New Brunswick History and Other Stuff

Acadian Historic Sites in New Brunswick

leave a comment »

Presented by

Acadian Historic Sites in New Brunswick

The following paper entitled ‘The Acadian Period’ is from A Monograph of Historic Sites in the Province of New Brunswick, published by William F. Ganong in the 1899 edition of the Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada. Portions of the paper describing settlements and forts are included here, while sections concerning seigniorial grants have been excluded.

William F. Ganong was born in West Saint John in 1864. He studied at the University of New Brunswick, at Harvard, and finally at the University of Munich where he received a PhD. Ganong defies categorization. He was first and foremost a botanist but was also passionate about geography, archeology, and New Brunswick history. Most of his works are databases of information, like the one found here. His work was meticulously thorough and precise, but remains a pleasure to read. This example shines light on a large number of Acadian historic sites in New Brunswick.

William Ganong

William F. Ganong at Big Bald Mountain, Northumberland Co., 1903.

Ganong’s figures (maps) are included at the end of this blog posting.



This clearly marked and interesting period of our history began with the settlement of DeMonts and Champlain at St. Croix Island in 1604, and closed with the coming of the New England settlers after 1760. It has been treated fully by Mr. Hannay in his History of Acadia, though not with much attention to it from our present point of view. Striking events in the history of the Forts of La Tour at St. John, of Cumberland and Gaspereau, together with others in Nova Scotia, are sketched by Bourinot in his “Some Old Forts by the Sea,” in these Transactions, Vol. 1. The many forts built in this period, and the widely scattered settlements, and the interesting and little known seigniorial grants make it rich in historic sites.

1. Settlements and Forts

1. The Passamaquoddy District

A — DeMonts and Champlain on St. Croix Island, 1604-1605. The history of this part of America begins with the settlement by Champlain and DeMonts on St. Croix, now Dochet Island, in the winter of 1604-1605. A very full account of this settlement, illustrated by a map (No. 13) and a bird’s-eye view, has been left us by Champlain; and following him, it has often been described by local historians. Politically Dochet Island is now a part of Maine, but historically it belongs to ancient Acadia, whose heir was Nova Scotia and later, in this part, New Brunswick. The situation of St. Croix Island is perfectly well known, and there is not the slightest question as to its identity; Champlain’s map alone, if all other evidence failed, would locate it with absolute certainty. Late in the last century remains of the buildings were found in explorations made to settle the identity of the island in connection with the question of the identity of the St. Croix of the boundary disputes, but every trace of these ruins has long since disappeared. But as to the exact site of the settlement on the island, and the changes that have occurred in the island itself since DeMont’s settlement, there is some error prevalent. The place is of such great historic interest that some examination of these questions will be of value.

Dochet Island, the Isle Sainte Croix of Champlain, lies in the St. Croix river opposite the village of Red Beach, Maine. It is a small island of less than 400 yards long and a little over 100 yards wide, with an area of about six acres (see Map No. l.j). It is highest along the western shore, which is precipitous, rocky, wooded with small trees, and some forty feet high, the highest point on the island, at X on map No. 15, not exceeding 50 feet. It slopes down to sea level towards the west. At the lower end is a high terrace of sand and clay ending in steep bluffs, beyond which are two densely wooded isolated knolls. Near its highest part are the several buildings of a United States Light Station, where lives the light-keeper and his family, the only residents of the island. Most of the island is an open pasture with small bushes here and there, though to the northward of the buildings is a good fenced garden. The central part of the island is now a series of bare rocky ledges, with some soil between, whose limits are shown on the accompanying map No. 15. No doubt in earlier times these ledges were, in part at least, covered with soil and trees.

In addition to Champlain’s map of the island (Map No. 13), there is extant one made by Wright in 1797 (Map No. 14). In June, 1898, I made a survey of the island with compass and tape, and prepared the map given herewith (Map No. 15). A comparison of the three of 1604, 1797, 1898, shows the following facts: The island has washed away very little if any at its upper end, but a good deal at the lower end. The knoll on which DeMonts’ cannon were mounted, now a densely wooded mound, was then continuous with the sand bluff of the main island; it had become separated in 1797, and now is cut off by a considerable interval of low beach. The cove near the chapel on Champlain (curiously less pronounced on Champlain than on Wright) has, since 1797, deepened until it has cut through the bluff, thus separating another knoll, which now stands out by itself connected with the sand bluff only by a low narrow ridge of sand, hardly higher than the beach. This very considerable removal of sand is said, however, not to be entirely the result of the action of the waves, but partly to the removal of many scow-loads to the mainland for building purposes. The site of the chapel has undoubtedly been washed away, and at least a part of the burial ground. Indeed the land in this part of the island has washed away much within the memory of the present light-keeper, to such an extent that a well formerly of some use is now on the rocky exposed beach. It is possible that it was the exposal of the skeletons of many of the victims of the dreadful winter of 1604-1605 that gave the island its name, Bone Island, by which it was known at the close of the last century.

At the south-west end of the island, and elsewhere as well, are old cellars which are often mistaken for those of the DeMonts’ settlement. Old residents, however, state that these are cellars of small houses which stood there within the present century, and their position by no means allows of their belonging to Champlain’s buildings. Probably not all of these seeming cellars are so in reality, for some of them may be holes left by money-diggers, for whom this island has naturally been a favourite resort.

A comparison of my map with that of Champlain shows that the settlement must have stood on the north side of the central band of rocks, on the highest part of the island, (where there is a plateau of good soil, sloping slightly to the westward,) but somewhat overlapping the rocky ledges, while the gardens must have been to the southward of the rocks. It was on the north end of the island the ruins were found by Robert Pagan in 1797. No doubt the rocky ledge marked on my map by 11, the highest point of the island, was between the settlement and the gardens, which is fully confirmed by the testimony of Robert Pagan in 1797 (Kilby, 125), who found the rock in exactly this position relatively to the ruins. The approximate position of the settlement is shown on Map No. 15 by the dotted lines inclosing the letters SSSS, and of the gardens by the lines inclosing GGGG. The old French well [W] pointed out to visitors in is probably not, though possibly it May be the well shown on the plan of the settlement. It is not far from the correct position, but on the other hand it is extremely shallow, though it may have been deeper when the island was wooded.

B — The Acadian Settlements. As to the sites of these we have six lines of evidence, the narrative of Church, place-names, tradition, a published map of 1733 by Sontback, the Morris Report of 1765, and a Ms. map of 1796 by David Owen (No. 16), which marks French settlements about Passamaquoddy Bay.

There are no records of any settlers in this region until 1684, when a Seigniory was granted at Passamaquoddy to Sieur St. Aubin, and later others were granted, all of which will presently be mentioned. The census of 1686 gave two settlers with their families at St. Croix; that of 1689 gave four men, four women and thirteen children, while another in 1700 gave sixteen persons. When Church made his raid in 1704, the settlers appear to have been more numerous, but after that raid they seem to have disappeared from the region, for they are heard of no more.

In Church’s narrative of his expedition to this region in 1704, he tells of coming up the west passage of Passamaquoddy and to an island where he found a French house, and captured one Lotriel and his family. This was plainly enough on Indian Island, which on early plans and in early records is called Latrelle and other forms of what is known to be properly La Treille, and Owen’s map places a settlement at the southern end of the Island. Later Church proceeded up the bay to a place, apparently the present Pleasant Point, (or possibly St. Andrews) where other houses, or rather, huts, were found, in one of which lived a Monsieur Gourdan, probably the Sieur St. Aubin. Again, at the head of the river near the falls, probably at the cove, St. Stephen, lived one Sharkee, properly Chartier. These are the only French houses of which we have record in documents. Since, however, Jean Meusnier had a grant on the Magaguadavic he probably lived there, though we have no hint as to exactly where. Turning next to the Sontback map of 1733, reproduced and discussed in the preceding memoir of this series, (p. 367), in which Passamaquoddy River represents the passage between Deer Island and Elaine, and St. Croix River represents Letite passage; “French Inhabitants” are placed apparently on the lower end of DeerIsland, and on the mainland opposite. The upper of the latter settlements is no doubt the same as that on Chebaiaok (i.e. Pleasant Point), of Owen’s map, and the lower that on Moose Id. on Owen’s map, but I know nothing of those on Deer Island. Sontback also places French houses on Campobello near what is plainly Harbor Delute, as also does Owen on his map. Tradition points to certain cellars on the peninsula between Curry’s Cove and Otter Cove as French, and it was probably here the French houses really stood, a view sustained by Owen’s map. Church in his expedition sent a party to this island to search for the French. On the peninsula at the entrance to Harbor Delute, westward of Curry’s Cove, DesBarres picture of Campobello, of 1777, shows a sort of arch ruin, which must have belonged to a building of some importance, and possibly here was another French house. Rameau states that St. Aubin’s residence at Passamaquoddy was a palisaded dwelling or sort of fort, and possibly this ruin is the remnant of his dwelling. Owen also places French settlements near Lubec and on Moose Island at Eastport and about Cobscook Bay, but these I have not attempted to to locate exactly. Morris, in his MS report of his survey of Passamaquoddy in 1765 has this statement:— “There is not the least Vestiges of the French Settlements in any other part of the Bay, but upon Moose Island, Fish [i.e. Indian] Island, and Island St. Croix, and the point on the West side Sc—lick River called point Pleasant, where the French had a Fort, and part of the ditches and Ramparts still appear.” This fort was no doubt that which was being built in 1704 by Gourdan (St. Aubin?) and Sharkee (Chartier) as prisoners taken near Penobscot told Church; but it must have been unfinished for Church makes no further mention of it Very probably, as mentioned above, the dwelling of St. Aubin was here. This, of course, would be the French settlement marked at Pleasant Point on the Sontback and the Owen maps. The location of all these settlements on a modern map is shown on Map No. 40. Morris’ Island St. Croix was not the present Dochet Island, but the present Treat Island near Eastport, as his map and report show (see also Map No. 16). I know of no other reference to a French settlement on this island.

Tradition points to some old cellars at Hill’s Point between Oak Bay and the Waweig, as French, and to graves and a well at Letite said to be French, and there is a shadowy tradition of an ancient breastwork on the bluff at Sandy Point, found by the earliest settlers.

We may say, in summary, that in this region there was a large settlement on Dochet Island, and small ones at Indian Island, Campobello, St. Andrews, Pleasant Point, St. Stephen, and perhaps others at other points. But it must be remembered that the censuses show that the French population of this region was always extremely small. The settlers at Passamaquoddy were less farmers than fishermen and traders.

2. The St. John District

A — Settlements

The earliest French .settlement on the St. John of which we have record was the temporary fishing village at Emenenic, mentioned in Biard’s letter of 1612 and elsewhere in the Relations of that time. This island was one of those near the head of the Long Reach, which are this day called by the Maliseets Ah-men-hen-nik.

The next settlement was that of the Recollet Mission [illegible] tells us that the Recollets had their principal establishment on the St. John in 1619, but we have no further clue as to the site of this settlement. He tells us also that about 1624 the Recollet missionaries came to Quebec and that “They had left the mission which they had on St. John’s River a month before in consequence of orders they had received from their provincial in France.”

The next settlement is that of LaTour, about his fort at St. John, a subject to be referred to below. Next after this comes the trading station at Jemseg of 1659, which originated the Jemseg Fort later to he described. Then comes the Settlement of the Sieur de Marsdu and his family and retinue at the mouth of the river, mentioned in the Census of 1676. This settlement was undoubtedly at Carleton, and no doubt on the site of Old Fort.

The later censuses show very slow increase, most of the settlers being seigniors and their families, not Acadian habitants. Thus, the census of 1685 gives eight settlers; that of 1693 gives twenty, that of l695 gives forty-nine, that of 1698 gives forty-one. It was evidently not until well after 1700 that any number of Acadians came to settle on the river. There was no other census until that of 1733, which gives one hundred and eleven settlers, and most of these probably had been there but a short time, for a document of 1732, cited below, implies that a colony had only recently settled on the river. The reason for so small a population in so fertile a region is doubtless to be found in the preference of the Acadians for the rich marsh lands of the head of the Bay of Fundy, which were more abundant than they wore able to settle. After the expulsion, however, in 1755, the population received great additions from those who escaped from Beausejour and from some of those who found their way back from the southern provinces to which they were transported, so that Monckton in 1758 found them on the river in considerable numbers, and one document of 1759 estimates them at six hundred. (Broadhead, X, 973) Probably by the Acadians the St. John River was thought undoubted French territory, for the French always claimed that the Acadia ceded to England in 1713 included only the peninsula, the present Nova Scotia, while England maintained that it included all of ancient Acadia on the mainland, a contention which she supported first by logic, and later, and more effectually, by force of arms.

The sites of the residences of the seigniors of the St. John will be discussed later. We shall consider first the sites of the Acadian settlements. For these we have seven lines of evidence, the Morris Maps of 1758 and of 1765, the Report of Monckton’s Expedition to the St. John in 1758 a MS Report of 1762 by Bruce, and one of 1765 by Morris, place names, and tradition.

A — French Village, Kingsclear. The origin of this village is uncertain, but as there is no early mention of it, it probably was established after Monckton’s expedition in 1758. Neither Bruce’s Report of 1762, nor Morris’ of 1765, make mention of it, though both refer to the settlements at St. Annes. Probably it was founded by Louis Merenre, a French courier in the employ of the English, who settled here with some of his countrymen, and with most of them removed in 1788 to Madawaska. A full list of these settlers, together with others in the vicinity, is given in Collections, N.B. Historical Soc. I, 110. Tradition places its exact original site on the great intervale a short distance below the present Indian Village, and Munro in 1783 speaks of it as a “French Village on a semicircular point of good intervale.” It is probably to this settlement that Abbe Bailly refers, in his letter of 1768 from Aucpac, in speaking of eleven Acadian families living near Aucpac who had been confirmed at Sainte Annes (Casgrain). It is said locally that some of these settlers founded the Masrol, or Myshrall, settlement between Kingsclear and Hanwell.

Apparently there were other French settlers between the Keswick and Nashwaaksis, for when those lands were laid out and granted in 1786 several lots were granted to Acadians, and the records of the time speak of a “French location” there.

St. Valier, in 1688, tells us the region about the present Springhill was named Sainte Marie, and he thought it a good place for settlers.

B St. Annes Point.

This is without doubt the “colony below the village of Ecoupay (Aucpac)” of the census of 1733 with 82 inhabitants, and the settlement of 20 families 30 leagues up the river of a document of 1749 (Murdoch, II, 135). In 1756 there was here a French officer with 20 men (Murdoch, II, 304), and there are several other references in documents of the time to this important village of St. Annes. Bruce, 1762, says there were 600 or 700 acres of land cleared here, and Morris, 1765, states that the French had settlements all the way from St. Annes to Aucpac. It was perhaps settled just before 1732, for a document of that year (Murdoch, I, 479) speaks of a small colony of French having settled on the River St. John. It stood on the present site of Fredericton, scattered along the river as the Morris map of 1765 (Map No. 17) states, from opposite the mouth of the Nashwaak upwards. It is here too that tradition places it, and the remains of an old French road were discovered here by the first settlers. Munro in 1783 speaks of land here cleared by the French, about two miles in extent. This settlement was destroyed by expeditions from the mouth of the river made in the winter of l758-59. Yet the Acadians evidently returned to it, for in 1761 some forty of them were there, and a them were there in 1783 (Murdoch II, 402, 403). It was the second most important Acadian settlement on the river. The exact site of the church is not known, but a hater grant implies it was near Government House.

The census of 1695 gives fourteen settlers at Nashwaak, doubtless living near the fort.

C — Freneuse. This settlement, mentioned in the early censuses as having several settlers (36 in 1698), was of course the residence of , Sieur de Freneuse. It is represented on several early maps as situated on the east bank of the St. John, exactly opposite the mouth of the Oromocto, no doubt at the bend of the river at Upper Maugerville, but no trace is now known of its presence. In 1696 Freneuse had there a house, barns, etc., as a lease of that date shows (mentioned later).

Probably there were also Acadian settlers around the mouth of the Oromocto; Bruce’s report of 1762 mentions three hundred acres of cleared land here.

D — Jemseg. It is possible that settlers lived near the fort at Jemseg, which site will be discussed below. It was somewhere in this vicinity that Sieur de Chauffours resided, with whom John Gyles lived, as he relates in his narrative. Monckton, who burnt some houses there, states in his report of 1758: “This settlement had been abandon’d some Years past, by most of the Inhabitants On account of its being overflow’d in the Spring by the Freshes.” A document of 1756 in the Parkman Ms. [New France, I, 256], speaks of Jemseg, a French village of thirty or forty houses, a little below the mouth of the Jemseg river. Possibly Lower Grimross is here meant.

E — Grimross. This was an important settlement at the time of the expedition of Monckton in 1758. Monckton states that there were here some fifty houses And barns, which he burnt, and the Morris map of that year [published in the preceding monograph, 390] shows numerous buildings exactly on the site of the modern Gagetown. Of this village, Monckton says: “This Village was settled by the Inhabitants of Beausejour, when drove off from thence in 1755.” Some of the Acadians must have returned to Grimross, for in 1761 a few were living there [Murdoch II, 403]. This must have been at one time the principal settlement on the river. Morris, 1765, says: “Grimross is the most considerable settlement that the French had upon St. Johns; but their Houses are now all demolished and their improvements laid waste.” Monckton speaks also of houses above the head of Grimross River.

F — Chofour. A few houses just below Gagetown shown on the Morris map of 1758. Connected no doubt with Sieur de Chanffours.

G — Villeray. A few houses at the present Lower Gagetown, about opposite the middle of Musquash Island; on the Morris map 1758. Monckton says he burnt houses there.

H — Robicheau. A settlement of four houses on the Morris map of 1758 just above Tennants cove. The possible connection of this with an earlier settlement or fort here I have discussed fully in my Place-nomenclature [p. 257]. Monckton speaks of “a few Houses that were some time past Inhabited by the Robicheaus,” which he burnt.

There was perhaps a small settlement at the mouth of Nerepis about the fort (see later), for Bruce, I762, tells us then’ were 12 to 15 acres of clear land here.

I — St. John. At the mouth of the river St. John in the census of 1733 are given eighteen settlers. The site of this settlement is unknown, but it was possibly in Carleton, where there were traditions of French gardens found by the early settlers, which are probably the same as those shown on Bruce’s map of the harbour of 1761 (see Map. No. 37). There is also a tradition of a French burial place at the barracks, St. John.

On the Fort Howe Ridge is an old well, locally called the French well, and mentioned as such in Keleher’s Field-book of 1848. He mentions also, and marks on his maps, the remains of an old French block-house on the ridge, but probably this is an error, as there is no other evidence of a settlement here and the situation is a very improbable one.

J — French Village, Hammond River. The origin of the village is uncertain. The Sieur de Brenil had here a Seigniory in –89l, and it is possible that the village was founded by him; but it is much more probable, since it is not given on early maps, that it was one of those formed by the Acadians after the expulsion. This is confirmed by a statement of Munro in 1783 who says of it: “Sir Andrew [Snape Hamond] has a valuable tract of good Interval and upland which includes a French settlement of fifteen families who have been settled there fifteen years previous to his grant.” As the grant referred to was made in 1782, the settlement would have been formed in 1767. According to Allison [p. 4] the Acadians took out grants about 1787, but soon after sold out and moved away, probably to Madawaska (But see Archives, 1895, N.B. 13). The site of the settlement is marked on all the later maps.

Passing next to tradition, in this case well sustained by the testimony of place-names, there are said to have been settlers about French Lake, north of Maquapit, particularly on the island and on the eastern shore near the passage, and about French Lake on the Oromocto, und the testimony of the place-name, French Lake, leaves little doubt that this is correct. It is possible that these settlements were later than the other Acadian settlements on the river; and since they are retired places not easily reached by the English vessels, the French may have settled on them after they were driven off the main river by Monckton’s expedition of 1758. They are said also to have lived at Swan Creek, and about the outlet of Lilly Lake St. John, where cellars and roads made by them are said to have been recognized by the early settlers.

On Mitchell’s map of 1755 a “Village of Acadians” is placed on the present Salmon River emptying into Grand Lake, but this is probably an error, as there is no other record of its existence.

The modern Acadian settlements on the river are entirely at Madawaska. Licenses of occupation, later followed by grants, were given to them shortly after the coming of the Loyalists, and here this much persecuted people have since lived in peace, unless the transference of half of them to the United States by the Ashburton treaty of 1842, without asking their leave, may be regarded as an exception.

There are traditions that the French also hail dikes at Kipper Harbor, Musquash Harbor, and on Quiddy River at Martins Head. The Frenchmans Creek at Musquash does not mark a settlement, but according to Gesner, a place of retreat of a French ship, probably that mentioned in Quebec Ms. 11, 152.

B. Forts

Fort Meductic was an Indian rather than a French fort, though sometimes spoken of as French. Its site has already been discussed. 

A — Fort Nashwaak (Fort St. Joseph). This fort, prominent in its time was built by Villebon in 1692, withstood a siege by the English in 1696, and was abandoned in 1700. There is no doubt of its site; it stood in the upper angle between the Nashwaak and the St. John, close to the water on high intervale now washed away, so that the site of the fort was over what is now the gravel beach.. Its ground plan is shown very clearly on the accompanying outline of a plan from the Paris archives [Map No. 18], and its situation on the Morris 1765 map [Map No. 17]. Cadillac in 1692 speaks of this as a Micmac fort, and it has been claimed that it was built by early Scotch settlers, both of which are probably errors. Mr. Hannay visited the site in 1867, and saw there remains of ramparts, etc., though the next year he speaks of the fort as entirely washed away. [Stewart’s Quarterly, I, 99 and II, 141].

B — Fort Jemseg. This fort was apparently built by Thomas Temple during the English possession of Acadia in 1659. He records having built a trading post fifty miles up the St. John. It was handed over to the French in 1670, at which time a description of it was prepared (published in Memorials of the English and French Commissaries,) from which, and after analogy with plans of other forts of the time, I have compiled the accompanying plan [Map No. 19]. Between 1672 and 1676 it was greatly strengthened by Sieur de Soulanges as related in the grant of the fort to him in that year:

“Il a fait diverses réparations et augmentations à celui de Gemisik, afin de le rendre logeable et de défense, n’y ayant auparavant qu’un petit longement de bois tout ruiné, entonré soulement de quelques palissades à  demitombées par terre; en sort que pour réedefier le tout, il lui auroit couté beaucoup, et se verroit encore contraint d’y faire de grandes dépenses pour le remettre en etat, a cause de la ruine entière qu’en fait les Hollandois en le faisant prisonnier dans le dit fort, il y a deux ans.” (Memorials, 748.)

Unlike must forts of this time it was not square, which no doubt was because of the shape of the knoll on which it stood. Its situation is known locally, and is illustrated by the accompanying sketch map [Map No. 20], compiled partly from sketches of my own, partly from notes supplied by Mr. Victor II Paltsits, and partly from measurements made for us by Mr. D.L. Mitchell of Gagetown. It stood on a small mound near the top of a hill on property owned by Mr. G.F. Nevers, and old residents remember when its outlines were distinct. The site commands a line view both up and down the river. On the knoll is still to be seen an angle of earthwork [at A, Map No. 20], but a foot or less in height of which the position and appearance make it seem probable that it is a remnant of the rampart of the fort; but otherwise no trace of it whatever is to be seen, though numerous relics have been dug up here; and in the hollow just below. Mr. Paltsits has discovered what seems to be the end of an old drain beside the road.

Below Spoon Island on the east bank is the structure known locally as the “Old French Fort.”’ Its origin and age are very obscure. If it really is French it is no doubt connected with the place called Nid d’Aigle on the early French maps, a subject discussed in my Place Nomenclature, page 257, and referred to earlier in this paper. It was perhaps built in the time of Villebon, as a protection to his fort at .Nashwaak, or perhaps later, as a protection to the Acadian settlements above on the river. The battery is however, not French at all, but was built in 1813. It had no connection with the Telegraph station which stood on this hill in the last century. [See later]. It stands on a bluff where the river is very narrow, about two miles above Tennants Cove, and certainly the position is a most commanding one. On the level, fifty feet or more above the river, is still a distinct crescent-shaped earthwork some two or three feet high and fifty feet across its arc. On a level still higher up the hill is a hollow, twenty feet across and five or six deep, locally called the Magazine, while still higher up are the remains of the block house where lived the soldiers in charge of the semaphore telegraph, and some of the timbers of this house can still be seen. (See also New Brunswick Magazine, III, 228)

C —  Fort Nerepis. This was no doubt originally an Indian fort, as already discussed, and is mentioned by Villebon in 1697. In 1753, however, it was occupied by the French under Beauhebert and thus figures in the events of the time and is often called after him, Beau Bear, or Beauhebert Fort. It is no doubt this fort which is referred to in a document of 1753 (Archives, 1894, 191) as a new fort 20 miles up the river armed with 24 guns and 200 men. It is marked on many maps of the time as D’Anville, and Green-Jeffreys of 1755, and also on the Morris maps of 1758 and 1765. It evidently stood very close to the river as shown by the latter (Map No. 21) in the angle between the two rivers. Its site is, however, entirely unknown to the residents and no remains of it can be seen.

There is said to be a tradition of an old fort at Harding’s Point, but I know nothing of it.

D —  Fort LaTour. Despite much discussion and some controversy the site of this fort is not yet with certainty determined. The subject is fully discussed in a paper in these Transactions IX, sect. ii, 61 and also in the New Brunswick Magazine, Vol. 1, 20, 89, 165. In my opinion, all available evidence drawn from the narrative of Denys, and from all known maps, tends to show that it stood on the east bank of the harbour, probably at Portland Point, on the knoll at the head of Rankine’s Wharf. (Map No. 22, also 37. Mr. Hannay claims that it stood at Old Fort in Carleton: but even in his most recent article he adduces no positive evidence of his view, but contents himself with combating minor points in my argument. Since the subject is so fully discussed in the articles above mentioned, which are readily accessible, it is unnecessary again to go over the ground here. I will simply point out this important fact, that if Fort LaTour be assumed to have stood at the Old Fort in Carleton, we not only meet with well nigh insuperable difficulties in explaining the narrative of Denys and all of the maps of the time, but we have no explanation of the origin of the fort which is known to have stood at Portland Point: on the other hand if Fort LaTour is assumed to to have stood at Portland Point, Deny’s narrative is perfectly clear and consistent; the placing of the fort on the east side by nearly all the early maps, and its removal to the east side in later and more accurate editions of those which first placed it on the west side, is perfectly plain: and the origin of’ the fort at Portland Point is explained. While I have never claimed that the evidence is logically conclusive that the fort stood at Portland Point, I do think that the probabilities drawn from the sources mentioned are overwhelmingly in fovour of this position, and that a case for the Carleton site can he made out only neglecting the aggregate evidence and concentrating attention on minutia in which inconsistencies may he found in the imperfect records of the time. It is by no means unlikely that records will yet be discovered that will settle this most interesting point.

It has been maintained by Mr. W.P. Dole that Fort LaTour stood where now Fort Dufferin is, and his argument is published in the St. John Sun, Dec. 5, 1888. It rests, however, chiefly upon traditions, which are most untrustworthy for events long past. It is said that an early battery could also be traced here, and that there was an old well called locally the “old French well.”

E — Charnisay’s Fort. It is recorded by Denys that Charnisay built a fort on a little knoll a short distance beyond the flats and creek where the Mill-pond now is in Carleton, and the topography of that region allows this site to have been in but one place, namely, on the site of the Old Fort in Carleton. It was probably the first fort to occupy that site. (Map. No. 37.)

In 1659 Temple states that he “had repaired the fort of St. John” (Archives, 1894) but we have no hint to whether it was that at Carleton or at Portland Point.

In grants to Sieur de Marson in 1676 he is spoken of as “Proprietor of the Forts of Jemseg and of the River St. John.” As his Seigniorial grant of 1672 was on the east side of the river, the Fort of the River St. John was probably there — in all probability on the site of old Fort LaTour.

F — Fort Martignon. The Sieur de Martignon received a seigniorial grant at the mouth of the river, on the west side in 1672, and he early censuses return him as living there. On a line map dated l708, but belonging much earlier made by Franquelin, and recently published by Marcel, Fort Martignon is marked on the west side of the entrance to the St. John, while on the east is marked Fort LaTour. Martignon’s fort in all probability occupied the site of Charnisay’s, and was the second on that site.

G — Fort St. Jean. In 1700 Villebon built a fort at the mouth of the St. John, whose site in placed beyond question by the plan of it preserved in the French Archives, of which a copy is herewith given. (Map No. 23.) It stood at Old Fort, Carleton, and probably was the third on that site. The higher land that commanded the fort, spoken of in other records also, is the high land on Water street, east of Ludlow, in Carleton. By advice of Brouillan it was abandoned shortly after Villebon’s death in 1700.

H — Fort Menagoueche. In 1749 the French troops came to St. John with the intention to erect a fort, but they were forbidden by the Nova Scotia government; but a document of 1753 states that they had greatly strengthened the old fort at the mouth of the river [Archives, 1894, 198], while another of 1755 [Archives, I894, 206], shows they had partially demolished it. This was also, as shown by Monckton’s Report, at the Old Fort at Carleton, and hence probably the fourth on that site.

I — Fort Frederick. When Monckton landed here in 1758 he found the old fort abandoned, and proceeded immediately to repair it, and his account shows that it was the fort on this site he repaired. It was named Fort Frederick in that year, and was probably the fifth on that site, and the last. It is apparently the Fort called Fort Monckton on Morris’ chart of Nova Scotia of 1761. The place is now occupied by buildings, but some of the ramparts can still \w seen. It is known locally as the “Old Fort,” and is generally believed by the residents to be the site of FortLaTour.

3. The Petitcodiac-Misseguash District.

A. Settlements

By far the largest Acadian settlements in the territory of the present New Brunswick were around the great salt marshes at the head of the Bay of Fundy, particularly about the mouths of the Misseguash, AuLac and Tantramar rivers. Temple built a trading post at the “bottom of the Bay”’ in 1659, which was probably in this region. (Archives, 1894, 3). The first settlers removed from Port Royal to Beaubassin (i.e., in the vicinity of Fort Lawrence in Nova Scotia) shortly after 1671. The whole isthmus was granted in Seigniory to Sieur LaVallière in 1676, after which the settlers rapidly increased in numbers and spread to the Memramcook, Petitcodiac and Shepody, until at the time of the expulsion in 1755, they numbered several hundreds in this region. LaVallière had a Seigniorial manor, mentioned in a document of 1705 (Rameau, 11, 337), but its site is unknown, though probably it was on the present Tonges Island, which was long called Isle LaVallière. After the expulsion the Acadians were permitted, in 1767, by the Nova Scotia Government, to return and settle on the Memramcook, and this settlement and a small one at Fox Creek on the Petitcodiac, as M. Poirier pointed out in his ” Père Lefabvre, are the only ones in all Acadia in which the Acadians now occupy lands on which they were settled before the expulsion.

As to the exact sites of their settlements we have the evidence of maps, of which many were made to illustrate the military operations of 1751-1755, of Franquet’s detailed report of 1752, and traditions. The earlier settlements were no doubt in the immediate vicinity of the present Fort Cumberland and Fort Lawrence, but gradually they spread to other places. The Acadians tended to settle not far from the churches, of which it is known there was one at each of these places. Both settlements and single farm houses were placed (as the numerous cellars still visible show), close to the marshes on the edges of the low ridges in which that region abounds, while their farms were on the marshes themselves, reclaimed by dykes from the sea. The principal settlements in 1752, according to Franquet’s report, were at Baie Verte, Weska, (Westcock), LaCoup, Le Lac, Tintamarre, and also at Memnacouk (Memramcook), Chipoudy (Shepody), and Peccoukac (Petitcodiac).

A — Beausejour. The map of the Isthmus in Mante’s History, belonging really to 1755, shows French houses in several places along the edge of the Fort Cumberland Ridge, and also on the eastern end of Cole’s Island. The church is here clearly shown near the fort, and tradition assigns to it a position near the eastern road along the ridge, west of the trenches, where its position is still pointed out. (Map No. 44.) The church is yet more clearly shown on the map in the “Memoires sur le Canada,” which shows also a village on the same slope and this inscription: “Aboitean du l’Abbé LeLontre.” It is known that this Aboidean, (i.e. a dam across a tidal river containing a sluice-way so arranged with a valve as to allow the fresh water to drain off and not allow the salt water to enter, was built across the Aulac river, a short distance (about two hundred yards) above the present Aboidean, on which the railroad and highway cross the river.

There are some localities of importance near Fort Beausèjour (Cumberland), as shown on Map No. 44. The “Holy Well,” a fine spring, was not far from the church, and is said locally to take its name from the use of its water for holy water. Le Loutre’s house is believed to have stood near. The old French burial-ground is said to have been where the later graveyard (Map No. 44) is.

Old cellars, believed to be French, were visible until recently upon Tonges Island, particularly towards its southern end. It is probable that here was the residence of La Vallière, Seignior of Beaubassin, for the island long bore his name.

B — Westcock. Several houses are shown here on the Mante map, evidently on the margin of the upland near the present site of the village, and towards Sackville. It is marked on most of the maps of the time.

C — Le Lac. As shown by the French plan of 1779 (really 1755) this village stood near the head of the present AuLac river, apparently on Jolicure ridge just below the present Rye’s Corner. Just above it is the road from Beausèjour to Beaubassin crosses the head of AuLac River. [see Map 24.]

D — Tintemarre. Franquet calls this a large village with a missionary, and it is marked on all of the maps of the time-. The Mante map shows this village just above a considerable branch of the Tantramar River towards the west; hence it must have stood above the branch coming from the present Morice’s Millpond, along the margin of the upland between the Millpond and the Jolicure Road, and perhaps somewhat above this. Mr. Milner places it about Four Corners, and slates that the chapel stood on the present site if the Beulah, with which residents agree. This Church stands the north-east of the four corners. Locally there is said to have been here a French burial ground also.

In some records and on some maps a village, Pres des Bourques, is mentioned, Though Franquet does not refer to it, perhaps because it was established after his time. The French map shows its situation very clearly, as on the margin of the upland near Sackville not far north of the present highway road to Amherst. Mr. Milner places it on the farm of the late Philip Palmer. On Morice’s Brook, it is said locally, were formerly remains of a French settlement, comprising ten or twelve families.

E — La Coupe. This village is marked on no map that I have seen and I know of no record that definitely locates its site. It must have been near the La Coup river, which is a branch of the Anlac, striking off to the westward just south of the extremity of Jolicure ridge. Considering the very favourable location of the extremity of the Jolicure ridge for a settlement, it is probable that here was its site.

F — Baie Verte. The old maps show clearly that this village stood precisely on the site of the present village of that name, though there were other houses scattered about in that vicinity, and a few near Fort Gaspereau. Alex. Monro states: “At Baie Verte, near the residence of Capt. Weeks, the French had an establishment of mills; hence the name, Mill Creek, was given to the stream. Around this spot they settled, and here too was their graveyard.”

The other villages mentioned by Franquet and on the maps of the time, including another village at Weschkok, LaButte, Les Planches, Beaubassin, etc., were in Nova Scotia, or as Franquet puts it, in Acadia; but their identification is not within the scope of the present paper.

Montresor’s map of 1768 marks a “Richart” between West Coup and Pintaniat villages, hence in the position of Prés des Bourques. I have no other information upon such a place.

G — Memramcook. I have no data for settling the exact .site of the pre-expulsion settlement. Mante’s map places it on the west side not far from the mouth; which is also the case with the French plan, which, however, also places a few houses on the east bank. M. Placide Gaudet, however, writes me that ancient aboideaux have been found near the College, which possibly belonged to pre-expulsion settlers. It is very likely that these were on the upland near the great marshes, just below the present Rockland Bridge. Local tradition states that some ten families lived in pre-expulsion times on Brownell Brook, two miles above Dorchester, and remains of their houses could formerly be seen; and others lived on the front of the “Chapman Farm.”

H — Petitcodiac. For these settlements also we have few data. Rameau gives an account of its first settlement by Blanchard in 1698, but we have no facts to enable us to locate his settlement. The topography of the river on the maps of 1755 are so distorted as to be of little use in this connection. They represent settlements on both banks below the Bend, but it is quite impossible to locate them further, unless one assumes that they stood near the largest marshes. M. Gaudet, our best authority on matters relating to the history of the Acadians, writes me that an Acadian village stood on the present site of Moncton, but later the settlers moved to Coverdale, where their village was known as Village de Babineau, This is confirmed by a “Carte Réduite du Golfe de St. Laurent” of I754, which marks a “mission” on the east side of this river at about the Bend.

An old plan in the Crown Land office applies the name Village Point the point on the north of the Petitcodiac just above Mill Stream, which is above the mouth of Turtle Creek. Probably this marks the site of a French settlement, especially us there is dyked marsh near.

It is said locally that the burial-ground adjoining the Baptist church at Hillsboro is on the site of an old French burial-ground, and that the first settlers of Hillsboro in 1765 found cleared fields, fruit-trees and broken dykes.

It is said in Cockburn’s Report on Emigration [of 1827] that the French formerly occupied the intervales at the Forks of Turtle Creek, calling the place Fourche à Crapand. It is very likely that they occupied locations on this, Coverdale and Pollet Rivers after the expulsion in order to be above the reach of English ships, as they probably occupied the French Lakes and other places difficult of access on the St. John for a similar reason.

Pote, in his Journal of 1745, mentions that he marched past several French houses by the side of this river, the last of which was that of bon Soliel [Beausoliel]. One of the Parkman MS [New France, I, 265] states that in 1756 there were six or eight houses on the Portage from Shediac to Petitcodiac. The present Acadian settlement of Fox Creek was founded, according to M. Gaudet, in 1767, and occupied the site of an old settlement.

I — Shepody. A full account of the foundation of the settlements on this river in 1698 is given by Rameau de Saint Père (I, 237), but none of the records nor maps of the time give any idea of their precise location. There are, however, in the Crown Land Office in Fredericton several old plans which show the location of the old French dykes at Shepody and thus allow an inference as to the location of the settlements. An “old French Dyke” is given on the north side of the entrance to Shepody River, and an “old dyke,” with an “Abois D’Eau” between Beaver Brook and the next creek to the eastward of it, called on the plans German Creek. These, however, can represent but a small portion of the dyked lands on this river, of which one of the early maps says “Shepody, one of the best French settlements.” Tradition places a large French settlement at Hopewell Hill, and assigns to many old dykes a French origin.

The following account of the French settlements in this region is taken from a well written and apparently reliable anonymous article in the St. John Sun, April 5th, 1893. “For a long time after the departure of the Acadians and even at the present time, are many evidences and remains of French habitation. One settlement existed near what is now the village of Albert, another on what is called the ‘point’ at Hopewell, while the central village was at what is known as Church brook, just to the eastward of Hopewell Hill. Here was the old French Chapel on the eastern bank of the brook…. The logs of the old chapel remained long after the arrival of the English settler, and the dwelling of one of the residents of the village, erected a few years ago, rests on the corner-stone of the once sacred edifice.  Here also was the burial-ground, and in summertime are still to be seen the moss-covered mounds, now trampled and forsaken, and the broken headstones that mark the resting place of the Acadian dead…. There are also many remains of old French cellars, mill etc. These mills were principally on the marsh creeks. The stones from the mills have been found in many instances, and are still in existence. The French dykes all remain. They were not as far out as those of the present day, but still enclosed a large area of marsh. No aboideaux were used, the creeks being dyked along the sides up to the upland.”

Of importance in connection with the early settlements are the roads, of which the principal one was that from Fort Beauséjoir lo Fort Gaspereau. This is marked on many maps of the time, and especially on the plan made by Captain Lewis in 1755, which states that the map was from a survey. The part from Pont à Buot to Portage Hill must have been made before Franquet’s visit in 1752, for he marks it on his map, though he went by water between these places. Tradition still points out the site of portions of the road, and it is said that the late Alexander Monro, the surveyor, had in early life traced out the entire road from one fort to the other. He states in his “Isthmus of Chignecto” that the road ran via Jolicure and Portage Hill. From the maps, and from traditions gathered on the spot, the course of this road is drawn upon the accompanying map No. 24. From near Beauséjour to near Portage Hill it followed about the top of the ridge between the two highway roads of the present day. In the gathering of data for this map, as in many other matters connected with this region, I have had the very great advantage of the assistance of Mr. W.C. Milner, whose knowledge of the history of this region is thorough and accurate, and also of Mr. Howard Truman, of Point de Bute, who knows so well its later history. This main road was more than a mere track through the woods, for it was passable for horses and to some extent for wagons. An important branch of this road, older than the road itself, ran to Pont à Buot, whose location will be considered presently, and thence to Fort Lawrence. Some maps show also a road along the western margin of the Fort Cumberland Bridge, though faintly, and it was probably an unimportant trail to the houses in that vicinity. Some maps mark a road across the marshes from Beauséjour to near the present Sackville, probably not far from the present highway, and this road continues on to the Memramcook, evidently by way of the present road along Frosty Hollow brook. It then continues from tin Memramcook to the bend of the Petitcodiac, but the maps are too imperfect to allow us to identify its course. Probably this was but a track through the woods and not a road properly cleared.

Franquet in his report mentions two roads from Pont à Bout to Beauséjour. One, the lower and poorer, led to Butte à Roger; the other, shown on the maps, went up the hill through the woods, the two joining on the hill opposite Butte à Roger.

From Baie Verte village a road ran straight across the flats to FortGaspereau. Alexander Monro thus speaks of it: “From Mill Creek, the road, nearly two miles in length, to the fort was in a straight line. About a mile and a quarter of this distance from the creek is marsh, over which the road was made on four rows of piles. The piles were driven into the marsh, and were about eight feet apart, and six feet above ground. On the top of each line of posts, timbers were extended lengthwise, and the whole was covered with plank. Between the marsh and the fort the road, still visible, passes over an upland flat.” In a diary of 1755, given by Mr. Monro, we read: “We Passe over a cassway one & a half mile In Length. Come to ye Fort Gaspereau.” Traces of this causeway are still to be seen and are known locally. Its exact course is shown on old plans in the Crown Land Office. (Map No. 25.)

In connection with the military operations of 1751-1755, and upon the maps of the time, several places are prominently mentioned. The sites of the principal of these are as follows:

Pont à Buot. The maps show this bridge across the Misseguash about two miles above Fort Beausèjour, at Point à Buot. The place is pointed out by tradition, and is made certain by the extremely detailed maps of Franquet. (Maps No. 20, 27.) The Rivière à l’Oars is a small stream crossing the highway road some 400 yards west of Point de Bute corner. There was here a French post later to be mentioned.

Butte à Roger. There is no doubt as to its location. It is shown clearly on the French Plan of 1755 (1779) and elsewhere. Franquet says a guard was kept there. It is the marked, somewhat isolated little hill east of the highway road between Sackville and Amherst, just where it descends Fort Cumberland Ridge, (see Map No. 24). On its top seems to be a cellar, perhaps not ancient.

Some of the other buttes are easy to identify. Butte à  Janot was that from which the Rivière à l’Oars descended, and Janot’s house was there, according to Franquet, and it is shown on his plan [Map 26], Butte à  Charles was but 120 toises from Fort Beauséjour, and parallel. The Butte Amirande was a half league away, and was perhaps the hill where St. Mark’s Church now stands, though it may have been a gravel hill nearer the marsh.

Bloody Bridge. This place took its name from an event thus described by Mr. Milner: “A more tragic affair occurred earlier in the year [1759] when a sergeant and three men of the Provincial Rangers and seven soldiers of the 46th Regiment then at the fort went out to cut wood. They were ambuscaded at a place called Bloody Bridge, and five of them were scalped and stripped.”

Its site is well known and marked on Map No. 24. The earthen abutments of the old bridge on which the old French road crossed the small stream here flowing into the Aulac are still to be seen.

Another locality of similar interest is known locally, – a place at the southern end of Jolicure, where Lieut. Dickson and several soldiers were ambuscaded by the Indians in 1757, the men slain and Dickson carried off a captive to Quebec.

Portage Hill. This is marked on the Franquet map [Map No. 20], and mentioned by him in his report, as “Butte du Portage.” He states there were two houses there, and a storehouse for the reception of goods in transit by the portage route from Beauséjour to Baie Verte. The position of this hill is well known; it is still called Portage Hill, and the road passes over it just to the eastward of Portage Bridge. [See Map No. 24] On the very top of this hill, just to the northward of the highway road, is an excavation like a large cellar, overgrown with bushes, which is possibly the cellar of the storehouse, and residents state there were other cellars on the south side of the road, a little farther to the east. Here the portage began from the headwaters of the Misseguash to Baie Verte, as already described.

Old French dykes are known in several places, particularly on the Aulac, where they have been rendered useless by the construction of aboideaux at the mouth of that river. A series of dykes is to be seen on Prospect Farm, at Point de Bute, where they have been pointed out to me by Mr. Howard Trueman, the owner of this place.

B. Forts

A — Fort Beausejour. There is not the slightest doubt as to the location of this fort. It was captured by the British in 1755, renamed Fort Cumberland, altered in details, but not in its main features, and the ruins are perfectly distinct today.

A plan of the fort is among the Franquet plans, of which an outline is given herewith [No. 28]. Another outline is on the map in the “Memoires sur le Canada.” After it became Fort Cumberland several plans of it were made. In the British Museum, King’s Library, CXIX, is a series of views of Fort Cumberland of great interest. A plan of the fort accompanies the report of Robert Morse in Canadian Archives, 1884, XXVII, 1881, 30. Another is in the Crown Land Office, Westmorland Book, I, 40, and it is partially on this that Map No. 44 is based.

B — Fort Gaspereau. The site of this fort is likewise perfectly known, for the British, after taking and renaming it Fort Monckton in 1755, altered it only in details, and its ruins are plain to to-day Franquet made a most detailed plan of it, of which an outline is given herewith [map No. 29]. In August, 1897, I made an examination and plan of the present condition of it, which is given herewith [map No. 30] it shown the considerable changes which have occurred in to the coast line since 1752, and points to the time when the ruins of his fort will In entirely washed away. A full account of the fort was given by F.T.P. Schewan about 1892 in a ten-page pamphlet entitled “Notes of Fort Monckton.”  There is also a plan in the British Museum differing somewhat from Franquet’s.

C — The Post at Pont à Buot. The location of this post is made certain by the fine map of Franquet [map. No. 27], and he also gives a full description of it in his report. Not the slightest trace of this post now remains, but the measurements so accurately given enable one to find the approximate site.

The course of the Misseguash has changed somewhat Since Franquet’s map was made, and the river is now much further out from the shore. The Riviére a l’Oars (the small stream west of the present Point de Butt Corner, (Map) No. 24) runs here in a gully a few feet deep, as the hachure lines of the Franquet map imply.

There is said locally to have been a block-house about half a mile north of Fort Beauséjour, on the present “Boomer Place,” about 100 yards from the road on the highest point of the ridge. It is supposed to have commanded the road leading from the present Sackville.

Franquet’s Report mentions also French posts at Weska [Westcock], and Chipoudy [Shepody]. As to the former, I have no idea of the site of the post. As to that at Shepody it is possible it stood on St. Mary’s point, for the Mante map and French plan both belonging in 1755, put a fort or post on this point and call fort de Shepody. There is no trace of it to be seen, or known locally.

Between the Memramcook and the Petitcodiac is a point known locally as Fort Folly Point [Folly Point on the maps] I am told by residents that there was a fort on the point on whose site the present light-house was built and that it was said to have been built by the Acadians during their troubles with the English. Locally it is said it was called Folly because there was really nothing there to defend. It is possible that both here and on St. Mary’s Point there were posts for observation of the approaching English and the giving of alarms to the settlers up the rivers. Thus the “Mémoires sur le Canada,” [p. 44] mentions with reference to the approach of Monckton’s fleet towards Beauséjour in 1755; “Vergor l’ignoroit; des habitans de Chipoudy et de Pékekoudiac, ayant aperçu cette flotte, le lui firent savoir en toute diligence.” Probably they passed by land over the Memramcook portage to Westcock and thence across the marshes to Beauséjour.

4. The Richibucto District.

In this part of the Province, from Cape Tormentine to Cape Escuminac, the Acadian settlements became more numerous than elsewhere in New Brunswick, historically they may be divided into two groups, those formed before the expulsion, and those formed since.

A. Settlements

A — De Chauffours’ Settlement at Richibucto. The Seigniorial grant to the Sieur de Chauffours of 1684, states that on the border of the river Richibucto, on the coast on the southwest, he had two years previously taken up three arpents of land, and had built a fort of stakes and two houses for his residence and to store the grain he had raised the previous year. The site of this settlement we do not know. Tradition places the earliest French settlement at Richibucto Cape. It was possibly on the south side of the harbour not far west of Indian Island. Cooney states that before 1755 the French were pretty thickly settled at Richibucto, (where the town now stands,) where there was a village of about forty houses, and another small one at the month of the Aldonane. Aside from these, however, I know of no reference to pre-expulsion settlements in this region, though there must have been settlers about the different harbours.

The years between 1771 and 1755 were troublous enough for the Acadians about the head of the Hay of Fundy, and many of them retired to Shediac and the other harbours of this coast, and yet many who escaped the expulsion in I755, returned to the same region. Bellin in 1755, speaks of all this coast as inhabited. From 1755 onwards considerable settlements were forming about these harbours, and unlike those at Miramichi, Nepisiguit and Restigouche they appear not to have been again disturbed by the English. Much about the history of these settlements has been published in newspaper articles by M. Placide Gaudet, from whom the following facts are taken: The original settlement at Shediac was at Grandigue on the north of the harbour where a large settlement still is, and the present site of Shediac was not occupied until the present century. In 1767 lands were assigned to twenty-four Acadians at Shediac and Cocagne [Murdoch II, 472]. In 1772 lands were granted to Acadians at Cocagne. The settlement of Buctouche was not founded until 1785, and Richibucto in 1790. In 1791 several Acadians petitioned Governor Carleton for lands on the south bank of Richibucto, and in 1798 they were given a grant of what is now Richibucto village. There were, however, no doubt Acadian settlers much earlier on this river. The large island south of the entrance is on the charts called French Island, but is also known as Indian Island. St. Louis de Kent was established in 1805. On the condition of these settlements in 1811, 1812, the Journal of Bishop Plessis is very valuable.

B — Belair vers Cocagne in Abbé le Guerne’s letter of 1756 was, according to M. Gaudet, six or seven miles up the Cocagne on the north side. At Cocagne Cape, according to M. Gaudet, is a place still called Camp de Boisebért, where Boisebért spent the winters of 1755-56.

B. Forts

The Fort of DeChauffours, already spoken of, was, of course, merely a palisaded dwelling.

A — Shediac. But a single fort of importance in this region is known, that at Shediac, often mentioned in early documents and shown on maps. It was Built by LaCorne in 1742 and is spoken of in one report as “premier établishment du Roi.” Franquet speaks of it in his report as “the first establishment of the King; there is there a grand magazine and storehouse.” Bellin speaks of the “petit fort” here in 1755. It is marked on D’Anville’s map of 1755, Green-Jefferys of the same year and Montresor of 1768, in all cases on the north side of the Shediac river a little above its month. In 1897 I visited Shediac and made an effort to locate the fort. I found that local tradition pointed to Indian Island, (an island in the harbour so small that it is not shown on most maps) and that no site on the mainland seemed to be known to the residents [map No. 31]. I visited Indian Island and found the distinct remains of an earthwork some three feet high with a shallow ditch outside as much of this as can be seen, is shown on the accompanying map No. 32. The island, a flat gravel terrace, 10 to 15 feet above high tide and densely wooded, is rapidly washing away, but it is easy to trace the former extent of the fort from the ruins that remain. It is said by residents of the harbour that this is known as the Indian fort, and that it was called Fort Sauvage by the French, and 1 have been told by an Indian chief that it was built by the Indians for protection against the .Mohawks. It is difficult to believe that this very small fort on a tiny island surrounded by salt water was the French fort referred to in the documents of the time, and it may be really a fort built by the Indians themselves, as were Nerepis, Meductic, Richibucto and other Indian forts while the French fort was perhaps on the mainland. But it is difficult to explain on the latter supposition how all knowledge of it has utterly disappeared.

5. The Miramichi District

A — Settlement of Richard Denys de Fronsac. This was the earliest French settlement on the Miramichi of which we have any authentic record, but its site is uncertain, Richard Denys was son of Nicolas Denys, who had settlements at Miscou and Nepisiguit. LeClereq speaks of having visited it before 1691, and St. Valier in 1688 speaks of it as “a little fort of four bastions formed of stakes, and in this fort a house where M. de Fronsac makes his residence.” [p. 32], As to its site, LeClereq gives us no help; but St. Valier says of it that it was on the River of Manne, at a league from that of St. Croix, and that near it [“pres de la”] is a place called, in the language of the Indians, Skinoubondiche, where were the three leagues of land given to the Recollets for a mission by M. Denys. There is no doubt as to the location of Skinoubondiche. As already explained it was at Burnt Church; hence Denys’ settlement was near it, and perhaps at Burnt Church Point itself, where later was a considerable village. This point can, however, hardly be said to be at a league from the River St. Croix, the old French name of the Miramichi. If the River Manne could be located it would settle the point; but the name seems French, not Indian, and despite much search, I have not been able to identity it. Another hint as to its site is given us by LeClereq [p. 193], who speaks of spending a night at (— ?), four leagues from the fort of M. Richard de Fronsac. The only identification for this name I have been able to make is that it represents Mool-mun-ok-un, which, with The usual substitution of r for l, is not unlike it. Mool-mun-ok-un is the Micmac name of the Northwest Miramichi, and four leagues [about ten miles] from it would bring one to the forks at Beaubears Island. On the northern bank here, just at the junction, the Jumean map of 1685 places a flag, which may imply that the fort stood there, and a further confirmation is given to this site by the Franquelin-DeMuelles map of 1686 which names the little stream southeast of the present Beaubears Island, R. de Mission (Map No. 33). But this would hardly agree with St. Valier’s statement that it was near Skinoubondiche, unless there were two places of that name.

There is a tradition that his fort stood at Bay de Vin, at the point on the eastern side of the harbour [shown on map No. 10], but this would not agree with the statements of St. Valier. One might suppose that Riviere du Cache [River of the hiding place] might be connected with it. The original river of this name seems to have been the Grand Dune, but there is really nothing to connect Denys with it.

B — Bay du Vin. Traditions are given by Cooney as to the foundation of the Bay du Vin settlements in 1672 or 1672 but there is no historical evidence whatever for such statements. But relics dug up, cellars, and traditions all point to the existence of former French settlements at several points, though we have no evidence at all as to the dates of their formation. A very large settlement, with a chapel whose site is known, is said to have existed opposite Bay du Vin Island. Probably most of them were not earlier than 1750, about which time settlers began to leave the peninsula of Nova Scotia in some numbers.

Other remains are found on Bay du Vin Island. Creuxius’ map of 1660 Marks a settlement on the south side of the bay. Another early settlement was near what is still called French River Point (Map No. 10). The local tradition, as given me by a resident, is that this village pursued the dog-fish fishery for the sake ff the skins, which commanded a good price in France where they were used for used for polishing purposes.

C — Beaubears Point and Island. There can he little doubt that here also was an extensive settlement, though we know nothing positively as to its origin. Probably, however, it too, if not. formed about 1750, was at least increased about that time, and doubtless still more after the expulsion of 1755. Cooney places the settlement on Beaubears Point i.e., Wilsons Point (map No. 33), comprising a town of two hundred houses, a chapel and Provision stores; but most of the remains of settlement known locally are on the island. An old road along its centre is considered locally to be French. Cooney states there was a battery on the eastern end of the island. In 1756 there were 3500 French under Boishébert on the Miramichi (Murdoch II, 312). Doubtless this settlement was destroyed by Wolfe’s expedition of 1758. Local tradition states that the passage, called “the Tickle,” is artificial, and was made by Boishébert. This is an error, for Jumeau’s map of 1685 and Franguelin-DeMeulles of 1686 show it with perfect clearness.

D — Canadian Point. The tradition is that here was a settlement of some importance. This is confirmed by a most interesting view made in 1758 by one of Wolfe’s officers, published as a copperplate in London in 1758. It is entitled “A View of Miramichi, a French Settlement in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, destroyed by Brigadier .Murray detached by General Wolfe for that purpose, from the Bay of Gaspe.” This view shows a settlement of four houses and a church on the left bank of the river, at a place which I can only identify as just east of the extremity of Canadian Point (map No. 33). M. Gaudet calls this point la pointe acadienne, from which canadian may be a corruption.

E — French Fort Cove. Tradition places here an early battery, no doubt correctly. The battery must have stood on the western entrance to the cove, which is still called locally “Battery Hill,” for the position is admirably adapted for the purpose (map No. 33). There is here a high bluff, and the channel of the river curves close to the shore, so that the command of the river from the bluff is perfect. In this respect it resembles the Battery Point and Point la Garde on the Restigouche, and no doubt there was a battery here to protect the important settlements above.

F — Burnt Church Point. Here was no doubt a very important village, and this point on the fine survey map of 1754 is called “Pointe de Village.” The Indian settlement and church were close beside it, and it was the burning of this church by the English in 1758 that gave it its name. The local tradition, as given by Cooney is that it was burnt by the captain of a ship bearing the remains of Wolfe to England in reprisal for the murder of some of his men by the Indians, but it is much more likely that it was burnt by the expedition of 1758, above mentioned, which was sent by Wolfe for the express purpose of destroying the French villages on the Miramichi. As I have elsewhere pointed out, the tradition of the six murdered sailors may belong earlier, and explain certain place names in that region (Place Nomenclature 223). This is, of course, the village mentioned by Smethurst in 1761. The village of Neguae, near by, is probably one of the Acadian settlements founded later in the century, though Cooney states that old French remains were visible then.

Tradition also places an early French establishment of Denys at Portage Island, used in hunting sea-cow or walrus.

A branch of the Lower Tabusintac is on the maps named French Cove Brook, probably indicating an early settlement.

6. The Nepisiguit District

In this region there were two principal centres of settlement, Nepisiguit and Miscou. Their early history has been most fully and clearly sketched by Dr. N.E. Dionne in his “Miscou” in Le Canada Français, 1889. Recently Rev. W.O. Raymond has written upon the same subject (in Collections, N.B. Historical Society, II, 81-134). A valuable detailed account of the settlements of Miscou in this century, with some traditions, is to be found in Perley’s Report on the Fisheries of New Brunswick, 1852.

A — The earliest settlement on Miscou must have been that of Raymond de la Ralde in 1623 (Dionne), who had a fishing and trading establishment there. Its site is unknown, but probably it was on Miscou harbour.

B — Mission of St. Charles. In 1634 was founded the Jesuit Mission of Saint Charles at Miscou, which is frequently referred to in the Relations after that date. The site of this important mission is not positively known. The many references to it in the Relations give no hint of its site. Local tradition places it at Grande Plaine, near Mya Point, at the north end of Miscou Island (see map No. 34), but there seems to be little basis for this view, and in all probability it is an error. It was much more probably on Miscou harbour, and there are two reasons for this belief. First, as the mission was for both Indians and the numerous French fishermen, it would have been rear where the French could use it. At Grande Plaine, there is no harbour whatever for vessels, but only the open sea, the most exposed of positions, where vessels could lie only in the calmest weather. On the other hand, Miscou harbour is a good harbour for vessels, and has been used by fishermen in great numbers from the earliest times down to the present day. It was while their vessels were at anchor in safety that the sailors could attend a mission. Second, Father Richard in the Relation of l645, speaks of a sea voyage from Nepisiguit to Miscou, and remarks especially on the danger he met through finding Miscou harbour blocked with ice. Had his destination been the north point of Miscou the blocking of the harbour would not have concerned him so much. If it was on the harbour, however, we do not know its exact site unless it was on the same site as the settlement of Denys, next to be spoken of (map No. 34). This is quite probable, since no other important ancient site is known about this harbour, except, perhaps, I. au tresor or Money Island, on which many coins and other relics have been found. The latter may possibly be the I. a monsieur of Jumeau’s map of 1685. The low shores of this harbour do not offer many favourable sites for settlement, and a good situation is likely to be occupied by many settlements in succession. That this site was on what we now call Shippegan is not the least objection, since, until alter 1700, both islands were called Miscou, one Grande Isle de Miscou, the other Petite Isle de Miscou. The mission had a branch at Nepisiguit and was abandoned about 1662.

C — Denys’ Settlement on Miscou Harbour. Denys, in his work of l672, tells us with the greatest clearness of his settlement on this harbour, on the south side, where he had a “habitation” and garden. In another place he speaks of passing through the harbour of Miscou from the eastern entrance and of coming to a long point of sand which makes a cove of considerable extent, and there it is that vessels anchor. This must have been either Harper’s or Sandy Point (southwest of Harper’s), and the inference is that his settlement was near it. The site of Denys’ settlement is well known locally, and until a few years ago traces of it could he seen, including the remains of an “old fort,” which now are entirely washed away. It was at Pecten Point, in the place marked on map No. 34. This site has been identified for me by Rev. Father, J.R. Doucet, to whom I am indebted for much information upon the history of the island, and it is thus spoken of by Dionne (p. 518):

“On voyait encore sur cette ile, il n’y a pas plus de 5 ou 6 ans, les ruines de habitation et des fortifications anciennes élevés par Denys. Le fortétait situé du côté sud du havre de Miscou, vis-à-vis le principal établissement de l’ile occupé il y a plus de deux siècles par les Français, et habité aujour d’hui par un groupe Ecossias. L’on peut encore voir le vieux cimetière, sur la propriété d’un nommé John Marks. Les protestants ont construit, a proximité, une église de leur secte.”

Passing next to the settlements at Nepisiguit, we fine them in the following order.

D — The RecoIIet Mission at Nepisiguit. LeClerceq says of this place (p. 203): “Les Recollets de la Province d’Aquitaine y ont commence la Mission en 1620 & le Pere Bernardin, un de ces illustres Missionaires mourot de faim & fatigues en traversant les bois pour aller de Miscou et du Nipisguit à la riviere de Saint John, à la Cadie, on ces Reverends Peres avoient leur établisement principal.” As to the site of this mission we have no hint whatever.

E — The Jesuit Mission at Nepisiguit. This was established in 1644 as a branch of the mission of Miscou. It is several times referred to in the Relations, but never in a way to locate it. LeClerceq states there was a Chapel here. Dionne states positively, though without giving any evidence, that this chapel was at Point an Père, and that Denys .settled near it. A slender argument for this might be based upon the fact that old plans mark Ferguson’s  Point, where Denys’ settlement later stood, “Point au Père, so called because a French priest is buried there,” (Map No. 35), and there is a local tradition, given, however, without qualification by Dionne, that some years ago the remains of priests were removed from this point to the cemetery at Bathurst. Rev. Father Varrily, however, writes me there is no mention of any such removal in the Church records, nor does he know of it. He says, however, there is a tradition that the Jesuit Fathers had some kind of an establishment there. He says further, “It is, however, certain that on the south side of the harbour, at the mouth of the Nepisiguit, there was at the first discovery of the country an Indian settlement, and that a French gentleman named Enaud, who married an Indian, owned property and lived there. This place was visited regularly by the Jesuit fathers established at Miscou.” There must be some error in the latter statement, for Enaud, who was living here in 1686, is returned by the Census as 35 years old, and the Miscou Mission was abandoned about 1662. Creuxius’ map of 1660 places the settlement west of the Nepisiguit, hut this probably has little significance.

F — Nicolas Denys’ Habitation at Nepisiguit. Denys, in his work of 1672, thus writes; “Mon habitation de Nepigiguit est sur le bord de ce bassin; à un liene à la droit de son entrèe de basse mer un canot n’en sçauroit approcher: c’est où j’ay esté obligé de me retirer aprés l’incendie de mon Fort de saint Pierre en l’isle du Cap Breton. Ma maison y est flanguée de quatres petite bastions avec une palissade dont les pieux sont de dix-huits pieds de haut, avec six pieces de canon en batteries …. j’y ay un grand jardin.” This description placing his habitation on the border of the basin a league from the entrance on the right, with great shallows in front, would locate it on Ferguson’s point exactly where tradition places it (See Map No. 35). Here many relics of early occupation have been found, cannon balls, gun locks, skeletons (near by), and even quarried stone. The spot where the latter occurred was on the point in a place now washed by the highest tides, and it is probable that here was the habitation and that this site, like so many settlement and fort sites in the province, has been much altered by the action of the tides, allowed by a slow sinking of the Coast, which is now going on. Old willow trees on the point are said by tradition to mark the graves of priests and a French admiral.

G — Enault’s Settlement. A number of traditions of Esnault (Enault or Enaud) are given by Cooney, which are probably fairly trustworthy, except as to dates. The census of 1686 returns Fnaud as living at Nepisiguit. Cooney says that he lived at Abshaboo or Coal Point at the mouth of the Nepisiguit, where Packard’s hotel is, and that he had his principal establishment where Mr. Dubois has his. Coal Point is a corruption of Goold’s Point, by which the high point on the west side of the mouth of the Nepisiguit is known on many early plans. Packard’s Hotel, a stone building, still stands at the corner of Black and St. Patrick streets in Bathurst, while DeBlois’ establishment was near by on Gayton’s wharf, near the foot of St. Patrick street. Certainly this would seem to be the most favourable place around the harbour for a trading establishment; it is on high land at the mouth of a river much used by the Indians as a highway to the hunting grounds of the interior, and as a through route of travel to other rivers. If Enaud, or a predecessor was in possession of this point when Denys arrived, it would explain why Denys chose what seems to us in all ways the much less favourable situation at Ferguson’s Point. Cooney states also that Enaud had a large grist mill on the stream running through the marsh now owned by Mr. Deblois, which stream, as Dr. Duncan tells me, is that now known as Eddy’s stream (Map No. 35), and he adds further that the stones of the mill were found not long ago on the stream. A fact which has an important bearing upon the site of Enaud’s settlement is, however, this, that a point on the harbour is still called, locally, by his name, Point Enaud, though on the chart it is called Daly’s Point. This persistence of his name must indicate very close connection between him and this locality.

Enault is mentioned by LeClercq with much praise. They went together in winter from Nepisiguit to Richard Denys’ settlement at Miramichi, nearly perishing on the road.

It is probable that from the time of Denys onward there were Acadian settlers about this harbour in small numbers, and that in common with other desirable locations on the north shore it received large additions to their numbers after 1750, and still more after the expulsion. In 1761 Captain Mackenzie was sent to remove them, and took prisoners there, no less than 787 (Archives, 1894, 229). The registers at Caraquette, according to Mr. Gaudet, show there was a number of settlers here in 1772, and these settlers no doubt took up lands which were afterwards granted to them. It is thus hardly possible to assign any date to the foundation of St. Peters, as it was called until 1826, when it was named Bathurst by Sir Howard Douglas.

The later history of Acadian settlements in this region was no doubt very similar. Thus, Caraquette was granted in 1784 to 34 Acadians who had doubtless been some time on the lands. Tracadie was first settled, according to M. Gaudet in 1785, and Pokemouche and Petit Rocher both in 1797.

7. Restigouche District.

So far as I have been able to find, there are in this district no records of French settlements, other than the French mission to the Indians, before 1700. The Recollet Mission was at Old Mission Point, as already discussed. After 1750 the settlers came to this region in considerable numbers and founded the town of Petit Rochelle, on the Quebec side, protected by batteries at Point LeGarde and Battery Point. It was in the basin above Mission Point that the battle was fought between an English .squadron, under Captain Byron, and a French squadron, which resulted in the destruction of the latter and of Petit Rochelle and the batteries. A very interesting memorial of this event is on the French chart of Restigouche of 1779, copied from an earlier English one, which gives the names of all Byron’s ships to different points and shoals along the river. Cooney gives the official accounts of this battle, and it has been treated fully in the Educational Review, X, 194. The site of Petit Rochelle is well known locally; it extended from Officers Brook upwards for some three miles, and many relics of French occupation have been found here. (Map No. 36) Cooney states there was a French village at Martins Point, near the site of Campbellton, and he gives many facts and traditions as to French relics found in this region (213-218).

At the mouth of Jacquet River, and doubtless of other rivers on the North Shore, are small pieces of marsh which seem to have been dyked; and these dykes are taken locally to be evidence of early Acadian settlements. Such dykes, however, are known to geologists to be often the result of purely natural causes (Chalmers, Geological Reports, 1895, M, 133), and hence do not prove the existence of former settlements unless certainly artificial.

Ganong’s Map No. 13:


Ganong’s Map No. 14:


Ganong’s Map No. 15:



Ganong’s Map No. 16:


Ganong’s Map No. 17:


Ganong’s Map No. 18:


Ganong’s Map No. 19:



Ganong’s Map No. 20:


Ganong’s Map No. 21:


Ganong’s Map No. 22:


Ganong’s Map No. 23:


Ganong’s Map No. 24:


Ganong’s Map No. 25:


Ganong’s Map No. 26:


Ganong’s Map No. 27:


Ganong’s Map No. 28:


Ganong’s Map No. 29:


Ganong’s Map No. 30:


Ganong’s Map No. 31:


Ganong’s Map No. 32:


Ganong’s Map No. 33:


Ganong’s Map No. 34: 


Ganong’s Map No. 35: 


Ganong’s Map No. 36:




Written by johnwood1946

May 1, 2013 at 12:22 PM

Posted in Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: