What explanation is to be made as to why our shipbuilders were abandoned about the middle of the XVIIIth century?
The size of ships was constantly increasing in England and in France; and the fleets of foreign powers were ever becoming stronger, while in our country, the shallowness of passes, rivers and ports, prevented the construction of ships which, by their size, could vie with those of other lands. (VAN YK, p. 14). All the writers of the period point out this situation of which the realness has been shown by means of a few figures.
The disadvantage resulting from the relative shallowness of the Dutch passes was felt as far back as the end of the XVIIth century, and this disadvantage could only become more marked as time went on. Meanwhile, the necessity of building more powerful ships, carrying as many as 90 to 95 guns, became a matter of serious importance. In order to avoid drawing too much water, it became necessary to make the ships fuller, but this also made them heavier and poorer sailers, consequently they were but poor fighting instruments in the hands of our brave admirals. Is it then to be wondered at that the latter complained about them bitterly? In spite of all our courage, the shallowness of our approaches to the sea, to say nothing of the financial situation, made us yield before the foreigner.
This inferiority is wrongly blamed on the Dutch shipbuilders of the day. Naturally, many of them held on for a long time to the old ways, as is shown by Du Hamel du Monceau, in the following terms at page 287 of his work: “The habit of copying mechanically and servilely what was done in the past, has produced all these rules of proportions observed in determining the main frame, the description of models and their designs.” And this author adds this interesting detail: “Every ship-carpenter kept these rules as a family secret”.
The Dutch builders had no affection for the pen; WITSEN himself has already called attention to this; they were afraid of publishing their secrets, lest they might see their work carried off by others. It was only a few years ago that an engineer engaged in shipbuilding refused to let me see the drawings of one of his ships; he too feared lest his models should be imitated.
How, then, could it be expected that ships should already be built according to scientific rules, at the middle of the XVIIIth century, when in France, which was ahead of all other nations in the matter, these rules were not taken up until 1740? Le Musée de Marine du Louvre says in speaking of the XVIIIth century: “It (the vessel) is built in accordance with scientific principles which began to become known in 1697, but which scarcely date from before 1740 and which bring about a great resemblance among the ships of all countries so soon as they are intended for navigating the high seas, as originality no longer exists except for coasting vessels attached to their own shores.” (See, among others, M. BONGEUR, 1746, XXIII.)
It was not, then, attachment to tradition, but the natural condition of our passes which kept us from building vessels of war as good as those built abroad. This is what Mr. DE JONGE forgets, while at the same time he attaches too little weight to practice, which still enjoys, even in our time, a great authority even in the matter of shipbuilding. So this honorable writer arrives necessarily at forming, in regard to our builders of the XVIIIth century, an unfavorable and undeserved judgment.
The decline of shipbuilding along the “Zaan”, for example, was not the consequence of the ignorance of our builders; this cause must be attributed above all to the silting up of the river and of the mouth of the IJ. This occurrence no longer allowed ships of any importance to be taken to sea except at great cost and trouble. (LOOSJES, De Zaandamsche dorpen, p. 194.—M. KOENEN, p. 95.)
In order to bring out the difference existing between the French and English styles and the Dutch style, I have placed on one plate of my album the various main frames. This drawing is sufficiently eloquent by itself, still, I must once more call attention, in passing, to the differences which distinguish these various styles. These differences existed at first in the shape and composition of the main frames; then, the English vessels had less sheer, were less high and were not square at the stern. (VAN YK, p. 17.) The English seem also to have used crossed riders, instead of stanchions with vertical faces, to save working; but this process was considered less practical from the point of view of stowage. (VAN YK, p. 17 and figure A, p. 18.) They gave their ships loof (WITSEN, p. 126) and broad sides (“dick in den buik”, as WITSEN says on p. 207), the reverse of what was done for the Dutch vessels. “The Dutch ships”, says HOLMES (p. 110), “excelled all others in one respect: that they were the first in which the absurd practice of an exaggerated ‘tumble home’ or contraction of the upper deck was abandoned. This fashion”, he said further on, “was still carried out to a very great extent by the English and to a less extent by the French and Spaniards”.