half his forces — though the precedent of using soldiers for logging had been set in 1727 when the local garrison, as well as ten additional soldiers from Louisbourg, had been assigned to cut pine masts on the island.9

Another major shortcoming is that Boulaye's scheme involves ”wood of all kinds" — which conflicts with the requirements of the department of the Marine for the French navy. Like the other naval powers of western Europe, the French navy used oak in the hulls of its ships with a strong preference for European oak. Admittedly, the merchant fleet was less particular.10 The fact that Boulaye does not mention oak, suggests that he may have known that there was not much to be had in the forests of lle Saint-Jean.11

Then there are his estimates — of the amount of wood that 200 soldiers can cut”, the amount that can be shipped in vessels of various sizes, the availability of such shipping, and the freightage rate. All of his figures seem to be crude estimates plucked out of the air, and they give the impression of having been 'massaged’ to enhance support for his proposal. Each of his figures and estimates needs to be checked against contemporary sources — from the limited number of such sources available to me | get the impression of considerable errors in his estimates. For example concerning a ship’s freight capacity, Boulaye states that a 100 ton ship will carry 20,000 cubic feet of wood. However using Albion's figure of one 'load’ of wood (i.e. 50 cubic feet”) for each ton of ship displacement”, we get

9 See Appendix 3.

1° Bamford 1956, p. 163, fn. 18: “Small merchant vessels were often built in part, or entirely, of pine, spruce and other cheap woods", as well as “of oak deemed unsuitable for naval use".

‘1 The island species was also red oak (Quercus mbra), a species not considered up to the standard of the European oaks. (See the comment on oak in Appendix 1, p. 135.)

'2 I note that Boulaye proposes that they out throughout the year including the summer — this in fact was considered bad practice and a factor contributing to a poor quality product: Bamford 1956, p. 51 (referring to cutting in France): "timber cuts were normally made in the winter when the sap was down", and p. 124: cutting "regardless of the season" was one of the reasons given in 1727 by the governor of Canada for the poor quality of some masts that had been cut for the Marine.

'3 Lower 1973, p. 252. Note however that the slightly greater length of the French foot compared with English (see footnote 6), meant that the French cubic foot was 20% larger than the English cubic foot.

100 loads or 5000 cubic feet for a 100 ton ship — only one-quarter of Boulaye’s estimate for the same ship!

And even if we stick to Boulaye's higher estimate that a 100 ton ship could carry 20,000 cubic feet, it appears there would not have been enough shipping available to transport his first summer’s cut of 300,000 Cubic feet back to France — let alone an annual cut of 600,000 cubic feet. Although he does not make the calculation himself, using his figures we can work out that to transport the 300,000 cubic feet of wood, it would have taken between four vessels (if all were of 400 tons) and fifteen (if all were 100 tons) — or three 500 ton f/Utes‘s. However, the number of vessels that sailed each year from France to Canada in the 1730s was often less than this (the average number was between nine and ten”) - and not all of these would have been able to carry wood, or would have had space for it even if they could. Thus, his shipping estimates seem to be unrealistic. As for his freight rate (5 sols per cubic foot), this may also be widely underestimated, perhaps by half — thus reducing his scheme’s potential savings for the king.17 And when he says that even this cost can be saved by using the Marine’s own ships he is here not factoring in the

1‘ Albion (1926) (p. 149) states that in the Baltic trade “the average timber ship (ranging ordinarily from 250 to 400 tons) could carry a cargo of about three hundred loads of timber, reckoning on about one load for one ton of displacement".

‘5 Using Boulaye‘s figures I calculate that his flora of 500 tons would hold 400 tons weight of wood (i.e. 100,000 cubic feet times 8 Iivres (pounds weight) per cubic foot (Boulaye's figure) = 800,000 cu. ft. or 400 tons). But Bamford (1956) (p. 165) notes that in the 1760s Dutch flutes were being purchased by the French navy that could carry 340 tons — which the context implies is a high value.

‘6 The number of ships sailing from all French ports to Canada (i.e. Quebec) in the 17205 has been calculated at 9.2 per year and in the 17305 at 9.7 (Miquelon 1987, p. 128, based on data from Pritchard 1971). And some or all of these appear to have had an involvement in the more lucrative West Indian trade and would not have been interested in returning with a load of timber: e.g. in 1743 the intendant of New France, Gilles Hocquart, stated that “almost all of the ships from France after having made their sales at Quebec go to the lles du Vent [l.e. the Windward Islands] via lle Royale“ (Miquelon 1987, p. 141). A larger number of ships sailed from France to Louisbourg: e.g. in 1737, there were 51 vessels — however most of these loaded cod for the return voyage (Moore 1979, pp. 82-83).

'7 Albion (1926) (p. 240) gives rates in c. 1700 of £6 to £8 per ton for the trans-Atlantic timber trade from New England to England compared with 405 to 505 from the Baltic. Rough calculations suggest this to be twice Boulaye‘s rates: Le. a ton of 2000 pounds, at 8 Iivres (weight) per cubic foot (Boulaye’s figure — used for lack of any other) = 250 cubic feet. £6 per 250 cubic feet converts to 9.6 sols per cubic foot (using a conversion factor of 20 sols to the shilling or 400 sols to the pound sterling).

179