Impermanence to Permanent

From Post Impermanence to Rank Pemanently

This Naval History continues on from : "Blake"

An overwhelming proportion of Pre-Pepysian officers come under our classification as one or another of England's "natural reserves."

From the time of Henry VIII down to the tenure of the office by James, Duke of York 1667, the Lord Admiral was expected to command the Fleet whenever it turned out at anything like full strength; and he often did.

So in one sense he enjoyed a certain permanence; this was theoretically a life-appointment. But he was seldom anything like a "whole-time professional." Some bearers of the title were naturally more competent and experienced than others.

Sir William FitzWilliam, created the Earl of Southampton. Who held the office under Henry VIII from 1528 to 1542, was no doubt well above the average in his knowledge of sea-fighting, since he had held many commands in his time.

But he was nothing like a "whole-timer," while most others were neither whole-timers nor in the least bit knowledgeable in sea-command, let alone in seamanship. Yet strictly the Lord Admiral was a Royal Navy officer, since he was obviously an office-holder under the Crown, for years on end.

It might be more accurate to affirm that he was the only Royal Navy executive officer, since he was the only person who received a salary; and it was an enormous one; for performing a number of duties, one which was officially sea-fighting.

There were also a few permanent administrative officers, with recognizd and salaried administrative posts. There were some officers who served again and again in the royal ships. These men were in the higher grade of officers what the warrent officers were in the lower grade of officers.

Blake

They were the Crowns personal naval servants

More often than not the Monarch's selected their fighting or commanding officers from their "natural reserves." Nor were they such "whole-timers," so constantly employed, as the Warrant Officers. Yet they existed, from the early days of Elizabeth, when a man like Sir William Wynter began his career, down to the period of the Civil War when Sir John Pennington flourished.

Some of them ought to be ruled out because they held administrative posts; Wynter was master of Naval Ordinance and the Surveyor of Ships, while William Borough was Clerk of the ships. A few remain who were not altogether "whole-timers," but were much more so than Drake or Grenville; and they regarded themselves as professional seamen-fighters in the personal service of the Crown.

It is only with Pepys that a truly modern personel of professionals begins. What did Pepys do? And what was his contribution?

Apparently he did nothing really drastic; only a number of seemingly small things. And yet, in each case, that small thing led to another small thing; and that to another and so on until after his death the whole conception of the Naval Officer as he found it had given place to an entirely different one.

The key-note of the old officer personnel was its impermanence. The old Naval Officer was essentially a part-timer in the eyes of his employer, the State; just like an old trusted gardener who has spent his working life in the service of is employer, the householder. Who has ever heard of a gardener on a pension?

Now the story of the Naval Officer is this: up to a certain point, 1660, he was to his employer, England, just what the gardner is to the householder. If that employer was a poorish lady, living in a smallish house which had small gardens to look-after. England was little more than just England, and the British empire was not yet.

But in the next two centuries she rose in the world. The size of her house was bigger as were her gardens. At the same time England expanded into a world empire. There was ever more work for the gardener and there was more money to pay him, Britain was becoming more important. A long time before 1860, the "old" Naval Officer had become a "whole-time" servant of the State-he was the "new" Naval Officer.

It was a typical English evolution

The process of change was going on all of the time, though at an uneven pace. The change, while not steady continued until it was complete by 1860. But did responsible Authority admit it? No, they would not. In its airy English way it insisted that no-change was taking place at all.

In 1660, the Naval Officer was a part-timer, in both theory and practice. Up to 1860, he became a whole-time professional in theory and practice but the Authorities denied it; because it was cheaper. Paying pensions is expensive, and so long as the Authorities insisted its officers were part-timers there was no reason why they should pay it.

During those two long centuries it could almost be heard the Government reiterating in parrot-like formula, "One does not pension one's gardener."

The seventeenth-century Royal Navy officer, was a part-timer in a literal sense. He had the status and the pay; but only when he was actually appointed a specific post in a specific ship or, were he a man capable of shouldering high responsibilty, in a specific squadron or a specific fleet.

Up to 1667, every officer's pay and naval-status ceased the instant that the ship to which he had been appointed was put out of commission. Officially he ceased to be a naval officer until he received another "Ship-Commission."

Pepys two lists two lists were

The "Flag-Officers" and the "Sea-Commissioned-Officers," leads to the surmise that the "employed" proportion was very small: for not more than two months in a year; on the average he was not a naval officer at all.

We usually hear of the luckier, or maybe the better, officers who, because they knew the right people or because they performed their duties exceptionally well, received the major share of such employment as was going. These men, would hold a post of some naval kind for more than two months of a year.

The figure of two months per annum would not be true in war-time, when many ships were in "commission," and a relatively large number of naval officers were required. Then, the over-all average would be lowered in peace-time, when most ships would be de-commissioned.

To Mr. Pepys a "Flag-Man," was not a man who was entitled to wear his flag afloat: not "entitled, but competent enough to do so. This explains why individual officers are seen, in Pepys's lists, fluctuating wildly in their naval titles. One Thomas Berry, holds the following consecutive posts: Lieutenant, Captain, Second Lieutenant, First Lieutenant in four different ships.

Modern-day Pages Fast Boats Pages Joe Wezley Pages

The change from Post to Rank

Perhaps the greatest difference between the old "Post" Navy and the modern "Rank" Navy lies in the distinction. In the same way we are wrong in referring "Admiral Monk," or "Vice-Admiral Sir John Harman." And as we go back in time, we would be even more wrong. "Admiral Blake" is inaccurate: "Admiral Drake" even more so.

For none of these distinguished men had any title to the word as a personal prefix to his name. He could only, officially, use it after his name, and then only, if he would be strictly accurate, when he added the words of such a fleet or squadron.

For unless at that moment he could add some such phrase, he was not entitled to use the word Admiral at all.

It was not until 1860, that officially, the terms "Captain X" or "Admiral Y" became correct. For it was then, that, Authority gave up its ostrich-like insistance upon the part-time nature of officers. It was the first real admission that the Royal Navy officer was an officer all of the time; he was a whole-timer in the naval profession.

That is what happened-the Navy changed from a set of part-time Post-holders to a corps of whole-time Rank-holders. In the process the word "officer" changed its meaning.

In Pepys's time, and in all previous periods, it meant "office-holder." If one held an "office" in the Navy, one was an officer; but otherwise one was not. In the modern Navy an "officer" is simply a "Rank-holder."

The continuation of this Naval History will be: "Medieval Sea-Fight"

Impermanence Medieval Sea-Fight

"Pirates Trilogy" $20