July 20, 1666. “So I away to Lovett’s, there to see how my picture
goes on to be varnished, a fine crucifix which will be very fine.”
August 2. “At home find Lovett, who showed me my crucifix, which
will be very fine when done.” Nov. 3. “This morning comes Mr.
Lovett and brings me my print of the Passion, varnished by him, and
the frame which is indeed very fine, though not so fine as I
expected; but pleases me exceedingly.”
Whether he had or had not a crucifix in his house was a matter for himself alone, and the interference of the House of Commons was a gross violation of the liberty of the subject.
In connection with Lord Shaftesbury’s part in this matter, the late Mr. W. D. Christie found the following letter to Sir Thomas Meres among the papers at St. Giles’s House, Dorsetshire:—
“Exeter House, February 10th, 1674.
“Sir,—That there might be no mistake, I thought best to put my
answer in writing to those questions that yourself, Sir William
Coventry, and Mr. Garroway were pleased to propose to me this
morning from the House of Commons, which is that I never designed to
be a witness against any man for what I either heard or saw, and
therefore did not take so exact notice of things inquired of as to
be able to remember them so clearly as is requisite to do in a
testimony upon honour or oath, or to so great and honourable a body
as the House of Commons, it being some years distance since I was at
Mr. Pepys his lodging. Only that particular of an altar is so
signal that I must needs have remembered it had I seen any such
thing, which I am sure I do not. This I desire you to communicate
with Sir William Coventry and Mr. Garroway to be delivered as my
answer to the House of Commons, it being the same I gave you this
morning.
“I am, Sir,
“Your most humble servant,
“SHAFTESBURY.”
After reading this letter Sir William Coventry very justly remarked, “There are a great many more Catholics than think themselves so, if having a crucifix will make one.” Mr. Christie resented the remarks on Lord Shaftesbury’s part in this persecution of Pepys made by Lord Braybrooke, who said, “Painful indeed is it to reflect to what length the bad passions which party violence inflames could in those days carry a man of Shaftesbury’s rank, station, and abilities.” Mr. Christie observes, “It is clear from the letter to Meres that Shaftesbury showed no malice and much scrupulousness when a formal charge, involving important results, was founded on his loose private conversations.” This would be a fair vindication if the above attack upon Pepys stood alone, but we shall see later on that Shaftesbury was the moving spirit in a still more unjustifiable attack.
Lord Sandwich died heroically in the naval action in Southwold Bay, and on June 24th,1672, his remains were buried with some pomp in Westminster Abbey. There were eleven earls among the mourners, and Pepys, as the first among “the six Bannerolles,” walked in the procession.
About this time Pepys was called from his old post of Clerk of the Acts to the higher office of Secretary of the Admiralty. His first appointment was a piece of favouritism, but it was due to his merits alone that he obtained the secretaryship. In the summer of 1673, the Duke of York having resigned all his appointments on the passing of the Test Act, the King put the Admiralty into commission, and Pepys was appointed Secretary for the Affairs of the Navy.
[The office generally known as Secretary of the Admiralty dates back
many years, but the officer who filled it was sometimes Secretary to
the Lord High Admiral, and sometimes to the Commission for that
office. “His Majesties Letters Patent for ye erecting the office of
Secretary of ye Admiralty of England, and creating Samuel Pepys,
Esq., first Secretary therein,” is dated June 10th, 1684.]
He was thus brought into more intimate connection with Charles II., who took the deepest interest in shipbuilding and all naval affairs. The Duke of Buckingham said of the King:—
“The great, almost the only pleasure of his mind to which he seemed
addicted was shipping and sea affairs, which seemed to be so much
his talent for knowledge as well as inclination, that a war of that
kind was rather an entertainment than any disturbance to his
thoughts.”