forests produced tall straight trees”), the felling, handling and transport techniques“, the time that had passed since cutting22 (with time the natural resins in the wood that gave durability evaporated”), and the storage conditions up to the time they were used for masts“ (protection from the weather was very important — to prevent drying out, some advocated storage in wet sand“).

Because they were vital to the survival of the ship, both in battle and in stormy seas, the naval boards of each of the European powers were very particular about the masts that they bought. Their purchasing agents and the inspectors in their own dockyards were very rigorous in their assessments and this rigour was underpinned by an innate conservatism that favoured tried and tested suppliers and materials — which largely meant the east Baltic ports and especially Riga.26

Many years' experience had revealed that only certain tree species were acceptable for masts: the European pine (Pinus sylvestris) (long called ’the fir’ in the British Isles”, and now known there as the ‘Scots pine') was considered to be the best”, and was the standard against which all other trees were judged. Since the Middle Ages the main source of these pines had been the eastern Baltic ports, especially Riga and Danzig, and from 1715 also St. Petersburg”, all of which lay at the mouths of rivers that led far into the hinterland of Russia and Poland. In the back forests of these countries generations of landowners and their

2° Bamford 1956, p. 135.

2‘ Albion 1926, p. 29; see also Bamford (1956) (pp. 124 & 127) for complaints about improper handling procedures for mast trees, and that Canadian masts were “badly sawn and ill-proportioned".

22 Bamford (1956) (p. 122) gives examples of mast quality deteriorating because of exposure during long waiting periods before being transported from Canada.

23 Albion 1926, pp. 30-31.

2‘ Bamford 1956, pp. 126-27.

25 Bamford 1956, p. 113.

2° Albion 1926, p. 31: "In the shipyards of France and Spain, as well as of England, Riga masts were preferred above all others for their

quality." 27 Oxford (1971); Albion 1926, p. 26. 23 Albion 1926, pp. 30—31.

29 Albion 1926, p. 141.

163

woodcutters had been carefully selecting trees for sale to the main naval powers of Europe, and a complex commercial network, including merchant- houses of the main naval powers had developed in the ports to supply the demand”. These ‘northern’ masts however did not come cheaply — a mast tree of the largest size in the port of Riga could cost more than 2000 livres or £100 in the money of the day“, though the price dropped considerably as the diameter decreased by even a few inches.

However, trees capable of providing the larger mast sizes were scarce even in the Baltic market and they became more so as each decade went by. One solution developed in the dockyards was to make up the larger masts out of a number of smaller trees by shaping and joining together smaller pieces (often five or nine) around a central spindle, all bound tightly with iron hoops.32 However such ’mats d’assemb/age’ (’made masts’ to the English) were not considered as good as a single sound stick. Also, for the smaller topmasts and spars, the cheaper Norway spruce (Picea abies), as well as North American spruces, were sometimes substituted for the more expensive pines.33

Apart from using trees from their own forests (limited in quantity, and from experience never as good as the northern masts), another solution open to France and England was to look to the vast forests of their colonies on the far side of the Atlantic where virgin stands of tall pines grew near the water’s edge in much of New France and in northern New England. The North American red and white pines (Pinus res/nose and Pinus strobus) were tried early and found to be acceptable substitutes, especially the more resinous red,

3° Albion 1926, p. 147; Bamford 1956, pp. 135-57 — though on p. 165 he says that there was a virtual absence of French commercial houses in the north — instead the French navy sent its own agents (p. 139).

31 Bamford 1956, p.119: 8000 livres would only buy six or seven masts of the larger sizes in the northern market. Albion (1926) (p. 29) gives costs in pounds in 1770: a stick of 36 inches and 36 yards cost £110; but prices fell significantly with the loss of a few inches (e.g. 33 inches — £56): “These were exorbitant prices, but the mainmast of a ship of the line came from a tree in ten thousand.” (Moore (1979) (p. 84) uses a conversion value of 20 livres to the pound sterling for the period 1735-1772, while Pritchard (1995) (p. xvi) uses a value of 23 livres.)

32

Albion 1926, p. 29; Bamford 1956, p. 12.

33

Albion 1926, p. 31.