pertinently, noted that ”the expense depends in a great measure on the timber being near or far — if the Spruce logs are at a distance 8!. much hauling of the oxen it would come to more”. The total time taken depended on the number of men involved: where there were large numbers it could be completed in a day4‘6, but with half a dozen men, three or four days to a week are mentioned”.

As Selkirk's descriptions of the two different types of log house at Belfast indicate, there was considerable variation in the quality and permanence of log houses. Some, such as those first year houses at Belfast and that described by Curtis (1775), were only intended to provide a rough shelter for a few months over one winter, or at most a year, while others were inhabited for several years, and some for many years”, and even after that could continue life as a ’cattle

house’.419 In terms of their quality, Johnstone

(1822) commented that ”many of their houses are done up in the rudest manner possible — the logs being neither covered with dressed boards inside nor out, and the spaces between them only filled up with moss”. At the same time, he observed, as had also Cambridge (1796) and Anon. (1867)42°, that the ’old settlers’ (i.e. the longer

“6 The cabin that Curtis (1775) (pp. 47—48, not extracted) helped build took only a day, though it was a somewhat rough affair with no chimney, having a large hole in the middle of the roof to let the smoke out. Anon. (1808) noted that with twenty men working, a ‘small house' could be built in one day. And, from his experience of building log cabins in Lot 56, Marryat (1829) said that with ‘practice’ and “with the assistance of thirty or forty men, [he] could build a very good [log] house in a day". (However his team had included “a large part of the ship's company" of a British frigate including “the carpenter" and “every necessary implement useful in cutting down trees and building log houses")

“7 [Cambridge] 1796 (p. 10, not extracted); [Hill] 1319 (p. 23, not extracted).

41B

MacGregor (1828) (p. 60, not extracted) said that the “the industrious, sober, and persevering settler” would replace the log house “in a few years" with “a much better house with two or more rooms" —- [Cambridge] (1796) (p. 10, not extracted); Anon. (1808) (p. 10, not extracted), and Macphail (1939) noted that the replacement would be a framed house. However, [Hill] (1819) (p. 25, not extracted), observing that “by far the greater number continue satisfied with their original log-house", said that it was “common to see those who have been settled twenty years, still remain in their original log habitation".

“9 [Cambridge] 1796 (p. 10, not extracted). Also, Lawson (1851) (p. 49, not extracted) observed that in communities long settled by 1851 (he specifically mentions Tryon and Bedeque) “the first rude hut now picturesque in decay is still propped up as a shelter for sheep, the second “more substantial" log house was “doing duty as a byre for cattle", while "the first essay towards a frame house“ had become the "projection at the back” (presumably the kitchen wing) of a more substantial "story and a half edifice”.

65

established) generally shingled their roofs, while the exterior walls were covered with what he called ”dressed boards nailed on horizontally, overlapping with one another to keep out the wind and the rain” (clearly, he is describing clapboard , while on the inside, he said, since ”lime [for plaster] is not easily got, the greater part that are finished within are lined with dressed boards both on the walls and ceiling".

)421

The trees used in log houses — From the surviving written records it seems that only four tree species contributed materials to the structure of the first log houses: pine, spruce, fir and white birch (and the fir’s contribution was minor). The most important species were the spruce and pine that contributed the logsm, and presumably also most of the wood used in the rest of the structure, such as the floors (whether they were of boards or split logs), and any internal partitions (though in fact the species used for either of these are not named in the records). The bark used as a roof cover was probably mostly white birch, though spruce and fir bark are also mentionedm'

, spruce or fir boughs (as well as sea-grasses)

were used for the thatchm; while birch made an additional

contribution in the form of the ’wythes’ or twigs

that tied the roof together“? The later

improvements (i.e. the boards used on the roof, the floor, and the interior walls; the clapboards; and the shingles) could all have been supplied by pine, though cedar likely made a contribution to

420 [Cambridge] (1796) (p. 10, not extracted) had commented that log houses could be enlarged, as well as improved by covering the outside with clapboards, and the roof with shingles, while the inside could be "lined with board, in the nature of wainscot, or lath and plaster"; Anon. (1867) (not extracted) describes the typical island log house as “a comfortable one-storied log house, well shingled and clapboarded, having two large rooms and a bedroom or two on its ground floor".

‘21 And with that disguise, log houses have survived to this day on the island both in the countryside (eg. the Doucet House of Cymbria, restored in 2003), and in Charlottetown (Rogers 1983, e.g., pp. 136, 140, 168).

‘22 [Hill] (1819) said that ‘spruce and pine trunks‘ were used;

Selkirk (1803) implies that spruce logs were the norm; while Marryat (1829) describes the use of ‘pine trees' at a particular site. I note that the logs of the Doucet House of Cymbria (a log house constructed of hewn logs in c. 1768) have been identified as ‘pine' [www.virtualmuseumca].

‘23 Birch bark is named as a roof covering by five recorders: Selkirk 1805; Johnstone 1822; MacGregor 1828 (p. 60, not extracted); Marryat 1829 and Lawson 1851; ‘spruce’ bark by Selkirk 1805; and ‘fir’ by MacGregor 1828 (p. 60, not extracted). 'Rind’ or ‘rhind' (another word for tree bark [Oxford 1989]) is the word used by Anon. (1808) (p. 11, not extracted) (he did not specify the species), and MacGregor (1828).

‘2‘ Selkirk 1805: “small twigs of the spruce and other sorts of fir“; Marryat 1829: ‘boughs of fir‘; MacGregor 1828 (p. 60, not extracted): ‘spruce branches'.

‘25 MacGregor1828 (p. 60, not extracted).