(9) John (born about 1564), son of Robert; page to Sir Francis; Inquisition prisoner at Lima 1587; his deposition there mentions and connects the five preceding.

(10) Thomas (c. 1555–1610), youngest son of Edmond; brother and heir of Sir Francis, and described as being forty years and more" in January, 1596.1

If

These ten are enough for the purpose of this note. the conjectured descent is correct, Henry (1), the unknown (3), John (4), and Edmond (7) are the four generations which precede Francis. The last two are known with certainty from the Lima deposition of John (9).

Francis, the son of Thomas (10), wrote or edited two accounts of his uncle's voyages. In one of his prefaces he states that Sir Francis was the eldest son of a person who fled into Kent, and brought up his family in the hull of a ship. Drake's own statement to Camden was that he was of "mediocre " origin, that when he was quite young his father fled from Devonshire to avoid persecution arising under the Statute of the Six Articles, and that he was brought up in Kent. These statements and the Lima narrative fix as the father Edmond Drake, vicar of Upchurch (whose will, made in 1566, is extant and mentions Thomas but not Francis).

We should like to know something of Edmond's early doings. Tradition has it that he began his career as a sailor; this has not been verified. He may have farmed at Crowndale under his father, or he may have held some office or employment in Tavistock, for he must have had some education. He was certainly not a clergyman in those Tavistock days, for his marriage was just about the time when the Six Articles were enacted. He may have embraced the Protestant doctrines as a protest against an Act which excluded him from holding Orders. The late Dr. H. H. Drake conjectures him to have been a weaver.2 He resided "neere South Tavistock in Devon." 3

We are also in doubt as to when the flight from Devonshire took place. Two very conflicting views have been put forward. One supposes that the persecution occurred just after the Act was passed, say, in 1540. The other view identifies the persecution with the Prayer Book Rebellion 1 Inq. p.m. Francis Drake, 1598.

2 Hundred of Blackheath (H. H. Drake).

3 Drake Revived. Crowndale, though in the parish, was half a mile outside the old borough boundary.

of 1549,1 which was an agitation following upon the repeal of the Six Articles in 1547. The first date is certainly wrong, for Edmond was residing at Tavistock in 1545, as the Lay Subsidy Rolls imply. There were, however, several Six Articles persecutions; one is known to have occurred in 1546. If Thomas, born about 1555, was the youngest of at least seven sons born after the flight, the date 1549 implies a very rapid succession of "little blessings"; he may, of course, have been the youngest who survived infancy. Drake's statement to Camden also seems to imply that Edmond's flight was before the death of Henry VIII; if this is so, the date is almost certainly 1546.

As to the place of Drake's birth there is a strong consensus of opinion which just falls short of certainty. Local tradition, as handed down by one generation of Crowndale tenants to another, is very positive on the point. The old Crowndale farmhouse (pulled down about 1850) had close to it a cottage which was demolished about 1805, but of which the position is still traceable in the orchard south of the present farm buildings. This cottage, popularly regarded as the birthplace, was sketched as such by Edward Atkyns Bray (afterwards vicar) in a drawing reproduced, not very correctly, in Lewis's Views of the Tamar and Tavy. The tradition of the Bedford Office papers 2 is also in favour of Crowndale, and Camden attributed to Sir Francis himself the statement that he was born near Tavistock. A claim to the honour of being his birthplace is sometimes put forward on behalf of the Whitchurch Crowndales, in which another branch of the Drake family once resided ;3 the probabilities, however, are all in favour of the Tavistock site.

The date of Drake's birth is an interesting problem. Nearly every year ranging between 1537 and 1546 has been put forward, with more or less evidence in favour of each. It would be almost a pity if the exact solution were discovered, as we should then lose one of the best examples of probable reasoning in a matter of historical arithmetic. There are ten clues to the date. Five of these are indirect, that is to say, they indicate limits outside which the date cannot be located; the other five are direct and give points of time near which the date must lie.

1 Drake (Julian Corbett); also H. H. Drake.

2 Note in Estate Survey (1770).

3 Hundred of Blackheath. The claim turns on the word "neere."

Let us take first the indirect clues:

(1) Camden's statement, attributed to information supplied by Drake himself, is that he was born in the reign of Henry VIII., and when quite young was taken by his father into Kent. Assuming that "quite young" means "not more than seven," we fix the limits as between 1539 and 1546, whether we date the flight to Kent as 1546 or 1549.

(2) Another part of Camden's statement is that Francis Russell (afterwards second Earl of Bedford) was Drake's godfather. Francis was born in 1527 or 1528; he cannot have lived in Tavistock before 1539; on 17 December, 1544, he was elected M.P. for Buckinghamshire,1 and therefore had left Tavistock. This excludes 1545 and 1546. The election of a lad of seventeen was not a unique occurrence in the case of a powerful nobleman's son. Christopher Monk, son of the Duke of Albemarle, was elected for Devon in 1667 when only fourteen.

(3) Francis Drake was the oldest of a family of twelve; Thomas, his brother, born not later than 1555, was the youngest, or the youngest who survived infancy. This tends also to exclude 1545 and 1546.

(4) In the work Francis Drake Revived, edited by Drake's nephew from his uncle's notes, it is stated that of the crew of the 1572 voyage only one person was over thirty years of age. That person, according to the narrative, was fifty.

If the captain, who was Drake himself, is included in the statement, as seems probable, it follows that Drake was not born before 1542.

(5) There is an undated portrait of Drake2 by a Dutch painter, in which his age is given as forty-three. There is a reference on it to his being a knight and to his famous voyage, but no reference to the Armada exploits. The face shows him to have been a few years older than when the miniature of 1581 was executed. The most probable dates of this Dutch portrait are 1585, the occasion of his second marriage, and 1586, when he spent some time in Holland. This clue evidently excludes dates subsequent

to 1544.

The net result of these five clues is to include the three years 1542–44, and with less certainty the three preceding years 1539–41. We now pass to the direct clues:

1 Blue Book 69, II. 2 He is called "Draeck in the inscription.

(6) The Derby miniature,1 on which Barrow relies, is dated "1581, in the forty-second year of his age." This suggests 1539 as the date, but allowance must be made in all such cases for two or three years' inaccuracy.

(7) The Buckland portrait,2 dated 1594, states that he was in his fifty-third year. This suggests 1541 as the date. (8) A narrative of the 1567 voyage states that he was then in his twenty-third year. This suggests 1544.

(9) A report written at Realjo in Nicaragua by Don Francisco de Zarate, dated 16 April, 1579, states that Drake was a man of some five and thirty years. This also suggests 1544.

(10) Stow's statement, quoted in Barrow's Life of Drake, is that at his death Drake was fifty-five years of age. This suggests 1541.

The ten clues are somewhat conflicting, and a few of them are of but slight value. Their cumulative effect," however, cannot be ignored, and the best way to solve the mystery is to seek for the year which will be least inconsistent with all the indications afforded. We should be wrong, for instance, in considering 1539, as only one clue, the sixth, favours it, whilst six (the second, fourth, fifth, seventh, eighth, and ninth) are against it. The safest conclusion, all things considered, is that Francis Drake was born not earlier than 1540 nor later than 1544, and that the mean of these, 1542, is the least unlikely of the dates suggested. If the fourth clue is valid the latter half of 1542 cannot be far from the correct date.

This note is meant to be, not only a summary of past investigations, but also an appeal for further research. At a time when Tavistock's greatest native is being honoured by a national memorial, is it too much to ask that an adequate attempt should be made to identify, and, if that can be done, to mark with a fitting inscription the place where the greatest of English navigators first saw the light?

Addendum.-While the proof of the above was being revised, the news came to hand that Lieutenant W. T. Gill (born at Crowndale in 1893) had received the Cross of the Legion of Honour for holding a bridge several hours with 30 Dragoon Guards against 500 Germans.

1 By Nicholas Hilliard.

2 Probably by Abram Jansen.

STRAY NOTES ON DARTMOOR

TIN-WORKING.

BY R. HANSFORD WORTH, M.INST.C.E., F.G.S.

(Read at Tavistock, 22nd July, 1914.)

FOR twenty years or more occasional notes have been accumulating with reference to the relics of tin-working on Dartmoor. Their sum may possibly be sufficient to warrant their presentation at what may be regarded as a moorland meeting of the Association.

BLOWING-HOUSE, RIGHT BANK, YEALM.

The writer has elsewhere1 described the blowing-houses on the banks of the Yealm. The two mouldstones associated with the upper blowing-house on the right bank are unusual in that the cavities would yield an ingot of the astragalus form. The better preserved mould lies within the house, and a plan and section of its cavity are now given (Fig. 1).

MARCHANT'S BRIDGE, MEAVY.

About twenty years ago the writer found a granite mouldstone on the bank of the Meavy, near Marchant's Bridge. The find was announced at a meeting of the Plymouth Institution, but has not been recorded in print. Within the past twelve months it has been stated in a letter to the Press that this stone has disappeared.

It lay to the south of the river, within a wood and very near a footpath leading to Yeo Farm, not many feet from the stile giving access to the wood. The cavity, as frequently is found, was not rectangular; the ends measured 12 inches and 10 inches respectively, the sides measured 19 inches and 17 inches, the depth of the cavity varied

1 "The Erme, Yealm, and Tavy," Trans. Plym. Inst., 1891-92.