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."
When Pepys ceased to be Clerk of the Acts he was able to obtain the appointment for his clerk, Thomas Hayter, and his brother, John Pepys, who held it jointly. The latter does not appear to have done much credit to Samuel. He was appointed Clerk to the Trinity House in 1670 on his brother's recommendation, and when he died in 1677 he was in debt £300 to his employers, and this sum Samuel had to pay. In 1676 Pepys was Master of the Trinity House, and in the following year Master of the Clothworkers' Company, when he presented a richly-chased silver cup, which is still used at the banquets of the company. On Tuesday, 10th September, 1677, the Feast of the Hon. Artillery Company was held at Merchant Taylors' Hall, when the Duke of York, the Duke of Somerset, the Lord Chancellor, and other distinguished persons were present. On this occasion Viscount Newport, Sir Joseph Williamson, and Samuel Pepys officiated as stewards.
About this time it is evident that the secretary carried himself with some haughtiness as a ruler of the navy, and that this was resented by some. An amusing instance will be found in the Parliamentary Debates. On May 11th, 1678, the King's verbal message to quicken the supply was brought in by Mr. Secretary Williamson, when Pepys spoke to this effect:
"When I promised that the ships should be ready by the 30th of May,
it was upon the supposition of the money for 90 ships proposed by
the King and voted by you, their sizes and rates, and I doubt not by
that time to have 90 ships, and if they fall short it will be only
from the failing of the Streights ships coming home and those but
two. … .
"Sir Robert Howard then rose and said, 'Pepys here speaks rather
like an Admiral than a Secretary, "I" and "we." I wish he knows
half as much of the Navy as he pretends.'"
Pepys was chosen by the electors of Harwich as their member in the short Parliament that sat from March to July, 1679, his colleague being Sir Anthony Deane, but both members were sent to the Tower in May on a baseless charge, and they were superseded in the next Parliament that met on the 17th October, 1679.
The high-handed treatment which Pepys underwent at this time exhibits a marked instance of the disgraceful persecution connected with the so-called Popish plot. He was totally unconnected with the Roman Catholic party, but his association with the Duke of York was sufficient to mark him as a prey for the men who initiated this "Terror" of the seventeenth century. Sir. Edmund Berry Godfrey came to his death in October, 1678, and in December Samuel Atkins, Pepys's clerk, was brought to trial as an accessory to his murder. Shaftesbury and the others not having succeeded in getting at Pepys through his clerk, soon afterwards attacked him more directly, using the infamous evidence of Colonel Scott. Much light has lately been thrown upon the underhand dealings of this miscreant by Mr. G. D. Scull, who printed privately in 1883 a valuable work entitled, "Dorothea Scott, otherwise Gotherson, and Hogben of Egerton House, Kent, 1611–1680."
John Scott (calling himself Colonel Scott) ingratiated himself into acquaintance with Major Gotherson, and sold to the latter large tracts of land in Long Island, to which he had no right whatever. Dorothea Gotherson, after her husband's death, took steps to ascertain the exact state of her property, and obtained the assistance of Colonel Francis Lovelace, Governor of New York. Scott's fraud was discovered, and a petition for redress was presented to the King. The result of this was that the Duke of York commanded Pepys to collect evidence against Scott, and he accordingly brought together a great number of depositions and information as to his dishonest proceedings in New England, Long Island, Barbadoes, France, Holland, and England, and these papers