[Sidenote: III 53]
The _Hoogeveensche Praam_ is an open vessel, of relatively recent
date, descended from the Somp but having a fuller bow and stern.
THE PRAAM (_Pram_).
[Sidenote: III 35]
The tendency, already noticed in the XVIIth and at the beginning of the
XVIIIth century, to build larger and fuller vessels (~Van Yk~, p 348),
became still more marked in the XIXth century. It is thus that the
“Snijboonen” and “Sompen” are seen to increase in size and that birth
is given to the _Praam_ of which the size and load can be compared with
those of the Hoy.
[Sidenote: III 36]
The “Pram” has retained, however, the slender bow and stern as also the
characteristic line of the bends. (~Le Comte~, p. 23.) All of these
vessels have the “draai-over-boord” often accompanied with a poop
deck. Hence these “Pramen” are totally separated from the vessels of
the “Semaque” (hoy) group met with in Friesland and Groningen. They
have nothing to do with the _Groninger Aardappelpraam_ or with the
_Groninger Slijkpraam_, or with the _Friesche Praam_ which belong to
the “Hoy” group. The name of _Praam_ which is met with in Overijssel
only at the end of the XVIIIth or beginning of the XIXth century is
not purely Dutch. The Marquis ~de Tolin~ says, for example (p. 175),
that Napoleon caused to be built for his Boulogne fleet a few “prams”,
flat bottomed vessels, 37 m. long, 8 m. wide and drawing about 2.50 m.
They were rigged with three masts and were armed with cannon. (~De
Bonnefoux~ and ~Paris~; _Dictionnaire de Marine à Voiles_, anno 1847,
p. 59.) Twenty “Prams” of this kind are said to have been built. They
had nothing in common, however, with our “Pramen” unless it were that
both vessels were flat bottomed. The Marquis ~de Tolin~ describes
the Dutch “Praam” in his book (p. 144); but this description lacks
precision, because the “Overijsselsche” and “Friesche Pramen” are
grouped together.
The “Friesche praam” (pram of Friesland) is merely a small hoy with
rather slight sheer and provided with a “statie”; while the other is a
flat bottomed vessel with “draai-over-boord” and never with a “statie”.
~Le Comte~ (p. 29) says that the first of these vessels were built only
in the province of Drenthe, at Meppel and Hoogeveen, and he too groups
the hoy with the “Friesche pram”. So he writes (p. 14), for example,
that the “hoys” sometimes have movable washboards when they load
above the gunwales, whereas this is especially characteristic of the
“Friesche pramen”.
Meanwhile, the Pram is often spoken of in Holland, although no vessel
bearing that name, or one resembling the Overijsselsche Praam, is found
there. This name is used then to designate vessels in general.
The big “Overijsselsche Praam”, as it is known to-day, dates only from
the second half of the XIXth century and its increase in size is due
solely to the improvement of existing canals and to the opening to
traffic of new navigable highways, nearly all dating from the same
period. In this way, the “Drentsche Hoofdvaart” was only connected with
Groningen by the construction of the Noord Willemsvaart in 1858-1862;
(see _Gedenkboek Koninklijk Instituut van Ingenieurs_, p. 31). The
Hoogeveensche vaart, dug in 1623 as an “Echtens nieuwe grift”, was
only extended eastward and improved between 1850 and 1860 and the
Meppelerdiep was improved only in 1860 and 1882.
The final junction of Friesland and Groningen by water is also of
recent date; communication was had formerly only by sea. The inland
communication between these provinces was still very primitive until
the beginning of the XIXth century. It was only after 1851 that
improvement was spoken of, and in 1864, the Gaarkeuken lock was
rebuilt, at the boundary between the two provinces, with a width, of 6
metres and a neat length of 26 metres. The Stadskanaal, started in 1766
or 1767 was only finished in 1858.
It was also only in the XIXth century that the improvement of the
junction between Overijssel and Friesland, accomplished by the removal
of the high peat bogs, was begun, and the junction of the northern with
the southern provinces of the Netherlands was brought about in 1820 by
the opening of the “Willemsvaart” (which connects the Yssel with the
Zwartewater). A water supply canal had really been built from Zwolle
toward Yssel as far back as the XIVth century, and improvement of this
canal, so as to make it navigable had really been begun in 1480, but
the reciprocal jealousy of the cities of Yssel stopped these works.
(~Dr. H. Blink~, vol. II, p. 282.) Up to the first half of the XIXth
century, water communications between the northern provinces were had
under these conditions, by way of the Zuyder Zee, communications for
which vessels of the hoy group were, at first used exclusively. The
“Potten” and the “Pujen”, like the “Sompen” and “Peggen”, were unable
to stand the high seas (~Witsen~, p. 170.) and only the “Prams”, which
appeared later, were able by reason of their size and strength to take
the open sea, and soon to spread over all our country.
It is interesting to inquire however, how the name “Praams” came to
be admitted into a country where there existed so many other and
more appropriate names. There is no doubt that the influence of the
province of Groningen brought about this adoption. In fact, the city
of Groningen decided, by the “Convenant van 1817” (treaty of 1817, a
time when the big Pramen of Overijssel were not yet built) that people
coming to the market must pay, like every one else, the ordinary tolls
at bridges, locks and gates of existing canals. There was to be paid
for the canals to be built _thirty_ cents at each lock for a “schip”
(boat) and _ten_ cents for a “pram”. The same distinction between boat
and “pram” was already found in the old tariffs. For example: the
“Stadsordonnantie” of January 28, 1773, lays down that a boat shall pay
15 sous at the locks of the city and a “pram” only 4 sous. It appears
from all this that a distinction was made at Groningen between the
“boat” and the “pram” and from the great difference in price it is
clear that a “pram” was a small boat.
This is so evident that more ample explanations in regard to the nature
of the “pram” have not been sought, and it is clear that the well known
“Slijkpramen” of the province of Groningen are meant, the “Slijkpramen”
being used just as well in the Dollard as in the peat bogs. They are
small narrow boats, open above, with a straight longitudinal section,
full bow and stern (like the hoys of Groningen). They are found also,
with a few changes, under the name of “Vlotpramen”.
When, after the completion of the Noord Willemsvaart in 1862, the
direct connection between Overijssel and Groningen was accomplished and
this latter province could be reached by the large Overijssel boats,
which had also sides with no sheer, it was found evidently advantageous
to call these vessels simply “Prams”. In this way, advantage was taken
of the lower rate and, considering the resulting profits, good care was
taken not to change the name “Pram” to that of “Schip”. It was only in
1903 that a judgment of the justice of the peace of Groningen decided
that the vessels in question must be considered as “Schepen” and not
as “Pramen”, considered by the above mentioned covenant. (Provinciale
Groninger Courant, Dinsdag, 24 Februari 1903, Nᵒ 46.) This judgment,
which put an end to the advantages mentioned above, was given as the
result of a report of experts dated December 24, 1902. Among the
preambles of this report is pointed out the French translation of an
article of the tariff sheet appended to the convenant of 1817, where
the word “Praam” was translated officially by “bateau dit vlotpraam”,
meaning by that, and rightly, the small open “praam” of Groningen.
The experts were mistaken, however, in saying that the present large
“prams” were descended from the “vlotpraam” of Groningen. These prams
are exactly like the Overijssel boats, but their dimensions are larger.
Furthermore, they never belonged to the Groningen class of vessels.
Their fine bow and stern are the most striking proof of this. In
order to settle the type of the “prams”, search should not have been
made alone in Groningen, as was done by the experts, but a comparison
should have been made between the types of this province and those of
Overijssel.
To refer, as in the report of the experts, to a few earlier judgments
where it is a question of “Praamschip” proves just as little, because
there is no sense in considering the name of a boat, the type is what
is required. The conclusion of the report is still more absurd, seeing
that it says that the “praam” is a “boat” (schip), because the owner is
called a “boatman” (schipper)!
The covenant of 1817 was not applicable to the “Overijsselsche pramen”
because these did not exist when the agreement was concluded.
What precedes shows plainly that it is important to classify boats
clearly and to determine beyond doubt the country to which the types
belong.
It is perfectly natural that Overijssel should have found itself under
the influence of the other provinces. So, the “Hoy” is found along the
Zuyder-Zee and, in the XVIIth century, the “IJzeren Verken” (anglice:
iron hog) is a boat which should also be classed among the hoys and
which ~Witsen~ calls a solid boat from Overijssel (p. 170). In the same
way, the “statie” from Friesland is taken up in Overijssel, it being
originally from the former province.
[Sidenote: III 37]
It will be useless to note that “Praamaken” and “Aaktjalken” are met
with, that is to say a few boats having the shape of the “Praam” and
of the Hoy, but without a stem. The bottom ends in the nose and the
planking is assembled on this front face.
Many “hoys” and “prams” have been built of iron during recent years.
They still show characteristic differences among themselves, but it
is to be expected that finally the forms will be confounded, when the
“prams” will have taken fuller forms and the sheer of the hoys will
have been reduced.