The forest viewed as a cause of isolation — There are only two references to the isolating effect of the forest on the island’s population. One is psychological: Pensen's reluctance to be posted to lle Saint-Jean in 1726 hints at the feeling of isolation caused by the forest: he considered himself ”exiled in a corner of the woods” [dans un coin de boisl‘3‘. By contrast, Roma (1750) saw positive advantages in such forest-imposed isolation: it assisted, he said, the defence of the island — though it had not saved his settlement from a sea- borne attack by New Englanders in 1745”.

The attitude to forest conservation — Given the super-abundance of timber, the conservation of the forests of Tie Saint-Jean during the French period was not a matter of great concern to the officials at either Louisbourg or Port La-Joie. It is thus not co-incidental that the two documents that do mention forest conservation measures for the island were written by men living in Europe who had no direct experience of the North American forest: the minister of the Marine, and the official in the Marine in Paris who signed himself 'de la Boulaye’. Though it is possible that the two men may have been prompted by their knowledge of wood shortages at Louisbourg by this time133 (or even elsewhere in New France), the contents of their letters appear to be influenced more by the prevailing attitudes to forest conservation in France, that have already been discussed.

The first of these memos was written by the minister, the Count of Maurepas, in June 1732”“. It is quite an unusual directive‘35, sent jointly to the governor and commissaire at Louisbourg, that seems to have been prompted by an interview that Maurepas had with the commandant for lle Saint- Jean, Jacques de Pensens, when Pensens was on an extended leave in France for the recovery of his health. It represents one of the few attempts during the French period to exert control on the forest through official measures.

”1 Pensens' words are quoted by Saint-Ovide 1726: 20

November. ‘32 Roma 1750.

133 Clark (1968) (p. 326) says there are constant references in the sources to the problem of firewood at Louisbourg.

134

Maurepas 1732.

'35 It would appear to be an executive order, and thus comparable in constitutional terms to those acts of the island’s legislature in the

British period that attempted to exert controls on forest usage.

27

Maurepas wrote that the woods on the island were being cut needlessly and without any plan, with the result that in the future they could either become rare or even be destroyed which would be a great disadvantage for the colony. Then using the greatest weapon in his verbal armoury (”the King's intention is”) he outlined measures that he wanted his local officials to implement: the settlers were to clear only what they immediately required for cultivation while a part of each farm was to be left in standing timber; where there was no forest clearing going on, and in more distant places, the woods were to be conserved with care. Finally, whenever trees had to be cut for timber or fire- wood, it was to be done in a way that would en- courage regeneration from the rootstock — this last practice was (and still is) a traditional procedure of woodland management in Europe, that is known as tail/is in France and coppicing in the British Isles.136 The rationale for these conservation measures was explicitly utilitarian: the forest was to be conserved so that it would continue to be a source of building materials and firewood.

Given the authority carried by the minister’s choice of words (”I ask that you give the strictest orders so that all will be followed exactly it is of great importance”) it is singularly odd that we hear almost nothing of either the implementation of these regulations or their subsequent enforcement. The governor and acting commissaire obediently replied that they ”would give all [their] attention to the conservation of the woods in the way that you have recommended ...”‘37, and they appear to have passed the message down the line to the acting commandant at Port La—Joie.138 But after that nothing more is ever heard of the matter.

It is ironic that within ten years of the minister’s directive two very destructive fires, as has been noted above, burned an extensive area of woodland in the north-east of the island. However, I am not aware of any comment in the correspondence about the amount of valuable timber that must have been destroyed. Whether in view of the minister’s earlier directive, the local officials thought it best not to alert him to the loss.

‘36 Corvol 1984, p. 136. ”7 Saint-Ovide 1732.

13° l base this last statement on Harvey’s (1926) (p. 94) comment that Jean-Francois Eurry de la Perelle (the acting commandant at Port La-Joie in 1732, during Pensen's absence in France) was given an order (Harvey does not say by whom) to "prevent the destruction of timber'. (I could not locate Harvey's source for this statement from the reference that he cites.)