So the length and breadth increased but the greatest depth of 15 feet did not change, as the depth of our passes was against any increase of the draft. When later, the direction toward larger sizes was continued abroad, and the necessity of following this example was felt among us, the question of the draught of water became a problem which, more and more, called for the attention of our shipbuilders. The larger the ship became and the greater its capacity had to be, the draught of water being limited, put us in a position of inferiority in regard to the vessels of foreign countries which ran more easily under sail. No account had to be taken of shallow passes in those countries, consequently ships of finer form could be built there. (~Van Yk~, 1697, p. 353.) When in 1682 the vessels which composed our fleet were divided into classes or “charters”, a depth of 16 to 17 feet only is given as the first “charter”. The first three-deck ships built in our country belonged later to this last class. Hence it is not a matter of astonishment that, in the long run, our war vessels had to yield before those of other nations which were steadily becoming larger. This state of affairs did not arise from any inferiority on the part of our shipbuilders but had its causes solely in the condition of our passes. [Sidenote: III 13] The difference of draught of water appears clearly if the dimensions of the largest French and English ships be compared with those of our largest vessel at the end of the XVIIth and beginning of the XVIIIth centuries. Their dimensions were as follows: +---------------------+--------+---------+-------+ | | LENGTH | BREADTH | DEPTH | +---------------------+--------+---------+-------+ | | m | m | m | |for the Dutch ship | 49.28 | 12.88 | 4.86 | | „ „ English „ | 49.41 | 14.33 | 5.64 | | „ „ French „ | 59.91 | 14.29 | 6.61 | By depth was understood the inside height of the ship measured up to the load-water line. (~Witsen~, p. 74, sub 9.) (See also Fig. XXXII, p. 56 of the same work, etc.) A ship having a depth of 4 m. 86 required, with the height of the keel etc. included, a depth of water of at least 5 metres. Now, it is known that the depth of water over the “Pampus”, near Amsterdam, had already become sensibly less at the end of the XVIIth century. Large ships only succeeded in reaching that city at the cost of serious difficulties. [Sidenote: II 238] It was under these circumstances that a certain Meeuwis Meindertz Bakker, a native of Amsterdam, invented the “sea camels” in 1691, and by them vessels could be raised from 5 to 6 feet (~Van Yk~, p. 360.) These “camels” were straight up and down on one side, the other being fitted to the shape of the ship. Placed on each side of the vessel they inclosed it and formed a sort of floating dock.