about Hawke, or Boscawen, or Collingwood, or our other naval heroes."[1]
Yet the neglect by the general historian of the naval side of our history is but the natural result of the indifference or shortcomings of many of those who might have forced this part of his work more specially upon his attention, and who might have facilitated his labours and smoothed away his real or supposed difficulties. Until Schomberg[2] wrote, the British naval officer, whose position and training gave him exceptional advantages for the understanding and presentation of the facts, and the conclusions to be drawn from them, was, for all practical purposes, almost silent on the subject. Sir William Monson, it is true, and several other officers, have left us treatises on naval subjects; and Pepys, who was a captain, R.N., has bequeathed us a mass of invaluable material for history; but these are not naval historians. Schomberg's book is so full of inaccuracy as to be almost entirely devoid of value. Then followed Brenton. Brenton's essay[3] was a failure. He understood, it may be, something of what naval history ought to be; but his numerous prejudices, national and personal, his lack of discrimination, and his ignorance of, or indifference to, the common-sense rules as to the admission or rejection of evidence, tainted his work from beginning to end. Moreover, Brenton dealt only with an historical episode.
The next naval officer to attempt the writing of British naval history was Sir Nicholas Harris Nicolas. His effort[4] was eminently successful so far as it went, but it was rendered a comparative failure by the untimely death of the historian when he was still at the outset of his gigantic work. The scheme of it was indeed a most generous and ample one. Nicolas spared no pains in research; he was never satisfied until he had consulted the best contemporary authorities for the details of every event; and he devoted as much attention to the civil history of the Navy, and to the development of its material, as to its military exploits. The result was, that although
- ↑ In discussion of Prof. Laughton's paper, March 11th, 1896.
- ↑ Capt. Isaac Schomberg, R.N.: ' Naval Chronology, or an Historical Summary of Naval and Maritime Events, from the time of the Romans to the Treaty of Peace, 1802.' 5 vols. 1802.
- ↑ Capt. Edward Pelham Brenton, R.N. : ' The Naval History of Great Britain, 1783 to 1836.' 2 vols. 1837. A revised and enlarged edition of an earlier work by the same author.
- ↑ Sir Nicholas Harris Nicolas : ' A History of the British Navy, from the Earliest Times to the Wars of the French Revolution,' 2 vols. 1847. I call Nicolas a naval officer, but he retired early from the Navy.
