Part 9

+======+========+========+========+===========+========+=============+ |NUMBER|Length | Beam |Moulded | | | Calibres | | OF |between | at main depth | BATTERIES | Crew | of guns | | GUNS |perpen- | frame | | | | | | |diculars| | | | | | +------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+--------+-------------+ | +THREE DECKERS+ | | | | | M. | M. | M. | | Men |30 pdrs | | | | | | | |in lower tier| | 120 |56.84 |14.61 |7.47 } }1000 |18 „ | | |to 60.42|to 16.24| to 8.12} 3 covered } to 1200|„ middle „ | | | | | } } | | |110(1)|54.57 |14.94 |7.31 } batteries }1000 |12 „ | | |to 57.82|to 15.59| to 7.80} } to 1100|„ upper „ | | | | | } with } | | | 100 |53.27 |14.61 |7.47 } } 900 |6 „ | | |to 57.49|to 15.26| to 7.63}forcastles } to 1000|on forecastle| | | | | } } | | | 90 |51.97 |14.29 |6.81 } and poops } 850 |4 „ | | |to 55.22|to 14.94| to 7.46} } to 900 |on poop deck | | | | +DOUBLE DECKERS+ | | | | 80 |50.67 |13.96 |6.66 |2 covered | 750 |36 pdrs | | |to 54.57|to 14.61| to 6.98| batteries | to 800 |in lower tier| | | | | | with | |18 „ | | | | | | forecastle| |„ upper „ | | | | | | and poop | |8 „ | | | | | | | |on forecastle| | | | | | | |4 „ on poop| | | | | | | | | 74 |48.72 |13.64 |6.50 |2 covered | 650 |36 or 24 pdrs| | |to 53.27|to 13.96| to 6.98| batteries | to 700 |in lower tier| | | | | | with | |8 pdrs | | | | | | forecastle| |in upper tier| | | | | | and poop | |8 or 6 pdrs | | | | | | | |on forecastle| | | | | | | |4 pdrs on | | | | | | | |poop | | | | | | | | | | 64(2)|46.04 |12.66 |6.00 |2 batteries| 450 |18 or 12 pdrs| | |to 48.72|to 12.99| to 6.50| and | to 500 |in lower tier| | | | | | forecastle| |24 or 18 pdrs | | | | | | |in upper tier| | | | | | | |6 pdrs | | | | | | | |on forecastle| | | | | | | |12 or 8 pdrs | | | | | | | |in lower tier| | 50 |43.84 to|11.36 to| 5.50 to|2 batteries| 300 |18 or 12 pdrs| | | 45.17 | 12.01 | 5.85 | and | to 330 |in upper tier| | | | | |forecastle | |6 or 4 | | | | | | | |pdrs on | | | | | | | | forecastle. | | | | +FRIGATES+ | | | | 40 |38.98 to|10.71 to| 5.19 to|Single | } | | | 42.22 | 11.04 | 5.53 |battery |280 to } | | | 42.22 | 11.04 | 5.53 |with | 300 } | | | 42.22 | 11.04 | 5.53 |forecastle | } | | | | | | | } 12 pdrs | | 30 |35.07 to| 9.74 to| 4.55 to| do. |200 to } in battery | | | 38.98 | 10.39 | 5.20 | | 230 }6 or 4 pdrs on| | | | | | | } forecastle. | | 20 |33.13 to| 8.77 to| 4.22 to| do. |130 to } | | | 35.73 | 9.10 | 4.55 | | 150 } | | | | +CORVETTES+ | | | | 12 |19.49 to| 7.85 to| 2.92 to|Single | 70 to |4 pdrs in | | | 22.74 | 8.50 | 3.25 |battery | 80 | barbette | | | | | |without | | battery. | | | | | |forecastle | | |

(1) There were a few intermediate types classified with those of this list which they approached nearest.

(2) This ship was the smallest of those which could enter the line of battle.

France also exercised a great influence on the design of ships. (~Holmes~, p. 114, _ab initio_.) The most beautiful vessel of this time was the _Sans Pareil_.

The work mentioned above, _Le Musée de Marine du Louvre_, contains a passage relating to the time of Louis XVI (1744-1793) which is well worthy of our attention (Chapter VII): “It was the moment when the science of shipbuilding, born in Holland, really passed into France”. This does not alter the fact that, even at the end of the XVIIIth century, people still went to Holland to study this art, in spite of the high degree of perfection which it had reached in France. Here indeed is what the above mentioned work says: “People went at the end of the last (XVIIIth) century to take lessons in Holland and, on this subject, the library at Brest has a manuscript of one of the celebrated engineers, Olivier, who had been sent there, about 1780, to study construction.”

Hence the shipbuilding of the Netherlands was still highly appreciated at that time.

The increase in dimensions of the French fleet found its echo in the English fleet; the following are the characteristics of the latter fleet in 1706:

+=================+=======+=======+=======+=======+=======+=======+ | | | | | | | | | NUMBER OF GUNS | 90 | 80 | 70 | 60 | 50 | 40 | | | | | | | | | +-----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+ | |ft. in.|ft. in.|ft. in.|ft. in.|ft. in.|ft. in.| | | | | | | | | |Length of gundeck|192 -- |156 -- |150 -- |144 -- |130 -- |118 -- | | | | | | | | | |Breadth at | | | | | | | | midship frame | 47 -- | 43 -- | 41 -- | 38 -- | 35 -- | 32 -- | | | | | | | | | |Depth of hold | 18 6 | 17 8 | 17 4 | 15 8 | 14 -- | 13 6 | | | | | | | | | |Tonnage | 1552 | 1283 | 1069 | 914 | 705 | 532 |

Here is what ~Holmes~ writes, p. 115: “The subject of the superiority in size of the French ships was constantly coming to the front and, in 1719, a new establishment was made for the dimensions of ships in our Royal Navy, according to the following scale:

+================+=======+=======+=======+=======+=======+===========+ | | | | | | | | | NUMBER OF GUNS | 90 | 80 | 70 | 60 | 50 | 40 | | | | | | | | | +----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----------+ | Increase of: | | | | | | | | Length | 2 ft. | 2 ft. | 1 ft. | 0 | 4 ft. | 6 ft. | | Breadth | 2 in. | 1 ft. | 6 in. | 1 ft. | 1 ft. |1 ft. 2 in.| | Tonnage | 15 | 67 | 59 | 37 | 51 | 63 |

In 1765, vessels were already met with carrying 100 guns, measuring 2047 tons and having already 21 ft. 6 in. depth of hold. ~Holmes~ writes on this subject (pp. 124-128): “During the whole of our naval history down to comparatively recent times, improvements in the dimensions and forms of our ships were only carried out after they had been originally adopted by the French, or Spaniards, or more recently by the people of the United States of America.”

In 1719, the process which consisted of heating timbers at an open fire in order to bend them was adopted in England and, in 1736, they were smoked. (~Holmes~, p. 115.) Ventilation was improved in 1753 (~Holmes~, p. 117) and, in 1761 (~Holmes~, p. 121), followed the invention of the process which consisted in covering ships with copper plates. Before this period, lead was used exceptionally for this purpose. Nearly one hundred years earlier, several vessels in Holland were covered in part or wholly with copper plates, as is shown by a passage from ~Van Yk~’s work, _De Nederlandsche Scheepsbouwkunst opengesteld_, in which he says, p. 121: “Dat het schip on de zuid of west bestieren sal, heeft zy om den houtknagenden worm daarvan te keeren, stevenswaarts met koper doen bekleeden”[13].

Everything which precedes shows sufficiently how far superior the French and English fleets were to our own, about the middle of the XVIIIth century, in the size of their ships. But experience had demonstrated that the power of a fleet did not lie in numbers alone, but also in the intrinsic value of each ship (~De Jonge~, Vol. IV, p. 86), just as Martin Harpertszoon Tromp had also, himself, declared some time before.

In order to give an idea of the extraordinary energy displayed by the United Provinces, it will be mentioned that from 1682 to 1700, hence in eighteen years, there were built 15 three-deckers of 90 to 96 guns each, 2 of 80 to 86, 2 of 70 to 74, 29 of 60 to 68, and 26 of 50 to 56 pieces of artillery, together with 2 frigates of 22 guns, 3 fire ships and 9 ketches, in all 107 vessels. Of this number, seven only were built outside of the provinces of Holland and Zeeland. (~De Jonge~, Vol. II, pp. 72 to 75.)

Outside of this fleet of which the cost was defrayed by means of extraordinary credits, there were built during the same period, with ordinary credits, 65 other vessels, of which 7 were of 50 to 52 guns, 18 of 40 to 46, 17 of 30 to 38, 13 of 20 to 26, and 10 of 16 guns at least.

Or, for a period of eighteen years, a total of 107 + 65 = 172 new ships. This increase of the fleet was an absolute necessity. It was necessary, in fact, to make up the losses caused by storms and other misfortunes, and amounting, during the years 1688-1698, to 3 units of 70, 5 of 60, 6 of 50, 8 of 40 to 46 guns, in addition to a few vessels of 30 guns and less, 36 ships in all.

All these works evidently cost large sums. During the period 1682-1702, the expenditures for new ships were about 81,197,000 florins and about 69,954,800 florins for equipment.

Maintenance, equipment, etc. came to about 5,829,000 florins, and in 1697, the costs rose to 7,732,000 florins. (~De Jonge~, Vol. II, pp. 80 and 81.) In order to form any exact idea of the importance of this sum, it must be remembered that, at the time under consideration, salaries, etc. were far lower than those of our day. (~De Jonge~, Vol. IV, Chap. I, p. 80, note.)

Besides the war ships just mentioned, a large number of merchant ships, vessels of less importance for inland service, and fishing boats were built, so that, if the old writers are to be believed, “there were places where there were counted more boats than houses”.

At the time when Hugo de Groot lived, two thousand vessels were built annually. (~Koenen~, _Geschiedenis van Scheepbouw en Zeevaart_, p. 87.) No Hollanders were met with who did not possess a certain amount of knowledge relating to shipbuilding. (Idem, p. 85.)

[Sidenote: II 154]

In order to display such a large amount of energy, shipbuilding must have developed with us in an extraordinary way. The proof of this is found in the works of Nicolas Witsen (1671) and of Van Yk (1697). Hence our naval architecture enjoyed an unheard of prosperity at the beginning of the XVIIIth century.

[Sidenote: II 155]

[Sidenote: II 156]

In order to form an idea of the perfection of design which our naval architecture had reached toward the middle of the same century, it is enough to consult, in our album, the photographic reproductions of a few drawings made by M. Van Gent in 1750, 1751, 1752, the originals of which belong to the remarkable collection of engravings of M. S. Van Gyn, at Dordrecht, as well as the copy of a war ship of 1770 which appears in the collection of colored drawings.

These documents reproduce faithfully the ships with their water lines. But what attracts attention most particularly is the following inscription which is very legible in the drawing of the war ship of 1750: _Property of Admiral Schryver_. This admiral is the one who wrote in 1753 that the shipbuilders, and especially those who built the ships of war of the State during the period extending from 1683 to 1753, were scarcely more than ordinary ship carpenters; that they had no theoretical knowledge, were guided only by experience and, in certain respects, were on the same level as the master carpenters of Zaandam who, in the face of a failure, had offered as an excuse that “the boat had not let itself be shaped otherwise with an axe”.

Admiral Schryver refers, in support of what he says, to various war vessels which were less successful, and among them he mentions, in the first place, five three-deck ships built between 1683 and 1689, the first, it should be said, which our builders had turned out.

No one can be surprised that these vessels did come fully up to what was expected! And if later, better ones were built, it merely proves that our builders had succeeded in solving the great problem of turning out strong ships of which the draught had to be limited, on account of the depth in our passes and rivers.

Still later, imperfections had to be noted; but that does not show, by any means, incapacity on the part of our builders. It happens even in these times, both at home and abroad, that the best yards launch vessels which are not up to their best work or which may need changes.

Admiral Schryver’s complaint (~De Jonge~, Vol. IV, Chap. I, p. 116) denouncing the incapacity of our constructors seems to be neither founded nor deserved. It is a question here of a headstrong naval officer, imbued with his own ideas and holding only contempt for those of others (~De Jonge~, Vol. IV, Chap. I, p. 116), rather than a man thoroughly conversant with our naval architecture. Still, as it has been shown further back, it was not alone during the time of the Grand Pensionary Jean De Witt, and of the illustrious Colbert, as De Jonge tells us (Vol. IV, Chap. I, p. 120), that foreigners came to learn shipbuilding from us; much later still, in 1780, France sent her sons to our yards and it is assumed that it was only under the reign of Louis XVI (1774-1793), that the French navy could throw off Dutch influence entirely.

Our country followed attentively, however, the progress made in France and England in the art of naval construction, as is testified to by the translation of Du Hamel du Monceau’s work (appeared in 1757), and the passage therein contained announcing, for later on, a translation of the work of Mungo Murray, the famous builder of the shipyard at Deptford. It is not known whether this latter translation ever saw the light, all the same, it is clear to my mind, from what precedes, that works appearing abroad were read by us.

It has been shown that drawing was used in connection with shipbuilding at the middle of the XVIIIth century. Hence shipbuilders had broken with the old Dutch method of being guided by lines drawn by ribbands.

The lowest gun ports of ships were placed too near the water; complaint was first made against this by us. The same complaint was soon heard in England where the situation was not remedied, however, until the end of the XVIIIth century, when the French builders were copied. (~Holmes~, p. 126).

A certain amount of time went by before Great Britain adopted the improvements made in shipbuilding by the French.

Mr. de Jonge, relying on foreign quotations, states that the Czar Peter-the-Great seems to have learned shipbuilding, properly so called, in England. ~Fincham~, the historian, even relates (_History of naval architecture_, p. 69) that the Czar Peter preferred English to Dutch construction. Mr. Koenen remarks, in regard to this, that this preference could, at most, only have had to do with war ships. Be this as it may, it is settled that Peter-the-Great resorted, all the same, to Dutch vessels, builders and seamen to form his fleet which, three years before his death, included 41 men-of-war carrying 2106 guns and 14,900 men, which made the Swedes say (~De Jonge~, Vol. IV, Chap. II, p. 152, and ~M. Koenen~, pp. 93-95): “We see nothing Muscovitish about the Muscovite fleet unless it be the flag. We have to fight a Dutch fleet, commanded by Dutchmen, manned by Dutch seamen and spitting out Dutch powder from Dutch guns”.

It may be asked then whether the Peter-the-Great would really have called on the Dutch builders if he had been able to find better among the English.

What explanation is to be made as to why our shipbuilders were abandoned about the middle of the XVIIIth century?

The size of ships was constantly increasing in England and in France; and the fleets of foreign powers were ever becoming stronger, while in our country, the shallowness of passes, rivers and ports, prevented the construction of ships which, by their size, could vie with those of other lands. (~Van Yk~, p. 14). All the writers of the period point out this situation of which the realness has been shown by means of a few figures.

The disadvantage resulting from the relative shallowness of the Dutch passes was felt as far back as the end of the XVIIth century, and this disadvantage could only become more marked as time went on. Meanwhile, the necessity of building more powerful ships, carrying as many as 90 to 95 guns, became a matter of serious importance. In order to avoid drawing too much water, it became necessary to make the ships fuller, but this also made them heavier and poorer sailers, consequently they were but poor fighting instruments in the hands of our brave admirals. Is it then to be wondered at that the latter complained about them bitterly? In spite of all our courage, the shallowness of our approaches to the sea, to say nothing of the financial situation, made us yield before the foreigner.

This inferiority is wrongly blamed on the Dutch shipbuilders of the day. Naturally, many of them held on for a long time to the old ways, as is shown by Du Hamel du Monceau, in the following terms at page 287 of his work: “The habit of copying mechanically and servilely what was done in the past, has produced all these rules of proportions observed in determining the main frame, the description of models and their designs.” And this author adds this interesting detail: “Every ship-carpenter kept these rules as a family secret”.

The Dutch builders had no affection for the pen; ~Witsen~ himself has already called attention to this; they were afraid of publishing their secrets, lest they might see their work carried off by others. It was only a few years ago that an engineer engaged in shipbuilding refused to let me see the drawings of one of his ships; he too feared lest his models should be imitated.

How, then, could it be expected that ships should already be built according to scientific rules, at the middle of the XVIIIth century, when in France, which was ahead of all other nations in the matter, these rules were not taken up until 1740? _Le Musée de Marine du Louvre_ says in speaking of the XVIIIth century: “It (the vessel) is built in accordance with scientific principles which began to become known in 1697, but which scarcely date from before 1740 and which bring about a great resemblance among the ships of all countries so soon as they are intended for navigating the high seas, as originality no longer exists except for coasting vessels attached to their own shores.” (See, among others, M. ~Bongeur~, 1746, XXIII.)

It was not, then, attachment to tradition, but the natural condition of our passes which kept us from building vessels of war as good as those built abroad. This is what Mr. ~De Jonge~ forgets, while at the same time he attaches too little weight to practice, which still enjoys, even in our time, a great authority even in the matter of shipbuilding. So this honorable writer arrives necessarily at forming, in regard to our builders of the XVIIIth century, an unfavorable and undeserved judgment.

The decline of shipbuilding along the “Zaan”, for example, was not the consequence of the ignorance of our builders; this cause must be attributed above all to the silting up of the river and of the mouth of the IJ. This occurrence no longer allowed ships of any importance to be taken to sea except at great cost and trouble. (~Loosjes~, _De Zaandamsche dorpen_, p. 194.--M. ~Koenen~, p. 95.)

[Sidenote: III 15]

In order to bring out the difference existing between the French and English styles and the Dutch style, I have placed on one plate of my album the various main frames. This drawing is sufficiently eloquent by itself, still, I must once more call attention, in passing, to the differences which distinguish these various styles. These differences existed at first in the shape and composition of the main frames; then, the English vessels had less sheer, were less high and were not square at the stern. (~Van Yk~, p. 17.) The English seem also to have used crossed riders, instead of stanchions with vertical faces, to save working; but this process was considered less practical from the point of view of stowage. (~Van Yk~, p. 17 and figure A, p. 18.) They gave their ships loof (~Witsen~, p. 126) and broad sides (“dick in den buik”, as ~Witsen~ says on p. 207), the reverse of what was done for the Dutch vessels. “The Dutch ships”, says ~Holmes~ (p. 110), “excelled all others in one respect: that they were the first in which the absurd practice of an exaggerated ‹tumble home› or contraction of the upper deck was abandoned. This fashion”, he said further on, “was still carried out to a very great extent by the English and to a less extent by the French and Spaniards”.

~Holmes~ speaks also of the light draught of our vessels. He expresses himself on this subject as follows on page 111 of his work: “In consequence of the shallowness of the Dutch harbours, the draught of their ships was also considerably less than that of the English vessels of corresponding force”.