
 
     APPENDIX 6 
     
    
     FOUR EXTRACTS ADDITIONAL TO THOSE IN PART B 
     
    
     Two of the four primary sources contained in this Appendix — House of Assembly (1852, 1853) and 
     
     Harris (c. 1865) — only came to my attention after Part B, ’The Extracts’ had already been submitted for 
     
     printing in November 2005, while I decided to include the other two — Anderson (1838) and Hughes? (0. 
     
    
     1880-1900) — only at a late stage in the writing-up of Part A, ’The Analyses’. 
     
    
     included in this bound volume as an Appendix 6. 
     
    
     All four have thus been 
     
    
     Because of their late addition, the authors of these four new extracts are not included in Appendix 3, nor 
     
     has the information they contain been used in the writing of Appendices 1 and 2, nor the early part of the 
     
     ’lntroduction’ to the Analyses, all of which had been prepared for printing prior to their inclusion here. I 
     
     thus include below a partial analysis of the information they contain that is relevant to those sections. 
     
    
     ANALYSIS OF THE FOUR EXTRACTS 
     
    
     Concerning Appendix 1 on the tree species: from 
     
     Harris (0. 1865) we note the presence of 'spruce’ 
     
     and ’pine’ (presumably white pine) at Bonshaw 
     
     and West River, while the poem of Hughes (0. 
     
     1880-1900) indicates that ’beech’ and ’birch’ 
     
     (undoubtedly yellow birch) contributed to the pre- 
     
     settlement forest along the O’Leary Road (which is 
     
     confirmed by the survey of Alexander Anderson 
     
     (1838)). Turning to the ’Tree Tally’ (Table 1-1): 
     
     the score of 'beech’ would increase by one‘; that 
     
     of ’birch’ by two (one of which is yellow birch and 
     
     the other whiteIZ; ’spruce’ by three, ’pine’ by two, 
     
     and tamarack by one 3. 4 
     
    
     The debates in the House of Assembly (1853) 
     
     back the information on tamarack already known 
     
     from other sources, as well as adding some new 
     
     points: tamarack -— or ’juniper’ as it was always 
     
     called in the debates was perceived to be 
     
     associated with poor land that was of little value 
     
     for anything else (speech of Edward Palmer), and 
     
     with ’swamps’ (Robert Mooney). The Speaker of 
     
     the House, Alexander Rae, said that "once cut 
     
     down, [it] would never grow again, at least a 
     
     second growth of a useful size” — though this 
     
    
     1 Hughes? (0. 1880-1900). 
     
     2 The “white gleaming birch trunks" described by Harris (c. 1865) 
     
     can only be white birch, while the ‘birch‘ of Hughes? (c. 1880- 
     
     1900) must be yellow birch. 
     
    
     3 Spruce is recorded at two locations by Harris (0. 1865), and is 
     
    
     also mentioned in the House of Assembly (1853) debates; ‘pine' 
     
     is also recorded at two locations by Harris (c. 1865), while the 
     
     ‘juniper‘ [i.e. tamarack] of the debates and acts of the House of 
     
     Assembly (1852, 1853) is assigned a score of one. 
     
    
     4 I am not including in the Tree Tally the many trees mentioned by 
     
     Anderson (1838) in his survey for the O‘Leary Road (nor have I 
     
     included them in any of the maps). since I subjectively chose that 
     
     extract only to show the type of information on speciﬁc tree 
     
     distribution that is contained in the Anderson’s Field Books. 
     
    
     293 
     
    
     was disputed by Mr. Fraser who said that "no 
     
     timber grows faster than juniper, after a fire no 
     
     trees grow up quicker again”. The prevalence of 
     
     juniper in the west of the island is supported by 
     
     the comments of two members: the Speaker 
     
     Alexander Rae said that a fire "last year" 
     
     destroyed a large amount of ’juniper’ ”at the west 
     
     end of the lsland”, and Joseph Pope referred to 
     
     ’juniper’ growing ”about Egmont Bay”; while its 
     
     scarcity in parts of Queen’s County is indicated by 
     
     the comment of Robert Mooney that there was 
     
     ’little’ in his district of Second Queen’s.5 Its great 
     
     importance to the island’s ship-building industry — 
     
     and not just for knees — was stressed by many 
     
     speakers. Benjamin Davies said it was becoming 
     
     ”very scarce" on the Island, while the wasteful 
     
     practice of cutting down the trees simply for their 
     
     knees, with the rest of the tree being left to rot, 
     
     was deplored by four speakers. 
     
    
     As for Appendix 2 on the forest animals, the 
     
     reference to the fox and the bear in the poem of 
     
     Hughes (c.1880-1900) would increase the score 
     
     of each animal by one in the Total Tally in Table 2- 
     
     1. 
     
    
     In the ’Introduction’ to the Analyses, the four new 
     
     extracts would increase the number of documents 
     
     in this study by six 6 to 178, and if we take each 
     
     of the sixteen speakers in the House of Assembly 
     
     debates as separate contributors, as they were, 
     
    
     then the number of recorders increases by 19 to 
     
     139. 
     
    
     5 In 1853 the Second District of Queen's stretched from one 
     
    
     border of the county to the other, comprising ﬁve townships south- 
     
     west of Charlottetown (Lots 29, 30, 31, 32, and 65), and four to the 
     
     east and north-east of the town (35, 36, 37 and 48) [Source: 
     
     Journal of the House of Assembly 1849]. Mr. Mooney seems to 
     
     have been mis-informed, since we would expect to find ‘tamarack‘ 
     
     in all of the eastern lots of his constituency. 
     
    
     6 I count the extracts in House of Assembly (1852, 1853) as 
     
     three documents — the two acts of the Assembly and the report of 
     
     the debates printed in Hazard‘s Gazette,