LOUISBOURG QUAY:
A STUDY OF ITS CONSTRUCTION, UTILIZATION AND HISTORY
FROM 1716 TO 1760

BY

RODRIGUE LAVOIE

(Under the Direction of: W. Stevenson, B. Pothier)

(Maps and Plans drawn by Rodrigue Lavoie and Angela Brown)

(Assembled by Lynda Smith)

November, 1965

(Fortress of Louisbourg Report H B 5 E)

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

Return/retour - Table of Contents/
Table des Matières

PART ONE

HISTORY AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE LOUISBOURG QUAY

The quay has been marked by five periods during the brief history of this fortified town:

•  I From the beginnings to Verrier's first project, 1716-1730;
• II Verrier's Quay:
  • a. Projects 1731-1740
  • b. Construction 1741-1744;
• III The quay under the English occupation: 1745-1748;
• IV Franquet's Quay: 1750-1758:
• V The second English occupation: 1758-1760.

1

1716 - 1731

In 1716 the inhabitants of Louisbourg were "almost all settled south of the Harbor between two bays 150 to 200 toises from each other and separated from the Mer du Havre by a narrow strip where part of their cod drying takes place and where the racks for this purpose are situated". [1] This small strip of beach formed the northern limit of the town and was the future site of the quay. Until around 1720 this part of Louisbourg harbor, like all the others, was used as a beach and racks were installed on it.

However, from these same years the maps cease to mention fishing installations in this area. Although they are no more explicit, the texts do, however, furnish an explanation:

in 1717 Verville drew up a plan of the town and outlined the location of the future quay. During the same year the king issued an ordinance , which was repeated in 1721, [2] fixing the width of the quay as ten (10) toises and forbidding any constructions on this space.

A map of 1723 shows "a wharf for unloading materials", which was built in opposite rue Toulouze near the King's Stores, and a plan for "a jetty to be built on a base" immediately to the right of the channel joining the large cove to the sea. [3] The came map also shows the high tide, from which the 10 toises width of the quay was to be measured, and only one or two dwellings encroach on this reserved land. Thus in 1723 the manifest observance of the royal ordinance would seem to us to indicate that the quay was an essential construction under serious consideration.

The marine traffic due to fishing [In Louisbourg itself trade in foodstuffs is just as important as fishing. (Pothier)] and work on the fortifications would seem to have been quite heavy, because the small wharf on rue Toulouze was soon judged insufficient and, whilst awaiting the construction of the quay, it was proposed that a pier or short quay be built in front of the Market Building. [4] This shore was, moreover, much eroded by the sea and we are even told that this part of the quay had become twenty-five feet narrower because of the action of the sea and because the inhabitants were in the habit of removing earth from it for building purposes.[5]

Thus, up to 1731 nothing had yet been decided about the quay. Verrier, who arrived in 1724, was unable to do anything because of the other construction work. At least its location had been fixed and carefully preserved, and it became clear during the period 1723-1730 that it was essential to reconstruct this part of the town limits as soon as possible. Finally, in 1730, Verrier gave a rough estimate of 150,000 livres for the work required. [6]

II

1731 - 1744

The second stage in the history of the Louisbourg Quay begins with the first plans submitted in 1731. This period is rich in projects and achievements: 1731-1744 was the period during which the plan of the quay was drawn up in final form and during which it was carried out. This part therefore falls quite naturally into two divisions: plans and achievements.

(a) Plans.

We have said that in 1730 Verrier indicated that the construction of the quay would cost some 150,000 livres. However, his estimate far exceeded the amount which he had first calculated, since his project proposed work costing over 300,000 livres. [7] This doubtless explains why the project submitted in this memorandum was strongly opposed both by Saint-Ovide, the governor at that time, and by the authorities in Versailles. Although it was not carried out to the letter, the first project is nonetheless very important, since it formed the basis of the plan adopted later on.

The introduction to the plan is of particular interest since it established the reasons for the building of this important construction: on the one hand reasons of town planning, such as the protection of this part of the town which was increasingly eroded by the sea every year, and on the other hand for reasons of defense which, of course, was of vital importance to Louisbourg. In addition, although they are not dealt with in detail, there is the matter of trading facilities. In Part Two below we shall take a look at the relative importance of these three reasons.

The memorandum proposes the revetment of the quay along the entire side of the town facing the harbor, from the end of the Dauphin Bastion to beyond the junction of the cove with the sea; this meant wall approximately 290 toises in length positioned "parallel to the houses and the King's Stores, the wings being parallel to the coast". [8] The back of this wall formed a terreplein  filled level to the complete height of the wall . [9a]

The proposed layout of this quay was as follows:

- a breakwater at the end of the right wing "to protect the quay and the small ships moored in the harbor from the action of the sea when the winds blow from east to south".[9] and also to place the outside of the quay and the beach of the cove under the fire of canons which were placed on this breakwater.

- five wharves [10], gently sloping ramps facilitating the loading and unloading of merchandise, installed at intervals and connected to openings in the revetment.

- two redans [11] one at Dauphin Gate, and the other facing the Royal Stores on rue Toulouze. These are raised by means of a parapet with embrasures in it,, and they serve to flank the entire quay. In addition the rue Toulouze redan is to have openings on each side with steps,, and "will form an open space" for unloading the king's effects in front of the stores: a statue in honor of the king, founder of the town, will be placed in this redan.

- a sluice leading to the large cove [12] , to permit wintering and retreat of boats and small craft.

Verrier proposes the ashlaring of the whole revetment wall and, in addition, the placing of a covering of planks over this. [13] This latter point is very important. Apart from the fact that the sea might destroy the joints in the stone in a very short time, this precaution was also necessary because of the climate. The very short frost-free season means that the cement does not have the time to set. Thus the plank covering assists the bonding of the stone to the masonry.

The terreplein of the quay extends some seventy-five (75) feet (125 in the center of the projected redan in front of rue Toulouze) and is, as we have said, level with the full height of the wall -- no rempart or parapet was planned at that time -- i.e. about ten feet above low tide level and four feet above high tide level. [14] The quay is thus not of itself part of the defenses, but according to Verrier the fact that it is flanked by the sides of the rue Toulouze redan and by the breakwater gives it sufficient protection.

Because of its high cost, this project was not approved by the authorities. During the years which followed, 1732 and 1733, there was discussion on the need for ashlaring, on the importance of the breakwater and the usefulness of the rue Toulouze redan. Finally in 1734 Verrier submitted a revised version of his project in which he eliminated the redan, the breakwater and the ashlaring and reduced the thickness of the wall to six feet at its base (instead of eight). The result of this was that the new estimate was only 157,007 livres. [15] The work was approved but he was ordered to suspend its performance "until the (completion) of other work would enable part of the ordinary funds to be used for this purpose". [16]

In 1734 the recently declared war with Austria led to a fear that hostilities might be resumed between France and England, and certain extraordinary measures were contemplated for protecting the town on the harbor side. [17] Since this threat did not materialize, we cannot find out whether the measures considered, consisting of  "a sufficient quantity of chevaux de frise, to put along the quay" far enough out in the water to prevent the landing of small craft, were in fact carried out. It would seem that they were not since no later mention is made of them.

The period 1735-1739 brought nothing new which is not to be found in the "Instructions" of 1739. [18] This interesting memorandum completes that of 1731 adding some interesting technical details. With regard to the quay, the Instructions reaffirm the necessity of the rue Toulouze redan, which was finally approved by the minister in 1736. [19] On the other hand, it was agreed that the sluice proposed for the large cove in 1731 and then again in 1738 was more or less useless. However, this is not the greatest interest of the document: in addition to finally fixing the thickness of the quay wall as six feet and restating the necessity of the plank covering. the Instructions also lay down certain techniques governing the construction of the wharves: "The sides of the wharves even where they join the quay along a certain length must be ashlars positioned two bond-stones to a stretcher" (i.e. one stone placed flat, its breadth being the breadth of the facing, for every two stones placed upright, their length being the height of the facing), "with all the foundations well anchored". [20] In addition, "the wharves must be supported every 8', there must be good oak timbers one foot square to support the paving, and this wood must be protected against erosion by covering them with flat iron bars as was done with the drawbridges of city gates".

What conclusions car we draw from these different projects? What was the future quay to look like? It must first of all be stressed that the lack of funds played an important role both in the modification of the project and the delay in carrying it out. In addition, it will be noticed that both in this project and in the others, the function of defense was of prime importance : it was for this reason, and not because of commercial and civil advantages, that the rue Toulouze redan was finally approved. It was also this factor that decided the authorities to order the construction of the quay when Anglo-French relations began to deteriorate. We shall come back to this again later. Finally, we must consider this project in the light of Louisbourg as it was at this time. Since 1738 there had been a veritable wave of construction. Verrier went beyond the plans of his predecessor in charge of the fortifications and obtained approval for and implemented the project for the construction af a wall round the town and the fortification of the city on all sides. From this moment on, the quay was to form part of this city wall.

There was a great deal of activity during 1739, 1740 and 1741. These years were entirely devoted to building this wall on the Rochefort Point Side. In 1741, the shore battery was almost complete and, by prolonging its left face, the quay was begun. Most of the construction work on this project took place during 1742 and 1743.

(b) Construction

The quay poroject, with the modifications made during 1731-1740 only in fact provided for a simple revetment consisting of a sloping retaining wall supporting a terreplein of the same height, with a few facilities such as wharves to permit the trans-shipment of merchandise and a redan flanking the whole length of this front. The planned width of this quay was to be 10 toises, and the wall was to be built at half-tide, i.e. half-way between high and low tide. The plan of 1731 (MAC-263) gives the exact location of these points.

As far as we can tell by the various cross sections, [21] the quay wall was in fact built at the spot first proposed by Verrier. Although this was economical (a large quantity of earth was thus saved for the terreplein), it was not perhaps the ideal solution: at low tide the beach is uncovered at the foot of the wall sometimes for quite a distance, especially in the recesses (we shall give Franquet's views on this later on), and the sea washes up a lot of sand and gravel thus reducing the effective height of the wall. However, we must realize the difficulty of building a wall beside such a rough sea. The wall had to have deep foundations and be firmly bedded in ground where the rock was probably covered by several feet of sand and pebbles. There was also, it seems, a three or four foot difference in level between the Dauphin Eperon and the Piece De La Grave battery.

It would not be easy to study the construction of the Louisbourg quay were it not for the excellent descriptions prepared by Franquet in 1751 and later. In addition, we shall from now on make use of later documents to shed light on this period. However, despite all this there are nevertheless great gaps in our documentation: it is sometimes difficult to determine what types ard quantities of materials were used. [Enter as note 22a] - An essential reference work for these important details is without doubt L'ARCHITECTURE HYDRAULIQE by Bélidor. However, we can nevertheless obtain quite a good idea of the construction of the Louisbourg quay just from the works we have consulted, and this is what we are going to try to do now by explaining as well as we can what we found and, from this, deducing what is not explicitly stated.

Owing to the proximity of the sea the construction work was not very systematic. Before beginning to excavate the wall's foundations, it was necessary to construct dikes to hold back the water, and these dikes, it would appear, had to be constantly renewed. Then, as the excavations proceeded the wall had to be founded and strengthened and, at the same time, terraced at the back. Otherwise the sea would have filled the excavations and the supporting wall might have been knocked down by the sea. It was also necessary to face this masonry immediately, since it would not otherwise have withstood the waves and bad weather. It can be concluded from this that the quay was built in successive sections, the first of these -- the extension of the Piece de la Grave -- being built in 1741. [22]

First of all a hole 4' 6" or 5' deep was excavated in the ground. Since the wall had to be firmly anchored, and since the ground was doubtless somewhat soft, it had to be built on a framework of 1' x 1' timbers, using the wood which had been prepared for repairing the Islot Battery. [23] The masonry was raised to a height of some ten foot on top of this framework, and the workers then began immediately to build up the rear terreplein, since otherwise the sea would have eroded the work during high tides, both at the back and in front. At the same time the wall was covered with 2" pine planking. Work was stopped at the end of September to allow for the preparation of the wood and stone materials for the next season. during which it was hoped to complete the quay.

In the meantime, it would seem that the quay project as described so far was somewhat modified. In his account of October 26, 1741, in which he indicates the work planned for 1742, Verrier mentions that he hopes to raise the wall to 12' in height and to "raise the parapets which will form the top of this wall", [24] and it is also probably that a banquette was planned behind this parapet. As can be seen from this simple detail, stress would seem to have been laid on the defensive aspect of this Quay at least as much as on its utility.

The 1742 season began quite early, probably at the end of May or the beginning of June, and the work was pursued with vigor since the funds for work that year were increased by more than 20,000 livres.

By the middle of the month of August, the foundations of the quay wall were laid along the whole length of the right face, the right flank, the curtain and probably the left flank as well, since only fifty toises remained to be built to reach the Dauphin Eperon, which forms the limit of the quay on the left face side. [25]  The wall was nine feet high [26] and work was being done on the two wharves. [27]

At the end of this same season the masonry of the quay was founded and had reached this height along its whole length up as far as the eperon and had been covered with planking. [28] The whole terreplein of the quay had been terraced. [29] Two wharves had been built [30] and the sluice into the large cove had been constructed. [31]

The plan of 1742, which we have reproduced to accompany this report (no. II), shows the state of work in the middle of August. It will be noticed that they quay project has been quite considerably modified: the quay is shown with two faces, two flanks and a curtain. The right face is pierced by a sluice and a wharf (which had not vet been built), and the left face, which was still to be constructed at this time, is also shown pierced by a wharf. On the curtain there are three wharves situated at the end of the streets giving onto the quay. It should be noted that there is no longer any question of having a redan at the foot of rue Toulouze. A wharf has been placed there instead. It would seem likely that the redan proposed in 1739 and before was set aside at the time of the revision of the project which led to the establishment of the two flanks: it was probably thought that these two flanks offered a better means of defense than the redan. Be that as it may, insufficient consideration was given to the fact that the recesses thus created at the juncture of the curtain and the flanks (which are at right angles) could cause problems, such as the substantial accumulation of sand and pebbles on the beach, and could form a better target for enemy canon which might be set up on the heights outside the Dauphin Gate. The plan also shows part of the town, thus enabling us to relate the various parts and facilities of the quay to the plan of the streets and groups of houses.

The work planned in the fall of 1742 for the following season consisted of perfecting the quay and its facilities along its entire length: i.e.-making the masonry parapet and the earth banquette, construction of the three other wharves provided for in the project and the closing of their entrances by means of gates, and finally, the finishing of the quay's terreplein. [32]

According to "Le Profil du Revêtement du Quay de Louisbourg"[33] the parapet was to be six feet high and about five feet thick. As in the case of the wall it was suggested to cover it with planking; the cross section of the quay revetment shows how this was to be done. Stakes or planks placed against the stonework and attached to it by means of iron bolts form the framework on which the plank covering. According to Franquet's description, these figures were in fact somewhat reduced.

According to the cross section, the banquette should extend horizontally for some 15 feet from the parapet and raise the terreplein of the quay by about two feet. The embankment of the banquette is seven feet wide and slopes down to a fence which protects it and prevents people from putting things inside it.

The wharf, which is also shown on this plan, seems to be some 45 feet in length. It slopes at a gradient of one in eight (although this is not explicitly indicated) as recommended in 1739. As far as we can tell, it is built of beams driven into the ground at three foot intervals on which are laid squared timbers which form the pavement of the wharf. The whole structure is covered with planking, both on top and on the sides. There are large rings for mooring small craft. At high tide the water comes 3 feet above the end of the wharf, at low tide it comes three feet below. There are then only 2 feet of water, which must make access quite difficult. These measurements are not certain: they are suggestions based on the plan of 1742 which we reproduce in Fig. I,

The cross section also enables us to estimate the work required to level the terreplein. On the town side earth had to be removed, while near the wall it was necessary to fill in the shoulder that was there and built up the earth to the height indicated. The cross section would lead us to suppose that the work was already completed, whereas we know from other documents that it was not finally completed until 1745. The length of the levelled terreplein is shown here as 15 toises, but in 1751 Franquet estimated it at only 11 toises 1 foot even though it had been previously extended by the English.

During the 1743 season, work on the quay proceeded at a somewhat slower pace than during the previous season. Nevertheless, the parapets were "raised to their full height", [34] as we are told, although according to Franquet this height was not 6' as shown on the plan, but 4', and their thickness was reduced to 3'; with the planking, this would bring their dimensions to 4 foot 2 inches in height, by 3 feet 4 inches wide. All the banquettes were built (they were 18' wide at the time of Franquet's inspection). The stakes for the three wharves were driven in, probably those of the Dauphin wharf on the left face, those of the Market Building wharf (still called the Artillery wharf) situated at the foot of rue de L'Etang, and those of the Coal wharf (or Etang wharf) on the right face. Finally, Frédéric Gate was erected at the entrance of the wharf at the foot of the rue Toulouze. There is a very good vignette [35] of this gate showing its front, its side and a cross section. This enables us to estimate the width of the wharf as 18': the wharf is supported by a grid of stakes planted every 3'. The gate is made of wood put together in such a way as to resemble stone. It has a shingle roof and is flanked on either side by a rise the body of which is of stone and which supports the whole structure. The opening of the gate is twelve feet wide and is closed by a fence.

Once this work was done it only remained, at the end of the season, to complete the inside of the quay and the banquette, which was not completely covered by the end of October, but which Boucher caused to be completed later. In addition, the platforms of the three wharves which had been started were not yet complete, and it was also necessary to install the wooden fence at the foot of the embankment leading up to the banquette. It was also necessary to improve the terreplein of the quay "in order to construct the necessary drainage channels". [36]

The above work was not carried out in 1744; all that was done during this year was a few minor repairs on the Frédéric Wharf which had been damaged by ice. In addition, the siege of Louisbourg in 1745 prevented anything being done that year apart from a few hasty repairs during the siege.

The quay as designed and built by Verrier formed one of the most beautiful and solid parts of the fortifications of the town. Assuming it to be fully complete, with its wharves,, parapets, banquette and the wide terreplein, it met almost all defensive and public utility requirements. Its plank covering, as pointed out later on by Franquet, made it into a solid wall capable of resisting for a long time the severe climate which caused almost all the other parts of the fortifications to deteriorate soon after they were built. However, the siege of 1745 somewhat changed the course of events.

III

1745 - 1749

(a) The Siege

The effect of the siege of Louisbourg in 1745 was to give the French fortress new masters. In the meantime, however, the resistance of the besieged was expressed in the carrying out of urgent work on the fortifications and, in particular, or the quay.

The plan of 1745 by Verrier's son [37] gives a clear bold drawing of the various parts of the town and the layout of the quay. The sluice leading into the large cove, for example, is very, well shown: the channel leading the waters to the sea through the terreplein of the quay is bordered on each side by a framework of stakes onto which planks are nailed. This channel seems to be some fifteen feet wide, but narrows rapidly at the parapet of the quay, where it forms a narrow passage two or three feet wide at the quay wall. In the key, the plan also gives the main events of the siege which affected the quay: "The flanks of the quay (probably pierced by three embrasures a short time before the siege) "were restored several times, but were finally destroyed by the enemy battery marked E on the map". In addition, this same map of the siege tells us that "Three embrasures had been made in the parapet of one of the faces of the quay (it was the right face) which was under enemy fire from the battery marked B on the map . . ." These three embrasures are indicated on the plan on the right face of the quay and are situated at its extremity between the shore battery and the sluice.

Another plan tells us that a boom was built from the buttress of Dauphin Gate to the shore battery opposite the quay to prevent the approach of small craft.

It is not unlikely that other parts of the quay felt the effects of the cannonade directed against the town. In 1749, "Boucher noted that "Frédéric Gate had not been restored after all the cannon fire it received during the siege". [39] This is almost the only mention made of the quay. It can therefore be concluded that the state of the quay when the town fell to the English was quite satisfactory. However, the new occupants, having besieged the fort, were able to notice some defects which they tried to remedy.

(b) The Quay under the English Occupation

The main fault that the English engineers found with the quay was that it was not high enough. They remarked, as Franquet did later, that the town was completely unprotected on this side, to such an extent that the people in the streets could be seen from the deck of a ship in the harbor. [40] The English also thought that this side of the fortifications was not constructed strongly enough, because the wall was only 4 feet thick at the top. Knowles made the following proposal: "This (wall) should be lined with another Wall and both be raised 5 feet higher and the Rampart in proportion".

This project does not appear to have been carried out. The difficulty of building anything solid and durable somewhat discouraged the English from making Louisbourg as well defended as they would have liked. However, the lowness of the wall was somewhat attenuated by raising a palisade of stakes [41] "six feet high and bolted 2 feet below the top of the planking". [42]

Other improvements of a different type were also made to the quay. It would seem to have been widened "by nearly three toises" [43] while the terreplein was improved, raised, cleaned and drained [44] and the parts of the quay wall which had been damaged in the siege were repaired. Finally, and this is the most important fact, work was done during this same period on the three wharves which were, in the opinion of all, considerably improved (at least as far as two of them were concerned). The Intendant's wharf, called Governor's Gate by the English, was completely remodified, and Dauphin wharf, called Ordinance Gate, was extended and strengthened.

Diagrams III and IV, which are based on the plans made by Franquet, show the Intendant's Wharf as it was rebuilt by the English. It is about 100' long and 18' wide. It ends in a crosspiece of 70' long and 22' wide. The plan shows the various parts of the construction, while the cross section indicates the different tide levels, as well as the passage to the access slope which cuts through the wall of the quay and the stone wings built on each side of this access slope. It can also be seen that its former gradient of 1 in 8 has been decreased to one in 60 (we were able to establish this by comparing its length, which is indicated, with the difference in level which is also shown). The difference between the levels of the two ends in less than 2'. The Intendance Wharf, because of its solid construction and its usefulness for the trans-shipment of goods, was to be proposed as a model for the restoration of the other wharves.

Dauphin Wharf was extended to 120' in length, with a width of 16' 2". It was built in the same way as the previous one (except that it was not T-shaped), but despite the fact that was of a respectable length the water at the end of it was not of an ideal depth, and Franquet later proposed that it be extended by 16 toises 1 foot, including the crosspiece.

Thus as far as the quay was concerned, the contribution of the English was not only to keep it in good repair, as was noted by Boucher in 1749, but also to improve it both by the palisade erected along the whole length of the wall and, especially, by the definite improvements of the wharves. This is the state in which the French found the quay on their return in 1749.

IV

1749 - 1758

Like the period between 1731 and 1744, this was one of grandiose projects and interesting achievements. In this fourth section, this part of the history of Louisbourg will be dealt with under this dual aspect.

The first thing the French did on their return to the fortified town was to make a general inspection of the fortifications: it was for this purpose that the engineer Franquet was sent to Louisbourg in 1750. As we have already said, he noted the good condition of the quay as compared with the other parts of the fortifications and remarked on the solidity and great utility of the wharves repaired by the English. It was on the basis of this assessment and of his desire for the creation of an ideal fortress that he was to draw up his famous projects.

(a) Projects

Despite his satisfaction with the excellent condition and construction of the quay, Franquet, like the English before him, judged that the revetment of the quay was not high enough: "It has been raised 2' 8" from the angle of the right flank of the entrance in the eperon on side 5 to the angle flanked by the right face, in such a way that the offset of its foundation being level the revetment is only 13' 4" high at the former place and 16' at the latter (which also seems to include the parapet)". [45] This height is further diminished because of the accumulation of pebbles at the foot of the wall, to such an extent that there are places where the effective height is reduced to 7' 6" (in the recesses, at the corners of the flanks and the curtain). It was to remedy this situation that he proposed two projects for raising this front to "20' above the offset of its external revetment", for piercing embrasures through the thickness of the parapet every 10 toises so that there would be 12 of them along this front which could be opened at will without damaging the parapet, and finally for widening the banquette of the parapet.

We know that Franquet judged the English construction work on the wharves to be excellent and that he used them as models.

He proposed the extension of all the wharves so that there would be at least 5 feet of water at the end of them at low tide. The extensions proposed were 12 toises 4 feet for Dauphin Wharf, 12 toises 5 1/2 feet for Frédéric Wharf, and 4 toises 5 feet for the Coal Wharf. He also proposed that the wharf be T-shaped at the end, the crosspiece being 3 1/2 toises wide and 10 toises long.

These two types of projects for the quay were not equally successful. This time the factors of trade and public welfare were to take precedence over the defensive aspect.

(b) ACHIEVEMENT

In fact, the projects put forward by Franquet  for the improvement of the quay wall defenses were rot approved, probably because of their high cost in relation to the benefits which would have accrued from them. Thus the only work performed on this front of the fort during this period, up until the siege of 1758, was maintenance and light repairs. The right flank, for example, which was not repaired by the English, was raised and the embrasures were rebuilt. The rest of the wall was left as found in 1749 and none of the extensive work which had been planned was carried out.

However, there was greater activity on the wharves, probably because of  their greater immediate utility. It would appear that the merchants and traders both from the town and from outside it insisted strongly that the situation be improved and succeeded in having their views accepted even by Rouillé. This can be easily explained: fishing and trade, the basic activities of the town, were threatened, since in 1749 only the Intendant's House Wharf was in usable condition. The Market Wharf, which was built on a pile of pebbles, was more or less useless, ard it was suggested that it be eliminated. Each of the others had its own advantages, but they all needed improvement: the coal wharf was probably the most useful, because of the proximity of the coal storage area, but it had been built hurriedly and was not long enough; the wood of Frédéric Wharf was completely rotten in 1751, to the extent that it needed to be entirely rebuilt, and Dauphn Wharf needed extending if it was to be of any use.

Franquet's instructions concerning the quays stated that it was necessary "that the top surface at the end be 6 feet above the water at low tide, irrespective of the gradient of the wharf".[46]

In 1752, they began to prepare the materials required: Pieces of timber for the caps, piles of various lengths and 3" planks. [47] However, work did not begin until 1756; up until then only the most essential and urgent repairs were performed so that commerce was not too greatly impeded. [48]

In the meanwhile, Rouillé suggested that the wharves should not all be extended to the same length since he believed a short wharf would be more advantageous for small ships. [49]

Finally, in 1756, Franquet was ordered to restore the wharves which were in the worst state of repair "or which were the most important from the point of view of their usefulness". Work was begun immediately on Frédéric Wharf and Franquet tells us that before the end of the summer this work was completed to perfection, from which we might suppose that it had been done following the plans which he himself prepared. In 1757 the Coal Wharf was also restored and was made, like Frédéric Wharf, in the shape of a T. Dauphin Wharf, sometimes called Artillery Wharf, was solid and well built and was left in its previous condition. It was 120 feet long, which only left 18 inches of water at the end of it at low tide. Thus in 1758, all the wharves were in a very satisfactory condition.

In the same year, the front of the quay facing the port was judged to be one of the most solid of the fortifications: "All these fortifications facing the sea and forming the gorge of the place have a stone revetment which is covered by two inch planking (which distinguishes them from the others which are not so covered and which fall in ruins)". [50] This was the situation on this side on June 8, 1758, the day on which the English began the second siege of the town.

V

1758 - 1760

(a) The Siege

The English started to constitute a threat again in 1757. They wished to have done with Louisbourg and laid siege to it the following year from June 8 to July 26.

The quay does not seem to have suffered any major damage during the siege, but some emergency work was performed to improve the defensive and protective capacity of the fort. It is interesting to note what this work consisted of. Perpendicularly to the quay stone traverses were constructed "to prevent enfilading fire from ricocheting off the court-house and the lime-kiln". [50] There was one immediately to the left of the entrance to Dauphin Wharf, another forming an extension of the left flank of the quay, a third to the left of the entrance to Frédéric Wharf, and a fourth to the left of the Coal Wharf. These "provisional" traverses were 1 toise thick and their length varied from 5 toises for the Coal Wharf to 7 or 8 toises for the others. [51] From June 23 work was begun on entrenching the back of the quay: however. "this trench dug on the rue du Quay, with the quay wall rising about 6 feet above it, " [52] was not finished on July 7.

On the 26th it was decided to surrender following the breaching of the Dauphin Gate. The quay does not seem to have been harmed. On their return to the town the English do not mention any serious accidents to the quay.

(b) 1760

The second occupation of Louisbourg by the English was not at all like the previous one. In 1760 it was decided to demolish the fortifications of the town, and this was carried out during the summer and fall of the same year.

It might have been thought that the quay would have been spared because of the value of Louisbourg to the English as a fishing and trading port. The quay was very useful and even necessary for protecting this part of the town and was essential from a trading point of view. However, this does not seem to have been the opinion of the English, since a rapid and superficial reading of the Demolition Journal did not provide us with any definite evidence; the plans which were made of the demolition establish beyond any shadow of doubt that this part of the wall was destroyed. A map shows that the whole part along the sea opposite the harbor, from the extreme right of the beach stonework up to and including the buttress of Dauphin Gate, was demolished by hand. [53] Perhaps it was only the parapet which was destroyed, although the final plan of the complete demolition shows this part just as ruined as the rest of the fortifications. [54] In any case, this section of the town was very dilapidated in 1767 if we are to believe a plan of the year which said: "This ruin'd front almost washed away by the Sea which, if not Prevented,, will in time overflow this Street".[55] It would thus certainly seem that by this date nothing much was left of the quay wall. Only two wharves remained after the demolition, Port Frédéric Wharf and Coal Wharf. There were also the ruins of a third: the Intendant's Wharf.

This then was the sad end of the history of the quay of the town of Louisbourg. It is of course quite likely, although we have not investigated the matter, that some of the quay facilities were maintained for fishing purposes. But it was by no means the same well ordered, carefully designed and practical structure that it had previously been. This for the moment is the only conclusion which we can add to this study of the history and construction of the quay.

Return/retour - Table of Contents/
Table des Matières