BLOCK 2

BY

BRENDA DUNN

September 1971
(Revised 1978)

(Fortress of Louisbourg
Report Number H D 17 R)

LOT H

Jean Baptiste Rodrigue, a Portuguese merchant and fisherman, and his family came to Louisbourg in 1714. He had spent the three previous years in Canada following the evacuation of Port Royal where he had reportedly lost all his goods. To promote Rodrigue's fishing and commercial interests the governor and commissaire-ordonnateur granted him concession of two properties [NOTE 1]. Land with a frontage (E. by W.) of 40 pieds and depth (N. by S.) of one arpent in what was to become Block 2 was conceded to Rodrigue in August of 1715 and became his commercial headquarters [NOTE 2]. [The property was first labelled as Lot B on Plan 723-2 and became Lot H on François-Magdeleine Vallée's Plan 1734-5. Vallée's survey gives the date of concession as 3 August 1716. The sources of the 1715 date seem more reliable than Vallée who made several mistakes in such details in his Etat]. The limits of the property changed by 1717. As described in the 1717 list of concessions and the 1718 confirmations, Lot H ran 42 pieds along the Quay and 96 pieds into the block, bounded on one side by the property of Philibert Genier (Lot G) and on the other by the house of Nicolas Pugnant dit Destouches on an unconceded property (Lot 1) [NOTE 3].

By 1720 Rodrigue's Block 2 property consisted of a house and magasin, a small garden, 20 pieds square, and a courtyard. An oven and a hen house belonging to Rodrigue abutted against Genier's Lot G storehouse [NOTE 4].

The Rodrigues' residency in Block 2 was one of constant conflict with their neighbours. Two disputes featured prominently in the history of Lot H. From 1720-22 the Rodrigues suffered their first clash with the commissaire-ordonnateur, their powerful neighbour in Lot G. The second dispute covered a period of 14 years, 1723-37, and involved the Rodrigue family and Joseph Lartigue with the commissaire-ordonnateur and the other inhabitants of the Block 2 Quay front.

RODRIGUE-DEMESY DISPUTE (1720-22)

After the acquisition of Lot G by the commissaire-ordonnateur, Jacques Ange LeNormant deMesy, in May of 1720, Rodrigue and his family were engaged in an almost continual struggle to avoid expropriation [NOTE 5].

DeMesy had grand plans for Lot G. When acquired from Genier, the property ran 30 pieds along the Quay. A picket storehouse which held provisions for the military stood on the property. Abutting against the building were an oven and hen house owned by his neighbour in Lot H, Jean Rodrigue. DeMesy planned to demolish the picket structure on his newly acquired lot and construct two masonry two-storey buildings - a storehouse and a residence [NOTE 6].

The execution of his plans involved deMesy in a series of official problems which finally ended in 1725 when he moved into his house. In the first place, he had erected his masonry magasin, transferred the king's provisions and demolished the Genier storehouse, without seeking permission. In addition, the commissaire-ordonnateur was expected to occupy an official apartment in the north wing of the King's Bastion Barracks, and not a private dwelling. Finally, there was the question of whether deMesy was using stones from the site of the proposed parish church in the adjacent property in Block 3. His dispute with Rodrigue was not an isolated problem [NOTE 7].

The crux of the Rodrigue-deMesy dispute was that deMesy wanted to increase the north boundary of Lot G from 30 pieds to 40 pieds, encroaching 10 pieds into Lot H. As justification, deMesy claimed that a safety margin of 20 pieds was needed between his masonry storehouse and Rodrigue's wooden storehouse to protect the new building and, more importantly, the king's provisions from danger of fire and theft. Less emphasized, perhaps, was his plan to build a house with a Quay frontage of 40 pieds which would have protruded 4 pieds into Rodrigue's wooden storehouse and required its demolition. As compensation, Rodrigue was offered payment of damages, and land from Lot I, the unconceded property to his west which also faced the Quay.

In the court proceedings, deMesy claimed that before construction was started he met with Rodrigue and his wife who agreed to accept his terms. Rodrigue built a picket magasin in 1720 on the land gained from Lot 1. [Research has not revealed further specific documentary reference to the 1720 magasin. The plan of 12 September 1721 situated the building in the rear of the property, opposite the approximate center of the deMesy magasins. A small building with a hip roof appears near this location on Plans 1734-4 and N.D. 89. See also Second House Yard]. In the spring of 1721, Jean Baptiste de Couagne and Joseph de Monbeton de Brouillan de St. Ovide surveyed the new alignments resulting from the agreement [NOTE 8].

Rodrigue was not as satisfied as deMesy suggested. On 30 July 1720 Rodrigue appealed to Jean Maurice-Josué Dubois Berthelot De Beaucours, acting-governor in St.Ovide's absence, to prevent deMesy from arbitrarily destroying Rodrigue's oven and hen house. Beaucours ignored the request [NOTE 9].

An impasse was reached by June of 1721. At this time, deMesy's storehouse had been completed and held the king's Provisions, the foundations for the house had been made and deMesy, by his own estimate, had spent between 6,000-7,000 livres on construction. The situation is well defined on de Couagne's plan and explanation of 12 September 1721 [NOTE 10]. On 15 June deMesy complained to the council that:

LeS. rodrigue animé peut estre par quelques Ennemis ou envieux devoir Un ouvrage en pierre nouveau dans ce pays, Sopose avec Violence à Lexecution de la Batisse du S. demesi et de la Separation de 20 pieds Si necessaire pour La Sureté desd. Magasins, Il a mesme depuis quelques Jours detruit Une partie demuraille et fait Jetter dessus plus de 4 a 500 pieces de bois a bruler pour empescher La continuation de Louvrage [NOTE 11].

The council deliberated on 20 June, ordered a survey of the area in question, and apparently issued a statement telling the men to live "en bonne union." The survey was delayed by bad weather. In a memorandum to the superior council on 21 June, the attorney general insisted that the council could not enter the dispute because concessions and all matters dealing with property ownership, including the realignment of town blocks, were within the sole jurisdiction of the governor and the commissaire-ordonnateur. This presented an interesting problem since the commissaire-ordonnateur was one of the plaintiffs in the case [NOTE 12].

Rodrigue and his family left Louisbourg to spend the winter of 1721 at the Little Brador fishing establishment which he had received when his Louisbourg fishing headquarters had been taken as a site for fortifications. He felt that he had been put in a position where he was compelled to leave town:

"l'oblige debandonner Sa Maison pour se retirer avec sa femme et ses enfans dans le coin d'un bois pendt. l'hiver jusqu'a ceque le Conl. le remette dans ses droits ..."

The situation disturbed the town inhabitants and caused St. Ovide to urge for a settlement by spring [NOTE 13].

Each step of the construction in Lot G posed a threat to Rodrigue's establishment. DeMesy had destroyed Rodrigue's hen house, oven, garden and courtyard. The walls of the new house would have extended into Rodrigue's magasin 4 pieds on the north section of his east wall and 2 pieds in the south section. DeMesy proposed to demolish the magasin which he considered "prest a tomber" and pay for its replacement [NOTE 14]. In December of 1721 deMesy unabashedly suggested that all of Lot H be expropriated for the construction of an addition to his partially completed house. A "palace" with a frontage of 85 pieds thus would have been provided "to house the Commissaire-Ordonnateur, offices, and Justice."As it would have been a public building, deMesy hoped to finance construction by a tax of one quintal of cod per chaloupe [NOTE 15].

In March of 1722 the superior council heard both sides of the dispute. DeMesy requested that Rodrigue cede the disputed 10 pieds to him and accept the terms of compensation originally offered. Rodrigue requested that deMesy be prevented from continuing his construction, stating that he would "rather pay 300 livres to the poor than suffer what deMesy wanted to do." No settlement was reached, as the council decided that it could not enter into the discussion. A marginal note which seems to bear the king's signature confirmed the decision. Thus the attorney general's opinion was supported that matters concerning concessions and property alignments were outside the jurisdiction of the superior council [NOTE 16].

Rodrigue and deMesy apparently resolved the situation themselves. The façade of deMesy's completed house ran 36 pieds along the Quay, thereby taking 6 pieds from Rodrigue's east boundary but abandoning the 4 pieds which would have intruded into Rodrigue's building [NOTE 17]. The co-existence of deMesy's masonry house and Rodrigue's L-shaped house and magasin is shown on plans of 1722, 1723 and 1724.

(A) FIRST RODRIGUE HOUSE AND MAGASIN (c.1714-c.1724)

Rodrigue's first principal building was an L-shaped wooden structure composed of a house in the north section facing the Quay and a magasin in the south section running back into the block. Its type of construction is a problem as deMesy, de Couagne and Rodrigue do not agree in their descriptions. [DeMesy, who undoubtedly distorted his descriptions to support his request to have the magasin demolished, reported it to be a dilapidated picket structure. His most common reference was to the magasin although he once described the building as a "Maison de Piquets qui est les 2/3 sur le quay." Couagne discredited himself by describing all buildings on his plan as picket, even deMesy's new masonry house and magasin. The 1721 and 1723 letters submitted by Rodrigue to the council referred to "une maison de charpente de 60 pieds ... avec un magasin, un four, une Cour, et un Jardin" and "une maison ... avec un magasin de 60 pieds de charpente."] The most probably explanation of the evidence is that the house was of charpente construction and the magasin of pickets. Rodrigue described the house and not the magasin as "embouffetées de planches" which seems to mean that there were tongue-and-groove boards somewhere on the exterior - possibly roofing, an exterior revetment, or even a fill between the uprights of the charpente. The roof of the magasin is twice described to be of boards and sod - "couverts de planches ou plan de terre" and "une magasin ... couvert de mauvais plan de terre ou de planches tout ajour." The building was 60 pieds long and protruded into the Rue du Port (also known as the Rue du Quay) [NOTE 18]. (See Plans 1717-2 to 1724-2).

Throughout their history, the house and the magasin were threatened with destruction. As seen above, from 1720-22 Rodrigue fought to prevent deMesy from demolishing the Lot H magasin. Concurrently, Rodrigue was faced with the imminent demolition of his house because it was outside the boundaries of Block 2 drawn up by Jean-François de Verville [NOTE 19]. A royal ordinance of 1723 ordered Rodrigue to destroy the unaligned section of his house within one year [NOTE 20].

The demolition took place sometime after 1724. No work was done on the house in 1723. (See Plan 1723-2).[NOTE 21]. Plan 1724-2, the last town plan to show Lot H until 1730, includes the Rodrigue buildings. Before his departure in 1724, the king's contractor, Michel-Philippe Isabeau, and two carpenters assessed the building at a value of 7,500 livres. Rodrigue received no financial reimbursement for the demolition, although in March of 1723 he requested 10,000 livres damage for the loss of his investments in Lot H and his other Louisbourg property which had previously been expropriated [NOTE 22].

It can be assumed that Jean Rodrigue died in 1733. During that year he was engaged in commerce with Quebec. The contract of sale for Lot G on 1 September 1733 described the owner of Lot H as the "feu Sieur Rodrigue" [NOTE 24]. Since the Louisbourg parish records do not register his death, it is likely that he died in Quebec. No inventory was made of Rodrigue's estate immediately after his death [NOTE 25]. His widow, Anne de Belisle, and children continued to reside in Block 2 [NOTE 26].

Lot H was recorded in François-Magdeleine Vallée's town survey in 1734. The property measured 48 pieds along the Quay and 150 pieds into the block. Vallée's original report confused father and son, referring to the property as that of the "feu Michel Rodrigue" [NOTE 27].

(B) SECOND RODRIGUE HOUSE (c.1725-37)

Rodrigue replaced his first house with a dwelling on the Quay front of his newly aligned property. The structure first appears on an early elevation of deMesy's Lot G buildings, Plan N.D. 7a. The second dwelling closely resembles the first in size and shape. (See Plans 1717-2 to 1734-4). It is possible that the second house was simply a re-assembly of the first structure with certain alterations, assuming that the first house was charpente as described by Rodrigue.

The second Rodrigue house was of charpente construction [NOTE 28]. The roofing, which closely resembles that of the deMesy buildings on Plan N.D. 7a, seems to have been wood shingles. The house had a hip roof and the magasin had a pitch roof. (See Plans 1730-2, 1731-1, 1731-3-(2), 1734-4 and N.D. 89). Plans 1731-1 and N.D. 76 decorate the ridge with finials.

Two views in 1731 picture the Rodrigue dwelling as a structure of one storey with an attic and a basement. (See Plans 1731-1 and 1731-3-(2). A distinctive feature on the Quay façade is a porch or verandah with a railing and with steps on both ends. Four windows situated between two end doors overlook the Quay on Plan 1731-3-(2). Plan 1731-1 seems also to show four windows and two doors but in a different arrangement, each door being flanked by a window on each side. A central basement door appears on both plans. Three north dormers are given on Plan 1731-1 and two on Plan 1731-3-(2).

Plan N.D. 76, which seems to be less reliable than the 1731 views, shows four windows and a door on the Quay façade. One dormer window appears on the roof.

Rodrigue's second house had two chimneys. Plan 1731-1 situates one chimney on the center ridge of the house and one on what appears to be the east end of the building. Plan 1731-3-(2) shows a chimney on the west end wall and one on the east half of the south roof slope. A term of an agreement with Sebastien-Ange LeNormant deMesy in 1736 stipulated that the two chimneys on the Rodrigue house would be raised [NOTE 29].

Following an agreement between the widow Rodrigue and LeNormant in 1736, the east end of the widow's charpente house was removed and replaced with a masonry wall common to the Lot G and H buildings. Toothing stones (pierre d'attente) were placed in the masonry to facilitate the future construction of a masonry house on Lot H [NOTE 30].

In 1737 a fire broke out in the Rodrigue house; in October, St. Ovide and LeNormant in formed the king that the Lot H house and magasins had been destroyed [NOTE 31]. The house lay in ashes, with the remains of a fireplace partially standing [NOTE 32].

(C) SECOND HOUSE YARD.

A garden was located at the rear of the second Rodrigue house. (See Plans 1730-2, 1731-3-(l), 1734-4 and N.D. 24). A picket fence with an opening in its north side encloses the cultivated area on Plan 1731-3-(l).

A small building is seen in the northeast corner of the garden, in the interior of Lot H, on Plans 1734-4 and N.D. 89. It is likely that the building was one of the "magasins " which was destroyed in the 1737 fire [NOTE 33].

(D) ORDINANCE OF 1723 DISPUTE, 1723-38

In 1735 the widow Rodrigue and Joseph Lartigue became embroiled in a prolonged dispute with their neighbours in Lots I, K, L and E. A royal ordinance, issued at Versailles on 31 May 1723, decreed that habitant fishermen were to be given preferential treatment along the Louisbourg Quay. The Block 2 properties between deMesy's magasins in Lot G and Georges deLasson's house in Lot M, running to a depth of 24 toises into the block, were to be divided equally between two fishermen, Rodrigue in Lot H and Joseph Lartigue in Lot L. The expropriated properties included Lot I, owned and occupied by a baker and tavern keeper, Nicolas Pugnant dit Destouches, Lot K, owned and occupied by a blacksmith, Pierre Spart dit Laforest, and Lot E, occupied by a blacksmith, Dominique Detcheverry. The three dispossessed inhabitants were ordered to destroy their buildings after their value had been assessed by appointed authorities, and to re-establish on new concessions double the size of their former Block 2 properties. Rodrigue and Lartigue were not required to pay the king for the land, but were to pay Pugnant dit Destouches, Spart dit Laforest and Detcheverry the estimated value of their buildings. In addition, Lartigue was compelled to demolish within three years his buildings on the land reserved for the king in Block 1, and Rodrigue was compelled to destroy within one year the portion of his Lot H house which extended outside the Block 2 alignments. As further compensation, both men were to receive properties, 20 toises by 30 toises, in unclaimed areas of the town. Although issued at Versailles on 31 May 1723, the ordinance was not registered by the superior council in Louisbourg until 23 October 1725 [NOTE 34].

The section of the ordinance pertaining to Block 2 was ignored until 1734 when Vallée's survey of town properties was submitted to the king. Pugnant dit Destouches, Baptiste Guion, Auger dit Grandchamp and the widow Dugas were listed as the respective owners of Lots I, K, L and E [NOTE 35]. [Between 1723 and 1734: Lot K passed into the hands of François Cressonet dit Beauséjour who, in 1725, deeded the property to his stepson, Jean Baptiste Guion -- Lot L was purchased in 1724 by Julian Augé dit Grandchamp from Antoine Heron dit Parisien. Lartigue had exchanged the property with Heron in 1722 -- Lot E was divided between Dominique Detcheverry and Joseph Dugas in 1722. In 1728 Joseph Dugas acquired the entire lot by purchasing Detcheverry's half.] Noting the discrepancies between the 1723 ordinance and the 1734 Etat, the king excluded from the 1735 confirmations the Block 2 properties along the Quay between Lots G and M. After 12 years it was ordered that the ordinance be executed according to the terms stipulated in 1723, with one exception. The 1735 Etat confirmed the widow Dugas in her ownership of Lot E, removing the threat of confiscation from the property [NOTE 36]. St. Ovide and LeNormant replied to Jean-Frédéric Phélypeaux, Comte de Maurepas, the Minister of the Marine, in October of 1735, assuring him that the king's orders would be executed punctually [NOTE 37].

St. Ovide voiced his support of Pugnant dit Destouches in letters written to Maurepas on 23 and 24 December 1735 [These documents have not been located by research]. In May of 1736 St. Ovide received a reply. Prospects appeared dim for the Block inhabitants; St. Ovide was ordered to enforce the ordinance. The king supported the widow Rodrigue, deeming it unjust for her to suffer any longer. He stated that the ordinance had been formulated after much examination and consideration and the fact that it had not been executed was a result of mismanagement [NOTE 38].

The owners of Lots I, K and L, who were firmly established in Block 2 by 1735, acted to retain their properties. In 1736 a joint appeal reviewing the history of each property was sent to the king, through St. Ovide and LeNormant. One of the main considerations was raised by Julien Auger dit Grandchamp, owner of Lot L, who maintained that Lartigue had surrendered his claim to the property by exchanging the lot with Antoine Heron dit Parisien, by whom it had been sold to Auger dit Grandchamp. The representation ended with a common plea by the three "pères de familles," Pugnant dit Destouches, Guion and Auger dit Grandchamp. Thirteen years had elapsed since the 1723 ordinance, during which time: 1) the supplicants had enjoyed peaceful possession of their land, investing in improvements to their buildings, and 2) the choice of unconceded properties available as compensation to them had greatly diminished, thus increasing the potential loss to be suffered. If the king insisted that the order be implemented, they emphasized that, as loyal subjects, they were resigned to obey [NOTE 39].

Pleas were not confined to the three dispossessed inhabitants representations were made by both Lartigue and the widow Rodrigue. Lartigue wrote two memoranda to St. Ovide and LeNormant in 1736, requesting that the disputed Block 2 buildings be assessed [NOTE 40]. Receiving no satisfaction, in November he submitted a plea to Maurepas, outlining the hardships he had suffered since his departure from Plaisance and urging the enforcement of the 1723 ordinance. The necessary section of Lartigue's Block 1 establishment had been expropriated. In accordance with the order Lartigue requested the Block 2 properties promised to him in return. He claimed that he had found a friend to assess the value of the Block 2 buildings but the opportunity had been lost by the inactivity of St. Ovide and LeNormant. In addition, Lartigue asked permission to retain the buildings on the remaining section of his Block 1 property. If ordered to demolish them, he requested reimbursement, to be estimated in a manner similar to that proposed for the Block 2 properties. Lartigue's case left the understanding that he would be ruined if the 1723 ordinance were not executed [NOTE 41].

On 2 January 1737 the widow Rodrigue addressed an appeal to Maurepas, in whom she expressed the greatest confidence and loyalty, as had the other supplicants. Her letter vigorously attacked LeNormant. She blamed him for the omission of Lot E from the Etat which enforced the ordinance, stating that the depth into the block of the area originally granted had been greatly reduced, LeNormant having disposed of it to "certain persons" to the prejudice of Lartigue and herself. [Dominique Detcheverry's claim to Lot E was legalized in 1724 when he received concession of the property from St. Ovide and LeNormant's father and predecessor, deMesy]. LeNormant was further accused of having requested the two benefactors to sign a document relinquishing their claim to the Lot E area. Lartigue and she had refused their signatures, considering LeNormant's actions as "contrary to the intentions of the King and justice." The widow also claimed that LeNormant had formulated the representations sent by Pugnant dit Destouches Guion, and Auger dit Grandchamp. Stressing the burden of supporting a large family, the widow Rodrigue pleaded for enactment of the 1723 ordinance and 1735 Etat. She had fulfilled her part of the order and expected just compensation. As to the houses and buildings of the three properties in question, the widow had heard that their value had been estimated. Although she stated that she had not been informed of the price determined, she went so far as to say that it would be unacceptable as it would undoubtedly be "a price infinitely exceeding the just value" [NOTE 42].

LeNormant's position was clearly defined in a letter to Maurepas on 30 January 1737. As stated by LeNormant, the issue was reduced to Lots I and K, the widow Rodrigue claiming 16 pieds of Lot I and Lartigue claiming 44 pieds, including the remainder of Lot I and all of Lot K. Auger dit Grandchamp's property, Lot L, was not included in the considerations. Since Lot L previously had been owned and exchanged by Lartigue, LeNormant felt that Lartigue had relinquished his claim. The ordonnateur argued the case of the three inhabitants who had enjoyed their properties during the more than 12 years since the issuance of the ordinance. In LeNormant's opinion, Lartigue and Rodrigue had not taken advantage of the ordinance of 1723 because they could not afford the buildings which were then new and double their 1737 value. He doubted that Lartigue could pay his share of the estimates even in 1737. The buildings had been assessed at a total of 7,300 livres [NOTE 43].

LeNormant's letter offered an alternate solution in the form of two town properties which were available for repossession by the crown. The property of the late Pierre Furnace in Block 37 was to be repossessed through default of heirs. Furnace had died at sea 18 months earlier. Eurry de La Perelle claimed to be the heir, stating that Fournac had bequeathed the property to him aboard Le Rubis before Fournac's death. This claim was overruled by a marine law which stated that a man at sea could only legally dispose of the effects which he had on the ship. The property measured 54 pieds by 96 pieds and, with a small picket house, was evaluated at 700 to 800 livres [NOTE 44].

The second property slated for repossession was located in the Ile du Quay, running 60 pieds along the Rue Dauphine and 21 pieds into the block. Six years earlier it had been sold by Nicolas Baron to a ship's captain, André-Hycinthe Moisel, for 1,000 livres. Moisel had not erected any buildings and had not been seen in Louisbourg for three years. Such neglect was viewed by the council as an abandonment of Moisel's claim [NOTE 45].

LeNormant suggested that the three disputed Block 2 properties be left in the possession of their inhabitants. In their place, Lartigue could receive the repossessed Ile du Quay property and a sum of 800 to 900 livres, while the widow Rodrigue could receive the repossessed Block 37 property. LeNormant felt that this would be a very equitable settlement. He was quick to point out that, in addition to their Block 2 properties, the widow Rodrigue held a concession at Rochefort Point and Lartigue owned two valuable properties in Block 44 and Block 46. If Maurepas did not agree to the recommendation, LeNormant suggested that the dispossessed Block 2 residents be granted the two available Properties - Pugnant dit Destouches to receive the one in Block 37 and Guion the one in the Ile du Quay - with a moderate sum to aid construction [NOTE 46].

Lartigue expressed his dissatisfaction in a final plea to Maurepas on 1 February 1737. In his estimation, the assessed value of the Block 2 buildings was more than three-quarters their just value. His letter repeated the widow Rodrigue's accusation that LeNormant had arbitrarily disposed of a portion of the 24 toises depth into the block granted to them in 1723 [NOTE 47].

The hotly contested dispute came to an official end on 16 April 1737. On this date, Maurepas sent a letter to St. Ovide and LeNormant stating that after having considered the representations sent by the five Block 2 landowners, the king had decided that Pugnant dit Destouches, Guion and Auger dit Grandchamp were to retain their Block 2 properties. Lartigue and the widow Rodrigue were to be compensated with concessions of the dispossessed properties of Pierre Fournac and Moisel. If the widow Rodrigue and Lartigue were not satisfied, St. Ovide and LeNormant were given the authority to concede them additional properties. No monetary compensation was to be granted. The governor, St. Ovide, and the commissaire-ordonnateur, François Sébastien Ange LeNormant deMesy, son and successor of Jacques Ange LeNormant deMesy, were held largely responsible for the dispute, which Maurepas regarded as an unfortunate situation that could have been avoided if the king's orders had been carried out by his officials when issued [NOTE 48]. [Jacques Ange LeNormant deMesy was the Commissaire-Ordonnateur when the 1723 Ordinance was issued. After deMesy's departure in 1729, he was succeeded by his son, François Sebastien Ange LeNormant deMesy, known as LeNormant, who assumed full title of Commissaire Ordonnateur in 1735. Thus LeNormant was in office during the active post-1735 period of the dispute]

The conclusion of the dispute did not come for another year. By October of 1738, the properties of Fournac and Moisel had been reclaimed by the king. Settlement was frustrated by Lartigue and the widow Rodrigue who, dissatisfied with the king's decision, declined to either accept or reject the two reclaimed properties [NOTE 49]. According to LeNormant's account, Lartigue renounced his claim to the disputed Block 2 properties, requested and received concession of Moisel's property in the Ile du Quay by November of 1738 [NOTE 50]. In fact, neither Lartigue nor the widow Rodrigue seem to have received concession of the two reclaimed properties. At some time Fournac's property in Block 37 was conceded to the widow Dutraque. Moisel's property in the Ile du Quay was sold to Nicolas Baron by the king in 1741 for 1,000 livres [NOTE 51]. It is not known if Lartigue and the widow Rodrigue received alternate compensation.

(D) PASSAGEWAY

While the settlement of the 1723 ordinance dispute was still Pending, the widow Rodrigue surrendered 5 pieds of her property to Lot G which the king had purchased in 1733 as the official residence of the commissaire-ordonnateur. In 1736, knowing that the king planned to enlarge the ordonnateur's house, the widow Rodrigue offered to contribute the 4 pieds passageway, located between her house and the ordonnateur's dwelling, which led to her backyard. (See Plan N.D. 7a). On 9 May 1736, LeNormant and the widow signed an agreement. A masonry wall common to the Lot G and H houses was to be built by the king, replacing the east end wall of the widow's charpente house.

The total area surrendered by the widow Rodrigue measured 5 pieds along the Quay, including the thickness of the common masonry wall, and 46 pieds into the block. [Although the widow Rodrigue agreed to relinquish her claim to the area, the passageway continued to be considered a part of Lot H. It was included in both the 1738 division and 1741 sale of the Lot 11 property. ] LeNormant agreed to maintain and guarantee the passageway on ground-floor level, between the west end wall of the Lot G house and the new common wall. The ordonnateur's apartment on the first storey was to be extended across the passageway. The ordonnateur agreed to pay for the construction and maintenance of the common wall. The widow was to receive 300 livres and payment for anything broken during the construction period. In addition, LeNormant was compelled to build latrines backing the ordonnateur's latrines in the yard, just within the south boundary of the awarded 46 pieds. A covered drain was to conduct the water from the yard through the latrines, along the passageway, to the sea [NOTE 52].

(E) QUAY-FRONT FIRE, 1737:

Ironically, the same year that Pugnant dit Destouches, Guion and Auger dit Grandchamp were confirmed in their ownership of the long-disputed Block 2 properties and buildings, a fire swept along the Quay front, destroying the buildings of the widow Rodrigue (Lot H), Pugnant dit Destouches (Lot I), and Guion (Lot K) [The Rodrigue-Duperier letter of October, 1739, stated that the fire was in 1736.] In their reply of 31 October 1737 to the king's decision of 16 April 1737, St. Ovide and LeNormant reported that the fire, which had started in the widow Rodrigue's house, had been so violent and rapid that the three families had lost everything. There seems to have been no damage to Auger's Lot L property [NOTE 53]. On 3 November 1737, repairs totalling 232 livres 11 sols were made to the roof of the ordonnateur's Lot G house which had been damaged by the fire [NOTE 54].

The inevitable request for aid was made by the governor and commissaire-ordonnateur in October of 1737. They suggested that the king grant 6,000 livres to supplement the money raised in the colony to aid the three inhabitants in rebuilding [NOTE 55]. The king refused. In October of 1738, St. Ovide and LeNormant requested that the three be granted aid in the form of supplies from the king's storehouses [NOTE 56].

After the fire, St. Ovide and LeNormant recommended that the properties along the Quay front be rebuilt with masonry structures [NOTE 57]. Plans for reconstruction began almost immediately. In 1737 the Rodrigue family and David-Bernard Muiron, the king's contractor, drew up a devis for a large masonry house [NOTE 58]. A masonry building stood on Lot I by 1739. It was several years, however, before a masonry house appeared on Lot K; the property remained vacant until at least 1742 [NOTE 59]. It seems that Lot I was the only property which had been redeveloped by 1745. Details of each property are discussed separately below under the chronology of the respective properties.

(E) THIRD HOUSE (? - 1742):

A house in the interior of Lot H was first mentioned in 1738 and first seen on Plan 1739-5. It was a charpente building, 22 pieds square, with a plank roof. A small addition appears on the north section of its west wall on Plan 1739-5. The roof plan shows a dormer on the north and south slopes of a pitch roof. The structure was probably either one and a-half storeys or one storey with an attic. The ground floor and first storey had plank floors [NOTE 60].

The use of the building is not known. Although referred to as a house in 1738, 1739 and 1741, there is no evidence that it was occupied. The Rodrigue family claimed that from the time of the 1737 fire to 1741 they had been obliged to rent accommodation for themselves and their commercial goods [NOTE 61]. They also stated in 1738 that they were not receiving rent or revenue from any building [NOTE 62]. On 8 May 1741, Michel Rodrigue was living in Lot H of Block 17 [NOTE 63].

The house was included in the sale of Lot H to the king in 1741 [NOTE 64]. Jean Durand demolished the building in October of 1742 at a cost of 50 livres to the king [NOTE 65].

The widow Rodrigue remarried in 1737 or 1738. Jean Duperier, a negoçiant, is first mentioned in the 1737 devis for a fourth house in Lot H [NOTE 66].

The year 1738 was one of change for the Rodrigue family. On 14 July, Michel Rodrigue, the eldest son, married Marguerite Lartigue, a daughter of Joseph Lartigue [NOTE 67]. Three of the younger Rodrigue sons, Josephe Baptiste, Antoine, and Pierre, received their-lettres d'emancipations and benefice d'age releasing them from their minor status before they came of official age [NOTE 68]. These changes, combined with the 1737 fire and the remarriage of the widow Rodrigue, led to the beginning of an inventory of the estate left by Jean Rodrigue, and held in community with his widow [NOTE 69].

Another change in 1738 was the division of Lot H. In September of 1738 the property was divided equally between the widow Rodrigue and Michel Rodrigue. Before division the lot measured 48 pieds along the Quay, including the 4 pieds passageway. Michel received the east half of the lot, adjacent to the Lot G ordonnateur's residence, while the widow received the west half, adjacent to the Pugnant dit Destouches property (Lot I). Since the ordonnateur's ground-floor passageway and upper-storey apartments occupied 4 pieds of Michel Rodrigue's half, the widow Rodrigue agreed to pay her son 400 livres compensation. Further adjustment was required, as the charpente (third) house intruded several pieds into Michel's half. If the building remained standing, Michel offered to exchange his portion of its land for a corresponding area, to run south from the corner of the house into the depth of the property. If the building were demolished, the division would remain equal. In either case, Michel claimed reimbursement for half the value of the structure. Arrangements were made to compensate the widow's five younger children, Josephe Baptiste, Antoine, Pierre, Catherine and François [NOTE 70]. This probably would have meant each child receiving one-sixth of the value of half of the property.

(F) FOURTH HOUSE:

A masonry duplex was to be built on Lot H. The structure was to fill the property's Quay boundary (44 pieds), using the end walls of the ordonnateur's house (Lot G) and Pugnant dit Destouche's house (Lot I) as common walls. It was to be the same height and width as the Lot G house. A masonry partition wall, built on the Duperier side of the Rodrigue-Duperier division, was to run north-south from the cellars through the ground floor, first floor and attic, creating two separate residences. Each was to have its own exterior and interior entrances to its private basement, a private interior staircase, and a private rear entrance. A common front entrance on the Quay front was to open into a central corridor [NOTE 71].

Bernard Muiron, the king's contractor, was engaged to construct the Lot H house. The building was to be built by the specifications of the king's 1737 marché, a 1737 devis drawn up by Duperier, Rodrigue, and Muiron, and a plan, elevation and profile of the proposed structure [NOTE 72]. Further construction details were included in Muiron's contract which was signed on 13 September 1738, the same day that the property was divided [NOTE 73]. [The Rodrigue-Duperier-Muiron devis of 1737 and marché of 1738 supply valuable details for the construction of a private house in Louisbourg. Typed transcripts are appended at the end of the report].

Payment for the building was not to be entirely in money. A price of 10,000 livres plus 5 toises of flatstone (pierre platre) was set. Of the sum, Michel Rodrigue and the widow were to pay 2,500 livres in 1738. The remainder was to be furnished the next summer when they were to supply and navigate two ships of 35 to 40 tons each to transport from Spanish Bay (Sydney) any materials required for the fortifications. Included among the goods were limestone at 50 livres a cubic toise, and pickets of 10 pieds at 25 livres a hundred. In addition, the Rodrigues were authorized to carry, for the construction of their house, the stipulated 5 toises of pierre platre and as much timber as possible, delivered to Muiron for a price of 7 sols a cubic pied for pine [NOTE 74].

The Rodrigues' plans did not reach fruition. After Muiron had begun excavating the basements in 1738, LeNormant, who occupied Lot G, ordered construction halted [NOTE 75].

(G) MAGASIN:

The commercial interests of the Rodrigue family were affected by the loss of the Lot H buildings because storage had to be rented for their merchandise. To alleviate the situation, they planned to erect what seems to have been a pre-fabricated charpente storehouse (magasin de charpente ... pret a dresser) on their Lot H property. LeNormant's order forestalled this move and, in Rodrigue's terms, the building materials for the structure were "left to rot" until a decision arrived from France [NOTE 76].

(H) EXPROPRIATION:

Because the ordonnateur's residence had so recently been menaced by the proximity of the Rodrigue house in the 1737 fire, LeNormant felt that the minister should be informed before Rodrigue was permitted to rebuild. In LeNormant's opinion, the proposed house, which was to share a common wall with the ordonnateur's house, posed an even greater threat in the event of fire. LeNormant's letter to the minister on 2 November 1738 mentioned the division of Lot H and seemed to imply that the new house was to be erected only on Michel Rodrigue's half of the property. It was suggested by the ordonnateur that Rodrigue's portion of land be incorporated into Lot G. Work on the house, which had been scheduled for completion in the spring or fall of 1739, was postponed for a year, awaiting a directive from Maurepas [NOTE 77].

Etienne Verrier, the king's engineer, supported the idea of expropriating Lot H. Writing to the minister on 1 November 1738, he recommended that the whole property be reclaimed and used as the site of civil prisons whose construction had been approved the previous year [NOTE 78]. A plan was submitted by Verrier in 1739 with a proposal for the prison. (See Plans 1739-5 and 1739-5a). Included was a plan and profile of a proposed grand west addition to the ordonnateur's house, to be built on Lot H. Jailor's quarters were to be located on the ground floor and council chambers on the first storey. All subsequent French town plans incorporated the proposed addition.

A change of incumbents in the offices of governor and commissaire-ordonnateur in 1739 brought brief hope to the Rodrigues. They claimed that St. Ovide had written a letter before his departure granting permission for work to resume on their house. LeNormant intended to pursue the issue in a meeting with the minister in France. When François Bigot, the new commissaire-ordonnateur, arrived in Louisbourg, he reaffirmed LeNormant's position, leaving the situation stalemated, as before [NOTE 79].

The widow Rodrigue did not hesitate to appeal her case to the minister, whom she felt would remember her from former letters. In October of 1738 and 1739, she and her children sent joint representations to France outlining the injustices which they were suffering. The 1739 letter attacked Verrier, who "has sought only to crush the poor inhabitants since he has been here" and who "occupies alone a house which could serve several." The king's officers were accused of occupying the best residential and commercial areas of the town [NOTE 80]. Her fervent plea apparently elicited no response from Maurepas.

No further steps were taken until 1741. In the three years that had elapsed since LeNormant's order, the Rodrigues had been forbidden either to develop or to sell Lot H [NOTE 81]. On 5 September 1741, the widow Rodrigue and Michel Rodrigue, by royal order, sold their Block 2 property to the king for the construction of the proposed ordonnateur's palace and civil prison. Included in the sale were the property, 44 pieds by 150 pieds, enclosed by a picket fence, the 22 pieds square (third) house, and the passageway, 4 pieds by 46 pieds, with its latrines. A price of 5,500 livres was to be paid by the king [NOTE 82].

The method of payment for Lot H was based on a Louisbourg mark-up on old marked sols from France. Bigot planned to pay the Rodrigues from the bonus (revenant) on 20,000 livres of old marked sols which he requested from France. The mark-up of money would have enabled him to purchase the lot, still leaving a sum of 20,000 livres. Based on the figures given, the mark-up in 1741 was approximately 33 per cent. Instead of 20,000 livres, the king sent 4,826 livres in old marked sols, which yielded a bonus of 1,608 livres [NOTE 83].

The receipt of only 4,826 livres necessitated finding an additional source of payment for the Rodrigues. Two sums were taken from the king's treasury in Louisbourg, 2,535 livres 17 sols, a sum paid by Louis Le Levasseur as the king's share of an English ship, Le Dauphin, taken in 1739, and 1,040 livres, a sum paid by deMesy on his account with the king. Totalled with the 1,603 livres bonus from the 4,826 livres in old marked sols, a sum of 5,183 livres was realized. [The 5183 livres, which Bigot stated to be the price of the property, does not agree with the price of 5500 livres which was set at the time of the sale.] Bigot made the payment on his own initiative, without the king's approval [NOTE 84].

In 1742, the widow Rodrigue and Jean Duperier made arrangements to leave for France [NOTE 85]. Before their departure, the community of the deceased Jean Rodrigue and his wife was divided among the family. The inventory of the Rodrigue communauté, begun in 1738, was finalized only on 15 December 1742. Not including the active debts and two properties, it amounted to 33,521 livres, 12 sols, 9 deniers. The widow received half, a sum of 16,760 livres, 16 sols, 4 deniers. The other half was divided equally among the five Rodrigue children, Michel, Antoine, Pierre, Catherine and François [NOTE 86]. Anne deBelisle, the widow Rodrigue, remained the guardian of the minors, Catherine and François, with the agreement that Michel, the under-guardian (subrogé tuteur) would carry out the duties in her absence until the children came of age [NOTE 87].

Lot H did not become the site of the long-proposed addition to the ordonnateur's Lot G house until 1754. The history of the property dating from its incorporation into the commissaire-ordonnateur's establishment in 1741 is discussed in the report, Block 2, Lot G, Property of the Commissaire-Ordonnateur [NOTE 88].

ENDNOTES
I. [PAGE 179:]

[NOTE 1:] A.C., C11C, Vol. 15 suite, No. 211, np. 6, Conseil [untitled] Lettres des Mrs. deMesy, Rodrigue, et de St. Ovide, 24 mars 1722 (7 décembre 1721); ibid, No. 240, npp. 1-2, Conseil [untitled] Lettre de Jean Rodrigue, 8 mars 1723.
[NOTE 2:] A.F.O., G2, Vol. 178, p. 245, Representation du Procureur general au Conseil Superieur de Louisbourg, 21 juin 1721; ibid, p. 247, DeMesy à Messieurs du Conseil Superieur de Louisbourg, 15 juin 1721; A.C., C11C, Vol. 15 suite, No. 211, npp. 6-7, Conseil [untitled] Lettres des Mrs. deMesy..., 24 mars 1722.
[NOTE 3:] A.C., C11B, Vol. 2, f. 153v., Toises particuleurs des Concessions accordées a chaque habitans du port Louisbourg, 10 novembre 1717; A.F.O., Gl, Vol. 462, f. 103, Projet de Brevet de confirmation des concessions faits aux habitans de Louisbourg, 22 juin 1718.
[NOTE 4:] A.C., C11C, Vol. 15 suite, No. 211, npp. 6-7, Conseil [untitled] Lettres des Mrs. deMesy...., 24 mars 1722 (7 décembre 1721); A.F.O., G2, Vol. 178, pp. 248-49, DeMesy à Messieurs du Conseil...., 15 juin 1721.
[NOTE 5:] A.C., C11C, Vol. 15 suite, No. 211, np. 1, Conseil [untitled] Lettres des Mrs. deMesy..., 24 mars 1722 (7 décembre 1721).
[NOTE 6:] A.F.O., G2, Vol. 178, p. 248, DeMesy à Messieurs du Conseil..., 15 juin 1721; A.C., C11B, Vol. 5, f. 405, deCouagne, Explication du Renvois, 12 Septembre 1721.
[NOTE 7:] Brenda Dunn, Block 2, Lot G, Property of the Commissaire Ordonnateur, (unpublished), Fortress of Louisbourg Restoration Project: 1969, pp. 3, 32-33.

[PAGE 180:]

[NOTE 8:] A.F.O., G2, Vol. 178, pp. 247-51, DeMesy à Messieurs du Conseil..., 15 juin 1721; A.C., C11B, Vol. 5, f. 405, deCouagne, Explication du Renvois, 12 septembre 1721; A.C., C11C, Vol. 15 suite, No. 211, npp. 1-12, Conseil [untitled], Lettres des Mrs. deMesy..., 24 mars 1722.
[NOTE 9:] A.F.O., G 2, Vol. 178, p. 248, DeMesy à Messieurs du Conseil..., 15 juin 1721; A.C., C11C, Vol. 15 suite, No. 211, np. 10, Conseil [untitied] Lettres des Mrs. dEMesy..., 24 mars 1722.
[NOTE 10:] A.C., C11B, Vol. 5, f. 405, deCouagne, Explication du Renvois, 12 septembre 1721.
[NOTE 11:] A. F.O., G 2, Vol. 178, pp. 249-50, DeMesy à Messieurs du Conseil..., 15 juin 1721.
[NOTE 12:] Ibid, pp. 247-51; ibid, pp. 245-46, Representation du Procureur general au Conseil..., 21 juin 1721; A.C., C11C, Vol. 15 suite, No. 211, np. 10-11, Conseil [untitled] Lettres des Mrs. deMesy..., 24 mars 1722.
[NOTE 13:] A.C., C11C, Vol. 15 suite, No. 211, npp. 8-9, 12, Conseil [untitled] Lettres des Mrs. deMesy..., 24 mars 1722.
[NOTE 14:] Ibid, npp. 1-2; A.F.O., G2, Vol. 178, p. 249, DeMesy à Messieurs du Conseil..., 15 juin 1721.
[NOTE 15:] A.C., C11C, Vol. 15 suite, pièce 206, npp. 19-20, Conseil, 17 mars 1722 (7 décembre 1721)
[NOTE 16:] Ibid, No. 211, npp. 1-12, Conseil [untitled]_7 Lettres des Mrs. deMesy..., 24 mars 1722; AC B, Vol. 45, f. 1128v., 13 mai 1722.
[NOTE 17:] A.F.O., G3, Carton 2038 suite, (No. 55), [untitled] Vente de maison: LeNormant deMesy au Roi, 1 septembre 1733.
[NOTE: 18] A.F.O., G 2, Vol. 178, f. 249, DeMesy à Messieurs du Conseil..., 15 juin 1721; A.C., C11B, Vol. 5, f. 405, deCouagne, Explication du Renvois, 12 septembre 1721; A.C., C11C, Vol. 15 suite, pièce 206, npp. 19-20, Conseil, 17 mars 1722 (7 décembre 1721); ibid., No. 211, npp. 1-2, 6-8, 24 mars 1722 (7 décembre 1721); ibid, No. 240, np. 2, Conseil [untitled] Lettre de Jean Rodrigue, 8 mars 1723.
[NOTE 19:] A.C., C11C, vol. 15 suite, No. 211, npp. 7-8, Conseil [untitled] Lettres des Mrs. deMesy..., 24 mars 1722.
[NOTE 20:] A.F.O., G2, Vol. 190, No. 3, f. 64v., Ordonnance du Roi, 31 mai 1723.
[NOTE 21:] A.C., C11A, Vol. 126, pièce 111, p. 239, Estat des Emplacements concédés a Louisbourg dans l'Enceinte de la Place relatif au plan de 1723, 1723.

[PAGE 181:]

[NOTE 22:] A.C., C11C, Vol. 15 suite, No. 240, npp. 1-3, Conseil [untitled] Lettre de Jean Rodrigue, 8 mars 1723; A.C., C11B, vol. 21, f. 166, Duperier, veuve Rodrigue, Rodrigue fils à Maurepas, octobre 1739.
[NOTE 23:] A.C., C11B, Vol. 15, f. 176, Etat de la Recette des Six deniers pour livre des Invalides de la marine faitte a l'Isle Royalle Sur les Esquipages des Bâtiments qui y ont fait le commerce pendant l'année 1733, 28 octobre 1734.
[NOTE 24:] A.F.O., G3, Carton 2038 suite, (No. 55), [untitled] Vente de maison: LeNormant deMesy au Roi, 1 septembre 1733.
[NOTE 25:] A.F.O., G 2, Vol. 198 suite, No. 182, ff. 12-12v., Registre d'audiance du Baillage de Louis Bourg Commence le 22 novembre 1742 et fini le 30 aout 1743, 19 décembre 1742.
[NOTE 26:] A.C., C11B, Vol. 5, ff. 26v.-27, Etat des terrains concédé dans la ville de louisbourg sous le bon plaiser du Roy par messieurs les gouverneur Et commissaire ordonnateur de lisle Royalle jusqu'au 15. bre. 1734. et autres dont Sa Majesté a disposé par son memorie du 31.may.1723, 24 octobre 1734.
[NOTE 27] Ibid.; A.C., CllB, Vol. 21, f. 319, Vallée, [untitled] Toisé du terrain du Sr. Rodrigue, île 2, 6 décembre 1734.
[NOTE 28:] A.F.O.,G 3, Carton 2039 suite, (no. 32), np. 5, Desmarest notaire, [untitled] LeNormant - veuve Rodrigue agreement, 9 mai 1736.
[NOTE 29:] Ibid., npp. 6-8.
[NOTE 30:] Ibid., npp. 1-8.
[NOTE 31:] A.C., C11B, Vol. 19, f. 43v., Brouillan et LeNormant à Maurepas, 31 octobre 1737.
[NOTE 32:] A.F.O., G3, Carton 2046, (No. 55), npp. 1-2, Laborde notaire [untitled] Duperier-Belisle-Rodrigue contract with Muiron, 13 septembre 1738.
[NOTE 33:] A.C., C11B, vol. 19, f. 43v., Brouillon et LeNormant à Maurepas, 31 octobre 1737.
[NOTE 34:] A.F.O., G2, Vol. 190, No. 3, ff. 64-66, Ordonnance du Roi, 31 mai 1723.
[NOTE 35:] A.C., CIIB, Vol. 5, ff. 26-27, Etat des terrains concéeé dans la ville de louisbourg..., 24 octobre 1734.

[PAGE 182:]

[NOTE 36:] A.C. B, Vol. 63, ff. 567-67v., 578-78v., Arret du Conseil qui confirme les concessions faites dans la Ville de Louisbourg jusqu'au 15 octobre 1734, 5 avril 1735; ibid, ff. 535-35v., Maurepas à M. de St. Ovide et LeNormant, 25 avril 1735.
[NOTE 37:] A.C., C11B, Vol. 17, ff. 9-9v., St. Ovide et LeNormant à Maurepas, 22 octobre 1735.
[NOTE 38:] A.C. B, Vol. 64-4, ff 479v.-80, Maurepas à M. de St. Ovide, 8 mai 1716.
[NOTE 39:] A.F.O., Gl, Vol. 462, ff. 122-29, tres humbles Representations faites a a [sic] Messieurs les Gouverneurs et Commissaire ordonnateur de l'Isle Royale. Par Nicolas Pugnan d detouche maitre Boulanger, Jean Baptiste Guyon navigateur, et auger grandchamp aubergiste de cette ville, s.d. [1736]; A.C., C11B, Vol. 19, f. 259, veuve Rodrigue à Maurepas, 2 janvier 1737 ibid, ff. 64-65v., LeNormant à Maurepas, 30 janvier 1737.
[NOTE 40:] A.C., C11B, Vol. 18, f. 32, Lartigue à St. Ovide et le Normant, 1736; ibid, f. 33, Lartigue à St. Ovide et le Nommant, 1736.
NOTE 41:] Ibid, ff. 332-35, Lartigue à Maurepas, 14 novembre 1736.
[NOTE 42:] A.C., C11B, Vol. 19, ff. 258-61, veuve Rodrigue à Maurepas, 2 janvier 1737.
[NOTE 43:] Ibid, ff. 64-65v., LeNormant à Maurepas, 30 janvier 1737.
[NOTE 44:] Ibid, ff. 64v.-65: ibid, ff. 13-13v., 18-18v., de Brouillan et LeNormant à Maurepas, 23 octobre 1737.
[NOTE 45:] Ibid, ff. 64v.-65: ibid, ff. 13-13v., 18-18v., de Brouillan et LeNormant à Maurepas, 23 octobre 1737.
[NOTE 46:] A.C., C11B, Vol. 19, ff. 64-65v., LeNormant à Maurepas, 30 janvier 1737.
[NOTE 47:] Ibid, ff. 254-254v., Lartigue à Maurepas, 1 février 1737.
[NOTE 48:] A.C. B, Vol. 65, ff. 445v.-46, Maurepas à M. de Brouillan et LeNormant, 16 avril 1737.
[NOTE 49:] A.C., C11B, Vol. 20, ff. 315-15v., veuve Rodrigue et ses enfants à "Maurepas, octobre 1738; ibid, f. 54, de Bourville et Le Nommant à Maurepas, 21 octobre 1738.
[NOTE 50:] Ibid, ff. 128-28v., LeNormant à Maurepas, 2 novembre 1738.
[NOTE 51:] A.F.O., G3, Carton 2046 suite, (No. 23), 27 mai 1741; A.F.O. G 2, Vol. 466, pièce 84, ff. 54-57, 4 janvier 1754.
[NOTE 52:] A.F.O., G3, Carton 2038 suite, (No. 55), [untitled] Vente de maison: LeNormant deMesy au Roi, 1 septembre 1733; ibid, Carton 2039 suite, (No. 32), npp. 1-8, Desmarest notaire, [untitled] LeNormant - veuve Rodrigue agreement, 9 mai 1736. [PAGE 183:]
[NOTE 53:] A.C., C11B, Vol. 19, ff. 43v.-44, Brouillan et LeNormant à Maurepas, 31 octobre 1737.
[NOTE 54:] A.C., C11C, Vol. 11, f. 133, Bordereau de la Recette et DeDense faitte a l'isle Royalle pendant l'année 1737, 1737.
[NOTE 55:] A.C., C11B, vol. 19, f. 44, Brouillan et LeNormant à Maurepas, 31 octobre 1737.
[NOTE 56:] Ibid, Vol. 20, ff. 53v.-54, de Bourville et Le Nommant à Maurepas, 21 octobre 1738.
[NOTE 57:] Ibid, Vol. 19, ff. 43v.-44, Brouillan et LeNormant à Maurepas, 31 octobre 1737.
[NOTE 58:] A.F.O., G2, Vol. 184, ff. 392-94, Devis des ouvrages de maconnerie charpenterie Couverture ... quil convient faire pour la Construction du Bâtiment que M. Duperrier et Rodrigue veulle faire construire sur leur Terrain Scitué a Louisbourg Sur le Bord de la mer..., 1737.
[NOTE 59:] A.C., C11B, Vol. 24, f. 30, Duquesnal et Bigot à Maurepas, 17 octobre 1742.
[NOTE 60:] A.F.O., G3, Carton 2046, (No. 52), npp. 3-4, Laborde notaire [untitled] Division of Block 2 lot H between Anne de Belisle veuve Rodrigue et Michel Rodrigue, 13 septembre 1738; A.C., C11B, Vol. 21, f. 270, Estat du terrain appartenant a La veuve Rodrigues scitué sur Le quay de la ville de Louisbourg Joignant La maison du Roy servant de Logement a Lordonnateur, 24 octobre 1739; A.F.O., G3, Carton 2046, (No. 54), np.2, Laborde notaire [untitled] Contract de vente: Anne Belisle veuve Rodrigue et Michel Rodrigue au Roi, 5 septembre 1741; ibid, (No. 56) np.3, Laborde notaire [untitled] Contract de vente: Anne Belisle veuve Rodrigue et Michel Rodrigue au Roi, 5 septembre 1741.
[NOTE 61:] A.C., C11B, Vol. 21, f. 166, Duperier, veuve Rodrigue, fils à Maurepas, octobre 1739; ibid, Vol. 23, ff.115-15v., Bigot à Maurepas, 20 octobre 1741.
[NOTE 62:] A.F.O., Carton 2046, (No. 52) np. 1, Laborde notaire [untitled] Division of Block 2 lot H between Anne de Belisle..., 13 septembre 1738.
[NOTE 63:] A.F.O., G2, Vol. 197, (No. 153), f. 32v., Registre d'audiance pour Baillage de Louis Bourg. Commencé le 20 novembre 1739 et fini Le 30 juin 1741, 8 mai 1741.

[PAGE 184:]

[NOTE 64:] A.F.O., G3, Carton 2046, (No.54), np. 2, Laborde notaire [untitled] Contract de vente: Anne Belisle vueve Rodrigue et Michel Rodrigue au Roi, 5 septembre 1741; ibid, (No. 56), np. 3.
[NOTE 65:] A.C., C11C, Vol. 12, f. 102v., Bordereau de la Recette et Depense faite a L'isle Royalle pendant L'année Mil Sept Cents Quarente deux, 25 octobre 1743.
[NOTE 66:] A.F.O., G2, Vol. 184, ff. 392-94, Devis des ouvrages de maconnerie charpenterie Couverture ..., 1737.
[NOTE 67:] A.F.O., G1, Vol. 407, Régistre I, f. 10v., Parish Records, 14 juillet 1738.
[NOTE 68:] A.F.O., G3, Carton 2046, (No. 49), Estat des fraix deubs par Les. Srs. Joseph Baptiste, antoine, et Piere Rodriques freres a loccasion de Leurs Lettres d'emancipation et Benefice dage, 25 octobre 1738.
[NOTE 69:] A.F.O., Vol. 198 suite, No. 182, ff. 12-12v., Registre d'audiance du Baillage de Louis Bourg Commencé le 22 novembre 1742 et fini de 30 août 1743, 19 décembre 1742.
[NOTE 70:] A.F.O., G3, Carton 2046, (No. 52), npp. 1-5, Laborde notaire [untitled] Division of Block 2 lot H between Anne de Belile ..., 13 septembre 1738.
[NOTE 71:] Ibid, np. 3; ibid, (No. 55), npp. 1-8, Laborde notaire [untitled] Duperier-Belisle-Rodrigue contract with Muiron, 13 septembre 1738.
[NOTE 72:] A.F.O., G2, Vol. 184, f. 392, Devis des ouvrages de maconnerie charpenterie Couvertyre..., 1737.
[NOTE 73:] A.F.O., G3, Carton 2046, (No. 55), npp. 1-2, Laborde notaire [untitled] Duperier-Belisle-Rodrigue contract with Muiron, 13 septembre 1738.
[NOTE 74:] Ibid., npp. 7-8.
[NOTE 75:] A.C., C11B, Vol. 20, f. 315v., veuve Rodrigue et ses enfants à Maurepas, octobre 1738; ibid, f. 129, LeNormant à Maurepas, 2 novembre 1738; ibid, Vol.21, f/ 165v., Duperier, veuve Rodrigue, Rodrigue fils à Maurepas, octobre 1739.
[NOTE 76:] A.C., C11B, Vol. 21, f. 166, Duperier, veuve Rodrigue, Rodrigue fils à Maurepas, octobre 1739.
[NOTE 77:] Ibid, Vol. 20, ff. 315v-16, veuve Rodrigue et ses enfants à Maurepas, octobre 1738; ibid, ff. 128v.-29v., LeNormant à Maurepas, 2 novembre 1738.
[NOTE 78:] A.C., C11B, Vol. 20, f. 234v., Verrier à Maurepas 1 novembre 1738.

[PAGE 185:]

[NOTE 79:] A.C., C11B, Vol. 20, f. 129, LeNormant à Maurepas, 2 novembre 1738; ibid, Vol. 21, f. 165v., Duperier, veuve Rodrigue, Rodrigue fils à Maurepas, octobre 1739.
[NOTE 80:] A.C., C11B, Vol. 20, ff. 315-316v., veuve Rodrigue et ses enfants à Maurepas, octobre 1738; ibid, Vol. 21, ff. 165-166v., Duperier, veuve Rodrigue, Rodrigue fils à Maurepas, octobre 1739.
[NOTE 81:] A.F.O., G3, Carton 2046 (No. 56), npp. 1-2, Laborde notaire [untitled] Contract de vente: Anne..., 5 septembre 1741; A.C., C11B, Vol. 23, f. 115, Bigot à Maurepas, 20 octobre 1741.
[NOTE 82:] A.F.O., G3, Carton 2046 (No. 54), Laborde notaire [untitled] Contract de vente: Anne..., 5 septembre 1741; ibid, (No. 56); A.C., C11C, Vol. 12, f. 65v., Pour Compter avec M. Rondeau a l'Isle Royalle des droits de quittances provenant des depenses qui ont Eté faites En ladte Isle pendant Lannée 1741, 1741.
[NOTE 83:] A.C., C11B, Vol. 23, ff. 115-16, Bigot à Maurepas, 20 octobre 1741.
[NOTE 84:] Ibid.
[NOTE 85:] A.F.O., G2, Vol. 198, No. 165 (No. 1), np.1, [untitled] Papiers concernant Anne de Belisle, veuve de feu Rodrigues, 17-19 décembre 1742.
[NOTE 86:] A.F.O., G2, Vol. 198 suite, No. 182, ff. 12-14v., Registre d'audiance du Bailliage de Louis Bourg Commencé ..., 19 décembre 1742.
[NOTE 87:] Ibid, Vol. 198, No. 165 (No. 1), npp. 8-9, [untitled] Papiers concernant Anne de Belisle, veuve de feu Rodrigues, 17-19 décembre 1742.
[NOTE 88:] Brenda Dunn, Block 2, Lot G, Property of the Commissaire Ordonnateur, (unpublished), Fortress of Louisbourg, 1969, 51 pp.