| 900 tons | 700 tons | 600 tons | 500 tons & 40 guns | 450 tons & 36 guns | 400 tons & 34 guns | 300 tons & 28 guns | 250 tons & 23 guns | 200 tons & 18 guns | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brest | 1 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Bordeaux | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | |||||
| Blaye | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| Brouage | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | |||||
| St. Malo | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| At sea | 1 | 1 | 1 |
There were also two of 1400 and 700 tons, respectively, building. It must be confessed that this force, created within five years and manned by Breton and Norman seamen, was calculated to give pause to the rulers of the painfully maintained English Navy. Still more significant was the fact that only twelve were Dutch-built; Richelieu had soon freed France from dependence on foreign artisans. The proportion of guns on French vessels was smaller than that on English vessels of corresponding tonnage, an excess of metal having been characteristic of our equipment until the eighteenth century. In 1639 their strength had so far increased that they had forty sail and ten fireships in the Channel, and there was also a powerful Dutch fleet, so that Pennington was directed to stop any suitable merchantmen and add them to his squadron.
A navy, however, which was not the result of natural growth, but depended on the energy and will of one man, was predestined to decay. The French marine, as Professor Laughton has pointed out, really began with Colbert, and in 1661, when he took office, it was reduced to less than 20 seaworthy vessels, against some 150 carried on the English Navy list. The rivalry still existing between the two nations commenced very early. As soon as the Sovereign was built, a similar ship was considered a necessity for France, but for some reason it was not until 1657 that their first three-decker was launched.[1134]
Tonnage Measurement.
Closely connected with shipping was the question of tonnage, and the discussion which raged between 1626-8 on the methods of calculating it would require a volume for its full elucidation. The existing rule was recognised as imperfect, but the science of the time was not able to formulate anything satisfactory in its place, for exact measurement has been a matter only of the present century. The following paper, printed in full, may be regarded as representing the various views existing, and will at any rate show how little dependence can be placed on any positive statement of a ship’s tonnage.[1135]
There are three ways of measuring ships now in use:—
Mr Baker’s Old Way—The old way, which was established in Queen Elizabeth’s time, and never questioned all King James his time, is this: The length of the keel, leaving out the false post, if there be any. Multiply by the greatest breadth within the plank, and that product by the depth taken from the breadth to the upper edge of the keel produceth a solid number which divided by 100 gives the contents in tons, into which add one third part for tonnage, so have you the tons and tonnage.
The Adventure of Ipswich
| ft. | ||||
| Length | 63·6 | 1802 | 7737 | |
| Breadth | 26·2 | 1417 | 8037 | Within yᵉ plank. |
| Depth | 11 | 1041 | 3927 | To yᵉ upper edge of keel. |
| Divisor | 100 | 70 | ||
| Tons | 182,80 | 1261 | 9701 | |
| One third for tonnage | 60,93 | [1136] | ||
| 243,73 | tons and tonnage. | |||
It is credibly averred by Sir H. Mervyn and Sir H. Palmer that the old way of measuring was to take the breadth without yᵉ plank and the depth from the breadth to the lower edge of the keel. And this was Baker’s way of measuring.