H B 6 - DAUPHIN BASTION: PRELIMINARY REPORT (1720 - 1745) BY MARGARET FORTIER

NOTE:
Presently, the illustrations and graphs are not included here.
For these, please consult the original report in the archives of the Fortress of Louisbourg

When the fortifications of Louisbourg, were completed, there were three gates which allowed passage to and from the city. By far the busiest and most important of these was the Dauphin, or West Gate. Only a short distance from the shore, the Dauphin Gate was situated north of the right face of the Dauphin Bastion.

Concern over construction of the Gate began early, and in November of 1728 provision was made for work to begin on this structure during the next season. [144] By December, 1729 the Gate was raised to the impost. [145] Seven months later, it was reported that the Gate, at least the stone work, had been finithed. [146]

This did not mean that the Gate was ready for traffic. Two significant features remained to be added. One of these was the coat of arms of the King which would adorn the top of the Gate.

In December, 1730, Verrier wrote asking that the coat of arms be made at Rochefort. [147] He wished it to be made in white stone according to the details he had submitted. [148] It was reported in November of 1731 that the coat of arms would be placed on the frontispiece which had arrived from France.[149] Finally, after another full year had passed, the coat of arms was said to be in place. [150]

More important from the standpoint of traffic flow, two bridges which would span the ditch had not been constructed as of July , 1730. There were to be two bridges built. One, the pont dormant, was a permanent structure which would span approximately 3/4's of the ditch, beginning at the covert way. The other, the drawbridge or pont levis, was not as long or as wide as the permanent bridge. The drawbridge, when in place, would connect the latter with the Gate. By November, 1732 these bridges were completed, [151] and with the exception of a few minor works tended to the next summer, [152[ the Gate was finished and ready to use.

Except of its corners, the foundation of the Dauphin Gate was made of rubble masonry. Cut stone was utilized at the corners and for the bavette. [153]

Above the foundation, on either side of the entrance way, stood two ornamented stone columns. [154] According to the one post-construction close up of the Gate, each of the two columns was topped with a pedestal on which sat a heraldic figure. Each figure carried two shields. When viewed from without the Gate, the figure on the south column held in its right "arm" a shield decorated with what appears to be a floral
design, in its left its "left" arm was a shield ornamented with an undetermined script of some kind. A similar shield is found in the "left" of the figure on the north column, but his other shield was dotted with three fieurs de lis. On the inside, the situation is reversed so that the figure on the Gate's own right always holds the shield with the fleurs de lis. [155] (Figure 5)

The entrance of the Dauphin Gate is spanned by an arch of simply carved stone. Atop this stone-work rested the Royal coat of arms, the symbol of the authority under which Louisbourg was maintained. The side of the arms which faced west was most decorative, the essence of its symbolic message being found in the crown above a shield decorated with three fleurs de lis. [157] The reverse of the coat of arms bore much less ornamentation. However, on this side was the inscription:

A puzzling feature on the inside of the Gate was a beam which extended the width of the entrance. It appears to have been held to the stone on either side by iron clamps of some kind. The function of the beam is unknown but it may have had something to do with the mechanism which raised and lowered the drawbridge. [159] (Figures 5,6)

The only source of information available as to the dimensions of the Dauphin Gate are three plans which are capable of' being scaled. [160] These are not the best authority since a flat representation cannot adequately provide measurements for a surface having so many irregularities. For example, the curved portions of each column make it impossible to arrive at an accurate height for a column by scaling one of these plans. However, since they are all that is available, the plans may be used for some dimensions.

The three plans rarely agree on any one dimension. Two are pre-construction plans, so, though they are well drawn, they may be taken to reflect only projections of the Gate, while the third more closely represents what was built. This being the case, only those measurements taken from the 1733 plan will be given. [161]

	Pieds	Pouces
Width of column - front	5
Thickness of south column to first inset	1	1
Thickness of north column to first inset - outside		11
Thickness of north column to first inset - inside		10
Width of first inset - south		10
Width of first inset - north		8
Thickness to second inset - south and north	1
Thickness from first inset to wall - both outside		10
Width of second inset - both		10
Width of entrance	9	3
Height of base of column	2	1
Height of sides of entrance	9	1
Height of entrance at center	9	11
Height from center of entrance to coat of arms	3	10
Height of coat of arms - at base	5	11
Height of foundation	8	3

The only measurements available for the two bridges are those which have been scaled from a 1734 plan. According to this source, the drawbridge was 13 pieds long and 10 pieds wide, while the permanent bridge was 48 pieds 10 pouces in length with a width of 15 pieds. The latter is shown supported on each side by five posts. [162] Four plans indicate the presence of a fence alone the north side of the bridge. It cannot be determined from the plans if there was one on the other side as well. [163]

During the first siege, the Dauphin Gate suffered severely. The damage being wrought by enemy fire caused the French to construct a rampart 20 pieds thick behind the Gate. [164] A 1745 plan states that the Gate had to be destroyed to prevent the enemy from entering the city. [165] According, to one account, the Dauphin Gate was no stronger than a country house. Had the rampart not been built, Bigot maintained, the enemy would have entered the city on the first day of the siege. [166]