III 13
The difference of draught of water appears clearly if the dimensions of the largest French and English ships be compared with those of our largest vessel at the end of the XVIIth and beginning of the XVIIIth centuries. Their dimensions were as follows:
LENGTH
BREADTH
DEPTH
m
m
m
for the Dutch ship
49.28
12.88
4.86
” ” English ”
49.41
14.33
5.64
” ” French ”
59.91
14.29
6.61
By depth was understood the inside height of the ship measured up to the load-water line. (WITSEN, p. 74, sub 9.) (See also Fig. XXXII, p. 56 of the same work, etc.)
A ship having a depth of 4 m. 86 required, with the height of the keel etc. included, a depth of water of at least 5 metres. Now, it is known that the depth of water over the “Pampus”, near Amsterdam, had already become sensibly less at the end of the XVIIth century. Large ships only succeeded in reaching that city at the cost of serious difficulties.
II 238
It was under these circumstances that a certain Meeuwis Meindertz Bakker, a native of Amsterdam, invented the “sea camels” in 1691, and by them vessels could be raised from 5 to 6 feet (VANYK, p. 360.) These “camels” were straight up and down on one side, the other being fitted to the shape of the ship. Placed on each side of the vessel they inclosed it and formed a sort of floating dock.
Held between two camels which were securely fastened together, the ship was raised as they were emptied of the water which they contained.
These camels are very well shown in VANYK’s work, folio 360, as well as in “Figures de navires et embarcations”, 1831, pl. 35, by P. LECOMTE.
Small boats towed the vessel thus raised across the Pampus. As to the depth of water which existed at this place, Le Comte says, p. 38, that, at high tide there were 10½ feet (2.97 ells of the Netherlands) on the Pampus or “Muiderzand” and 9 feet (2.55 ells) at low tide. It was only at extraordinary high tide that a depth of 13 feet (3.68 ells) was to be had.
Later, ships drawing 19 feet (5 m. 38) could be brought to Amsterdam by means of camels.
But the situation was no better at Rotterdam. Here, indeed, is what is related by the builder VANYK, in his work of 1697, p. 14: “En waarlyk de wytheid der schepen is wel het voornaamste en beste middel om het ondiepgaan derselve te bevorderen, een saak die wy hier te Lande wegens de droogte of ondieptheid onzer zeegaten, ten hoogste dienen te betrachten; want (volgens ’t getuigenis van ervaarne en de diepte dezer zeegaten zeer wel bepeild hebbende loodsen) soo konnen meteen gemeen geleide uit het Goereesche gat niet meer dan 20, uit Texel, omtrent ook soo veel en uit de Maas niet meer als 13 voeten diepgaande schepen worden uitgelootst. Waarom dan ook somtyds wel is komen te gebeuren, dat eenige, van ’s Lands oorlogs-schepen, soo nauw gemaakt en om zeilvoerens wil soo diep geballast zynde, met een dood getyde en Wind, tot Staats groot nadeel, niet konden ’t zee geraken, of daar al in synde, haar onderste geschut, omdat te naby ’t water lag, niet bruikbaar werd bevonden”[11]. And further on, at page 360, the same author says also: “Want soo heeft men al voor veele jaren, om onze groote en diepgaande schepen in zee te brengen, wegens de ondiepheid onzerrivierenenzeegaten, getragt, waar ’t mogelyk, door ledig vatwerk, so pypen, als voedervaten, op te ligten en te doen ryzen. Dog was dit werk, om het byeen schikken der vaten, een ellendige talmerij en veel arbeids onderworpen”.[12]
According to the Reports of Proceedings of the Batavian Association at Rotterdam, 1850, pp. 94et seq., the Briel pass was practicable only for vessels drawing from 3 metres to 3 m. 50 and larger ships had to go by the “Goereesche Gat” to reach Rotterdam, using successively the “Hollandsche Diep” and the “Dortsche Kil”. There was at these places, even at high tide, only a depth sufficient for a maximum draught of 5 m. 70. (See Dr. BLINK, “Nederland en zijne Bewoners”, Vol. I, p. 447.) Navigation along this route, furthermore, was difficult on account of the narrowness of the channel. It was this condition which made necessary the digging of the canal by way of Voorne (1827-1829). But in spite of this new navigable highway, the maximum draught of water continued to depend, none the less, on the depths to be found, at ordinary high tide in the “Goereesche Gat” and the “Stellegat”. These depths were respectively 5 m. 70 and 5 m. 20 (W. F. LEEMANS: “De Nieuwe Waterweg”, etc.Gedenkboek K. Inst. Ing.p. 13 and p. 130.)
II 140III 14
The situation became more critical for the Netherlands navy as ships abroad increased their size, and meanwhile, foreign activity was redoubled! England gave to her navy four-fifths of the revenues of the Crown in 1656-1657, two thirds in 1657-1658, and nearly three-fifths in 1658-1659. (HOLMES, p. 108.)
Four of the the largest vessels built during this period had a capacity greater than one thousand tons. In 1673, was launchedThe Royal Charles, a ship well known to us, which was taken later by the Dutch.
The largest number of English war ships still belonged, at this period, to the third class. The classification was stated as follows in 1666:
CLASS
LENGTHOF KEEL
BEAM
DEPTH
TONNAGE
GUNS
1
128–146
40–48
17.9–19.8
1100–1740
90–100
2
121–143
37–45
17–19.8
1000–1500
82–90
3
115–140
34–40
14.2–18.3
750–1174
60–74
4
88–108
27–34
11.2–15.6
12.8–17.8
32–54
5
72–81
23.6–27
9.9–11
11.6–13.2
26–32
Curly bracket, pointing downward
Dimensions are in English feet. 1 foot = 0 m. 3048
The year 1646 saw the first frigate built in England and in 1679 the bomb-ketch, built according to the model invented by the French builder Bernard Renan, was adopted.
After 1700, English naval architecture fell completely under the influence of that of France.
“It may truly be said”, writes HOLMES(p. 114) “that during the whole of the eighteenth century, the majority of the improvements introduced in the forms and proportions of vessels of the Royal Navy, were copied from French prizes”.
Scarcely was a French vessel taken ere it was copied, but generally on a larger scale (HOLMES, p. 114). Shipbuilding, in the mean time, had become wonderfully perfected, especially under the Ministry of Colbert (1661), after the first foundations had been laid by Cardinal Richelieu in 1630. Save for a few changes in detail, the rules laid down by Colbert were followed until the XIXth century.
In 1668, the French fleet numbered already 176 vessels, of which one of the most beautiful and famous specimens was theSoleil Royal. This fleet was organized on the same footing as that of Holland (DEJONGE, Vol. III, part I, p. 114). Besides, there existed at this time but little difference between the French and Dutch types.
Dimensions increased greatly at the end of the XVIIth century, under the reign of Louis XIV. This can be seen in the following table, prepared by Barras de la Penne (1698).
RANKANDORDER
NumberofGuns
CALIBREAND MATERIALOF THE GUNS
LENGTH
BEAM
DEPTH
NUMBER OF BATTERIES
1st rank,1st orderSoleil Royal
112
1st battery, 8 of 48the rest, 362d battery, 243d battery, 18poop and topgallant forecastle,12 and 18
M.56.01betweenperpen diculars51.54
M.15.64
M.7.64
Three coveredbatteries, poop,and forward castle.
Shipsoftheline.
1st rank,2nd order
70 to 100
bronze guns
51.91
14.29
6.61
Three covered batteries, castle forward and aft.
2d rank,1st order
60 to 70
bronze guns
48.72
13.47
6.17
idem.
3d rank,1st order
56 to 66
⅔ bronze⅓ iron
47.47
12.34
6.68
Two covered decks, poop and forward castle.
3d rank,2d order
40 to 50
½ bronze½ iron
34.22
12.01
5.41
idem.
4th rank
30 to 40
⅓ bronze⅔ iron
38.98
10.55
4.71
idem.
Do notcomeintoline.
5th rank
18 to 30
¼ bronze¾ iron
35.73
8.66
4.55
Two small castles, or onle one aft.
Frigates
8 to 16
—
—
—
—
—
II 166II 169II 15
The progress made in naval architecture under the reign of Louis XIV is noted as follows in the work:Le Musée de Marine du Louvre. “The rake of the bow is less exaggerated, the after castle is lowered, the artillery is well distributed; the masts are better proportioned and the spread of canvas is much greater, as well as more handy, making the motion more rapid and the manœuvres more easy. The profusion and elegance of the ornaments have reached their highest point; they had the kind of poetry of the old chivalry. Everything in this navy already caused the perfection, which the ship reached quickly under the next two reigns, to be anticipated.”
Naval architecture took a great start. Many works were published, of which those of Bernouilli (1738) and of Euler (1749), treating of the stability of ships, are the best known.
The dimensions of vessels continue steadily to increase. Ships mounting 70 guns which, in 1715, were rated in the first class were passed to the sixth class in 1765.
The French fleet in 1750, according to theMusée de Marine du Louvre, was composed as follows:
NUMBEROFGUNS
Lengthbetweenperpendiculars
Beamat mainframe
Mouldeddepth
BATTERIES
Crew
Calibresof guns
THREE DECKERS
M.
M.
M.
Men
30
pdrs in
lower
tier
120
56.84 to 60.42
14.61 to 16.24
7.47 to 8.12
3 covered batteries with forecastles and poops.
1000 to 1200
18
”
middle
”
110(1)
54.57 to 57.82
14.94 to 15.59
7.31 to 7.80
1000 to 1100
12
”
upper
”
100
53.27 to 57.49
14.61 to 15.26
7.47 to 7.63
900 to 1000
6
”
on forecastle
90
51.97 to 55.22
14.29 to 14.91
6.81 to 7.46
850 to 900
4
”
on poop deck
DOUBLE DECKERS
80
50.67 to 54.57
13.96 to 14.61
6.66 to 6.98
2 covered batteries with forecastle and poop
750 to 800
36
pdrs in
lower
tier
18
”
upper
”
8
”
on forecastle
4
”
on poop
74
48.72 to 53.27
13.64 to 13.96
6.50 to 6.98
2 covered batteries with forecastle and poop
650 to 700
36 or 24 pdrs in lower tier
8 pdrs in upper tier
8 or 6 pdrs on forecastle
4 pdrs on poop
64(2)
46.04 to 48.72
12.66 to 12.99
6.00 to 6.50
2 batteries and forecastle
450 to 500
18 or 12 pdrs in lower tier
24 or 18 pdrs in upper tier
6 pdrs on forecastle
50
43.84 to 45.17
11.36 to 12.01
5.50 to 5.85
2 batteries and forecastle
300 to 660
12 or 8 pdrs in lower tier
18 or 12 pdrs in upper tier
6 or 4 pdrs on forecastle
FRIGATES
40
38.98 to 42.22
10.71 to 11.04
5.19 to 5.53
Single battery with forecastle
280 to 300
12 pdrs in battery6 or 4 pdrs on forecastle
30
35.07 to 38.98
9.74 to 10.39
4.55 to 5.20
do.
200 to 230
10
33.13 to 35.73
8.77 to 9.10
4.22 to 4.55
do.
130 to 150
CORVETTES
12
19.49 to 22.74
7.85 to 8.30
2.92 to 3.23
Single battery without forecastle.
70 to 80
4 pdrs in barbette battery.
(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.
(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 theSans 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
—
136
—
130
—
144
—
130
—
118
—
Breadth at midship frame
47
—
43
—
41
—
38
—
35
—
32
—
Depth of hold
18
6
17
8
17
4
13
8
14
—
13
6
Tonnage
1552
1283
1069
914
705
532
Here is what HOLMESwrites, 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. HOLMESwrites 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 VANYK’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 (DEJONGE, 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. (DEJONGE, 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. (DEJONGE, 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. (DEJONGE, 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.)
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.
II 155II 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 thesame 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 (DEJONGE, 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 (DEJONGE, 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 (DEJONGE, 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. (VANYK, p. 14). All thewriters 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; WITSENhimself 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 Louvresays 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. DEJONGEforgets, 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.)