SITE OF FOET LA TOUli. 63 



Nothiug could be more satisfactory ou this point, aud eveu other evidence is kuowu.' 



II. — The Foet Dufferin Site. 



To this view, Mr. J. W. Lawrence, New Brunswick's venerable historian, and Mr. 

 W. P. Dole, of St. John, have given their adherence. We cannot find that the former has 

 expressed his opinion in print ; but the latter has warmly championed the cause in a 

 paper read before the N. B. Historical Society, and published in abstract in the St. John 

 Daily Sun of December 5, 1888. The evidence in favour of the view is all expressed in the 

 following summary : — 



(1.) Tradition, derived from early settlers, in connection with the fact that fifty years 

 ago traces of old earthworks were there to be seen, and that a well in the vicinity was 

 called the Old French well. 



(2.) D.mys' description of the harbour, in which, according to Mr. Dole, it is stated 

 that Charnisay's Fort, built after the destruction of Fort La Tour, was farther up the 

 harbour than the latter. As Den ys plainly locates Charnisay's Fort, where Fort Frederick 

 afterwards was. Fort La Tour must therefore, according to Mr. Dole, be below, and Fort 

 Dufferin is the natural situation for it. 



No documentary, or cartographical or other evidence is offered in support of the view. 



That it cannot express the truth appears to be shown by the following facts : — 



(1.) Tradition in .such a case as this is well nigh worthless. Mr. Dole's tradition does 

 not pretend to go back of the New England immigrants who came to the River in 1*762 

 or 1163. The hundred and seventeen years which had elapsed since Fort La Tour fell 

 had seen many changes about the harbour ; forts had been erected and destroyed, and 

 then the rocky shores had been abandoned by inhabitants for many years together. 

 Prior to the coming of the New Euglauders, all of the French had been expelled from the 

 lower part of the river. Whence then did the former derive their tradition ? Unin- 

 terrupted occupation by a single people giA'es traditions of value, though even then they 

 may err ; irregular and intermittent occupation by p?ople of different races can afford no 

 traditions of weight in comparison with documentary evidence. We know nothing of 

 the origin of the earthworks or old well. 



(2.) Denys does not say what Mr. Dole attributes to him, but something entirely dif- 

 ferent, as our readers may judge for themselves from the translation given be^ow, and 

 from the original reproduced in the appendix. That so accomplished a scholar as Mr. 



' As tlie letter of Gorges to < Tov. Winthrop. (Williamson's '".Maine," Vol. I, p. :!lL', and references liere and 

 there in Winlhrop's "History of MassacliiLsetts.'') It is curious how thi.s view originated. Haliburton does not 

 distinctly stale, though he inipHes it. I'erhaps he lia<l it from tradition, and he was followed without question Ijv 

 Gesner, Munro and otiiers. I'erley, however, aud Rameau are independent investigators upon Xcw Brunswick 

 history and can hardly be supposed to have accepted it without some evidence. 



There is yet anotlier argument, ((uite unanswerable, which I had quite overlool<e.l, and which I owe, with 

 otlier valuable matter on New Brunswick history, to Mr. .J. W. Lawrence, our New Brunswick historian. The 

 lirst attack on the fort 1\V tharnisays ships took place in I^ebruary, and llie (inal attack between the lotli and liitli 

 of April, at both of wliirli seasons tlio river is frozen to its moi.th, and it would have been utterly impossible to 

 reach Jemseg. 



