APPENDIX.

[I.]Portraits of Samuel Pepys.
[II.]The Schemes of Alexander Marchant, Sieur de St. Michel (Mrs. Pepys’s Father).
[III.]Pepys’s Manuscripts at Oxford.
[IV.]Musical Instruments.
[V.]Pepys’s Correspondents.
[VI.]List of the Officers of the Navy.
[VII.]Plays which Pepys saw Acted.

APPENDIX I.

APPENDIX I.

PORTRAITS OF SAMUEL PEPYS.

PAINTINGS BY

PAINTINGS BY

1. Savill (a painter in Cheapside). 1661. See “Diary,” Nov. 23.

Jan. 6, 1661–62: “I sent my lute to the Paynter’s, and there I staid with him all the morning to see him paint the neck of my lute in my picture, which I was not pleased with after it was done.”

Pepys appears to have sat to this same painter for a miniature or “picture in little,” which cost £3. See “Diary,” Feb. 20, 1661–62, June 11, 1662.

Jan. 28, 1661–62: “The Paynter, though a very honest man, I found to be very silly as to matter of skill in shadows, for we were long in discourse, till I was almost angry to hear him talk so simply.”

2. John Hales. 1666.

March 17, 1666: “This day I began to sit, and he will make me, I think, a very fine picture. He promises it shall be as good as my wife’s, and I sit to have it full of shadows, and do almost break my neck looking over my shoulder to make the posture for him to work by.”

March 30, 1666: “To Hales’s, and there sat till almost quite darke upon working my gowne, which I hired to be drawn in: an Indian gown.”

April 11, 1666: “To Hales’s, where there was nothing to be found to be done more to my picture, but the musique, which now pleases me mightily, it being painted true.”

This picture was bought by Peter Cunningham, at the sale of the Pepys Cockerell collection in 1848, and it was purchased by the trustees of the National Portrait Gallery in 1866. The eyes look at the spectator, and the face is turned three-quarters to the left. The music is Pepys’s own song, “Beauty Retire.”

“There is a similar picture belonging to Mr. Hawes, of Kensington, which Mr. Scharf, the Keeper of the National Portrait Gallery, thinks is either a replica or a good old copy.”—Rev. Mynors Bright’s edition of the “Diary,” vol. iii. p. 423 (note).

Walpole mentions Hales in his “Anecdotes of Painting,” and says that he lived in Southampton Street, Bloomsbury, and died there suddenly in 1679.

3. Sir Peter Lely. Pepysian Library, Magdalene College, Cambridge.

4. Sir Godfrey Kneller. Andrew Pepys Cockerell, Esq. This picture was lent to the First Special Exhibition of National Portraits, 1866, and was numbered 950.

5. Sir Godfrey Kneller. The Royal Society.

6. Sir Godfrey Kneller. Hall of Magdalene College, Cambridge.

7. A small portrait attributed to Kneller, representing a seated figure; with a globe in one corner, and a guitar (or lute) and compasses on a table, and a ship in the distance at sea. Mr. Scharf suggests the possibility of this being the portrait by Savill described above (No. 1), and this suggestion seems highly probable. Mrs. Frederick Pepys Cockerell.

8. Anonymous. 1675.

“The picture is beyond praise; but causes admiration in all that see it. Its posture so stately and magnificent, and it hits so naturally your proportion and the noble air of your face, that I remain immovable before it hours together,” &c. T. Hill to Pepys, Lisbon, July 1, 1675.—Smith’s “Life of Pepys,” vol. i. p. 161.

9. The picture by Verrio at Christ’s Hospital, of James II. on his throne receiving the mathematical pupils of the school, contains a portrait of Pepys. The original drawing for the picture by Verrio is in the possession of Andrew Pepys Cockerell, Esq.

ENGRAVINGS BY

1. Robert White. Kneller, painter. Portrait in a carved oval frame, bearing inscription SAM. PEPYS. CAR. ET. JAC. ANGL. REGIB. A. SECRETIS. ADMIRALIÆ. Motto under the frame, “Mens cujusque is est quisque.” Large book-plate.

2. Robert White. Kneller, painter. Portrait in an oval medallion on a scroll of paper. Motto over his head, “Mens cujusque is est quisque;” underneath the same inscription as on No. 1. Small book-plate.

These two engravings are described by Granger.

3. J. Bragg. Kneller, painter. Frontispiece to vol. i. of the first edition of the “Diary,” 1825 (4to.). “From the original in the possession of S. P. Cockerell.” Picture described as No. 7, now in the possession of Mrs. Frederick Pepys Cockerell.

4. J. Bragg. Kneller, painter. Frontispiece to vol. i. of the second edition of the “Diary,” 1828; much worn in the third edition, 1848. “From the original picture in the possession of S. P. Cockerell.” Picture described as No. 4, now in the possession of Andrew Pepys Cockerell, Esq.

5. W. C. Edwards. Kneller, painter. Frontispiece to vol. i. of the fourth edition of the “Diary,” 1854. From the same original as the preceding article.

6. Charles Wass. Walker, painter. In Smith’s “Life, Journals, and Correspondence of Pepys,” vol. i. 1841, said to be in the collection of the Royal Society, but this is a mistake.

PHOTOGRAPHS.

1. From the portrait by Kneller (No. 4), series of photographs published by the South Kensington Museum under the superintendence of the Council of the Arundel Society.

2. From Edwards’s engraving of Kneller’s Portrait, “Diary,” ed. Mynors Bright, vol. i. 1875.

3. From Hales’s Portrait (No. 2), “Diary,” ed. Mynors Bright, vol. iii. 1876.

BUST.

The following extracts from the “Diary” refer to a bust which was made for Pepys:—

Feb. 10, 1668–69: “So to the plaisterer’s at Charing Cross that casts heads and bodies in plaister: and there I had my whole face done; but I was vexed first to be forced to daub all my face over with pomatum: but it was pretty to feel how soft and easily it is done on the face, and by and by, by degrees how hard it becomes, that you cannot break it, and sits so close, that you cannot pull it off, and yet so easy, that it is as soft as a pillow so safe is everything where many parts of the body do bear alike. Thus was the mould made; but when it came off there was little pleasure in it, as it looks in the mould, nor any resemblance whatever there will be in the figure when I come to see it cast off.”

Feb. 15, 1668–69: “To the plaisterer’s, and there saw the figure of my face taken from the mould: and it is most admirably like, and I will have another made, before I take it away.”

APPENDIX II.

[APPENDIX II.]

THE SCHEMES OF ALEXANDER MARCHANT, SIEUR DE ST. MICHEL (MRS. PEPYS’S FATHER.)

The unpractical schemes of Mons. St. Michel are alluded to on [pages 7–8] of this book, but the editors of the “Diary” have taken no pains to obtain any information respecting him, and his name even does not appear in the “Diary.” Lord Braybrooke suggests, without any justification for the suggestion, that Mrs. Pepys’s mother had married again (see “Diary,” March 29th, 1667).

Pepys was wrong in the date of the patent, which is numbered 138, and Sir Edward Ford’s name does not appear in it. Sir John Colladon, a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, was naturalized by Charles II., and appointed one of the Physicians to the Queen.

St. Michel’s name evidently puzzled the man who drafted the patent. The following is a copy of the original patent:—

“Charles the Second, by the grace of God, &c., to all to whom these p’sents shall come, greeting

“Whereas we are informed that John Colladon, Doctor in Phisicke, and Alexander Marchant, of St. Michall, have, with much paines and charge, found “A way to p’vent and cure the Smoakeing of Chimneys, either by stopping the Tunnell towards the Top, and altering the former Course of the Smoake, or by setting Tunnells With Checke within the Chimneyes;” wch Invenc̃on soe found out as aforesaid was never publickly exercised or made vse of in anie of our kingdomes or dominions: And whereas the said John Colladon and Alexander Marchant have humbly besought vs for their better incouragemt to exercise and put in practice the said Invenc̃on, that wee would be gratiously pleased to graunt vnto them, the said Joh. Colladon and Alexander Marchant, our Lr̃es Patents of Priviledge for the sole vse and benifitt thereof, for the time and terme of fowerteene yeares, according to the statute in that case made and provided.

“Nowe knowe ye, therefore, that we, of our princely inclinac̃on, being willing to incourage and promote works of this nature, and to give all due and fitting incouragemt to the inventers of such arts as may be of publicke vse and benifitt, of our especiall grace, certeine knowledge, and meere moc̃on, and vpon the humble petic̃on of the said John Colladon and Alexander Marchant, have given and graunted, and by these p’sents, for vs, our heyres and successors, doe give and graunt vnto the said John Colladon and Alexander Marchant, their executors, administrators, and assignes, speciall licence, full power, priviledge, and authoritie, that they and every of them, by themselves, their or anie of their deputie or deputies, servants, workmen, or assignes, at all times and from time to time hereafter, dureing the terme of yeares hereafter in these p’sents expressed, shall and lawfully may vse, exercise, imploy, and enioy the said newe Invenc̃on in and throughout all our realmes and dominions, and every or anie of them, in such manner as to them or anie or either of them, in their or anie of their discrec̃ons shall seeme meet, and shall and may have and enioy the sole benifitt and advantage comeing or ariseing by reason thereof, dureing the terme of yeares hereby graunted; and to the end, the said John Colladon and Alexander Marchant, their executors, administrators, and assignes, and every of them, may the better enioy the full and whole benifitt and the sole vse and exercise of the Invenc̃on aforesaid, wee doe by these p’sents, for vs, our heyres and successors, require and streightly cōmaund all and every person and persons, bodyes politicke and corporate, of whatsoever qualitie or degree, name or addic̃on, they be, that neither they nor anie of them, dureing the terme of yeares hereby graunted, either directly or indirectly, doe or shall vse or put in practice the said Invenc̃on, soe by the said John Colladon and Alexander Marchant attained vnto or invented as aforesaid, nor doe or shall counterfeit, imitate, or resemble the same, nor doe or shall make anie addition therevnto, or substracc̃on from the same, whereby to p’tend themselves the inventors or devisors thereof, without the licence, consent, or agreement of the said John Colladon and Alexander Marchant, their executors, administrators, or assignes, in writeing vnder their hands and seales, first had and obteined in that behalfe, vpon such paines and penalties as can or may be inflicted vpon such offendors for their contempt of this our cōmaund in that behalfe, and further to be answerable to the said John Colladon and Alexander Marchant, their executors, and administrators, and assignes, according to lawe and justice, for their damages thereby susteined; to have and to hold all the said licences, powers, privileges, and authorities hereby graunted as aforesaid vnto them, the said John Colladon and Alexander Marchant, for & dureing the terme of fowerteene yeares from the makeing of these p’sentꝬ next ensueing, and fully to be compleate and ended, according to the statute in such case made and provided. And further, wee doe by these p’sents, for vs, our heyres and successors, give and graunt vnto the said John Colladon and Alexander Marchant, their executors, administrators, and assignes, full power and authoritie that they and every of them, their, every or anie of theyr deputies, servantꝬ, and agents, or anie of them, haveing first obteined a warrant in this behalfe from the Lord Cheife Justice of the Courte of King’s Bench for the time being, may, with the assistance of a constable or anie other lawfull officer, at convenient times in the day, dureing the terme aforesaid, and in lawfull manner, enter into and make search in anie houses or other places where there shall be iust cause of suspic̃on, for discovering and findeing out all such persons as shall, within the terme of fowerteene yeares aforesaid, imitate or cause to be imitated, or shall vse or put in practize the said Invenc̃on, by the said John Colladon and Alexander Marchant invented and found out as aforesaid, that soe such offenders may be proceeded agt, and punished according to theyr demeritts, and theyr invenc̃ons and works tending to the ends aforesaid then and there found, to be seized upon, broken in peeces, and defaced, and the materialls thereof left in the hands and custodie of some constable or officer, to be disposed in such manner and forme as wee, our heyres and successors, shall from time to time direct and appoint. And further, wee doe by these p’sens, for vs, our heyres and successors, will, authorize, and require all and singuler justices of the peace, mayors, sheriffes, bayliffes, constables, headboroughes, and all other officers and ministers whatsoever, of vs, our heyres and successors, for the time being, that they and every of them respectively, be from time to time dureing the said terme hereby graunted, in theyr respective places, favouring, aydeing, helping, and assisting vnto the said John Colladon and Alexander Marchant, theyr executors, administrators, and assigns, and to theyr and every of their deputy and deputies, servantꝬ and agents, in and by all things in and about the accomplishment of our will and pleasure herein declared, and in the exercise and execuc̃on of the powers and privileges herein and hereby graunted, or menc̃oned to be graunted, as aforesaid. And moreover, wee will and cōmaund by these p’sents, for vs, our heyres and successors, that our said officers and ministers, or anie of them, doe not molest, trouble, or interrupt the said John Colladon and Alexander Marchant, or either of them, theyr or either of theyr executors, administrators, or assignes, or theyr or either of theyr deputie or deputies, servants, or agents, or anie of them, in or about the use or exercise of the said Invenc̃on, or in any matter or thing concerneing the same. Provided alwayes, that if at anie tyme dureing the said terme of fowerteene yeares, it shall be made appeare vnto vs, our heyres or successors, that this our graunt is contrary to lawe, or p’iudiciall or inconvenient, and not of publicke vse or benifitt, then vpon significac̃on and declarac̃on thereof to be made by vs, our heyres or successors, these our Lr̃es Patents shall forthwith cease, determine, and be vtterly voyde to all intents and purposes, and the same not to be vsed, exercised, or imployed, anie thing herein-before menc̃oned to the contrary notwithstanding. Provided further, that in case it shall be found or made appeare that the said Invenc̃on is not a newe Invenc̃on of the said John Colladon and Alexander Marchant, as to the publicke vse and exercise thereof within this our kingdome of England, then at all tymes from thenceforth these p’sents shall cease, determine, and be voyde, anie thing in these p’sents before conteined to the contrary notwithstanding. Provided alsoe, that these our Lr̃es Patents, or anie thing herein conteined, shall not extend, or be construed to extend, to give priviledge to the said John Colladon and Alexander Marchant, or either of them, their or either of theyr executors, administrators, or assignes, or anie of them, to vse, or imitate any invenc̃on or worke found out or invented by anie other person or persons, and publickly exercised within these our said relmes, or anie the dominions or territories therevnto belonging, vnto whom wee have alreadie graunted our like Lr̃es Patents of Priviledge for the sole vse, exercise, and benifitt thereof; it being our will and pleasure that the said John Colladon and Alexander Merchant, their executors, administrators, and assignes, and all and singuler other person and persons to whom we have alreadie graunted our like Lr̃es PatentꝬ of Priviledge as aforesaid, shall distinctly vse and practize their severall Invenc̃ons by them invented and found out, according to the true intent and meaneing of the said severall and respective Lr̃es Patents, and of these p’sents. And lastly, wee doe by these p’sents, for vs, our heyres and successors, graunt vnto the said John Colladon and Alexander Merchant, their executors, administrators, and assignes, that these our Lr̃es Patents, or the inrollmt thereof, shall be in and by all things good, valid, sufficient, and effectuall in the lawe, according to the true intent & meaneing thereof, and shall be taken, construed, and adiudged most favourable and benificiall for the best benifitt and advantage of the said John Colladon and Alexander Marchant, theyr executors, administrators, and assignes, aswell in all courts of record as elsewhere, notwithstanding the not full and certeine describeing the manner and quality of the said Invenc̃on, or of the mat’ialls thereof, or of the true and certeine vse and benifitt thereof, and notwithstanding anie other defecte, incerteintyes, or imperfecc̃ons in these p’sents conteined, or anie act, statute, ordinance, provision, proclamac̃on, or restreint to the contrary thereof, in anie wise notwithstanding.

“In witnes, &c. Witnes the King at Westm̃, the

“Second day of May.

“Ꝑ br̃e de privat. sigill.,” &c.

In 1665 St. Michel was again anxious for a patent. The following is a copy of a petition preserved among the State Papers in the Record Office:—

“To the Kings most Excellt Matie.

“The humble petic̃ion of Major Allexandr Marchant aꝉs de St. Michell upon the River Couanon neare the Towne of Bauge in Anjou in France Esqe. Sheweth—

“That yor petr hath invented the two following publick conveniences, first, for a generall forme how to keepe alwayes cleare water in ponds to wash horses, sweete & with as little Mudd in the bottome as the Owner thereof shall wish, if hee follow the direct modell of yor Mte petr so being no Mudd Stincks (as now it is) a horse may safely bee washed in it & drinke there. Fire with it may be extinguished if accidents should happen, the stirring then being not noysome wch now is so much, that in Somer time may cause an increase of the plague. All which Evills may bee prevented with as little charge to the owner as in the old fashion, so great inconveniences are (by the filthiness of these waters) contracted to horses with losses both to rich & poore especially those of the Army although Farriers for their gains, Ostlers to save themselves a Labour of going to the River doth mainteyne stincking water good to heale horses, but are convinced by the Argumt: That the King having nowhere (as his Mty may) the most stinking ponds to wash his Mte horses (if that were good) that through the Three Kingdomes by Rivers side & other sweete water where horses doe goe to Drink, no such corrupt ponds are erected to enter them in it, coming out of the cleare water.

“All these things considered of yr Mtie yr petr beseecheth yor Royall pleasure for a patent for this publick goode for 14 years that hee may manifest it. And that yr Mtie bee pleased to have incerted in the said patent that nobody whatsoever may not for the space of the said 14 yeares use the said invention without your petr Lycense under his hand & Seal or the hand & Seale of his Deputyes in any part of yor Mte Dominions, wherein many ponds for cattle being so full of Mudd that there remaineth no room for water, without often great charges or Labour ill spent, Fish ponds also may bee so ordered. And that your petr may find no obsticle in receiving what hee shall contract for, with the severall partyes who shall make use of his said Modell.

“Your petr further sheweth as to his second publick Convenience That hee hath also invented, That by Moulding (or by rubbing bricks ready made in a Mould of ruffe Stone) to any proportion of externall ornamt for building as that being sooner ready then them that wich are carved & with great wast, Labour, time & cost spent.

“Your Mties petr: humbly desires yor Royall Graunt also for it, And that it may bee inserted in the recited patent, that nobody may make none, nor cause none to bee made by yr petrs Invention of what proporc̃on or Figure whatsoever to bee moulded or rubbed, but by Lycence of yor petr: in the space of the said 14 yeares the patent also bearing what forfeiture yor Mate may thinke just, & as also for the former demand that the discoverers of Transgressing, yor Mate patent agt: this publick good may find some encouragemt.

“And yor petr shall pray,” &c.

The petition was referred to the Attorney-General.

“Att ye Court at Whitehall, June 2, 1665.

“His Maty is graciously pleased to referre this Petic̃on to Mr. Attorney Genrall to consider of this petitioners suit & ye nature of ye invencon, & to certify his Mty what his Opinion is upon it. And then his Mty will be glad to signify his further Pleasure for ye encouragemt of a publicke Good.

“ARLINGTON.”

The Attorney-General reported as follows:—

“May it please yor most Excellent Majty.

“In obedience to yor Majties referrence I have considered of this petic̃on, & conferred with the petr thereopon. And in case the perticulers therein menc̃oned to bee invented by him bee new Invenc̃ons (as for any thing yett appeareing to mee they are) Yor Majty, if soe graciously pleased, may grant the peticonr the sole use & benefitt thereof for fourteene yeares according to the statute in that behalfe made.

“And such Grants usually have a provisor therein which render the same void in case the thing granted bee not a new Invention within the meaneing of that statute.

“Which I humbly submitt to yor Majties further pleasure.

“G. PALMER.”

The result was a warrant for a patent.

“St. Michel’s Invenc̃on.

“Whereas Major Alexander Mercht aꝉs St. Michaell has by his long travailes, study, paines, & charges found out an invenc̃on or way for to keep ye water that is in ponds wherein people wash their horses & in other ponds wholsome sweet & with little or noe mudd in ye botome as also a way for ye moulding, grinding or rubbing of bricks in any forme or shape wtsoever fit for the internall & externall ornamt of any buildings within any of these Our Dominions. And whereas the sd. Alex. Marchant aꝉs St. Michael hath humbly besought us yt Wee would bee graciously pleased to grant unto him Our Lr̃es Patents of licence & priviledge for ye sole use & benefit of his severall Invenc̃ons for ye terme of 14 yeares according to ye statute in such case made & provided. Our &c: containing our Grant, licence or priviledge unto ye sd Alexander Merchant aꝉs St. Michael of ye sole use & benefit of his sd s̃rall invenc̃ons within these Our Realmes & Dominions for ye terme of 14 yeares according to ye statute in yt behalfe made with such powers clauses & provisoes as are usually incerted in grants of like nature.

“Snd. &c. ye 7th of July, 1665.

“To Our Attorney Genr̃all.

ARLINGTON.”

Not contented with curing smoky chimneys, purifying water, and moulding bricks, St. Michel proposed in 1667 to raise submerged ships, and to prevent others from being submerged.

“Propositions dedicated to the King by Alex. Marchant, Sieur de St. Michel sur Couanon les Bauges, in Anjou, Captain and Major of English troops in Italy and Flanders, offering to show that he can draw up all submerged ships; can prevent others from being submerged; has discovered King Solomon’s gold and silver mines, much vaster than those discovered by Columbus, and now much fuller than they were in that King’s time. He wishes to satisfy His Majesty on his first proposition, lest the other should be deemed unworthy an audience.”—Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1667, pp. 252–3.

What a curious comment upon this statement of the discovery of gold and silver mines is to be found in the following extract from the “Diary”:—

March 29, 1667: “4s. a week which his (Balty St. Michel’s) father receives of the French Church is all the subsistence his father and mother have, and about 20l. a year maintains them.”

APPENDIX III.

APPENDIX III.

PEPYS’S MANUSCRIPTS AT OXFORD.

Chapter V. [p. 82].—Pepys’s manuscripts in the Rawlinson Collection at the Bodleian Library, Oxford, are very fully described in the “Oxford Catalogue of Manuscripts,” and the Rev. W. D. Macray’s Index to the same. Besides the letters from various persons which are noted further on in the list of Pepys’s correspondents, are a large number of copies of letters from Pepys himself. The other papers are described as (1) Naval and Official, (2) Personal and Miscellaneous. In the first class are various notes on the state of the navy at different periods, questions respecting shipbuilding, memorials, minutes, and reports. In the second class are accounts of expenses, bonds, inventories, lists of books, &c.; and in both classes are papers of considerable interest for the purpose of elucidating the particulars of Pepys’s life. Besides the above there are papers relating to other members of the family.

APPENDIX IV.

APPENDIX IV.

MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS.

Chapter V. [p. 98].—The following notice of old musical instruments will help to illustrate some of Pepys’s allusions:—

“The lute about three hundred years ago was almost as popular as is at the present day the pianoforte. Originally it had eight thin catgut strings arranged in four pairs, each being tuned in unison; so that its open strings produced four tones; but in the course of time, more strings were added. Until the sixteenth century twelve was the largest number, or rather, six pairs. Eleven appear for some centuries to have been the most usual number of strings: these produced six tones, since they were arranged in five pairs and a single string. The latter, called the chanterelle, was the highest. According to Thomas Mace, the English lute in common use during the seventeenth century had twenty-four strings, arranged in twelve pairs, of which six pairs ran over the finger-board and the other six by the side of it. This lute was therefore, more properly speaking, a theorbo. The neck of the lute, and also of the theorbo, had frets consisting of catgut strings tightly fastened round it at the proper distances required for ensuring a chromatic succession of intervals.... The lute was made of various sizes according to the purpose for which it was intended in performance. The treble lute was of the smallest dimensions, and the bass lute of the largest. The theorbo, or double-necked lute, which appears to have come into use during the sixteenth century, had, in addition to the strings situated over the finger-board, a number of others running at the left side of the finger-board, which could not be shortened by the fingers, and which produced the bass tones. The largest kinds of theorbo were the archlute and the chitarrone.

“The most popular instruments played with a bow at that time [1659] were the treble-viol, the tenor-viol and the bass-viol. It was usual for viol players to have ‘a chest of viols,’ a case containing four or more viols of different sizes. Thus Thomas Mace, in his directions for the use of the viol, ‘Musick’s Monument,’ 1676, remarks: ‘Your best provision and most complete, will be a good chest of viols six in number, viz., two basses, two tenors, and two trebles, all truly and proportionably suited.’ The violist, to be properly furnished with his requirements, had therefore to supply himself with a larger stock of instruments than the violinist of the present day.

“That there was, in the time of Shakespeare, a musical instrument called recorder is undoubtedly known to most readers from the stage-direction in ‘Hamlet’: ‘Re-enter players with recorders.’ But not many are likely to have ever seen a recorder, as it has now become very scarce.”—Engel’s Musical Instruments (S. K. M. Art Handbooks), pp. 114–119.

APPENDIX V.

APPENDIX V.

PEPYS’S CORRESPONDENTS.

Chapter [VII.]—The following is a list of those friends and acquaintances whose letters to Pepys are still extant. The greater proportion of the letters are at Oxford, but some printed in the “Diary” are at Cambridge.

[The date is that of the letter. B. affixed shows that the MS. is in the Bodleian Library; S. that the letter is printed in Smith’s “Life, &c., of Pepys;” and P. that it is printed in the Correspondence attached to the “Diary.”]

APPENDIX VI.

[APPENDIX VI.]

LISTS

Of the Secretaries of the Admiralty, and Principal Officers of the Navy; viz., Treasurers, Comptrollers, Surveyors, Clerks of the Acts, and Commissioners of the Navy at Chatham; to the beginning of the 18th century. (Compiled by Colonel Pasley, C.B., R.E.)

From the middle of the 16th to the end of the 17th century, Chatham was by far the most important of the English naval stations, and the Commissioner resident there had from the first a seat and vote at the Board in London—a privilege which was not extended to his colleague at Portsmouth until a much later date. The rise of the latter port dates from the alliance with the Dutch, and war with France which followed the accession of William and Mary, and which made it necessary to establish a first-class naval yard at a less distance from the French coast than Chatham. The same cause led to the construction of a dry dock at Plymouth. See “Edmund Dummer,” in the list of Surveyors of the Navy.

The figures in the first column represent the year of appointment, when that can be ascertained. The prefix “circ.” implies that the person named in the second column is known to have held the office at the time stated, although the date of first appointment is not known. In some cases the only date that can be found is that of an order to the Attorney-General to prepare letters patent; sometimes that of the patent itself; sometimes of a warrant to execute the office, notwithstanding that the patent is not yet passed; and occasionally that of a letter from some person at Court informing his correspondent that the King or Queen has signed such and such a patent. It has been thought better, therefore, to state only the year of appointment, as the insertion in lists of this kind of the month and day tends to give them a delusive appearance of accuracy.

The scantiness of MS. records before the Revolution arises from the practice which existed of retiring Officers taking away with them their office books and papers, which they regarded as their own property. This was put a stop to in the Dockyards by a Navy Board Order of the 18th August, 1692. Unless otherwise stated, the manuscripts in the following lists are in the British Museum.

SECRETARIES OF THE ADMIRALTY,

From the first placing of the Office of Lord High Admiral in Commission to the commencement of the 18th century.

Note.—An asterisk (*) before the name of a titled office-holder signifies that the title (knighthood or other) was conferred upon him during his tenure of that office.

Date of Appointment.Name.Authority. Lord High Admiral.
1628Edward Nicholas.Cal. Stte Papers (Domestic Series).In Commission.
Nicholas had been Secretary to Lord Zouch,Warden of the Cinque Ports, and afterwards tothe Duke of Buckingham, Lord High Admiral.On the assassination of the latter, in 1628, theoffice of Lord High Admiral was for the first timeentrusted to a body of commissioners instead ofto an individual, and Nicholas was appointedSecretary of the Admiralty. When the Earl ofNorthumberland was appointed Lord High Admiral,ten years later, Nicholas ceased to hold anyoffice immediately connected with the Navy, butretained the post of Clerk of the Council. Hewas afterwards knighted, and became Secretaryof State to Charles I., and (after the Restoration)to Charles II.
1638Thomas Smith.Cal. St. Pap. Earl of Northumberland.
1643——? Earl of Warwick.
1645——? A Committee of both Houses of Parliament.
1648——? Earl of Warwick again.
I have not met with any record of the names ofthe Secretaries during the period from 1643 to1649.
1649Robert Coytmor.Cal. St. Pap.A Committee of the Council of State.
1652Robert Blackborne.Cal. St. Pap.Commissioners appointed by Act of Parliament.
Blackborne had previously held the office of Secretaryto the “Navy Committee,” a Committee ofthe House of Commons. The precise relationsexisting between the numerous committees andcommissions at this period are not very clear.
1653Robert Blackborne.Cal. St. Pap.Commissioners appointed by Act of the Convention.
1654Robert Blackborne.Addit. MS. 18,986, fo. 150 (Letter to Blackborne from Commissr. Pett).Do. by Patent of the Protector Oliver.
1658Robert Blackborne.Admiralty Orders and Instructions, 1656 to 1658 (Admiralty Library MS.).Do. by Patent of the Protector Richard.
1659Robert Blackborne.Addit. MS. 9,302, fo. 183 (List of Officers and Salaries of the Admiralty and Navy before the Restoration)Commissioners appointed by the Rump.
Blackborne continued to hold the office of Secretaryuntil the appointment of the Duke of Yorkas Lord High Admiral in July, 1660. He is frequentlymentioned by Pepys.
1660*Sir William Coventry.From “Mr. Hewer’s account of the Secretaries of the Admiralty fromKing Charles II.’s restoration to King James II.’s withdrawing, December, 1688.
(MS. in Pepysian Collection, “Naval Minutes.”)		Duke of York.
1667Matthew Wren.Duke of York.
1672Sir John Werden.Duke of York.
1673Samuel Pepys.King Charles II, with a Commission.
1679Thomas Hayter.In Commission.
1680John Brisband.In Commission.
1684Samuel Pepys.King Charles II. (assisted by the Duke of York).
1685Samuel Pepys.King James II.
1688Samuel Pepys.Prince of Orange.
1689Phineas Bowles.In Commission.
1690James Sotherne.Luttrell, ii p. 10.In Commission.
1694William Bridgman.Luttrell, iii. p. 341.In Commission.
1695William Bridgman and Josiah Burchett, joint SecretariesHaydn’s “Book of Dignities.”In Commission.
The date of the joint appointment is taken fromHaydn, but the fact is proved by Admiralty lettersin the Chatham Dockyard Records, which aboutthis time bear the signature sometimes of Bridgmanand sometimes of Burchett as Secretary.
1698Josiah Burchett, alone.Luttrell, iv. 396.In Commission.
1702Josiah Burchett. Earl of Pembroke.
1702Josiah Burchett, George Clark, joint.Luttrell, v. 176.Prince George of Denmark.
1705Josiah Burchett, alone.Luttrell, v. 605.Prince George of Denmark.
1708Josiah Burchett. Earl of Pembroke.
1709Josiah Burchett. In Commission.
Note.—Mr. Burchett continued to hold thisoffice until 1742, when he retired. (“British Chronologist,”29th Oct., 1742.)

TREASURERS OF THE NAVY,

To the commencement of the 18th century.

Date of Appointment.Name.Authority.
circ. 1546[Robert Legg].Harleian MS. 249.
The first paper in this volume of the HarleianCollection is a “Confession taken of 23 of thecrediblest forfathers at Deptford-Strande the 29thday of October (anno R. R. Hen. VIII. 38vo.)consernynge the taking of the Gallye Blancherd,in the presens of Sir Thomas Cleire, Lieuftennaunt,Robert Legg Esq. Treasourer, Will. Brocke,Comptroller, Benjamin Gonson, Surveour, andRich Brocke, Capitaigne of the Kynges MajestiesGallye Subtill.” I have not found any record ofthe date of Legg’s appointment.
1549Benjamin Gonson.Additl. MSS. vol. 9295, fo. 56.
1577Benjamin Gonson and *Sir John Hawkins, joint.Additl. MSS. vol. 9295, fo. 56.
1578Sir John Hawkins, alone.Cal. St. Papers.
1595Vacant.Cal. St. Papers.
On Sir John Hawkins’s death in 1595, RogerLangford, his deputy, was appointed to do theduty of Treasurer, with the title of “Paymasterof Marine Causes,” pending the appointment of anew Treasurer, which did not take place till 1598.
1598*Sir Fulke Greville.[406]Cal. St. Pap.
1604Sir Robert Mansell.Cal. St. Pap., and Phineas Pett’s Autobiography.
1618Sir William Russell.Cal. St. Pap.
1627*Sir Sackville Crowe, Bart.Cal. St. Pap.
Sir Sackville Crowe was one of the Special Commissionersappointed in 1618 by James I. to inquireinto abuses in the navy. In 1627 Sir W.Russell was superseded in his favour, but threeyears later he was charged with misappropriation,or embezzlement, and was compelled to resign,when Russell was reinstated.
1630Sir William Russell, again.Cal. St. Pap.
1639Sir William Russell, and *Sir Henry Vane, joint.Cal. St. Pap.
1642Sir Henry Vane, alone.Forster, “Statesmen of the Commonwealth.”
1651Richard Hutchinson.Cal. St. Pap.
Hutchinson had been Deputy Treasurer to SirH. Vane, whom he succeeded as Treasurer in 1651.He continued to hold that office until the Restoration.He is several times mentioned in Pepys’s“Diary.”
1660Sir George Carteret.Pepys, &c.
Sir George Carteret had been Comptroller ofthe Navy before the Civil War.
1667Earl of Anglesey.Duke of York’s Memoirs, p. 235.
1668Sir Thomas Osborne, Bart., Sir Thomas Littleton, Bart., joint.Duke of York’s Memoirs, p. 236.
1671Sir Thomas Osborne, alone.Duke of York’s Memoirs, p. 236.
The patent of Sir Thomas Osborne (afterwardsDuke of Leeds) to be sole Treasurer is printed inthe Duke of York’s “Memoirs of the EnglishAffairs,” pp. 235–238. It recites and revokes theappointments of 1667 and 1668.
1673Edward Seymour.Collins’s “Peerage of England” (Sir E. Brydges’ edition), vol. i. p. 195.
Afterwards Sir Edward Seymour, Bart. TheDuke of Somerset and the Marquis of Hertfordare descended from him.
1681Viscount Falkland.Luttrell, vol. i. p. 76.
Lord Falkland died in 1694. (Luttrell, iii. 317.)
1689Edward Russell.Collins’s “Peerage,” vol. i. p. 283.
A distinguished naval commander. AfterwardsEarl of Orford, which title became extinct at hisdeath.
1699Sir Thomas Littleton, Bart.Luttrell, v. 521.
Died in 1710. (Luttrell, vi. 530.)
1710Robert Walpole.Luttrell, vi. 534.
Afterwards Prime Minister and Earl of Orford.

FOOTNOTES:

[COMPTROLLERS] OF THE NAVY,

To the commencement of the 18th century.

Date of Appointment.Name.Authority.
circ. 1514John Hopton.Cal. of Letters, &c., Henry VIII.
Hopton certainly held the office of Comptrollerin 1514, but I have been unable to ascertain thedate of his appointment. He died about 1524.
circ. 1542John Osburne.Byng MSS. vol. x.[407] Admiralty Library (Pepys’s Naval Collections).
circ. 1546William Brock.Harleian MS. 249, No. 1.
1562William Holstock.Cal. St. Pap.
circ. 1585William Holstock and William Borough, joint.Lansdowne MS. 43, No. 33.
At this period (1585) W. Borough was Clerkand Comptroller of the Ships, but as Holstockcertainly retained the office of Comptroller till1589, I presume they must have held it jointly.
circ. 1590William Borough, alone.Cal. St. Pap.
After 1589 Holstock’s name appears no moreat the foot of certificates or other papers connectedwith the navy recorded in the Calendarsof State Papers, and it is probable that he died orretired then, leaving Borough sole Comptroller.The latter died about the end of 1598. (Cal. St. Pap.)
1598Sir Henry Palmer.Cal. St. Pap.
1611Sir Guilford Slingsby.Cal. St. Pap.
1631Sir Henry Palmer, junior.Cal. St. Pap.
1639Sir Hen. Palmer, jun., and Capt. George Carteret,[408] joint.Cal. St. Pap.
1642In abeyance.Addit. MSS. vol. 9311, fo. 188.
In 1642 the Parliament abolished the offices ofComptroller, Surveyor, and Clerk of the Acts, andconstituted instead of them a Board of equal Commissioners.The Treasurer remained, but was nolonger a member of the Navy Board.
1660*Sir Robert Slingsby.Cal. St. Pap.; Pepys’s Diary.
The Navy Board in its old form was re-establishedat the Restoration.
1661Sir John Minnes.Pepys’s Diary.
1671Sir Thomas Allen.Duke of York’s Instructions (MS. Admiralty Library).
Died in 1685. (Luttrell, i. p. 358.)
1685Sir Richard Haddock.Addit. MS. 9322.
1686In abeyance.Pepys’s Memoir.
The principal officers (except the Treasurer)were suspended, and the office placed temporarilyunder the charge of a body of equal Commissioners,as described in Pepys’s “Memoir.”
1688Sir Richard Haddock, restored.Pepys’s Memoir.
Special Commission revoked, and former officersrestored.
1715Sir Charles Wager.Byng MSS. vol. 13 (Admiralty Library).

FOOTNOTES:

SURVEYORS OF THE NAVY,

To the commencement of the 18th century.

Date of Appointment.Name.Authority.
circ. 1546Benjamin Gonson.Harleian MS. 249. ([See Robert Legg, Treasurer.])
Gonson was appointed Treasurer of the Navy in1549.
1549*Sir William Winter.Addit. MS. 5752, fo. 6b.
Letters Patent of Philip and Mary, dated 2ndNov. 1557, recite a patent of Edward VI. appointingWilliam Wynter to be “Surveyor of our Ships,”and go on to appoint him “Master of our Ordnanceof our Ships,” in addition to the Surveyorship.He continued to hold the joint offices formany years—certainly till 1589, perhaps later. Thedate of his death is uncertain.
1598*Sir John Trevor.Cal. St. Pap.
1611*Sir Richard Bingley.Phineas Pett’s Autobiography.
1616*Sir Thomas Aylesbury.Cal. St. Pap.
1632Kenrick Edisbury.Cal. St. Pap.
This is the “Old Edgborough,” whose ghostwas supposed to haunt the Hill House at Chatham.(Pepys’s Diary, 8th April, 1661.) Hedied in 1638.
1638William Batten.Cal. St. Pap.
Afterwards Sir William. ([See 1660 below.])
1642In abeyance.Addit. MSS. vol. 9311 fo. 188.
A body of Commissioners appointed by Parliamentinstead of the principal officers.
[1660]Sir William Batten, restored.Cal. St. Pap., and Pepys’s Diary.
Died in 1667.
1667Colonel Thomas Middleton.Pepys’s Diary, 10th Dec. 1667.
See Middleton in List of Commissioners at Chatham,1672.
1672*Sir John Tippetts.Duke of York’s Instructions (MS. in Admiralty Library).
1686In abeyance.Pepys’s Memoir.
1688Sir John Tippetts, restored.Pepys’s Memoir.
1692Edmund Dummer.Luttrell, ii. 522.
In the British Museum (King’s MS. 40) thereis an interesting account by Dummer of a tourmade by him in the Mediterranean on boardH.M.S. “Woolwich” in 1682–84. The volumecontains many plans and drawings. In the reignof William III., Dummer contrived a simple andingenious method of pumping water from dry docksbelow the level of low tide, which enabled Portsmouthfor the first time to possess a dry dockcapable of taking in a first-rate man-of-war, previouslyregarded as impracticable, owing to thesmall rise of tide there as compared with that atWoolwich, Deptford, Chatham, and Plymouth.He also designed and constructed the first docksat Plymouth. (See Harl. MS. 4318; LansdowneMS. 847; King’s MSS. 40, 43.)
1699Daniel Furzer.Luttrell, iv. 556.
1715Jacob Acworth.Byng Collection, vol. xiii. (MS. in Admiralty Library).

CLERKS OF THE SHIPS, OF THE NAVY, OR OF THE ACTS,

To the commencement of the 18th century.

Date of Appointment.Name.Authority.
circ. 1482Thomas Roger, or Rogiers.Pepys’s “Miscellanies” (MS.) and Harleian MS. 433.
The office of “Clerk of the King’s Ships,” or ofthe Navy, afterwards “Clerk of the Acts of theNavy,” is in all probability a very ancient one; butthe first holder of the office whose name I havemet with is Thomas Roger or Rogiers, who seemsto have held it in the reigns of Edward IV., EdwardV., and Richard III. In the third volumeof Pepys’s MS. “Miscellanies,” p. 87, is an entry ofan order dated 18th May, 22nd Edward IV. (1482),to the Treasurer and Chamberlain of the Exchequerto examine and clear the account of “ourwell beloved Thomas Roger Esq. Clerk of ourShips.” Harleian MS. 433 (supposed to have belongedto Lord Burghley) is a register of grants,&c., passing the Privy Seal, &c., during the reignsof Edward V. and Richard III., with some entriesof other reigns. No. 1690 is the appointment of“Thomas Rogiers to be Clerc of all maner shippesto the King belonging.” It has no date, but isvery probably a reappointment by Richard III.on his assumption of the throne.
Temp. Henry VII.William Comersale.“Letters and Papers, Henry VIII.,” vol. i. p. 48.
Temp. Henry VII. 1509Robert Brigandyne, or Brikenden.
“Privy Seal 28 July 1509 for Robert Brikendento be Keeper or Clerk of the King’s Ships inthe Realm of England, with 12d. a day for himself,and 6d. a day for his Clerk, in the samemanner as William Comersale,—out of the customsof Exeter and Dartmouth.”
“Letters and Papers, Henry VIII.,” vol. iii. pt. 2, p. 1263.
“Grant 21 April 1523:—Rob. Briganden, of Smalhed, Kent, alias ofPortesmouth. Release, as Clerk of the King’s Ships to Henry VII.and Henry VIII., and purveyor of Stuffs and timber for the same.”
From these two documents it appears thatBrigandyne’s appointment as Clerk of the Shipsin 1509 was a reappointment on the accession ofHenry VIII., and that he had held the same officeunder Henry VII. after Comersale, who may veryprobably have succeeded Rogiers.
Brigandyne’s name appears very frequently inconnection with naval matters down to October,1525, after which there is no mention of him inthe Calendar of letters and papers.
1526Thomas Jermyn, or Germyn.“Letters and Papers, Henry VIII.,” vol. iv. pt. 1, p. 954.
Patent 1526, April 3rd. Thomas Jermyn, Yeomanof the Guard and Crown, to be Keeper orClerk of the Navy, and Keeper of the Dock atPortsmouth, with 12d. a day, and 6d. a day for aClerk, out of the issues of the Ports of Exeter andDartmouth.
From this date to 1530 there are numerousentries connected with Jermyn’s accounts as Clerkof the Ships.
circ. 1540Sir Thomas Spert.Pepys’s “Miscellanies,” vol. vii. (MS. at Magdalene College).
This volume of the “Miscellanies” includes acollection of payments made to the navy between1537 and 1541. Amongst these are regular half-yearlypayments at the rate of £33 6s. 8d. to “SirThomas Spert, Clerke of the King’s Ships.”
circ. 1563George Winter.Addit. MSS. vol. 5752.
This volume contains an order of Queen Elizabeth,dated 16th July, 1563, to Lord Clinton, LordHigh Admiral, to deliver certain stores to GeorgeWinter, “Clerk of our Ships.” I have been unableto find the date of his appointment to thisoffice, which he continued to hold till his death in1581. His epitaph in Dyrham Church, Gloucestershire,is printed in Bigland’s Collection. Hewas brother to Sir William Winter, Surveyor ofthe Navy and Master of Sea Ordnance.
circ. 1585William Borough.Lansdowne MS. 43, No. 33.
In February of this year Borough was Clerk andComptroller: see his letter of this date (Feb. 1584,meaning no doubt 1585 as years are counted now)to Lord Burghley (Lansd. MSS. 43, 33) beginning,“To the righte honnorable the L. Burghley LordHighe Treasourer of Englande—your suppliantWilliam Borough Clarke and Comptroller of herMatie Shippes,” &c. The paper is endorsed, “Adewtifull declaration, February Ano. 1584. ByWilliam Borough Clarke and Comptroller of herMatie Navie.” It is an original letter, the bodywritten in a very neat hand of the period, andsigned by Borough himself in a different, but alsovery neat, hand. As William Holstock was certainlyComptroller at this time, and had been sofor more than twenty years, it is probable that heand Borough held that office jointly, whilst Boroughalso performed the functions of Clerk ofthe Ships. ([See List of Comptrollers.]) As Winterdied in 1581, and Borough had certainly beenClerk for some time before the date of his letter,it is probable that he immediately succeededWinter.
circ. 1600*Sir Peter Buck.Phineas Pett’s Autobiography.
As Borough died in 1598 (Cal. St. Pap.), it is probablehe was succeeded about that time by PeterBuck; but the first occasion on which I find the nameof the latter mentioned as Clerk of the Ships is inthe year 1600, by Phineas Pett. Sir Henry Palmercertainly succeeded Borough in the Comptrollershipin 1598 (Cal. St. Pap.). Buck died in 1625.He had been for some years Clerk of the Chequeat Chatham before his appointment to the Board.He is mentioned by Pepys as one of his predecessors(“Diary,” 14 Dec. 1660), who was not alittle proud of his office having once been held bya knight. Lord Braybrooke, in his note to thisentry, says that Buck was Secretary to AlgernonPercy, Earl of Northumberland; but Buck wasClerk of the Navy at least two years before theEarl was born, and died when the latter was onlytwenty-three years of age.
1625Dennis Fleming.Cal. St. Pap.
1638Dennis Fleming and Thomas Barlow, joint.Cal. St. Pap.
1642In abeyance.Addit. MSS. vol. 9311 fo. 188.
A body of Commissioners appointed by Parliamentinstead of the principal officers.
1660Samuel Pepys.
Lord Braybrooke, in his note to the entry of the27th June, 1660, quotes Pepys’s patent, in whichFleming and Barlow’s joint patent is recited andrevoked, and Pepys was appointed Clerk of theActs at a salary of £33 6s. 8d. per annum. Butthis amount was only the ancient “fee out of theExchequer” which had been attached to the officefor more than a century. Pepys’s salary had beenpreviously fixed at £350 a year. Lord Braybrookesays, in a note to 9th Feb. 1664–65, that “Barlowhad previously been Secretary to Algernon, Earlof Northumberland, when High Admiral;” but hewas appointed Clerk of the Acts two months beforethe Earl became Lord High Admiral. Barlow had,however, been in his service at an earlier date, andhad been appointed by the Earl Muster-Master ofthe Fleet under his command in 1636. (Cal. St.Pap.)
1674Thomas Hayter and John Pepys, joint.Addit. MSS. vol. 9307.
When Pepys was promoted to be Secretary ofthe Admiralty, he was succeeded in the office ofClerk of the Acts by his clerk and his brotherjointly.
1677Thomas Hayter and James Sotherne, joint.Orders and Warrants, 1676–78 (MS. in Admiralty Library).
Sotherne was appointed “one of the Clerkes ofye Acts of our Navy Royall,” in the place of JohnPepys “lately deceased:” 12th March, 1676–77.
1679James Sotherne, alone.
Hayter was promoted to be Secretary of theAdmiralty when Pepys was thrown into prison.
1686In abeyance.Pepys’s Memoir.
Special temporary Commission appointed, andthe principal officers suspended.
1688James Sotherne, restored.Pepys’s Memoir.
Special Commission revoked.
circ. 1690Charles Sergison.
Sotherne was made Secretary of the Admiraltyin January, 1690, and it is probable that Sergisonimmediately succeeded him. The Letter-books ofthe Navy Board at Chatham show that he held theoffice in 1691, and held it until 1719.
1719Tempest Holmes.Byng Collection, vol. xiii. (MS. in Admiralty Library).

COMMISSIONERS OF THE NAVY APPOINTED TO RESIDE AT CHATHAM,

From the first establishment of that office in 1630 to the commencement of the 18th century.

Date of Appointment.Name.Authority.
1630Phineas Pett.Phineas Pett’s Autobiography (Addit. MS. 9298).
This interesting MS., in Pett’s own handwriting,contains full details of the life of thecelebrated builder of the “Royal Sovereign,” or“Sovereign of the Seas,” from his birth in 1570until 1637, when it breaks off abruptly. It isendorsed, in a much later handwriting: “The lifeof Comr. Pett’s father, whose place he did enjoy.”A few leaves are wanting, but their contents aresupplied by a complete transcript in the HarleianMS. 6279, in which, however (as well as in anothertranscript in the Pepysian Library), the orthographyis somewhat modernized, and the handwritingis that of the latter part of the 17th century.Extracts from a copy of the Harleian transcriptare printed in “Archæologia,” vol. xii.
Pett died in 1647, at Chatham. Having submittedto the Parliament in 1642, he retainedhis office until his death in 1647.[409]
1647Peter Pett.Addit. MSS. vol. 9306 (Navy Board Letter-book), shows that in Nov. 1648, Peter Pett held this office.
I have not met with Peter Pett’s original appointment,but I have no doubt that he immediately succeededhis father Phineas, on the death of the latterin 1647. He was continued in the same office afterthe Restoration. In 1667, in consequence of theDutch attack on Chatham, he was superseded,sent to the Tower, and threatened with impeachment.The threat was not carried out, but he wasnever restored to office.
1667Vacant.
No new appointment was made for nearly twoyears after Pett’s removal.
1669*Sir John Cox.Pepys’ Diary: Narborough’s Diary.
Cox was master of the Duke of York’s flagship,“Royal Charles,” in the victory over the DutchAdmiral Opdam, 3rd June, 1665. Was captain ofthe “Sovereign” in the three days’ battle with theDutch fleet in June, 1666. Master Attendant atDeptford in 1667. Resident Commissioner atChatham, March, 1669. Appointed, 15th Jan.1672, Flag-Captain to the Duke of York in the“Prince,” without vacating his office at Chatham.Knighted by King Charles II., on board the“Prince,” at the Nore, on the 27th April. Killedat the Battle of Sole Bay, on the 28th May in thesame year.
(See “Diary” of Captain John Narborough(afterwards Sir John), whilst serving as First Lieutenanton board the “Prince.” It is amongst thePepysian MSS. at Magdalene College, and there isa transcript in the Admiralty Library.)
1672Colonel Thomas Middleton.Duke of York’s Instructions (MS. in Admiralty Library).
Colonel Middleton was one of the Commissionersof the Admiralty appointed by the Rumpin January, 1660. Engaged in the West Indiatrade after the Restoration (see Duke of York’s“Memoirs,” p. 9). Appointed Commissioner atPortsmouth in 1664, and Surveyor of the Navy in1667. Removed to Chatham as Resident Commissionerin June, 1672. Died in December ofthe same year.
1672*Sir Richard Beach.Duke of York’s Instructions (MS. in Admiralty Library).
Captain of H.M.S. the “Crown” in February,1663. Served at sea till 1672, in which year hecaptured an Algerine man-of-war. Appointed ResidentCommissioner at Chatham in Dec. 1672,and transferred to Portsmouth in the same capacityin 1679. Removed to the Board in Londonas Comptroller of Victualling Accounts in 1690.Died in May, 1692.
1679*Sir John Godwin.Addit. MS. 9312.
Served in the navy as a lieutenant, and subsequentlyin the Victualling Department. AppointedCommissioner at Chatham in Dec. 1679;removed to the Board in London, March, 1686;died in 1689.
1686Sir Phineas Pett.Pepys’s Memoirs.
Son of Peter Pett, shipbuilder, of Ratcliffe, andgrand-nephew of Phineas Pett, the first Commissionerat Chatham. Appointed Master Shipwrightat Portsmouth in June, 1660, and transferred toChatham in the same capacity in the followingmonth. Dismissed for misbehaviour in office onthe 25th Sept., 1668, but restored three monthsafterwards on making submission and surrenderinghis patent. Promoted to the Board in London asComptroller of Victualling Accounts on the 5thAugust, 1680, and knighted by the King on thesame day. Transferred to Chatham as Commissionerin 1686. Dismissed on account of hispolitical opinions on the accession of William andMary.[410]
1689*Sir Edward Gregory.Admiralty Orders, 1688–9 (MS. in the Public Record Office).
Served as a purser in the navy in 1662–3. Succeededhis father as Clerk of the Cheque inChatham Yard in Feb. 1665, which office he resignedafter holding it nearly twenty years. AppointedCommissioner at Chatham on the 20thApril, 1689. Knighted by William III. in Jan.1691. Retired on a pension of £300 a year inJune, 1703. Died in 1713.
1703Captain George St. Lo.Chatham Records.
Attained the rank of captain in 1682. When incommand of the “Portsmouth,” in 1689, was capturedwith his ship, and taken into Brest severelywounded. In 1693 he published a tract, entitled,“England’s Safety or a bridle to the FrenchKing.” In the same year he was appointed amember of the Navy Board. Transferred to Plymouthas Commissioner in 1695, and from thenceto Chatham in 1703. Superseded on the accessionof George I., in 1714, by the omission of hisname from the new patent for the Navy Board.

FOOTNOTES:

APPENDIX VII.

[APPENDIX VII.]

PLAYS WHICH PEPYS SAW ACTED.

Chapter [XII.]—Pepys was not very careful in setting down the titles of the plays he saw, and in many instances he quotes the second titles alone. This caution must be remembered by those consulting the following list:—