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
Fortress of Louisbourg National Historic Site of Canada
Recherche sur la Forteresse-de-Louisbourg Lieu historique national du Canada
THE CONSTRUCTION AND OCCUPATION OF THE BARRACKS OF THE KING'S BASTION
(Fortress of Louisbourg
Report H A 13)
LIFE IN THE BARRACKS
NORTH WING TO OFFICIERS' QUARTERS
As with the construction, the story of the furnishing and occupation of the barracks is one of struggle, alteration and delay. Unfortunately the sources for this aspect of the building's existence are neither as extensive nor as organized as the construction accounts. Inventories were made in the barracks, but none have yet been uncovered except for one inventory for the governor's wing. Details of daily life in the building are not readily available and only an incomplete picture has so far emerged.
A serious impediment to a more complete analysis of daily routine is an almost total absence of informal journals or even private letters for this period. The information presented here is taken from assorted official correspondence, plans of the barracks, and selected judicial records. This account of life in the barracks will, after some general comments, deal with each part of the building separately, beginning with the north wing, followed by a brief account of the English occupations.
The 1731 barracks plan (Fig.13 [ND-88: Presently Unavailable) was the first to give the scheme of room distribution for the barracks. The south wing (no. 1 on the plan) was for the use of the government and included the governor's quarters, rooms for the Superior Council, and basement rooms for the use of the governor. The adjoining rooms (no. 2) were officers' quarters, some of which were partitioned so that, ideally, officers could be individually housed. The room (no. 3) which led into the chapel was reserved as a sacristy and chaplain's residence. The chapel (no. 4) completed this half of the barracks. The main entrance was next with a drawbridge over the ditch. The long room above this central passage was an armoury. The room on the ground floor to the right of the entrance was a guard room (no. 5). The remainder of the rooms were for the soldiers (no. 6) including those in the north wing which had originally been designated as the ordonnateur's residence. The barracks were serviced by latrines in the right face casemates (no.9).
Accommodation and its distribution was a permanent problem in Louisbourg. While waiting for the decision on where the Isle Royale fortifications were to be constructed, and then for the decision on what form the fortifications were to take, temporary lodgings were constructed for the governor, officers and soldiers. This complex, which in the end consisted of a series of long buildings forming a quadrangle, did not long survive except for the government building which appears on the 1725 plan (Fig. 10 [1725-3; 1725-3A: Presently Unavailable], the building near the letter M).
By 1719, the year before barracks construction began, the garrison at Louisbourg comprised seven companies, each with 45 men and three officers, though, with absenteeism, the actual total was 19 officers and 297 men.(1) Garrison officials seemed to be constantly changing quarters,(2) and, because of lack of housing, some of the officers and their families were sent to the outposts of Port Toulouse and Port Dauphin for the winter. In 1720, at the engineer's request, they remained there since the barracks were not yet able to accommodate them.(3)
It was originally intended that the ordonnateur occupy the north wing of the barracks, but for years he managed to evade this design until it was officially agreed that this wing be used for other purposes. Before the construction of the barracks the ordonnateur, De Mesy, had built a house on the north shore of the harbour (the better to survey fishing during the season, he claimed). From the beginning, even before the faults of the barracks were evident, he made it clear that he was not going to live in the barracks, calling it a ''stable''.(1) In a report of 1720 he stated that he hoped the governor would be able to move into the south wing the following year, and the King's lieutenant and the major into the north wing, pointedly excusing himself from occupying that area. He suggested that the governor's present residence would suit him and his offices nicely.
The ministry did not approve these suggestions and said that any final decisions would await De Verville's report.(2) In the spring of 1722 the answer came that changes in the original plans were not to be tolerated and De Mesy would therefore have to live in the barracks.(3) The ordonnateur, however, had no intention of moving. In his official correspondence he reported that he was willing to move, but there were a number of objections - the wing was not ready and even when completed should be used for soldiers since there was not enough room for all of them in the barracks; moreover it was not natural for an ordonnateur to be shut up in a citadel.(4) Saint Ovide was not pleased that his colleague could evade his assigned housing and on the same day wrote to France that De Mesy had told him he had no intention of ever moving into the barracks. Saint Ovide felt it was quite natural for the ordonnateur to live there:
I cannot help but report to your Grace that this estrangement [of the ordonnateur from the centre of things] delays and disrupts completely the affairs of the King and of commerce. (5)
The ministry was put in a difficult position. Whatever the decision, it would offend someone. There were so many other dissatisfactions and quarrels at Louisbourg at this time that the ministry may have felt this point was not worth pressing. In 1724 it was finally decided that De Mesy not live in the north wing but that it remain empty, and be considered the ordonnateur's residence, presumably so that the next occupant of that position would be able to move in and avoid the same situation.(6) Up to this time four rooms of this wing were in use, two by the major, one for a temporary guard room and the fourth as a temporary armoury.(7)
De Mesy, not surprisingly, was very pleased with the decision. It would not have been possible, he wrote, to conduct his affairs while shut up in the barracks away from his offices and the people with whom he had to have daily contact. He added that he and De Verville had made a study which showed that there would be room for only six companies and their officers in the barracks if the governor and the ayde-major shared one wing and the major and garçon majors the others.(8)
In 1726 four rooms of the north wing were still occupied as they had been two years before. A year later Verrier finished three other fireplaces in the wing and reported that a company could be lodged there.(9) However, Saint Ovide had not given up the idea of having De Mesy with him in the barracks. With the raising of his own wing in 1731 he reported that when the other wing was completed, De Mesy could very conveniently move in with all his offices.(10)
De Mesy, however, had a project of his own. He had since moved from his home in the north of the harbour to a rather elegant new one on the Quay. At this time he went to France and endeavoured to sell this home to the government for use as the official residence for the ordonnateur. To do this he had to answer points which Saint Ovide had raised. His main argument was that buying his house would be cheaper for the government (only 20,000 livres) than alterations to the north wing. He claimed that the changes in the governor's wing had cost double what a house cost. He also returned to his old argument about needing to be near the affairs of the town:
it is hardly natural to shut up the commissaire-ordonnateur in a redoubt. (11)
It is not known if there was any reaction to his referring to the King's Bastion complex as a mere 'redoubt' which word, in French, can also mean 'hovel'.
His arguments won out, and Verrier was ordered to suspend any repairs in progress and submit an estimate of the cost of altering the wing.(12) In his reply the engineer said that to make the wing suitable, all of it would have to be torn down since the present room divisions did not allow the best use to be made of the wing. His advice was to slate the roof at its present level so that it could be used as a barracks, and to have the government purchase De Mesy's house on the Quay.(13) In 1733 Maurepas gave his approval, and ordered the three top officials of the colony to report on how that wing could best be used.(14) A contract for the sale of the De Mesy house was sent to Paris,(15) and it was agreed that since there was not enough room for officers in the barracks, the north wing would be used as additional officer's quarters.
The idea of housing the King's Lieutenant in the wing had been considered but the changes required for this would also have been extensive and the soldiers, who were then in the wing. would have had no place to go. Apparently, the major had moved out of his two rooms and it was thought that by changing a few partitions, four subalterns could share those rooms with the soldiers continuing in the rest of the wing.(16) The following year a fuller examination resulted in the report that by changing a stair and a fireplace and by adding a small 'cabinet' with a bed for each officer, the lodgings would be quite suitable.(17) Approval for this was finally given in the spring of 1735.(18) Since there was no rush for lodgings for subalterns at that time, (making one suspect that the reported shortage of lodgings for officers was exaggerated) and since slate was in short supply, no work was done that year.(19) The wing was finally ready in 1736 (20) and the four subalterns moved into two unspecified rooms, with soldiers occupying the remainder of the wing. As far as is known, this was the occupation of the wing until the first siege.
The soldiers' barracks were a priority item in the early years of construction at Louisbourg, but they were not completed until the end of the 1720's. The basic design for this part of the building incorporated three blocks of eight rooms with an entrance for each leading from the courtyard to corridors which ran perpendicular to the length of the building. These corridors gave access to four downstairs rooms and, up the stairway, the four upstairs rooms. The guard rooms in the block near the central passage were, however, cut off from the soldiers' barracks and entry was from the passage. [NOTE: FIGURES 12 & 13 NOT REPRODUCED]
There was no known communication between the blocks of rooms, so that one had to go outside to reach another set of rooms. Access to the attics and basements was by ladder through trap doors, except for the bakery which was serviced by a stairway.
The extensive repairs in 1736 give some indication of room layout in the soldiers' barracks since the rooms were listed in sequence. This numbering began in the north wing and dealt with each block of eight rooms. However, each time this was done the order was slightly different, so in 1738 actual numbers were painted on the doors to give some consistency to the records.(1) Unfortunately no documents reveal just how this numbering was done. From the repair records it is known that three rooms had trap-doors leading to the basement, and three had similar doors to the attics, but since only those items which required repair are mentioned it is likely that there were other such doors to these parts(2)
By the end of 1722 ten soldiers' rooms were reported ready but two of these, as has been mentioned, were used as an armory and guard-room. In the other eight, five French companies and one Swiss company were lodged.(3) There were seven companies in Louisbourg at this time in addition to a detachment of miners,(4)so the remainder of the troops must have been housed in the old barracks, which were reported to be in a poor state.(5)
When sixty new men arrived the following year no new rooms were available. They had to live in the attics of the finished rooms, which were not made for such a load and were not equipped with fireplaces,(6) The same situation arose in 1724 when 50 Swiss soldiers arrived. These men were placed in barracks rooms which did not as yet have fireplaces. (There is no indication of where they spent the winters, since the barracks would have been unbearable without warmth.)(7) Things were hardly better in 1725; many rooms still did not have fireplaces, the upstairs rooms were accessible only by ladders rather than proper stairways, and the minor room finishings were only just begun.(8) In 1726 it was reported that twenty one soldiers' rooms, both large and small, were ready though there were still no permanent stairways.(9) The finishings of these rooms were still not done in 1727 and a request went out for stairs, plastering, whitewash, chairs, beds and shutters.(10) By the end of 1728 four rooms were still without proper beds. (11) Presumably these were completed shortly thereafter and the basic furnishings of the soldiers' barracks were at last in place, eight years after the beginning of construction.
The number of soldiers in a room varied according to the circumstances. In 1722, while construction was still going on, six companies were living in eight rooms. At this time there were 45 soldiers plus two sergeants per company, giving approximately 35 men per room, certainly less than ideal for a room normally expected to hold 16 men.(12) However, by 1726 it was reported that 21 rooms housed 300 men or about 15 per room.(13) In 1753 an accounting in the building listed the fact that there were 26 large and 10 small rooms for soldiers (by this time the officers' rooms had been turned over to the soldiers). Five hundred and thirty six men could thus be lodged, with 16 men in the larger rooms and 12 in the rooms which were reduced in size by the stairways.(14) This was the situation in the barracks during normal occupancy.
A hospital was originally planned for the Barracks, and two rooms and a kitchen were to be utilized for this purpose. One of the rooms was for the sick and the other was for the Brother of Charity and his surgical chest.(15) However, there was not enough room in the building and two rooms could not be spared. A temporary hospital was erected until the permanent one was ready, and the Surgeon Major was ordered to place an apprentice in the barracks to shave the troops and give first aid to accident victims; (16) the following year Saint Ovide proudly reported that he had received no complaints from the officers on the subject of the barber/surgeon.(17)
In the original plan the ovens in two of the basement rooms of the soldiers' barracks were for the garrison bakery in which 4 bakers worked. (18) The floors were cobbled(19) and tables, trestles and shelves were added.(20) There were constant complaints about the dampness and the fact that a foot and a half of water stood in the bakery for half the year.(21) As early as 1727 plans were begun for a new bakery in the town.(22) The ditch in front of the barracks was deepened to try to relieve the water problem, but the location had other inconveniences and was a temptation for the soldiers:
The bakers cannot stand up and have to work bent over with a lot of difficulty; it has no light and all the inconveniences imaginable for transporting flour and wood, and the soldiers are always there drinking, playing cards and smoking.(23)
Maurepas tried to put off the establishment of the bakery but the officials at Louisbourg were determined to have it and even produced new complaints. In 1729 Sabatier, the controlleur, said there was danger of fire in the bakery and that it should only be used in case of siege.(24) The new one was finally finished in 1732,(25) after this the basement rooms of the barracks appear not to have been used and there were requests for them to be filled to eliminate the dampness which was rotting the floors.(26)
Equally unused were the attics of the barracks. Though it had been hoped that they could be used for storage it was discovered that the walls and joists could not support any real burden.(27) De Mesy claimed that it never was intended to use them and that if stores were placed there the garrison would be in danger of being crushed.(28)
Furnishings for soldiers' rooms were subject to few regulations. The Code des Armées Navales had nothing to say on the matter, and the Code Militaire, quoting an ordinance of 1716, specified only that the rooms contain as many beds as possible with a table, two benches and a fireplace.(1) There are no plans showing room furnishings for the King's Bastion barracks, but there are some for others in Isle Royale. A small barracks for the outpost of Port Toulouse (2) showed five soldiers' beds lining two walls of the rooms with a fireplace in the third wall and a door in the fourth. The centre of the rooms were left bare, presumably for a table and benches. Such furnishings are described in an account of the barracks of the Island Battery at Louisbourg; three tables are said to be 6 pieds long and 2 pieds wide and six benches were 6 pieds long. There is also a folding table 4 pieds long and 2-1/2 pieds wide. (3) In a corner of two of the rooms in Port Toulouse there were small cubicles or cabinets, presumably for sergeants. A proposed new barracks for Louisbourg, drawn up in 1739, included a small sergeants' room with two beds, while the large rooms had 7 beds lining two of the walls. A plan of the Royal Battery barracks shows bunk-beds, the only plan to do so. Finally, a plan of a redoubt in 1752 showed a room for sergeants separate from that of soldiers.(4)
It is evident that the furnishings in soldiers' rooms were evolving and that later barracks included items not thought of when these barracks were constructed in the 1720's Those constructed by the English during their occupation had shelves, (5) but the 1736 contract in Louisbourg only mentioned shelves in connection with officers' rooms.(6) Eventually French barracks did adopt more elaborations for soldiers' rooms as represented by the plans for a barracks in Mont Dauphin in 1789 as found in documents from the Engineering Corps. In that example, each room contained 15 beds which projected out into the room. In the centre was a stove, on one side of which were two tables and benches, and on the other side one table, a bench and a gun rack for 30 guns or one per man. Shelves suspended from the ceiling and fixed to the walls provided space for equipment and food. There were also small rooms built in for sergeants who had their own tables and benches. It is interesting to note that this barracks also provided rooms for married soldiers and a boutique or small store as well as the usual armories, guard rooms and storerooms.(7) The barracks of the King's Bastion was far from incorporating all these developments, and did not even originally include sergeants' cabinets though their having been built into the rooms is testified to by repair documents which distinguish between soldiers ' end sergeants' rooms.(8) Since each company occupied roughly three large rooms and each had two sergeants, then probably every third room in the barracks had a small cabinet for a sergeant.
The beds used by soldiers were double bunk beds. A common practice was to assign three men to each bed, with two sleeping in it at one time and the third on guard. This was prescribed for the barracks in Louisbourg in 1718 but in fact seems never to have been in effect,(9) and later sources mention only two soldiers to a bed. Bunk beds seem not to have been the usual barracks accommodation, but the evidence for their use in Louisbourg is conclusive. In 1726 Saint Ovide and De Mesy had written that 300 men could be lodged in the barracks "in two beds one over the other''.(10) Another reference stated that each bed slept two and that they were placed one over the other,(11) while testimony in a trial confirmed that two men did indeed share a bed; a soldier assured the court that he did not leave his bed during the night and that his comrade with whom he slept could testify to that. In another trial it was revealed that a plank of the bed, when removed, served as a small cupboard for goods and was held in place by an angle block.(12) In the barracks then there were four double bunk beds in each large room and three in each small one, allowing plenty of room in the middle for eating and other activities.
For their beds the soldiers were provided with straw ticks, usually made by town widows(13) or by the Sisters of Congregation(14) In the beginning it had been a question of whether to provide proper mattresses or make do with straw ticks, but the argument was put forth that the mattresses would rot in the damp climate whereas ticking could easily be changed; besides, mattresses were very expensive.(15) Special ticking cloth was ordered from France and turned over to the ladies for sewing.(16) The blankets which were provided were woolen and were centred with an embroidered "fleur de lis'" Blankets and sheets were contracted out for cleaning and mending;(17) on one occasion an enterprising sergeant had this concession for both the hospital and barracks, but he was later found to be stealing utensils, locks and other unspecified objects.(18)
The policy on room furnishings was not consistent. One reference from 1751 indicated that as long as the soldiers were earning extra money as labourers(19) they would have to provide their own blankets and pots. As with most other things the supplying of these items tended to be erratic. Other furnishings in the soldiers' rooms emerge from the documents. Seven oak tables and a dozen benches were specified in one work account.(20) Another mentioned iron scrapers for cleaning the floor, and wooden shovels for carrying out refuse.(21) In the late 1730's it was proposed that sinks be installed in the soldiers' rooms to be used for washing utensils and the promotion of better hygiene, but there is no indication that this was ever carried out.(22)
Soldiers - Daily Life
It is important to state again that barracks in the eighteenth century were a relatively new concept and that procedures and traditions which are taken for granted now were then in the process of evolution. Much of what went on in the barracks was a direct carry over from the days when soldiers lived singly in billets so that common features of today's military life such as messing and mess rooms were unknown. Another concept foreign to today's highly programmed military was the fact that the soldier, during most times, had the choice of whether he would join the local labour market or not. he also had the right to bargain with his employer for his wages even on government jobs, and to decide whether pay was to be per unit of time or of work done. Only during emergencies were soldiers compelled to cork and the wages fixed at a given level. That is not to say that the soldiers had the right to strike or thought of bargaining as it is known now, but the soldiers did get a better pay scale than the contractor had originally proposed and they did take off from work if they felt like it without fearing consequences. There was even a threat of work stoppage if pay was not forthcoming at one point.(1)
The basic pay for a day's work was 20 sols (one livre) but in 1754, for example, salaries were reported in the 20-30 sols range with the soldiers wanting 30-50 sols and the engineer suggesting a compromise of 25-35 sols.(2) For military duty the ordinary soldier received 6 sols per day, but deductions for rations and equipment reduced this to only 1 sol leaving a monthly take-home salary of 1-1/2 livres, or the amount that could be earned in a day and a half's work. (For a list of eighteenth century salaries see Appendix II). The regulations for the colonies also tried to protect the soldiers from exploitation by forbidding officers from employing their own soldiers as valets or in other capacities, and by also forbidding any deductions from the soldiers' salary.(3)
Most of the soldiers were unskilled and did labouring jobs such as hauling, loading, digging, and gathering wood. Others, more skilled, were employed as masons, carpenters, bakers, tapestry workers, kiln workers, gardeners, tutors in reading and writing, and tailoring. Some of the jobs were permanent but other soldiers seemed to have picked up odd jobs where available and when they felt like it, such as the soldier who sold 100 faggots to the contractor for 16 livres, and later helped unload a lime kiln.(4) Of the 16 livres this soldier earned 6 were spent on drink with two companions, 2 more on 2 livres of tobacco, then several quarts of liquor were purchased and shared with some soldiers, and 3/4 of a livre spent on transportation. At the end of the day only 2 livres remained.
In Louisbourg it is known that the reveille was at 4:00 in the morning.(5) The Code Militaire specified that in the winter this was changed to 6:00 and Louisbourg probably followed this practice. Evening retreat would have been at 8:00 in the summer and 9:00 in winter.(6) For soldiers working on construction the working day began at 5:00 and lasted till 7:00 with three breaks, one hour at 8.00, an hour-and-a-half at 11:30 and a half hour at 4:00. In all, this was eleven working hours in a fourteen hour day. This was not the rigid schedule for everyone and its author, the engineer Franquet, recognized that there would be slacking without constant supervision.(7) An example of this was the case of two soldiers hired by Governor Saint Ovide to tend his garden. At the time of this incident the governor was away, and a young cadet officer had been delegated to keep an eye on the work but did not arrive until the afternoon. The gardeners began their day working but left at 8.00 to join three friends in drinking a pint of liquor. They returned to work for a while, then left again for wine at another tavern until noon. More work followed until they decided to buy another bottle; there was some difficulty since the tavern keeper's wife refused the first soldier because he was too drunk, but the second did obtain the bottle. After finishing it both fell asleep beside the garden well. One of the soldiers, in his stupor, fell into the well and drowned. This was the situation by the time young cadet reached the garden at 3:00 in the afternoon.(8)
Sunday and various religious and royal holidays were free from work and were also the only days on which regular military reviews were held.(9) In the Code des Armées Navales of 1689 exercises were also held on Thursdays,(10) but this does not appear to have been the case in Louisbourg. The rest of Sunday would have been devoted to religion and recreation, such as it was in Louisbourg. In one account a group of three soldiers plied with wine had a Sunday rendezvous with a woman in a field behind the barrachois; in this particular incident a fight resulted between these men and two sailors who came along. (11)
The meager salary soldiers received certainly encouraged soldiers to work to supplement it, but military functions had to be performed and special arrangements were made for this. The most regular routine was the twenty-four hour guard duty. In some instances workers were exempt from it, (12) and in others could pay someone else to do theirs if they didn't want to.(13) Deductions were made from the worker's salary in the former instance and distributed to those on guard. In 1750 this was calculated at 1 sol per livre or 5 livres per month.(14) For those who wanted to specialize in the military in Louisbourg the only outlet for such ambition was training as a cannoneer, a full time occupation, which was rewarded with a salary of over 10 livres per month after deductions.(15) There was also the possibility of pensions at half pay for some soldiers as reflected in documents which requested them from the ministry, in one instance for a soldier who had gone deaf, and in the second for an 18-year veteran who could no longer perform his duties.(16) Re-enlistment after the 6-year engagement was encouraged with a 10 livre bonus for soldiers and 30 for sergeants. It was also possible to obtain a discharge to settle on a farm with three years supplies but it was reported that this was not successful since most settlers wasted away the three years and then found some pretext to return to France.(17)
It is interesting to note as well that in the concessions listed in the town for 1734 three sergeants and three retired sergeants had property with two of them owning two lots.(18)
If the soldier was not working or on duty he would likely spend part of his time supplementing his daily ration. In 1718 the daily ration for soldier and sergeant was given as a livre and a half of bread, 4 onces of raw pork or half a livre of beef, and 4 onces of vegetables, In addition the troops received a quarter livre of butter and 5 livres of molasses per month.(19) It was noted that this was more than soldiers in Canada received, a policy followed in Plaisance because of the harsh conditions, and carried over to Isle Royale, with a warning that this would not last. By 1734 the ration was listed in different terms; 456-1/4 livres of flour per year (1-1/4 livres per day), four onces of vegetables and the same of salt pork, with a livre of butter per month(20) Beans were the most common vegetable to be given to the soldiers and were sometimes two seasons old when consumed. Flour often went bad and was mixed with new supplies to try to preserve it.(21) Distribution of the rations was made every four days for bread and every fifteen days for meat, vegetables, butter and molasses.(22) Shortages were not uncommon; in 1742 the bread ration had to be cut to 1 livre and before the second siege in order to economize on wheat and vegetables, rice was added to the flour for bread and was distributed instead of vegetables. (23)
It is not surprising that soldiers sought to augment their food allotment by hunting and fishing and they were given an allowance of powder for this purpose.(24) In the documents soldiers are mentioned fishing for cod, shooting seals on the ice, and gathering herbs for soup, strawberries and spruce boughs which, when combined with the molasses, made spruce beer.(25) One soldier hunting out at Spanish Bay with his dog had killed 13 partridge.(26)The other available resources of the island would also have found their way into the soldiers' cooking pots. (27)
A 1750 Memoire by the engineer Franquet gave an excellent account of what food it was possible to obtain on the island. In fruits, as well as the strawberries mentioned above, there were raspberries, blueberries, and the small red berries (called meadow apples) which were said to be edible only as a preserve. All vegetables were available, Franquet said, except artichokes and asparagus, though the late season meant that everything was eaten later than they were in France. Game was plentiful and included bears, of which only the fat was edible, moose and caribou, whose meat was said to make a soup as good as beef. These animals were hunted in winter and only by the Indians, though they would have occasionally found their way into the colony. Smaller game included passenger pigeons, hunted in July, and a species of snipe as well as the plentiful rabbit. Often eaten, he reported, were ducks, bustards, and aquatic birds which in the season of 1750 were reported to smell of oil because they were eating seaweed. In fishing there were salmon, trout, seals, walrus, whales and, of course, cod.
Soldiers prepared the food themselves in their rooms according to a cooking roster (28) and were only provided with one large pot per seven or eight men with that number of spoons attached.(29) There are specific references to soldiers eating a game stew and a mackerel stew.(30) The soldiers had few other utensils and in 1738 it was proposed that a mess tin and a canteen be provided for each seven men as was the practice on ships, as well as two water buckets and frying pans for each room. The diet and cooking situation were described:
The soldier is obliged to eat his soup in his cooking pot and to draw his beer in whatever old mess tins are around, most of which leaks out so that they do without beer most of the time and are forced to drink water which is not good at Louisbourg and which causes frequent illnesses...As the most common food for the soldiers is fish, it will be very necessary that Your Grace have the goodness to order that two frying pans per room be supplied to boil and fry their fish. As it is now they are obliged to use their pots after they have cooked their soup. If they are in a hurry they are often obliged to eat the fish half cooked which gives the bloody fluxes which we have seen by experience.(31)
There is no indication that the situation in the barracks improved before the first siege. Two hundred leather buckets for fire protection were ordered in 1741 but there was no provision made for frying pans or more mess tins and canteens.
The other staple of diet, bread, was obtained from the bakery, and spruce beer also a regular part of the daily meal seems to have been prepared by the soldiers themselves since no wages were paid to brewers; A brewery was an integral part of a barracks and expeditions were made to collect spruce boughs.(32) It was remarked after the return of Louisbourg to the French that there was no brewery in the town for soldier's use. One was soon constructed in the new barracks of the Queen's Bastion.
The location of the brewery in the first occupation period is not certain. In 1736 there was mention of an old copper boiler for beer which came from a coach house, and it is very likely that the governor's coach house, located in the courtyard of the bastion (Fig. l, Bldg G [Presently Unavailable]), was used as a brewery in this period.(33) It is not known when the house was built, but it first appears on the plans in 1733. Excavations of this building revealed a puzzling number of walls and a fireplace base, suggesting that the structure was indeed used for more than a coach house. (34) By 1744 the building was definitely used as a coach house by the new commandant who had arrived in the fall of 1740; in 1741 two huge red copper boilers were ordered for the brewery of the barracks, and this may have marked the removal of the brewery to new quarters at the insistence of the governor.(35)
A part of the soldier's time would have been spent on personal maintenance. Each soldier was provided with a needle and thread for making repairs to his own clothing and soap for washing, though those who could afford it sent out their clothing to be washed. In the beginning soldiers had to provide their own firewood and it is not surprising to learn that in winter some died and many froze hands and feet. In 1726 it was recommended and implemented that wood be provided at the King's expense.(36)
The King's Bastion barracks also contained a canteen whose location is not known. It was first requested in 1723 by the Swiss soldiers, but the governor refused because the Swiss were mixed in with the French and would have caused a continuous uproar. Also, since the barracks were not yet enclosed, there was no way to keep the soldiers in day or night.(37) The governor, Saint Ovide, was commended for his decision and was told that it was the King's intention that there not be any canteen.(38) However, three years later Saint Ovide himself made the request for a canteen. Apparently it was the custom in all citadels to have a canteen which was run by the Major, and this officer had asked the governor to request permission to set one up. It was approved in 1727,(39) and was probably responsible for the selling of wine, spirits and tobacco. By 1739 each company had a canteen run by its officers, a situation thought to be less harmful than the dozens of 'cabarets' in town.(40) After the first siege the barracks' canteen was the subject of much controversy for, according to a new ruling, the proceeds from the canteen were to be shared with the governor, King's lieutenant and ayde major. Soldiers were given a clothing allotment each year consisting of pants, two shirts, two ties, a hat, a pair of socks, and two pairs of shoes plus a jacket or vest on alternate years.(41) It had been suggested that one pair of socks per year was not enough, but no change appeared to have been made.(42) According to the Code Militaire uniforms were not to be worn when soldiers were out working, a practice that seems to have applied to Marine soldiers in Louisbourg. (43)
There were, as well, large quantities of items ordered every year and supplied to the troops. In one year, 1721, when the shipment did not arrive, the captains of regiments had to supply the goods on the promise of repayment by France the following year. In another instance, just before the second siege, it was revealed that French merchants were not sending goods to Louisbourg for fear of losing them, that there was a shortage of shoes and Indian footwear might have to be used.(44)
From the lists it seems that each soldier received 2 box-wood combs, 2 livres of soap, about 2 onces of thread and three needles. Candles were ordered from France until the late 1720's, after which they were supplanted by local supplies.(45) After the first siege the allotments seemed to have increased somewhat.
An idea of the kind of belongings owned by a soldier is given in an inventory of a soldier who was to be executed for theft. The value of the goods was placed at 30 livres 5 sols and comprised: a trunk with a key, four shirts, three of which were fine though half used, a large piece of fine cloth, two old pairs of socks, two muslin collars, an old pair of pants, a pair of used sheets and a filthy old shirt.(46) Another soldier, found dead while out hunting, owned snowshoes, an axe and a compass. (47)
In the first French occupation soldiers were not generally allowed to marry and only thirteen marriages are recorded in the 17 years from 1722 to 1739.(48) However, there was a relaxation of this policy during the second occupation, and in 1748 permission for marriage was granted to any soldiers who by their industry and conduct showed that they would make a useful contribution to the life of the community, especially as farmers.(49) However, by 1750 Desherbiers felt that married soldiers were harmful to discipline.(50) In the following year some soldiers were allowed to marry,(51)but with a clause forbidding husband and wife to leave the colony, and in 1756 the governor reported he was allowing fewer and fewer marriages.(52) Discipline among the troops was administered according to an ordinance of 1727 (Appendix V) which provided severe penalties for all manner of crimes. In 1755 a copy of this ordinance was ordered placed in every soldiers room and guardhouse:
the soldiers can never be too knowledgeable about these matters and it is more necessary than ever to make the troops aware of them.(53)
It is quite clear that the quality of the soldiers' life was affected by his enterprise and ambition, though there is no denying that his life could be unremittingly miserable. Many questions remain unanswered, and this section can only be considered an introduction to the topic, while, hopefully, conveying something of the flavour of eighteenth century military life.
Little in the documents reflects the general condition of the soldiers' life in the barracks, and military records such as courts martial have not come to light. Although specific items about military life did emerge in official correspondence, there was really only one period in Louisbourg history when the overall plight of the soldier was given any discussion. This period began in 1739 and culminated in the mutiny of December 27, 1744.
Before his departure from France to take up his post as governor of the colony, De Forant was assured by Maurepas that the soldiers in Louisbourg were well housed and he cautioned the new governor against being taken in by complaints which, he claimed, would probably be the result of drunkenness and excesses.(1 ) According to Maurepas, discipline was needed. This somewhat defensive letter suggests that Maurepas was expecting problems in the colony and had already received complaints about military conditions. It is likely, as well, that De Forant had a reputation for softness which necessitated the warning that he not be taken in by complaints.
On arrival at Louisbourg De Forant, according to a report by the new ordonnateur, asked if there were any complaints against the officers. The answer, not surprisingly, was negative.(2) De Forant, however, was not at all impressed by the quality of the troops or the conditions in which they lived. He asserted that he had never seen such poor soldiers and out of the whole garrison (then numbering over 600) he would not keep 100 (3) A few months later he complained that proper furnishings were lacking, especially with regard to sheets and mattresses for the soldiers who needed more supplies:
the country is harsh enough to require it and it is not possible that the uniforms in which they sleep in winter can be kept clean; previously the straw on which they sleep was changed once a year which caused so many insects that the majority, in summer, sleep by preference on the ramparts.(4)
Maurepas expressed surprise that the soldiers were as bad as De Forant reported and cautioned him against sending back any except those who were invalids.(5) He did recognize the complaint about bedding and approved new mattresses and sheets for the soldiers to "shelter them from inconvenience".(6) Conditions did not improve. De Forant's replacement in 1740, Duquesnel, after his first tour of the fortifications wrote that he had seen much drunkenness(7) and later proposed that the new barracks be constructed because the citadel barracks were slowly rotting away. The building was infected with vermin because there were too many men in one room without enough sheets and mattresses. At the very least, he said, new floors should be put in the soldiers' barracks. (8)
The new barracks were never approved and the difficult conditions in which the soldiers lived continued, compounded by the Swiss question and the ration problem. The former seems to have been the result of a clash between the Swiss commander and Duquesnel, who did not have confidence in the Swiss who, he claimed were acting as an independent unit.(9) The commander was eventually recalled but the bad feelings remained, aggravated by poor rations. In 1739 Bigot, the new ordonnateur, reported that he had mixed bad flour with newer supplies to make biscuits for the soldiers,(10) and in 1742 had insisted that Duquesnel force the soldiers to accept a reduction of half a livre of bread ration per day, adding in his report that the soldiers had not had any peas or beans for three weeks. (11)
In December of 1744 the garrison revolted to reinforce their demands for better rations. The fact that Duquesnel had died two months previously was probably a contributing factor since the office of military commander, which carried a great deal of moral authority, was vacant with only the King's lieutenant as acting commander. On another occasion Governor Saint Ovide had to postpone a trip to France because it was feared there would be a revolt if he was not there to exert his authority.
On the evening of the day after Christmas of 1744 three disgruntled and inebriated Swiss soldiers decided it was time to improve their lot. Seeking to gain support from their comrades they took up a candle and went to the rooms of some of the French companies. In one they found everyone asleep, but in another there were two or three men still up around the fire.(12) Just what they agreed to do in the ensuing discussion was never made clear, but the Swiss decided to remain up all night and lay on their beds with their clothes on. In the early morning, while it was still dark they forced their drummer to sound reveille and all the Swiss assembled in the yard while a sergeant went to fetch the only officer in the garrison, a Swiss lieutenant. The officer arrived and was assured that no violence was contemplated. The grievances about the poor quality of rations and supplies were aired; the lieutenant promised that they would be dealt with and managed to persuade the soldiers to return to the barracks. However, some of the Swiss were not satisfied with this assurance and, according to the acting governor and the ordonnateur, reproached the French soldiers for not having joined them in their demonstration. Soon after, the whole garrison reassembled in the yard and a group of 36 soldiers with bayonets at the ready marched through the town sounding the general alarm.
The officers, all of whom apparently resided in the town, rushed to the barracks but were not immediately allowed in. Some were forced to lie down on their stomachs at bayonet point. Eventually they were able to talk their way into the courtyard and listened to the soldiers' demands which, in this account, were, 1) that firewood which had been withheld because of theft be returned, and that the wood ration be increased by a half cord per company; 2) that the rations Promised to those on a recent military expedition be turned over; 3) that proper uniforms be provided for the recruits of 1741, and 4) that the practice of providing rotten vegetables cease.(13) The officials at Louisbourg promised to fulfill the demands and an uneasy truce between the troops and officers settled in for the winter. Gradually, in the minds of the officers, there grew the suspicion that the troops had intended to turn the town over to the English with whom they felt there was a secret correspondence, but no real evidence was ever presented for this. (14 )
When the troops returned to France after their defeat at the hands of the New Englanders, those who were considered ring leaders were put on trial. The sergeant who was on guard at the barracks guard-house was sentenced to the guillotine and another sergeant and a corporal to hang. Others were given lesser penalties.(15) There was an interesting exchange in the trial testimony where a Swiss sergeant implied that the French officers were responsible for the conditions in which soldiers found themselves. Asked if he was aware of the consequences of this action he replied:
he knew that he was going to die, and he was not unaware of having put himself in that position according to our military ordinances, but [he hoped] that his example would teach the officers commanding for the King to watch that the soldiers are not harassed and that the goods they pay for from their wages be distributed according to the intentions of His Majesty...(16)
To the north of the central passage were two rooms designated as guard-rooms for the barracks. The larger one was for the soldiers and the smaller for officers. Early plans (Fig. 10 Part 2; Fig. 12 [1725-3; 1725-3A; ND-21: Presently Unavailable]) showed that a thin masonry wall divided the rooms in a ratio of about 2:1. The separation wall which ran down the centre of the barracks was here replaced by an arch. However, in the 1731 plan (Fig. 11 [ND-87: Presently Unavailable]) this wall had disappeared and the room thus extended the full width of the building. The work accounts gave some details for the rooms. The original separation wall was only eight pouces thick and the officers' room was provided with a fireplace while the soldiers' had first an iron, then a brick stove. Cobbles were placed on the floor of the soldiers' room. A large plank bed of two pouces pine planks was constructed in each room, the officers' six pieds six pouces by three pieds, and the soldiers' the same length but twenty-eight pieds wide. (1) In the soldiers' room was located the trap door leading to the drawbridge mechanism.
At some time between 1729 and 1731 the two rooms were converted to one room for soldiers' evidently because of overcrowding. The officers moved to a new guard room immediately above the old one and the stairway to it was fully enclosed so that they would not have to enter the soldiers' room. The former officers' room was cobbled to give it the same flooring as the rest of the room.(2) It is not known how many soldiers occupied a guard-room at that time, but a document some five years later indicated that ordinarily there were 25-30 men on guard, certainly too many for the small room in which they had been before. This document concerned the allocation of firewood, which was distributed from the beginning of October to the end of May, and recorded that the soldiers were given 30 cords and the officers 6 Cords (3)
By 1740 it was felt that the guard-room arrangements were no longer suitable, for some unspecified reason, and a separate guard-house was constructed outside the barracks on the other side of the ditch just beyond the drawbridge. (Fig.15 [1758-12d: Presently Unavailable]) This left a large room in the barracks to be filled, and it was proposed that at least part be turned into a prison. The existing prisons in the casemates were reported to be inadequate and prisoners were said to be suffering, probably because of the constant dampness in these areas.(4) The original partition, which had been removed to turn the long room into a single soldiers' room, was restored, and the larger room became the new prison. The smaller room was scheduled to be a room for cannoneers, and the one above it, formerly the officers' guard-room, was to be a new school for cannoneers,(5) but it would seem that only the prison was built. In 1741 new Swiss and French soldiers added to the numbers in the garrison; rooms had to be provided for them, (6) and it would appear that the two other guardrooms were made over for this purpose.(7) Six sets of leg and hand irons with padlocks were ordered for the new prison.(8)
The school for cannoneers proposed for the old guardroom first appeared somewhere in the barracks in 1738(9 ) though the official company of cannoneers was not incorporated until 1743.(10) A wooden canon was provided for the school to be used for the instruction of those officers and soldiers who were part of the unofficial company of cannoneers, and firing practices were held on Sundays.(11) After the first siege the school was again set up in the barracks this time accompanied by a school of mathematics for officers.(12)
There is only one surviving guard list from the Louisbourg period. It is from 1741 and indicates that there were 30 soldiers in the barracks guard-house in addition to a sergeant, two corporals, and a drummer. Sentries from the guard-house were placed at the governor's door, in the sentry box of the flanked angle of the King's Bastion, at the door of the prisons, and in front of the guard-house itself. The prisons referred to were probably those in the casemates which were still in use.(13)
It is difficult to determine what rules governed the operation of the guard-house. From the Code Militaire it appears that in a typical situation one third of the garrison was on guard at any one time. The guard formed at 3:00 in the afternoon in winter and at 4:00 in summer. Sentries at the various posts were relieved every two hours except in the cold, when it was every hour. Officers were to remain in the guard-house and sleep without undressing. They could leave at noon and at 6:00 for an hour to eat if they arranged to be relieved by those officers who were on duty the following day. The Major was in charge of the daily guard list and conveyed this to the commander. At the change of sentries the corporal conducted them to the officer for inspection.(14)
Louisbourg documents show some divergence from these regulations. During the mutiny there was no mention of an officer in the guard-house, nor was there any mention of notice being taken of this fact by officials who reviewed the case. The 1741 guard list confirms that the guard was for a twenty-four hour period, but adds that the same guard was posted every three days. It is also clear that it was possible to perform someone else's guard; one soldier paid for a pair of trousers by taking over four turns on guard in addition to giving over his beer ration(15) and as was mentioned above workers could pay others to do their guard or deductions could be made from those working to be given to those permanently on guard.
No one document specified the furnishings for guardrooms, and information on this topic comes chiefly from the yearly requisitions. One of the main functions of the guard was the security of the garrison at night, and a large variety of lamps, lanterns and candle holders were used. Because of the necessity of changing the sentries at fixed times, 30-minute hourglasses were used. Special caps for sentinels were supplied presumably to distinguish them from soldiers not on duty at that time. As with the barracks rooms there were leather buckets for fire purposes.(16) There were armoires in which pertinent documents were posted, and boxes were supplied for the various posts in which tokens were to keep track of the rounds made. Straw chairs were ordered in one list but it is not known in which of the guard rooms they were placed. A green rug ordered in 1756 was, however, for the officers room.(17) The soldiers' rooms had stoves which were dismantled in summer.(18)
In 1755 regulations were issued governing the honours to be paid officials passing in front of the guard-houses. For the governor, commissaire-générale, or fleet commander the soldiers would assemble in two lines with their arms and a drummer, while for the commissaire-ordinaire, King's Lieutenant, brigadier, director of fortifications or a ship's captain the soldiers simply line up.(19) It is not yet known whether this was a new practice or the modification of existing procedure.
Another unknown hinted at in the documents comes from the number of tools such as axes and saws provided specifically for the guard-houses during the 1740's.(20) It may have been that those soldiers not on sentinel duty were obliged to cut fire wood and even building lumber, or else the tools were supplied for those who wanted to earn extra pay for such work.
Over the central passage of the barracks was a long narrow room which was thought to be ideal for the storage of weapons and thus became the armoury. One of its drawbacks was dampness, and it was eventually fully panelled to combat this problem. When the armoury was completed it held 1000 guns, but this was soon found to be inadequate and in 1733 an armoury was constructed in the town over the new bakery capable of housing 3000 guns.(1) No mention is made of the old armoury after that, and it may be that the room was turned into soldier's accommodation since it is not mentioned in the complete accounting of the building in 1753.(2)
A large double door from the central passage led into the garrison chapel. The nave of this chapel was only approximately 45 feet square, but since there were no pews in Roman Catholic churches of this period, the chapel could accommodate more people than its modest size would at first indicate. Complete details for the altar were not given and the two barracks floor plans (Figs. 9,10 [1724-1; 1725-3, 1725-3A: Presently Unavailable]) show differing schematic outlines for the structure. From the works accounts it is known that oak planks were used for the floor of the sanctuary as well as the chapel proper, and that one-inch pine planks were used in the altar, whose dimensions were just over 7 feet by 3 feet. Under the heading of "Fine Carpentry" in the work accounts were listed the pulpit, choir stalls and the frame of the picture which hung over the altar as well as the doors on either side of the altar. The door on the left led to the chaplin's room and the one on the right had given access to an officer's room but was later blocked in, although the door was retained to complete the symmetry of the front of the chapel. Behind the altar and the painting hung a printed cloth, and somewhere near the entrance was a holy water vessel supported by iron consoles.(1)
The reredos of the chapel was not finished until after 1726 and there were complaints that inferior wood had to be used and that there were not enough skilled workmen to do the job.(2) However, services were being held there despite the unfinished condition of the chapel.(3) The furnishings for it had been in Louisbourg since 1724 and give an interesting view of church ornaments of the period (see Appendix III). During the second French occupation the altar was described. The structure containing the tabernacle spanned the length of the altar. Over the centre of the tabernacle was a niche flanked by hearts and angles. Inside the niche was a copper crucifix, another heart, and a Holy Spirit probably in the form of a dove. There was a cornice around the edge of the tabernacle and a framed picture of Saint Louis above it with at least one small drawer underneath it.(4)
The barracks chapel was originally intended only for the garrison. The civilian population attended services in the chapel of the Recollet priests while waiting for the construction of a parish church. The parish itself was given the name Our Lady of the Angels. It soon became evident that money for a parish church was not forthcoming and the priests decided to force the issue. They had given over their own chapel, they said, "out of simple goodness",(5) but they refused to any longer, thus compelling the Louisbourg officials to make alternative arrangements. The only other available chapel was that in the barracks which became the new parish church. The chapel retained its name, Saint Louis, and the parish was still that of Our Lady of the Angels.(6)
The date of this transfer seems most likely to have been 1735. In that year the parish register stopped using the term "parish and convent church" and just used "parish church." (7) There was considerable overcrowding in the chapel under this arrangement, especially when there were sailors in the port,(8) however, it served as the parish church for the rest of the French occupation in Louisbourg. As one of the centres of town life public notices were posted there.(9) Maintenance of the chapel was in the hands of the priests who made so many requests for furnishings that in 1732 De Mesy felt it would be best to give them an annual allowance;(10) in 1745 this amounted to 400 livres.
The only indication of the number of masses said in Louisbourg is from a document in the 1750's which reveals that there were four per day. One of the masses was said in the chapel at the hospital, another at the Royal Battery, and two others in the barracks chapel, one for the government and garrison, and the other for the townspeople,(11) though there appears to have been only one mass in the barracks during the first occupation. Mass was said fairly late in the morning, for one was reported in progress at 10:30 in 1737, and a 1754 document indicated that the verger visited the chapel at 8:30, meaning the first mass could have been at 9:00 at the earliest.(12) A 1735 ordinance defined the seating arrangements in the chapel, stipulating that the governor would have a seat to the right of the altar and the ordonnateur to the left and on the same line. The king's lieutenant was to have a seat on the same side as the governor but out of the heart of the altar, while members of the Council would be on the other side. In the distribution of the communion bread the celebrant received if first, then the ecclesiastical assistants, then other clergy, altar-boys, the governor, the ordonnateur, the king's lieutenant, Council members, church wardens, and finally the rest of the congregation (13)
An interesting feature in the chapel was the discovery during archaeological excavations of five bodies buried beneath the floor (Fig. 20 [Presently Unavailable]). They were the bodies of the governor De Forant, the commandant Duquesnel, and two military leaders, Captain Michel de Cannes, a captain of a Louisbourg company, and the Duc d'Anville leader of an expedition to recapture Louisbourg in 1746. D'Anville died on the expedition and had been buried outside Halifax; in 1749 the body was reburied beneath the altar of the chapel. There was also found the body of a small child whose identity thus far remains unknown. The archaeological report precludes the possibility of the child having been buried after the French left in 1758. There was no evidence of a coffin and, unlike the other bodies, which were placed with the head pointing away from the altar, this body was placed roughly parallel to the altar.(14) This was undoubtedly an irregular burial whose secret was lost with the fall of the city.
The chapel was the scene of two rather dramatic incidents which had their resolution in the courts. The first occurred in February, 1737. At about 10:30 in the morning, while the priest was saying mass, a young couple approached the front of the church and knelt holding hands on the first step of the sanctuary in front of the altar rail. They then rose and said something to each other. The priest, surprised by this unorthodox behaviour, seized the chalice and hurried out of the chapel into the sacristy. The couple was arrested and accused of having caused a scandal in church.
As the story unfolded it appeared that the young man, Jean Le Large, had promised to marry the girl three or four years previously but his mother had refused her consent. His personal appeals to the parish priest were ignored so he decided to take matters into his own hands by following the letter of the law. In the marriage ceremony it is the couple which marries each other, and this has to be done in the presence of a priest and witnesses, so the couple went to the front of the church, exchanged their vows while the priest was still there, and had the congregation as witnesses. The court took a dim view of this irregular procedure; the young man was sentenced to the guard-room as a prisoner for a month and the girl was sent to the convent. The story did have a happy ending, however, for on July 8th with the dispensation of the bishop, the couple returned to the chapel and were legitimately married.(15)
The second incident, equally bizarre, took place in 1754. At 8:30 in the morning the verger entered the chapel to find the altar in disorder. The altar cloth was bloodstained and dirty with foot marks, and there were onion peels and bread scattered about. Blood was smeared on the tabernacle and on the frame of the picture on the wall above the altar. A crucifix was broken and a small niche containing statues was damaged. The small drawers of the altar had been rifled and various ornaments displaced. Two candles and a small purificator were missing.
The culprit was revealed to be an unemployed school teacher who had come to the colony looking for work but had had to take up fishing and woodcutting, for which he was not suited. As a last resort he had decided to become a soldier. On the night in question he admitted going up to the barracks to get back an arithmetic book he had loaned to a soldier. He admitted he was quite drunk at the time, and, the door of the corridor of the soldier's room being closed, he walked about in the courtyard until he noticed the chapel door open. He went inside, and! since there was a partition with a locked door which separated this entrance from the body of the church, he climbed up to the balcony and jumped down. He said he only wanted to get nearer the altar to pray, and after a while it occurred to him that the two bouquets of flowers on the altar were not placed as they were in France, between the candle sticks, but rather they were to one side. He took it upon himself to correct this divergence from orthodoxy and found himself climbing on the altar, in the process of which he cut himself on the face. While taking out his handkerchief to wipe the blood the bread and onions fell out, He then claimed to have dropped the handkerchief and, while retrieving it, inadvertently picked up the purificator as well. His bloodied hand left the stains on the tabernacle and picture frame. Having decided that this was enough he took two small candles to light his way out through the town, and, placing a board against the partition, climbed back to the gallery and then out into the courtyard. He stopped at the guard-house to get a light and then left. It was observed that the tabernacle had not been forced and the protagonist, Le Bon, was vigorous in denying that he had tried to open it.
In all it was a very strange case and despite more than two hundred pages of testimony it appears that the full story was not revealed. The death penalty was sought, but in the end Le Bon was ordered to march barefoot with only a shirt to the chapel door and ask forgiveness of God and King, while carrying a sign which read, front and back, PROFANER OF SACRED PLACES. He was then fined the sum of three livres and banished perpetually from the colony.(16)
The door to the left of the altar led to the sacristy and chaplain's room. Both the 1729 and 1731 plans of the barracks showed the same arrangement for the room. To the right of the door was a large "armoire" which served as a sacristy housing sacred objects. Beyond this was the main part of the room with a fireplace, the chaplain's sitting room. To the side was a small 'cabinet' which would have served as a bedroom. There was also an exit to the courtyard via the corridor in the officers' quarters. In the reoccupation of the barracks after the first siege the sacristy was in a room by itself, the chaplain was given the room next to it, and the verger also had a room.(1)
The main inhabitant of the chaplain's room during the French period was Father Isidore Caulet, who was first mentioned in Louisbourg in 1725 when he was thirty-four. He served with the troops for 30 years including the four year stay in Rochefort during the English occupation, and he died in Louisbourg in 1754.(2) He occasionally took over as Superior of the Recollets when the incumbent was away,(3) but seems not to have had the ability to head the parish, though he had an excellent reputation as a priest.
Two assessments of Father Caulet have survived. In 1752 Governor De Raymond described the religious in Isle Royale. There were only two Recollets in Louisbourg at the time, the superior, whom he termed incompetent, and Father Isidore whom he said was:
full of zeal, a good priest, very charitable with good morals. He is a man to retain.(4)
The second opinion, while confirming Father Isidore's goodness added:
[he is] without ability, and besides a little deaf, but loved and respected for his conduct so that he has been given curial duties since November, though he has no talent for these. (5)
Sixty-three when he died, Father Caulet had given most of his adult life in the service of God in the colony and undoubtedly merited the honorific, the Venerable Father Isidore Caulet.
The officers' quarters which stretched from the south wing to the chapel were originally designed to house eighteen officers in the eleven rooms by dividing the larger rooms into two smaller ones. (Fig.12 [ND-21: Presently Unavailable]) With four officers for each company - a captain, lieutenant, and two ensigns - as well as other officers such as the king's lieutenant and majors for a total up to thirty during the first French occupation, it is not surprising to learn that housing for officers was a problem.
As early as 1723 De Mesy reported that a Swiss officer was being lodged with a citizen in the town because there was no room in the barracks.(1) Before the barracks was constructed many officers had lived in residences worked on by the contractor Isabeau at government expense, and presumably still used these houses for their quarters.(2) In 1724 De Mesy complained about the cost and waste of putting officers in soldiers' rooms as had been done that year.(3) He felt that six companies could be housed in the barracks provided the ayde-major lived with the governor and the king's lieutenant and the other majors resided in the north wing. For a time the ayde-major did share the governor's wing. The officers may have resided two to a room, but in 1725 Verrier envisioned each officer as having his own room.(4) The following year eighteen officers' rooms were reported ready,(5) but this did not house all the officers, for first the major and then four subalterns moved to the north wing. In 1729, an entire house in the town was made over for the use of six officers,(6) and in 1736 the king's lieutenant, the major, an artillery officer, two cannoneers, the port captain and three other officers were lodging in town at government expense.
Officers who had families and owned homes also lived in town and the 1734 census recorded that all the captains plus the King's Lieutenant, the Major, two other lieutenants and an ensign were town inhabitants. All had children and one or two servants(7)This preference for town living was also shown by the army officers who came to Louisbourg in 1755. The ordonnateur of the day reported the complete aversion these officers had to living in official quarters and recommended they be forced to do so.(8) It will be recalled that in the discussion of the mutiny there was only mention of one officer in the barracks at that time, and that all the other officers rushed there from the town. By this time, as well, the governor had taken over two of the officers' rooms for a kitchen, and it may be that only the lesser officers remained in these quarters.
Little furniture was provided for the officers' rooms The work accounts report only that frames for beds were built for the rooms and Commandant Desherbiers confirmed this in 1750:
here the King furnishes only the wood for a bed and a table; it is necessary that the officers supply their own beds, chairs, frying pans, chimney utensils, sheets and all that is necessary for their minor furnishings, an expense greater than their means, so most sleep with one blanket and without sheets or mattress.(9)
There was a complaint that officers were transporting furniture from one room to another, and it was recommended that officers be forbidden to have the same kind of furniture as that which the King provided.(10) The house which was made over for six officers was fitted with beds and shelves. (11)
Certainly the style in which an officer lived depended a great deal on his personal fortune, and a guide to the variance in standards of living came from a census of 1749-50 which includes a list of servants. All officers with families had servants, and all of the twelve captains listed had at least one, but only two had three or more. Of eight lieutenants listed five had servants, and six of twenty-seven ensigns, had them.(12) Those officers who relied only on their salaries did have a difficult time outfitting themselves. The request for more supplies for officers was repeated in 1753 with the proposal that the King's Bastion barracks be turned over to the officers. Furnishings for the rooms would have been as follows: 2 mattresses and blankets, a box-mattress, bolster, rug and a bed surround in double serge, curtains and fixtures, candlestick, table, coat hanger, and an armoire (13) This proposal was not implemented. In 1755 army troops made their first appearance at Louisbourg. Their officers were obviously accustomed to a higher standard of accommodation than the marine officers and had imported an impressive list of supplies including beds, tables, armoires (three and four shelves plus drawers), chairs, coat hangers and kitchen implements.(14) Relief was also finally provided in the matter of Marine officers' salaries, and for a number of years 6000 extra livres were sent to Louisbourg to be distributed among the various ranks.(15)
Messing arrangements for officers were a private affair, though cadet officers received a ration which was reported not to have been adequate, (16) and in some areas, as in the Royal Battery, stables were provided for the beasts and fowl of the officers. Presumably officers also made arrangements such as`the lieutenant Chevalier Johnston, who spoke of having his own garden.(17) In the King's Bastion barracks there was no room provided for cooking the officers' meals - unlike those in texts from the 1720's which showed small rooms being set aside with each officer's room.(18) In the proposed new barracks, which were never approved, such rooms were to be provided.(19) A military manual of 1725 indicated that in certain cases the commander was responsible for providing meals to subordinate officers, and this seems to have occurred in Louisbourg.(20) In the 1750's kitchen and dining furnishings were provided by the government for some of the officers, and the governor, De Raymond, reported that he helped some officers set themselves up so that they could save a third what it would have cost to go to an inn.(21) Whatever the arrangements were, they were not ideal. Franquet, the chief engineer, reported on conditions in 1750:
Life here is very hard; we eat only that butcher's meat which is brought from New England, and, when shipping is interrupted, we are reduced to salted meat.(22)
References to the duties the officers performed are infrequent, but seem to have been flexible enough to allow them to engage in commerce. The main difficulty aside from their meager salaries, appeared to be gambling, which was prohibited on a number of occasions; in one report an officer was said to have lost 20,000 livres.(23)
1. Extrait des sent compagnies, 22 November 1719, AN. Col., D2C, vol. 47, f 328.
2. Fortier, Notary, Marché d'Isabeau, 7 March, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 4, ff. 278-82.
3. De Verville to Council, 19 June 1720, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 5, f. 233.
1. De Mesy to Council, 22 November 1722, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 7, ff. 59-65v.
2. Council to De Mesy and Saint Ovide, 13 August 1720, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 5, ff. 72v-3.
3. Council to De Mesy, 13 May 1722, AN. Col., B. vol. 45(2), f. 1125.
4. De Mesy to Council, 24 November 1723, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 6, ff. 239v-40v.
5. Saint Ovide to Council, 24 November 1723, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 6, f. 196v.
6. Memoire du Roi, 9 May 1724, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 7, ff. 07v-08v.
7. Saint Ovide and De Mesy to Minister, 28 November 1726, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 8, f. 14v.
8. De Mesy to Minister, 22 November 1724, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 7, f. 62v.
9. Verrier to Minister, 17 November 1727, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 9, f. 142v.
10. Saint Ovide to Minister, 25 November 1731, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 12, f. 40v.
11. De Mesy to Minister, 4 June 1732, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 13, ff. 28v-29.
12. Minister to Saint Ovide, 19 June 1732, AN. Col., B. vol. 57(2), f. 746v.
13. Verrier to Minister, 16 November 1732, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 13, f. 200v.
14. Minister to Saint Ovide and Le Normant, 26 May 1733, AN., Col., B. vol. 59(2), ff. 530-30v.
15. Le Normant to Minister, 10 October 1733, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 14, f. 145.
16. Verrier to Minister, 23 October 1733, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 14, f. 300.
17. Verrier to Minister, 6 November 1734, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 16, f. 186v.
18. Minister to Saint Ovide and Le Normant, 25 March 1735, AN. Col., B. vol. 63, f. 537v.
19. Verrier to Minister, 28 October 1735, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 17, ff. 255v-56.
20. Saint Ovide to Minister, 30 October 1736, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 18, f. 44v.
1. Le Normant to Minister, 4 November 1738, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 20, f. 143.
2. Etat de la serrurerie, 2 November 1736, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 18, ff. 129-30.
Etat de la menuiserieEtat de la menuiserie, 2 November 1736, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 18, ff. 224-25, & Figure 10.
3. Bourville to Council, 5 December 1722, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 6, ff. 99-100v.
4. Etat des troupes, 1 August 1722, AN. Col., D2C, vol. 47.
5. Council to Saint Ovide, 13 May 1722, AN Col., B. vol. 45(2), f. 1131v.
6. Saint Ovide to Council, 12 October 1723, AN. Col.,C11B, vol. 6, ff. 174v-75.
7. De Beaucours to Minister, 1 August 1724, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 7, f. 76v.
8. Saint Ovide to Minister, 17 December 1725, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 7, f. 196.
9. Saint Ovide and De Mesy to Minister, 28 November 1726, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 8, f. 14v.
10. Memoire concernant les ouvrages faits pour le Roy jusqu à ce jour [Saint Ovide], , AN. Col., C11B, vol. 27, f. 315v.
11. Verrier to Minister, 13 November 1728, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 10, f. 134v.
12. Bourville to Council, 5 December 1722, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 6, ff. 99-100v.
13. Saint Ovide and De Mesy to Minister, 28 November 1726, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 8, f. 14v.
14 Etat des personnes, 9 October 1753, AN, Col , C11B, vol. 33, ff. 221-34v
15. Saint Ovide and De Mesy to Council, 10 November 1720, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 5, f. 139.
16. Saint Ovide to Minister, 21 December 1725, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 7, f. 208v.
17. Saint Ovide to Minister, 20 November 1726, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 8, f . 60v.
18. Extrait des Etats de la Recette et Depense, 25 Novenber 1724, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 7, ff. 1200-121.
19. Toise des ouvrages , 4 May 1727, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 9, f. 162v.
20. Etat de la depenses, 1 May 1736, AN. Col , C11B, vol. l8, f. 182v
21. Minister to Verrier, 10 June 1727, AN. Col., B. vol. 50 (2), f. 596v.
22. Sabatier to Minister, 17 November 1727, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 9, f. 144.
23. De Mesy to Minister, 22 Novenber 1728, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 10, f. llOv.
24. Sabatier to Minister, 30 April 1729, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 10, f. 224v.
25. Verrier to Minister, 16 November 1732, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 13, f. 201v.
26. Saint Ovide and Le Mormant to Minister, 28 October 1735, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 17, f. l9v.
27. Saint Ovide to Minister, 12 October 1723, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 6, f . 175.
28. De Mesy to Minister, 24 November 1723, AN. Col., vol. 6, f. 240v.
1. Code Militaire, 1, 71.
2. Louisbourg Map Collection, Map no. 733-10a
3. No. ordre 200, Toise Provisional de L'Isle de l 'entree, 30 October 1744, AN. Section Outre-mer, DFC.
4. Louisbourg Map Collection, Maps No. 1739-4, ND34 and 752-3.
5. Etat des personnel, 9 October 1753, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 33, ff. 224-240.
6 Marché pour l'entretien de la menuiserie, 25 October 1736, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 18, ff. 372-73.
7. Atlas de Mont Dauphin, 1789, CTG, Mss. reliés 124, feuille 1-10.
8. Etat de la serurerie, 2 November 1736, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 18, f. i29.
9. Devis et Conditions, 10 June 1718, AN. Col., F , vol. 51, ff. 193-226.
10. Saint Ovide and De Mesy to Minister, 28 November 1726, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 8, ff. 14-14v.
11. Devis et Conditions, 19 April 1753, ASQ, Papiers Surlaville, fol. 50.
12. Proces contre Chauffour, 7 June 1752, AN. Section Outre-mer, G , vol. 189, f. 129v. Proces contre Paquet, 26 March 1751, AN. Section Outremer, G2, vol. 201, f. 223(9)
13. Bordereau, 6 November 1744, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 26, ff. 178v-79.
14. Bordereau, 18 October 1741, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 23, f. 172.
15. De Mesy to Minister, [December] 1723, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 6, ff. 227-28.
16 Etat des habillements, 1 October 1736, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 18, ff. 229-29v.
17. Adjudication, September 1749, AN. Section Outre-mer G , vol. 212, f. 559.
18. Proces contre Saureux [Laurent], 20 June 1734, AN. Section Outre-mer G2, vol. 183, f. 92.
19. Prevost to Minister, 15 October 1751, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 30, f. 225v.
20. Toise des ouvrages, 1 September 1731, AN. Col., C11B vol. 12, f. 146.
21. Etat de la dépenses, 1 May 1736, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 18, f. 181v.
22. Memoire au sujet de L'Isle Royale, without date, AN. Section Outre-mer, DFC, No. 141, f. 4v
Soldiers Daily Life
1. Instructions pour le Sr, Franquet..1753, CTG, Art.14, Carton No. 49.
2. Franquet to Minister, 9 December 1754, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 34, ff. 223-30.
3. Gustave Lanctot, "Les troupes de la Nouvelle France" Canadian Historical Association, II (1925-7), pp. 53-4.
Proces contre Leonnad (St. Pierre) and Aulier, May 1726, AN. Section Outre-mer, G2, vol. 179, ff. 244 & 246.
5. Procès contre Manoié, 19 July 1734, AN. Section Outre-mer, G2, vol. 183, ff. 78-91.
6. Code Militaire, I, 458.
7. Remarques faites à Louisbourg, Franquet, 1751, CTG, Art.14, Carton 1, No. 43.
8. Procès verbal, 25 July 1737, AN. Section Outre-mer G2, vol. 184, ff 376-78.
9. Minister to Desherbiers, 14 June 1750, AN. Col., B. vol. 91, f. 352.
10. De Boismeslé et De Richebourg, Histoire Génerale de la Marine contenant son origine chez tous les Peuples du monde, ses progrès, son état actuel, et les Expéditions Maritime, anciennes et modernes, 3v, (Amsterdam 1758), volume 3, contains the 1689 Ordinance "Code des Armées Navale", p.216.
11. Dossier Mathieu dit la Reiné, July 1854, AN. Col., E, 306.
12. Minister to Desherbiers 14 June 1750, AN. Col. B. Vol. 91, f. 352.
13. Histoire Générale de la Marine, VIII, p.246.
14. Minister to Desherbiers, 14 June 1750, AN. Col., B. vol. 91, f. 352.
15. See appendix II.
16. Sabatier to Minister, 28 December 1734, AN. Col., C'B, vol. 16, f. 11. Saint Ovide and Le Normant to Minister, 23 January 1734, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 15, ff. 58-59.
17. Bigot to Minister, 4 November 1739, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 21, ff. 111-111v. Memoire Troupe, 1738, AN. Col., vol. 20, f. 317.
18. Etat des terrains concédés, 24 October 1734, AN. Col., vol. 15, ff. 26-50.
19. Council to De Mesy, 19 June 1718, AN. Col., B. vol. 40(5), ff. 528-29.
20. Etat des Vivres, 31 October 1734, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 15, ff. 194-260.
21. Bigot to Minister, 3 October 1737, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 21, ff. 97-100v. Bigot to Minister, 20 August 1740, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 22, ff. 144-46.
22. Bigot to Minister, 20 August 1749, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 28, ff. 42-42v.
23. Bigot to Minister, 18 June 1742, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 24, ff. 87-89v. Prévost to Minister, 10 December 1757, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 37, ff. 215-20.
24. Memoire Troupe, 1738, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 20, ff. 318v-19.
25. Proces contre Geoffroy (Beaupré), 11 August 1729, AN. Section Outre-mer, G2, vol. 180, f. 184. Proces contre Manoie, 19 July 1734, AN. Section Outre mer, G2, vol. 183, ff. 78-91. Dossier Mathieu dit la Ruiné, July 1754, AN. Col., E, vol. 306, No. 3.
26. Proces contre Larue, March 1739, AN. Section Outre-mer, G2, vol. 185, ff. 379-424.
27. Memoire sur Isle Royale, Franquet, 1750, CTG, Art. 14, carton No. 24.
28. Proces contre Chauffour, 4 March 1751, AN. Section Outre-mer, G2, vol. 189, f. 53.
29. Sabatier to Minister, 10 October 1727, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 9, f. 138.
30. Proces contre Leonnad, Dubois and Autlier, May 1726, AN. Outre-mer, G2, vol. 179, ff. 148 and 195.
31. Memoire Troupe, 1738, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 20, ff. 318-18v.
32. Proces contre Richard, 4 January 1752, AN. Outre-mer, G2, vol. 201, No. 240.
33. Etat de la recette et consommation des vivres...., 1 October 1736, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 17, f. 212.
34. Archaeological Photograph G3896, Louisbourg Collection and Plan OP. 35.
35. Estat des vivres, habillements et munitions necessaires, 11 October 1741, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 24, f. 174.
36. Procès contre Paquet, 26 March 1751, AN. Outre-mer, G . vol. 201, No, 223(9). Saint Ovide and De Mesy to Minister, 1 December 1726, AN. Col. C11B, vol. 8, f. 23.
37. Saint Ovide to Minister, 12 December 1723, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 6, ff. 217-78v. 38. Minister to Saint Ovide, 26 June 1724, AN. Col., B. vol. 47, f. 1272.
39. Saint Ovide to Minister, 20 November 1726, AN. Col. C11B, vol. 8, f. 64. Minister to Saint Ovide, 10 June 1727, AN. Col., B. vol. 50(2), f. 585.
40. De Forant and Bigot to Minister, 4 November 1739, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 21, ff. 17-18.
41. Minister to De Mesy, 19 June 1718, AN. Col., B. vol. 40(5), f. 5280.
42. Saint Ovide to Council, 8 November 1717, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 2, f. 229.
43. Code Militaire, VI, p. 65.
44. Minister to Machault, 10 May 1756, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 36, ff. 52-54v.
45. Demandes à faire pour les Munitions de 1719, 10 January 1719, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 4, f. 118. Etat des vivres habillements et munitions necessaires, 20 November 1729, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 10, f. 120. Etat des vivres habillement et munitions nécessaires, 19 October 1733, AN, Col., C11B, vol. 14, ff. 222v-23. Etat des vivres, habillement et munitions nécessaires, 1 October 1736, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 18, ff. 227-29v.
46. Proces contre Leonnad (St. Pierre) and Aulier (St. Louis), May 1726, AN. Section Outre-mer, G2, vol. 179, f. 418.
47. Proces contre Larue, March 1739, AN. Section Outre-mer, G2, vol. 185, ff. 379-424.
48. Registres Paroissials 1722-39, AN. Section Outre-mer,G1
49. Minister to M. de Letanduère, 21 October 1748, AN. Col., B. vol 88(2), f. 338.
50. Desherbiers to Minister, 14 October 1750, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 29, ff. 39-44.
51. De Raymond to Minister, 10 September 1751, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 31, ff. 60-61.
52. Drucour to Minister, 27 June 1756, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 36, ff. 61-62v.
53, Franquet to Minister, 11 November 1755, AN. Col., C''B, vol. 35, f.
1. Minister to De Forant, 8 July 1739, AN. Col., B. vol. 68, ff. 380-80v.
2. Bigot to Minister, 14 September 1739, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 21, ff. 95-96v.
3. De Forant to Minister, 22 September 1739, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 21, ff. 51-54.
4. De Forant to Minister, 4 November 1741, AN. Col., Ct'B, vol. 21, f. 16.
5. Minister to De Forant, 7 May 1740, AM. Col., B. vol. 70, ff. 389-89v.
6. Minister to De Forant and Bigot, 7 May 1740, AN. Col., B. vol. 70, ff. 396-96v.
7. Duquesnel to Minister, 1 December 1740, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 22, ff. 93-96.
8. Duquesnel and Bigot to Minister, 28 October 1743, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 25, f. 21.
9. Duquesnel to Minister, 23 November 1741, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 23, ff. 78-79v.
10. Bigot to Minister, 3 October 1739, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 21, ff. 27-100v.
11. Bigot to Minister, 18 June 1742, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 24, ff. 87-89v.
12. Dossier Abraham Du Pasquier, 2 December 1745, AN. Col., E, 157.
13. Duchambon and Bigot to Minister, 31 December 1744, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 26, f. 231. Dossier Abraham Du Pasquier, 2 December 1745, AN. Col., E, 157.
14. Collection de documents relatifs l'histoire de la Nouvelle France, Vol. III p. 267 - "Ordonnance Royalle sur la revolte a Louisbourg" - 1 November 1745.
15. Minister to M. de Barraith, 20 December 1745, AN. Col,, B. vol. 82(2), f. 657.
16. Dossier Christophe Jout, 2 December 1745, AN. Col., E, 233.
17. M. Belidor, La Science des Ingenieur, Livre IV, p. 75. A.C. de Lery, Traite de Fortifications, p. 332-4.
18. See Louisbourg map collection 739 - 4.
19. M. de Guignard, L'école de Mars, T. III, p. 351.
20. De Raymond, 11 June 1753, SHA, A, vol. 3393, f. 69.
21. Franquet to De Rougement, 13 October 1750, CTG. mss. 205b.
22. Duquesnel and Bigot to Minister, 23 October 1742, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 26, f. 195. Minister to Provost, 2 November 1758, AN. Col., B. vol. 107, f. 356.
1. Toisé des ouvrages, 4 May 1727, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 9, ff , 212-214,217-221. Etat de la dépense, 1 May 1736, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 18, f. 181.
2. Verrier to Minister, 1 August 1731, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 12, f. 145.
3. Le Normant to Minister, 10 February 1735, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 17, ff. 106-07,
4. Sabatier to Minister, 12 December 1739, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 12, ff. 175-78.
5. Bourville and Bigot to Minister, 25 October 1740, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 22, f. 61.
6. Verrier to Minister, 26 October 1741, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 23, f. 195.
7. Compte provisionel , 22 November 1743, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 25, f. 193.
8. Etat de Vivre, 11 October 1741, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 24, f. 175.
9. Saint Ovide and Le Normant to Minister, 25 October 1737, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 19, ff. 29-29v.
10. Ordonnance du Roy, [7 November 1743], AN. Col., C11B, vol. 26, ff. 236-38.
11. De Forant to Minister, 20 June 1739, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 21, ff. 49-49v.Bourville and Bigot to Minister, 20 October 1741, AN. Col., C''B, vol. 22, ff. 43-46.
12. Ecoles de Mathematiques et D'Artillerie, 8 January 1753, AN. Col., F3, vol. 50(2), ff. 497-98v.
13. Détail de la garde, (l9 October, 1741), AN. Col. C11B, vol. 23, f. 71.
14. Code Militaire V, II p. 284, 287-88,
15. Procès contre Chauffour, June 1752, AN. Section Outremer, G2, vol. 189, f. 31.
16. Etat des Vivres, 11 October 1741, AN. Col., C11B, vol.24, ff. 173-76.
17. Bordereau, 6 November 1744, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 26, ff. 1i3-181v. Etat des Vivres, 25 October 1752, AN. Col., vol. 32, ff. 183-188v.
18. Charles S. Lindsay, The Guardhouses at Louisbourg,(1971) Unpublished manuscript in Louisbourg collection, p. 11.
19. Règlement pour les honneurs à rendre dans la colonie dd Isle Royale, 10 November 1755, AN. Col., F3, vol. 50(2) f. 528.
20. Charles S. Lindsay, The Guardhouses at Louisbourg, (1971) Unpublished manuscript in Louisbourg collection, p. 13.
1. Saint Ovide to Minister, 15 November 1732, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 12, f. 265v. Verrier to Minister, 23 October 1733, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 14, f. 301v.
2. Etat de Personnes, 9 October 1753, AN. Col. C11B, vol. 33, ff. 225-25v.
1. Toisé des ouvrages, 4 May 1727, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 9, ff. 214,219v,223,226,228,229.
2 Supplement de Marché, 12 November 1726, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 8, ff. 167-67v.
3. Verrier to Minister, 10 October 1726, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 8, f. 112.
4. Procès contre Le Bon, 25 October 1754, AN. Section Outre-mer, G2 vol. 189, f. 264.
5 Acte de réquisition, 18 October 1726, AN. Section . Outre-mer, G3, vol. 2058, no. 36.
6. Registres Paroisialles, 11 May 1740, AN. Section Outre mer, G1 , vol. 407, registre I.
7 Registres Paroisialle, 19 September, 17 November, 2 December, 17 December 1735, AN. Section Outre-mer, G1, vol 406, registre IV.
8. Bourville et Le Normant to Minister, 21 October 1738, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 20, f. 54. Memoire concernant les missionnaites par De Raymond, January 1752, SHA. A1, vol. 3393, f. 38.
9. Etat des frais de justice a l'occassion de la succession de feu M. Decouagne, 1740, AN. Section Outre-mer, G2, vol. 197, Dossier 129, No.13.
10. De Mesy to Minister, 3 February 1732, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 13, ff. 11-13.
11 Pichon Papers, Tableau de l'etat actuel des missions, 1753, No. 40 (The document is said to be in Pichon's hand), P.A.C., MG18, F12.
12. Proces contre Le Larae, April 1737. AN. Section Outremer, G2, vol. 184, ff. 430-50. Proces contre Le Bon, January 1753, AN. Section Outremer, G1, vol. 189, f. 175v.
13. Ordonnance du Roy, 5 May 1735, AN Section Outre-mer, G2, vol. 192, f.27.
14. Archaeological Report on the King's Chapel, Vogel,1965, p.24 & 27.(unpublished in Louisbourg archives).
15. Proces contre Le Large, April 1737, AN. Section Outre-mer, G2, vol. 184, ff. 430-50. Registres Paroisialles, 8 July 1737, AN. Section Outre-mer, G1, vol. 406, registre IV.
16. Proces contre Le Bon, 1753-54, AN. Section Outre-mer, G2, vol. 189, ff. 148-269, and G2, vol. 193, registre II fol.45, 28 October 1754.
1. Etat des personnel, 9 October 1753, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 33, f. 2240. Baptemes 23 July 1725, AN. Section Outre-mer, G1, vol. 406, f.14.
2. Registres Paroisialles, 21 June 1754, AN. Section Outremer, G1, vol. 409, registre I, 180.
3. Hugolin, "Table nominale des Récollets de Bretagne missionaires et aumôniers dans l'Isle Royale", in Memoires de la Sociéte Royale du Canada, section I, 1931, p.81-100. Minister to M. de Givry, 9 December 1748, AN. Col., B. vol. 88(2), f. 362. Minister to Caulet, 8 May and 7 June 1747, AN, Col., B. vol. 86 (2), ff. 331,337.
4. Memoire concernant les Missionnaires, De Raymond, January 1752, SHA, A1, vol. 3397, f.38.
5. Pichon Papers, (1) coll. De Vire 1753, "Tableau de l'état actuel des missions", PAC, MG18, F12.
1. De Mesy to Minister, 23 November 1723, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 6, f. 240v.
2. Planton Inventory, 3 January 1731, AN. Section Outre-mer, G2, vol. 180, f. 653.
3. De Mesy to Minister, 22 November 1724, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 7, f. 63v.
4. Verrier to Minister, 16 December 1725, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 7, f. 329.
5. Saint Ovide and De Mesy to Minister, 28 November 1726, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 8, f. 13v.
6. Etat de la Depense, 11 May 1736, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 18, f. 183.
7. Bordereau des payments, 27 December 1736, AN. Col., vol. 18, ff. 160-61. Recensement 1734, AN. Section Outre-mer, G1, vol.466, f. no. 69.
8. Prévost to Machault, 13 December 1755, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 35, ff. 244-48v.
9. Desherbiers to Minister, 5 November 1750, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 29, f. 57. Toisé des ouvrages, 4 May 1727, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 9, f. 224v.
10. Bigot to Minister, 30 October 1740, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 22, ff. 184-89v.
11. Etat de la Depense, 11 May 1736, AN. Col., C11B, vol.18 f. 183.
12. Denombrement general des familliès, 1749-50, AN., Section Outre-mer, G1, vol. 406, no. 76.
13. D'Ailleboust and Prévost to Minister, 19 December 1753, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 34, ff. 09-10. Etat des Personnes, 9 October 1753, AN. Col. C11B, vol. 33, ff.
14. Etat de la depense, 17 December 1755, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 35, ff. 291-95.
15. Drucour to Machault, 8 September 1755; 200 livres to the captain, 150 to the lieutenants and 100 to the ensigns, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 35, ff. 90-93.
16. Saint Ovide to Minister, 20 November 1726, AN. Col., C11B, vol. Br - ff. 55-64v.
17. Memoires of the Chevalier de Johnstone, 3V, translated by Charles Winchester, (Aberdeen 1870), vol. 2, p. 179.
18. M. Belidor, La Science des Ingenieurs, Livre IV, p.75
19. A. C. de Levy, Traite de Fortifications, p.332-34.
20. M, de Guignard, L'Ecole de Mars, III, p.351
21. De Raymond to Minister, 11 June 1753, Guerre A, vol. 3393, f.69.
22. Franquet to De Rougement, 13 October 1750, BG: mss.205b.
23. Duquesnel and Bigot to Minister, 23 October 1742, AN. Col., C11B, vol. 26, f. 195. Mores to Prevost, 11 February 1758, AN. Col., B. vol. 107, f. 356.