[Footnote 78:  Mr. Halliday Sparling, in the article already referred to (p. 651), says twice; but Mr. Oppenheim seems to think that the first increase was before Elizabeth’s accession.]

Delay in the payment of wages was not peculiar to the Elizabethan system.  It lasted very much longer, down to our own times in fact.  In 1588 the seamen of the fleet were kept without their pay for several months.  In the great majority of cases, and most likely in all, the number of these months was less than six.  Even within the nineteenth century men-of-war’s men had to wait for their pay for years.  Commander C. N. Robinson, in his ’British Fleet,’[79] a book that ought to be in every Englishman’s library, remarks:  ’All through the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries it was the rule not to pay anybody until the end of the commission, and to a certain degree the practice obtained until some fifty years ago.’  As to the nineteenth century, Lord Dundonald, speaking in Parliament, may be quoted.  He said that of the ships on the East Indies station, the Centurion’s men had been unpaid for eleven years; the Rattlesnake’s for fourteen; the Fox’s for fifteen.  The Elizabethan practice compared with this will look almost precipitate instead of dilatory.  To draw again on my personal experience, I may say that I have been kept without pay for a longer time than most of the people in Lord Howard’s fleet, as, for the first two years that I was at sea, young officers were paid only once in six months; and then never in cash, but always in bills.  The reader may be left to imagine what happened when a naval cadet tried to get a bill for some L7 or L8 cashed at a small Spanish-American port.

[Footnote 79:  London, 1894.]

A great deal has been made of the strict audit of the accounts of Howard’s fleet.  The Queen, says Froude, ’would give no orders for money till she had demanded the meaning of every penny that she was charged.’  Why she alone should be held up to obloquy for this is not clear.  Until a very recent period, well within the last reign, no commanding officer, on a ship being paid off, could receive the residue of his pay, or get any half-pay at all, until his ’accounts had been passed.’[80] The same rule applied to officers in charge of money or stores.  It has been made a further charge against Elizabeth that her officers had to meet certain expenditure out of their own pockets.  That certainly is not a peculiarity of the sixteenth-century navy.  Till less than fifty years ago the captain of a British man-of-war had to provide one of the three chronometers used in the navigation of his ship.  Even later than that the articles necessary for cleaning the ship and everything required for decorating her were paid for by the officers, almost invariably by the first lieutenant, or second in command.  There must be many officers still serving who have spent sums, considerable in the aggregate, of their own money on public objects.  Though pressure in this respect has been much relieved of late, there are doubtless many who do so still.  It is, in fact, a traditional practice in the British Navy and is not in the least distinctly Elizabethan.