Louisbourg: A Focus of Conflict 

H E 13

By

Peter Bower

March 1970

Fortress of Louisbourg

Chapter V: The Capitulation

Capitulation negotiations began toward the end of the seventh week of the siege. The armistice was a relief to most of the French and English alike, for had the fortress been stormed, the suffering and loss of life on both sides  would have been enormously increased. For the French, a general attack on the fortress, which they felt must now surely succeed would have reduced or eliminated the possibility of negotiating any favourable terms with the victors, who would have been inclined and entitled to dictate the final terms of surrender. The capitulation proceedings were generally welcomed by the provincials, but the terms entailed some exceedingly undesirable results so far as they were concerned. The negotiations also provided a focal point for the friction which had developed between Warren, Pepperrell and their respective commands, creating a minor sensation in New England.

The inhabitants of Louisbourg had good reason for wanting Du Chambon to surrender the fortress. [1] The conventions of eighteenth century warfare specified that if a place capitulated before a final attack were made, the soldiers were not entitled to sack the town; however, if the position were taken by assault, it could be abandoned to the soldiers for some period of time, while protecting the life and honour of the inhabitants. [2] The French had every reason to fear that the provincials were eager to pillage the town, for had they not mercilessly plundered the habitations which lay outside the fortress? While Du Chambon prepared his capitulation proposals, the New Englanders waited suspensefully beside their silent guns during the early-morning fog on June 27 to hear what the governor would suggest. [3] At the appointed hour, Captain Denis de Bonnaventure carried Du Chambon's articles of capitulation to Pepperrell and Warren. [4]

Naturally, Du Chambon hoped to extract the greatest possible concessions from the land and sea commanders. He requested that the civilian population and members of the religious establishments of Ile Royale be permitted to return to France, Canada, and the West Indies with all their possessions. The practise of the Roman Catholic religion should be guaranteed to anyone wishing to remain on Ile Royale. [5] The missionaries should be allowed to continue their ministrations among the Indians. The French troops should be housed, fed, protected, and given any medical treatment required until they were conveyed to France. The British Crown should provide safe conduct passes, the necessary transportation and bear all costs associated with the evacuation incurred by the civilian and military population. The governor also requested to be furnished with two covered carts in which he could convey anything or anyone, duly disguised or masked, without being inspected by the victorious forces. [6]

Pepperrell and Warren refused to accept the proposition, stating that they would agree to a scheme based on the May 18 summons to surrender, which had guaranteed only that all French subjects in the conquered territory would be treated with humanity, have their personal effects secured to them and "have leave to transport themselves and said effects to any part of the French King's dominions in Europe." [7] However, Pepperrell and Warren added that if the French had insufficient vessels for the evacuation, ships and adequate provisions would be provided; that commissioned officers and the inhabitants of the town would be permitted to remain unmolested in their houses and to "enjoy the free Exercise of their Religion"; that the French sick and wounded "shall be taken care of in the same manner with our own"; that the governor could use two covered carts for goods which would be inspected by one officer to ensure that no warlike stores were concealed and that persons so wishing would be allowed to leave the fortress masked. All non-commissioned officers and the soldiers would have to board the British warships, where they would remain until transported to France. Such conditions would be accepted if the surrender were executed promptly; if the Island Battery, or some other battery, were delivered to the victors by 6 p.m. "as a Security for the punctual performance" of the capitulation; if the garrison and inhabitants of Louisbourg agreed not to take up arms against Britain and her allies for one year, and if all the English prisoners were set free immediately. They concluded their counter-proposal with these chilling words: 

In Case of your non compliance with these Conditions we decline any further Treaty with you on the Affair, and shall decide the matter by our Arms .... [8]

The terms were generous enough under the circumstances and Du Chambon was ready to accept them if his troops were permitted the honours of war. [9] In the meantime, Warren had returned to the Superbe to be ready for any eventuality. Pepperrell and his Council informed Warren that they considered the governor's request "too small a point to hinder any time upon, and are willing to grant it to them -- but have thought it proper to know your opinion on it...." [10] Warren was still overwhelmingly aware of the contingencies which might jeopardise victory even at this late hour, so he readily agreed with Pepperrell to grant the honours of war to the garrison. [11] Hostages were exchanged and Pepperrell urged Warren to lose no time in taking possession of the Island Battery, and promised to get his own men into the fortress as soon as
possible. [12]

On June 27, Warren wrote to Du Chambon that, his Most Christian Majesty's Troops, under your command, may have the honours of war given to them so farr as to march to my Boats, at the Beech, with their Musquets, and Bayonets, and Colours flying; there to deliver them to the Officers of his Britanick Majesty, whom I shall appoint for that purpose, to be kept in my Custody -till they shall be landed in the French Kings Dominions, then, and there, to be return'd to them, which I agree to in consideration of your Gallant Defence .... [13]

He added that his acceptance of the capitulation scheme was contingent upon the delivery of the Island Battery in its present condition to officers appointed by himself, and the unopposed entry of the squadron into the harbour anytime after daylight on June 28. Furthermore, "The keys of the Town [must] be deliver'd to such Officers, and Troops, as I shall appoint...." [14] During the hurried preparations for the occupation of the fortress, Pepperrell did not see this letter before sending his own demands to Du Chambon on June 28. He wrote: 

I desire the favour that your officers and families, with the inhabitants and their families, may repair to their own houses as soon as possible, where they may depend they shall not meet with the least bad treatment, nor any person suffered to give them the least disturbance, and that your troops' arms may be put by themselves in a magazine, where they shall be safe, and delivered to you the day they are to march out of the town. I shall send Col. Bradstreet with a detachment at four o'clock this afternoon to take possession of the town and fort, to whom I desire you will deliver them up with all the warlike stores and keys .... [15]

 Later this day, Warren inspected the Island Battery which some of his men had occupied and then entered the town to confer with Du Chambon "in order to settle matters relating to the capitulation as soon as possible." [16] Du Chambon showed him Pepperrell's letter, the contents of which upset the commodore. Warren informed Pepperrell that it was quite irregular to occupy Louisbourg before the articles of capitulation had been ratified by both sides. He added indignantly: 

I am sorry to find by your letter a kind of jealousy, which I thought you would never conceive of me, after my letter to you of last night; and give me leave to tell you, I do not want at this time to acquire reputation, as I flatter myself mine has long before I came here been pretty well established .... I beg leave to tell you that the Governor expresses some little resentment at your letter of this date, and be assured that a proper treatment and strict adherence to the capitulation should never be violated, but on the contrary should be righteously and religiously observed, otherwise we may bring dishonour upon ourselves and our country, which I am persuaded you never intend. [17]

The issue was clearly one of command, for whichever man received the surrender of the fortress might be considered to be the supreme commander of all the forces assembled before Louisbourg.

On June 19, Warren had sent Captain Macdonald into the fortress under a flag of truce and carrying a letter complaining of barbarous treatment the English prisoners were reportedly receiving at the hands of the French and Indians. [18] Either in the course of the conversation about mistreatment of prisoners, or at Warren's suggestion, 'Macdonald possibly suggested verbally to Du Chambon that he might consider surrendering to the regular forces of the King of England rather than to the New Englanders. Macdonald probably argued that the undisciplined provincials might pillage the town if it were surrendered to them, whereas this could be prevented if the fortress were first secured by the forces and representative of the British Crown. [19] The imperious tones of Warren's various communications and his regular naval status apparently impressed the governor, for according to Pepperrell, after Macdonald's mission, "Mr Du Chambon put ye Commodore first. [20]

Warren's motive for attempting to secure the surrender of the fortress to himself is generally attributed to have derived from his ambitious nature. It is well known that he ardently wished to become governor of New York, and certainly the honour of taking Louisbourg would enhance his prospects of obtaining the appointment. He has been depicted as a creature of his ambition, impatient and impetuous. Concerning the dispute over the surrender of the fortress, one historian recently characterised Warren's reaction in the following terms:

When Warren heard about Pepperrell's letter [to Du Chambon suggesting the fortress be surrendered to the colonial forces], he denounced the New Englander for violating the accepted rules of warefare and for showing "a kind of jealousy." Warren had reacted violently to being unexpectedly outmanoeuvered by a military novice. He saw sinister motives in almost everything now being contemplated'by Pepperrell. [21]

There was no violent reaction on Warren's part, nor is there sufficient evidence to suggest he saw "sinister motives in almost everything now being contemplated by Pepperrell." Without discounting entirely a motive deriving from his rather unremarkable and normal ambitions, in eighteenth century terms, Warren's actions and letters suggest strongly that he genuinely feared the provincials would pillage the town contrary to the articles of capitulation if the fortress were not first secured by the regular forces under his command. As Warren noted, a pillage would bring abhorrent dishonour and disgrace to the commanders and forces which had won Louisbourg. [22]

Pepperrell would not permit the downgrading of the New England participation in the victory consequent on a surrendering of the fortress to Warren. He was undoubtedly aware, as Shirley later wrote, that 

if he [Warren] should offer to assume a command over you, which he must do if he takes the chief command of the place upon himself, it will be something extraordinary indeed, and what I suppose you [Pepperrell] will not submit to, as it must detract from the honour of his Maitys commission to me, under which you are appointed. [23] 

Nor was Pepperrell a man bereft of ambition, for with the urging of friends and relatives, he soon asked to be made governor of Louisbourg. [24] 

On June 28, the French flags were struck and replaced by the English jack at the Island Battery. A diarist described the scene: 

We hoisted likewise the English flag at the grand [Royal] battery, and our other new batteries; then fired our cannons, and gave three huzzas. At two o'clock in the afternoon, Commodore Warren. with all the men-of-war, as also the prize man-of-war of sixty-four guns [the Vigilant] our twenty-gun ships; likewise our snows, brigantines, privateers and transports, came all into Louisbourg harbour, which made a beautiful appearance. When all were safely moored, they proceeded to fire on such a victorious and joyful occasion. [25] 

On shore the New Englanders mustered after prayers and formed to enter the fortress. 

When our Army Marcht To ye Citty the Colours were flying the Drums Beating Trumpets Sounding Flutes & Vials Playing Colo Bradstreet att ye Head of the Army The Genl Lt Genl and Gentry in ye Rear. ye French men and women & Children on ye Parade they Lookt verry sorrowful .... [26] 

The New England volunteer militia marched to the Queen's Bastion, entered the gate and proceeded left toward the parade ground of the citadel, where they exchanged salutes with the French garrison "being all drawn up in a very regular order." [27] One diarist proclaimed exuberantly: "The General went in and took Possession of the Citty of Louisbourg! the Greatest Conquest, that Ever was Gain'd by New England." [28] Lieutenant Daniel Giddings expressed the feelings of many provincials when he wrote that "ye City is Exeeding Strong But God has Brought us into itt." [29] Pepperrell and Warren had overcome their differences regarding the surrender of the fortress. While Warren was named first in the articles of capitulation, Pepperrell appears to have received the keys to the fortress from Du Chambon. [30]

Many of the New Englanders were dismayed by the terms of the capitulation, having enlisted in the hope of reaping a rich harvest of plunder from the fortress. However, the capitulation and conventions of warfare forbade the pillaging of the town, denying the volunteers what they considered the just fruits of victory. An anonymous diarist wrote of the capitulation that "Poore Terms they Be two...." He observed that there was "a great Noys and hubbub a mungst the Solders a bout the Plonder Som will go out-and Take it again Some one way Som a Nother...." [31]

Adding insult to injury, the provincials were not only forbidden to plunder Louisbourg, but they were "forst to Stand att there Dores to gard them...." [32] Yet they could not be restrained entirely even though Pepperrell posted guards "to prevent the common soldiers from pilfering and stealing, or otherwise giving them [the French] the least molestation.... [33] Wolcott noted that there was soon "Excessive stealing in every part of the town." [34] Bigot reported that the New Englanders greatly pillaged and reviled the French, and the Habitant complained bitterly that Pepperrell "allowed us to be pillaged by his troops, in violation of the good faith due to our capitulation, and of the public security.... Our lot was little different from a town given up to pillage." [35]

However, Du Chambon advised Maurepas that the inhabitants were not pillaged, but the shortage of transports meant the French had to leave many of their effects behind. Consequently, it was as if they had been pillaged unless the King could obtain recompense from the British Crown. [36] The governor's version appears to be the most accurate. There was a considerable amount of thievery, but nothing amounting to a pillage.

Pepperrell and Warren lost little time organising the evacuation of the French from Louisbourg, especially since there was little enough room in the shattered buildings of the fortress to house their own men. Ships were prepared while some of the French were permitted to go to neighbouring habitations to bring in their families for the voyage to France. The Habitant recorded that Du Chambon, who "behaved very well after the reduction of the place", wished to be the last to leave Louisbourg in order to protect his people and to ensure adherence to the terms of the capitulation. However, Pepperrell and Warren required him to leave on July 14, with Bigot and the principal officers and their dependents. Within a week, they were followed by most of the remaining French travelling on cartel ships to France. Between 400 and 500 French civilians and sailors were sent to France via Boston, where they were detained until the late fall when adequate transportation was provided. [37] News of the capitulation reached Boston on July 14. "The general Joy of the Town was expressed by the ringing of the Bells, discharge of the Cannon of the Castle & Batteries, & of the Ships in the Harbour, & most of the Houses in the publick Streets handsomly illuminated. [38] A vast quantity of liquor flowed, "besides a great variety of most curious fireworks never before acted here." Furthermore, "the government design in a very short time to set apart a day of solemn thanksgiveing to God for so remarkable a favour, with strict prohibition of any thing of an external show...." [39] Laudatory sermons were preached and printed, and the capture of the fortress was seen as visible proof of divine favour. [40] Congratulatory letters flowed to Pepperrell from admirers and well-wishers.

However, reports of the friction between Pepperrell and Warren were also current in New England and dampened the general enthusiasm after the initial triumphant outburst of excitement. Shirley expressed the greatest concern with reports that "Mr. Warren designs to take upon himself the chief command on shoar, the attempting of which I am satisfy'd will produce great discontent here as well as in the army, and be very prejudicial to his Majesty's service in-all expeditions from hence for his Majty's service." He continued his letter to Pepperrell: 

I have already observ'd the seeds of great discontent, both here and in letters from the camp, arising from a jealousy of this scheme, and they will soon burst out, I am affraid, into an unquenchable flame, if it is attempted to be carry'd into execution. And I can't but think it will be censur'd by his Majesty in Council as an unwarrittable usurpation, in case the dispute should come to be decided there, as it must finally if it should arise to a dispute. [41] 

The Massachusetts General Court took a serious view of the situation, and despite their grave apprehensions of Shirley leaving the province at a time when the Indian border menace was increasingly alarming, they urged the governor to go to the fortress to ensure that "no undue Command may be assumed over the Troops... " [42] Shirley confided to Pepperrell that the General Court had "conceiv'd a Jealousy yt the officers have not been well us'd, some of 'em, and yt acc[oun]ts have not been properly transmitted home so as to do justice to the behaviour of our troops.... " [43] 

Pepperrell received a number of letters from New England expressing concern with Warren's activities at Louisbourg. One Dr. Charles Chauncy reported that, 

It is indeed highly resented by every New-Englandman in Boston, that Mr. Warren should pretend to assume the government at.Louisbourg.... If the High-Admiral of England had been there, he would not have had the least right to command anywhere but in his own ships .... [44] 

Chauncy also informed Pepperrell that he was being criticised in New England for not having insisted more upon "the preeminence due to you and your troops under your command, so as even to have given up the capitulation if it had not been conceded to." [45] The obvious discontent in New England and even at Louisbourg had already convinced Shirley to travel to the fortress as soon as possible, principally to prevent any mischief arising from the reported assertion of command Warren had exercised over Pepperrell. [46] The New England general probably recalled Whitefield's prediction that success at Louisbourg would make him the envy of many. [47] Pepperrell was upset by the criticism which reflected badly on his handling of the command entrusted to him and which suggested he had neglected the honour of New England. However, he later informed his son-in-law, Nathaniel Sparhawk, that he was not taking unfair criticism to heart. [48] When he received Shirley's letter containing the news that Louisbourg was to be visited by the Massachusetts governor, Pepperrell sent assurances that the "disputes [with warren] are all over, as we both aim at ye good & security of this place." Furthermore, wrote Pepperrell, "considering that we are both quick in our tempers, I do think ye land & sea [forces] have agreed in this expedition as well as ever they did on ye like occasion." [49]

Shirley, Pepperrell and Warren were also criticised by individuals such as Roger Wolcott of Connecticut, who believed they had not been credited sufficiently for their activities at Louisbourg in dispatches to England. [50] The governors of Connecticut and New Hampshire protested that their provinces had not received sufficient individual prominence and representation in letters sent to Newcastle and other members of the ministry. Shirley pointed out to Governor Wentworth that he had deliberately avoided singling out any one province in his official description of events at Louisbourg by referring to the forces raised as those of New England. Nevertheless, with Parliamentary reimbursement of the expenditures on the expedition a foremost consideration, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Rhode Island made their own representations to the Crown concerning their involvement at Louisbourg. [51]

Much of the criticism in New England appears to have derived from small but vocal minorities, motivated by personal and provincial interests and rivalries. Both Pepperrell and Shirley were virtually besieged by letters soliciting favours and patronage. [52] The acquisition of the fortress had opened a variety of valuable areas of patronage, such as supply contracts, agencies in England and appointments to official posts for the administration and support of Cape Breton Island. Criticism of the management of Louisbourg affairs was bound to flourish among the ambitious men of New England in the competitive atmosphere consequent on the successful reduction of the fortress.

Nevertheless, as Newcastle later observed, the victory at Louisbourg had resulted in no small measure from the "perfect Union and Harmony" which existed between Pepperrell and Warren. [53] The New England colonies had demonstrated an unaccustomed capacity to cooperate in a military endeavour of common interest. While Shirley was disturbed by the reports of friction and disagreement between the land and sea commanders at the fortress, he was relieved that the stronghold had capitulated, 

The adverse reaction in New England to the reports of Warren's attempt to receive the surrender of the fortress began to dissipate as the misunderstanding was cleared away. By the time Warren visited Boston in June, 1746, his public reception was almost as warm as that accorded to Pepperrell when he returned to Massachusetts. [55] For the New Englanders now occupying the shattered fortress, hardship increased during the winter with a dreadful loss of life. Meanwhile, most of the former inhabitants of Cape Breton Island returned to France and relative security.

ENDNOTES

[1] Although there appears to be no evidence to indicate that it formed part of Du Chambon's decision to capitulate, there is little doubt that had the fortress stood until winter forced the lifting of the siege, the shortage of shelter, supplies and provisions of all kinds would have had devastating consequences for the inhabitants of the Louisbourg.

[2] Professor Eric Robson outlined some of the conventions of eighteenth century warfare in his article "The Armed Forces and the Art of War", The New Cambridge Modern History, VII, J.O. Lindsay, ed., (Cambridge: University Press, 1963) pp. 163-189. On page 167 of his work, he wrote: 

"When artillery made a breach in fortress walls practicable for an assaulting army to enter, and when the third parallel of attack had been completed, bringing the attacking infantry within 100 yards of the breach, the fortress commander was frequently summoned with the threat that, if he did not surrender before the assault took place, no quarter would be granted the garrison, the town would be thrown open to looting, and he would be put to death. The commander of a fortress who held out needlessly when honourable terms were offered, and nothing could be gained by prolonging the defence, was treated with the severity of the law of war -- he was not correctly playing the game. If a place capitulated before the assault, soldiers could expect only a gratification from their commanders raised by forced contributions on the town. If a place was taken by assault, it was customary to abandon it to the soldiers for a stated number of hours or days, making provision to protect the life and honour of the inhabitants. 'Such is, in this case, the right of the soldier, authorised by usage."'

[3] The anonymous author of the First Journal, Louisbourg Journals, de Forest, ed., pp. 26-27, described the capitulation proceedings on June 27: 

"They Ethe FrenchJ1 offer to Resign the Citty into our hands -- Allowing to Every Man His Personal Estate, all the Captains, Leutenents and Ensigns were consulted in the (Important) Affair the Question was put whether we should agree Upon Such terms or Directly to Storm the Citty (Note! the wind was fair for the afore-Mentioned Design) and it Pas'd that we Should take 'em at their Offer...." 

It is not clear from the various sources I have consulted at what stage of the negotiations Pepperrell took this unusual step of consulting the lower grades of commissioned officers.

[4] A.C., F3, vol. 50, fols. 328-332v, Articles of capitulation proposed by Du Chambon to Warren and Pepperrell, June 27, 1745; Pomeroy Journal, de Forest, ed., p. 35.

[5] At least 45 French men, women and children remained at or. near Louisbourg, and 49 elsewhere on Cape Breton, during the occupation period which ended in 1749, The usual occupations of the seventeen heads of families listed by Prévost, the Commissaire-Ordonnateur in 1749, included fishermen, woodsmen, a boat carpenter [charptntier de chaloupes], and several coastal mariners or traders [caboteur, faire le cabotage] One individual, Jean Baptiste Guion, also known as Jean Baptiste Dion, reportedly worked as a pilot for the English during the occupation. Prévost's list probably did not include all those persons who remained on the Island after the capitulation. In January, 1746, Pepperrell and Warren estimated that about 250 French inhabitants remained on Cape Breton, "whom we could not transport, and who (thô ordered by us into ye town) are still out in the country concealing themselves to prevent their being sent to France, to wch they are very averse." A.C., A.F.O., Gl, vol. 466, item 75, List of families who remained on Ile Royale from 1745 to September, 1748, signed by Prévost; Colls. M.H.S., 6, X, p. 438, Pepperrell and Warren to Newcastle, January 18, 1746.

[6] A.C., F3, vol. 50, fols. 328-332v, articles of capitulation proposed by Du Chambon to Warren and Pepperrell, June 27, 1745.

[7] Ibid., fol. 335, Warren and Papperrell to Du Chambon, June 16, 1745; Colls. M.H.S., 6, 1, pp. 14-15, Council of War of May 7 and text of the summons, May 7, 1745.

[8] A.C., F3, vol. 50, fols. 335-336v, Pepperrell and Warren to Du Chambon, June 16, 1745.

[9] Of eighteenth century conventions for surrendering a fortress, Professor Robson wrote: 

"Surrender of a fortress was ... a matter of great formality. The honours of war were granted by a besieging army to a garrison which surrendered after valiantly defending itself. Terms of capitulation prescribed the exact details of the exit. When the evacuation began, the drums, fifes and horns of the garrison played a march of the enemy as they came out, and to show that they were not humiliated to the point where they could not exchange compliments with the victors."

"The Armed Forces and the Art of War", Cambridge Modern History, VII, Lindsay, ed., p. 168.

[10] Colls. M.H.S., 1, 1, p. 45, Pepperrell to Warren, June 16, 1745.

[11] Ibid.

[12] A.C., F3, vol. 50, fol. 338, Pepperrell to Du Chambon, June 16, 1745; Colls. M.H.S., 1, 1, p. 45, Pepperrell to Warren, June 16, 1745.

[13] A.C., F3, vol. 50, fol. 338, Warren to Du Chambon, June 16, 1745.

[14] Ibid., fols. 339-339v.

[15] Colls. M.H.S., 1, 1, p. 46, Pepperrell to Du Chambon, June 17, 1745.

[16] Ibid., p. 46, Warren to Pepperrell, June 17, 1745.

[17] Ibid. The letter of "last night" to which Warren refers appears to have been sent from the Superbe and read in part: 

"I believe you will think it right to send an express both to England and Boston as soon as possible. I will write no letter but what I will show you, that you may be convinced, that I do you and all the gentlemen employed on this expedition all the honour in my power." 

Colls. M.H.S., 1, I, p. 45, Warren to Pepperrell, June 16, 1745.

[18] Du Chambon had informed Warren that the French never joined Indians in barbarous behaviour, and that Warren's. information must be false. However, he promised to do everything possible to prevent the cruelties of the Indians. A.C., F3, vol. 50, fol. 309, Warren to de la Maisonfort, June 6, 1745; fol. 311, de la. Maisonfort to Du Chambon, June 18, 1745; fols. 313-313v, 315-315v, Du Chambon to Warren, June 19, 1745.

[19] A.F.O., D.F.C., Am. Sept., pièce 216, n.p. La Croix deposition, July 17, 1745. George Rawlyk states that Warren made this suggestion for surrender to Du Chambon on June 27 via Captain Philip Durell, the hostage the commodore sent to Louisbourg during the capitulation proceedings. Rawlyk cites La Croix's deposition as evidence; however, La Croix's chronology is confused and unclear at times, and is apparently telescoped for this later period of the siege. Consequently, while Rawlyk1s analysis is feasible, I offer a different structure of the events. Yankees, p. 149. See also Lettre d'un Habitant de Louisbourg, Wrong, trans, and ed., pp. 57-58.

[20] Colls. M.H.S., 6, X, p. 330, Pepperrell to Shirley, July 17, 1745.

[21] Rawlyk, Yankees, p. 151.

[22] Colls. M.H.S. 1, I, p. 45, Warren to Pepperrell, June 16, 1745; p. 46, Warren to Pepperrell, June 17, 1745.

[23] Colls. M.H.S., 6, X, p. 323, Shirley to Pepperrell, July 7, 1745.

[24] P.R.O., CO5, vol. 13, fol. 70, Pepperrell to Newcastle, July 30, 1745.

[25] Gibson Journal, p. 73.

[26] Bradstreet's Diary, M.H.S. Procs., p. 435.

[27] Gibson Journal, p. 74.

[28] First Journal, Anon., Louisbourg Journals, de Forest, ed., p. 27.

[29] "Giddings' Journal", Essex Institute, p. 302.

[30] Colls. M.H.S., 6, X, p. 323, Shirley to Pepperrell, July 7, 1745; p. 332, Sparhawk to Pepperrell, July 17, 1745; "Journal of Wolcott", Colls. C.H.S., p. 147; Gibson Journal, p. 74. When Shirley arrived at Louisbourg late in August, the keys of the fortress were ceremonially presented to him by Pepperrell, suggesting the New England general had indeed received the keys from Du Chambon. See the Third Journal, Anon., Louisbourg Journals, de Forest, ed., p. 61.

[31] Sixth Journal, Anon., Louisbourg Journals, de Forest, ed., pp.

[32] Ibid., p. 92.

[33] Gibson Journal, p. 74.

[34] "Journal of Wolcott", Colls, C.H.S., p. 149.

[35] A.F.O., D.F.C., Am. Sept., pièce 218, np., Bigot to Maurepas, August 15, 1745; Lettre d'un Habitant de Louisbourg. Anon., pp, 64-65. The Habitant, whose information must be used carefully in view of the libellous character of his "letter", extolled Warren's behaviour but condemned Pepperrell. He claimed Pepperrell stood in the open contempt of the officers of the warships and that "those who served under his orders did not respect him more."

[36] A.C., F3, vol. 50, fols. 295v-296, Du Chambon to Maurepas, September 2, 1745.

[37] Ibid., fol. 297; fol. 353, Warren to Du Chambon, June 22, 1745; Pomeroy Journal, de Forest, ed., pp. 39-41; Giasson La Forteresse, pp. 120-121. See also Appendix "I".

[38] P.R.O., CO5, vol. 810, fols. 52-53, Massachusetts Council Minutes, July 3, 1745. The scene in Hartford, Connecticut, was described vividly by lawyer Daniel Edwards, brother of the theologian Jonathan Edwards:

"The Progress and Success of our brave Army Ingross ye Conversation of ye whole , Country, every Horse Man is taken for a traveller & every Traveller for a Post, and all Down to ye most Indolent vie with ye ancient Athenians & continually ye inquiry is what News from Cape Breton? And this not from common Curiosity but a Cordial Concern for ye important Event; Every Successfull Step has gladn'd every heart & enliven'd every face.

But when first arrivd on last fryday eve here ye Tidings Lewisburg is taken! is taken! Language fails to Describe ye Joy! Instantly shone ye Town House with ye houses in ye body of ye Town with a Surprizingly Suddain & Bea.utifull illumination, as tho' ye Same breath yt proclaimd ye happey News had blown up ye Town into ye brightest blaze; The Spreading Joy like an inundation Soon reacht ye remotest parte of This & even to ye Towns adjacent, whence from every quarter rush young and old and promiscusly Share ye Transporting Story, and fill up ye Evening with all ye Tokens of Joy and Gladness which Nature or art cou'd So Suddenly Supply ....

On more certain & perticuler Advice of this Great Event & ye Glorious Actions conducive to it, yester day were mustered the Militia of ye Town, to whose assistance in ye Triumphant Rejoycings of ye Day were present Many Gentlemen of Distinction with a Numerous Concourse of every age and Sex, whom to Regale together Sprightly & exhilarating Liquors, was an Ox Roasted whole on ye Green in ye Midst of them; And ye Beat of Drums, Sound of Trumpets, Brisk & regular Discharge of Cannon & Small arms Constitute ye Rejoycings of ye Day: And on approach of Evening, Splendid Illuminations, Ringing of Bells and Bonfires-blazing like ye eruptions of Atna, with Health to our Sovreign & ye most honourable Remembrance of ye Bravery of our Hearoes at Louisburg beautifyd & Enlivened ye Night and were but ye imperfect exprestions of ye overflowing Joys of every Mortal". 

The Law Papers, Correspondence and Documents during Jonathan Law's Governorship of the Colony of Connecticut, I, Albert C. Bates, ed., (Hartford: Connecticut Historical Society, 1907) pp. 334-335, Daniel Edwards to Roger Wolcott, July 9, 1745.

[39] Colls. M.H.S., 6, X, Thomas Hubbard to Pepperrell, July 4, 1745.

[40] The most famous of the printed sermons is Thomas Prince's Extraordinarv Events the Doings of God, and marvellous in pious Eyes Illustrated in a Sermon... Occasion'd by Taking the City of Louisbourg on the Isle of Cape Breton, by New-England Soldiers, assisted by a British Squadron (London; John Lewis., 1746).

[41] Colls. M.H.S., 6, X, pp. 322-323, Shirley to Pepperrell July 7, 1745.

[42] P.R.O.5, CO5, vol. 809, n.p., Massachusetts Assembly Minutes, July 27, 1745; Colls. M.H.S., 1, I, pp. 50-51, Charles Chauncy to Pepperrell, July, 27, 1745.

[43] Colls. M.H.S., 6, X, pp. 314-342, Shirley to Pepperrell, July 24, 1745.

[44] Ibid., 1, I, pp. 50-51, Chauncy to Pepperrell, July 27, 1745.

[45] Ibid., p. 50.

[46] Ibid., 6, X, p. 323, Shirley to Pepperrell, July 7, 1745.

[47] See above pp. 62-63.

[48] Colls. M.H.S., 6, X, p. 433, Sparhawk to Pepperrell, January 17, 1745.

[49] Ibid., p. 330, Pepperrell to Shirley, July 17, 1745.

[50] Ibid., pp. 406-407, Sparhawk to Pepperrell, December 6, 1745.

[51] Ibid., pp. 418-420, Shirley to Wentworth, January 1, 1746; p. 406, Sparhawk to Pepperrell, December 6, 1745; Law Papers, II, Bates, ed., Address to the King concerning Connecticut's part in the expedition against Louisbourg, signed by Law, August 16, 1745; McLennan, Louisbourg, pp. 144-146, reprinted letter, Governor Wanton to the London agent of Rhode Island, December 20, 1745; New Hampshire Provincial Papers, V, Bouton, ed., p. 369, Journal of the House, Address to his Majesty, July 27, 1745; p. 768, Journal of the Assembly, July 25, 1745; p. 789, Journal of the Assembly, May 6, 1746.

[52] Examples of the patronage-seeking may be found in Colls. M.H.S., 6, X, pp. 359-461, passim.

[53] P.R.O., CO5, vol. 45, fol. 313, Newcastle to Pepperrell, August 10, 1745.

[54] Correspondence of Shirley, I, Lincoln, ed ., pp. 234-235 . Shirley to Pepperrell, July 7, 1745.

[55] McLennan, Louisbourg, p. 174; Parsons, Pepperrell, pp. 140-143.