FROM THE ACCESSION OF JAMES I. TO THE CLOSE OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.
One of the most lucrative, if exciting, professions which was far
from unpopular during Elizabeth’s reign was that of fitting out a
small fleet of two or three ships, roving about the seas, especially
off the coast of Spain, attacking and, when fortunate, capturing a
ship homeward bound with treasure from the West Indies. In spite of
the distinguished Englishmen who were engaged in this, in spite of
the excellent training it afforded to our seamen, it can only be
condemned as illegal and piratical, although for a long time it was
winked at. James I., however, on his accession determined to take
away from it any semblance of approval. He did his best to bring an
end to these marauding expeditions, but for all that they went on
persistently though not overtly. Captain John Smith, a distinguished
sailor of this time, who was also the first Governor of Virginia,
has left us a lively account depicting an imaginary engagement to
illustrate the working of a ship of this date. It is to be found in
“An Accidence or The Pathway to Experience necessary for all young
seamen ... written by Captaine John Smith sometimes Governour of
Virginia and Admirall of New England,” printed in London in 1626. As
it shows in actual use the very details of the ship and equipment
we mentioned in the last chapter, I cannot refrain from quoting at
length the following graphic description. I give it just as it was
printed, substituting only modern spelling and punctuation:
“A sail! How stands she? To windward, or leeward? Set him by the
compass. He stands right ahead, or on the weather bow, or lee bow.
Out with all your sails: a steady man to the helm. Sit close to keep
her steady. Give chase or fetch him up. He holds his own. No: we
gather on him. Out goeth his flag and pennants or streamers, also his
colours, his waist-cloths and top-armings. He furles and slings his
mainsail. In goes his spritsail and mizzen. He makes ready his close
fights[93] fore and after: well, we shall reach him by and by. What?
Is all ready? Yea, yea. Every man to his charge. Dowse your topsail.
Salute him for the sea—hail him. ‘Whence your ship?’ ‘Of Spain:
whence is yours?’ ‘Of England.’ ‘Are you merchants or men of war?’
‘We are of the sea.’ He waves us to leeward for the King of Spain and
keeps his luff. Give him a chase piece, a broad side and run ahead.
Make ready to tack about, give him your stern pieces. Be yare[94] at
helm: hail him with a noise of trumpets.
“We are shot through and through, and between wind and water. Try
the pumps. Master, let us breathe and refresh a little. Sling a
man overboard to stop the leak. Done, done! Is all ready again?
Yea, yea. Bear up close with him. With all your great and small
shot charge him. Board him on his weather quarter. Lash fast your
grappling irons and sheer off. Then run stem-lines the midships.
Board and board[95] or thwart the hawse. We are foul on each other.
The ship’s on fire. Cut anything to get clear, and smother the fire
with wet cloths. We are clear, and the fire out. God be thanked. The
day is spent, let us consult. Surgeon, look to the wounded, wind
up the slain. With each a weight or bullet at his head and feet.
Give three pieces for their funerals. Swabber, make clean the ship.
Purser, record their names. Watch, be vigilant to keep your berth
to windward, and that we lose him not in the night. Gunners, spunge
your ordinances. Soldiers, scour your pieces. Carpenters, about your
leaks. Boatswain and the rest, repair the sails and shrouds. Cook,
see you observe your directions against the morning watch. Boy!
Hulloa, master, hulloa! Is the kettle boiled? Yea. Boatswain, call up
the men to prayer and breakfast.
“Boy, fetch my cellar of bottles. A health to you all fore and aft.
Courage, my hearts, for a fresh charge. Master, lay him aboard luff
for luff. Midshipmen, see the tops and yards well manned with stones
and brass balls. To enter them at shrouds and every squadron else
at their best advantage, sound drums and trumpets and St. George
for England. They hang out a flag of truce. Stand in with him, haul
him amain, abaft, or take in his flag. Strike their sails and come
aboard, with the captain, purser and gunner, with your commission,
cocket or bills of loading. Out goes their boat. They are launched
from the ship side. Entertain them with a general cry. God save the
captain, and all the company, with the trumpets sounding. Examine
them in particular, and then conclude your conditions with feasting,
freedom or punishment, as you find occasion. Otherwise if you
surprise him or enter perforce, you may stow the men, rifle, pillage
or sack and cry a prize.”
Perhaps we may be allowed to add a word further in explanation of
the duties of the officers taken also from this little book. The
captain was not necessarily a seaman. His authority was to command
the whole company and keep them in order. The lieutenant was to
assist the captain and—hence the word—in his absence to take his
place. The captain also directed a fight, while the master was really
the sailing master and gave orders to the sailors, taking charge of
the ship as long as she was on the high seas: but “when they make
land” the pilot “doth take charge of the ship till he bring her to
harbour.” The duties of the sailors included hoisting sails, getting
the tacks aboard, hauling the bowlines and steering the ship. The
Yonkers were the young men whose work was to take in the topsails,
furl and sling the mainsail, to do all the bowsing or tricing, and
take their turn at the helm. In the setting of watches, the master
chose one and the mate the other.
As to the ship herself we find that the planking of a vessel of
400 tons was to be four inches thick, ships of 300 tons to have
three-inch planking, and small ships two-inch, but never less than
this. Between the beams of the deck and the orlop there were to be
six feet of head-room, and ten ports on each side upon the lower
orlop. A flagstaff was over the poop. A jeer-capstan was only to
hoist the sails of big ships, being raised by hand on small vessels.
Smith mentions using in a “faire gaile your studding sayles,” and
confirms the use of the mizzen topsail. One interesting item that
he enumerates is obviously what we now know by the name of drogue
or sea-anchor. Smith calls it a “drift sail.” Manwayring describes
the drift sail as “a sail used under water, being veered out right
ahead, having sheets to it, the use whereof is to keep a ship’s head
right upon the sea in a storme. Also it is good, where a ship drives
in fast with a current, to hinder her driving in so fast, but it is
most commonly used by fishermen in the North Seas.” Smith mentions
also the cross-jack yard as being now in use.
During James I.’s reign the East India Company, encouraged by the
King, endowed with a new charter, began to flourish considerably.
An important new vessel was built for them called the _Trade’s
Increase_, but she was careened whilst abroad at the end of her first
voyage, in order to have some repairs made to her hull. She fell
over on to her side and was burnt by the Javanese. Her size was 1100
tons, and the loss of so large a vessel in those days was a severe
blow. This was not the only occasion in which an English ship was
thrown away in this manner. Manwayring, writing of the contemporary
practice of careening, says that if a ship wanted attention below
the waterline, as for instance her seams to be caulked, when the
vessel could not be conveniently put ashore and in ports where the
tide does not dry right out, the method was to take out most of the
ballast and guns. Then by her side was brought a lower ship to which
tackles were attached, by means of which the larger vessel was hauled
down on to her side, care being taken at the same time not to strain
the masts too much. Some ships which were not naturally top-heavy
did not careen without difficulty, but English ships, having still
fairly high decks, careened somewhat easily. The Dutch, through
the shallowness of the water off their coasts, could not have a
deep draught, and in consequence their decks were not built high.
And because they were the reverse of top-heavy it was with great
difficulty that a Dutchman was careened.
[Illustration: FIG. 60. THE “PRINCE ROYAL.”]
In 1603 James built three new ships for the Navy, and five years
later the _Ark Royal_ of Elizabeth’s reign was rebuilt and renamed
the _Anne Royal_. In 1608 the keel was laid for the _Prince Royal_,
a ship of 1200 tons, whose appearance will be found in Fig. 60.
This illustration is from a picture in the Trinity House, and is
here reproduced by kind permission of the Elder Brethren. She was
the largest and finest ship that had ever been designed for the
English Navy, and was the finest man-of-war of her time. She was
both built and designed under the supervision of Phineas Pett,
Master of Arts of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, a distinguished
member of a distinguished family which, from the reign of Henry
VIII. right down to William and Mary kept up a continuous line of
naval builders and architects. An unsuccessful attempt was made to
launch her on September 24, 1610, when it was found that the dock
head at Woolwich was too narrow to allow her to get through. She
was eventually launched successfully, however, at a later date. She
was a three-decker in the sense that she had two full batteries
and an upper deck armed. Gorgeously decorated with carvings and
paintings the _Prince Royal_ was double-planked, and with but slight
modifications, chiefly in respect of her decoration, would not be
dissimilar to the ships built at the beginning of the nineteenth
century. Indeed so slight, comparatively, were the developments that
took place between this and the time of the Battle of Trafalgar that
the ships of the early Stuarts would not have looked out of place
among the ships of Nelson’s fleet. Between now and the close of the
eighteenth century the similarity between men-of-war and merchantmen
was so close as to make distinction practically impossible. That,
too, will account for the fact of the English in the foregoing
imaginary encounter by Smith asking whether the Spanish vessel were a
merchant or man-of-war. We have made so many changes between the two
classes of ships since then that it is a little difficult at first to
realise this.
In the design of the _Prince Royal_, many of the old-fashioned
conventionalities went by the board, and, as is always the case with
a daring innovation, hostile criticisms were not scarce. Some of
these, however, were justified, for when a Commission was appointed
to report on the design, it was found that more than double the
number of loads of timber were used than had been estimated for.
The _Prince Royal_ had a figurehead representing the King’s son on
horseback, after whom she was named. Her dimensions were: length
of keel, 114 feet; beam, 44 feet. She was pierced for 64 guns and
carried 55. This number was restricted in order to guard against the
excessive top-weight. In action the vacant portholes would be filled
by guns from the opposite side of the ship. The reader will notice
how close the similarity is between the hull of this ship and that of
the merchantman in Fig. 59, of this period, taken from Furttenbach.
The disappearance of the high poop and forecastles is particularly
obvious. Three lanterns were carried at the poop, and subsequently
this vessel was cut down smaller. At the beginning of the seventeenth
century the lowest decks of ships carried the bread and other
store-rooms, the cables, the officers’ cabins as well as some of the
crew. The second deck was about 6 feet above and pierced with nine
ports aside.
By 1624, James’ navy contained four ships of the first rank, viz.,
the _Prince Royal_, the _Bear_, the _Merhonour_ and the old _Ark
Royal_, now called the _Anne Royal_. Besides these there were fifteen
of the second rank, nine of the third, and four of the fourth, as
well as some hoys. It is curious to find, too, the existence still,
in the navy, of four galleys. They were a source of constant expense,
being never used now that the value of big ships had been realised,
and they were eventually ordered to be sold out of the service.
Charles I. took the liveliest interest in the Navy, and under him
naval architecture continued its progression. The first additions
he was responsible for were not of big ships, but of the sea-going
pinnesses of about 50 tons and under, equipped with both oars and
sails. They were square-rigged, three-masted, and had two decks.
They were, however, sparred and ordnanced far too heavily. In spite
of the fact that England had built a few large ships during the last
century, she had not been conspicuously active in this respect. Far
easier and cheaper had it been to capture the pick of the enemy’s
fleet, and then to refit them and turn the prizes into English
men-of-war. But this lethargy was beginning to disappear. Pett was
one of the chief influences in regard to this, and it was he who,
having closely studied the lines of a fine French ship lying in
British waters, learned some of the improvements that afterwards were
embodied in the ships of our country.
[Illustration: FIG. 61. THE “SOVEREIGN OF THE SEAS.” BUILT IN 1637.]
The _Sovereign of the Seas_ in Fig. 61, reproduced from an engraving
in the British Museum, after the picture by Van der Velde, owes her
design to Pett also. The reader will see how much nearer his craft
approaches to the old wooden walls of the eighteenth century. Built
in 1637, this vessel was for the next generation the admiration and
envy of foreign nations. Like the _Prince Royal_ at a later date,
she was cut down in 1652 to a two-decker, having been found somewhat
crank. But as originally constructed, the _Sovereign of the Seas_ was
a three-decker—the first of her kind—and her measurements, probably
taken on the gun-deck, were: 169 feet 9 inches long, by 48 feet 4
inches beam, the depth of her hold being 19 feet 4 inches. She had
a tonnage of 1683 burthen, and her anchor weighed 60 cwt. Designed
by one member of the Pett family, Phineas, she was built under the
supervision of Peter Pett. In 1684 she was practically rebuilt and
then renamed the _Royal Sovereign_, but twelve years later had the
misfortune to be burnt accidentally at Chatham, yet not before
she had done excellent service under Blake and others during the
seventeenth century wars. Notice in the illustration that instead
of the rare use of the topgallant at the main, she carries them on
all three masts: further still, observe the fact that by now royals
have come into use for the first time. The fore and main have them
stowed with yards lowered.[96] Originally the _Sovereign of the Seas_
had four masts. She carried over 100 guns; had a figurehead; and the
beak-head, though somewhat similar to that of the _Prince Royal_,
is placed lower, while the length of the ship is proportionately
greater, and the original tubby appearance of the _Prince Royal_
is improved upon. There is a medal of the time of Charles I.,
commemorating the Declaration of Parliament of 1642. On one side is
shown a conventionalised design of this or a similar ship, showing
both topgallants and royals, the latter stowed.
Comparing a ship of the seventeenth century with a modern sailing
craft of the same tonnage, the most striking defects that would
appear in the former were the clumsiness in proportions. The
lowness of the bow and the height of the stern seem to us nowadays
ridiculous: so they were. But it was just one of the stages reached
in the transition from those lofty forecastles and stern-castles that
we saw originate in early times. But masts and spars were now no
longer the stumpy items they had been. There was an improvement, too,
in the existing rule of tonnage-measurement. Up to 1628 it had
been far from reliable, being reckoned by the capacity for storing
so many tuns of wine. From the time of Henry V. and long after,
ton as applied to shipping denoted the capacity to hold a barrel
measuring 42 cubic feet in the hold below deck. Therefore a vessel
of 900 tons was capable of holding 900 such barrels. As the barrels
were circular and could not be packed close together, the tonnage was
really greater than what was given.[97] But from 1628 it was to be
estimated from the length of the keel, leaving out the false post (a
piece bolted to the after edge of the main sternpost), the greatest
breadth within the plank, the depth from that breadth to the upper
edge of the keel, and then to multiply these and divide the result by
one hundred.[98]
We have seen how, in the sixteenth century, the greatest rivals of
the English were the Spaniards. Now, in the seventeenth century,
it was the Dutch. Gradually they had been getting stronger and
stronger until about the middle of the seventeenth century they had
reached their zenith in prosperity and power. They had accumulated
considerable wealth, were building fine, capable ships, and about the
time we are speaking of had no equals in either of these possessions.
Before the close of the sixteenth century we have seen them engaging
on the first Arctic Expedition and inventing a new rig for small
vessels. All through the reigns of James and Charles I. they had
gone on developing. It was not until about the close of Elizabeth’s
reign that Holland had commenced to build ships purely for fighting
purposes, but by the year 1624 their men-of-war were the superior of
ours. They kept their ships well, and we find incidentally that it
was the practice of the Dutchmen to tallow the bottom of their ships
while the English had allowed their vessels to become overgrown with
weeds and barnacles below the water-line. The competition between
the two countries set ablaze so much jealousy that an explosion was
bound to come sooner or later. It did come during the Commonwealth,
but though the Civil Wars of Charles I. had the same ill effects on
our Navy as the Wars of the Roses, yet under Blake the Dutch were
beaten, our Navy became again the finest in the world, and settled
for the future the position which English fleets should occupy in
respect of other nations. Highly ruinous as this war was to Dutch
shipping and commerce, it meant the rise of our own Navy and merchant
service. True, our vessels were slower under sail than the Dutchmen,
yet we were more solidly built and armed more heavily. One result
of the war in 1654, not a little gratifying to our pride, remained
in the acceptation by the enemy that henceforth all Dutch ships,
whether men-of-war or of the merchant service, on meeting any English
men-of-war in British seas should strike their flags and lower
topsails. Another and more practical result was that many valuable
Dutch ships passed into our Navy as prizes.
During the Dutch hostilities was employed, for the first time, by
the English, a man-of-war named the _Constant Warwick_, which was
the successor of the galleasse and the immediate precursor of the
frigate of the eighteenth century. Originally the name “frigate”
(French, _frégate_) was only known in the Mediterranean: it was then
used as applied to the galleasse type of craft, having oars plus
sails. But it was the English who were the first to appear on the
ocean, says “Falconer’s Marine Dictionary,” with frigates denoting
“a light, nimble ship, built for the purpose of sailing swiftly.”
The _Constant Warwick_ was of 315 tons. Before the end of the
Commonwealth the frigate was given finer lines to her underwater
body, whilst the height of the hull above water was reduced and the
keel lengthened. The rake fore and aft was lessened, so that the
extreme length over all became diminished in proportion to the length
of the keel. In spite of the obvious improvements which would ensue
from this alteration, there was one vessel, the _Gainsborough_, which
Mr. Oppenheim cites, that was unable to beat to windward. These new
frigates were built at first without forecastles, but afterwards,
except in the case of the fifth and sixth-rates, they were added to
the larger ships. They were somewhat under-canvassed rather than the
reverse. The longboat was still towed astern as we saw in an earlier
century, the pinnace and skiff being stowed on board. Although during
the Commonwealth the ornate decoration of ships was restricted,
gilding being entirely stopped, yet in 1655 Mr. Oppenheim states
that this restriction was relaxed. The figurehead, the arms on the
stern and the two figures on the stern gallery were to be gilt, but
elsewhere the hull was to be black and picked out in gold where there
was carving. In spite of all that we can bring against Cromwell it is
only fair to say that he exercised a considerable amount of good on
behalf of the Navy and English commerce. In addition to settling the
Dutch troubles, there had been another matter affecting our shipping
that needed attention. For some time the piratical people of Algiers
had made the seas to be so dangerous as practically to have throttled
over-ocean trade. Cromwell, however, in his own determined manner
undertook an expedition to the Mediterranean under the command of
Blake, and secured relief for our commerce from the attacks by which
it had been harassed.
From “Two Discourses of the Navy: 1638 and 1659,” by John
Hollond,[99] we are able to gather some further information as
to the material used for ships of the English Navy during the
Commonwealth. Thus, the second of these discourses, written the year
before Cromwell died, mentions that there were three kinds of hemp
in use, viz.: Russian, which was the cause of considerable complaint
because it lasted only a year, while home-made hemp endured for
eighteen months; Rhine band being another variety, and Riga band the
third. But there appears to have been a good deal of trickery and
dishonesty generally going on at this time in connection with hemp
and cordage.
As to the timber, English oak was used for straight, curved (referred
to as “compass”), and knee timbers. Ash was used for blocks and
tholes, &c., while elm and beech were used for the planking below the
waterline and also for the keel. There was in this century a great
dearth of timber, and the royal forests had seriously deteriorated.
As a result, foreign planking was imported in large quantities
from abroad, and especially the Baltic. In this may be found the
explanation for the speed with which our ships decayed. In Charles
II.’s time the planks and timbers were fastened with tree-nails or
hard wooden pins. Those who have not forgotten their undergraduate
days will be interested to hear that the best trees for this purpose
were grown at Shotover and Stow Wood, Oxfordshire.
With regard to the iron used, by 1636 there were as many as three
hundred iron works in the country. Iron nails were stolen in such
large quantities that the systematic marking of Navy stores was begun
about the time of the Restoration. A proclamation of 1661 introduced
the broad arrow, as a Government mark on timber and anchors.
We pass now to the time of Charles II.[100] Following up the
zeal of the ancestors of his house, Charles showed a very real
interest in the Navy. In spite of all his follies, in spite of his
libertinism and effeminacy, Charles had one great outstanding series
of good deeds to his name in having done more for the English Navy
than perhaps any English rulers before him. Navigation and naval
architecture went ahead rapidly: the Greenwich Royal Observatory
and the Nautical Almanac were founded, the science of astronomy
encouraged, and yachting in this country given such an impulse as is
still felt to this day.
[Illustration: FIG. 62. BOMB KETCH.]
The total strength of the Navy at the Restoration was 156, this
number being made up of the following entities: first-rates,
second-rates, third-rates, fourth-rates, fifth-rates, sixth-rates,
hoys (small sloop-rigged merchant vessels adapted for war purposes),
hulks (for transporting horses, &c.), sloops, ketches, pinks and
yachts. Sir Walter Raleigh refers[101] to “hoyes” of Newcastle as
needing a slight spar-deck addition fore and aft. He speaks of
them as being ready in stays and in turning to windward. They drew
but little water, and carried six demi-culverin and four sakers.
Manwayring defines the ketch somewhat vaguely as “a small boate
such as uses to come to Belingsgate with mackrell, oisters &c.” The
ketch was a two-masted ship, not necessarily fore and aft rigged
as we speak of them nowadays, but with the mainmast stepped well
aft.[102] Descended from the Dutch galliot, the ketch was especially
used at the end of the seventeenth century as a “bomb-ketch.” The
illustration in Fig. 62 is from an old French print in the United
Service Museum, Whitehall, where it is called a “Galiote à bombe.”
Bomb ketches were first employed by Louis XIV. in the bombardment
of Algiers with great success. They were about 200 tons burthen,
and built very strongly, so as to bear the downward recoil of the
mortars. The reason for the large triangular space left between the
mainmast and the bowsprit is to give plenty of room for the mortar
to fire. The hold was closely packed with old cables, cut into
lengths, the yielding elastic qualities of the packing assisting in
taking up the force of the recoil.[103] The stamp used by the Hakluyt
Society on their publications is ketch-rigged. About the time of the
beginning of Charles II., the fore and aft ketch would be rapidly
developing. The pink was also of Dutch extraction. She is—for the
Dutch craft have scarcely altered since the seventeenth century—a
cutter or yawl-rigged small open boat, and clinker-built.
About 1660 Chatham was the most important of the royal dockyards,
Pett being in charge there. Sir Anthony Dean made a report on the
state of the Navy in 1674, at the close of the Third Dutch war. As a
result the sum of £300,000 was voted by Parliament to build twenty
ships as suggested by Sir Anthony. As to the comparative strength of
the European nations at this time, the following list is instructive.
On April 24, 1675, England had ninety-two ships carrying twenty
to one hundred guns and upwards: France had ninety-six ships and
Holland one hundred and thirty-six. As we mentioned just now, the
shallowness of the Dutch waters prohibited the building of big ships,
so that they were unable to build three-deckers, and the largest
ships carried no more than eighty or ninety guns. In addition to the
figures quoted above, we must add three fireships to the English,
four to the French, and forty to the Dutch fleets.
The £300,000 voted by Parliament was really with a view of meeting
the increase in the French Navy. It was during the first year of the
reign of our Charles II. that young Louis XIV. took the government
of the French into his own hands. There was then practically no
French Navy in existence, if we except a handful of frigates. But
three years before Sir Anthony Deane’s recommendation was approved
by Parliament, France had increased her fleet to fifty ships of the
line, besides a large number of frigates and small craft. It was
during Louis’ regime, in fact, that England had to look, not to
Spain, nor to the Dutch for signs of possible trouble on the sea, but
to France, which rose rapidly to a position of the first importance
as a naval power. Thus, English first-rates were to be built not with
a view of the shallow-draught Dutchmen but in order to be able to
contend with the fine French fleet whose vessels were the superior
to ours in size, though our first-rates were capable of standing an
enemy’s battery better than most ships.
English second-rates had the advantage financially of needing fewer
men. They drew less water, carried a smaller weight of ordnance, but
by reason of the fire from their three decks were able to render a
good account of themselves in battle. Fourth-rates served only as
convoys, and likewise the fifth-rates. In Pepys’s time England had as
many as thirty-six fourth-rates.
We are able to gather a good deal of information respecting naval
matters of the time from Pepys’s Diary. In the early part of the
reign war with the Dutch had broken out again, and in 1667 the Dutch
had actually sailed up the Thames estuary and burnt our ships in the
Medway. In spite of the ultimate good results to the English Navy
under Charles II., the daring and pluck which had been so conspicuous
in the Elizabethan seamen appear to have been not always alive. But
what worse evidence could be wished of the condition of the English
character of the time when we remember that while a Dutch fleet of
eighty ships burned the forts of Sheerness and ascended the Medway
as far as Chatham, capturing and destroying our men-of-war, Charles
II. “amused himself with a moth-hunt in the supper room, where his
mistresses were feasting in splendour”? Under the date of July 4,
1666, Pepys writes in his diary:
“With the Duke, all of us discoursing about the places where to build
ten great ships: the King and Council have resolved on none to be
under third-rates; but it is impossible to do it, unless we have
more money towards the doing it than yet we have in any view. But,
however, the show must be made to the world. In the evening Sir W.
Pen came to me, and we walked together, and talked of the late fight.
I find him very plain, that the whole conduct of the late fight was
ill; that two-thirds of the commanders of the whole fleet have told
him so: they all saying, that they durst not oppose it at the Council
of War, for fear of being called cowards, though it was wholly
against their judgment to fight that day with the disproportion of
force, and then we not being able to use one gun of our lower tier,
which was a greater disproportion than the other. Besides, we might
very well have staid in the Downs without fighting, or anywhere else,
till the Prince could have come up to them; or at least, till the
weather was fair, that we might have the benefit of our whole force
in the ships that we had. He says three things must be remedied, or
else we shall be undone by this fleet. First, that we must fight in a
line, whereas we fight promiscuously, to our utter and demonstrable
ruine: the Dutch fighting otherwise; and we, whenever we beat them.
Secondly, we must not desert ships of our own in distress, as we
did, for that makes a captain desperate, and he will fling away his
ship, when there are no hopes left him of succour. Thirdly, the ships
when they are a little shattered must not take the liberty to come
in of themselves, but refit themselves the best they can, and stay
out—many of our ships coming in with very small disableness. He told
me that our very commanders, nay, our very flag-officers, do stand
in need of exercising among themselves, and discoursing the business
of commanding a fleet: he telling me that even one of our flagmen in
the fleet did not know which tacke lost the wind, or kept it, in the
last engagement. He says it was pure dismaying and fear that made
them all run upon the Galloper, not having their wits about them: and
that it was a miracle they were not all lost.”
From his entry made on October 20, 1666, we gather that the “fleet
was in such a condition, as to discipline, as if the Devil had
commanded it.... Enquiring how it came to pass that so many ships
had miscarried this year ... the pilots do say that they dare not do
nor go but as the Captains will have them, and if they offer to do
otherwise the Captains swear they will run them through. He [_i.e._
Commissioner Middleton] says that he heard Captain Digby (my Lord of
Bristoll’s son, a young fellow that never was but one year, if that,
in the fleet) say that he did hope he should not see a tarpawlin
[_i.e._ a sailor] have the command of a ship within this twelve
months.”
And again on October 28:
“Captain Guy to dine with me, and he and I much talk together. He
cries out on the discipline of the fleet, and confesses really that
the true English valour we talk of, is almost spent and worn out.”
It was Pepys who urged that ships should be built of greater burden,
stronger and beamier, for at that time the men-of-war needed to be
girdled round the hull. They were crank-sided, could not well carry
their guns on the upper decks, especially in bad weather, and not
enough room was left for the carrying of stores and victuals. He
gives the following comparison between the two principal ships of the
French, Dutch and English:
FRENCH
_Soll Royall_ (more correctly _Le Soleil Royal_), 1940 tons.
_Royall Lewis_ (_Le Royal Louis_), 1800 tons.
Besides these, two others were 140 feet long on the keel with 48
feet beam.
DUTCH
_The White Elephant_, 1482 tons.
_Golden Lion_, 1477 tons.
The former was 131 feet long on the keel, the latter 130 feet. Both
had 46·9 feet beam, drew 19 feet 8 inches of water, and carried
three decks.
ENGLISH
The _Royal Charles_, “with the girdling of 10 inches measure,” was
1531 tons.
The _Prince_ (says Pepys) “is full as big now girdled and as long
on the gun-deck as the Charles, but having a long rake they measure
short on the keel or she would be 1520 tons.”
It must be observed in reference to the above figures that the
Dutch ships had a greater rake forward and would measure much
bigger, being very beamy. Pepys mentions that “the excellent French
and Dutch ships with two decks are more in number and much larger
than our third-rates.”
The _Soleil Royal_ mentioned above was a fine three-masted ship of
the line, carrying 108 guns. She was a worthy example of the high
state of excellence reached by the French naval architects of this
period. She was lost, however, when the combined English and Dutch
fleets in 1692 defeated the French off Cape La Hogue. This was a
decisive blow to another of those plans for the invasion of England,
and the naval battle in which the French fleet was utterly destroyed
has been regarded by historians as the greatest naval victory won
by the English between the defeat of the Armada and the battle of
Trafalgar.
[Illustration: FIG. 63. THE “ROYAL CHARLES.” BUILT IN 1672.]
We give in Fig. 63 an illustration of the _Royal Charles_ mentioned
above. This delightful picture is from a photograph of a model
in the South Kensington Museum. Built at Portsmouth in 1672 to the
designs of Sir Anthony Deane, she carried 100 guns: her length was
136 feet, beam 46 feet, depth 18 feet 3 inches, draught 20 feet 6
inches. The arms of England and the lantern that ornamented her stern
are still preserved in the Rijks Museum, Amsterdam, for the _Royal
Charles_ was one of those vessels which were either captured or
destroyed when the Dutch came up to Chatham in 1667. In the beautiful
model before us the ports are correctly gilded. The rake and length
of the bowsprit are in accordance with the information that has been
handed down to us. At the extreme end of the latter will be seen the
sprit topmast, up which the sprit topsail was hoisted. A jackstaff
is at the top of the sprit topmast. The present model does not show
topgallant yards, but as we know from Heyward they were found in the
inventory of this ship. Below the sprit topmast and on the bowsprit
will be noticed the spritsail yard now kept fixed to the bowsprit.
As to what vessels of the seventeenth century looked like under
way the delightfully realistic picture which Mr. Charles Dixon has
painted for our frontispiece will materially help our imagination.
And here perhaps we may say a word regarding the subject of the flags
carried at this period. After the union of England and Scotland in
1603 all British vessels flew the Union flag of the crosses of St.
George and St. Andrew in the maintop for a time, English and Scotch
ships also carrying their national colours in the foretop. Ensigns
of red, white or blue with the St. George’s Cross on a white canton
next to the ensign staff were also commonly carried until the time of
the Commonwealth. But on May 5, 1634, it was ordered that men-of-war
alone were to fly the Union flag in future, and that merchantmen
according to their nationality were to fly the St. George’s or the
St. Andrew’s flag merely. This rule ended in February, 1649, when
Parliament directed men-of-war to fly as an ensign the St. George’s
Cross on a white field.[104] The Union flag was carried on the sprit
topmast as shown in the frontispiece, and to-day the Jack is still
seen at the bows of our men-of-war, though they be built of wood no
longer.
Edward Heyward in his book just mentioned gives still further details
of contemporary ships. The rule which he mentions for ascertaining
the length of the mainmast was that it should be half the length of
the keel and once the length of the beam put together. The mainstay
was to be in thickness half of the diameter of the mainmast. The
shrouds were to be one half the thickness of the stay, and the
topmast shrouds to be one half the main shrouds’ thickness. One ton
of hemp required three barrels of tar. As to the ship’s boats of the
_Sovereign_, her longboat measured 50 feet 10 inches long, 12½ feet
broad, and 4¼ feet deep. Her pinnace was 36 feet long, 9½ feet broad,
3¼ feet deep. Her skiff was 27 feet long, 7 feet broad, and 3 feet
deep. Fourth-rates only carried a longboat and a pinnace, fifth-rates
carrying simply a longboat, while sixth-rates had only a 22-feet boat.
The _Prince_ mentioned in the above list was the _Prince Royal_ of
James I.’s reign. Her career had been a distinctly varied one. As
originally launched she was the _Victory_ belonging to Elizabeth’s
reign. She fought against the Armada, having been turned into a
galleon two years before the fight. In 1610 as stated she had been
rebuilt and called the _Prince Royal_, but this “rebuilding” was
during this period something far more than any moderate adaptation.
After the death of Charles I. her name was called during the
Commonwealth the _Resolution_, and at the Restoration this was
changed yet again to the _Royal Prince_. According to Le Sieur
Dassie in his “L’Architecture Navale” printed in Paris in the year
1677, _Le Soleil Royal_ had a tonnage of 2500 as well as 120 guns
and 1200 men. _Le Royal Louis_ had the same tonnage and the same
number of guns, but only a thousand men. He gives also a very full
and interesting inventory of _un vaisseau du premier rang_ of 2000
tons. Every detail is mentioned even to the _ornements de chapelle_.
Very confusing is the naming of the three masts as used by the French
at this time and embodied in Dassie’s work. Thus, as we hinted in
a previous chapter, the foremast is the _misaine_, the main is the
_grand mast_, while the mizzen is the _mast d’artimont_, or exactly
the reverse of what we should have expected them to be named. From
such a work as Dassie’s and, some years later, of Jean Bernoulli in
his “Essay d’Une Nouvelle Théorie de la Manœuvre des Vaisseaux,”
printed at Basle in 1724, we see how at last the scientific study
of naval architecture had begun to make headway. The action of
heavy bodies passing through the liquid sea, the relation of speed
to design, were being slowly understood. Finally in 1794 the same
scientific treatment was applied to sails. In “A Treatise Concerning
the True Method of finding the proper area of the sails for Ships of
the Line and from thence the length of masts and yards,” by F. H. af.
Chapman, printed in London, the area of the sails in regard to the
stability of ships is thoroughly entered into.
[Illustration: FIG. 64. A DUTCH MAN-OF-WAR OF ABOUT THE END OF THE
SEVENTEENTH CENTURY.]
The illustration in Fig. 64 is of a model of a Dutch man-of-war now
in the Royal United Service Museum, Whitehall. It is supposed to be
of contemporary date, belonging roughly to the period of Louis XIV’s.
rule, 1661-1715. The rigging may be relied upon, but the model is
too broad in proportion to her length. The guns are also exaggerated
in size, but for all that it may serve to assist the reader in
visualising the ships of what was so important a maritime Power.
The notable characteristic of the Dutch and French craft of the
seventeenth century as opposed to the English was that the two former
had their sterns terminating squarely, while the English rounded the
lines of the stern above water more. This foreign characteristic
of the square stern is everywhere noticeable in the contemporary
paintings and engravings of Holland. Over and over again we see the
overhanging stern gallery, with the transom stern below, going in (so
to speak), for the gallery above to project out. We find it in the
earliest yachts of Holland, in the Dutch East Indiamen as well as the
ships of the line. The reader will recollect at an earlier period we
referred to the “tumble-home” which had become a new phase in naval
architecture consequent on the introduction of cannon on board ship.
This during the ensuing two centuries had been overdone, so that the
upper deck bore a ridiculously narrow proportion to the width of the
ship at the water-line, but the Dutch in the height of their naval
knowledge were the first of the nations to relinquish it. It is to
the Dutch of the last part of the sixteenth and the first half of the
seventeenth centuries that we owe the beginnings of the fore-and-aft
rig and of yachting as we mentioned earlier. But in order that our
attention may not be distracted from the history of the squaresail,
it will be more convenient to deal with the development of the
smaller craft in Chapter IX.
We have already referred to the great influence for good exercised
on the English Navy by Dutch and French naval architects. Among the
points of superiority which the smaller French craft possessed over
ours was that their lower guns were as much as four feet above the
water, an improvement that made for greater safety. They could also
stow four months’ provisions, whereas our frigates were narrower and
sharper, and carried their guns little more than three feet clear
of the water, having space only for ten weeks’ provisions. It was
as improvements on these defects that the _Resolution_ and _Rupert_
had been built by Sir Anthony Deane. During the reign of Charles
II., also, Sir Philip Howard made an invention for sheathing his
Majesty’s ships with lead in preference to using wooden boards with
a layer of tar and hair between the sheath and the ship, the whole
having been covered outside with a composition of sulphur, oil and
other ingredients. The old method of sheathing with elm boards had
been introduced by Hawkins during Elizabeth’s reign, but it does not
appear to have been successful, for in a report dated October 12,
1587, the chief shipwrights state that the _Bonaventure_, which had
been treated according to Hawkins’ method, had decayed timbers under
her sheathing. But the reader will recollect that as far back as the
reign of Edward VI. the ships that voyaged to the North-East under
Chancellor and Willoughby had part of their underbody covered with
thin sheets of lead, while the ancients of the time of Caligula and
even before, had also adopted this method of preserving the hulls of
ships. So Howard was really a reviver rather than an inventor.
Still, since complaint had been made that Hawkins’ method
necessitated frequent cleaning, and the roughness of the
wood-sheathed bottom interfered with the sailing abilities, Howard’s
plan was adopted. The first experiment of using his milled lead
sheathing was made on the _Phœnix_ at Portsmouth in 1670-71, and
afterwards on the _Dreadnought_, the _Henrietta_, and others in 1672.
The _Phœnix_ was careened at Sheerness in 1673, after two voyages
to the Straits, and inspected by the King himself. In the same year
Howard’s new method was finally adopted for the Navy by the Lords of
the Admiralty. Considerable opposition was made by some critics, who
rightly pointed out that the action of the lead was to corrode very
rapidly the iron nails and rudder-irons of the ship, and eventually
in 1682 the Navy Board reported against a further use of this
sheathing.
An experiment of quite a different nature was made in 1674 in
utilising cypress trees from the new colony of Virginia. They
were said to be large enough for the masts of yachts, and both
lighter and tougher than fir, which was then being used. It is
curious how persistently the galley endeavoured, in spite of every
discouragement, to make its reappearance in England. This, however,
was owing to the success with which it had flourished in the
Mediterranean. In 1666 the Duke of Florence presented Charles II.
with two of the best galleys that could be built, one of which went
from Leghorn to Tangier. Anthony Deane, the younger, subsequently
built a galley called the _James_ at Blackwall; another, called the
_Charles_, was built at Woolwich, by Phineas Pett the younger, the
date of both being 1676. They were classed in Pepys’s “Register of
the Royal Navy” as fourth-rates. From the naval papers of the period
we find that 1000 loads of timber will build a third-rate of 1000
tons. A ship of 1000 tons costs £10 a ton to build, and the life of a
ship was about thirty years. Great merchant ships cost from £6 to £8
2_s._ 6_d._ to build, but merchantmen of 250 tons cost from £5 to £7
a ton.
By the end of the seventeenth century the sailing ship had reached a
stage in development which, till the close of the eighteenth century,
altered but little. Naval architecture, thanks to French influence,
was progressing. Eddystone lighthouse was built, and Dampier had
undertaken his famous voyage to Australia. The naval authorities
had by now become firmly convinced of the folly of the high-charged
decks, with the enormous rake ascending from the low bows to the
lofty stern. But another change was also beginning to take place.
For some time it had been customary when a fleet of ships voyaged
in company to have them rigged as nearly as possible with spars and
sails of the same size, so that in the event of anything carrying
away, each ship would be able to supply the other with a sail,
or spar, or rope of the proper dimensions. Later, as ships became
bigger and carried more sails and spars, this idea had been extended
to the individual ship. Thus, soon after the Revolution, Cloudesley
Shovel advocated the supplying of two spare topmasts to every ship,
and fitting spritsails in such a manner that when necessity arose
they might serve as main topsails. The yards, too, of spritsail,
topsail, mizzen topsail, and main topgallant were to be made so as to
be interchangeable. By about the beginning of the eighteenth century,
the triangular headsails are seen on full-rigged Dutch ships, whilst
the lateen mizzen still continues. The reader will recollect that
this shaped headsail had first been introduced on the Dutch sloops
of the sixteenth century, with their foresail working on a stay as
to-day, having a sprit mainsail, resembling that of the modern Thames
barge, but with no jib for the present. Now, in the century we are
discussing, the Dutchman uses the same shaped headsail for his big
ships, the spritsail underneath the bowsprit still remaining. In
course of the first half of the eighteenth century this innovation
spread to France and to England. At the beginning of the eighteenth
century, also, besides the fore staysails, main and foretopmast
staysails and main topmast studding sails were in use in our ships.
The cables were each 100 fathoms long, made of 21-inch hemp, and
the bower anchors weighed 74 cwts. for a first-rate. The length of
the longboats was 36 feet, the pinnaces 33 feet, and the skiff 27
feet. The heaviest guns were 42-pounders.[105] By the middle of the
eighteenth century the staysails and triangular headsails had become
quite common, and two instead of one spritsail are found under the
bowsprit. The sprit topmast disappears, but the jackstaff is used in
its place to fly the Union Jack when at anchor, being taken in when
under way, otherwise it would hinder the working of the triangular
headsails. An important change now takes place in the mizzen. The
reader will recollect that for several hundred years it had been used
in its Mediterranean triangular shape on European ships. Instead of
the yard coming quite low down, as in Fig. 63 of Charles II.’s ship,
the angle the yard makes with the mizzen mast is nearer to a right
angle. Thus, instead of the sail being triangular it is rectangular,
having four sides instead of three. The next stage is to cut off that
part of this sail which projects forward of the mast, though the yard
itself is still allowed to extend ahead of the mast without having
any canvas on its forward end. The luff of the sail is laced to the
mast, hoops not being used. Finally, by at least 1768, the portion
of the yard still found without any canvas is lopped off, and the
vangs which had been used all the time for the mainsail of the sloops
are seen coming down from the peak to the stern. Also, following the
example of the contemporary Dutch fore-and-afters, there is no boom.
If the reader will now look at the mizzen of the corvette model in
Fig. 69 he will see this penultimate stage clearly shown. The final
stage comes later when a boom is added, and that, too, may be traced
for its origin to the Dutch fore-and-afters, which, discarding the
sprit extending diagonally across the mainsail, added a tiny gaff and
a much longer boom, the sail being loose-footed. Instead of the long
bowsprit of the early Stuarts, the middle of the eighteenth century
saw this mast-like projection cut into two pieces, so as to make
bowsprit and jib-boom. Topgallants now become far more frequently
used.
After the Revolution, at the end of James II.’s reign, the three
ranks of Admiral, Vice-Admiral, and Rear-Admiral, were established,
and the practice of having red, blue, and white ensigns, which had
been introduced during the time of Charles I., continued. These
ensigns were shown on an ensign staff, each having a cross of St.
George on a white field in the upper canton. The Jack flown on
the staff on the bowsprit was blue with a white saltire and a red
cross with white fimbriation over all. Signals were made, not by a
combination of flags, but by changing the position of flags.
[Illustration: FIG. 65. THE “TERRIBLE,” A TWO-DECKER CAPTURED FROM
THE FRENCH IN 1747.]
When Queen Anne died in 1714, there were in our Navy seven
first-rates, thirteen second-rates, forty-two third-rates, sixty-nine
fourth-rates, forty-two fifth-rates, and twenty-four sixth-rates.
As to the meaning signified by these classes, the first-rates were
vessels of one hundred guns, or upwards, carrying them on three
decks. Second-rates carried from ninety to one hundred guns on
three decks: third-rates had from sixty-four to eighty-four guns on
two complete decks: fourth-rates had from fifty to sixty guns on
two decks: fifth-rates had from thirty to forty-four guns, whilst
sixth-rates carried only twenty to thirty guns. There were also in
the service smaller vessels classed as sloops, and others classed
as gun-brigs and bombs. The progress which had been going on in
rigging, during the early years of the eighteenth century, continued
in respect of size of tonnage and also in the weight of armament now
carried. Regard, too, was paid to the proper seasoning of timber. The
action of the Navy Board in 1719 established a scale of dimensions
and tonnage for the construction of ships of the six separate rates,
and this influence was felt for nearly a century after, although the
establishment was not always strictly adhered to. Improvements went
on with regard to internal structure and ventilation, and in order to
counteract the injurious effects of bilge water. The result was that
both the health of the ship herself and of her crew were improved
when once the foul gases accumulating below had been overcome.
Collaterally with the progress of the science of naval architecture
in England was the development in France. Ever since the time of Jean
Baptiste Colbert, during the reign of Louis XIV., France had stood
superior to any European Power in ship-designing. Nor were English
naval architects and shipwrights slow to avail themselves of whatever
opportunity presented itself for studying the lines and structure of
the foreigner. Whenever one of the crack ships of the enemy became an
English prize it followed that within the next few years an improved
English man-of-war, based on the design of the foreigner, would be
launched. As an example of the beautiful vessels which France was
capable of building, about the middle of the eighteenth century,
the illustration in Fig. 65 will at once be evidence. This is the
_Terrible_, captured from the French in 1747, and afterwards passed
into the English Navy. She was a two-decker with three masts, and
carried 74 guns. Her gun-deck was 164 feet 1 inch long, and her beam
was 47 feet 3 inches, while her depth was 20 feet 7½ inches. Her
tonnage worked out at 1590. The illustration has been taken from a
contemporary print in the Royal United Service Museum.
[Illustration: FIG. 66. H.M.S. “ROYAL GEORGE.” 100 GUNS, 2047 TONS.
FOUNDERED IN 1782.]
Fig. 66 represents H.M.S. _Royal George_, of 100 guns, one of the
most famous ships of the eighteenth century. Her size—2047 tons—alone
makes her remarkable, apart altogether from her good looks. Her
length on the keel was 143 feet 5½ inches, beam 51 feet 9½ inches,
depth 21 feet 6 inches. Built at Woolwich she ended her days as
tragically as another vessel we mentioned before, and owing to a
similar cause. While she was being careened as she lay at anchor in
Spithead for some repairs to her hull below the waterline, she sank
on August 29, 1782. To-day she is still famous as the ship in which
Rear-Admiral Kempenfelt, together with nine hundred men, women, and
children, went down to their graves. The illustration is taken from
an engraving, by T. Baston, in “Twenty-two Prints of several of the
Capital ships of his Majesties Royal Navy,” in the Print Room of the
British Museum.
Still another experiment was made in 1761 in order to find some
suitable method for sheathing ships’ bottoms. At last lead had been
finally discarded. But now the sensible plan of using copper was
tried on the _Alarm_, a 32-gun frigate. Finding that not only did
this preserve the ship’s planking, but also increased the speed of
the ship through the water, vessels of all classes were subsequently
covered in the same way. The plates of copper were affixed to the
hull, tough sheets of paper being placed in between the sheathing and
the hull.
[Illustration: FIG. 67. NELSON’S “VICTORY.” 2162 TONS. BUILT IN 1765.
_Photo. S. Cribb._]
Nelson’s historic flagship, the _Victory_, of 100 guns, was built
in 1765. Her immediate predecessor of the same name was launched in
1735, being the finest first-rate of her time, until she was lost in
a terrible storm off the Alderney Race, every one of the 1000 souls
on board perishing with her. The illustration of Nelson’s _Victory_
in Fig. 67 was taken recently in Portsmouth Harbour where this fine
old ship still swings to the tide. Her length is (measured on the
gun-deck) 186 feet, beam 52 feet, depth of hold 21 feet 6 inches,
whilst her tonnage is 2162, or slightly larger than the _Royal
George_ previously mentioned. The reader will notice the Jack flying
in the place previously referred to. Very interesting to us who have
traced its development is the stage at which the bow has arrived.
Gone is the towering forecastle, though the name still survives as
designating the fore-part of even small cabined craft. Even the
diminished rake of the seventeenth century from bow to stern has
disappeared too. In order that the reader may also obtain some idea
of the stern, and the three lanterns which would have been part of
the ship’s inventory when she set out for the Mediterranean on her
last voyage with Nelson, the illustration in Fig. 68 may be worthy
of notice. It is only quite recently that the Admiralty have added
these replicas, which look not a little incongruous as they tower
above submarines and torpedo-boats churning up the water below. The
flags flying in Fig. 67 were intended to represent Nelson’s immortal
signal. It was quite recently discovered, however, that the wrong
signals had been flown on Trafalgar Day each year, for the code of a
far too modern date was relied upon. This mistake has been rectified,
and the correct flags are now flown on October 21.
[Illustration: FIG. 68. THE STERN OF H.M.S. “VICTORY,” SHOWING THE
THREE POOP LANTERNS RECENTLY ADDED BY THE ADMIRALTY.
_Photo. S. Cribb._]
[Illustration: FIG. 69. CORVETTE, 340 TONS, OF ABOUT 1780.]
The illustration in Fig. 69 represents a corvette of about the
year 1780. Corvettes were vessels having far less freeboard and
without the high quarter-deck. They were ship-rigged and carried
less than twenty guns. Those carried on the ship before us would be
six-pounders. Her crew would number 125, her tonnage would be 340,
her length on the gun-deck, 101 feet, length of keel, 85·5 feet,
beam 28 feet, depth of hold 12·5 feet. As to her canvas carried,
the triangular headsails with the two spritsails will be seen. In
addition to her courses, she carries topsails, topgallants, and
royals on the fore and main masts. The converted lateen has already
been referred to, but it should be noticed that while she has on
the mizzen a topsail, topgallant and royal, and also a cross-jack
yard, yet no sail is set on the latter, as it is to-day on a
full-rigged ship. This yard had been in use since the beginning of
the seventeenth century, and it was not until 1840 that a Yankee
skipper took it into his head to introduce the sail which is known
as the cro’jack. The French, since from this spar no sail was set,
called it the “barren yard”—_vergue sec_.[106] It was during this
century that the frigate proper as a fast cruiser was introduced
into the English Navy. Still stirred to energy by the activity
displayed by the French, the dimensions of English ships were
constantly being increased during the last years of the eighteenth
century. The capture, in 1792, of the fine three-master _Commerce
de Marseilles_, with a tonnage of 2747, and a length of over 200
feet, came as a welcome prize to our fleet which had nothing to
equal her in respect either of size or armament. Again the design
embodied in her was carefully studied by our experts, and before
the close of the century two important improvements were made in
English men-of-war. The first was to cease placing the lower battery
so low down to the water. The reader will readily see that if the
enemy were to leeward—as in all probability he should be—our lower
ports must necessarily be kept closed unless there were only such
a faint draught of wind as scarcely caused the ship to heel over.
The French were thus at a great advantage in being able to fire
from every one of their guns down to the lowest tier. The second
improvement consisted in giving our newer ships a length far greater
in proportion to the beam.