"Here we meet with a difficulty, even if it is not insurmountable. This
is found in the discrepancy which exists between the dimensions--length,
breadth, and depth--requisite to produce a certain tonnage, as given by
Admiral Paris and the British Admiralty. Whether this is due to a
difference in estimating tonnage between France (or other countries) and
Great Britain, I am unable to say, but it is a somewhat remarkable fact
that the National Museum model, which was made for a vessel of 120 tons,
as given by Admiral Paris who was a Frenchman, has almost exactly the
proportions of length, depth, and breadth that an English ship of 180
tons would have, if we can accept as correct the lists of measurements
from the Admiralty records published by Charnock . . . . In the third
volume of Charnock's 'History of Marine Architecture,' p. 274., I find
that a supply transport of 175 tons, built in 1759, and evidently a
merchant ship originally, or at least a vessel of that class, was 79.4
feet long (tonnage measure), 22.6 feet beam, and 11.61 feet deep." The
correspondence is noticeable and of much interest, but as the writer
comments, all depends upon whether or not "the measurement of the middle
of the eighteenth century materially differed in Great Britain from what
it was in the early part of the previous century."

Like all vessels having high stems and sterns, she was unquestionably "a
wet ship,"--upon this voyage especially so, as Bradford shows, from being
overloaded, and hence lower than usual in the water. Captain John Smith
says: "But being pestered [vexed] nine weeks in this leaking,
unwholesome ship, lying wet in their cabins; most of them grew very weak
and weary of the sea." Bradford says, quoting the master of the MAY-
FLOWER and others: "As for the decks and upper works they would caulk
them as well as they could, . . . though with the working of the ship,
they would not long keep staunch." She was probably not an old craft, as
her captain and others declared they "knew her to be strong and firm