THE KOYAL AKTILLERY INSTITUTION. 
291 
occasion to make from time to time, noting the Peeces, the platform, the 
mark, the distance, the advantage of the peece, and lastly the fall of the 
shot; whether it were wide, short, or gone . . . and this my observa¬ 
tion I have diligently practised almost 40 yeeres/*—p. 77. 
Notwithstanding his care, however, his ranges for the Demy Quivering 
cannot be correct. It is difficult to explain how he fell into the error of 
assigning equal increments of range to equal increments of elevation, for 
he seems to have been aware of the fallacy of such an hypothesis, when he 
says, “ neither doe I think that the'” (ranges corresponding to the) “ degrees, 
from 1 to 10, do increase proportionally; but I leave this to be discussed 
by some learned mathematician that loves curiosity.” 
His mistake may have occurred in this way. He made up his tables, not 
by tabulating the results of any large consecutive number of rounds carried 
on under the same conditions, but from a record of isolated shots, fired 
singly perhaps, and at considerable intervals of time, and under very 
different conditions. A range table thus constructed would always be of 
doubtful authority, and although Eldred may have carefully calculated his 
Demy Quivering ranges, an imperfect result could only be expected from 
such very imperfect data. With all its errors, however, Eldred* s range 
table, constructed from the observation and record of actual practice, is 
undoubtedly a far nearer approximation to the truth than that of any 
cotemporary writer; and we must look with suspicion on every early range 
table, Eldred*s only excepted, if we believe the statement made by Smith,— 
(c many authors have taught how to make a table of Bandons, whereas some 
of them never shot in any piece of Ordnance in their lives/** 
The accuracy of the guns may to some extent be estimated by the fol¬ 
lowing extracts from Eldred, p. 72 :—“ I layed one day a Demy Culvering, 
being 58 score (1060 yds.) to the A, at 5 ins. without the dispart, and 
made a good shot to that mark. Then I desired to try if I could shoot 
with the same Peece again, with the same powder, wad, and shot, as I did 
before; and laid it, as precisely as I could for my life, as she lay before to 
the hole that the first shot made, and that shot fell short of the other by 
4 yds.; -whereby I might see the great uncertainty of shooting in such a 
long distance, and therefore let not the best Artist that is ever think to 
hit a mark alway at such a distance ; but if the mark had been nearer . . 
I hold it possible to shoot within a yard compasse if he take care to dispart 
his Peece truly, and be careful to lay her well, if the mark, as I said, be 
12, 18, or 2^0 score (240, 360, or 400 yds.)/* In another place he speaks 
of the “ marvellous uncertainty of the shooting in great Ordnance at a long 
distance, the varietyt whereof have stumbled many good arts men, and 
troubled many good wits to find out the variety of shot,** and he gives his 
opinion that firing at long ranges -would be “ of no great use in service/* 
p. 60. He is also careful to observe that “there is much uncertainty in 
the flying of a shot, and great difference may happen in loding, wadding, 
and in laying the Peece by the Quadrant,** p. 76. Norton had not reached 
so high a point in practical gunnery, and he plainly says, p. 107, that 
* “ Art of Gunnery,” Blaeklctter. London, 1G00, p. 32. 
f i.e. variations. 
