106 ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA 



from the well known place where he died (the monument); whilst it 

 ought to be only about 100 yards from it, when he was mortally wo.und- 

 ed in front of the Louisbourg Grenadiers. 



5th. Wolfe^s line in consequence is also too much advanced; and 

 in placing it on the slope fro^m tbe eminence of the gaol towards the 

 town, Mr. Doughty is unfortunately mistaken, for it sho.uld be the 

 other slope from thence in the direction of the river, where the Louis- 

 bourg Grenadiers and the Otway really stood according to all the plans. 



6th. The camp, after the bojttle, was entrenched between the gaol 

 and Sille^ry and not between the gaol aind the town; all the maps agree 

 on this point. 



The Chronicle, Quebec, Canada, Saturday, August 4, 1900, (see 

 appendix " A "), furnishes further details pointing out more fully 

 these and other no-table errors, which cannot; be characterized and 

 passed off " as minor details," and though they were openly challenged 

 and controverted in the press by the above article herewith produced as 

 an appendix, they have remained unexplained and the objections raised 

 thereto unanswered. 



These material mistakes having been so signalized were, of course, 

 corrected by the second plan, but only in part, as can easily be ascer- 

 tained by comparing both together. 



Now the task devolves upon us of challenging the aociiracy of this 

 last plan and of proving that it is alsio subject to further and important 

 corrections, in order to arrive at the true dispositions of both armies, 

 according to the best authorities on the subject, and moreover by 

 means of the very plans we are furnished with in these volumes. 



Considering the marked discrepancies between the two final plans 

 presented to us as the joint work of the above named experts and drafts- 

 men ; and considering that the latter is, as it purports to be, a new and 

 peculiar one, that is to say, an average plan combined from and com- 

 jpiled by careful measurements of all the numerous and different plans 

 submitted to them, we have fair cause for feeling diffident, and find a 

 double reason, in order to dispel our reasonable doubts, for examining 

 very closely the mode of proceeding of these experts; and we are 

 entitled to revise their finding and to ascertain the accuracy of their 

 "work. And we shall do so, even at the risk of being taxed too. sharp 

 and severe a critic, because we are dealing in this instance more with 

 these experts than with the historians themselves; and also for the 



