Search Website Design and Content © by Eric Krause, Krause House Info-Research Solutions (© 1996)
      All Images © Parks Canada Except Where Noted Otherwise
Report/Rapport © Parks Canada / Parcs Canada  --- Report Assembly/Rapport de l'assemblée © Krause House Info-Research Solutions

Researching the Fortress of Louisbourg National Historic Site of Canada
  Recherche sur la Forteresse-de-Louisbourg Lieu historique national du Canada

DOMESTIC BUILDING CONSTRUCTION 
AT THE FORTRESS OF LOUISBOURG, 1713 - 1758

By

Eric Krause

1996 Draft Report

(Fortress of Louisbourg
Report Number H G 10)

CHAPTER NINE

DOOR AND WINDOW OPENINGS - WINDOWS

Most owners preferred the traditional French style croisée a deux battants or French style 2-leaf window where the two sashes opened inwards. There were those, however, who chose or proposed to use the English style chassis a coulisse or double hung window. Among them were private builders, who used them throughout the period, and the military, who first proposed them in 1716 for assorted buildings about the island and then again in the 1718-23 period, for the barracks of the King's Bastion and Royal Battery, and for a tower at Port Toulouse.

Many of these double hung windows, as many as 400 in 1752 according to official records, were imported from New England. Nevertheless, a local supply of either type probably flourished. Indeed, a 1733 contract for Port Toulouse military buildings specifically directed that the frames, of oak, be manufactured in Louisbourg.

In either case, casement or double hung, the clear - sometimes specified white - rectangular panes, which were small and always in good supply owing to the traditional French mass production techniques of the time, were held in place by iron points or nails at each corner. The caulking was either paper glued in place, or beginning in the 1730s, a lime/cement mastic putty (possibly linseed oil and white lead were ingredients too).

An alternate practice would have been to set the panes in lead rather than to caulk them in wooden muntins as above. It is difficult to say whether this approach was ever taken at Louisbourg. Certainly the diamond shaped panes of a proposed, though never built, 1739 Louisbourg barracks appear to have leaded windows. Specifications for the 1718 King's Bastion barracks even went so far as to describe them, but, as cleaning payments of 1728, 1729, and 1732 reveal, it was glass panes caulked with paper that were to be maintained.

Fir frames at Louisbourg rotted quickly and required early replacement, and so carpenters preferred those of oak or even of pine. One and one-quarter pouces was a common thickness, as was that size for the sash and muntins too. Width, however, varied: 2 1/2 pouces for oak, 3 pouces for pine. In yet other examples some frames were derived from one and 2 pouce boards and planks normally reserved for partitions while others, for the lighthouse, were of oak, 3 pouces wide and 2 1/2 pouces thick with sashes 2 pouces by 2 1/2 pouces deep.

Quarter round moldings for sashes, half-round profiles for muntins with mitred joints, mortise and tenoned frames, and sash drip moldings were common. Pane size varied, however, though 7 by 8 pouce panes, arriving from France usually pre-cut, dominated the local economy. Six by 9 pouces was a large domestic pane and 5 by 6 pouces was a small one, with a variety of sizes in between, even on the same house. Most unusual, though, were the panes required for the Louisbourg lighthouse, rebuilt after the fire of 1736: 9 pouces 11 lignes by 7 pouces 7 lignes by 2 lignes thick.

The popular window opening size was 3 by 5 pieds, though of course almost any size was possible. Within these openings builders preferred a window with two sashes, totaling either 20 o 24 panes, but as many as 48 or as few as two occurred. Even the number of panes to a window varied for the same house. For example, a Block 15C residence had windows of 4, 8, 12, 16 and 24 panes, while another on Block 36C, had 24-pane windows for the ground floor but only 20-pane ones in the upper storeys.

A window with 12 or fewer panes was unlikely to have had a double sash. A small window, it might be fixed in place. If it opened, then it was probably of the single casement type.

"The windows are placed on the inner side of the walls", wrote Peter Kalm, a Swedish traveler in 18th century Quebec. Such was their placement at Louisbourg too, if one can judge by the specifications for the Rodrigue House. In that house flat stone jambs with an inside rabbet for the window frame were to be installed.

Kalm also stated that Quebec owners preferred this window design "for they have sometimes double windows in winter". Storm windows were a Louisbourg option too, but how often they were used is unknown. The commissaire-ordonnateu's residence had oak storm windows, manufactured locally, and fitted to the exterior of 11 windows. They were of pine (as were the regular windows on the Beaubassin-Silvain residence, however, newly erected in 1756), but they were not on every window.

The storms for the commissaire-odonnateur's residence cost a third less than an ordinary oak window (frame and sash) of the same year. Those of the 1750s for the King's Bastion barracks and for several private homes in the town for the lodging of military officer, cost 10 or 12 livres respectively (i.e. 20 or 24 panes) or between a third and a quarter of that of an ordinary window. Adding substantially to the cost, however, were the fittings for the storms.

The caulking of storm windows was perhaps routine. In 1749 and again in 1750, repairs to the commissaire-ordonnateur's residence included caulking the exterior joints of the storms. A mastic of slaked lime and cement was used.

Glazing was not mandatory in every case - one owner even used glued sailcloth - and sometimes shutters alone sufficed, with or without window frames. A storehouse, a forge or even an inexpensive Barrachois home were examples. The contract for the Block One magasin des vivres, which specified only 63 glass panes for the building, called instead for iron bars and/or shutters to finish off most windows. It was bars too, as well as interior shutters, that closed off the ground floor windows of the privately owned Beaubassin-Silvain residence and storehouse.

Bars, 2 pieds long, one pouce thick, were also specified for the proposed Block 2 masonry residence of the widow Rodrigue. Glazing, shutters or wood frames were not mentioned, however. In contrast, the soupireaux of the Royal Battery kitchen had wooden frames, though dormer-like.

In 1736 the local authorities contracted for a full-time master joiner to maintain the joinery work and glazing of king's buildings. For the next five years it was Louis Logier's responsibility to conduct twice-yearly inspections, in April and October, of these structures. Specifically, Article 3 of the contract directed that the contractor was to replace broken panes with those of equal size and quality and, at least once a year, he was to wash all panes (probably using brushes), and re-caulk each by gluing new paper in place. He was also to supply the panes, points, glue and paper.

Broken or missing panes on king's buildings were a maintenance headache at Louisbourg throughout the period. Repairs were apparently effected with glass panes pre-cut to size in France and shipped to Isle Royale by case or box. A 1745 order, for example, specified four thousand 8 by 9 and 7 by 8 pouce panes. To the chagrin of chief engineer Franquet, though, glass circles or discs, from which panes are derived, arrived instead.

The degree to which window frames, indeed the exterior surface of any part of a building at all, was painted is a moot point, and is a question which comprises the larger issue of exterior finishes in general. An inescapable conclusion, however, is that few window frames were painted at Louisbourg, owing to a problem with supply.

Finally, there was the Custom of Paris, in part a building code based on principles of privacy, which, given the proper circumstances, could inspire window design or even dictate their absence. Articles 200-02, which discuss the close relationship of windows, their distance from a neighbour's property line and the joint ownership of a party wall, set these circumstances. If, for example, a building wall were greater than 6 pieds distant from a property line, and it faced a neighbour's property directly, there were no restrictions with respect to the placing of any opening, be it a window, doorway or similar viewing advantage. There were also no restrictions if the wall were at right angles to a property line and the opening was greater than 2 pieds from the line.

A closer distance, however, was another matter; whether a neighbour had developed this property or not was meaningless. Unless there was a written or verbal agreement to the contrary the sill of a ground floor window had to be at least 9 pieds above floor level. For upper storeys, excluding those with dormers (except if one could look perpendicularly at a neighbour's house), the height of the sill could be no less than 7 pieds. In either case, a home owner had to fix such windows in plaster so they would not open, and he had to insert bars - in trellis form with no more than a 4 pouce opening between the bars.

The Custom of Paris had a strong legal grounding in Louisbourg. Consequently, it was always best, though not always done, to surrender by written title any rights the Custom guaranteed. Otherwise, oral agreements notwithstanding, litigation proceedings sometimes developed.

One such case, in 1728, involved Claude Morin and Leger Lucas, neighbours in Block 19. At issue were window placements, chimney design, roof drainage, roof slope and roofing materials. Sparking the dispute were the upper storey Morin windows which overlooked the newly acquired Lucas house. Lucas claimed they violated the Custom and Morin should cover them since they were less than 7 pieds above floor level. Morin countered that the previous owner had tolerated them and Lucas should too. But if ordered to do so he would install bars; indeed, he reported, he had already begun the work (no doubt anticipating an unfavourable ruling).

Besides, Morin continued, it was Lucas who was in violation of the Custom. Wasn't it Lucas who was allowing rain water to flow from his hipped roof onto his neighbour's house, causing his roof to rot? Equally, wasn't it Lucas' responsibility to pay for the damage and convert his hipped roof into a gable, to correct the problem? Furthermore, Morin maintained, both the roof and the chimney were fire hazards; the former was constructed of earth and plan de bois or wood slabs, while the latter was in poor repair and not sufficiently elevated. Consequently, he demanded changes, including a board roof for the Lucas house.

The ruling of the court was predictable. Morin had to close off the offending windows, Lucas was to elevate a lime mortared chimney 3 pieds above the roof ridge, and both were to place gutters on their roofs to direct rainwater into the street because each had a hipped roof facing the other. Morin was to pay all court costs. As for the question of roofing materials, the court postponed a decision, no doubt because the roof was constructed prior to a local ordinance outlawing the use of such materials in the town. Of interest, the Lucas house had a board roof when it was sold eight years later.