Post on 12-Dec-2016




1 download


This article was downloaded by: [American Public University System]On: 01 January 2014, At: 01:57Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UKThe Mariner's MirrorPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmir20EARLY TONNAGEMEASUREMENT IN ENGLANDWilliam SalisburyPublished online: 22 Mar 2013.To cite this article: William Salisbury (1966) EARLY TONNAGE MEASUREMENT INENGLAND, The Mariner's Mirror, 52:1, 41-51, DOI: 10.1080/00253359.1966.10659309To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00253359.1966.10659309PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLETaylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the Content) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionsDownloaded by [American Public University System] at 01:57 01 January 2014 EARLY TONNAGE MEASUREMENT IN ENGLAND By William Salisbury THE subject of tonnage measurement has always been productive of argument among those dealing with it, and the most casual inquiry into maritime records will show how frequently the figures given by equally authoritative sources for the same ship will differ in detail for no apparent reason. In modern times attempts have been made to explain the origin of the various formulae used to calculate tonnage, but there has been a general failure to appreciate that there is rarely any direct connexion between the different formulae or rules, and that each individual example must be studied in its own context. If this present article cannot therefore pretend to give a history of continuous development in the measurement of tonnage, it is at least hoped that it may help to show the reasons which caused the introduction of different formulae at various times, and the extent to which any given rule or formula was probably used in practice. Some sort of tonnage measurement, based on some arbitrary and arti-ficial unit of capacity or weight, was necessarily closely connected with the development of merchant shipping. Warships could be described satis-factorily by the number of men or guns carried or by the number of oars or men required to propel them, and even today some small craft can be classed by such 'natural' units. Ships designed to carry cargo, however-and particularly those driven by sails-needed altogether different treat-ment. In default of statutory enactments, an artificial unit which was to be generally acceptable had to evolve by usage alone, and this demanded a state of economic activity in which large quantities of a common commodity were frequently shipped over a wide area. In medieval times coal, corn, salt and wine all fulfilled these requirements in varying degrees. The rapidly growing wine trade, with its customary container the 'tun', now seems however to have been the obvious choice in England, since it was an oversea trade in which all the country's ports were represented and in which most of its best ships were at one time or another employed. Perhaps of equal importance was the fact that the trade developed while the major continental wine ports were under English rule, and that in 14 2 3 the internal volume of the 'tun' was settled by statute at not less than 2 52 gallons. Whatever the reason may have been, we find that by the Downloaded by [American Public University System] at 01:57 01 January 2014 EARLY TONNAGE MEASUREMENT IN ENGLAND middle of the fourteenth century ships were commonly referred to by the number of wine tuns they could carry, and it quickly became customary to equate other kinds of goods-whether by weight or by measure-to this new general unit of the wine tun. By far the best account of this develop-ment and of medieval merchant ships in general is that given by Dorothy Burwash.I It is not proposed to go further into the exact value of the tun as a measure of capacity. There is some uncertainty regarding its original volume (a wine gallon contains 231, and an imperial gallon 277, cubic inches) and in the manner in which the tuns were arranged in a ship's hold. Nor do we know the extent to which smaller containers (hogsheads, and butts or pipes, whose capacity was lor! of a tun respectively) were used to fill broken stowage or odd corners. It is however certain that the 'tons burden ' of a ship represented the number of tuns which-by estimate or by practical proof-could be stowed in her hold. Previous writers have noted that in some instances the tonnage of a ship might become greater or less after a repair or rebuild. A possible explana-tion is that some alterations such as the raising of a lower deck would increase the capacity of her hold, while in other cases such as the lowering of the deck or the fitting of heavy strengthening timbers the actual stowage capacity would be reduced. Instead of being described as 'of x tons burden', a ship might be said to have been 'of the portage of x tons', or 'of x ton tight'. Both expressions have the same meaning. They were usually applied to vessels in employ-ments other than the wine trade, and signified that the ship was of a size capable of carrying x tons of wine if required. 'Portage' and 'Tontight' dropped out of use as the ton developed into a unit of capacity with recog-nized equivalents, either by weight or volume, in goods other than wine. As might be expected, the term 'portage' appears to have persisted longest as a description of the king's ships, which rarely had an opportunity of carrying full cargoes of merchants' goods. It is difficult to guess which of the various parties with financial interests in shipping was the first to find it desirable to describe a ship by her total tonnage capacity. Few merchants were sufficiently wealthy to own entire cargoes, and those who were usually owned their own ships. To most merchants, paying freight only on the parcels of good they had shipped, the total capacity of the vessel meant little except as an indication of its ability to protect the cargo from the perils of the sea or from human enemies. Other parties however were more directly concerned with the ship as distinct from her cargo. I Dorothy Burwash, English Mtrc!zant Shipping, 146o-1540 (Toronto, 1947). Downloaded by [American Public University System] at 01:57 01 January 2014 EARLY TONNAGE MEASUREMENT IN ENGLAND 43 The shipbuilder was concerned with the ship at one point only of her career, but he had of course to know his trade well enough to be able to build a ship of the size demanded by the shipowner, and he later found her tonnage convenient as a basis for pricing his work. Because of his technical qualifications, the rules evolved by the shipbuilder formed the stem from which all early methods of measuring tonnage subsequently developed. The Crown was by far the largest hirer of merchant shipping, whether for use as men-of-war or as transports. Some vessels might be hired by the voyage, but in time hiring came to be by what we would now call time charter, and was paid for at a set rate per ton of the ship's capacity for each month it served. In addition, the Crown would often have to furnish the men and equipment required to set her out as a ship of war, and would therefore have a double financial interest in her size quite apart from her suitability for warlike purposes. It was probably never practicable to check her exact capacity or tonnage, and in view of the obvious temptation for owners to overstate the size of the ship it is somewhat strange that the Crown was so late in making a definite rule for estimating the tonnage of vessels hired for its service or on which any bounty might be paid. The shipowner had other reasons for wishing to establish the capacity of his ship, although her first full cargo (if of wine) would tell him all he wanted to know. On some occasions he would want to hire the whole ship to a single charterer, or to the Crown. Far more frequently however he would be called upon to pay dues for port charges, or fees for licences or safe conducts. In the former instance he would be tempted to exaggerate her alleged capacity, in the latter to minimize it. This conflict of interests bedevils the whole story of tonnage measurement; before accepting any statement as evidence the principle of cui bono must be applied and the statement valued accordingly. For two centuries the only way of ascertaining a ship's capacity seems to have been by actual trial. Miss Burwash gives two excellent examples of this, in both of which the owners had understated the tonnage of their ship when applying for a safe conduct. 1 In 1459 the Margaret of Orwell was seized by the authorities at Bordeaux. To quote Miss Burwash: 'Her safe conduct covering a ship of only 400 tons, she was seized because her capacity was in reality between 6oo and 700 tons. Her cargo had already been loaded and Baldry [her part-owner], not denying her size, merely claimed that there was no intention of defrauding the port authorities. Because this was the ship's first voyage, he had had, he said, no idea of what her true tonnage might be. Since the plea was allowed and the judgement given in Baldry's favour, it would seem that the circumstances cannot have 1 Burwash, op. cit. pp. 8cr9o. Downloaded by [American Public University System] at 01:57 01 January 2014 44 EARLY TONNAGE MEASUREMENT IN ENGLAND been unusual.' The second example is even more interesting: 'The Anthony of Hull, seized in I456, was of 400 tons burden; but the freighters claimed that according to custom 249 tons of this, being occupied by ballast, cook-room, ship's boats, tackle, armament, provisions and the personal be-longings of the merchants and mariners, need not be mentioned in the safe-conduct. Judgement was given in their favour, but not before the ship's capacity had been measured by certain 'toneleurs' (coopers) who at least partly loaded her in order to find out how many tons she could carry.' The defence may seem to us to have been ingenious rather than convincing, but it must be noted that in this case it was made by the freighters and not the shipowners; in this we see the germ of the idea which was later to develop into the dual measurement of 'tons burden' and 'tons and tonnage'. Under the Tudors, two new practices became established. The first was that the Crown, as an encouragement to merchants to build large ships, offered a bounty of ss. a ton to the builders of new vessels over a certain tonnage. Here some precision in measurement was obviously required; an error of a few tons might mean, not the mere overpayment of a few pounds hire, but the unnecessary payment of the whole bounty. There is however no clue to the method, if any, employed to check the tonnages for which claims were made. Early lists in the Pepysian Library of vessels on which bounties had been paid give suspiciously 'round' figures, and the certificate of I 594, quoted in 2 of the Appendix to this article refers only to the tonnage 'by our estimation'. It may well be the case that the bounty was paid only after the ship's first voyage, when the out-turn of her cargo could be checked from the port books. The second development was the introduc-tion of the rating of 'tons and tonnage' in addition to that of 'tons burden'. The burden in tons and tonnage was usually the figure at which ships were hired by the Crown, and from I 58 2 at the latest this figure was obtained by adding one-third to that of tons burden. There are two major exceptions. A list of the navy in I 602 I gives figures showing that a fraction of one-quarter was used, and a paper of c. I 592 quotes dimensions for the recently built Defiance, Merhonor and Garland which can only indicate that a fraction of three-sevenths had been added to the figures of tons burden. (P.R.O., S.P. 12j276; 57). Although this dual rating of ships was some-times regarded as being unfair to the Crown (S.P., 12/238; 142) it does seem to have been founded on logical grounds. Some like Matthew Baker regarded tons burden as the capacity of the ships in casks, and tons and tonnage as the deadweight capacity. Others thought that, after measuring the content in hold, 'Decks must be clear for the use' of men and ordnance, which we take to be the cause of addition of tonnage' (S.P. I6j29; 10). I M. Oppenheim, Administration of the Royal Na'Py, 1509-1660 (London, I 896), p. I 24. Downloaded by [American Public University System] at 01:57 01 January 2014 EARLY TONNAGE MEASUREMENT IN ENGLAND 45 The general intention is clear enough. The merchant paid freight on goods carried in hold, and the space occupied by crew and guns was regarded as being at the charge of the ship and owners. The Crown however hired the the whole ship, including the crew and ordnance, and should therefore pay on the whole capacity. For much the same reasons, a similar addition 'for the king' was made in ships hired by the Spanish Crown. Throughout the seventeenth century lists of the navy might quote either the figure for tons burden or for tons and tonnage, or both together. Official lists of merchant vessels may do the same. It may also have been customary to quote the higher figure of tons and tonnage when the size of merchant vessels was mentioned with reference to their value or importance to the nation, or to their potential value as men-of-war. A pamphlet of I689 published on behalf of the East India Company in defence of their mono-poly stated that the ships recently built for their service were 'of Burthen according to the King's Tonnage, from 900 to I 300 Tons each' .1 These figures are approximately one-third greater than what we know to have been the tonnage of the largest ships in that service at the time, and must have been those of tons and tonnage. It is however a very late example, as this higher rating had by the end of the century ceased to have any practical significance. From then on we find only the figures for tons burden. Matthew Baker's Old Rule As will be seen, by I605 certificates of a ship's tonnage were frequently given, probably by shipwrights, but neither the earliest date for this prac-tice nor the measurements on which the tonnage was based can be ascer-tained with any certainty. At a time when a ship's capacity could only be arrived at by actually loading her, the Crown would in most cases be obliged to accept the shipowner's statement of her tonnage. During Elizabeth's reign, however, the general tightening up of the naval administraton resulted in a series of 'proportions', designed to establish the details of a ship's crew, guns and stores in proportion to her size or tonnage. One of the most important of these 'proportions' was that drawn up by the ship-wright Matthew Baker in I582, in which is incorporated what is usually claimed to be the first English rule for measuring tonnage (S.P. I 2/ I 52; I 9, and Appendix, I, below). This paper was concerned principally with the quantity of victuals required for a ship's complement, and the space required to stow them. Baker estimated that the food and fuel needed by 4 men for 2 8 days would I A Supplement, 1689, to a Former Treatise, Concerning the East India Trade, Printed 1681 (India Office Library, Tracts 83). Downloaded by [American Public University System] at 01:57 01 January 2014 EARLY TONNAGE MEASUREMENT IN ENGLAND occupy 1 ton of stowage, or It tons of tonnage capacity. The total number of men necessary to work and fight the ship was then estimated by him for both merchant ships and men-of-war. A man-of-war would carry 3 men for every 5 tons 'of her tonnage in dead weight', or tons and tonnage, while a merchantman would have 1 man for every S tons 'of her burthen in cask', or tons burden. He notes that some merchantmen might carry 1 man for every 4, and others 1 for every 6, tons in burden. From this one would gather that if Baker had included lists of ships in his paper he would have given the size of merchantmen in tons burden, and that of men-of-war in the higher figure of tons and tonnage. Baker now came to the main problem, that of ascertaining the figures for tons burden or tons and tonnage upon which his 'proportion' depended. His rule for judging this was based on the assumption that the ratio between the capacities of the holds of any two ships would be the same as that between the products of their three principal dimensions. Given the length, breadth and depth of a vessel whose real burden was established, it would be possible to calculate the burden of a second vessel by measuring the latter's principal dimensions, obtaining their product, and by then working by the rule of three. To the figure thus obtained for tons burden was added one-third more to obtain the tons and tonnage. Baker's rule apparently assumed that the ships to be so compared would be of similar proportions and build of hull. A paper of slightly later date by William Borough introduced a refinement to cover differences in the build of vessels. After remarking on the different proportions of hull actually used in shipbuilding, he gives much the same instructions as Baker for estimating tonnages by comparison with a known ship but adds: 'And so likewise of all other, comparing any one vessel whose tonnage is known with any other of the same kind. That is to say, one ship with another, one wherry with another, one lighter with another, &c.' In other words, he distinguished between vessels of medium full, sharp and very full bodies respectively. It was only a short step from the above exercises in proportion to the framing of the rule to be known later as 'Mr Baker's Old Rule'. Baker could have obtained his answer by dividing his 'cubical number', or pro-duct of length, breadth and depth, by 97!, or Borough by using a divisor of 90. In a list of the navy c. 1591 (Admiralty Library MS. 44, printed in The Mariner's Mirror, 1957, p. 322), and in the paper of c. IS92 already mentioned, this step had apparently been taken, and a divisor of I oo used. This divisor was adopted purely as a matter of convenience. It was probably realized that any tonnage obtained from the 'cubical number' could at best be only an approximation, and I oo was therefore chosen simply be-cause it simplified the arithmetic involved in the calculation. Downloaded by [American Public University System] at 01:57 01 January 2014 EARLY TONNAGE MEASUREMENT IN ENGLAND 47 Two papers in the British Museum, quoted in the Appendix, 2 and 3, throw some light on the development of the rule. The first is a draft of 'The form of a Privy Seal for Tonnage of a new ship at 5/- the ton ... to encourage others to build ships of great burthen', dated January I593/94, and after giving details of the vessel this certificate concludes by saying that 'the same ship by our estimation is of the burthen or portage of 200 tons'. No depth in hold is given, and the implication is that no formula for tonnage was used. It is also of importance to note that twenty years later the figure upon which the 5s. bounty was paid to the builders of East Indiamen was without doubt that of tons and tonnage, whatever the wording of the present certificate may have meant. The second paper is described as a 'Direct Rule to find the Tonnage .. .', and ends by using in effect a divisor of IOO. Although this paper is undated, and follows a paper dated I 597, the dimen-sions given as an example in the rule are very close to those of the Garland of I 590. The importance of this paper is of course that the formula is referred to as a direct rule; the comparative methods of Baker and Borough had become out of date. Although the general form of Baker's rule was now settled, the manner in which the three dimensions of length, breadth and depth were to be measured was not yet defined, and the divisor itself was, probably from the very beginning, varied to make allowance for the fineness or otherwise of the ship's underwater body. Not until I628 was a definite formula ordered for the measurement of naval vessels, and in the absence of a definitive rule for merchant vessels several variations on Baker's rule quickly made their appearance. In the main, these arose from genuine attempts to achieve greater accuracy in the measurement of the wide variety of hull forms found in merchant ships. Others however may have been introduced or retained from less worthy motives, as even at that early date it was useful for a ship-owner to be able to quote authority or custom for giving his vessel a high or low tonnage at will. During the first quarter of the seventeenth century there is little direct evidence of the details of the formulae used. In I 62 5 a large number of merchant ships and colliers were hired for use in the Cadiz expedition. Their owners had put in claims for payment on higher tonnages than the king's officers would agree to, and in the spring of I626 the whole matter of tonnage measurement was referred to a committee. The inquiry ranged over the whole field of measurement; the actual capacity of a ton, whether ships were to be measured by cubic capacity or deadweight of cargo, whether they should be measured by the internal or external dimensions of the hull, the probable effect of such measurements on their build and thick-ness of side, and lastly, of course, the actual formula to be used. In short, Downloaded by [American Public University System] at 01:57 01 January 2014 EARLY TONNAGE MEASUREMENT IN ENGLAND the points covered were exactly those which were to be the subject of heated discussion when Moorsom's system was introduced more than two cen-turies later. It would be impossible to give here a detailed account of the evidence submitted in the inquiry of I 626, and Oppenheim has already printed an outline of the arguments used by both sides.1 It should however be noted that because of lack of space his quotations were not given verbatim from the original papers, and in some details are out of context and misleading. Various rules, either proposed or actually in use, are given in the Appendix, 4-7, and the following apparently reliable statements have been selected out of the mass of heated and partisan evidence preserved at the Public Record Office. I. There was in I 627 no evidence concerning the actual points between which Baker had taken his measurements: By several certificates dated before 1605, concerning burthen of ships, some mentioning draught of water others omitting the same, it is probable that before then there was no certain rule concerning the same. Yet by a plot of Mr Baker's under his own hand for a ship to be built in stead of the BonarJenture it appears that in casting up her burthen he observed 100 for divisor, and that he never used to measure the keel into the burthen, or meddle with the draught of water, for he setteth down only Length ... Breadth ... & Depth .... The alterations in the paper of I 582 shown in Appendix I were therefore not Baker's work, and were probably made in I627 by some person interested in tampering with the evidence. Mr Baker's rule for finding the burthen of a ship was to multiply the length, breadth, depth thereof into themselves, diving the product by 100, & allowing a third part for Tonnage. Acknow-ledged also by Mr Greaves Qohn Graves, Master Shipwright], that in his certificates concerning the burthen of his Majesty's new ships built by Mr Burrell, he ever used 100 not 94 for divisor, beside that in all former certificates signed by him he ever made accompt of 100 for divisor ... That 100 was the old divisor, but the bottom of the keel was ever measured and accompted in, and that 94 was collected out of the certificates of Owners, Masters, & Wardens of the Trinity House. (S.P. 16/59; 75) 2. The depth for tonnage had originally been the depth from the height of breadth to the keel (S.P. 121243; 110). This was equal to the depth in hold, as the lower edge of the beams was then placed at the level of the height of breadth (S.P. I6l27; 67). 3 Changes were also taking place in the design of merchant vessels, and it was said that some of the newer ships in I627, especially colliers, had their lower decks laid lower than had formerly been the custom (S.P. I 6 I 2 7; 67). Also, when the ship was fully planked up it was difficult to ascertain the true position of the height of breadth (S.P. I 6 I 3 2 ; I I 9 ). These two factors alone may have been responsible for the half-breadth being adopted I Oppenheim, op. cit. pp. z6~. Downloaded by [American Public University System] at 01:57 01 January 2014 EARLY TONNAGE MEASUREMENT IN ENGLAND 49 as the third element in calculating tonnage in the place of the true depth of the ship. 4 The witnesses for the king, however, three of whom claimed to have had twenty-three years service, declared that they had never heard of the half-breadth being used in place of the depth in hold (S.P. I 6/29; 10). 5. It was also proposed, in order to avoid abuses in the payments for bounties and in the hire of vessels, that all new vessels over I so tons burthen should be measured while building in the presence of the local magistrates, and a certificate of their dimensions sent to a central Recorder of Tonnage, where the tonnage itself would be calculated by the commissioners or officers of the navy. Nothing however seems to have come of this idea (S.P. I6/J8; 30 1). It is interesting to note that at a meeting of the committee on 7 April I 627 an entirely new formula for tonnage was proposed (S.P. I 6/59; 7 5). The length was to be taken at the height of the greatest breadth within board. The depth, and the breadth at half that depth, was to be taken at the forefoot, midships, and quarter, and an average depth and breadth obtained. No divisor was stated, and no further mention can be found of this proposal. In the end, on 26 May I628, an Order in Council was at last made settling a rule for the measurement of vessels built for or taken up for naval service (Appendix, 8). Appendix In the following examples the rules have of necessity been summarized. In those cases in which they are in whole or in part printed verbatim this is indicated within quotation marks. In the first example, words deleted in the MS. are indicated in parentheses, words added in italics. 1. P.R.O., S.P. I2/I52; I9. Matthew Baker's rule by comparison. 'By the proportion of breadth, depth and length of any ship or vessel to judge what burden she may be of in merchant's goods, and how much of dead weight or ton and tonnage. The Ascension of London being in breadth 24 feet, deep from that breadth to the keel I 2 feet, and by the keel in length 54 feet, doth carry in burden of merchant's goods, in pipes of oil or Bordeaux wine, I 6o tons; but to accompt her in dead weight, or for ton and tonnage, there may be added one third part of the same burden, which maketh her tonnage 2 I Jl tons .... 'To find the burden of any ship proportionally to the Ascension before specified, or to any other ship or vessel whose burden you know certain, mutliply the breadth of her by her depth, and the product by her length at the keel, the amounting sum-which for the Ascension is I55S2-you shall use for your divisor and say: 4 MM Downloaded by [American Public University System] at 01:57 01 January 2014 so EARLY TONNAGE MEASUREMENT IN ENGLAND 'If I 55 52- the (cubical) solid number for the Ascension-do give I 6o tons, her just burden, what shall 8400-the solid (cubical) number of a ship 20 feet in breadth IO feet deep and 42 feet by the keel-? Work and you shall find 86ft tons of burden whereunto if you add i part of the same you shall find her tonnage I I 4 & almost I I 5 .' 2. B.M.; Harl. 253, f. IO. 'The form of a Certificate for the Tonnage of a New Ship: We whose names are hereunto written do certify and declare that the good ship the G. L. of London, made and builded at H. in the year of our Lord God &c by F. B. Shipwright at the cost and charges of S. L. of London, Merchant, doth contain in length ... feet, and in breadth ... feet, and that the same ship by our estimation is of the burthen or portage of 200 tons; In witness thereof we have subscribed our names the ... of January I 593 and in the 36th year of your Majesty's most gracious reign ... .' 3 B.M.; Harl. 253, f. 13. 'A Direct Rule to find the Tonnage of any Ship by the Breadth, Length and Depth of the Ship &c. You must multiply the length by the breadth of the ship, and the product thereof is to be multiplied by the depth of the hold of the same ship, then you are to cut off the last two figures, or dividing it by the quotient, doth find and declare the direct tonnage of any ship, as by this example following: 9 5 feet length, 35 feet broad, and I7 the depth, = s6 5'1-$ 56 5 tons, the ship doth contain.' 4 P.R.O., S.P. 16/55; 39 'There are three ways of measuring ships now in use: The old way which was established in Q. Elizabeth's time, and never questioned all K. James his time, is thus: The length of the keel, leaving out the false post if there be any, multiplied 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 content in tons; unto which add i part for Tonnage, so have you the Tons and Tonnage ... It is credibly averred by Sir H. Mervin and Sir H. Palmer, that the old way of measuring was to take the breadth without the plank, and the depth from the breadth to the nether or lower edge of the keel, and this was Baker's way of measuring.' 5 'The 2nd way is assumed by the Shipwrights of the River to be the Old Way, but is not; which makes the ship to be 28 in the 100 greater than the former, and is thus: The length of the keel taken as afore, or ought to be. The breadth from outside of plank to outside. The depth a draught in water, from the breadth to the bottom of the keel, all multiplied together as afore and divided by 94, say they, give the content in tons. Unto which add the! part for Tonnage ... If you divide this by 100 (which is said here to be done by 94) it is the true Old Way, called Baker's Way.' 6. 'The 3rd way was proposed by Mr Gunter, Mr Pett, Mr Stevens, Downloaded by [American Public University System] at 01:57 01 January 2014 EARLY TONNAGE MEASUREMENT IN ENGLAND Mr Lydyard and myself (John Wells) ... to frame a rule that in our best judgment might be indifferently applicable to all kind of forms ... which to avoid the abuses of furred sides, and deep keels with standing strakes, which increases the burthen but not the hold, was thus: The length of the keel as the first. The depth in hold from the depth to the ceiling. The mean breadth within the ceiling at half that depth. Multiplied together and the product divided by 65 gives the Tons; unto which add l part for Tonnage, so have you the whole content ... .' 7. 'There is a 4th way devised by the Shipwrights and Trinity Masters, but exploded for the great excess which makes the ship to be 30 in the 100 greater than the first, and it is thus: Length by the keel as at first. Middle breadth between the greatest and the breadth at the wrong head (without the timber and plank). Depth to the outside of the plank. All multiplied together and divided by 70 gives the contents .... ' 8. P.R.O., S.P. r6j1o5; 16. Order in Council, 26 May 1628. ' ... to give warrant for the measuring of all such ships and vessels as have been, or shall be built for his Majesty's or have or shall be employed in his Majesty's Service in this manner following; Viz; To take the length of the keel, leaving out the false post if there be any; the greatest breadth within the plank; the depth perpendicular from the said breadth to the upper edge of the keel. And to multiply these three together, and the solid num-ber made by that multiplication to divide by 100. The quotient will give the content in Tons, unto which one third part of those Tons is to be added and that shall be the Tons and Tonnage ... .' NOTES ADDITION TO LIST OF THE ROYAL NAVY AT THE START OF THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH I Since compiling the above-mentioned list (M.M. February I965, pp. 74-5) I have found one additional vessel, which though not mentioned in any Elizabethan navy list, was probably lying up in the dockyard at Chatham when Elizabeth became queen. When the occupation ofle Havre was being considered in I 5 62, the queen issued an order (P .R.O., S.P. I 2/24 no. z6) on 8 Septem-ber, stating: 'Our pleasure is also that ye cause my (ships) ye Double Rose and ye Portcullis and ye Brigantine to be put in order to then put into Portsmouth ... .' It is quite possible that the Portcullis mentioned here was the old rowbarge of I 546, which had dropped from sight after I 5 52. She is not mentioned in the navy list at the end of I 562 or I 563; but in Pipe Roll E I 3 5/ ZI99 covering this period, a vessel identified merely as the 'rowbarge' is mentioned several times in the victualling reports. The amphibious, short-ranged aspects of the le Havre occupation resulted in the most extensive use of oared vessels during Elizabeth's reign. It seems possible the old Portcullis had been lying in the yards, considered useless for a decade until this situation arose, putting her back in action for a few months. TOM GLASGOW JR. 4-2 Downloaded by [American Public University System] at 01:57 01 January 2014


View more >