[Footnote 66:  AShort_History_of_the_Royal_Navy_, pp. 96, 97.]

The war having really come, it was inevitable that the Government, and Elizabeth as its head, should be blamed sooner or later for not having made adequate provision for it.  No one is better entitled to speak on the naval policy of the Armada epoch than Mr. Julian Corbett,[67] who is not disposed to assume that the Queen’s action was above criticism.  He says that ’Elizabeth has usually been regarded as guilty of complete and unpardonable inaction.’  He explains that ’the event at least justified the Queen’s policy.  There is no trace of her having been blamed for it at the time at home; nor is there any reason to doubt it was adopted sagaciously and deliberately on the advice of her most capable officers.’  Mr. David Hannay, who, as an historian, rightly takes into consideration the conditions of the age, points out that ’Elizabeth was a very poor sovereign, and the maintenance of a great fleet was a heavy drain upon her resources.’  He adds:  ’There is no reason to suppose that Elizabeth and her Lord Treasurer were careless of their duty; but the Government of the time had very little experience in the maintenance of great military forces.’

[Footnote 67:  Drakeand_the_Tudor_Navy_, 1898, vol. ii. p. 117.]

If we take the charges against her in detail, we shall find that each is as ill-founded as that of criminal neglect of naval preparations generally.  The most serious accusation is that with regard to the victuals.  It will most likely be a surprise to many people to find that the seamen of Elizabeth were victualled on a more abundant and much more costly scale than the seamen of Victoria.  Nevertheless, such is the fact.  In 1565 the contract allowance for victualling was 4-1/2d. a day for each man in harbour, and 5d. a day at sea.  There was also an allowance of 4d. a man per month at sea and 8d. in harbour for ‘purser’s necessaries.’  Mr. Oppenheim, in whose valuable work[68] on naval administration the details as to the Elizabethan victualling system are to be found, tells us that in 1586 the rate was raised to 6d. a day in harbour and 6-1/2d. at sea; and that in 1587 it was again raised, this time to 6-1/2d. in harbour and 7d. at sea.  These sums were intended to cover both the cost of the food and storage, custody, conveyance, &c., the present-day ‘establishment charges.’  The repeated raising of the money allowance is convincing proof that the victualling arrangements had not been neglected, and that there was no refusal to sanction increased expenditure to improve them.  It is a great thing to have Mr. Oppenheim’s high authority for this, because he is not generally favourable to the Queen, though even he admits that it ‘is a moot point’ how far she was herself responsible.

[Footnote 68:  TheAdministration_of_the_Royal_Navy,_ 1509-1660.  London, 1896.]