The cost in trees of building the British Empire
SIR – It is difficult to overestimate how many trees were needed before iron and then steel replaced wood for shipbuilding in the 19th century in Britain (“Colonial shipbuilding nearly wiped out native bat”, report, December 14).
It took an astonishing 6,000 mature oak trees sitting on 30 to 50 acres of land to build a single ship of the line. This is hard to understand until you see a diagram of how a shipwright looked at an oak tree. I have such a diagram, which shows that only nine pieces (brackets, futtocks and knees in the colourful parlance of naval architecture from the time) were harvestable from an entire single tree. Pieces had to follow the grain for strength, so shape was important in assessing what you could get from a tree.
In the 1860s it was estimated that Britain needed 400,000 acres of timber annually to build the ships needed for defence and commerce, and the Royal Navy and merchant owners demanded hardwood ships, not the softwood vessels emanating from America, which were much cheaper but lasted only half as long.
So, the development of iron shipbuilding and steam power was essential in facilitating the Empire and saved what little forest we had left from further plundering for ships.
This came at a cost, of course, that we are only now starting to pay.
Dr Paul Stott
Senior lecturer in marine production and shipping market analysis Newcastle University
SIR – I understand that the Jubilee Sailing Trust, the charity that gives people who are physically challenged the opportunity to sail on a square rigger alongside so-called able-bodied people, is having to close its doors due to a lack of financial support and rising costs.
Having been on both Lord Nelson and Tenacious, I have to admit that the supposedly physically challenged do better than the so-called able-bodied.
It is a tragedy that this superb organisation will no longer be able to help those in need.
Dr Keith Barnard-jones
Dorchester