64 W. F. GANOISTG ON THE 



Dole should have misread the plain French of Deuys' narrative is most surprising. Deuys 

 docs say that Charnisay's Fort stood on the site of Fort Frederick, as Mr. Dole states, bi\t 

 he says not one word that can be construed to mean that Fort La Tour stood below it or 

 anywhere in the vicinity of Fort DulTerin.' 



(3.) The total lack of other documentary and of cartographical evidence, in face of 

 the mass of both, placing the fort farther up the harbour, cannot be overlooked. Early 

 maps marking the forts on the harbour place neither of them at Fort DufFerin. 



III. — The Fort Frederick Site. 



This view was mentioned by Murdoch in 1864. To it the adherence of James Hannay, 

 after long and careful study bearing on the question, gives the strongest support; and 

 other local historians believe for the most part with him. Mr. Hannay has summed up 

 the evidence in a paper presented to the N. B. Historical Society in Feb.. 1882,- and pub- 

 lished in a local paper at that time. 



The evidence for his view is as follows, resting 



(1) Upon a reading of Denys' narrative, which would make the "marshes" referred 

 to by the latter the flats of Courtenay Bay ; Charnisay's Fort, which was above them on 

 the same side, would therefore come on the east side, and probably at Portland Point. As 

 two forts are mentioned by Deuys (a fact for which there is other ample evidence), and as 

 Old Fort Point (site of Fort Frederick) is the only other place on the harbour where a 

 fort is known to have stood, by a process of exclusion, Fort La Tour mi\st have stood on 

 Old Fort Point in Carleton. 



(2.) Upon a statement of M. Massé de St. Maurice, in a letter to the French Government, 

 written in lYGO,' in which it is said : " Fort La Tour, or St. John, is on the left bank of the 

 River St. John, and that it has a garrison of 180 Englishmen." As this garrison was cer- 

 tainly in Fort Frederick, the latter and Fort La Tour must therefore occupy the same site.^ 



(3.) Upon a chain of reasoning which endeavours lo trace the history of both forts 

 continuously from the time of La Tour and Charnisay to the building of Fort Frederick, 

 and to show that the Portland Point Fort, Villebou's Fort, and Charnisay's Fort all occu- 

 pied one site, while Fort Frederick, a fort mentioned by Cardillac and others, and Fort La 

 Tour occupied the Carleton site. 



No evidence from maps is offered by Mr. Hannay. 



The reasons why Mr. Hannay's arguments are far from convincing are as follows : — 

 (1.) He has incorrectly read Denys' narrative ; or rather, in the copy or translation 



' Unless Denys' mention of "bobind tbe island where vessels anchor'' be taken to refer to Partridge Island. 

 But not only is this not sustained by any facts whatever in the narrative, but it is expressly (Mntradicled by 

 Denys himself. A little furtlier along, after describing the iiarbour and forts, he resumes liis description of the 

 river above them, saying: "Tbe island of wliicli I have sjiokcn being pas.sed, under which vessels anchor that 

 they may be more shellerod, it is only a good cannon shot lo the falls," etc. Tbe words cannot possibly be made 

 to apply to any other than Navy Island. 



-■ The MS. of this be ha.s been so generous as to loan lo tbe present writer fur use in the preiiaration of this 

 paiier. 



■' Given in Murdoch's " Nova Scotia," Vol. II, p. 38;j. 



* Mr. llannay does not mention tins in his paper, but in a letter to the present writer. 



