Johnstone refers to the ‘longers’ as having been 'prepared’ but omits to tell us what this preparation consisted of. Where the tree trunks were already of a size suitable for fencing this may only have involved their cutting, and the lopping of the branches to form a pole. However, where the trunks were thicker, there would also have been the extra labour of splitting them into ’rails’ as Stewart (1806) mentions in his reference to the use of fir and poplar in fences.458 Johnstone then goes on to describe a second type of fence, also consisting of posts and rails:

Other fences are constructed in a form somewhat different. The poles are laid in straight lines, or nearly so with the ends of one course of poles running a little past the adjoining ones; at which joining, a pole is driven into the ground on both sides of the fence, close to the

horizontal ones, and bound together with strong withes459; and when finished, it is much more pleasant 460

to look at than the other.

However, he added that because this type of fence was not "near so firm” as the snake fence, it was "little practiced but around gardens, or on public roadsides, where the cattle from the woods are not likely to make their severest attacks".

Both the snake and the post-and-rail fence, constructed as they were from natural materials, had a limited life-span, and thus the regular replacement of their materials was a necessity. Johnstone said that when either of these two types of fence was ”constructed of good poles of spruce or var [i.e. balsam fir] [they] will last, it is said, twelve or fifteen years". For this reason the collecting of fencing material and the repair of the farm fences became part of the annual routine of the tasks that had to be performed on the farm, with several recorders indicating that the winter, especially the late winter and early spring, was the

‘58 Knox (1980) (p. 23), from the recollections of farmers in the

19705. said that “a straight-grained fir could be split using two axes". He also noted that ”a quicker method was to have the rail sawed at the local mill".

‘59 See footnote 457 for a definition of ‘withe‘.

‘50 Lewellin (1832) (p, 197, not extracted) seems also to refer to this type of fence, when after describing the snake fence, he adds that "when [the stakes are] upright they are secured or bound together by withes". Neither Johnstone nor Lewellin tell us how many rails were used in each section. It was likely to have been less than the snake fence since either the ‘withes' or short pieces of wood could have been used to space the rails. I note from photographs in Larkin (1995), showing restored farm landscapes in various parts of the eastern United States, that post-and-rail fences with 3, 4, 5 and 6 rails are shown, with 5 being the most common (5 rails occur in three different fences).

71

time when fencing material was brought from the

woods“‘.

The trees used in fencing — The trees that are mentioned in the historical records as being used

for fencing are ’poplar’m, 'spruce’m, ’fir’m,

cedar465 and tamarack“? Of these, spruce, fir and poplar are mentioned as providing either rails or poles, while tamarack, and especially cedar, although undoubtedly used also for rails and poles457, are mentioned specifically as being used for ’posts’463, a factor being the greater resistance of both species to decay in the ground. It would appear that the spruce used could be either white

spruce, most probably from second-growth

woodland459, or black spruce from the 'barrens’.“70

Cedar is not mentioned as a fencing material by earlier recorders such as John Stewart and Walter Johnstone, presumably on account of its

461 [Hill] 1819; Anon. 1836; Bagster 1861. Bagster specified

March as the actual month, which fits in with the recollections of persons in the late 19705: Knox (1980) (p. 22) was told by an informant that the early spring was the time that fence rails were cut. ‘62 Stewart (1806) said that “Poplar or Aspen (populus tremula)" was “much used for fencing, for which, when split into rails, it is more valuable than any other wood produced on this Island".

‘63 Johnstone 1822; Land Commission 1875: evidence of H. Braddock of Lot 36, and of Samuel Ramsay of Lot 13.

‘6‘ Stewart 1806 (he said that “where the grain of a fir tree does not twist so much as to prevent it being split, it makes good rails for fencing, for which it is much used"); Johnstone 1822; Land Commission 1875: evidence of H. Braddock of Lot 36; [Lawson] 1877-1878; Bain 1890.

‘65 Land Commission 1875: evidence of George W. DeBlois, Lot 9; Donald McPhee, Lot 9; Peter Doyle, Lot 7; Joseph Mooreshed, Lot 7; Bain 1890.

‘66 Bain (1890) — he said tamarack was used for ‘fence posts', noting that it was very durable.

‘67 We recall Craswell & Anderson’s (c. 1856) reference to “a

fine grove of cedar poles" on Lot 11 . ‘68 For cedar ‘posts‘: Land Commission 1875: evidence of George W. DeBlois for Lot 9, and Donald McPhee of Lot 9; Bain 1890. Fortamarack ‘posts': Bain 1890.

469 Land Commission 1875: When H. Braddock of Lot 36 says that “the second growth of fir and spruce is not valuable for anything except fencing", it would seem that he is referring to white spruce,

"'3 Land Commission 1875: From Samuel Ramsay's comment that “the principal part of the barren land [on Lot 13] is covered with spruce, var [i.e. fir], &c. lt was burnt land. Poles are valuable there for fencing purposes", the ‘spruce' fencing materials that he mentions can only have been black spruce. See also footnote 491 for other evidence to the Land Commission of 1875 associating fence poles with ‘barrens‘, in which, though the tree is not named, the species is also likely to have been black spruce.