[casgrain] remarks ON "THE SIEGE OF QUEBEC" 107 



reason that we have a sufficient excuse for our criticism in trying to 

 probe to the bottom the truth of historical facts. ^ 



It must be self evident that from and out of the number of the dif- 

 ferent plans of the battle submitted to us, one must be found more cor- 

 rect than all the others, and this one we shall try to find and adopt as 

 the most reliable, and in preference to the above average or composite 

 plan, which we conceive hardly possible to be Mstorically and topographi- 

 cally correct for moving bodies, — though it may appear so approxima- 

 tively. 



Another inference follows; because the modus operandi conveys 

 tlie implicit admission that none of them are really accurate, and in 

 fact they all disagree more or less; therefore each one in particular is 

 less reliable than the written and positive evidence of living witnesses at 

 the time, who, being present, give their own true and precise relation of 

 what they know and have seen, particularly those who have remained in 

 Quebec. 



After a close examination of all the plans produced by Mr. Doughty, 

 we attach like him mu'ch importance, as to the general position of the 

 contending armies, to the plan to be found in Jefferys, p. 140, which 

 he, Mr. Doughty, reproduced in his paper, p. 304, and bas copied from 

 the same one engraved and published in 1760 for the same Jefferys. 

 A view of the action is enlarged on the right comer. 



This plan dated 5th September, 1759, drawn by a competent 

 authority, a naval officer, is the first of all, and is the official document 

 sent to the Minister Pitt, with the subsequent additions thereto, giving 

 a view of the action of the 13th. Tt was not forwarded with the first 

 despatches, not being then ready, but was soon after put in charge by 

 Moncton of Townsend, the officer of distinction who delivered it at 

 London on the 30th November following. 



This plan was, with the additions, made immediately after the 

 battle, to accompany the official report of the commanding officers of the 

 navy and army, must be presumed substantially true and reliable. 

 The circumstances of the extension of time required and given to com- 

 plete it, and the actual presence of the army engineers, such as MacKel- 

 lar, Holland, Deblieg, Desbarres and Montrésor, al] tend to confirm a 

 full reliance to be placed on this plan. 



^ " History is a science which commits itself to no conclusions, except 

 " such as the evMence before her warrants " 



" It lis only recently, and most opportunely, that Professor Bury has 

 " strongly asserted the right of history to be treated as a science. That la 

 " to say, that historians should follow methods which lead to scie itific 

 " certainty." 



The Tablet, London, 13th June, 1903, p. 925. 



