SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT ON THE ESCARPS OF THE KING'S BASTION,

The escarp walls of the King's Bastion had a very important, if passive, role in the defence of Louisbourg. Their function was limited to supporting the earth of the rampart and the parapet and banquet as the casemates were not constructed as gun galleries. Nevertheless, the escarp occupied a key position and was of vital interest to the safety of the town. Once it had been seriously breached making the ramparts accessible to the enemy, the days of the siege were numbered and the numerical superiority of the attackers became an overwhelming factor. Thus, in both sieges the town was surrendered before the English had so much as a foothold on the covered way. Responsible officials cited the breaches in the escarps as indicative of the hopelessness of their position and as one of the main justifications of their conduct. [Note 1]

Stone escarp walls were not built to stand up indefinitely against direct cannon fire. [Note 2] Ideally, they would be covered by the surrounding terrain or by outworks. When this condition was obtained, the enemycould not bring his guns to bear directly until he had secured a position on the covered way. This desirable state of affairs was never achieved at Louisbourg. Much of the area of the escarps of the King's Bastion was commanded by neighbouring heights. While it was by no means a unique flaw, it was a recognized weakness of the Louisboure, fortifications.

The whole conduct of the siege tended towards making a practicable opening in the walls. The ability of the enemy to establish his guns in places where this end could be achieved without a costly storming of the covered way and outworks was one of the limiting factors governing the length of time resistance could be maintained. Its importance was clear and the French did not fail to recognize it as the aim of the British commanders:

The escarps of the King's Bastion were by no means the only work to be commanded by enemy fire, but it is this aspect that is the key to fitting them into the overall scheme of both sieges. In effect, it meant that the town had only a single line of defence on the landward side, rather than the two that might have been achieved by some of the more elaborate systems of outworks suggested for Louisbourg. This single line, made up of the ramparts and the covered way, determined Louisbourg's stature as a fortress, influenced the tactics to be used in besieging defending the town, and played a large part in determining the time it could hold out against a force of a given size.

As can be seen by the accompanying chart [Appendix I], the escarp walls of the King's Bastion had a chequered history. There were several factors tending towards their deterioration. All of them are interwoven and it is impossible to determine exactly how much damage was caused by each. The punishment inflicted by English, guns contributed to disrepair that had its beginnings in the type and quality of materials used. The climate, also, speeded the decline of a construction designed for European conditions. The effects of frost and rain compounded any flaw, whether it was the result of cannon fire or of poor workmanship. Of all the work done at Louisbourg, the large areas of exposed masonry on the walls suffered most from the weather. On occasion, sections twenty or thirty yards long slipped from the facing of an otherwise sound wall. [Note 4]

There were similarities in the pattern of destruction in both sieges. Once again, it hinged on the degree to which the different areas were commanded. The right side of the Bastion suffered most heavily. The right flank was constantly referred to as "ruined:\" [Note 5] after the first siege and the breach made at the right shoulder angle in 1758 was said to extend nine feet on either side. [Note 6] Drucour summed up the situation of this and other areas where the wall had been broken:

The entire area of the right flank could be seen from nearby hills. Fire was concentrated on the flank from the heights to the north of the Dauphin and from across the Barrachois. [Note 9] Tidcomb's battery of six guns occupied the latter position in 1745. [Note 10] In 1758, the English established a lateral fire across the flank from a position on the right of their line of attack. [Note 11] The right face was only slightly more protected and was bombarded by many of the same batteries. In addition, the faces were fired on from Pointe Blanche [Note 12] and from guns set up in front of the King's Bastion in the Martissan heights in 1758. [Note 13] The bog in front of the left side of the bastion seems to have protected it from direct frontal attack as Franquet predicated. [Note 14] The ground in this area was so soft that a man sank to his waist with just his own weight. [Note 15] Most damage on the left side of the Bastion was probably inflicted by guns on or near Cap Noir. It seems to have been more exposed during the first siege. By 1758, the escarp of the flank was completely hidden from enemy fire. [Note 16]

The legend of a French map drawn to show the breaches made in the King's and Dauphin Bastions in 1758 gave a succinct description of the situation of the escarps. The defences of the right flank and face had been destroyed, partly by enemy fire and partly by the shock of the French guns, and the shoulder angle was broken down. By contrast, the escarp of the left flank was not damaged as it was out of range of enemy fire. [Note 17]

The pounding the walls received in the first siege makes it difficult to ascertain how much, if any, of their disrepair was due to structural miscalculations. The walls were criticized for a lack of piers ("chaînes") or bonding. [Note 18] This lack may have convinced Franquet that counterforts should be added. The left face was the area of most apparent need, but he planned to include the right face in this programme as well. Had he not been forestalled by the threatening political situation in 1756, his intention was to take down both faces and rebuild them incorporating the counterforts. [Note 19]

A third factor, the annual wear and tear that the passing seasons inflicted on the stone facings of all exposed walls, cannot be left out of any consideration of the escarps. Frost and rain worked their way into new walls and compounded any weakness, whether the result of siege or faulty workmanship. This problem by the very fact of being ever present, received constant attention in official documents.

Enigineers, on first arriving at Louisbourg, consistently underestimated the effects of the climate and started work with a confident condemnation of the workmanship of their predecessors which tended to modify as they stayed to see their own walls scaling after a season or two of wind, snow and rain.

The quality of eighteenth century mortar was such that the season at Louisbourg was not long enough to allow it to harden sufficiently. Even with good materials, this basic fact held. Governor Knowles, more outspoken than most, wrote a graphic description of the worst that could happen:

Franquet, who had hoped to build durable walls by an exact choice of materials and strict surveillance of the workman, came back in the end to the view that the walls must be encased in planks, an expedient he had hoped to avoid. [Note 21] He informed the minister that, generally speaking, masonry under cover became increasingly harder as it aged. [Note 22]

While no final solution was found, nor any new combination of materials evolved to meet it, the French do seem to have managed to come to terms with the climate to some extent. The escarps of the King's Bastion are a case in point. The right flank, rebuilt in 1755, was generally held to be a solid piece of work, even by the arch critic St. Julhien. [Note 23] It was subjected to heavy, concentrated fire in 1758, particularly during the last few days of the siege. Despite this battering, the English, when they took over, judged that it might still stand some time. [Note 24] It was planked to the cordon, [Note 25] unlike the other three walls, and should have embodied some of the improvements in materials that Franquet had hoped to institute. He had echoed complaints about the local rubble stone that had been made as early as 1727 by Verrier. [Note 26] Because of the round, smooth surface of the stones, they could not be bedded firmly into the wall. Franquet wrote of them:

In 1750, Franquet had specified that in repairs to the existing works the only stones allowed should be:

If Franquet was successful in instituting reform, the mortar in this new wall should also have been mixed with greater care.

The Fortress did not stand long enough for the walls built in the fifties to be fully tested in comparison to the others. Whatever solution might have been evolved, during the life of the town annual maintenance was essential and the need for it was recognized by both French and English. [Note 29] Neglect probably did as much to speed the decline of the walls as did the guns in 1745 [Please see Appendix I] Little or nothing was done to the escarps in the years between 1745 and 1755. What had been a problem of repairing the areas of the facing that had fallen away, [Note 30] became a question of completely rebuilding the walls. Two years before the first shot was fired in 1758, the masonry of the right face had split open exposing the earth of the rampart, a very different proposition from the scaling of two or three feet on the surface of the wall.

The walls had lost their bond [Note 32] and it was possible to walk up one face, (probably the left). [Note 33] In this state, they crumbled under the concussion of the French guns which increased the damage inflicted by the besiegers and the alarm of the defenders:

Upon the return of the Fortress to the French in 1749 Boucher cited the lack of proper annual care in describing the poor condition of the walls. [Note 35] But, neglect continued. Both Drucour and St. Julhien stated that nothing was done to restore the walls before 1755. [Note 36] Neither Franquet's scheme for a major revision of the fortifications that would have included repairing the surface of the walls and thickening the flanks, [Note 37] nor Boucher's less ambitious recommendations for repair were put into practice. [Note 38] Orders to concentrate on the new works in the project approved by the court in favour of repairs the old remained in effect until 1755. [Note 39] By then, the worsening political situation required that the town be made immediately defensible.

Only the right flank was rebuilt. [Note 41] Work on this wall was done first because of its highly strategic position. [Note 42] Franquet hoped to have time to take down the escarps of the faces also and to rebuild them adding counterforts. [Note 43] The fact that the left flank was the only one of the four where urgent repair was not called for is perhaps indicative of its sheltered position. Franquet may have proceeded as far as the stockpiling of materials in front of this flank ready for an early start on the faces in the Spring. [Note 44] In the spring of 1757 an attack seemed imminent. Rather than meet it with half built walls, Franquet adopted temporary measure [Note 45] which became increasingly hasty. Rubble and stones that had rolled as far as the centre of the ditch [Note 46] were cleared away and a revetment was built to support the remaining three walls, first in sod and then in fascines and earth. The sods used at the left face were considered preferable [Note 47] and should have been more durable. However, the work was done so hastily that one third of the length of the revetment gave way the following spring. [Note 48] It was too late to take down the sod work and build a revetment of fascines similar to that on the left face and right flank. Franquet contented himself with a makeshift bracing of the existing Covering [Note 49] and the damaged area of the revetment was not cleared and rebuilt in fascines until June 17th and 18th, after the siege had begun in earnest. [Note 50]

Fascines were the material of temporary siege work and not of lasting fortifications. [Note 51] The palisade stretched along this revetment and sloped towards the horizon was also raised for the siege and would not have been a permanent feature. No further work was done in stone at the escarps.

The report submitted by Bastide after the town was captured told of the final state of the escarps:

In 1760 the flanks of the King's Bastion were less completely destroyed than any other area of the fortifications. Maps drawn after the work of demolition was complete show seven casemates still standing, four on the right flank and three on the left. [Note 53] Unfortunately, we have no record of the dimensions of the Bastion, either before or after the mines were sprung. A one sixth slope was ascribed to the curtain between the King's and Queen's Bastions, the nearest wall to be measured. Gowan added the comment: "thickness of the Revetment much the same all along there for I shall not mention it any more". [Note 54]

The devastion of the demolition apart, the historical record offers material to support almost any degree of irregularity in the surface of the escarps. But, there is nothing to suggest a base slope of other than one sixth in the King's Bastion.

Much of the evidence is negative, but there are two positive indications of the slope. The original specifications call for a slope of one sixth. [Note 55] and Franquet's profiles of the faces, drawn in 1751, have this slope marked on the escarps. [Note 56]

As a one sixth slope for these walls was in accord with both the original instructions received from France and standard practice, it is hard to imagine that any variation could have escaped comment from one of the many officials who watched over the building of the fortifications. No evidence of this nature has been found.

A more likely source for a different slope is in the record of repair. The slope of a wall could be altered if the original was thickened in order to strengthen it. Here again, the weight of evidence is against a change having been made, at least in the two faces and the left flank. The right flank is a rather special case. Though the original height was kept, [Note 57] the slope could have been altered when it was rebuilt in 1755.

The period during which the condition of the walls called for major restoration began at the end of the 1745 siege. The "Report on the State and condition of Fortifications ....", a careful inventory of a significant improvements made during the English occupation, indicated that no change was made in the slope before 1749. It mentioned the thickening of some walls and even a change in the slope of the left flank of the Dauphin Bastion. But, the only additions reported at the Bastion were the retired gun battery and the platforms built over the right flank and face. [Note 58]

After 1749, Franquet's plan for thickening the flanks was not adopted. None of the repairs made were of sufficient scope to change the slope on the three walls left in their original state. The settling of the left face, which left it three or four lower after the siege, must have affected the slope. [Note 59] However, this change occurred despite the efforts of the French rather than because of them and cannot have been at all regular.

Taken as a whole, the historical record of the escarps from 1745 to 1760 is one of neglect and deterioration. The single exception is the season in which the right flank was rebuilt. It seems clear that no deliberate change in slope was made during the years spanned by this report.

DATES	AUTHORS	LEFT FLANK	LEFT FACE	RIGHT FACE	RIGHT FLANK
...	...	...	...	...	...
1745	Verrier [Note 60]	Did his best to repair the flank at different times during the siege	...	...	Did his best to repair the flank at different times during the siege. (These repairs would have been of temporary nature and may not have been much concerned with the escarps.)
...	...	...	...	...	...
1746	Knowles [Note 61]	...	...	...	Cleared away rubbish at breach and repaired it. Built a retired gun battery behind the old work,
...	...	...	...	...	...
1751	Franquet [Note 62]	...	Stated that the facing had been rebuilt 10 or 12 years before.	...	Reported that the flank had been repaired by the English.
...	...	...	...	...	...
1757, 1758 and 1760	Franquet St. Julhien, Bastide, Drucour, Anon. Memoire for Franquet, Anon. Journals, Prevost. [Note 63] The material that fell from the walls was being cleared regularly from the ditch (1757-1758)	(1757) Revetted in fascines and earth with a slope 2/3 its height. Traversed by a palisade "en Fraise" (with the stakes sloping to the horizon) placed 3/4 of the way up the wall.	A Section 7 or 8 1758 toises in length collapsed during the winter of 1756, 1757. It was revetted with sod in 1757. The work was done in such haste that one third of the length gave way by Spring. It was shored up and later repaired with fascines on a wooden base on June 17th and 18th, 1758. In 1757 St. Julhien Had stated that it was not palisaded. Later reports indicate that a palisade was erected for the siege. By the end of the siege the wall had settled three or four feet below its normal height. The material that fell from the walls was being cleared regularly from the ditch (1757-1758)	(1757) Revetted in fascines and earth with a slope 2/3 its height. Traversed by a palisade "en Fraise" (with the stakes sloping to the horizon) placed 3/4 of the way up the wall. Bastide reported the base of the coating of earth and fascines to be 13 feet. The material that fell from the walls was being cleared regularly from the ditch (1757-1758)	Rebuilt in masonry and planked to the cordon (1757). The material that fell from the walls was being cleared regularly from the ditch (1757-1758)
...	...	...	...	...	...
1758	Bastide [Note 64]	...	...	Repairing the right shoulder angle which had given way for about 9 feet on either side.	Repairing the right shoulder angle which had given way for about 9 feet on either side.

PROJECTED REPAIRS 1744-1760

DATES	AUTHORS	LEFT FLANK	LEFT FACE	RIGHT FACE	RIGHT FLANK
1744	Verrier, Duchambon and Bigot [Note 66]	...	...	Facing to be repaired and planked	...
...	...	...	...	...	...
1745	Marine: Accounts [Note 67]	...	...	...	...
...	...	...	...	...	...
1745	Knowles [Note 68]	...	...	...	Stated that any repair short of pulling the wall down and rebuilding it could only be temporary.
...	...	...	...	...	...
1749	Boucher [Note 69]	The old mortar that had collected at the foot of the walls was to be cleared away. Masonry repairs T. P. P. Length 20 0 0 Height 3 0 0 Thickness 0 3 0 The figures for thickness represent repairs to be made to a depth of three or four feet, not additional thickness added to the width of the walls. Provision was made for planking all four walls.	The old mortar that had collected at the foot of the walls was to be cleared away. Masonry repairs (area includes the height of the parapet) T. P. P. Length 40 4 0 Height 3 4 0 Thickness 0 3 0 The figures for thickness represent repairs to be made to a depth of three or four feet, not additional thickness added to the width of the walls. Provision was made for planking all four walls.	The old mortar that had collected at the foot of the walls was to be cleared away. Masonry repairs (area includes the height of the parapet) T. P. P. Length 40 4 0 Height 3 3 0 Thickness 0 3 0 The figures for thickness represent repairs to be made to a depth of three or four feet, not additional thickness added to the width of the walls. Provision was made for planking all four walls.	The old mortar that had collected at the foot of the walls was to be cleared away. Masonry repairs T. P. P. Length 20 0 0 Height 4 0 0 Thickness 0 4 0 The figures for thickness represent repairs to be made to a depth of three or four feet, not additional thickness added to the width of the walls. Provision was made for planking all four walls.

1751	Franquet [Note 70]	Reported a proposal that the revetment be restored to a depth of three and one half to four feet (cf. Boucher, 1750) and that the walls be covered with two inch planks. He has included the planking in his estimates in case it is needed, but hopes to avoid it by better workmanship.	Reported a proposal that the revetment be restored to a depth of three and one half to four feet (cf. Boucher, 1750) and that the walls be covered with two inch planks. He has included the planking in his estimates in case it is needed, but hopes to avoid it by better workmanship.	Reported a proposal that the revetment be restored to a depth of three and one half to four feet (cf. Boucher, 1750) and that the walls be covered with two inch planks. He has included the planking in his estimates in case it is needed, but hopes to avoid it by better workmanship.	Reported a proposal that the revetment be restored to a depth of three and one half to four feet (cf. Boucher, 1750) and that the walls be covered with two inch planks. He has included the planking in his estimates in case it is needed, but hopes to avoid it by better workmanship.

1751	Franquet [Note 71]	Exterior revetment of all four walls to be repaired. Plank to be thickened to 18 feet. (No procedure is given, but, because of the casemates, an addition on the outside seems more likely.)	Exterior revetment of all four walls to be repaired.	Exterior revetment of all four walls to be repaired.	Exterior revetment of all four walls to be repaired. Plank to be thickened to 18 feet.
...	...	...	...	...	...
1755	Franquet [Note 72]	...	The two faces to be rebuilt in masonry also, if possible.	The two faces to be rebuilt in masonry also, if possible.	To be rebuilt in masonry.
...	...	...	...	...	...
1756	Franquet [Note 73]	...	If the escarps of the faces were to be rebuilt, they were to be taken down completely and the earth removed from the rampart to allow the building of counterforts.	If the escarps of the faces were to be rebuilt, they were to be taken down completely and the earth removed from the rampart to allow the building of counterforts.	...
...	...	...	...	...	...
1757	Franquet [Note 74]	...	Two faces to be revetted in fascines.	Two faces to be revetted in fascines.	...

1. Sept. 24, 1758. Drucour to the Minister. A.C. C11B. Vol. 38. f. 47 - 48 v, f 48; Sept. 23, 1758. Drucour to the Minister. A.C. C11BC,Vol. 16 pt. 2, p. 299 - 306, p. 305; April 6, 1759. Drucour Journal .... A.C. C11B . Vol. 38, f. 91 and 91 contain a list of ways the Council feared the enemy might be able to take the town. Signed by Fanquet, Drucour, Prevost, Bonnaventure, Desgouttes, LaHoulliere, St. Julien, Marin, Danthonay.

2. Cf. Koehoorn, Mino, Baron of The New Method of Fortification Tr. by Tho. Savery. London: Daniel Midwinter, 1705.

All our Mason's Work we have ordered after such a manner, that it was covered from the Besiegers with another Wall; not being of Opinion, that 'tis possible to build a Wall so strong, as that it should long withstand a great Artillery: ...

Also: Inspection Générale du Génie. Manuscript 131 (T. II) Discours de premier profil de la feuille 15^e p. II v.

3. April 6, 1759. Drucour. Journal on Relation sur ce qui se passera des movements pour L'attaque et la defense de .... Louisbourg .... 1758. A.C. C11B. Vol. 38. f. 57 - 103 v, f. 89 v. Extract taken from a copy of a Memoire from Franquet to Drucour on the State of the Town on the night of July 24th, 1758 which is included in the journal.

4. Enclosed in Knowles to the Secretary of State, July 8, 1746 (O.S.). Description and State of the Fortifications of Louisbourg. C.O. A. 28, N.S. p. 191 - 200 (tr.) p. 196.

5. Sept. 18, 1746. (O.S.). Knowles to the Secretarvy of State. C.O. A 29. N..S. p. 29 - 34 (tr. ); MAC 65 Z[1745?] Bastide. Plan of the City and Fortress of Louisbourg .... surrendered June 17th, 1745; MAC 93. 1746. Plan of Louisbourg copy'd from the Plan of Capt. Bastide. Engineer; MAC 94. Plan of Louisbourg. (Copied by C. Pettigrew, Sept. 1927.)

6. August 13, 1758. Bastide. A Report on the Condition of the Works of Louisbourg ... Enclosed in Amherst's letter of August 28, 1758. C.O.5, Vol. 53. p. 136 - 153 (tr.) p. 139.

8. Enclosed in Knowles to the Secretary of State, July 8, 1746 (O.S.). Description and State .... C.O. A. 28, N.S.. p. 131 - 200 (tr.) p. 196; 1751. Franquet. Memoire sur le front de fortification d'entre le bastion du Roy cotté ,3, et celuy de Dauphin cotté ,4, . Guerre, Genie, Article 14 - 1. Pièce 33 (no paging); 1756. Memoire sur L'etat actuel des ouvrages du front du fortification d'entre les Bastions du Roy cotté, ,3,celuy de Dauphin, cotté ,4, et la mer. A..C. C11A, Vol. 126, item 71, 1758 Journal du siege de Louisbourg .... D.F.C. F. 557. No d'ordre 236. (no paging.)

9. August 6, 1758. De la houliere to the Minister. Guerre. Vol. 2 3499 Pt. 1 pièce 13 p. 27-44 (tr.) p. 37. MAC 233. Bastide. Plan of the Town and Fortress of Louisbourg, ....; MAC 111. W. Green, Plan of the Town and Harbour of Louisbourg.

11. August 6, 1758. de la houliere to the Minister. Guerre Vol. 3499 Pt. 1, pièce 13 (tr.) p. 27-44. P. 34.

12. Sept. 23, 1758. Drucour to the Minister. A.C. C11C. Vol. 16, part 2, p. 299-306 (tr.) p. 300.

13. August 6, 1758. De la houliere to the Minister. Guerre. Vol. 3499. Pt. 1, pièce 13 (tr.) p. 27-44. p. 43. 1758. Journal du siege de Louisbourg .... B.F.C. No d'ordre 236. (no paging.)

14. May, 6, 1758. Franquet to the Minister. A.C. C11B. Vol. 28. f. 172-174, f. 173 v.

16. 1756. Memoire sur L'etat actuel des ouvrages ... d'entre les Bastions du Roy cotté ,3, celuy de Dauphin cotté ,4, et la mer. A.C. C11A. Vol. 126. Item 71; MAC 139 B. Vue de Breeches de Demy B^on Dauphin et du B^on du Roy ....

18. Enclosed in Knowles to Secretary of State, July 8, 1746 (O.S.) Description and State ... C.O. A. 28, N.S. p. 191 - 200 (tr.); Labignette Thesis. p. 101, a quotation from AN C. C11C, fo. 327.

19. Dec. 6, 1756. Franquet to the Minister. A.C. C 11 B. Vol. 36, f. 263 - 267. f. 266 1 v.; 1756. Memoire sur l'etat actuel .... A.C. C11A. Vol. 126. Item 71; 1758. Franquet. 1, Memoire. Guerre, Génie, Section I, Article 15. p. 143-154 (tr.) p. 147; 1758. Anon. Memoire for Franquet. Guerre, Génie, Section I, Article 15. pièce 8, p. 155-184 (tr.) p. 171.

20. Jan. 20, 1746/7. (O.S.) Knowles to Newcastle. C.O. A.30 N.S. p. 1-10. (tr.) p. 3, 4.

21. Nov. 24, 1751. Franquet to the Minister. A.C. C11B. Vol. 31, f. 136-147 v. f. 140.

22. May 25, 1752. Franquet's marginal replies to a despatch of March 15, 1752 signed by Rouillé. Guerre. Génie, Article 14-1, pièce 45. (no paging.)

23. Sept. 20, 1757. St. Julhien to the Ministers A.C. C11C. Vol. 16, part 2, p. 221 - 240 (tr.) p. 222 and 223.

24. August 13, 1758. Bastide. A report of the Condition and State of the works of Louisbourg ... Enclosed in Amherst's letter of August 28, 1758. C.O.5. Vol. 53. p. 136-153 (tr.) p. 138.

25. Sept. 20, 1757. St. Julhien to the Minister. A.C. C11C. Vol. 16, part 2, p. 221-240 (tr.) p. 223. Cf. page 3 of the 1760 Demolition report which has a description of the planking at either the Queen's curtain or flank [the context is not clear]. The right face escarp of the King's Bastion might have been constructed in a similar way.

To render it more firm and to preserve it from the Frost whose Violence Destroys the sement here in a prodigous manner, Uprightd of Oak about eight Inches by six and Eight feet long were placed Perpendicular in the Wall While a Building [while the wall was being built] about Six foot from one another and on Both sides of the wall with Barrs of the same Dimensions only shortned to four foot across the Wall which joined the Opposite Upright to one another: ...

the distance between the Barrs being four foot all which rendered it Very Strong, as likewise its being eased all along with Planks of Two Inches by Twelve and Twelve in Length and as an Additional Strength ....

26. Nov. 17, 1727. Verrier to the Miinister. A.C. C11B, Vol. 9. p. 141 - 147 v.

27. May 25, 1752. -Franquet's reply to Rouillé. Guerre, Génie, Article 14-1, pièce 45, (no paging.)

28. Oct. 13, 1750. Franquet to the Minister. A.C. C11B. Vol. 29. f. 306-315 f. 308 v.

29. August 30, 1749. Boucher to the Minister A.C. C11B., Vol. 28, f. 303-320. f. 303; Jan. 20, 1746/7 (O.S.) Knowles to Newcastle. C.O. A. 30, N.S. p. 1-10 (tr.) p. 3.

30. August 9, 1750. Franquet to the Minister. A.C. C11B. Vol. 29, f. 301-302 v., f. 301 v., Oct. 13 1750. Franquet to the Minister. A.C. C11B. Vol. 29, f. 306-315, f. 308 v. In 1758 LaHouilliere also estimated the gaps in the facing to be three feet. It is possible that this depth approximated that of the outer layer of stone. June 10, 1758, La houilliere to the Minister A.C. C11B. Vol. 38. f. 151.

31. 1756. Memoire sur L'etat actuel des ouvrages ... A.C. C11A A. Vol. 126. Item 71.

32. August 6, 1758. De la houliere. Guerre, Vol. 3499. Pt. 1, pièce 13 (tr.) p. 27-44. p. 42.

33. Sept. 20, 1757. St. Julhien to the Minister. A.C. C11C. Vol. 16, part 2, p. 221 - 240 (tr.) p. 222.

34. April 6, 1759. Drucour. Journal ... A.C. C11B. Vol. 38, f. 57-103 v. f. 91.

35. August 30, 1749. Boucher to the Minister. A.C. C11B. Vol. 28,f. 303-320.

36. Sept. 20, 1757. St. Julhien to the Minister. A.C. C11C. Vol. 16, part 2, p. 221-240 (tr.) p. 223; Sept. 23, 1758. Drucour to the Minister. A.C. C11C. Vol. 16, part 2, p. 299 - 306 (tr.)

37. 1751. Franquet. Memoire sur le front de fortification d'entre le Bastion de la Reine cotté ,2, et le bastion du Roy cotté ,3,. A.C. C11B. Vol. 31, f. 147. Also in: Guerre, Génie, Article 14-l, Piece 32; 1751. Franquet. Memoire sur le front de fortification d'entre le Bastion du Roy cotté 3, et celuy de Dauphin cotté 4, Guerre, Génie, Article 14-1, Pièce 33; Dec. 15, 1751.Joined to Franquet's letter of Dec. 14, 1757. Etat General .... A.C. C11B. Vol. 31, f. 157-172 v. f. 165v.

38. August 30, 1749. Boucher to the Minister. A.C. C11B. Vol. 28. f. 303 - 320.

39. June 7, 1755. Franquet to the Minister. A.C. C11B. Vol. 35 - f. 269; Sept. 23, 1758. Drucour to the Minister. A .C. C11C. Vol. 16, pt. 2, p. 299 - 306 (tr.) p. 300.

40. Sept. 23, 1758 [Drucour?] Memoire de la Place de Louisbourg .... A.N. Coll. Moreau de St. Méry. p. 390 - 411 (tr.) p. 390 and 391.

41. Sept. 20, 1757. St. Julhien to the Minister. A.C. C11B. Vol. 16, part 2, pp. 221-240 (tr.), p. 222 and 223.

42. 1758. Memoire for Franquet. Guerre, Génie, Section I, Article 15, Piéce 8. p. 155 - 184 (tr.), p. 166.

44. 1756. Memoire sur L'etat actuel des ouvrages ... A.C. C11A. Vol. 126. Item 71.

45. May 30, 1757. Franquet to the Minister. A.C. C11B. Vol. 37, f. 287 - 288; May 6, 1758. Franquet to the Minister. A.C. C11B. Vol. 38, f. 172-174, f. 173 v-; 1758, Memoire for Franquet. Guerre, Génie, Section I, Article 15, Pièce 8, p. 155-184 (tr.). p. 171.

46. August 6, 1758. De la houliere. Guerre. Vol. 3499. Pt 1, pièce 13 (tr.) p. 27-44, p. 42; May 6, 1758. Franquet to the Minister. A.C. C11B, Vol. 38 f. 172-174, f. 173 v.

47. [1758?] Franquet. Memoire. Guerre Génie, Section I, Article 15, p. 143-154 (tr.) p. 147 and 148.

48. May 6, 1758. Franquet to the Minister. A.C. C11B. Vol. 38. f. 172-174. f. 173 v.

50. Sept. 23, 1758 [Drucour?] A.N. Coll. Moreau de St. Méry. p. 390 - 411 (tr .) p. 398. 1758. Journal du siège .... D.F.C. No d'ordre 236 (no paging.)

51. See Diderot and d'Alembert's Encyclopédie Article entitled "Revetements", especially the following paragraph:

On fait quelquefois des especes de revetements de saucisses [a type of fascine] et de fascines; lorsqu'ils sont bien faits, il peuvent durer trois ou quatre ans. On s'en sert ordinairement pour réparer les breches d'une place après un siége, en attendant qu'on ait le tems ou la commodité de retablir les parties detruites dans leur premier état.

52. August, 1758. Bastide. A Report of the Conditions ... Enclosed. in Amherst's letter of August, 1758. C.0. 5. Vol. 53. p. 136-153 (tr). p. 138 and 139.

53. MAC 141, 1961. Plans and Section of the Gallerys and Mines ...; MAC 180. 1767. Sproule. A plan of Louisbourg ...

54. 1760. Gowan, John. A Journal containing the manner, method, and execution of the Demolition of Louisbourg from June lst to -November 10th .... 192pp. p. 52.

55. 1717 ? Verville. Devis des ouvrages ... Collection Moreau de Ste. Méry, p. 65-67 (tr.), p. 6-5.

56. MAC 191. Louisbourg 1751. Profils du front de fortification d'entre l'angle flanqué du Bastion du ROY cotté ,3, et celui de Dauphin cotté ,4,; MAC 223. Louisbourg 1751. Profils de Front de Fortification, d'entre l'angle Flanqué du Bastion de la Reyne cotté ,2, et celui du Roy cotté, 3,.

57. [1758?] Franquet. Mémoire ... Guerre, Génie, Section I, Article 15, p. 143 - 154 (tr.) p. 147.

58. Enclosed in Hopson to Bedford July 14, 1749 (O.S.) State and Condition .... C.O. A. 34 N.S. p. 156-165.

59. August 13, 1758. Bastide. A report of the Conditions .... Enclosed in Amherst's of August 28, 1758. C.0. 5. Vol. 53, p. 136 - 153, (tr.).

60. August 22, 1745. Verrier to the Minister. A.C. C1lB. Vol. 27, f. 41 - 43 v. f . 41.

61. Sept. 18, 1746 (O.S.) Knowles to Secretary of State, C.O. A 29, N.S. p. 29-34 (tr.); Nov. 6, 1746 (O.S.) Knowles. Admiralty 1, Vol. 324, p. 44 - 47 (tr.), p. 44.

62. 1751. Franquet. Memoire sur le front de fortification d'entre le Bastion de la Reine, cotté ,2, et le Bastion du Roy cotté ,3,.A.C. C11B. Vol. 31 f. 144ff. f. 145. Also in Guerre, Génie, Article 14-1, pièce 32; 1751. Franquet. Mémoire sur le front de fortification d'entre le bastion du Roy cotté ,3, et celuy de Dauphin cotté ,4, Guerre, Génie, Article 14-1, pièce 33.

63. Sept. 20, 1757. St. Julhien to the Minister. A.C. C11B. Vol. 16 part 2, pp. 221 - 240 (tr.) p. 222 & 223; 1757. Franquet. Memoire des ouvrages fait dans le courant de cette compagne .... Guerre Génie, Article 14-1, pièce 52; May 6, 1758. A.C. C11B. Vol. 38. f. 172-174. f. 173 v.; 13 August, 1758. Bastide. A Report of the Conditions of the Works at Louisbourg .... Enclosed in Amhers's Letter of August 28, 1758. C.O. 5. Vol. 53. p. 136 - 153 (tr.); Sept. 23, 1758 [Drucour?] Memoire de la place de Louisbourg et ses fortifications. A.N. Coll. Moreau St. Méry p. 390-411 (tr.) p. 391, 397-8; 1758. Franquet. Memoire sur Louisbourg .... Guerre, Génie, 14-1, piece No. 58. Also in Guerre, Génie, Section I, Article 15, pp. 143 - 154 (tr.); 1758. Memoire for Franquet. Guerre, Génie, Section I, Article 15, pièce 8, pp. 155-184 (tr.); 1758. Anon. Journal dealing with the defense of Louisbourg. Guerre, Génie, Section 2, Registre 66; Reflections sur la defence de Louisbourg Relativement aux notes de mon Journal p. 113-134 (tr.) p. 116; 1758. Journal du siége de Louisbourg .... D.F.C. No d'ordre 236. (no paging); April 6, 1759 Drucour. Journal ou Relation, sur ce qui se passera des movemens pour L'attaque et la deffense de la Place de Louisbourg dans la present anneé 1758. A.C. C11B. Vol. 38. f. 57 - 103 v. f. 66v; Dec. 6, 1760. Prevost, C11B. Vol. 38. f. 296 - 301. f. 300.

64. August 1758. Bastide. A Report of the Conditions .... Enclosed in Amhers's of August 28, 1758. C.O.5. Vol. 53. p. 136 - 153 (tr.) p. 139.

65. December 9, 1758. Dixon to Bastide (Extract) C.O.5 Vol. 54-1. p. 202. (tr.).

66. Nov. 18, 1744. Verrier to the Minister. D.F.C. Amérique Septentrionale. No d'ordre 209. (no paging.); Nov. 22, 174-4. Duchambon to the Minister. D.F.C. Amérique Septentrionale No d'ordre 211. (no paging.). A third document mentions the left face. Internal evidence indicates this to be an error for the right. Nov. 22, 1744. Duchambon and Bigot. D.F.C. Amérique Septentrionale. No d'ordre 210 (no paging).

67. April 5, 1745. Marine. Pour depenses des fortiffications de l'isle Royale pendant 1745. Etat des payments a faire. A.C. C11B. Vol. 27. f. 45 - 46. f. 45.

68. July 89,1746 (O.S.)Enclosed in Knowles to the Secretary of State. Description and State .... C.O. A 28, N.S., p. 191 - 200 (tr.) p. 193.

69. August 30, 1749. Boucher to the Minister. A.C. C11B. Vol. 28, f. 303 - 320.

70. Nov. 24, 1751. Franquet to the Minister. A.C. C11B. Vol. 31, f. 136 - 141 v. f. 140.

71. 1751, Franquet. Memoire sur le front de fortification d'entre le bastion de la Reine cotté ,2, et le Bastion du Roy cotté ,3,. A.C. C11B. Vol. 31, f. 147. Also in: Guerre, Génie, Article 14-1, pièce 32; 1751.Franquet Memoire sur le front de fortification d'entre le Bastion du Roy cotté ,3, et celuy de Dauphin cotté 4,. Guerre, Génie, Article 14, 1 pièce 33; Dec. 15, 1751. Joined to Franquet's letter of Dec. 14, 1751. Etat general .... A.C. C11B. Vol. 31, f. 157 - 172 v. f. 165 v.