whole, the information contained in these lists fills up, what has hitherto been considered, a chasm in the early history of the British navy; and so much of their contents, as will elucidate our further inquiries respecting the armament and classification of the ships of the seventeenth century, we have incorporated in an abstract .*

A single glance at the abstract referred to will show what it was, besides the number of guns, that governed the classification of several of the ships. For instance, No. 11 in the second, and No. 15 in the third rate, mount each 70 guns; but the one carries them on three, the other on two decks. Nos. 12 and 19 are similarly situated; and so are a few among the inferior classes. Hence, it is a difference in the number of battery-decks, that, without reference to the number of guns, distinguishes the rates. The characteristic of a first-rate of 1677 seems to have been, to mount her guns on three whole decks, a quarter-deck, forecastle, and poop; � of a second-rate, to mount her guns on three whole decks and a quarterdeck ; � of a third-rate, to mount hers on two whole decks, a quarterdeck, forecastle, and poop ; of a fourth-rate, to mount hers on two whole decks and a quarterdeck ; of a fifth-rate, to mount hers on her first gundeck, from end to end, on her second, partially, with a few guns on the quarterdeck ; and of a sixth-rate, to mount her guns on a single deck, with or without any on her quarterdeck. It is worthy of remark, that there were, in these times, three-deckers of 64, and two-deckers of 30 guns; and that many single-decked ships of the present day exceed, nay, nearly double, even the former in tonnage.

Our attention is next called to the calibers of the guns, assigned to the different classes in the foregoing abstract. Considering the "vii" subjoined to cannon, to signify that the piece was that variety of the cannon, whose cylinder was about seven inches in diameter, we at once identify the gun to be either the cannon-serpentine, or the bastard-cannon of Sir William Monson. Before we fix which of these two it was, it may be proper to state, that the 8� and 8 inch cannon (cannon-royal and cannon) appear in no one list or abstract of the navy that we have seen: if they had been used previously to 1677, it could only have been for a short time, and then merely as bow or stern chasers on the lower deck. It is probable, too, that they were of brass; in order to be of diminished weight. Looking at the weight of the cannon vii, as expressed in the original list, we find it to range between 65 and 54 cwt.: whereas, the weight of the cannon-serpentine, Sir William states to have been 49 cwt., and that of the bastard-cannon 40 cwt. Now, the caliber, or diameter of the bore, of the cannon-serpentine and bastard-cannon, agrees

* See Appendix, No. 1.

� No: 6 in the abstract is the only exception to this rule.

� Except No. 7.