Charles Wager - Reputation

Reputation

It has been claimed that the navy was ill prepared for war prior to 1739 and that the lack of preparation was mainly due to Wager’s incompetence because of his age. Typical of these criticisms is repeated in the 1959 History of the British Navy “The leading figures in 1739, at the top because they were old, were Sir Richard(sic) Wager and Sir John Norris” and continuing to refer to Wager “He was seventy four-a great age for those heavy-drinking, smallpox ridden days-and he had not worn particularly well.” These Claims, which seem to have emerged long after his death, can neither be proved nor disproved, but may be doubted. A captain who attended the great debate of 13 February 1741 on whether to petition the king to remove Walpole from office observed: ‘Sir Charles Wager is as Hearty as I ever knew Him, spoke in the motion ... at four in the morning, tho He had been there from seven the morning before’. On that occasion Wager issued a challenge, saying that if there were any mismanagements ‘in the Office of Admiralty, He and the rest of the Board ought to answer it at their own peril, and not Sir Robert’ He was fit enough to command the king's channel crossings in 1740 and 1741. (Wager's decision to turn back to Holland on a stormy night in December 1736 had probably saved the whole entourage.) not too shabby for a supposed smallpox ridden drunk who had not worn very well. Rumours that he was inattentive may be offset by his record of steady attendance at the board, cabinet meetings, in parliament, and by much else. As so often happens in history an abundance of skill is turned, by fate, into the final instrument of downfall. The king insisted on having Wager see him across the water in May 1741 this was unfortunate politically because the voyage coincided with the Westminster election. Wager was still popular and his presence during the polling might have prevented the surprise nomination of Edward Vernon who was in the West Indies and knew nothing about it. As it happened the bailiff pre-emptively closed the poll, thus provoking a riot and inviting a challenge. The fiasco, which culminated in a voiding of the election on a very close vote in the House of Commons, contributed notably to Walpole's loss of parliamentary control and the subsequent resignation by Wager as first lord in January 1742 when it became clear that Walpole was arranging to leave office.