[ HOWLEY | OLD BASQUE TOMBSTONES AT PLACENTIA 91 
is missing. It would doubtless be some word to express harbours, 
forts, countries, waters, etc., qu. Demeurs. 
In looking over the “ Documents,” etc., I find at about this date 
(7th March, 1693) a despatch from the Minister at Versailles to 
Monsieur du Brouillant, Governor of Placentia, in which there are 
some words which bear a striking resemblance to those on the tomb- 
stone. The Minister informs the Governor that he cannot this year 
supply him with the two, nor even one, frigates (des deux ny dune 
fregattes) which he had asked for, but the King had engaged a com- 
pany of merchants of St. Malo to go and make war on the English 
established on the coast of Newfoundland, “ Mesme pour les attaquer ! ” 
These words were almost identical with those on the tombstone, and 
the coincidence is remarkable, probably the expression may have had 
some special significance about that period. 
There only now remains to be considered the two letters or parts 
of letters which are to be seen in the right hand lower corner of the 
stone. They appear like P, or D, M, preceded by a small Greek 
cross such as is used before the signature of a Bishop, or of a prayer 
or blessing in the Roman Missal and Ritual. It may probably be 
the initials of the sculptor, or perhaps the last part of “ Priez, P. M. 
(pray for me) pour moi.” 
There are at Placentia many other interesting relics, old MSS., 
with autograph of Louis XIV.; old forts and batteries, ete., which, 
together with the beautiful natural scenery, make it a place worthy 
of a visit from the tourist and antiquary. These subjects may pos- 
sibly claim attention for a contribution to a future volume of the 
“Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada.” 
NOTE. 
When I first visited Placentia, some thirty years ago, and examined the 
stones, I find by my notes that I stated that the two French inscriptions, 
commencing respectively ‘‘Cy Gis” and ‘‘ L’ENVIEUX,’”’ were on one and the 
same stone. When Mgr. LeGasse informed me last year that they are on two 
different stones, I was surprised, as I considered one inscription to be only 
the complement of the other, and that they are incomplete (especially the 
second one) if taken separately. On my subsequent visit, I found that it 
appeared that the learned Prelate was correct, and that they were in reality 
on two different stones. On measuring and examining again attentively, I 
found: — 
ist. That the two stones were exactly the same width; 
2nd. That both were split, neither being of its original thickness; and 
3rd. I took a piece from each and had them examined by a geologist, who 
declared that they were both of the same geological formation. 
I then concluded (as in the text of my article) that the stone had been 
split in twain, and that originally the inscriptions had stood back to back, 
one on each side of an upright stone. 
