the fleet. To say that he did the work himself would be going too far, but he did decide that it should be done. He chose the men who could do it, and he supported them in the discharge of their duty.

Following the precedent set by his grandfather, James I., after the report of the Commission in 1618, the king decided to appoint a special Commission. He did not entirely dismiss the members of the existing naval administration, but he added four to their number. These four were Sir Anthony Deane, the well-known shipbuilder, Sir John Berry, the naval officer who has been mentioned already as serving against the French and Dutch in the West Indies, Mr. Hewer, and Mr. St. Michael. All four, if we may believe his word, were chosen on the recommendation of Pepys. The real power was in the hands of the new members. The old officers, Lord Falkland, Sir J. Tippets, Sir Richard Haddock, and Mr. Southerne, were set apart to endeavour to reduce the accounts for the past five years into some sort of order. They appear to have had no other share in the administration. Lord Falkland, indeed, remained Treasurer of the Navy, but in that capacity he would have little to do except receive money from the Lord High Treasurer, and pass it on to the other departments. Sir P. Pett and Sir R. Beach, who were on the old Commission, were employed only at Chatham and Portsmouth. Sir John Narbrough and Sir J. Godwin, also members of the old Commission, served on the Board with Deane, Berry, and Hewer. St. Michael was commissioner only at Deptford and Woolwich. Pepys did not resume his seat on the Navy Board, but was appointed Secretary to the Admiralty, which, as the king kept the office of Lord High Admiral to himself, meant that for all practical purposes the government of the navy was in his hands. The Commission was appointed in April 1686, and was determined on the 12th of October 1688. During these two years the Commissioners brought the navy into the condition which enabled it to be used as an effective instrument after the Revolution. They did not succeed, and they did not pretend to have succeeded, in removing all the defects caused by so many previous years of corruption and mismanagement.

The sum for which the Commission undertook to do this work was £400,000 a year. It received the money for two years and a half, from the 25th March 1686 till the 12th of October 1688. The total sum received was £1,015,384, 12s. The money actually spent on the navy was not more than £310,000 a year, leaving a balance of £307,570, 9s. 4d. to the credit of the Commissioners. Pepys records, not without a certain wistful regret, that if the work had been done by contract, the Commissioners would have put all this money into their own pockets, while as a matter of fact they got nothing but their modest salaries. It would be pedantic to demand a too minute accuracy from Pepys or any Englishman of his generation on such a point. Yet it does seem to be the case that the work was thoroughly done. When the Commission was determined in October 1688, amid the fall of the Stuart dynasty, there were 92 ships of the navy in commission, carrying 15,038 men. Its total force was 173 vessels, of which 9 were of the first rate, 11 of the second, 39 of the third, 41 of the fourth, 2 of the fifth, and 6 of the sixth. The fireships were 26 in number, and there were 14 yachts; a few bombs hoys, hulks, ketches, and smacks made up the remainder. It was estimated that 42,003 men were required to man these ships, and that they carried 6930 guns. It is the boast of Pepys that at this date all the officers and men of the navy were paid, nothing was owing to the contractors, and the magazines were full to overflowing of stores. There is a curious similarity between the fortunes of James II. and his father. Both took a keen interest in their navy, both did much to strengthen it, and it was the instrument which mainly served in the ruin of both. Northumberland threw the navy of Charles I. into the hands of Parliament, and thereby gave it the means of cutting the king off from his friends over the sea. The navy went over to the side of the Revolution in 1688, and was henceforth successfully engaged in preventing the return of King James to England.

Great part of the work of the Commission consisted in reducing administrative anarchy to order. The accounts were brought into a proper condition mainly by Hewer. But there was another part of its work, or of the work done through it by the king, which was designed to effect a much-needed reform in the conduct of the naval officer. It has been said already that the king's captains had from old been in the habit of adding to their salaries by carrying cargoes for money. They also seem to have taken money for carrying English merchants abroad. The Parliament had endeavoured to check these practices, which lent themselves to obvious abuses, by its orders in 1652. Under the Council of State and the Protectorate they were kept down by vigilant administrative control. But during the progressive degradation of the reign of Charles II. they had revived till they became a crying abuse. During the later years of the king they reached an intolerable point. Whether they were worse among the ships appointed to protect the trade in the Mediterranean than elsewhere is perhaps doubtful. But for this squadron we have again the testimony of Pepys. In 1683 the king, being now absolutely at the end of his resources, decided to withdraw the costly garrison of Tangier. A squadron was sent out under the command of George Legge, Lord Dartmouth, with orders to bring back the troops and "destroy them all." Pepys accompanied Dartmouth, and the journal of his voyage has been preserved. It contains an astonishing picture of the condition of the squadron then serving in the Straits. This force was commanded by Arthur Herbert, who had been left in command in the Mediterranean by Narbrough. There is a general consensus of opinion among all who knew him, that this man, though personally very brave, was self-indulgent, debauched, and unscrupulous. Under his fostering care the vices of the naval life of the time reached their height. Though he had gone to sea young, he ranks among the gentlemen captains and not among the Tarpaulins. The character of a gentleman captain was this, that he exercised his command for his own pleasure and profit. The Tarpaulin captain or admiral was often more of a gentleman by birth than has commonly been supposed. Yet he was of humbler birth than such a man as Herbert, and the tradition of his class was more wholesome. The difference between them was, that the gentleman captain came of that class of Cavaliers who after the Restoration consoled themselves for the misfortunes of the Civil War by settling like a swarm of bloodsuckers on the Treasury; or, if his family were not Cavaliers, he at least endeavoured to obtain that distinction by assuming what the satirist Butler, himself a Cavalier of the Cavaliers, called the hypocrisy of vice of the time. The Tarpaulin captains were those men whom Pepys had once seen, from Penn downwards, sober, valiant, and loyal to their duty, and whom he saw at Tangier and Cadiz imitating the excesses of the prevailing class.

It is impossible to dismiss the picture drawn by Pepys as a mere exaggeration. It is too consistent with everything else we know. From his account, then, we learn that the squadron at Cadiz was managed for the personal profit of Herbert and his friends. A great part of our trade at Cadiz consisted in the bullion imported by the Spaniards from their silver mines in South America. According to Spanish law, this ought not to have been exported, but as a matter of fact it was generally transferred at sea to Dutch and English vessels. Merchants naturally desired to send home cargoes of such value in armed ships as a security against pirates. They were glad to find a king's ship that would take it, and were ready to pay the captain a percentage. As no captain could sail without leave of the commander of the squadron, it will be seen what opportunities this system placed in Herbert's way. No officer could get a cargo except by sharing the profits with him. The captain who would toady and pay, who would attend the admiral "at his rising and going to bed, combing his periwig, putting on his coat as the king is served," got a cargo. The captain who would not, did not. Herbert in the meantime lived on shore, keeping a harem, "his mistresses visited and attended one after another as the king's are." Drunkenness seems to have been, if Pepys is to be believed, one of the least vices of the squadron.

It is probable that the report Pepys brought back from Tangier had much to do with persuading the king to make an effort to cleanse the navy of these excesses by so improving the pay of his captains as to raise them above the temptation of seeking dishonourable profit. Bad pay is certainly no excuse for the conduct described by Pepys, but an officer who could not live on his salary was strongly tempted to make the deficiency good by irregular means. The king decided to make an allowance to his captains calculated on a very liberal scale. This is the list as given by Pepys.

A Table of the Annual Allowance of a Sea-Commander of each Rate.

Rate. Present Wages. Present Victualling. Additional Grant for
Table.
£ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d.
1 273 15 0 12 3 4 250 0 0
2 219 0 0 12 3 4 200 0 0
3 182 0 0 12 3 4 166 5 0
4 136 10 0 12 3 4 124 5 0
5 109 10 0 12 3 4 100 0 0
6 91 10 0 12 3 4 83 0 0

It will be seen that this grant of table-money had the effect of nearly doubling the pay of every captain on active service. The object of the king was to make it from henceforward unpardonable in any naval officer to neglect his duty for the sake of profit. He did not confine himself merely to increasing the salaries, but promised that in future the captains engaged in service against his enemies should have the whole benefit of the prizes taken from the enemy. They were to be "divided between the commander or commanders of such our ship or ships (with their officers and companies) as were concerned in the chase and capture of the said prizes according to the law and practice of the sea." In conclusion, the king promised to give special rewards to such officers as gave "any signal instances of their industry, courage, conduct, or frugality." This order was issued by the king at Windsor, on the 16th of July 1686.

It was not without reason that the king thought he had attached his navy firmly to himself, and that he could rely implicitly on its loyalty. Yet before two years were past his fleet was turning against him, and a few months later it failed him no less completely than his army. The navy, no doubt, moved with the nation, but the men in command might have been expected to prove personally loyal to the king, who had treated them with signal kindness. Yet, as a body, and with few exceptions, they deserted him in his need. Their motives were no doubt similar to those of other Englishmen of the time. Some were frightened by the favour he showed to the Roman Catholics, and rebelled out of zeal to the Church. Others came, like Churchill, to the conclusion that in the long-run no man who was not prepared to become an apostate could expect favour from the king. There were certainly not a few who remained perfectly loyal till they discovered the whole extent of the king's danger, and who then hastened to make their peace with his enemies. The sailors as a class were, as they had been in the Civil War, strongly Protestant. The majority of them still came from the southern and eastern counties, the most Puritan parts of England. So soon as the opposition to the king's Government became general, and leaders were found to appeal to the sailors, there could be very little doubt that the fleet would go with the rest of the country.

During 1687 and the early months of 1688 the king was steadily alienating the mass of his subjects. Sailors felt as other men did, and they were conspicuous in the crowd which applauded the acquittal of the Seven Bishops. There was no want of leaders to bring them over to the side of those who were preparing to upset the king's Government. The two chiefs of the sailors who played conspicuous parts in the Revolution were gentlemen captains. Edward Russell was the grandson of the Earl of Bedford, and the first cousin of the Lord William Russell executed for his share in the Rye House conspiracy. He had gone to sea young, and had seen much service. But the importance of the part he played was due less to his personal influence and reputation than to the dignity of his family. The part he took was natural enough, for the Russells were leaders of the Whigs. The action of Arthur Herbert was less to have been expected. His family were strong Royalists. His father had been Attorney-General to Charles I., and his brother, Sir Edward Herbert, was a very Royalist Judge. Sir Edward did indeed lose the favour of his master by opposition to the king's arbitrary treatment of the Fellows of Magdalen, but he remained loyal. Under a similar provocation Arthur Herbert took a very different course. It is said that the king, who at one time had been largely influenced by him in the management of naval matters, had transferred much of his favour to George Legge, Earl of Dartmouth. Dartmouth also was a gentleman captain bred to the sea. It may be that the stories he brought back from Tangier had done something to turn the king against Herbert. The fact that Pepys (whose opinion of Herbert had already been given) was Secretary of the Admiralty must also be allowed for. Yet the king made him Master of the Robes and Rear-Admiral of England. In 1687, when James was endeavouring to persuade all men of mark in England to support his claim to be entitled to dispense with penal statutes, he appealed to Herbert among others. The admiral, according to the well-known story, replied that his honour and conscience would not allow him to do what the king wished. The answer of the king, which seems to have been really given, is one of the innumerable proofs that he must have been a very silly man. He told Herbert that a gentleman of his habits of life had no right to talk of his conscience, which, coming from the master of the notorious Brouncker to a courtier who was perfectly aware of the facts, was portentously foolish. Herbert made the obvious reply that there were people whose lives were no cleaner than his who made a much greater profession of religion. This in the circumstances was a richly-deserved piece of impertinence. Provoked perhaps as much by the snub as by the admiral's refusal to support his policy, the king dismissed Herbert from his places, and caused his accounts as Master of the Robes to be severely examined. The admiral was not the man to submit to the displeasure of the king as his brother Sir Edward had done. He applied himself to making the Lord's anointed pay for depriving him of four thousand pounds a year. He went over to Holland, and there organised the naval part of the conspiracy. Russell remained in England, where he formed part of the Whig Council, but made occasional trips in disguise across the North Sea.

Subordinate agents were required to work directly on the ships' companies under the direction of these two chiefs. During the summer of 1688 rumours that the Prince of Orange was about to intervene on behalf of the Protestant interest were rife. A small squadron was armed by the king and put under the command of Sir Roger Strickland, one of the few Roman Catholic officers amongst the seamen. The king, with characteristic folly, had chosen this gentleman to succeed Herbert as Rear-Admiral of England. Strickland appears, from the little that is known of him, to have had no more tact or practical faculty than his master. He endeavoured to cause mass to be said in his ships, with the immediate result that the crews threatened to throw the priests overboard. This was too much even for the king. He did not indeed remove Strickland from active service, but he appointed Dartmouth to command over him. The disposition of the crews must have shown the conspirators that it would be no very difficult task to make the fleet useless to the king, and the history of the movements of the squadron show that they were perfectly successful. The immediate agents of the enemies of King James seem to have been two: the higher in rank, but not the most effectual, was Captain Aylmer, afterwards Lord Aylmer; the other was George Byng, the first lieutenant of the =Defiance=, then commanded by Captain Ashby. Byng behaved in a manner to justify the praise given him in Lord Hervey's Memoirs, namely, that "he had been in his youth a resolute, able, enterprising fellow; mercenary and knowing in his business."

Sir Roger Strickland hoisted his flag in August, and he had then with him twenty-six vessels. They were very ill manned, and Strickland asked that soldiers might be sent to fill up his crews. It may be that Strickland distrusted the spirit of his command. At anyrate, the plan of action he proposed was not one likely to occur to a bold man who felt confident that his squadron would fight. After consulting with his captains, he proposed to the king to lie at the Gunfleet, with an advance squadron on the coast of Holland. This was rightly rejected by King James. A squadron at the Gunfleet would have been nearly helpless against a Dutch fleet standing across the North Sea with an easterly wind, and it was only when the wind was from this quarter that an attack was to be feared. Strickland was ordered to station himself between the North Sands Head and Kentish Knock, to keep under sail by day, and only to anchor at night. It was while on this station that he nearly provoked a mutiny in his fleet, by causing mass to be performed. A stronger squadron and a stronger admiral were both needed. Dartmouth was sent to command, and the force of twenty-six ships was raised to sixty-one, of which thirty-eight were of the line-of-battle class. They were still ill manned, partly, no doubt, for the usual reasons, that men could not be got except by the press, and the press acted slowly. But there were other causes at work. The king's officers were loath to attract ill-will at a time when their master's danger was patent to everybody but himself. Then, too, numbers of English sailors had made their way across the North Sea, and were preparing to man the ships of the Prince of Orange under the command of Russell and Herbert. Even if the ships had been well manned, there was a fatal cause of weakness within. The Memoirs of Byng, published a few years ago, have enabled us to get a glimpse of the means taken to bring the fleet over to the side of the Revolution. His biographer, who was no doubt supplied with information by himself, tells us that Byng had been early entrusted with the knowledge of what was doing. At a meeting at which the Duke of Ormonde, General Kirke, and Captain Aylmer were present in London, Byng was especially charged with the duty of bringing over his own captain, Ashby of the =Defiance=, and Captain Wolfran Cornwall. Byng is honourably candid as to his own motives. Of the Protestant religion and the liberties of England he says not one syllable, but confines himself to telling us that "finding by further discourse that General Kirke, Mr. Russell, and other particular persons were going over to the Prince of Orange, he then became willing to agree to their undertaking." In plain English, he found that the king's Government was in great danger, and, being a resolute, able, enterprising fellow, he very sagaciously resolved to be on the winning side. With a modest distrust of his influence over his captain, he left Ashby to be dealt with by Aylmer. Yet, when Aylmer failed, he exerted himself. Ashby was finally persuaded to become a well-wisher to the cause. He had just declared "that in their profession they were not taught to turn against the king." It was only when Mr. Byng showed him "the dispositions of the most considerable persons in the fleet," that Ashby was induced to take up arms against the danger of Popish superstition. The conversion of Captain Cornwall was somewhat more difficult.

"Mr. Cornwall was more difficult to be persuaded from [his violence of temper and zeal for the king; and none but his most intimate friend coud undertake to mention it to him]; and in their discourse, Cornwall expressed the obligations of himself and family to the king, and thought it a villany in those who attempted anything against him. But when Mr. Byng named some persons that were engaged in it, that was his most intimate and particular friends [as Mr. Herbert, Kirk, Russell, etc., he was confounded, and upon his further naming a captain of the fleet who was a most intimate friend of his, and of whom he had the best opinion of as a very rightous person, he was surprised; but being told so by himself as they were at supper at night, here met for that purpose], he gave up his zeal for the king; and from that time no man was more heartily in the cause, using his endeavour to bring over severall in his own ship; and continued heartily attached to the Revolution principles to the day of his death."

These captains--and there were doubtless many like them--would have remained loyal to the king, if it had not been made clear to them that his Government was undermined. Since the broom was to be used, they decided that it was more prudent to be on the side of the handle. Dartmouth, who took command of his squadron on the 2nd of October, was personally loyal, but he was also weak. It may be that he was dimly aware of the spirit of his squadron, and feared to put its loyalty to the test. The obvious way to prevent the Prince of Orange from coming over was to station the squadron on the coast of Holland, and attack him as soon as he came to sea. In the westerly winds the English could return to their own coast for provisions, knowing that the Dutch could not put to sea; with the wind in the east it was safe for them to lie close up to the Dutch coast. The next best course would be to lie in the Downs, from which the English fleet could start in pursuit of the prince, whether he attempted to go up the Thames or down the Channel. Dartmouth was in favour of the bolder course, and it is said that the majority of the captains were still loyal. The minority had, however, sufficient influence to get it arranged that the fleet should lie at anchor by the Gunfleet, inside the Shipwash, a long, narrow, and dangerous sand stretching in front of Harwich. Here it proved absolutely useless when the fleet of the Deliverer passed it in a hard gale from the E.S.E. on the 3rd of November. Six of the prince's ships were seen from Dartmouth's fleet. The king's fleet had their top-gallant masts and yards down on the deck, and, even when they got them up, were unable to clear the sand. The Prince of Orange was allowed to run through the Straits of Dover, and reach Tor Bay unmolested. Dartmouth at last followed. If he had still any delusions as to the spirit of his squadron, they were soon dispelled. Some of his captains, in fact, had already resolved to go over to the enemy, if they met them. These men, working on the fears and weakness of others, were able to induce a council of war, held on the 5th of November, off Beachy Head, to decide not to fight, if an action could be avoided "with honour." Next day the wind turned round to the west. It will be remembered that this shift of the wind stopped the progress of the prince's ships. Yet, when it once more swung round to the west, the Deliverer stood on to Tor Bay, while the king's fleet, under Dartmouth, returned tamely into the Downs. On the 18th he did stand to sea, and made his way to the west, but fresh gales of wind scattered his ships. Some of the captains were eager to take the opportunity of going over to the prince. Captain Ashby of the =Defiance= would have carried his vessel into Tor Bay, if he had not met Sir Roger Strickland, as the gale died down. It was thought better to run no risks, and the =Defiance= joined Dartmouth with the rest of the fleet at Spithead. In truth, it mattered very little where the ships went now. The Prince of Orange had landed, and was marching to London. The officers of the ships at Spithead heard what was happening by rumour. Some of them were eager to call attention to their zeal for the cause. At the close of November, Byng was despatched with a message. He applied for leave from Dartmouth to visit a relation in Huntingdonshire, and when it was given, probably because the admiral thought it was useless to refuse, went off in the disguise of a farmer. On the way he fell in with a part of Oxford's regiment of horse, but, thanks to his disguise, was not molested. At Salisbury he found the inn full of relations and acquaintances of his own, officers of the army who had deserted the king, and were making their way westward to join the Prince of Orange. At Sherborne, Byng finally reached the prince, to whom he was presented by Russell. William received him kindly, promised to reward his services, and "sent him back with an answer to the officers of the fleet, and with a letter to Lord Dartmouth to acquaint him with the necessity of his coming over, and of his intentions to continue him at the head of the fleet; with promises that Admiral Herbert [between whom there was some variance] should not be advanced over him. This letter the prince advised Mr. Byng to put into the stuffing of his saddle, lest, in case he was seized, it should not be found upon him; but he thought it best to quilt it in the rollers of his breeches. So Mr. Byng taking his leave returned safely to the fleet again." The letter was left on Dartmouth's dressing-table by Captain Aylmer. The biographer does not inform us whether Aylmer had or had not just been engaged in curling Dartmouth's periwig. The admiral is said to have been influenced by this letter into taking a more favourable view of the prince's cause. In truth, he had lost all control over his squadron. He only escaped a scheme hatched by some of his captains to put him under arrest, through the loyalty of Captain David Lloyd, a "plain strict man," who remained faithful to the king, and was a noted Jacobite agent in the coming years. When King James sent the little Prince of Wales down to Portsmouth to be carried over to France, Dartmouth would have been unable to execute his orders, even if he had wished to do so. He ended by submitting to the Prince of Orange. On the 30th of December the fleet at Spithead was broken up. Dartmouth sailed with a part of the ships for the Nore, and the others were left at Spithead, under the command of Sir John Berry.

The history of the navy under the House of Stuart ends here. The motives of those who were most active in bringing it over to the side of the Revolution have been sufficiently indicated in these extracts from Byng's Memoirs. It completes the picture, that Byng was made very angry when the vacant command of a sixth-rate was given to another officer, and was only soothed by being appointed to the command of the =Constant Warwick=. It cannot be said that any great zeal for a cause animated these men. The navy followed the country in deserting a worn-out and incapable dynasty. No doubt it did well, but we cannot say that it acted magnanimously. The later Stuarts were punished where they sinned. They came back making a great parade of cynicism, declaring that any man who professed to act on any higher motive than a regard for his own interests was a canting rogue. They were taken at their word. The time came when it was nobody's interest to fight for James II., and not a sword was drawn for him in his fleet. They set the example of making the gratification of their own pleasures the one rule of their conduct. Their servants did the same. The king had no right to complain. But the spectacle of a master deserted by those to whom he had been kind, and who had been loudest in professing loyalty, so soon as they found that he was giving the places to others, has something in it, which, even when we recognise that the nation benefited by the action, cannot well be called other than ignoble.

The moral of so plain a story as this ought surely to be obvious. Yet the failure of the fleet to bar the road to the Prince of Orange has been quoted in support of the contention that a strong navy is not the sufficient defence of this country against invasion. A moment's consideration ought to show any unprepossessed mind that the events of the autumn of 1688 prove nothing of the sort. If the navy failed then, it was for precisely the reasons which caused the army to be useless to King James, namely, active treason on the part of the officers, and an acquiescent want of loyalty in the ranks. Neither sailor nor soldier wished to win, and therefore the invasion succeeded. We may see the story of 1688 repeated again when Englishmen consider the Government their enemy, and its assailant from abroad their friend--but not till then.

INDEX

Admiral, first, of title, 13;
of Northern Fleet, of Western Fleet, of Irish Sea, _ibid._

Admiral, Lord High, power of his office, 37.

Admiral's Regiment. See Marines.

Admiralty, origin of, 37;
Commission of, 174.

Aguila, Juan del, Spanish commander, 136.

Alards of Winchelsea, Admirals, 14.

Algiers, expedition against pirates of, 165-169.

Allen, Sir Thomas, commands in Straits, 336, 337;
commands White Division, 372;
commands against Barbary pirates, 399.

Amsterdam, New, Dutch colony seized by Sir R. Holmes, 329.

Appleton, Captain Henry, at Leghorn, 266-273.

Aquitaine, ships of, used by kings of England, 15.

Armada, Invincible, 91-115.

Armament of ships, 40, 75-77.

Arundel, Earl of, why put in command of Western Fleet, 14.

Arundel, Sir John, his shipwreck, 31.

Ashby, Captain John, how persuaded to betray king, 459;
proposes to go to Torbay, 461.

Ashley, Lord, afterwards Earl of Shaftesbury, Commissioner of
Prizes, 381.

Axon, captain of =Garland=, 247.

Aylmer, Captain, share in revolution, 458, 459.

Ayscue, Sir George, blockades Rupert, 200;
appointed to reduce Plantations, 210;
reduces Barbadoes, 212, 213;
returns home, 230;
at Plymouth, 235;
in Downs, 236;
attacks De Ruyter's convoy, 239;
removed from command, 240;
in Blue Squadron, 338;
surrenders to Dutch, 359;
reported ill-treatment of, by Dutch, 365.

Badiley, Captain Richard, succeeds Penn in Mediterranean, 266;
at Zante, 268;
his action with Dutch, 269;
and operations near Elba and Leghorn, 269-273.

Bahuchet, French admiral, 22.

Ball, Captain, sent to coerce Danes, 265.

Bankert, Dutch admiral, 371;
at battle of Texel, 434, 435.

Barbadoes, Island of, held for king, 210, 211;
Penn and Venables at, 283.

Barbary pirates, 292;
Lawson cruises against, 322, 323;
expeditions against, 398-408.

Barbavera, Genoese in French service, 21.

Barton, Andrew, Scotch pirate, 48.

Baskerville, Sir Thomas, commands soldiers in expedition of 1594, 125;
brings home squadron, 127.

Batten, William, surveyor, 181;
fires on queen at Bridlington, 185;
removed from command, 188;
escapes from London, and joins Prince of Wales, 191;
discontent of Royalists with, 192;
goes back to Parliament, 193.

Batten, captain of =Bonaventure=, 247.

Bazan, Alonso de, takes the =Revenge=, 120-122.

Bazan, Álvaro de, Marquess of La Cruz, Spanish admiral, 92, 93.

Beach, Captain, destroys the Algerines, 399.

Beale, Governor of St. Helena, 441.

Beauchamp, Sir John, K.G., first Admiral for all the Seas, 14.

Beaufort, Duke of, his squadron, 377.

Beggars of Sea, what were, 80.

Bergen, attack on Dutch at, 346-348.

Berkeley, Sir W., killed in Four Days' Battle, 355;
story of Dutch insult to body of, 365;
his body embalmed and sent home, 383.

Berry, John, story of, 388;
takes command at Spithead, 462;
on Commission of 1686, 450.

Bertendona, Martin de, commands squadron of Italy in Armada, 101.

Black Oliver, serves in retaking of St. Helena, 441, 442.

Blackburn, admiral for north, 29.

Blagg, Ensign, gallant death of, 287.

Blake, Benjamin, accused of misconduct, 247.

Blake, Colonel Robert, admiral and general at sea, 196;
blockades Rupert, 200;
ordered to pursue, 201;
services against Rupert, 202-205;
returns to England, 213;
helps in reduction of Channel Islands, 214;
action with Tromp, 232, 233;
sails north, 236;
replaces Ayscue in Channel, 240;
brush with French, 242;
defeats Dutch near Kentish Knock, 243-245;
fights battle of Dungeness, 246, 247;
offers to resign, and makes complaint of officers, 247;
in battle of Portland, 249;
wounded, 251;
commands squadron in Thames, 257;
joins fleet, 260;
health breaks down, 261;
prepares to sail to Mediterranean, 278;
cruise in Mediterranean, 291-294;
returns, _ibid._;
blockades Cadiz, _ibid._;
attacks Spanish ships at Santa Cruz, 295, 296;
greatness of the achievement, 297;
his death, _ibid._

Board, Navy. See Navy Office.

Bocanegra, Ambrosio, Genoese admiral of Castile, 28.

Bombay taken possession of, 321.

Bougie, Sir E. Spragge attacks pirates at, 401, 402.

Bourne, Nicholas, rear-admiral, afterwards Commissioner, at Harwich;
in battle of Dover, 232, 233.

Boyle, Mr., killed, 342.

Brackel, Captain, breaks the chain at Gillingham Reach, 394.

Breda, negotiations at, 384.

Brest, battle of, in 1512, 49.

Bridge, Sir Tobias, cruises in West Indies, 440.

Bridlington, Queen Henrietta Maria lands at, 185.

Brouncker, Mr., brings order to shorten sail, 343.

Brown paper stuff, what was, 161.

Brunsvelt, Schoutbynacht, 371.

Buckingham. See Villiers, George.

Byng, George, exertions in Revolution, 458, 459;
carries message from fleet, 461;
appointed to command of =Constant Warwick=, 462.

Cabal, how composed, 411.

Cadiz, attack on, 128-130;
second attack on, 170;
bullion trade at, 453, 454.

Calais, possession of, by England gives command of Straits, 16.

Camperdown, English and Dutch fleets anchor near, 262.

Cárdenas, Don Alonso de, Spanish ambassador, his answer to Cromwell, 278.

Carteret, Sir George, expelled from Navy Office, 411.

Castle, Mr., shipbuilder, 332.

Catharine of Braganza, Queen of Charles II., 320.

Catz, Dutch officer in command near Leghorn, 266.

Cecil, Sir Edward, commands expedition to Cadiz, 170.

Chalmer, Mr., 247.

Charles I., King, reasons for defects of navy in his reign, 171;
desire to strengthen fleet, 172;
tries to extort money from Spanish fleet, 177;
fleet turns against, 179;
execution of, 195.

Charles, Prince of Wales, afterwards Charles II., joined by part of
navy, 190;
comes on coast of Norfolk and into Thames, 191.

Charles II., King, his character and interest in navy, 299, 300;
reasons for disliking Dutch, 325;
decides to reduce fleet, 378;
becomes tired of war, 379;
his secret plans, 380;
joins Louis XIV. in attack on Holland, 408, 409;
accepts Test Act, 427;
decline of navy in his last years, 445.

Chatham, attack on, by Dutch, 389-397.

Chips, what were, 312.

Cinque Ports, men of, at Dover, 5;
their quota, 11;
services and decline, _ibid._

Clerk of Ships or of Navy. See Navy Office.

Clifford, George, Earl of Cumberland, his voyages, 137-144.

Clifford, Sir George, joins the fleet, 356;
describes sailing of fleet, 370.

Closing of the Exchequer, 412.

Clytherow, Richard, admiral for south and west, 29.

Commission to inquire into state of navy proposed, 156;
appointed, 157;
its report, 157-161.

Comptroller. See Navy Office.

_Cordelier_, French ship, burnt, 49.

Cormat, or Cormac, associate of pirates, 151-154.

Cornwall, Captain Wolfran, how induced to betray king, 459.

Courtenaer, Dutch admiral, 339.

Coventry, Sir William, secretary to Duke of York, 338;
criticises Sandwich, 349;
attends funeral of Sir C. Myngs, 362.

Cox, Captain Owen, sent to warn Badiley, 268.

Cromwell, Oliver, government of, 276, 277;
resolves to attack Spain, _ibid._;
orders to Penn and Venables, 281, 282;
death of, 298.

Cromwell, Richard, sends fleet to north, 318.

Cubitt, captain of =Tulip=, quoted, 220.

Cumberland. See Clifford, George, Earl of.

Cuttins, in Blue Squadron, 338.

Dakins, Rear-Admiral, 283.

D'Annebault, French admiral, commands at St. Helens, 59-61;
his retreat, 62;
anchors at Shoreham, 69.

Darcy, Mr. Thomas, first-known King's Letter boy, 303.

Dartmouth, Lord. See Legge, George.

Dead Pays, what were, 43.

Deane, Sir Anthony, shipbuilder, 332;
on Commission of 1686, 450.

Deane, Colonel Richard, admiral and general at sea, 196;
summoned from Scotland to fleet, 234;
in battle of Portland, 249;
wounded, 251;
his death, 259.

Descharges of Brest invented portholes, 9.

D'Estrées, French admiral, 417;
conduct of, at Solebay, 421, 422;
in Downs, 429;
at battle of Texel, 434-439.

De Liefde, Dutch vice-admiral, 371.

Denbigh, Earl of, commander in Channel, 170.

Denmark, King of, agrees to plunder Dutch, 346.