References
- 143 Save, possibly, the eighth. See p. below
- 1588 . Cf. List D, below, where we learn that 370 of the brass pieces on board the Queen's Ships of had been ‘delivered into the Office of the Ordnance of the Tower in anno 1569’
- For figures, see Table 3, below.
- 1576 . Strictly speaking, there are only sixteen ships common to all lists, and seventeen common to ‘Wynter's Proportion’ and. The Bull, common to these two, was condemned in 1593, and, although it reappears again in 1594 as the Adventure (which figures in the last two lists) it was so completely rebuilt as to be more fairly regarded as a new ship. I have, however, included the Tiger, the Scout, and the Merlin. The first-named seems worth including, for it is common to the 1576 list, and all subsequent ones; and being built in 1570, only barely missed Wynter's original ‘Proportion’. The Scout and the Merlin do not appear in the 1576 list: the latter's heaviest gun mentioned anywhere is, however, a falcon, so that its inclusion will nowhere make any difference to the figures: while the Scout's few sakers and minions have been added to the 1576 list on the basis of ‘Wynter's Proportion’ figures, so that any error which may exist is too trifling to notice. It is of evident value to make the list which we can compare at all stages as comprehensive as possible, consonant with comparative accuracy. The ‘Nineteen Ships’, therefore, so-called in the text and set out in Table 4., are: Elizabeth Jonas, Triumph, Bear, Victory, Hope, Mary Rose, Philip and Mary (renamed Nonpareil), Lion, Elizabeth Bonaventure, Dreadnought, Swiftsure, Swallow, Antelope, Foresight, Aid, Tiger, Achates, Scout, and Merlin. The Revenge, though built at the same time as the Scout, I have not included, because its armament, unlike the latter's, is too important to permit of guesswork. As we shall see, we get very few chances of viewing the armament of this interesting ship
- 18 March 1586 . 18 March , The exception is the ‘Nineteen Ships’ figures for. See below, p. 112
- Elizabeth Bonaventure, Aid An exception has, however, been made in the case of three ships—Tiger. With these, yet another set of figures is available at a very critical juncture; so I have tabulated their guns individually (Table 6)
- 1585 . How ‘theoretical’ is this December list, and how far divorced from the facts may be gleaned from the figures for the Bonaventure and the Aid, which, six months earlier, had actually received a good many additional pieces when they went west with Drake. Evidently all that this list does is to state the proposed normal allowance of each ship
- 300 In the transcript of this document—S.P. Dom. CLXXXV, 34—as printed in N.R.S. vol. XI, pp. 8—there are two errors:(a) In all pages but the first and sixth, ‘Remaining aboard’ has become ‘Remaining abroad’. The former is, clearly, correct.(b)In the first five pages (300–4) the headings of the right and left columns have been transposed, the title ‘Remaining aboard’ appearing on the right, and the ‘To be supplied’ caption on the left. In the sixth and subsequent pages, the titles are reversed, so that ‘Remaining aboard’ comes on the left, and ‘To be supplied’ on the right. At the end of the whole MS., however, the grand totals of both ‘Remaining aboard’ and ‘To be supplied’ are given, so that we can see which is the right reading. We find that the last half of the pages are correctly titled; the left-hand column throughout, that is, should read ‘Remaining aboard’, and the right-hand column, throughout, ‘To be supplied’. It is indeed true—and typical of the times—that the figures do not tally exactly even when one does the sum right. The figure of ‘Remaining aboard’ given in the summary is 562, when it ought to be 582: but the number ‘To be supplied’ is correct at 241. This is quite as good a standard of accuracy as one may expect from the average Elizabethan arithmetician. When, however, we add up the figures as actually labelled, we get as our answer, ‘Remaining aboard’, 443 (instead of 582), and ‘To be supplied’, 380 (instead of 241)–errors too vast even for that unstatistical age
- 1576 . Lion's In the interests of absolute accuracy, it should perhaps be recorded that our old friend, the culverin-perier, still present in the list, has at last disappeared: and that two demi-cannon periers, recorded as being in the same ship in 1576 but not mentioned in the 1569 list, have also vanished. The culverin-perier appears just once more—in 1589—but is not then, in all probability, on shipboard, and is in any case unprovided with ammunition. The evident truth is that both these weapons were either out of date as early even as 1569, or else experiments—and presumably unsuccessful ones
- 309 Printed in N.R.S. vol. XI
- 17 July 1585 . The Navy List 17 July , 313 on the back of the Ordnance List now under discussion, and printed in N.R.S. vol. XI, p., omits the names of the Bonaventure and the Aid from its main heading, and adds them as ‘With Sir Francis Drake’, thus proving that this assumption is legitimate. For the new armament of these two ships see the Indenture of, printed in N.R.S. vol. xi, p. 27, and below, Table 6
- 1588 . Tiger Including the this list contains the names of twelve ships, and gives the following totals: demi-cannons, 16; culverins, 24; demi-culverins, 45; sakers, 40. Of these twelve ships, the Tiger already figures among the ‘Nineteen Ships’; and three small unnamed pinnaces are difficult to identify with any ships in later lists—they certainly do not figure among the thirty-four Queen's Ships of. The figures of the remaining eight, however, are available. As so many of these are small ships, it is hardly worth while to work out separate total weights and averages for them. They are Rainbow, Vanguard, Sun, Spy, Tremontana, Moon, Advice, and Charles.
- 336 N.R.S. vol. II
- Drake and the Tudor Navy 182 II, p. (new impression), and N.R.S. vol. XI, Introd. p. xi, note
- 1585 . Sea Dragon 271 My reasons are: (1) In December, the was with Drake in the West Indies: yet in that very month Burghley mentions the New Tiger in a list of ships which are apparently available for immediate service at home (cf. N.R.S. vol. xi, p.). Corbett recognizes this discrepancy, but dismisses it as ‘curious’, and explains it tentatively by suggesting that the Sea Dragon of the West Indies may have been another Sea Dragon. This is, of course, possible, but not very convincing. (2) The ‘Report of the Chief Shipwrights’ (S.P. Dom. CCIV, 20) says of the Tiger (in October 1587) that she has been ‘lately well- repaired’—a statement which would seem to refer rather to a ‘large refit’ of the old Tiger than to the ordinary repair of a newly-acquired ship. (3) In the preamble of the 28 March 1586 report, now under discussion, the Tiger is expressly distinguished by name from the other ships mentioned, all of which are admittedly new ones. Drake—and therefore, presumably, the Sea Dragon—had not returned even then from the West Indies, so that this old ship can hardly have been the Sea Dragon. A much more likely reading of the difficult passage in Lansdowne MS. Iii, Art. 43, would be to take it to mean that the Sea Dragon was substituted for the Tiger (old) for one particular cruise (Drake's West Indian Expedition), the latter being, for the moment, unfit for service (as we know she was), but not permanently substituted: and that the old Tiger, after her ‘large refit’, became the new Tiger.
- Drake and the Tudor Navy 183 II, p. (new impression)
- 1920 . Mariner's Mirror 29 The figures of these two ships' armaments for Drake's West Indian cruiser are printed in N.R.S. vol. XI, pp., 31: and also in February: they are also to be found here, in Table 6, along with those of the Tiger.
- Drake and the Tudor Navy 183 II, p. (new impression). My italics
- Dom , S. P. 19 August 1588 . Rainbow. 19 August , ccxv, 84. Seymour to Walsyngham,. His ship the
- 1659 . W.O. 55
- 2 December 1588 . 2 December , There were, at Berwick alone on, 13 cannons, 2 periers, 14 demi-cannons, 8 culverins, 8 demi-culverins, 16 sakers, 2 minions, 21 falcons, 8 falconets, 3 robinets and 1 mortar piece. S.P. Dom. CCXIX, 5, 6
- 1897 . 46 Hist. MSS. Com., Foljambe Papers, pp., 47. The combined list of the two armies was: 6 cannons, 10 demi-cannons, 10 culverins, 9 demi-culverins, 9 sakers and 8 minions
- Dom , S. P. 1589 . CCXIX, 4. Wynter suggested the removal of 12 demi-cannons, 28 culverins and 3 5 demi-culverins. But the shortage of demi-cannons in Bedwell's list of guns makes it unlikely that this raid materialized. The order of 12 February 1590 for the ‘raid’ on the forts is given in Hist. MSS. Com. 1892, MSS. of Rye Corporation. The actual list of pieces to be taken is omitted there, but E. P. Dawes, Esq., Town Clerk of Rye, has kindly furnished me with a list. It differs somewhat from Bedwell's list of what was finally received
- O.E.D. ‘Skonce, or Sconce: a small fort,’
- 1586 . This figure in the corresponding place in Table 3 is only 40. The latter is the strictly correct figure, since the thirteen cast-iron demi-cannons, mentioned above, are not anywhere mentioned in the March MS.: no cast-iron demi-cannons appear there. But as we have added them, without absolute certainty, to the ship-guns of 1589, it is only fair to do the same in 1586. They were certainly old pieces, certainly associated with the ships, and therefore almost certainly available
- It is possible that the discarded five are the five ‘Tower’ pieces in Bedwell's list
- M.M. 73 This same list appeared in Part I of this work, XXVIII, no. I
- S.P. Dom. CCIX, 76
- S.P. Dom. CCXVIII, 35
- 10 cannons, 4 demi-cannons, 2 cannon-periers, 12 culverins, 21 demi- culverins, 22 sakers and 10 minions
- 22 November 1588 . 22 November , It is tempting to suppose that he returned them before, and that they are the actual seven culverins which constituted the total ‘culverin- reserve’ of that date. See above, p. 137
- S.P. Dom. CCXVIII, 35. See above, p. 136
- Guns, that is, just cast, and not even ‘passed proof’
- 1588 . S.P. Dom. CCXIX, 60, December
- S.P. Dom. CCX, 40. Of this number, one culverin and three demi-culverins failed in the proof.
- 1 89 . 92 Hist. MSS. Com. MSS. of Rye Corp. 2, p. My italics
- 5 May 1796 . 5 May , Derrick states that it was lent to him by Dr Leith of Greenwich, and that it was read before the Antiquarian Society on
- 1599 . Tracts 43 ‘No ship’, says Monson (vol. IV, p.), ‘commonly carries greater pieces than a demi-cannon.’ Nor must we regard the presence of even a single cannon on board in as certain. It is obviously possible that the five mentioned above were the first of the new ‘stage IV’ periers
- Warspite See Proposed Armament for the S.P. Dom. CCLIV, 43