Samuel Pepys and Corruption

Abstract

A note on versions:The version presented here may differ from the published version or, version of record, if you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher's version. Please see the 'permanent WRAP URL' above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription. Popery and lust were associated with corrupt behaviour. Pepys's story was part of a larger one about long-term shifts in the nature of officeholding, state formation, the public interest, patronage and the culture of gift-giving that needs further exploration.

It's a gift – Samuel Pepys and Sir William Warren, an account of gifts, bribes and kickbacks

“…He shows within the diary that he believes that in order to maximise efficiency, to promote the King’s interest, private incentives were essential, as was an alignment of private and public interests (Knights, 2014). He takes pains to point out, when receiving monies from a contractor that “there is not the least word or deed I have yet been guilty of in his behalf but what I am sure hath been to the King's advantage and profit of the service, nor ever will I” (5 January 1664).…”

“…Knights (2021) highlights that history offers important insights to the study of corruption (Kroeze et al, 2018), quality of government (Knights, 2015) and fraud due to incompetence (Antonelli et al, 2021). Knights (2014) develops ideas from Handley and Hayton (2002) to examine parliamentary corruption, noting the political motivations behind criticisms of Pepys and campaigns against corruption. Observing that this was part of a larger story of officeholding, public interest, patronage and a culture of gift giving that needs more investigation with calls for an historical examination of these ideas to provide insight, a chronological charting to investigate "old corruption" the systems in office holding, of sinecures, pensions, rewards and government contracts.…”

“…4.1 Pepys's initial opinions on bribery and corruption Knights (2015) observes that Pepys knew corruption when he observed it in others and yet his own wealth was substantially higher than his salary and he claimed bribes were lawful presents from friends (Knights, 2014). Pepys takes great pains within his diary to justify why gifts of food, money and other things were gifts from friends rather than bribes for work being directed towards these friends.…”

‘And one man in his time plays many parts’ – Samuel Pepys business administrator, accomptant and auditor

“…In his diary, Pepys observes that self-interest motivates those in the Navy, but he shows a great deed of self-interest in the acceptance of benefits at work, but outside of his salary, his wealth was substantially built on more than his salary. Within the diary he writes justifications of why gifts of food, money and other things were not bribes, but gifts from friends and not related to work being directed towards these friends (Knights, 2014). He experiences role conflict in the receipt of these gifts from his role and position in the Navy, and attempts to justify them.…”

“…His diary became '…my justification if anything of this should be hereafter enquired after' (Diary 25 November 1667). Indeed, Pepys increasingly justified his acceptance of 'a very noble present' (Diary 10 February 1663) and later 'a good present' (Diary, 2 March 1664) and uses the language of friendship (Knights, 2014). He can see that it is accepted practice at the time to persuade a certain Captain Fisher and his companion, 'and make them friends with drink and a bribe' but again suffers conflict in this role, writing, 'Lord!…”