eason why it has not survived in the
writings of any of the great Elizabethan admirals is either that the
tactics it enjoins were regarded as a secret of the seamen's 'mystery'
or were too trite or commonplace to need enunciation. At any rate in
the face of the Gorges precedent it cannot be said, without
reservation, that this rudimentary form of line ahead or attack in
succession was invented by Ralegh, or that it was not known to the men
who fought the Armada.

Amongst other articles of special interest, as showing how firmly the
English naval tradition was already fixed, should be noticed the
twenty-fifth, relating to seamen gunners, the twenty-sixth, forbidding
action at more than point-blank range, and above all the fifth and
sixth, aimed at obliterating all distinction between soldiers and
sailors aboard ship, and at securing that unity of service between the
land and sea forces which has been the peculiar distinction of the
national instinct for war.

As to the tactical principle upon which the Elizabethan form of attack
was based, it must be noted that was to demoralise the enemy--to drive
him into 'utter confusion.' The point is important, for this
conception of tactics held its place till it was ultimately supplanted
by the idea of concentrating on part of his fleet.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Hakluyt printed several sets of instructions issued to armed fleets
intended for discovery, viz.: 1. Those drawn by Sebastian Cabota for Sir
Hugh Willoughby's voyage in 1553. 2. Those for the first voyage of
Anthony Jenkinson, 1557, which refers to other standing orders. 3. Those
issued by the lords of the Council for Edward Fenton in 1582, the 20th
article of which directs him to draw up orders 'for their better
government both at sea and land.' But none of these contain any fighting
instructions.

[2] Boteler's MS. was not published till 1685, when the publisher
dedicated it to Samuel Pepys. The date at which it was written can only
be inferred from internal evidence. At p. 47 he refers to 'his Majesty's
late augmentation of seamen's pay in general.' Such an augmentation took
place in 1625 and 1626. He also refers to the 'late king' and to the
colony of St. Christopher's, which was settled in 1623, but not to that
of New Providence, settled in 1629. He served in the Cadiz Expedition of
1625, but does not mention it or any event of the rest of the war. The
battle order, however, which he recommends closely resembles that
p