--------------+-------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+---------+------------- Number of | | | | | | guns. | 90 | 80 | 70 | 60 | 50 | 40 --------------|-------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+---------+------------- Length of | | | | | | gun-deck | 162 ft. | 156 ft. | 150 ft. | 144 ft. | 130 ft. | 118 ft. | | | | | | Extreme | | | | | | breadth | 47 ft. | 43 ft. 6 in. | 41 ft. | 38 ft. | 35 ft. | 32 ft. | | | | | | Depth of hold |18 ft. 6 in. | 17 ft. 8 in. | 17 ft. 4 in. | 15 ft. 8 in. | 14 ft. | 13 ft. 6 in. | | | | | | Tonnage | 1552 | 1283 | 1069 | 914 | 705 | 532 --------------+-------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+---------+------------- When the figures were compared with those of contemporary French ships of the same rates, it was found that the British vessels of every class were of inferior dimensions. Whenever British men-of-war were captured by the French, the number of their guns was reduced. It was universally admitted that the French ships were superior in sailing qualities; so much so was this the case that, whenever a French squadron was chased, the English-built ships in it were the first to be overtaken. The subject of the superiority in size of the French ships was constantly coming to the front, and in 1719 a new establishment was made for the dimension of ships in our Royal Navy, according to the following scale:-- --------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+----------- Number of guns. | 90 | 80 | 70 | 60 | 50 | 40 --------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+----------- Increase of length | 2 ft. | 2 ft. | 1 ft. | 0 | 4 ft. | 6 ft. Increase of breadth | 2 in. | 1 ft. | 6 in. | 1 ft. | 1 ft. | 1 ft. 2 in. Increase of tonnage | 15 | 67 | 59 | 37 | 51 | 63 --------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----------