THE year 1760 was the beginning of a new era in the history of North America. Although Canada was not surrendered by treaty until February, 1763, Great Britain was in actual possession of the country, and it was well understood that no peace would be made which involved its restoration to France. Nova Scotia was therefore safe from future attacks, and all that remained now, was to provide it with a population capable of developing its vast resources. But first of all tillers of the soil must be found and, as we have already seen, the work of obtaining them had been begun by Lawrence in 1758. Before the close of 1760 Lawrence was dead, and the work which he had left unfinished had to be taken up by others. His death was sudden, and while he was still in the prime of life, was perhaps none too soon for his fame, for he had already left a broad mark in the history of the country which he governed. The expulsion of the Acadians will always be associated with his name, for he was the originator and main instrument of that severe measure. If he had lived longer he would have been almost certain to get into trouble with the House of Assembly, for he was not a friend of popular government, and he did not approve of the establishment of a legislative assembly, a measure which the English cabinet of that day thought necessary to the peace and progress of the colony.

On Lawrence's death, which occurred in October, the senior member of the council, Mr. Belcher, assumed the government, and continued to administer the affairs of the province until the appointment of Col. Montague Wilmot as governor in September, 1763. Belcher, who became Chief Justice of Nova Scotia, was a civilian, and he appears to have been in a constant state of trepidation with respect to the Acadians. Although it was evident to everyone but himself, that since the conquest of Canada they could no longer be dangerous, he appears to have lived in daily fear of attacks from them and was desperately anxious to get them all out of the country. In April, 1761., he wrote to the Lords of Trade in regard to the danger from the presence of the Acadians, of whom he said 1,540 had not submitted to the government. Of these, 1,300 were at Miramichi and Restigouche, and 240 persons at Chignecto. At Halifax there were 440 Acadians. A considerable number of the Acadians who were at Halifax had been to England. Belcher gives no estimate of the number of Acadians on the St. John River, except that there were 40 at St. Anne's. He asked for help to prevent the Acadians doing any mischief. As the province was then being settled by people from New England, he feared that any hostile movement on the part of the Acadians would tend to prevent the settlement of the province. Lord Amherst, who desired the restoration of peace as speedily as possible, made light of his fears, but later in the year it was reported that some of the Acadians who remained in the Bay Chaleur were engaged in privateering and capturing English vessels. Belcher sent Capt. Roderick Mackenzie, of the Montgomery Highlanders, the 77th Regiment, who commanded at Fort Cumberland, with a body of his troops, in two vessels to put a stop to their outrages, and he succeeded in surprising and capturing 787 Acadians, men, women and children, of whom he carried 335, all his vessels would accommodate, to Halifax. The remainder promised to come in when summoned.

In the meantime the settlement of the northern portion of Nova Scotia was proceeding steadily. In this year some twenty-five families from Rhode Island settled at Sackville, and soon afterwards they were joined by others from Massachusetts. As the lands they occupied were very rich, this settlement grew very rapidly and had 349 inhabitants, all natives of America, in 1767. Cumberland township, which embraced lands north of the Misseguasli and east of Sackville, was settled about the same time as the latter. In 1763 it contained 35 families and in 1767 its inhabitants numbered 334, of whom 269 were born in America. In 1763 the grant of 34,500 acres of this township passed to Joseph Morse and sixty-five others. Many of the settlers, both of Cumberland and Sackville, were unfortunate enough to take part with the New England rebels and found it necessary to fly the country. In 1762 the settlement of the St. John River by people of English origin began. The previous autumn the country had been explored by a party from Massachusetts, under the leadership of Israel Perley, representing a number of persons who were looking for land. Their report was favorable and on the 28th August, 1762, Capt. Peabody, the first English settler at St. John, arrived in a small vessel from Newhury-port, accompanied by his family and several other persons. They had brought with them the frame and materials of a house, which was erected immediately and occupied the third day. It was built at Portland Pt. on the site of an old French fort. With Peabody was James Simonds, who founded the first business establishment at St. John and became wealthy.

The following year a large number of settlers arrived at St. John, in four vessels, under, the guidance of Israel Perley, and proceeded up river. They settled on the east side of the St. John, on the territory now occupied by the parishes of Maugerville and Sheffield, the whole of which was originally known as Maugerville. There is no record of the number that came in this immigration, but in 1767 the parish of Maugerville had 261 inhabitants, all Protestants and all except 26 natives of America. Most of the men in this colony had taken part in the war which resulted in the conquest of Canada, either as officers or privates. Capt. Peabody had won distinction in the operations about Fort William Henry in 1756 and all the others had seen service. These settlers appear to have located themselves on the St. John without reference to the government of Nova Scotia, hut such an invasion of the territory of that province was entirely in the line of the conduct of Massachusetts, whose government, from the landing of the Puritans in Boston, in 1650, had endeavored to steal all the territory in sight from their neighbors. When the news reached Halifax, Messrs. Newton and Morris, a committee of Council, were sent to notify them that the lands on the St. John were reserved for disbanded soldiers. The. committee reported on their return that they should not be disturbed, but should receive grants. This was an act of grace that ought to have been remembered at a later day.

The close of the war in 1763 greatly increased the number of land seekers in Nova Scotia. A great many officers and soldiers were disbanded and it was thought they could be best provided for by giving them land grants. According to the scale adopted, field officers who served in the war were entitled to 5,000 acres, captains to 3,000 acres, subalterns 2,000 acres, non-commissioned officers 200 acres, and privates 50 acres. These grants were excessive, for the officers and perhaps too small for the men, but the figures are worth reproducing as an illustration of the spirit of the age. This was still further shown by the case of certain field officers who acquired lands for speculative purposes. General Haldimand, General Boquet, General Gage and other officers received enormous land grants, although they did not propose to live on their estates, but intended to place tenants upon them. New Brunswick had in this way a very narrow escape from a system of landlordism similar to that in England, which has had the effect of making a few persons rich at the expense of the mass of the people. Such a system was imposed on Prince Edward Island and had to be got rid of a century later at a great cost. It failed in New Brunswick owing to various causes, the main one being the war of the Revolution which for a time put an end to the settlement of these large estates, and, when the war was ended, brought such a large body of Loyalists into the country that the large estates could not be held by the grantees. One speculator named McNutt, who claimed to be able to bring out a large body of settlers, got upwards of two million acres of land reserved for him in Nova Scotia, of which one million one hundred thousand acres were on the St. John River. Major Otho Hamilton of the 40th Regt. had 100,000 acres reserved for him on the St. John, and this was but an example of the manner m which the land was given in (5overnor Wilmot's time. Among the large grants of that period were 100,000 acres and 50,000 acres in Conway to Thomas Falconer and others, and to the same parties 125,00c acres in Sunbury township. Alex. McNutt and others were granted 100,000 acres in the township of Amesbury on the St. John, and 100,000 acres on the Iveswick. Col Haldiinand and his associates got 50,000 acres on the Nasliwaak, and 100,000 acres at Shepody, including Hopewell township. These are but examples of the reckless manner in which the land was given away. The effect of this was that when the Loyalists came they found the best lauds on the St. John River in the hands of speculators who hail clone nothing to carry out the conditions of their grants, and processes of escheat had to be resorted to for the purpose of obtaining land for the new comers. In this way and by other legal processes the great landowners were got rid of, and New Brunswick became a land of freeholders where nearly every man owned the soil he tilled.

In 1705 Hopewell township, 100,010 acres, was granted to Boquet, Haldimand and three others, and Hillsboro township to Robert Cummings and four others. Moncton township at the same time was granted to John Hughs and others. A considerable number of persons, mostly Germans, from Pennsylvania were sent to settle these townships in 1705 and the years immediately following. In 1767 Moncton is returned as having sixty inhabitants of whom 40 were Germans. This census makes no mention of either Hillsboro or Hopewell, so it is to be presumed the number of settlers was small when it was taken. There is a good deal in regard to the Shepody settlement, as Hopewell was called, in the Haldimand correspondence, beginning with the year 1765. The fate of all these settlements was the same. The proprietors, on placing tenants on the lands, were unable to comply with the conditions they had agreed to and were sued by their tenants. The latter got verdicts against the landlords, and the lands were sold for the damage and costs and bought in by the tenants who thus became freeholders. The descendants of these people are now numerous in Westmorland and Albert counties.

In 1705 William Davidson, a native of Scotland, who was familiar with the Scotch method of curing salmon, went to reside on the Miramichi. He and his partner, John Cort, obtained a grant of 100,000 acres on the Miramichi River including Beaubear's Island, and there established an extensive fishery which employed a large number of people. About this time the Passatnaquoddy district was also being settled. There were fishing camps on the St. Croix as early as 1760, and gradually settlers began to come. James Simonds and his partner were carrying on fishing operations at Passamaquoddy in 1763 and subsequent years. The same year Indian Island was settled by James Boyd, and in 1766 Robert Wilson took up his abode at Cainpobello. All these settlements were the results of the peace which had liberated Nova Scotia from the terror which had so long retarded the country's progress. The Indians, no longer protected and encouraged by France, were forced to remain quiet, and gave no more trouble to the industrious settler. He could now till his fields without the fear of being murdered, and his property stolen or destroyed. Thus the first condition of progress and prosperity was realized, and it was hoped and believed that the peace would be a lasting one. The garrisons were all reduced and some of them entirely abolished. Fort Frederick at St. John, which during the war had a garrison of 200 men, was left to the care of Mr. James Simonds, who, in 1764, established his principal fishing station and place of business at St. John. This was the beginning of the commerce of what has grown to be one of the chief cities of Canada and its principal winter port.

The total population of that part of Nova Scotia which is now New Brunswick, according to the census of 1707, was 1,190, of whom 147 were Acadians. Of the remainder, 874 were natives of America, sixty were Germans, fifty-three Irish, twenty-five English and seventeen Scotch. The number of Acadians returned is probably much too large, but, as they lived in remote sections of the province, it was not easy to obtain correct returns of them. The people of American birth, natives of New England, formed three-fourths of the population, and were the only element worthy of being taken into account in connection with the growth of the country. The principal settlements, such as Maugerville, Sackville and Cumberland, were merely New England communities planted in Nova Scotia, with all the peculiarities, prejudices and opinions of the communities from which they had emigrated. This fact became of great importance during the Revolutionary troubles a few years later.

The close of the war with France left the English colonies in North America free from the dangers which had constantly menaced them. The colonists had taken an active part in the war, they had acquired military experience, and, fighting side by side with the British troops, they had learned that they were the equals of the regular soldiers in most things and their superiors in some respects. They had seen brave soldiers sacrificed by the glaring incompetence of British generals, and they had formed a low opinion of the capacity of the average British officer, whose ignorance of his duties was only equalled by his arrogance and insolence to the colonists. Thus a double evil Was inflicted on the British name for the Englishman was despised as well as disliked, and the way was prepared for that separation of the British beyond the seas, from the mother country which was ratified just twenty years after the signing of the Treaty of Paris. That separation was perhaps inevitable, but it might have been brought about without bloodshed and all the evils which resulted from a long and costly war.

The first act in the mournful drama which, in the course of a few years, changed a loyal and vigorous population of Englishmen into bitter enemies of the mother country, was the passage of a resolution, introduced by Grenville, in the British House of Commons, announcing the intention of the government to raise a revenue in America by requiring all legal documents to bear stamps. The stamp act was passed early in 1765, notwithstanding the remonstrances of the colonists, but the attempt to enforce it produced riots in most of the colonies. A general congress of the colonies, at which nine were represented, was assembled in New York and passed a series of resolutions against the stamp act. Memorials were also drafted and addressed to the King and both Houses of Parliament, praying for the repeal of the obnoxious measure. The ground taken by the colonists was that they could not be taxed except by their own legislatures, a doctrine, the correctness of which has been long since conceded, but which was practically denied by the ministers of George III. The determination of this King to force the colonies to submit to taxation without representation, led to the loss of

America. In the course of a few months the stamp act was repealed, hut the policy which caused that act to he passed was persisted in at a later day with lamentable results to the British Empire. An act was passed imposing duties on certain articles imported into the American Colonies direct from the country of production, one of these articles being tea. This measure, which was introduced by Charles Townshend, had the strong support of the King, and it became law in the latter part of 1767. This act was so far modified as to be made to apply only to tea, but this did not mend matters, tor the Americans were contending for a principle which was as much endangered by the imposition of a duty on one article as on one hundred.

This is not the place in which to enter on a detailed history of the American Revolution, but it is proper to say something of the person who was mainly responsible for it, George III. This King has better reasons for being remembered than most of his predecessors, for it was owing to his obstinate folly, that the affections of his loyal subjects in America were alienated, and the thirteen colonies lost to the Empire. George III. was a man of mean understanding and inferior education, without literary or artistic taste, without culture of any kind, a tyrant in his disposition and an enemy of liberty, who was determined to rule at all hazards, both at home and abroad. His apologists endeavor to excuse his faults, by saying that he was a good husband and did not keep a mistress like the two first Georges. But this fact only made him the more dangerous as a King, to the liberties of his people for it gave an air of respectability to his worst measures. That his notions of morality were low, can he easily proved by his constant resort to the bribery of members to carry his measures in the House of Commons, a business that he carried on in the most unblushing fashion. His reign was a period of loss and humiliation for England in many quarters of the world, but nowhere more so than in America, where a new and hostile nation was created that may yet become a source of danger to the mother country.

The province of Nova Scotia had possessed a legislature since 1758, but it was not until 1765 that the people residing on the St. John River became entitled to representation in it. In that year the western portion of what is now New Brunswick was erected into a separate county under the name of Sunbury. This name was given to it out of compliment to the Earl of Halifax whose second title was Viscount Sunbury. The new county was allowed two members in the Legislature. At the same time the township of Sackville, which had become sufficiently populous to be entitled to representation, was allowed one member. The township of Cumberland had previously been given one member, and it was first represented in the new House of Assembly which met in 1765. In this early granting of representation to the new settlements, the authorities at Halifax were merely carrying out the terms of the agreement under which the New England settlers had been induced to come to Nova Scotia. They had stipulated that they should enjoy the same representative institutions as they had in New England, and the same control over public affairs.

From the year 1765 to the outbreak of the American Revolution, the northern part of Nova Scotia did not make much figure in history. The work of settlement proceeded slowly but steadily. Besides the important settlement at Maugerville the territory 011 the St. John River was divided into a number of townships, most of which have now wholly disappeared from the map of New Brunswick. On the west side of the river, from the sea to the mouth of the Nerepis, was the township of Conway 011 which a few families were settled. Beyond Conway, was Glasier's Manor, a tract of 5,000 acres which was granted in 1765 to Col. Beansley Glasier. On the west side of Long Reach, below the Devil's Back, Col. Convngham and others had a grant of 5,000 acres. At the place now known as Brown's Flat, Isaac and James Caton had a grant of 2,000 acres including the islands opposite. Beyond that was lvemble Manor, granted to Thomas (3age and others, containing 20,000 acres. Then came the township of Gagetown, 100,000 acres of which were granted to Thomas Falconer and others. Beyond Gagetown was Burton, which included the present parish of Lincoln. This was also granted to Thomas Falconer and others. Sunbury township came next. It included the territory 011 the west side of the rivet from the south line of the County of York to Long's Creek. Of this township 125,000 acres were granted to Thomas Falconer and others. On the east side of the river near the foot of the Reach, 10,000 acres were granted in 1765 to Walter Sterling and others. On the same side of the river was the township of Amesbury, which extended from the month of the Belleisle north along the river to the lower line of Maugerville. North of Maugerville was New Town, wdiich extended beyond the Nashwaak and was granted to General Haldimand and others. Beyond New Town was Frankfort, along the Keswick, 100,000 acres of which were granted to McNutt and others. The owners of these extensive grants in some cases, placed a few settlers upon them, but the number was so small that in 1783, when the Loyalists came, the population of ad the the townships on the St. John river, outside of Maugerville, and exclusive of French inhabitants, only reached a total of 521 persons. At that time many of the persons who had received grants were dead, some had become rebels, and a few resided in the United Kingdom and had no means of improving the land that had been given them. The townships which had been created ceased to exist and Conway, Amesbury, Frankfort, New Town, and Sunbury have long ceased to exist as townships.

In 1770 Lieutenant Owen, of the Royal Navy, having three years previously received a grant of the Island of Carnpobello, placed about thirty settlers upon it and established himself there. This was the beginning of a settlement which was destined to be permanent, and the title to the Island of Carnpobello, continued ia the Owen family for more than a century, by which time it contained more than one thousand inhabitants, most of them tenants of the family. This was the only grant in New Brunswick that fulfilled its original intention by establishing a system of landlordism such as exists on the other side of the Atlantic, and the fact that the residents of that island were a community of fishermen rather than of farmers may have had a good deal to do with the permanency of the system. In 1772, the township of Sack\ He received a fresh body of settlers from England, all natives of Yorkshire. This was a fortunate event, for these men were loyal and remained faithful to the government at a time when the men from New England were seeking to subvert the authority that had given them the soil on which they dwelt. The descendants of these Yorkshire settlers are now numerous and influential in the County of Westmorland.

It is to be regretted that we have no statistics of the New Brunswick settlements on the eve of the American Revolution, but, except in the case of St. John and Conway, there are no figures of a later date than 1767. In 1775 there was an enumeration of the inhabitants of both these places from which it appears that 11 families, numbering 70 persons, lived at St. John and 17 families, numbering 72 persons, at Conway. All these people, with the exception of one Irishman in St. John and two Englishmen in Conway, were natives of America. They were all Protestants and the adult males in both communities numbered forty-one. Both communities were prospering and apparently their slow but steady growth was not likely to be disturbed, when, suddenly, the Revolution came, destroying the business of both communities at first, but finally giving them such an increase of population as made them at once important centres of industry and commerce. However much injury the Revolution may have done to other parts of America, it certainly proved in the end a great benefit to New Brunswick. Had it not been for that untoward event this territory might have waited long for the energetic and experienced population that was so suddenly cast on its shores.

The life of a settler on the St. John River, prior to the Revolution, must have been dull enough. The means of travel were so few, that he was practically cut off from the outside world, a journey to Boston or Halifax being a much greater undertaking than one to England is at present. The only means of reaching these places was by the river to the sea and from thence by a small trading sloop to the place of destination. But the river was frozen for nearly half the year and the sea was then dangerous to navigate by small crafts. During the season, when the river was free from ice, boats and canoes were the principal means of travel' There were no roads and no wheeled carnages, so that travel by land had to be on horseback, over rude paths through the woods, or along the edges of the intervales. The houses of the settlers were rude in the extreme and very scantily furnished. This lack of what would now be regarded as the ordinary comforts of life, was not due so much to poverty, as to the difficulty of procuring the necessary articles. All the trading of the settlers on the river was done with Simonds, Hazen and White at St. John, and tor the convenience of those who could not leave their farms, a sloop laden with goods was occasionally sent up the river and returned with the produce for which the goods had been exchanged. Money was not plentiful, most of the transactions being by barter.

As money was scarce and the market limited, it was the aim of every settler to live within himself as far as possible. His farm was expected to provide him with all his food and ordinary clothing, leaving to be purchased only such necessary articles as the farm did not produce. Indian corn was then grown to a much greater extent than at present, and it formed the staple of the food of the people. Where transactions were in kind, corn was made the basis of board, half a bushel of corn being the equivalent of a week's board of a man. Sometimes board was paid for in work and two days work was reckoned for a week's board. The rate of wages was two shillings a day, New England currency, except for mowing, framing, hoeing corn and raking hay for which the rate was two shillings and sixpence. This last sum was equal to a fraction over forty-one cents of the New Brunswick money of the present day. The wages of a woman servant were ten shillings a month, equal to eighteen dollars a year of the money of today, and yet, at that time, every article of wearing apparel which had to be purchased was more costly than at present. Indeed almost the only article that was cheaper in 1770 than it is now was rum.

The St. John River settlers of that day were very religious, but they could not accomplish anything without a considerable consumption of liquor. The item of rum figures in even account, for it was looked upon as one of the necessaries of life. Not only was it drunk at all gatherings of a festive character, but also wherever men met together for work, and it was used in the family as tea is in this century. Strange to say the people were not ashamed of this open use of liquor, and they would have laughed at any man who proclaimed its use a sin. In those days they did not vote for prohibition or for Scott acts, and then sneak behind a barn to suck a bottle of bad whisky. They may have been mistaken in their views, bat they were at least manly in avowing them. The use of liquor undoubtedly leads to many great evils, but there can hardly be any evil so great as for whole communities to vote for and pretend to support sumptuary laws which in practice they condemn and disobey, thereby bringing all laws into contempt.

The opportunities for education in New Brunswick one hundred and forty years ago were not very good. The teachers were few in number and were mostly persons who were engaged in other employments during the summer months. Winter was thus the time for attending school, but the distances were great, the roads bad, and there were many days when school could not be reached. It required a great deal of zeal and energy for a youth to obtain an education in those days. The people, as I have already said, were very religious, most of them members of the Congregational Churches of New England. As they had few amusements, their zeal for attending church was great. They had 110 church building for many years, and religious services had to be held in their houses. It was a long time before they had a settled ministry, but transient preachers visited them occasionally, and were always cordially welcomed. The first settled minister on the St. John River was the Rev. Seth Noble. He received a call in June, 1774, his salary being fixed at sixty-five pounds currency, with a settlement allowance of one hundred and twenty pounds. In addition to this, he was to have twenty-five cords of wood cut and hauled for him every year. These were very liberal terms, considering the smallness of the population and their limited means. The Rev. Seth Noble accepted them, and it would have been well for him, as well as for his flock, if he had been content to devote himself to his duties as a Christian minister. Instead of doing this, he sought, and with considerable success, to teach his people to become rebels, and, as a result, had to fly the country, and take refuge in Maine where his circumstances were not nearly so good as they would have been if he had remained on the St. John.

The farmers on the St. John grew an abundance of hay and were able to keep many cattle, for which there was always a market, especially after the beginning of the war of the Revolution, when supplies were needed for the British armies. Thus they could live in tolerable comfort with but little labour, and if they did not possess much money, they had its equivalent in another form. The intellectual side of their natures was not well nourished, books were few in number, mostly dry religious treatises, but most of them probably had no taste for literature, and a man seldom misses what he has never known. On the whole, although their lives were dull and devoid of those excitements which belong to our modern life, no community in America was in a fairer way of worldly prosperity than the settlers on the intervale and marsh lands of New Brunswick, when the war of the Revolution came and threw the whole continent into confusion.

SITE OF FORT LA TOUR
Appendix to Chapter V.

Attempts have been made to prove that the alleged old French Fort on Portland Point was the original Fort La Tour, instead oi the fort on the Point behind Navy Island, which afterwards was rebuilt by Villebou, and, after the English occupation, became Fort Frederick. Professor Ganong, of Smith's College, is the leading advocate of this theory, and ] have therefore thought it only fair that he should be heard in defence of it, in the form of a note in this book. At my request he has written the following:

"Dr. Hannay has been so courteous as to invite me to contribute to his book a note 011 the site of Fort La Tour. I accept with the greatest pleasure, and with an appreciation heightened by the recollection that, in the past, his views upon this subject have differed from mine. Would that I might reckon him among my converts 1

"Of the four or five sites which have been assigned, at various times, to Fort La Tour, only two appear to deserve serious historical consideration— the "Old Fort" site, on the west side of the harbour, and Portland Point, on the east side. Both are known to have been occupied by French forts in early days. I cannot, of course, attempt here to discuss the historical evidence in the case, but must content myself with the briefest synopsis of its general nature, leaving the interested reader to turn for details to the publications mentioned below.

"We note first the evidence for the Carleton or west side site. It consists in (1) tradition, (2) a statement of a French officer in 1760, who places Fort La Tour there, (3) certain maps which locate it there, including one made shortly after its destruction, and others of 1755 and later. Further than this, no evidence for this site, I believe, exists. In answer I would say—(1) tradition is notoriously untrustworthy for events so long removed, (2) the chance statement of a visiting officer, over a century after the destruction of the fort, can have little weight in such a case, and (3) all the known maps of importance which place the fort on the west side, do so in first editions only, and remove it to the east side, in their later and corrected editions.

"We consider next the evidence for the Portland Point Site. It is as follows:—(1") Nicholas Denys, in 1672, published his well-known book, in which he gives a description of St. John Harbor. He is known as a faithful narrator of all that came within his own knowledge; had visited the harbour within a few years after the destruction of the fort and had employed some of La Tour's men. His description is very clear, and appears to be, to allow no doubt that Charnisay's fort, built after the destruction of La Tour's, stood upon the old fort site at Carleton. He does not tell us where La Tour's stood, except it was on higher ground and had better water than Charnisay's, but his words appear to me to imply that "t was on the opposite side of Navy Island from Charnisays' Fort, which would locate it at Portland Point. (2) All of the numerous known maps (many of them made from independent data) which appeared during the century after the destruction of the fort, place it upon the east side, with hut a single exception, and that one in its later editions removes it to the east side. Even the principal map of later date, which marks it on the west side, in a first edition, removes it to the east side in a later issue. The map evidence, therefore, is practically unanimous in placing it upon the east side. Now, but a single fort site is known on the east side, and that was at Portland Point, which fact, taken in connection with the implication of Denys, that it was on the side of Navy Island away from Charnisays' fort, seems to me to locate it at Portland Point.

"In order to make out a case lor the Carleton site, it is not only necessary to bring forward some positive evidence for that site, comparable in value with that favoring the Portland Point site, but the testimony of Denys must be explained away, and the early map-makers, must be proven to be wrong. To view the subject in another way, if one assumes that Fort La Tour stood at Carleton, he is involved in a maze of difficulties and inconsistencies as he reviews the historical evidence. If he assumes that it stood at Portland Point, there are no difficulties whatsoever, and all the evidence is clear and consistent.

"The argument and evidence is given in detail in my paper in the Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada in the volume for 1801, and in the New Brunswick Magazine for July and September, 1898, while Mr. Hannay's reply is in the same magazine for August, 1898. W. F. Ganong.

My answer to this statement is as follows, which is copied from the New Brunswick Magazine, of August, 1898:

"For the proofs of his theory that Fort LaTour stood at Portland Point, and that the fort on the Carleton side, now known as Old Fort, was the one built by d'Aulnay Charnisay, LaTour's enemy, Dr. Ganoug relies on a description of St. John written by Nicholas Denys, who hail visited Fort LaTour in the lifetime of its owner, and also on the evidence of maps which place Fort LaTour on the east side of the harbor of St. John. Naturally and properly he depends mainly on the testimony of Denys, which is that of a contemporary and eyewitness, and I shall follow his example i a this respect. I therefore repeat the quotation from Denys, which appeared in Dr. Ganong's paper in the July issue of this magazine and which is as follows:

"This entrance is narrow, because of a little island which is to larboard or on the left side, which being passed the river is much larger. On the same side as the island there are large marshes on flats which are covered at high tide; the beach is of muddy sand which makes a point, which passed, there is a cove (or creek) which makes into the said marshes, of which the entrance, is narrow, and there the late Sieur Monsieur de la Tour has caused to be made a wen, in which were caught a great number of those Gaspereaux which were salted for winter, [here follows an account of the fish caught]. A little further on, beyond the said weir, there is a little knoll where d'Aulnay built his fort, which I have not found well placed according to my idea, for it is commanded by an island which is very near and higher ground, and behind which all ships can place themselves under cover from the fort, in which there is only water from pits, which is not very good, no better than that outside the fort. It would have been in my opinion better plated behind the island where vessels anchor, and where it would have been higher, and in consequence not commanded by other neigh boring places, and where it would have had good water, as in that which was built by the said late Sieur de la Tour, which was destroyed bv d'Aulnay after he had wrongfully taken possession of it, etc."

"Ganong in his paper proceeds to identify the various localities referred to by Denys, and up to a certain point I agree with him. I admit that the island referred to as being at the entrance of the harbor is Partridge Island, and the point of sand is the place now called Sand Point, the site of the deep water wharf of the Canadian Pacific railway. The cove or creek where LaTour had his weir is also easily recognized as that which runs through the Carleton flats from the Mill Pond. So far 1 am with Dr. Ganong in the work of identification, but when he proceeds to select "Old Fort" in Carleton, as the "little knoll" on which Charnisay built his fort, I must take issue with hint. I am quite willing to admit that if Denys had stopped at this point, I might have accepted Dr. Ganong's theory, although I do not think that a "little knoll" is a good description of the site of the Carleton fort. Its elevation is slight, but, as a point of land, it must have been very prominent when Denys saw it before the Carleton flats were covered with wharves. That accurate observer would therefore have probably described it, as being the extremity of a point of land, if he had been referring to it in that connexion. On the other hand Portland Point is really no point at all, and the site of the fort there might very well be described as a "little knoll." Denys does not say that this "little knoll" was on the west side, but that it was "a little further on beyond the said weir." Now the distance from Sand Point, where? the weir was, to "Old Fort," Carleton, is 2,000 feet, while to Portland Point, it is 4,400 feet. As the-shortest of these distances is just half a mile, it appears to me that the term "a little farther on" is quite as applicable to the longer distance as to the shorter. However, 1 am not concerned to find a location for Charnisay's fort at Portland Point or elsewhere, 1 only desire to show that it could not have been at "Old Fort," Carleton, where Dr. Ganong undertakes to place it, although to accomplish this, it becomes necessary for him to give the word "behind" a different meaning from that which it has in ordinary use. If "behind'" and "in front of" were interchangeable terms I might yield to Dr. Ganong's views, but not otherwise.

If Harbor Master Taylor ordered a foreign sea captain to moor his vessel at Rankin's wharf, and, as a further direction, told him that Rankin's wharf was behind Navy Island, what chance would the foreign captain have of finding that locality? He would never find it from that direction, because-Rankin's wharf is no more behind Navy Island than the South wharf is, or than any other wharf on the east side. Yet Dr. Ganong, m his paper, on the site of Fort LaTour, read before the Royal Society of Canada, and m his article in the New Brunswick Magazine, tries to make it appear that this locality is behind Navy Island. Denys says that he did not think Charnisay's fort well placed because it is commanded by an island which is very near it, and behind wdiich ships ran place themselves under cover from the fort. It would have been, in his opinion, better placed behind the island where vessels anchor, and where it would have been higher and not commanded by other neighboring places. "Old Fort," on the Carleton side, is behind Navy Island, the island where vessels anchor, and there is no other locality in the harbor that answers this description. The text of Denys, which I quote above, leads us to infer that Fort LaTour was on that site, and I have no doubt that that was the case. At all events, Denys clearly shows that. Charnisay's fort was not there, thus effectually disproving Dr. Ganong's theory. 1 must confess that it is a puzzle to me to understand how so accurate an observer and so candid a writer as Dr. Ganong has been able to bring himself to the belief that the term "behind" Navy Island could apply to Portland Point or any other point on the east side of the harbor.

The evidence of maps upon which Dr. Ganong relied to prove that Fort LaTour was on the east side of the harbor of St. John, has not gone far to establish his case. He says that all of the maps known to him, dated before the year 1700, which mark Fort LaTour, place it on the east side, "with one exception." This exception, however, is rather important, for it is the Duval map, which in the editions of 1053 and 1664 place A, on the west side. A third edition of this map, issued in 1667, shows a fort on the east side, but does not name it. The first two editions of the Duval map are the earliest extant after the occupation of Fort LaTour in 1635, and therefore their authority is of the highest. Dr. Ganong thinks that the edition of this map of 1677 is the most to be relied upon, because "second or later editions of maps, like later editions of books, are likely to be more accurate than the first." This proposition is an entire reversal of the rules of evidence which prevail in courts of law, and it is no more to be accepted than Dr. Ganong's attempt to make the word "behind" mean the same thing as in front of. The ancient deed proves itself; the ancient map is of higher authority than any modern edition of it, where the question to be decided is the site of a fort which existed when the ancient map was made but which had become a ruin before the later map appeared. Fort LaTour was completed about the year 1635. It was captured by Charnisay and destroyed in 1645. Its ruin was so complete that the latter found it necessary to build another fort on a different site to maintain his occupation on the River St. John. When LaTour again obtained possession of his property, after Charnisay's death, in 1650, we are left in doubt as to whether he occupied his old fort or the new one which Charnisay had built. When he sold out his rights in Acadia to Temple and Crowne, a few years later, he probably retained his residence in one of the forts while the English occupied the other. The fort in which he resided would likely be named Fort LaTour, whether it was the original Fort LaTour or not, and this may account for Fort LaTour being placed on the east side of the harbor a some maps. LaTour died in 1000 and soon after his death Acadia was restored to France under the terms of the treaty of Breda. No mention is made of Fort LaTour in connection with the surrender of the various Acadian forts to the French, and therefore we may infer that this fort, in 1670, had become a ruin. Probably, however, Fort LaTour was the one occupied by De Marson or Soulanges, who from 1670 to 1678 commanded on the St. John river under the Governor of Acadia. When Villebon proposed to remove his garrison from Fort Nashwaak to Fort La Tour, in 1697, he found that the old fort was in fairly good condition, and he restored it and improved it. Three or four years later it was abandoned ami the French garrison removed to Port Royal. It was, however, occupied by the French after the expulsion of the Acadians in 1755, and when the French were driven away from the St. John river, three years later, it was occupied by an English garrison and restored or rebuilt. The fort on the west side, therefore, notwithstanding some defects incident to its situation, was always preferred to the one on the east side. Indeed our knowledge of the latter is so slight that there are really some doubts as to whether there ever was a fort on the east side. The selection of the west side site by LaTour, by Villebon and by the English, is the best answer that could be given to Dr. Ganong's criticisms, based on it being commanded by higher ground and not being well supplied with water It thoroughly commanded the entrance to the river, which no fort erected at Portland Point could do, because the range of cannon two hundred and fifty years ago was slight. Dr. Ganong supposes that an enemy's ship could lie in the channel and attack Fort LaTour, and he gives this as one reason why Fort LaTour was located at Portland Point. He does not seem to be aware that tlie channel between Navy Island and the east side is 100 feet deep, that the current runs with fearful rapidity, so that no man, in his senses, would anchor his ship there unless he wished to have his vessel destroyed. The place where vessels anchor, referred to by Denys in his book, was on the Carleton side just north and west of Navy Island and close to the Old Fort." That place could be reached at high water by vessels passing through the Buttermilk channel in spite of anything that the occupants of a fort at Portland Point could do to prevent them, and if they were armed ships they could lie to the north-west of Navy Island and cannonade Portland Point without being liable to suffer much damage themselves. This was the fatal vice of the Portland Point site—that it did not command the river and that it could be attacked by the ships of an enemy lying behind Navy Island. The description of Denys shows that this was why he did not think Charnisay's fort well placed, but preferred the site behind Navy Island where he leads us to infer Fort LaTour was situated.