ERIC KRAUSE

In business since 1996
- © Krause House Info-Research Solutions -

62 Woodill Street, Sydney, NS,
Canada, B1P 4N9

krausehouse@krausehouse.ca
 

ERIC KRAUSE REPORTS

MY HISTORICAL REPORTS
PUBLISHED ON THE INTERNET

BACK


Louisbourg Stamp - 1995

By Eric Krause (Krause House Info-Research Solutions)

February, 2004


LOUISBOURG STAMP RESEARCH (FINAL EDITED VERSION)

October 20; November 21, and November 29, 1994
By Eric Krause
Fortress of Louisbourg

STAMP ILLUSTRATIONS


October 20, 1994

GENERAL APPROACH

1. Where I present WRITTEN EVIDENCE, these are extracts from the written record. Please compare it against the historical visual record which I sent to you previously.

2. Where I say COMMENT UPON THE STAMP ILLUSTRATION, I have used the historical visual record and/or the written evidence to suggest a course of action.

3. Where I have made no comment concerning building configuration, roof lines, etc., these can be left as is, given numbers 4 - 6 considerations.

4. Where I say 1/2 timber or piquet but do not mention an exterior finish, then you may reflect the building type with:

1) Vertical lines (when you wish) to show piquet constructions

2) Timber work (when you wish) to show 1/2 timber constructions.

5. Where I do not indicate window, door, chimney stack, etc., locations, please place as required, baring in mind the length and width of the building in question, where I have provided such; or baring in mind the property measurements, which I have also provided, against which you can compare Plan 1746-8a building footprints, to thus guessimate building dimensions - while also taking the following into consideration:

1) The 7 building examples I have attached which provide a variety of wall openings possibilities over a variety of lengths and widths

2) and/or the formula that a building 45 pieds long with a central doorway would generally have two flanking windows to each side of the door, i.e. 5 openings per 45 pieds

3) A 1/2 storey is less than 7 pieds of height

6. I have examined some of the features in the reconstructed zone. I have picked up some problems or inconsistencies, but I would suggest that you again compare the photos against your rendition, given that this area was outside my study area.

# 1 - Block 19, Lot A

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 70 pieds along Rue St. Louis (Place Royalle) x 54 pieds of depth with an 8 pieds wide alleyway existing along the south boundary line

- The building was likely 1 1/2 stories tall

- One chimney stack for sure on the ell section facing Rue d'Orléans

- There was at least one door facing Rue St. Louis plus window(s) of course

COMMENT UPON THE STAMP ILLUSTRATION:

- Not a gambrel roof

- The building is L-shaped and therefore must be shown joining Block 29, Lot H (# 2) house

- Given that Plan 1746-8a suggests that the artist simply forgot to outline the shaded area (# 3) [Block 19, Lot B], to show that a building stood on (# 3) [which the written evidence suggests was actually the case] then you can either outline in the building on (# 3) or actually raise a building on this site

i) either way (# 1) would not have any windows in its south gable end

# 2 Block 19, Lot H

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 42 pieds along Rue D'Orléans x 62 pieds of depth

- The house is piquet with a board roof with one chimney stack

# 3 Block 19, Lot B

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 54 pieds along Rue St. Louis (Place Royalle ) x 80 pieds depth

- If you raise a building on this property:

i) at least 1 1/2 stories tall

# 4 Block 19, Lot G

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 36 pieds along Rue D'Orléans x 62 pieds of depth

COMMENT UPON THE STAMP ILLUSTRATION:

- 3 chimneys on a building of this length probably unlikely

- Given that the east roof slope was probably hipped perhaps one central chimney would be better

- One yard side door, plus flanking windows would be OK

# 5 Block 19, Lot F

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 33 pieds along Rue D'Orléans x 62 pieds along Rue De l'Etang

- 1/2 timber house

COMMENT UPON THE STAMP ILLUSTRATION:

- The building was perhaps longer along Rue De l'Etang, with a hip roof on the south end rather than the west end where you have perhaps suggested one

# 6 Block 19, Lot E

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 62 pieds along Rue de l'Etang x 85 pieds of depth

# 7 Block 19, Lot C

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 44 pieds along Rue St. Louis (Place Royalle)
x 80 pieds along Rue de France

- Probably 1/2 timber

- Built c. 1736

- 1 1/2 stories tall

- At least one window facing Rue de France (south)

- At least one window facing Rue St. Louis (Place Royalle)

COMMENT UPON THE STAMP ILLUSTRATION:

- Probably a hip roof at the south end (Rue de France side)

- Chimney stack on the end wall unlikely - better if placed centrally for this building

# 8 Block 34, Lot C

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 50 pieds along Rue de France x 90 pieds along Rue St. Louis

- The building measured 40 pieds along Rue St. Louis x 34 pieds along Rue De France

- Of masonry construction - visible rubblestone face

- Building is 2 1/2 stories tall

- Two chimney stacks (4 flues each and so large stacks)

COMMENT UPON THE STAMP ILLUSTRATION:

- Chimneys exited near, but not at, the ends of the ridge, on the ridge

- Gambrel roof, as per views

- 3 dormers face Rue St. Louis

- 3 dormers face the yard (i.e. causing perhaps one to be seen at least partially)

Gable End:

- 2 ground floor windows
- In line with two first floor windows
- Two attic windows set closer together than those below and between the line of those below

Rue St. Louis Face:

- 3 ground floor windows with one door
- 4 first storey windows in line with the openings below

# 9 Block 34, Lot B

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 55 pieds along Rue de France x 90 pieds of depth

- A piquet house roofed with boards

COMMENT UPON THE STAMP ILLUSTRATION:

- Perhaps gabled roof at both ends

# 10 Block 34, Lot A

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 60 pieds along Rue de France x 90 pieds along Rue de l'Etang

# 11 Block 34, Lot E

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 115 pieds along Rue de Scatary and 90 pieds along Rue de l'Etang

- There were two buildings on this property - the one you show standing and the one (?) where the outline is missing

- The (?) building stood on property measuring 40 pieds along Rue de l'Etang x 115 pieds deep

- The standing building stood on property measuring 50 pieds along Rue de l'Etang x 115 pieds along Rue de Scatary

Standing Building

- This was probably a house (i.e. not a storehouse) and therefore had at least one chimney, etc.

- The building was wooden

# 12 Block 34, Lot D

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 50 pieds along Rue de Scatary and 90 pieds along Rue St. Louis

- The house measured 42 pieds x 22 pieds

COMMENT UPON THE STAMP ILLUSTRATION:

- The outline for this building has been missed

# 13 Block 34, Lot D

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured: See # 12

- The building measured 29 pieds along Rue St. Louis (it actually protruded 3 pieds 7 pouces into Lot C)

COMMENT UPON THE STAMP ILLUSTRATION:

- The outline for this building has been missed

- This is an English occupational house which the English had raised by 1746

# 14 Block 34, Lot C

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- Property measured: See # 8

COMMENT UPON THE STAMP ILLUSTRATION:

- The outline for this building has been missed

- This is an English occupational house which the English had raised by 1746

# 15 Block 36, Lot A

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 60 pieds along Rue de Scatary x 90 pieds of depth along Rue St. Louis

- Perhaps 1 1/2 storeys tall

- A house

COMMENT UPON THE STAMP ILLUSTRATION:

- Hip roofs - facing Rue De Scatary
- facing the yard

# 16 Block 36, Lot B

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 60 pieds along Rue de Scatary with 90 pieds of depth

- There were two separate buildings on this lot - yet adjoining

1) 1/2 timber house, measuring 23 pieds long x 22 pieds wide, possibly with a stone fill

2) Stone house, measuring 30 pieds long x 22 pieds wide

- The stone house was perhaps the east one

COMMENT UPON THE STAMP ILLUSTRATION:

- Perhaps do the following:

A) Make the roof of the west 1/2 timber building pavilion style (23 pieds x 22 pieds)

B) Make the roof of the east stone building hipped both ends (30 pieds x 22 pieds)

# 17 and # 18 Block 36, Lot E

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 24 pieds along Rue du Rempart and 108 pieds along the diagonal line and 24 pieds along the Rue St. Louis

- The east building was a house

- The east building was wooden

COMMENT UPON THE STAMP ILLUSTRATION:

- A gate opening might be appropriate where marked (gate opening) on Rue St. Louis

# 19 Block 45, Lot A

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 60 pieds along Rue St. Louis with 60 pieds of depth (north boundary line)

# 20 Block 45, Lot B

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 30 pieds along Rue St. Louis and 90 pieds along Rue de Scatary (south boundary line = 60 pieds)

# 21 Block 36, Lot C

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- This property measured 42 pieds along Rue de Scatary x 90 pieds along Rue de l'Etang

# 22 Block 36, Lot D

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 60 pieds along Rue du Rempart and 90 pieds along the Rue de l'Etang

# 23 and # 24 Block 37, Lot A

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 60 pieds along Rue de Scatary x 90 pieds along Rue de L'Etang

- # 24 may have been 1 1/2 storeys tall

COMMENT UPON THE STAMP ILLUSTRATION:

- # 23 exists on Plan 1746-8a but # 24 does not

- The documentary evidence is confirming enough that # 24 may have actually existed

- # 23 and # 24 both may have had gable ends (i.e. no hip roofs)

# 25 Block 37, Lot B

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 54 pieds along Rue de Scatary x 90 pieds deep

- A wooden building

- The building may have been of a higher quality (1/2 timber?)

# 26 Block 37, Lot C

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 54 pieds along Rue de Scatary x 90 pieds

- A wooden building

# 27 Block 33, Lot F

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 60 pieds along Rue de L'Etang x 60 pieds along Rue de France

# 27a Block [33 Lot E]

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 60 pieds along Rue de L'Etang x 60 pieds of depth

1) Piquet construction with a board wall finish
(i.e. horizontal, flush like others at Louisbourg)

2) Probably 1 1/2 storeys

3) Perhaps a central door upon the street

COMMENT UPON THE STAMP ILLUSTRATION:

- Not shown on 1746-8a though this building does appear to exist

# 27b Block 33, Lot D

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 114 pieds along Rue de Scatary x 90 pieds deep

# 28 Block 33, Lot H

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 48 pieds along Rue de France x 30 pieds of depth

# 29 Block 33, Lot A

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 40 pieds along Rue Dauphine x 60 pieds along Rue de France

# 30 Block 33, Lot B

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 50 pieds along Rue Dauphine x 60 pieds of depth

# 31 and # 32 Block 33, Lot C

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 90 pieds along Rue Dauphine x 108 pieds along Rue de Scatary

A) # 31

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The house measured 19 pieds in length x 18 pieds of width

COMMENT UPON THE STAMP ILLUSTRATION:

- Having been built c. 1723 and having been declared "old" in 1734 given that it was originally a "piquet" "cabane", this house may no longer have existed in 1746 - thus suggesting why it did not appear on the 1746-8a plan

- Recommendation: delete this feature

B) # 32

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- This stone house measured 49 1/2 pieds along Rue Dauphine x 26 1/2 pieds along Rue de Scatary

# 33 Block 20, Lot D

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 28 pieds along Rue de L'Etang x 80 pieds along Rue de France

- The house measured 28 pieds along Rue de L'Etang

- The house was ell-shaped until 1745-46 with one section 1/2 timber and the other section piquet

COMMENT UPON THE STAMP ILLUSTRATION:

- Let us assume that the 1746-8a plan reflects the 1/2 timber portion which continued to exist till at least 1768, and that the piquet portion had been removed and that it originally had been an addition

- Hip roofed, south end

- We might also assume that the in-fill for the 1/2 timber house was piquet

- North roof end - gabled (i.e. not hipped)

# 34 Block 20, Lot C

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 28 pieds along Rue de L'Etang x 80 pieds of depth

- The street door was probably central with at least one flanking window to each side

- A chimney stack may have been located at the south portion of the house

- The house may not have had a liveable attic and therefore was only one storey tall

# 35 Block 20, Lot B

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 34 pieds along Rue de L'Etang x 80 pieds of depth

- The house was old and in such poor shape that it was no longer habitable

- Probably piquet construction

- Probably a central entry door with at least one window to the south of the door

- The chimney stack was perhaps located on the south portion of the roof

# 36 Block 20, Lot A

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 78 pieds along Rue de L'Etang x 80 pieds along Rue d'Orléans

- The house was 1/2 timber construction

- The street door was on Rue D'Orléans (and hence not visible in our view)

COMMENT UPON THE STAMP ILLUSTRATION:

- The street door was central suggesting a central yard side door as well, with flanking windows

# 37 Block 20, Lot E

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 101 pieds along both Rue de France and Rue D'Orléans x 168 pieds of depth in between

COMMENT UPON THE STAMP ILLUSTRATION:

- The convent should reflect the view of it on the 1731 Verrier plan which this proposal does not (your view looks more like the post 1755-1756 convent)

- Recommendation: Replace your rendition with the 1731 view

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- Known information about the original convent which will help you interpret the 1731 view (see your blow-up and reverse it):

1) 1/2 timber building
2) had six rooms
3) was originally built as a house

COMMENT UPON THE STAMP ILLUSTRATION:

- The 1731 view is not clear as to whether the building was one storey high with a two storey attic or two storeys with a two storey attic

- Personally I would choose a building c. 50 pieds long x circa 25 pieds wide with a ground storey only with a two storey attic (i.e. two rows of dormers)

- There also existed two square pavilion-style buildings to the north which our view may reveal if the size of the building is reduced

- The bell tower was probably quite simple and very open - See attached drawing # 37 - with a visible bell

- Whether a small building facing Rue de France existed in 1745-1746 is problematic but given the size of the garden, outbuildings would have existed

- See attached drawings # 37 for guidance

# 38 Block 20, Lot G

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 41 pieds along Rue D'Orléans x 84 pieds along Rue Dauphine

COMMENT UPON THE STAMP ILLUSTRATION:

- See attached drawing # 38 for guidance
1) Reverse the drawing but leave the chimney stack on the street side

2) Since the attached view appears to reflect work after 1749, the following could be added and made visible:

a) 1/2 timber frame with a piquet fill was likely visible prior to the application of the board siding which probably happened after 1755

# 39 Block 20, Lot F
WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 41 pieds along Rue de France and 84 pieds of depth along Rue Dauphine

- The house was a piquet building

- It had a wooden slab roof

- It measured 30 pieds x 21 pieds

# 40 Block 32 West, Lot B

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 50 pieds along Rue de France x 66 pieds along Rue Dauphine

# 41 Block 32 West, Lot A

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 58 pieds along Rue de France x 66 pieds along Rue de l'Hôpital

- The house measured c. 29 pieds along Rue de France

- A piquet house

- At least 1 1/2 storeys tall

COMMENT UPON THE STAMP ILLUSTRATION:

- The building is not at the corner of Rue de France and Rue de l'Hôpital as depicted, but rather at least 29 pieds distant

- The building being not at the corner will also change the length of the fence along Rue de l'Hôpital which will now extend further north

- Probably a central entry door upon Rue de France, thus probably a central entry door to the yard

- This would produce flanking windows

# 42 Block 32 West, Lot D

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 58 pieds along Rue de Scatary x 54 pieds along Rue Dauphine

# 43 Block 38 West, Lot A

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 60 pieds along Rue Dauphin x 83 pieds of depth along Rue de Scatary

COMMENT UPON THE STAMP ILLUSTRATION:

- Hipped roof, both ends

# 44 Block 38 West, Lot E

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 25 pieds along Rue de Scatary x 100 pieds along Rue de l'Hôpital

- A 1/2 timber house with a piquet attached outbuilding

- The house measured 30 pieds x 22 pieds with the size of the piquet outbuilding unspecified

COMMENT UPON THE STAMP ILLUSTRATION:

- Despite the 25 pieds property concession along Rue de Scatary, the house apparently measured 30 pieds along Rue de Scatary and thus 22 pieds along Rue de l'Hôpital plus the outbuilding along Rue de l'Hôpital

# 45 Block 38 West, Lot D

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 30 pieds along Rue de Rempart x
81 pieds 6 pouces along Rue de l'Hôpital

# 46 Block 38 West, Lot C

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 66 pieds along Rue Dauphine x 83 pieds along Rue du Rempart

# 47 Block 38 West, Lot B

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 60 pieds along Rue Dauphine x 83 pieds of depth

# 48 Block 38 East, Lot A

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- I have no information on Lot A to make a determination

- Three small piquet houses existed on Lot C in the 1750's (See Comment Below)

COMMENT UPON THE STAMP ILLUSTRATION:

- This building does not exist on 1746-8a, but yes on 1746-8

- Difficult to say if on 38 East A or C, but looks like A

# 49 Block 38 East, Lot A

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 54 pieds along Rue de Scatary x 114 pieds of depth along Rue de l'Hôpital

COMMENT UPON THE STAMP ILLUSTRATION:

- The plans in general suggest that the building occupied the entire front facing Rue de Scatary so your depiction requires a correction

# 50 & # 51 Block 38 East, Lot B

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 54 pieds along Rue de Scatary x 114 pieds along Rue d'Etrées

COMMENT UPON THE STAMP ILLUSTRATION:

- All plans suggest that the Rue de Scatary building occupied the entire street front

# 52 Block 32 East, Lot A

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 108 pieds along Rue de France x 108 pieds along Rue d'Etrées

# 53 Block 32 East, Lot A

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured: See # 52

- The house was 1/2 timber

# 54 & # 55 Block 32 East, Lot B

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 108 pieds along Rue de Scatary and 72 pieds along Rue d'Etrées

- One of these buildings measured 24 pieds x 19 pieds

[Note: The building at the corner of Rue de l'Hôpital and Scatary, which is hidden by the Block 38 West-E building (# 44) which measured 24 pieds x 24 pieds

# 56 Block 31, Lot E

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 80 pieds along Rue de Scatary and 90 pieds along Rue d'Etrées

- The house was 1/2 timber, built c. 1743

# 57 Block 31, Lot D

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 80 pieds along Rue de France x 90 pieds along Rue d'Etrées

- The house measured 25 pieds x 22 pieds

- The house consisted of:

(1) one room, with two windows, facing Rue de France
(2) one room faced the yard
(3) one small room was located next to (1)
(4) one room was a kitchen
(5) the entry door was likely Rue de France

- The house was wooded

COMMENT UPON THE STAMP ILLUSTRATION:

- A stable was probably attached to the house and was probably the section which ran south of the house, thus making the ell

- The house and the stable may not have been higher than one storey and they were likely two separate but attached structures

- No hipped roofs

# 58 Block 31, Lot A

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 80 pieds along Rue de France x 90 pieds along Rue de Canada

- The house was wooden

COMMENT UPON THE STAMP ILLUSTRATION:

- Gable ends not hipped

# 59 Block 22, Lot B

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 120 pieds along Rue de France x 78 pieds along Rue d'Etrées

- The house was stone

- The house measured 22 pieds x 52 pieds

- The house stood 2 1/2 storeys all

COMMENT UPON THE STAMP ILLUSTRATION:

- At the east gable a predominant feature exists - probably a one storey shed roofed extension

# 60 Block 22, Lot D

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 75 pieds along Rue d'Orléans x 90 pieds along Rue de Canada

COMMENT UPON THE STAMP ILLUSTRATION:

- No hipped roof gables

# 61 Block 22, Lot E

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 75 pieds along Rue d'Orléans x 90 pieds of depth

- The house was small and old (probably only three rooms of which two were small)

- The house was probably one storey tall

# 62 Block 23, Lot A

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 160 pieds along Rue d'Orléans x 168 pieds along Rue de Canada

- A stone (rubblestone) 2 1/2 storey house

- At least 63 pieds long

- At least 10 windows have imitation cut-stone surrounds

- A first storey balcony with a door with imitation cut-stone surrounds - balcony faced the yard

- Shingle roof

- Cut-stone chimney caps

- The finials are vases

- At least some windows were of a pilaster design

# 63 Block 23, Lot A

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured: See # 62

- The building was probably the storehouse/bakery

- At least 1 1/2 storeys tall

- 1/2 timber with a rubblestone fill

- At least one chimney (for the bakery)

- Shingle roof

# 64 Block 23, Lot A

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured: see # 62

- This building was probably a stable/hangard

- Probably 1/2 timber

# 65 & # 66 Block 39 [should be 41]

COMMENT UPON THE STAMP ILLUSTRATION:

- These buildings are misplaced so eliminate

- The ones you are trying to show, I think, are the ones on Plan 1747-1 for example

- These are actually in Block 41 (i.e. across the street from Block 39)

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- # 65 would actually be two buildings of which one was perhaps 21 pieds 10 pouces long

- # 66 - one building

# 67 West of Block 41

COMMENT UPON THE STAMP ILLUSTRATION:

- This building is the Executioner's house (not shown on 1746-8a but is shown before and after that date for example

- Gabled roof ends

# 68 & # 69 Queen's Gate Barracks

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- These are more sheds than well-built constructions

- Each 95 pieds x 22 pieds 8 pouces

- Each has 5 rooms (18 pieds square)

- One storey tall

- Light 1/2 timber construction

- Dry stone foundation

- Of hasty construction for lodging c. 100 men

- Probably an exterior clapboard finish

- Sat on spaced masonry pillars of dry stone as their foundation

- At least 10 small chimney stacks between the two buildings

- Shingle roof

- Storm porches at each entrance, measuring 6 x 6 pieds, raised two feet above the street to combat the weather

COMMENT UPON THE PROPOSED ILLUSTRATION

- Lose the dormers

- Add the porches

- See the attached drawings # 68 and 69 for guidance

# 70 Queen's Bastion, East Men's Barracks

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- Almost completed in 1746

- About one foot high spot masonry foundations (where necessary to level the building)

- 2 storeys tall

- The courtyard: See # 73

- Sortie opening at the south end between it and # 71 to access the small buildings on its east side

- 10 brick chimney stacks of which 6 carried 4 flues each and 4 carried 2 flues each servicing small coal-fired fireplaces

- 194 pieds x 33 pieds 6 pouces

- Shingled roof

# 71 Queen's Bastion, Officers Barracks

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- 1/2 timber frame set up in 1746 but not closed in (i.e. the open frame would have been visible)

- About one foot high masonry foundations where necessary to level the building

- 2 storeys tall

- 1/2 timber construction

- the courtyard - see # 73

- Sortie opening at the west and east ends between it and # 72 and # 70 to access the small buildings to the east and west of # 70 and # 72

- 127 pieds 6 pouces x 34 pieds 4 pouces

- Shingled roof

# 72 Queen's Bastion, West Men's Barracks

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The building was erected in 1746 and the roof was shingled

- About one foot high masonry foundation where necessary to level the building

- 200 feet long

- 2 storeys tall

- 1/2 timber construction

- The courtyard: See # 73

- Sortie openings at the south end between it and # 71 in order to access the small building on its west side

- 10 brick chimney stacks of which 6 carried 4 flues each and 4 carried 2 flues each servicing small coal-fired fireplaces

- 194 pieds 6 pouces x 33 pieds 6 pouces

- Shingled roof

# 73 Queen's Bastion

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- Infirmary (hospital) not yet raised in 1746

COMMENT UPON THE STAMP ILLUSTRATION: ADD INSTEAD

- Rather than this building the working shed in the centre of the parade square should be made visible

- The shed was set in a courtyard measuring 180 x 150 feet

- Brick chimney stacks

# 74 Queen's Bastion

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- Divided into a series of small storage rooms

- 8 pieds wide x c. 194 pieds 6 pouces

- 1/2 timber construction

# 75 Queen's Bastion

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- Latrines (NOTE: 3 on the west side and 3 on the east side)

- 1/2 timber construction

# 76 Marker

COMMENT UPON THE STAMP ILLUSTRATION:

- This feature is currently in Block 30

- It should be further south in either Block 40 or 39

- Let's place it in Block 40 and also move the pond further south

# 77 Powder Magazine Shed

COMMENT UPON THE STAMP ILLUSTRATION:

- This feature is too far north and should be opposite Block 30, i.e. south of Rue de France (not north of Rue de France as now indicated)

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- 1/2 timber building with a 6 pouce thick brick fill

- Shingle roof

- Measured 47 pieds x 28 pieds 4 pouces

- A palisade fence around the shed standing 12 pieds distant from the walls of the shed

COMMENT UPON THE STAMP ILLUSTRATION:

- See attached drawings # 77 for guidance

# 78 Powder Magazine

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- This was to be a buttressed powder magazine of a brick design

- The building was incomplete as of 1758:

1) In 1755 the foundation was placed with the recess for taking the floor set 18 pouces above grade

2) In 1756 the buttresses were planned for construction

3) 150,000 bricks were to be produced c. 1756

4) By 1758, at the time of the siege, the centre and arch were not yet raised

COMMENT UPON THE STAMP ILLUSTRATION:

- Show this building as incomplete

- See attached drawing # 78 for guidance

# 79 Officer's Guardhouse

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- 22 pieds 9 pouces long x 20 pieds 10 pouces with a 6 pieds wide gallery or front

- Double board roof

- Masonry walls

- Hipped roofs

- Walls: 9 pieds tall

COMMENT UPON THE STAMP ILLUSTRATION:

- Walls: cut-stone corner quoins

- Chimney stacks: one, with a cap

# 80 Soldier's Guardhouse

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- Double board roof

- Masonry walls

- 22 pieds 9 pouces long x 20 pieds 10 pouces wide, with a 6 pieds wide gallery on its front

- Hipped roofs

COMMENT UPON THE STAMP ILLUSTRATION:

- Walls: 9 pieds high

- Walls: cut-stone corner quoins

- Chimney stacks: one with a cap

- No windows in north wall

# 81 Block 13, Hospital

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- Slate roof

- Large 2-leaf emboiture entry door

COMMENT UPON THE STAMP ILLUSTRATION:

- See attached drawing # 81 for guidance

# 82 Block 14, Lot D

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 42 pieds along Rue de l'Etang x 48 pieds of depth

# 83 Block 14, Lot E

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The original property measured 28 pieds along Rue de l'Etang x 84 pieds of depth

- Sales described the property as being 30 pieds along Rue de l'Etang x 80 pieds of depth

# 84 Block 14, Lot B

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 72 pieds along Rue Royalle x 90 pieds along East boundary line and 96 pieds along west boundary line (plus additional boundary details are available)

# 85 Block 14, Lot A

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 102 pieds along Rue Royalle x 90 pieds along Rue Dauphine

# 86 Block 14, Lot G

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 84 pieds along Rue Dauphine x 138 pieds along Rue D'Orléans

# 87 Block 14, Lot F

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 32 pieds along Rue de l'Etang x 84 pieds along Rue d'Orléans

- The house measured 32 pieds along Rue de l'Etang x 24 pieds of depth

COMMENT UPON THE STAMP ILLUSTRATION:

- The outline for the building should be fully completed unless hidden by # 5

# 88 Block 15, Lot C
[HOUSE 1 ON ONE OF 4 LOTS ON BLOCK 15, LOT C]
Note: The original # 88, #89, #90, #91 were noted by the author on November 29, as incorrectly placed in Block 16. They have been re-identified correctly in this version

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The entire property measured 117 pieds along Rue D'Orléans x 113 pieds along Rue St. Louis x 43 pieds along Rue Royalle

- The property was subdivided into a number of lots upon which sat houses # 88, # 98, # 99 and # 100

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The building sat on a lot measuring 50 pieds along Rue St. Louis x 73 1/2 pieds along Rue D'Orléans

# 89 Block 15, Lot B
Note: The original # 88, #89, #90, #91 were noted by the author on November 29, as incorrectly placed in Block 16. They have been re-identified correctly in this version

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 48 pieds along Rue D'Orléans x 100 pieds along Rue De L'Etang

- A Piquet house

- At least one chimney

# 90 Block 15, Lot D
Note: The original # 88, #89, #90, #91 were noted by the author on November 29, as incorrectly placed in Block 16. They have been re-identified correctly in this version

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 74 pieds along Rue Royalle x 61 pieds along Rue St. Louis

- 1/2 timber house

- At least 1/2 storeys tall, but probably a full 2 storeys tall

- At least one upstairs window faces Rue Royalle

# 91 Block 15, Lot A
Note: The original # 88, #89, #90, #91 were noted by the author on November 29, as incorrectly placed in Block 16. They have been re-identified correctly in this version

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 48 pieds along Rue Royalle x 74 pieds along Rue De L'Etang

- A House

# 92 Block 21 West, Lot A

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 60 pieds along Rue d'Orléans x 84 pieds along Rue Dauphine

COMMENT UPON THE STAMP ILLUSTRATION:

- Therefore this property should indicate a line 60 pieds east of Rue Dauphine and the line should be continued between Rue Dauphine and where you have begun it

# 93 Block 21 West, Lot D

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 48 pieds along Rue d'Orléans x 84 pieds along Rue de l'Hôpital

- The house probably measured 30 pieds [along Rue d'Orléans] x 20 pieds

# 94 Block 21 East, Lot A
# 95 Block 21 East, Lot A

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 48 pieds along Rue d'Orléans x 84 pieds along Rue de l'Hôpital

A) # 94

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The house measured 18-19 pieds square on a piece of property measuring 30 1/2 pieds along Rue D'Orléans [Note: the distance along Rue d'Orléans is reduced from 48 pieds to 30 1/2 pieds because of the radius cut at the mouth of Rue de l'Hôpital]

B) # 95

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- OK

# 96 Block 21 East, Lot D

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 60 pieds along Rue d'Orléans x 84 pieds along Rue d'Etrées

- There were probably two buildings, each of which may have measured 30 pieds along Rue d'Orléans

# 97 Block 21 East, Lot B

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The property measured 54 pieds along Rue de France x 84 pieds along Rue de l'Hôpital

# 98 Block 15, Lot C
[HOUSE 2 ON ONE OF 4 LOTS ON BLOCK 15, LOT C]

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The entire property measured 117 pieds along Rue D'Orléans x 113 pieds along Rue St. Louis x 43 pieds along Rue Royalle

- The property was subdivided into a number of lots upon which sat houses # 88, # 98, # 99 and # 100

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The building sat on a lot measuring 50 pieds along Rue St. Louis x 73 1/2 pieds along Rue D'Orléans

# 99 Block 15, Lot C
[HOUSE 3 ON ONE OF 4 LOTS ON BLOCK 15, LOT C]

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The entire property measured 117 pieds along Rue D'Orléans x 113 pieds along Rue St. Louis x 43 pieds along Rue Royalle

- The property was subdivided into a number of lots upon which sat houses # 88, # 98, # 99 and # 100

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The house sat on a lot measuring 35 pieds 8 pouces along Rue St. Louis x 73 1/2 pieds of depth

- 1/2 Timber house, 30 pieds 8 pouces along Rue St. Louis x 24 pieds of depth

- South of the House: Piquet Cabin, 6 pieds 6 pouces x 2 pieds 6 pouces

- South of the House: Exterior chimney, 6 pieds 6 pouces x 2 pieds 6 pouces

- At least three room windows faced the street

- A Boutique with a door and shuttered window faced the street

- At least three shuttered windows, two other windows, and a door faced the yard

- At least three fireplaces

# 100 Block 15, Lot C
[HOUSE 4 ON ONE OF 4 LOTS ON BLOCK 15, LOT C]

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The entire property measured 117 pieds along Rue D'Orléans x 113 pieds along Rue St. Louis x 43 pieds along Rue Royalle

- The property was subdivided into a number of lots upon which sat houses # 88, # 98, # 99 and # 100

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

- The house sat on a lot measuring 27 pieds 4 pouces along Rue St. Louis x 73 1/2 pieds of depth

- 1/2 Timber House, 27 pieds 4 pouces along Rue St. Louis

- At least 1 1/2 storeys tall

- Exterior Chimney on south wall, measuring 6 pieds 6 pouces x 2 pieds 6 pouces

- A shuttered Boutique Window faced Rue St. Louis

- A Door to the Boutique faced Rue St. Louis

- A Door to the yard

- At least 3 windows faced the yard

- At least 2 fireplaces


November 21, 1994

GENERAL APPROACH

1) This is an update to my memo of October 20, 1994 and to your subsequent changes;

2) The stamp should differentiate between 1/2 timber and piquet construction. This could be easily achieved:

a) By leaving all piquet representations as depicted;
b) By raising all 1/2 timber buildings on a masonry foundation, which in turn would produce a horizontal wooden sill;
c) By altering all 1/2 timber buildings so that the vertical lines take a wider pattern, such as shown on the Lartigue House in stamp panel one (note: the Lartigue building should also have a slightly raised foundation and a horizontal ground sill.

3) Bill O'Shea is officially requesting here, in this memo, that the Dauphin Cavalier must be removed. Simply too misleading and confusing.

4) Why the new Dauphin and King's Bastion embrasure additions????

5) Thanks for the fence change to the "King's Garden". However, the "garden" still has a period landscape within. This should also be removed.

6) The dotted lines showing the internal divisions within the Blocks is very, very effective and I would like to see it retained, for a number of reasons, including whether a building occupied an entire lot frontage or not, and in the process, suggesting dimensions and relationships.

However, this is a tricky thing to do and still be accurate on such a small scale. If the dotted lines are to indicate fence lines within each Block, then, for certain, this would be difficult to do and very complicated to determine (garden portions, yard portions, basse-cour portions, sub-lots, etc.). On the other hand, if the dotted lines were to represent the 1734 property and lot boundary lines, then I think that the concept is feasible.

One example might suffice. Let's take Block 32 East, Lots A and B. These are buildings 52, 53, 54 and 55. The entire block consisted of only two lots - A and B. On lot A are two buildings (# 52 and 53). On lot B are also 2 Buildings (# 54 and 55). Yet, what the stamp indicates is 4 buildings on 3 what? When we look at other blocks, the scene becomes even more confusing as to what the dotted lines really mean.

Recommendation: Use plan 1734 (this is one of the ones you have had reproduced - Plan de ... 1734) as your basis for all block divisions. In the case of Block 32 East, that would mean one horizontal line, with Lot A (108 pieds north/South) being deeper than Lot B (72 pieds north/south). Both the plan itself and the measurements which I provided you with on October 20 indicate this.
A reminder from my memo of October 20. Please keep in mind:

"the length and width of the building in question, where I have provided such; or baring in mind the property measurements, which I have also provided, against which you can compare Plan 1746-8a building footprints, to thus guessimate building dimensions ... " [and their locations vis-a-vis lot lines].

7) I notice that you made some changes with the ships. I will show them to Alex Storm tomorrow. If there are any problems, I will forward by separate mail.

COMMENTS: Please refer to my memo of October 20, 1994.

# 1: Eliminate the windows on the south wall.

# 3: Requires a chimney.

# 4: The vertical lines are misleading since this building's building type is unknown. Eliminate. # 2: would be a better candidate as a piquet structure if you require one in this area.

# 5: The horizontal lines may be wrong, though possible Because this was a 1/2 timber building, why not show it as one?

# 7: 1/2 timber building. Requires a street door (the building had at least one street window, and so the existing window must still be retained)

# 8: This is the building, as per the views, with the Gambrel roof.

# 9: Requires a chimney.

# 15: Requires a chimney.

# 16: West Building:

(a) Requires a chimney
(b) 1/2 timber house

# 17: The East building was a house. So, it requires a chimney and windows.

The function of the west building is unknown. Therefore, you can leave the chimney if you wish.

# 20: The street line is still dotted. It really should be solid to reflect your other street limes. In fact, I notice that there are other street lines where some are solid and others are becoming dotted. Is this a computer glitch?

# 23 and # 24: The buildings are adjoining but not separated as indicated. A single line rather than a double line would be more appropriate.

# 27a: At least a dormer and a chimney would be appropriate.

# 31 and # 32: The wrong outline was eliminated. Eliminate # 31. And put back # 32.

# 33: 1/2 timber building.

# 35: The chimney stack should be further to the south on the roof.

# 36: Requires a chimney.

# 37:

a) 1/2 timber

b) See again the view of the convent. The stamp version still is not reflective of it:

1) Too many dormers per row
2) Too many windows per row
3) No chimneys

# 38: See again the view. The building rests on a slightly raised foundation.

# 40: Why the extra horizontal line in the doorway? Two windows, rather than one, to the right of the door would be more appropriate.

# 42: Gable end requires a horizontal line.

# 44: Requires a yard door in the west section. i.e. replace a window with a door. Also, I would think that the attached piquet outbuilding would also have had a door to the yard.

# 49: Buildings # 49 and # 50 should occupy the entire Rue de Scatary street frontage, with the two buildings butting (i.e. with a single line showing this division).

# 53: 1/2 timber building. One or two chimneys would be appropriate.

# 56: 1/2 timber building.

# 57: Requires a chimney and a yard side door for the house. - and a stable sized door for the stable.

# 61: Requires a chimney.

# 63: Yard side door required.

# 64: The gable wall requires a horizontal line.

# 67: Requires a chimney.

# 68 and # 69: Requires at least 10 small chimneys in total (perhaps 5 to a building?)

# 70, # 71 and # 72: Sorry. On October 20 I had assumed that you had rigorously followed the 1746 and 1749 plans and elevations for these buildings. Therefore, I had simply provided the additional written information which I had found. Looking at these buildings now I see all kinds of problems. In short, they simply are not reflective of the view and plans in some ways - for example, window/door placements - 3 over 3 space rhythm - 3 over 3, space, 3 over 3, space, 3 over 3, space, 3 over 3.

# 73: First, I see that the courtyard shed will not be taking the place of this building - even though the shed existed until at least the early 1750's. To get around this problem, I assume that this building is being ghosted to show it is not yet constructed?

If you want to show this building rather than a simple work shed construction (about which there is no info beyond that which I provided on October 20), there are some considerations:

Evidence suggests that this building was as tall as # 71, but here the similarity ended:

a) The building was to serve as a hospital rather than as a barracks;

b) The building was smaller (113 pieds x 22 pieds 8 pouces versus 127 pieds 6 pouces x 34 pieds 4 pouces)

c) The ground floor (and likely the upper story as well) window/door rhythm, while the same, was less: i.e. 3, space, 3, space, 3;

d) In the 1750's, the French planned to install 24 rooms (12 over 12), which suggests that the hospital layout was different - the Barracks was 32 rooms (presumedly, 16 over 16 - and so less chimney stacks?

1753:

Queen's Bastion: English Barracks:
Hospital - Opposite the Pavilion

... Vis a vis le dt Pavillon, est le Batiment COTTE 34, de La Longueur de 22 pieds 8 pouces Sur 18 toises 5 pieds de largeur y Compris un Avant Corps de 40 pieds de Long sur 3 pieds 10 pouces de large. Construit en bois par les Anglais a usage d'hopital, Couvert en Bardeaux et de nul usage aujourd'huy ... Ce Batiment n'a pas Eté achevé. La Charpente en est complette, et autant recherchée et propre que Solide: Les Planches, les Escaliers et le recouvrement de son pourtour en Littage, et partie de sa Couverture en Bardeaux, sont restés en souffrance et dans les Vues d'Eviter son Dépérissement le dt Recouvrement a été fait L'année dernière, on y a dépensé 1974" 3s 10d et L'Entrepreneur est muny des Madriers nécessaires pour ses Planchers et des bardeaux pour la Couverture ... il a été fait un Plan de Distribution de 12 Chambres au rez de Chaussée et d'autant a L'Etage au dessus ... l'on proposes de fournir ces 24 chambres ...

# 77: The building is still north of Rue de France. It was south of the street.

# 94 and # 96: The long building on Plan 1746-8a actually consisted of 3 attached buildings along Rue D'Orleans:

a) the West building: 18-19 pieds long

b) the centre building 30 pieds long

c) the east building 30 pieds long

Therefore: please adjust your plan accordingly by extending the west wall of # 94 further west (but to end 12 pieds short of the street radius) and then create the 3 buildings.

# 95: This is the L shaped building shown on Plan 1746-8a. It was O.K. on October 20, but since your revisions more of it has become apparent. Please adjust accordingly.

# 97: This building has disappeared behind # 41 ? If this is O.K. with you, fine with me.