PRINCESS BASTION REPORT:
A SURVEY OF THE AREA FROM THE RIGHT REENTRANT 
ANGLE OF THE PRINCESS BASTION TO THE RIGHT REENTRANT 
ANGLE OF THE BROUILLAN BASTION, AND THE RELATION OF THIS 
AREA TO CAP NOIR

BY

MARGARET FORTIER

February, 1966

(Supervision: W. Stevenson, J. Hanna)

(Fortress of Louisbourg Report H B 3)

Presently, only some illustrations are included here.
For all of them, please consult the original report in the archives of the Fortress of Louisbourg

Return/retour - Table of Contents/
Table des Matières

SECTION II

CHAPTER 2

RIGHT FACE

Chapter 2

Right Face

The history of the right face of the Princess Bastion was considerably more erratic than that of the right flank. Confronted by Cap Noir - a commanding hill situated about 700 feet from the Bastion - and flanked by the sea, the right face was repeatedly subjected to alterations as attempts were made to render the Fortress less vulnerable to attack. It was not until Franquet began his major overhaul in 1751 that the face was drastically changed, but prior to that date there were many revisions of the original plan.

As was the case with the right flank the face was first mentioned by Verrier and Ganet in 1733. [35] On a plan of that year it was noted that the face had been raised to a height of 4 pieds 8 pouces reduit. [36] (Figure 3) By the end of 1734 the face was raised to the level of the cordon, [37] but the work on the ramparts had not yet reached this section. [38] A lack of funds was blamed for their not being able to complete the necessary work. [39] (Figure 4; Plate 1)

A profile drawn through the half-finished right face in 1734 (Figure 5) provides a view of what had been done up to that point and a projection of what would be done to complete the work. No dimensions accompanied the profile, but it is possible to arrive at some approximations by use of the scale which was given. [40]

The face was completed in 1735. [41] (Figure 7) and the earth needed to form the rampart was being brought in at the same time. [42] The rampart was brought to "perfection" the following year. [43] A plan from 1737 stated that only the small interior wall of the parapet of the right face remained to be done. [44] (Figure 8)

A second plan from that same year includes a feature displayed on several succeeding plans. [45] The left side of the right face is covered with a planked barbette about half the length of the terreplein of the rampart. The area from the barbette to the right shoulder angle is shown with a firing step or banquette. A ramp leads up to the barbette from the terreplein. (Plate 2; see also figures 12, 13 and 14)

This arrangement was apparently found to be unsatisfactory. For, in 1744 there arose a considerable stir over the erection of a new battery on the right face to oppose Cap Noir. A provisional toisé listed digging carried on at the old cemetery on the east side of the city in order that the earth might be used to form this battery's platform. Dimensions for this
platform were given:

                                     toises     pieds      pouces

Length                             4           5               6
Width                               1          2               6
Height (average)             1          0               0

A second set of dimensions was given for the rampart of the face which was to be completed with earth from the same place.

                                     toises     pieds      pouces

Length (average)             32         4             3
Width (average)                4          0            0
Height (average)               0          3            0

The average height probably represented the increase in elevation of the rampart, not the total height. [46]

It was reported in November of 1744 that this new battery on the face was made of earth and reveted in sod, and that it would hold six large cannon which would be of superior calibre to those of the enemy. [47] There is no plan from 1744 to show what was done, but apparently it was then that the barbette was moved from the right face. Verrier seems to have felt that the new battery would enable the right face of the Princess Bastion to hold its own against Cap Noir. [48]

During the siege it was reported that a breast work was thrown up on the parapet of the southeast corner of the Princess Bastion in May, [49] and that a battery was erected on the parapet of the "South East" [Princess] Bastion. [50] It is not entirely clear at which section of the Bastion these works were placed, or even if they were two different operations. However, it would appear that the right face was being referred to since its relationship with Cap Noir had recently become a constant worry.

All but a few of the plans drawn during 1745 and 1746 reflect the changes which had been, and which were being made. It is impossible to determine when the various alterations were achieved because not only had the French been active in revising things before their departure, but the English added to the general confusion by carrying out projects of their own.

The 1745-46 plans show two or three embrasures in the left side of the face where there once was a barbette. No banquette appears. Rather, on all but one plan, the terreplein of the rampart seems to be on the same level all the way across the length of the face. When the French were erecting a battery on the face in 1744, they made no mention of their having opened embrasures there. While it may have been done at that time, it is also possible that the embrasures were the result of the intention of the English to raise the ramparts of the Princess Bastion and place seven guns there to beat against cap Noir. [51] (Figures 20 and 21)

Only one plan shows the terreplein of the rampart to be uneven at the right face of the Bastion. Three embrasures are shown on the left side of the face, and it would appear that the section of terreplein behind these embrasures is either higher or lower than the remainder of the terreplein. There is a definite slope shown. From the way the lines are drawn, it would seem that the slope was upward from the right side of the face to the left. [52] (Figure 19)

It is possible that the work toward raising and broadening the rampart had been completed only up to the point where the slope begins. Thie might explain the presence of the embrasures heretofore unaccounted for. If the English had begun their work on the left side of the face, they may have progressed as far as the formation of three embrasures and the leveling of the ground behind them by the time the drawing was made - February, 1746. There are references which report that the platform made by the English had been finished by the time the French regained Louisbourg. It may be that the slope was removed, the terreplein becoming one level, but that the embrasures were never entirely completed. There are no plans which show embrasures all along the face.

Both Knowles and Bastide expressed concern over the situation of the face in relation to Cap Noir. They recommended that the latter be blown up and that the face be raised from three to six feet. [53] According to a plan outlining the English proposals for remaking the Princess Bastion, the right face was to be extended toward the sea to form a new salient angle with the projected left face. Two embrasures were to pierce the new section of wall, making a total of 5 on the face since this plan too shows three embrasures on the left side of the right face. [54] (Figure 15)

When the French returned to Louisbourg, they noted that the rampart of the right face had been raised and broadened, and that a strong timber platform had been placed there for ten guns en barbette. [55] Apparently, therefore, the first barbette had been replaced by an earthen platform spanning the length of the face. This in turn was succeeded by a barbette the full length of the face sitting on a higher and wider rampart.

Still not content with the right face, the French again prepared to alter its appearance. Plans were made for reinforcing the face in a manner similar to that proposed for the right flank. (See Chapter 1 of this section, page 14) For this project they required:

Pine woodwork - 45 pieces 24 pieds long
        Length (total)                  1080 - 0               420-0-0
       Width                                      7 - 8
Pine planking 2 pouces thick
       Length                                   30 - 0 - 0        120-0-0
       Width                                      4 - 0 - 0
Iron clamps - 70 clamps weighing 1800^L [56]
Masonry
        Length                                  30 - 0 - 0
       Height                                     4 - 0 - 0             60-0-0
       Thickness                                0 - 3 - 0
Sod                                                12 - 0 - 0 [57]

These figures indicate that the probable height of the face was 24 pieds or 4 toises and that the length was 180 pieds or 30 toises.

Prévost, in 1749, stated that the parapet of the face would have to be heightened and thickened. [58] This project, as well as others involving the formation of a rampart and banquette at the face and the repairing of the exterior revetment, was to be carried out in 1751. A cumulative list of the materials necessary for all these tasks was given. It included: [59]

23 cubic toises of earth at 9" .........................     207: 0: 0:
86 cubic toises of masonry at 125" ............... 10750: 0: 0:
12 square toises of sod at 5" .........................       60: 0: 0:
135 pine wood beams at 3" ...........................    405: 0: 0:
139 square toises of planks 2 pouces
                    thick at 12" 16^s .......................... 1779:  4: 0:
1726 iron at 9^s ...............................................    776:14: 0:

From 1751 to the surrender in 1758, the right face was the subject of much correspondence between the home government and the officials in Louisbourg. The basic problem as all saw it was to render the Princess Bastion less vulnerable to fire from an enemy-held Cap Noir. This hill was said to be 12 pieds higher than the summit of the right face. [60] So while they worked to lower Cap Noir, the French formulated several plans for the strengthening of the face.

Relative elevations were not the only problems to be considered. This section of the Bastion possessed certain defects which combined to render it even less effective. Franquet complained that there were no embrasures in the face, and that the barbette which the English had erected was still in place. [61] The Engineer's concern over the position of the barbette and the lack of embrasures makes even more mysterious the appearance of the two embrasures on the right face in the 1740's. If, in fact, they had been there, when had they been removed?

In addition, it was said that a platform - which may have been the barbette mentioned above - was to be found 2 pieds 4 pouces below the parapet for the exercise of cannoniers. [63] And, the parapet itself was only 18 pieds thick and was not backed by either a rampart or a banquette. [63]

Because of its many undesirable qualities, the right face figured prominently in the plans formulated in the early 1750's. Numerous documents and plans illustrate what Franquet had in mind for the Fortress as a whole and the Princess Bastion in particular. These reflect the many different notions which were conceived, and it may be best to summarize the place occupied by the right face in the various schemes:

1 - The old left side of the Bastion was to disappear and a new left face was to be formed closer to the shore. The right face was to be extended to met the new left face. A banquette would extend the length of the face, and a cavalier would be built to overlook the face.
The latter would stretch from the right flank to the new left face. It would have five embrasures and a ramp leading to it from the flank's terreplein. [64] A few plans and documents make note of the proposed construction of underground casemates beneath the cavalier. [65] It would appear that this proposed cavalier would almost entirely fill the terreplein of the Bastion. (Plates 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13)

2 - The old left side would remain, and additions would be made to the existing work. The right face would be extended to meet an enlarged covert way which would be turned at its left extremity to face east. The extension of the face appears As an entirely separate wall, lower and narrower than the parapet of the face. There is no provision for a firing step shown on the plans. A banquette would stretch the whole length of the face. [66] (Plates 6 and 7)

3 - The right face would be pierced with six embrasures. [67]

A profile drawn in 1751 shows one of Franquet's projects superimposed over the existing face with its barbette. (Plate 4) Dimensions are given for the projected work only. however, it is possible to scale for some of the dimensions of the existing structure and arrive at a means of observing more closely the changes which would be made.

This profile indicates that the interior slope of the rampart would be steeper than was formerly the case. Where previously the terreplein was, in effect, nothing more than a step up to the barbette, it would now become more like a "regular" terreplein or a rampart. And, a banquette - 6 pieds wide and 3 pieds above the terreplein - would be formed to allow firing over the parapet. [68] (Figure 23)

Plans depicting the changes ordered by the King in 1755 reveal that the first project outlined above was chosen. [69] The right face, therefore, was scheduled for total alteration. However, the actual work which was carried out was on a much more modest scale.

The foundation for the expanded right face was laid and raised 5 pieds in 1755. [70] This piece of wall was to reach the new profile being constructed between the retired battery and the enlarged covert way. [71] Prior to its completion, Franquet stated that the wall would be made of dry stone and earth, have a parapet 12 pieds thick, and stand the same height as the new profile. [72] The hope was expressed that the wall would be finished in 1756, [73] and it was. That year Franquet reported that the wall was 17 pieds high; a height deliberately lower than the contregard being built before it. It was felt that if the latter was ruined by enemy cannon, the face would remain in a state of defence. [74]

An apology of Franquet's stewardship at Louisboug, given in 1758, states that the extension wall had been raised only 15 pieds . [75]

A report made by the Engineer that same year also listed 15 pieds as the height of the wall. [76] Together these two documents offer information as to the thickness of the face's new addition (6 pieds), the width of its parapet (18 pieds), and its composition dry out stone). They also contain reference to a banquette having been formed. [77]

It was stated that the barbette having been removed, the right face had been raised 6 1/2 pieds and made ready for six cannon. [78] Another report declared that the parapet of the face was raised 5 pieds. [79] Since both documents were Franquet's work, it is difficult to determine what was done in this regard. Plans and documents, however, were unanimous in recording that six embrasures and merlons had been established on the right face with earth and fasoines. [80] (Figures 31, 32 and 34)

The revetment of the face was in a very bad state before the siege, decaying constantly and at a fast rate. Too much work would have been involved in the total reestablishment of the wall, so it was thought best to simply remove the earth and stones which had become detached. [81] A profile taken in 1756 passes through the right face revealing the serious state of decay the wall was in, and how the engineers intended to repair it when the project would be feasible. A rampart and banquette are shown replacing the barbette. The dimensions for this change of the interior are almost exactly the same as those given on the 1751 profile cited above. The revetment measurements are, therefore, the only new additions. All dimensions will be listed below for comparison with the previous profile. [82] (Plate 13 and Figure 28)

The proposed casemates are one of the more puzzling aspects of the already confusing state of things in the 1750's. How many were to be built was never stated. There are only two plans which indicate the presence of an underground structure beneath the projected cavalier, and these show just one. Running perpendicular to the rampart, the casemate shown is situated in a spot almost directly in front of the old casemate which seems to have been totally forgotten. [83] (Plates 10 and 9)

In 1756 it was reported that the foundation of the galleries - the plural is used in all written documents - had been laid. The length of the foundation was said to be 10 toises. At the same time, Franquet declared that further work should be done only if the Bastion would receive sufficient cover while the project was under way. It had become his opinion that this was not possible. [84] Most likely this was when the idea of the casemates, and perhaps the whole concept of a larger Princess Bastion, was given up. For, no further mention was made of work to fulfill the orders of the King as expressed on the 1755 plans. Neither was anything more said by the French or English regarding the foundations laid in 1758.

When the Fortress was surrendered in 1758, there were 3 cannon of 18 pounds and 2 of 6 pounds found on the face of the Princess Bastion.[85] It does not appear that the face of the Princess was harmed during the siege. In July 1758 the French reported that it was in its "premier état".[86] An English account stated that the "Scarp Wall is much broke-down throuhout the whole length and in some places from top to bottom". [87] This does not contradict the French appraisal because they had reported earlier on the bad state of the wall., Apart from this, however, they had improved on the effectiveness of the face by such measures as the addition of embrasures and merlons, and, following the siege, Bastide declared these to be in good condition. [88] Having seen the right face before the work was done, the French could consider its condition vastly more agreeable.

Return/retour - Table of Contents/
Table des Matières