Fort Vancouver Historic Structures Report

History and location

The residence of the chief factor in charge of Fort Vancouver was known by a variety of names. Company employees most often called it the "Big House." [1] Although the manager was never properly authorized to employ the title of "governor," he was frequently referred to as such. Thus his home was quite commonly referred to as the "governor's house" or "governor's mansion," even as late as 1860. [2] Others called the structure the "principal house" or the "great house." [3] The "common hall," the "commander's residence," the "manager's residence," and "Ty-ee house" (after an Indian word for "chief") were additional names applied to the building. [4] Sometimes the residence was referred to by the name of the man who lived in it, as "McLoughlin's house," the" Doctor's house," "Mr. Ogden's residence," and so forth.

Regardless of its name, the manager's house throughout the entire existence of the post was, for its time and place, an imposing structure. Anna Maria Pittman, who first saw it in May, 1837, described it as "very handsome." [5] In 1853, Dr. H. A. Tuzo found it to be "commodious and elegant." [6]

Hitherto the history of this structure has been obscure. The large house with its "half semicircle double stairway" described by a visitor of 1836 would appear to match the manager's house shown in an 1860 photograph (see plate XXIX), leading to the possibility that they were one and the same building. However, the location of the Big House in 1836, opposite "the main gate entrance" according to W. H. Gray, does not agree very well with the location as shown on the Emmons ground plan of 1841 and all subsequent maps of the fort. And that later location certainly does not fit the position of the "governor's mansion" described by John Kirk Townsend in 1834 as "in the middle" of a quadrangle lined by the fort structures. [7]

Fortunately recent research has clarified this matter. It can now be stated with assurance that there were two successive manager's residences at Fort Vancouver between 1829 and 1860 and that they stood at different locations.

When Fort Vancouver was moved from atop the bluff down onto the river plain during the winter of 1828-1829, the Company's officers as usual paid more attention to providing shelter for the trade goods, provisions, and furs than to housing the employees, including themselves. By the middle of March, 1829, construction of the new post was well under way. [8] Work had then progressed far enough for the American trapper, Jedediah Smith, to observe that the stockade was about 300 feet square. [9] Yet a visitor arriving as late as September 6 of that year could find no roof under which to sleep. All the "gentlemen" -- the chief factors, chief traders, and clerks -- he recorded, were still housed in lodges or tents. [10]

Not until October 9 was Chief Trader John Warren Dease able to note in his diary: "began to put up the Posts of the Big House." [11] But this residence for Chief Factor McLoughlin was not, as might be supposed, a new structure. It had been a part of the old fort on the hill and had been disassembled for reconstruction at the new site. [12]

This so-called "Doctor's new house" was pronounced "ready to enter" on November 2, 1829. [13] In point of fact, however, it was still incomplete. During the year all available men were occupied in the Indian trade on the lower Columbia to prevent the business falling into the hands of American traders who visited the river in two vessels. "In consequence of being so much employed with opposition we have not got on so fast with our buildings as was expected," McLoughlin complained in the spring of 1830. [14] A series of epidemics in succeeding years continued to keep the labor force low, so that in 1836 the Doctor told the Company's directors that it "will appear perhaps extraordinary but nevertheless a fact that we have not been able to finish the house I dwell in along with the other officers of the Establishment." [15]

Indeed, this first Big House was never completed. It was described as "still unfinished" when the construction of its replacement was ordered during the winter of 1837-1838. [16] The new manager's residence was occupied by March 19, 1838, and by that time the old structure moved from "Fort Hill" had been demolished. [17]

Thus far no maps or ground plans have been found which show the location of this first Big House of 1829-1838, but undoubtedly it was within the confines of the 318 feet by 320 feet original fort enclosure (ABED on the "Summary Sheet Archeological Excavations, Fort Vancouver National Monument"). When John Kirk Townsend reached Fort Vancouver in September, 1834, he noted that there were ten or twelve buildings "arranged together in quadrilateral form" within the stockade, "the house occupied by the doctor [McLoughlin] being in the middle." [18] Another visitor of the same year mentioned the "mansion-house, opening from the court." [19]

W. H. Gray, who reached Vancouver with the Whitman party of missionaries in the fall of 1836, found three cannons centered in front of the chief factor's residence, "all pointing to the main gate entrance." [20] Although the stockaded area perhaps had been doubled in size by 1836, the main gate at that time almost certainly was the entrance to the original fort about midway along the south wall (line DE) of the 318 feet by 320 feet enclosure.

These clues, meager as they are, point to the probability that the first Big House stood in the north portion of the original fort enclosure (ABED) and was centered opposite the gate which was midway along the south wall. The structure was near Well No. 1 and probably its site was later occupied by parts of the beef store and wheat store. Archeological explorations may, in the end, reveal the exact location.

From the few surviving descriptions, the first manager's residence must have been very similar in appearance to its successor. Anna Maria Pittman noted after her arrival at the fort in May, 1837, that McLoughlin's dwelling was "a very handsome one story house, with a piazza clear across, with a winding stairs on each side." The structure, she noted, stood "high from the ground." [21] Perhaps a more accurate picture of the entrance was given by W. H. Gray, who first saw the building in the fall of 1836. In front of the governor's house, he later recalled, was "a half semicircle double stairway, leading to the main hall up a flight of some ten steps." He remembered that the mansion was built in the usual Canadian style. From this fact it can be assumed that its heavy timbers probably were left exposed. The roof was covered with boards. [22]

Almost nothing is known of the interior arrangement of the first Big House. Evidently the front door gave entry to a central hall. "On the right" of this hall, which may also have been the dining room or "common hall," was a room used by Dr. McLoughlin as his private office and sitting room. [23] Divine service was held on Sundays and at other times in the "messroon" in McLoughlin's house, and in 1836 the chaplain, the Rev. Mr. Herbert Beaver, complained of interruptions arising "from the occupancy of part of the same building by several families who do not attend me." From this fact it can be deduced that, as at many other Company posts, the living quarters were entered from the central dining hall. [24]

These "living quarters" were the rooms occupied by the officers -- the chief factors and the chief traders -- and their families. The "junior class" gentlemen, the clerks, were housed elsewhere within the pickets. [25] McLoughlin often made rooms in the Big House available to visitors, both officers of the Company and properly accredited foreign travelers. [26]

As little is known about the interior finish and furnishings as about the room arrangement. Speaking of all the residences and "houses" in 1836, W. H. Gray later remembered that the "partitions were all upright boards planed, and the cracks battened," while the floors were "mostly" of rough boards except in the officers and governor's house, where they were planed. [27]

Perhaps at that time there were not even carpets in McLoughlin's quarters, since Gray said that there were none on the floors of the parsonage" "and none in the country to put upon them, except the common flag mats the Indians manufacture." [28] As early as 1836, however, the chief factor's sitting room contained that greatest of frontier rarities, a sofa. [29]

According to W. H. Gray, the stockade was being enlarged at the time of his arrival during September, 1836. [30] It evidently was Dr. McLoughlin's intention to erect a second Big House in the new, eastern section of the enclosure, but the project seems to have kept being postponed. In the opinion of Clerk Francis Ermatinger, at least, the Doctor might have delayed indefinitely "had not the men who were called to prop up the old House, still unfinished, caused an alarm by telling the family that it would soon be down upon them." This report spurred McLoughlin to action, and, in the words of Ermatinger, the chief factor "had the resolution" during the winter of 1837-1838 "to finish a good and commodious house." [31] This new Big House was in use by March 19, 1838. [32]

Years later W. H. Gray testified that the second manager's residence was among the structures erected in the new part of the fort after 1836. [33] The first known map which shows the Big House in that location is the Emmons ground plan of 1841 (see plate III). All known subsequent maps of the fort to June 15, 1860, continue to show the building in that location (for examples, see plates VII and XXX).

This position for the 1838-1860 chief factor's residence is amply confirmed by archeological excavations in 1948, 1950, 1952, and 1971. [34] Footings uncovered during these operations definitely fixed the locations of the four corners of this structure. [35]

As the residence and personal office of the fort's chief factor for many years, as well as the location of the gentlemen's dining room, the Big House was long the center of business, social, and political activity for much of the Oregon Country. Even after the establishment of the Provisional Government and the opening of American mercantile establishments in the Willamette Valley during the early 1840's had substantially reduced Hudson's Bay Company influence south of the Columbia, the Big House continued to play a role in public affairs. On June 1, 1846, for instance, the election for Vancouver County officers under the Provisional Government was held "in the Hall in the Big House." [36]

But merely to summarize the events which took place in the manager's residence from 1838 to the 1850's would practically amount to the writing of a history of Fort Vancouver, a project quite beyond the scope of this report. We shall, therefore, confine ourselves to mentioning a random series of occurrences which illustrate the uses of the structure, convey some idea of the quality of life within its walls, or throw light upon the physical structure itself.

The use of the dining hall in the Big House for religious services has been treated in detail elsewhere. [37] It is worth noting, however, that the Rev. Mr. Herbert Beaver found the new mess room "more commodious" for his congregation than the old one, since it admitted "of more decent arrangements for conducting public worship, at which the unseemly dinner table is dispensed with." He reported that the "noises and interruptions," with which his services had been plagued in the first Big House were no longer a problem. "But still," he complained, "is the above-mentioned nuisance liable to occur in the place." [38] From these words one can conclude that at least some of the family quarters were still entered through the dining hall.

With the arrival of Catholic priests at Fort Vancouver during November, 1838, the Catholic services were quickly transferred to another building. In general, Protestant religious observances continued to be held in the Big House, with one of the chief factors or clerks presiding after the departure of Chaplain Beaver toward the end of 1838. As late as 1849 the mess room, then often called "Vancouver Hall," was still being used for this purpose. Sermons were occasionally preached by visiting ministers and missionaries. [39]

The dining hall was frequently the scene of hospitality extended to prominent visitors and to many who were not so prominent. Lieutenant Charles Wilkes and other officers of the United States Exploring Expedition spent a considerable amount of time at Fort Vancouver during the summer of 1841. On the day of their arrival, towards sunset, wrote Wilkes, "tea-time arrived, and we obeyed the summons of the bell, when we were introduced to several of the gentlemen of the establishment: we met in a large hall, with a long table spread with [an] abundance of good fare. Dr. M'Laughlin took the head of the table, with myself on his right, Messrs. Douglass [H.B.C] and Drayton [U.S.N] on his left, and the others apparently according to their rank. I mention this, as every one appears to have a relative rank, privilege, and station assigned him, and military etiquette prevails." [40]

On December 1, 1845, a large dinner party was given at the fort for the officers of H. M. S. Modeste. "Sat down to dinner at half past 5, and in the evening had a dance in the second Hall which was kept up till one o'clock in the morning," recorded Clerk Thomas Lowe. [41]

On March 25 of the next year there was another gala occasion connected with important visitors. Lieutenants Henry J. Warre and Mervin Vavasour of the British Army were about to set off overland for Canada with the Company's express. "We took our last dinner in the Hall and drank the stirrup Cup after which we were accompanied to the beach by all the Gentlemen of the Establishment," wrote Warre in his diary. [42] He threw further light on the festivities in another document. "The gentlemen in charge of the Fort," he said, "also gave a grand dinner in the large dining hall at which many civil speeches were made." [43]

This picture of the Big House as the center of hospitality and good cheer is strengthened by the testimony of Dr. H. A. Tuzo. He later said that when he arrived at Fort Vancouver in 1853 to take up his duties as post surgeon, he found the dwelling of the officer in charge equipped "with extensive cellars beneath for storage of wines and spirits." [44]

Celebration of holidays, not only for the post's "gentlemen" but for all the servants and their families, centered about the manager's residence. The following quotations from the diary of Thomas Lowe illustrate this point:

[December 25, 1844]. Christmas. . . . Holyday to all hands. . . . Divine Service in the Church, forenoon and afternoon. Had a card party in Dr. McLoughlin's room in the evening, and a Supper afterwards.

[December 26, 1844]. A holyday also. Another card party, and a dance in Bachelor's Hall.

[January 1, 1845]. We had a ball in the evening up stairs, which was kept up till 2 o'clock next morning. Men comparatively quiet. [45]

[December 31, 1845]. Singing, dancing, and all kinds of fun carried on to a late or rather early hour in Bachelor's Hall, ushering in the New Year. Several of the Junior Officers from the "Modeste" and a number of the other visitors were with us.

[January 1, 1846]. Visited all the ladies in the Fort to wish them a Happy New Year and many returns. A dance in the evening in the large Mess Hall, at which all the ladies were present.

[January 2, 1846]. A holyday still. . . . Another ball this evening at which all the ladies of the Establishment and all the officers of the "Modeste" who could be spared were present. . . . Broke up dancing at midnight and sat down to supper. Adjourned afterwards to Bachelor's Hall where we continued singing and enjoying ourselves until 4 in the morning. [46]

[January 1, 1847]. Had a very excellent dinner at Fort, but none of the Officers of the "Modeste" were present. . . . In the evening we had a splendid ball up in the Hall, which went off remarkably well, and was kept up until 3 o'clock in the morning, after which we sat down to supper. Most of the Officers of the "Modeste" were at the Ball, and all the Ladies of the Fort. [47]

Other types of social functions at the Big House are illustrated by the following excerpts from Lowe's journals:

[March 29, 1845]. Mr. [Chief Trader] [Richard] Grant was married this afternoon to Mrs. [Eleanor] Kittson in the Hall, at which we all were present. [48]

[October 24, 1845]. A card party and supper up stairs in celebration of Cecilia Douglas' eleventh birthday. [49]

[January 7, 1849]. A band of the sailors came up this afternoon from the Modeste and forming into line before the Big House struck up God save the Queen and Rule Brittannia accompanied in the music by the Sergeant of marines playing on the fife. They were taken up stairs by Mr. Douglas and got something to drink. [50]

[January 12 1850]. Another dance to night, in the Second Hall. . . [51]

From these quotations certain hypotheses may be hazarded. The main dining room seems to have been meant when the "large Mess Hall," "the large dining hall," or simply "the Hall" were referred to. Lowe sometimes referred to events in this room as being "up in the Hall," and he said Douglas took the sailors "up stairs" to what must have been this same hall for a drink.

On the other hand, he twice referred to dances in the "Second Hall," which seems to have been a different room from the mess hall. He also mentioned a ball and a card party given "up stairs." It is obvious that one would have had to go up the front stairs to get from the yard to the mess hall, and probably a person living in the separate building that was the clerks' quarters would have said a ball was given "up in the Hall"; but a dance or a card party given "up stairs" was probably given on the second floor of the Big House. One might even venture a guess that this possible room on the second floor was the "Second Hall," but such an assumption is far beyond what can be demonstrated by solid evidence.

It will also be noted that Lowe mentioned the Bachelors' Hall in connection with a dance and with singing after a ball. Seemingly, but not certainly, this was a different room from the Second Hall; Lowe provides no solid clues as to whether it was or was not in the manager's residence.

Lowe's mention of Chief Factor James Douglas and his daughter Cecilia calls attention once again to the fact that more than one family resided in the Big House. Lieutenant George Foster Emmons found during the summer of 1841 that "Dr. McLaughlin & Mr. Douglass" inhabited the "commander's residence." [52] Evidently this arrangement was continuous from the time the mansion was first inhabited in 1838 until January 17, 1846, when Mrs. McLoughlin "and all her household" left Fort Vancouver to take up residence in the house Dr. McLoughlin had prepared for them in Oregon City. [53] Even while the Doctor had been in Europe on furlough during 1838 and 1839 Mrs. McLoughlin and her family had continued to occupy their usual quarters in the Big House. [54]

Even with only the McLoughlin and Douglas families in residence, the Big House must have been crowded. The Doctor and his wife, Marguerite Wadin McKay McLoughlin, had only one child living at Fort Vancouver in late 1845, and this residence by then was only spasmodic. This child was twenty-four-year-old David McLoughlin, who was then serving as a Company clerk at Willamette Falls. [55] Whether he actually lived with his parents in their quarters during his rather frequent visits is not known, but it is probable that he did so. "I am now alone with my father and mother," he had written to a relative from Fort Vancouver in 1843 after the death of his older brother. [56]

But there were other family members who kept the Doctor's bedrooms occupied. Mrs. McLoughlin's granddaughter, Catherine Ermatinger, and presumably, her infant daughter, Frances Maria, paid frequent and sometimes lengthy visits from their home at Willamette Falls. [57] In addition Dr. McLoughlin's grown son, Joseph, and step-son, Thomas McKay, occasionally visited the fort, sometimes with still other relatives, but whether any of these latter guests lodged at the Big House is not revealed by available sources. [58]

Chief Factor James Douglas and his wife, Amelia Connolly Douglas, on the other hand, had a houseful of children of their own by the end of 1845. Apple of her father's eye was eleven year-old Cecilia, born on October 23, 1834. [59] Then came six-year-old Jane, born in 1839. She was followed by four-year-old Agnes, born in 1841. Last came little Alice, born in 1844. A fifth girl, Margaret, made her appearance during 1846. [60]

It is possible, though not probable, that others of the fort's "gentlemen" lived in the manager's house with the august chief factors for varying periods. Clerk George B. Roberts, for instance, told a historian decades later that he "roomed in the same building" and messed at the same table with Douglas and McLoughlin "for years." [61] Be this as it may, it is known that he lived in the Bachelors Quarters with the other clerks for at least part of his long sojourn at Fort Vancouver, and when in May, 1844, he returned from furlough in England with a British bride he was given a house of his own. [62]

Regardless of whether there were other permanent residents, there certainly were occasions when visitors were housed in the mansion. It seems to have been the usual practice to put up female guests there, particularly those with some status or evidence of gentility. [63] This custom caused the intolerant and intemperate Reverend Mr. Beaver a good deal of anguish, since he persisted in maintaining that fur-trade marriages were no marriages at all. "I see the principal house in your establishment made a common receptacle for every mistress of an officer in the service who may take a fancy to visit the Fort," he complained to the Governor and Committee on October 2, 1838. [64]

The historical record throws some light upon changes in the physical structure of the second Big House over the years. On May 26, 1845, Clerk Thomas Lowe noted in his journal: "Baron [Charles Diamare dit Baron, carpenter] with a number of men employed taking down the old gallery in front of the Big House, in order to erect a new one." [65] Evidently it was some time before the repairs were completed. Not until September 2, 1846, did Lowe report further progress. "Several men employed making a verandah in front of the Big House," he wrote. [66]

Meanwhile, on August 27, 1846, he had noted that "Baron and a party of men began shingling the Big House." [67] This entry points to the probability that prior to mid-1846 the manager's residence was roofed with planks. [68]

Rather strangely, a witness during the 1860's reported that by 1849 the portico was once more in need of repair. He also remembered that the foundations of the residence had sagged sufficiently to create openings in the outer walls and to cause the doors and windows to drag. [69] If such was the case, rehabilitation must have been undertaken, since a United States army officer who inspected the building during the fall of 1849 reported it to be a "very comfortable dwelling house." [70]

After the departure of Dr. John McLoughlin from Fort Vancouver early in January, 1846 -- he was on furlough pending retirement from the Company's service -- the management of the Columbia Department and Fort Vancouver was taken over by Chief Factors Peter Skene Ogden and James Douglas. The latter officer continued to live in the Big House until he moved to Vancouver Island during May, 1849. Ogden was much in the field during this period, but he probably moved his family into the Big House soon after McLoughlin's departure. At any rate, he and his family seem to have been the principal, or even sole, occupants by October 1, 1849. [71]

All of the succeeding Fort Vancouver managers, with their families, seem to have lived in the governor's house except, perhaps, Chief Trader James Allan Grahame, who was in charge of the post from about June, 1858, until the Company left in 1860. Grahame, who had served as a clerk at the fort for many years, was living in the old "priests' house" in January, 1854, and he probably continued to occupy that structure even after he succeeded to the manager's position. [72]

Perhaps by 1858 the Big House was already showing signs of the decay which by 1860 made it uninhabitable. When the Company left, the building was so dilapidated that the ground could be seen through a "large decayed spot in the floor." [73] Archeologists in recent years have found the west footings of the manager's residence to be in a burned condition, indicating that the structure probably was at least partly destroyed by fire after the army assumed control. [74]

Construction details

a. General description and dimensions. The second Big House (1838-1860) made a distinct and generally favorable impression upon a long succession of observers over the years of its existence, yet there apparently exists no really satisfactory description of it. When all the available evidence -- written, pictorial, and archeological -- is analyzed, the resultant body of demonstrable facts is amazingly small. Nothing is known, for instance, of the interior room arrangement. Still, more information is at hand concerning the manager's residence than most other fort structures, a situation which says much about the state of our knowledge regarding Fort Vancouver.

When Lieutenant Charles Wilkes of the United States Navy visited the Company's western depot in 1841, the first thing that attracted his eye inside the enclosure was the mansion. "At one end," he wrote, "is Dr. McLaughlin's house, built after the model of the French Canadian, of one story, weather-boarded and painted white. It has a piazza and small flower-beds, with grape and other vines, in front. Between the steps are two old cannons on sea-carriages, with a few shot." [75]

Silas Holmes, assistant surgeon with the Wilkes expedition, also recorded his reaction. "The house occupied by Dr. McLaughlin," he wrote in his journal, "is a very neat and comfortable residence, well furnished and prettily situated; and in it during the detention of the brig at Fort Vancouver, I spent many very agreeable hours." [76]

Despite Wilkes's testimony, observers often described the residence as a two-story building. [77] Unfortunately, one cannot determine whether they were speaking of the actual interior arrangement or whether they used the term "two-story" to convey the impression of the exterior created by the fact that the main floor was raised five or six feet above the ground, with the space beneath being used as a basement or cellar for the storage of wines and spirits. [78]

The broad, general view of the Big House conveyed by the words of Wilkes is confirmed by the three known pictures in which substantial portions of the structure are clearly visible. Two of these pictures are photographs taken by members of the British Boundary Commission in May, 1860 (see plates XXVII and XXIX). The third is a water color sketch in the Hudson's Bay Company Archives in London (see plate XII). Though unsigned and undated, it almost certainly was drawn by Lieutenant T. P. Coode, an officer on H. M. S. Modeste, between June 18, 1846, and May 3, 1847. [79]

The residence was built in the usual Canadian fashion, that is, of squared timbers set into upright grooved posts. At least such is the inference which can be drawn from Wilkes's description already quoted, together with his statement that the granary was the only frame building in the fort, "the rest being built of logs." [80] Archeological evidence, the finding of footings on ten-foot centers, confirms this conclusion. [81] Unlike its predecessor, however, the second Big House was covered with horizontal, lapped board siding on the exterior.

A close examination of the 1860 photographs reveals that the walls of the mansion rose for some distance -- evidently about four feet or four and a half feet -- above the tops of the window and door openings on the main floor. This fact makes it virtually certain that a typical Hudson's Bay Company building technique was employed in constructing the Big House, even though the framing details are hidden by the exterior siding.

This technique consisted of supporting the ceiling beams or joists by mortising them into or, more often, through the heavy, fixed headers that ran around the building directly over the door and window openings. These headers were usually pegged to the upright posts so that there would be no movement when the timbers shrank. Perhaps the most common practice was not to rest the joists on the actual header timbers themselves but on the timbers of the course immediately above the headers. Occasionally the joists were mortised into the second tier above the headers. [82]

By continuing the walls for two or more feet upward above the ceiling joist level, additional headroom was obtained for a second story, loft, or attic. Such upstairs rooms were often placed in Company dwellings which were little or no greater in roof elevation than the Fort Vancouver Big House, though in such cases dormer windows were frequently provided for light and ventilation. [83] No evidence of dormers on the manager's residence at Fort Vancouver has been found, but the fact that there was sufficient height upstairs for a room or rooms has significant implications which will be discussed when the interior arrangement is considered.

The earliest available map of Fort Vancouver provided with a scale so that the sizes of individual buildings can be determined is the ground plan drawn by Lieutenant Mervin Vavasour of the Royal Engineers late in 1845. His "Dwelling House" shown on the site of the manager's residence scales out to 70 by 40 feet (see plate VII).

When the Company's officers in charge of the Columbia Department learned of the Oregon boundary treaty, they ordered an inventory taken at all posts which lay in United States territory south of the 49th parallel. At Fort Vancouver this listing was made under the supervision of Clerk Thomas Lowe late in 1846 and was completed on time to be taken east to Norway House by him with the spring express in 1847. According to this inventory, which on the whole archeological excavations have shown to be remarkably accurate, the "dwelling house" for the principal officer measured 70 feet by 40 feet. [84]

Major D. H. Vinton of the United States Army, who inspected the building in 1849, recorded its dimensions as 80 by 40 feet. [85] Footings discovered during archeological excavations in 1950 and 1971 confirmed the Vavasour and the 1846-1847 inventory dimensions of 70 by 40 feet. [86] These measurements were for the building proper; the veranda extended an additional seven feet across the southern side of the house.

b. Footings, other foundations, and "cellar". Exploratory archeological excavations during 1948 failed to produce evidence of the footings of the exterior walls of the Big House, but somewhat to the west of where the building's center was believed to be a couple of blocks of wood, possible footings, were found. Associated with these pieces of wood was a fairly extensive area of "stone, brick, and plaster." Mr. Caywood believed this rubble "undoubtedly" constituted the foundation of the fireplace. Directly south of this foundation the remains of a post were found, from which a row of upright wooden slabs extended for about ten feet in a southerly direction. [87]

During the 1950 season the archeologists located the key footings of the Big House, those establishing the four corners of a 40 x 70-foot rectangle. Enough exterior wall footings were found along the north and east walls to reveal their spacing as ten feet. All of the west footings were "in a burned condition." Mr. Caywood reported that the corner footings" were different from any other footings found in that they consisted of two 3-inch by 8-inch wooden blocks set one on top of the other. [88]

In 1971 it was at last possible to make a complete and careful excavation of the entire Big House site. The results were of much importance for the proposed reconstruction project. For one thing, they confirmed Mr. Caywood's conclusion that the footings of the structure were "different." Mr. J. J. Hoffman, Project Archeologist, wrote in a progress report:

Among other things, investigation of the Chief Factor's house revealed an interesting variation of the Canadian "post-in-sill" construction technique. Vertical corner posts of the house were found to be tenoned through both sills and sub-surface footings. The sub-surface portions were packed in stone after joining of the wooden pieces, resulting in exceptionally strong corners. [89]

As suggested by these quoted words, the archeologists in 1971 found evidence that the footings -- "short, transverse" blocks of wood placed at intervals of about 10 to 10.5 feet around much of the perimeter of a 70 x 40-foot rectangle -- supported a series of massive wooden sills upon which, in turn, the walls of the building rested. [90] No signs of interior supports for the floor joists were found.

The area of stone and brick rubble found by Mr. Caywood was also thoroughly examined in 1971. "By carefully taking apart the hearth area at the center of the house, we finally found an intact portion of it," reported Mr. J. J. Hoffman. "The only intact portion was the very base of the chimney and firebox consisting of partially dressed stone laid without mortar in a rectangle 4.00 by 2.75 plus feet." [91] The west edge of this chimney base was found to be about 25 feet east of the west wall foundation line; the north edge was about 23 feet south of the north wall foundation line.

The archeologists noted that this chimney base area seemed to be "out of context in its upper portions." They noted that the base did not appear to match the location of the chimney as shown in the 1860 photographs. Some of the bricks in the hearth area showed signs of having been painted -- some blue and some green. Significantly no signs whatever of a second chimney were found within the Big House foundations. [92]

Excavations also revealed the evident location of the "cellar" door shown in one of the 1860 photographs. Between the first and second footings from the north in the west wall, an intervening footing equidistant from each, was uncovered. The purpose of this footing, undoubtedly, was to support the upright post forming one jamb of the cellar door. From the photograph, it seems clear that the door was in the opening which was from 15 to 20 feet south of the northwest corner of the building rather than in that which was from 10 to 15 feet south of the same point. Due to the thickness of the upright posts, the actual door opening must have been only about four feet wide. What may have been a part of the basement door hardware was recovered.

Between the door and the chimney base there was some evidence that the ground had been excavated to a depth of about two feet, but a precise definition of the excavated area could not be obtained. Also, the historical evidence was confirmed by the discovery of metal spigots, bottle glass, and other artifacts which indicated "that the western portion of the crawl space beneath the house was used for liquor storage." [93]

Archeological evidence, in the form of several "isolated" footings, was found of the veranda across the front of the house. These footings were centered about seven feet south of the main dwelling wall. "Minimal" traces of the front stairs were also uncovered.

Remains of "at least one fence line" that outlined the garden in front of the mansion were discovered. Project Archeologist Hoffman considered this fence to be of "a late period." He described it as "exceptionally strong in construction." The primary supports for this fence, he stated, "consisted of squared, vertical posts set into subsurface wooden footings. In turn, the wooden footings rested on bricks that served as supportive and leveling devices." These footings were centered along a line about 7.5 feet south of the outer edge of the veranda. How far the fence extended at the sides of the building is not so clear. On the west side, evidently, the fence was about 5.5 feet west of the main house wall and extended northward for about 10 feet beyond the southwest corner of the main dwelling. [94]

c. Chimney. Somewhat amazingly, there appears to have been only one chimney in the manager's residence. Certainly there was only one in the front, or south, half of the building. The two 1860 photographs show all of the west and south roof slopes. One chimney can be seen rising from the south slope, apparently located three or four feet south of the ridge line and several feet west of a line which would mark the east-west center of the structure (see plates XXVII and XXIX). Although the east roof face cannot be seen in these photographs, it is probable that a chimney in the forepart of that slope would be visible on the skyline.

Moreover, there is positive evidence in support of the theory that there was no chimney on the east side of the mansion. An undated, unsigned oil painting of Fort Vancouver now on display in the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library at Yale University shows every evidence of having been executed with care. This painting clearly shows the east portion of the Big House roof, and no chimney is visible (see plate XVI). [95]

The rear or north face of the roof is well shown in a pencil sketch of Fort Vancouver drawn by George Gibbs on July 2, 1851. No evidence of a chimney can be discerned in this view (see plate XVIII).

With all possible sites for a second chimney eliminated, one is left to ponder upon how a house 70 by 40 feet in size was warmed in the days before central heating in the Pacific Northwest. The men of the Hudson's Bay Company thought nothing of running stove pipe through walls and across the upper parts of rooms for considerable distances, but spans of up to 30 feet, with several pipes running across the main dining hall, seem improbable. One can only conclude that the rooms on the perimeter, particularly on the east end, were unheated.

As shall be seen during the detailed discussion of the dining hall furnishings, the historical record proves that there was at least one stove in the Big House. No other information about the heating arrangements is provided by the written sources thus far examined. [96]

It is possible, however, that there was a fireplace opening into a room in one of the living quarters. Certainly the chimney foundation uncovered during archeological explorations was sufficiently large to support a fireplace.

The construction of such a foundation even at as large a post as Fort Vancouver was no simple matter in 1837-1838. There was no large surface source of stone in the immediate vicinity of the post, and the rock for the filling, even if brick was used for the exterior shell, must have been brought from a distance by boat or cart. And the quantity of stone required must have been considerable, because the floor was so high off the ground.

All in all, the problem undoubtedly was similar to that faced by John Work when he built Fort Simpson on the Northwest Coast during the summer of 1835. He noted in his journal that building the chimney was a "laborious job," particularly since the foundation, measuring 18 feet by 12 feet had to be "sunk 8 feet below the flooring, and requires a great quantity of stones to fill it up." The clay for the mortar and most of the rocks had to be brought "a considerable distance" by water, and burning shells into lime also proved tedious "as the people are not acquainted with the proper mode." It is interesting to note that the flooring in the dwelling was not laid until the chimney was practically finished. [97]

As is clearly shown by the 1860 photographs, the chimney proper was of brick. At the third course of bricks below the top, a protruding brick ledge served to define the cap.

d. Roof. The roof of the Big House is shown with reasonable clarity in a number of drawings and photographs of Fort Vancouver. The earliest of these, evidently, is the water color sketch made by Lieutenant Coode, probably between September, 1846, and May 3, 1847 (plates XI and XII). Of about the same date must be the pencil drawing made by the Canadian artist, Paul Kane, who visited the post at intervals between December 8, 1846, and July 1, 1847 (plate XIV). [98] Somewhat later, seemingly, is the undated oil painting at Yale University (plates XV and XVI). A particularly good view of the roof is provided by the pencil drawing made by George Gibbs on July 2, 1851 (plate XVIII). And of course the two 1860 photographs show the roof with great sharpness (plates XXVII and XXIX). Several other pictures falling in between the 1846-1847 and 1860 views in date but of less importance as far as the Big House roof is concerned, will be found among the illustrations to this report.

All of these pictures agree on one point: the roof of the manager's residence was hipped in the style so much favored at Hudson's Bay Company posts across the entire continent. The use of hip boards and ridge boards is shown in the 1860 photographs, and it undoubtedly is safe to assume that this practice extended back to the completion of the structure in 1838 in conformity with usual Company custom.

The Coode water color of about September, 1846, to May, 1847, date and the 1860 photographs all show the roof of the Big House as being covered with shingles. As we have seen, the shingling of the mansion was reported by Clerk Thomas Lowe as having begun on August 27, 1846. [99]

The inference is that the roof had not been shingled prior to that date. If the memory of W. H. Gray was correct, "all" the "houses" erected in the new or eastern portion of the fort enclosure in or about 1836 were roofed with boards. [100] As we shall note under the histories of the individual structures, however, the fort buildings began to be shingled during the early 1840's. The shingles ordinarily were laid with four inches exposed to the weather. [101] Outfit 1844 (the business year beginning June 1, 1844, and ending May 31, 1845) appears to have been a period of unusual activity in the installation of shingle roofs, for the Vancouver Depot imported from the Company's mills at Willamette Falls 98 3/4 thousand cedar, fir, and pine shingles. [102]

Thus it is virtually certain that the Big House started out as a board-covered structure and that it was not shingled until the surge of new construction in 1844 and 1845 had subsided somewhat.

The use of boards by the Company to cover hipped-roof buildings was not at all unusual. A fine specimen of this type of covering survived on the manager's residence at Fort Colvile, on the Columbia River near the present Canadian boundary, until at least 1860 (see plate LVII). The planks were ranged vertically, and their upper ends were covered by ridge and hip boards.

Because the boards had a tendency to crack as they weathered and because the knots in the wood often worked loose after a time, the plank roofs frequently leaked. One method of overcoming this difficulty was to apply the boards in double or triple thickness, batten fashion (see plates LVIII and LIX).

William H. Gray said that in 1836 the roofs at Fort Vancouver were covered with sawed boards, one foot wide, one inch thick, "with grooves in the edges of the boards, placed up and down upon the roof." [103] Perhaps this technique was the same as that employed by the Russians on the roof of the commander's house at Fort Ross on the California coast. There the boards were grooved and applied as follows:

Figure 5.

(Based on information supplied by Mr. A. L. Koue.)

From the 1860 photographs it will be noted that the roof was extended, at a diminished slope, across the entire front of the Big House to form a cover for the veranda. The front edge was supported by 14 narrow poles, evidently metal pipes or rods, and by an additional short center pole that rose from an arch of the same rod or pipe. These rods seemingly descended behind the porch rail and rested on the porch floor or sill. Where the porch roof rafters joined the main house at the eave line, there probably were knee braces of some sort to provide support. At least, what appears to be such a support seems to be visible at the west end of the porch roof in the 1860 photograph.

The 1860 photograph also shows a gutter at the eave line along the west side of the house, with a drainpipe at the northwest corner emptying into a barrel. It seems reasonable to assume that the gutter continued along the north and east faces. Across the front of the residence, however, the only gutter was a U-shaped trough, evidently metal, which was suspended over the entrance opening in the porch rail. The principal roof gutter, as nearly as can be determined from the picture, was simply a V-shaped wooden trough.

At many Hudson's Bay Company posts it was standard procedure to keep ladders fixed to the roofs for access in case of fire and for cleaning chimneys. Thus far no written or pictorial sources have been found indicating that this practice was followed at Fort Vancouver. As shown by the 1860 photograph, wooden cleats affixed over the shingles served the same purpose on the roof of the Big House.

e. Exterior finish. As has been seen, Lieutenant Wilkes described the Big House as "weather-boarded" as early as 1841. Since the Coode water color of 1846-1847 and the 1860 photographs show the same type of exterior covering, it may be assumed that this lapped finish marked the structure throughout its existence. The technique of applying the weatherboarding and its attendant corner boards is well illustrated by a photograph of corner details on an 1830's building at Norway House (see plate LX).

Existing evidence points to the probability that the governor's residence had only three exterior doors: The front entrance in the center of the south wall at the main floor level; the rear entrance at the center of the north wall, also evidently at the main floor level; and a low door at ground level in the west wall giving entrance to the "cellar." The west and south doors are clearly shown in the 1860 photograph of the house (plate XXIX); the Emmons ground plan of 1841 gives the locations of the south and north doors (plate III). The probability that the north door was at main floor level is discussed in greater detail in the section of this chapter dealing with the room arrangement.

The cellar door was a simple affair with vertical boards on its external face. From what can be seen in the 1860 photograph, it had two leaves, opening in the center, with a lock of some undeterminable type. Because of the liquor stored beneath the house, it is probable that the door was at least two boards thick, in which case, if usual Company practice was followed, the inner planks would have been applied diagonally or horizontally. Commonly the boards for such doors were tongued and grooved; the edges on the exterior surface were often beaded. [104]

Unfortunately, the front door seems to have been open when the members of the British Boundary Commission photographed the house in 1860. At least no details of the door proper are visible. It can be assumed, however, that the door would have been in keeping with the general dignity of the building and with the station of the officer who lived there. Fort Vancouver had carpenters quite capable of turning out delicate sash and panelled doors. Photographs of the officers' quarters doors at two Pacific Coast Hudson's Bay Company posts are available to indicate how that on the Big House may have been constructed. [105]

No information whatever is available concerning the rear door.

The only pictures which show the windows of the Big House in any meaningful way are the photographs of 1860. These views reveal that there were six principal windows across the front of the building, three on each side of the main door. There were also two on the west wall. Evidentally all of these full-sized windows were in the French style, opening outward at the center. Each sash, marked by extremely narrow muntins, contained 14 panes of glass.

Window glass for Fort Vancouver was requisitioned from England, and over a long period of years it came in three standard and sizes, 7 x 9 inches, 7-1/2 x 8-1/2 inches, and 8 x 9 inches. [106] Which size was employed for the Big House windows undoubtedly can be determined when an architect scales out the structural details from available photographs and other data.

In addition to the full-sized windows on the front wall, there were also on that same wall a light over the door and a half window on each side of the door. All that is known about these lights is evident from 1860 photograph. [107] All of the visible windows and half windows were equipped with louvered wooden exterior shutters that folded back against the wall. [108]

The only picture known to show the windows on the north wall of the manager's residence is an unsigned sketch, said to be dated from 1854, in the Provincial Archives of British Columbia. It shows two rows of six windows each. However, this drawing is so much in error in certain other details that it cannot be relied upon as far as windows are concerned (see plate XX).

f. Veranda and front stairs. We have seen that a "piazza" and a "half semicircle double stairway" graced the first governor's mansion of 1829-1838. Similar features evidently marked the second Big House from the time of its construction, since the Emmons ground plan of 1841 seems to indicate their presence by that date (see plate III). It has also been seen that all or part of the veranda was removed for repair between May 26, 1845, and early September, 1846, but everything seems to have been back in place by the time Coode made his water color sketch prior to May 3, 1847.

The latter picture shows the porch and stairs almost exactly as they appear in the 1860 photographs. There are only four significant differences observable: The veranda roof seems to have fewer supports in the 1846-1847 view; there seem to be round or other-shaped decorative caps on the end posts of the center section of the porch rail in 1846-1847; the central ornament or feature of undetermined use shown in the railing in the 1860 photograph seems to be of different shape in the 1846-1847 picture; and the metal arches at the ends and in the center of the porch to support vines are not discernable in the water color but can clearly be seen in the photographs.

The remainder of the porch and stair details, such as the number of stair treads and the shape of the railing posts, are reasonably evident from the photographs. If these pictures of the Big House in 1860 do not provide all the information necessary for reproducing the porch and stair railings, further guidance may be found in a photograph showing those features on the front of the officer's residence at Fort Langley (see plate LXI).

g. Exterior paint colors. The Hudson's Bay Company was not noted for its liberality in supplying paint for buildings. [109] We have seen that Lieutenant Wilkes reported that the Big House was "painted white" in the summer of 1841, seeming to imply that the entire structure was so decorated. This inference is supported by the fact that the Yale Library oil painting of perhaps six or seven years later shows the east and rear walls of the residence as white in color (see plate XVI).

But evidently soon afterwards the true habits of the Company were made evident. A resident of the neighborhood who knew the fort intimately from 1849 to 1860 testified: "I don't think the house was ever painted on the outside except in front." [110] The accuracy of his observation is borne out by the 1860 photographs.

It can be reasonably assumed that in the 1845-1846 period to which the fort is to be restored, all the exterior walls, window trim, porch railings, front stair rails and risers, and the fence around the front garden were painted white. The Coode water color shows that the shutters were painted green, not a greenish black as is so fashionable today but a dark olive green. [111]

The original Coode water color, as has been mentioned, shows a part of what appears to be the front door. Both frame and door are represented as being a very dark gray or blackish brown color. In view of the discrepancies between this drawing and the 1860 photographs, it is impossible to judge the accuracy of the water color in this respect.

h. Room arrangement. Practically all that is known for certain of the interior arrangement of the second Big House is that in 1849, when the building was examined by Major D. H. Vinton of the United States Army, it contained ten rooms. [112] It is also known that this structure contained the mess hall or common dining room in which the fort's "gentlemen" took their meals. [113] Further, the building contained the living quarters of the principal officer and his assistant together with their families. [4] At least some of these dwelling rooms opened directly off the dining hall. [115]

From the 1860 photographs it is also known that the main entrance door was situated in the center of the front wall. The Emmons ground plan of 1841 shows a second door to the building located in the center of the north or back wall and connected to the kitchen by a passage or bridge (see plate III). Unfortunately, it is not certain whether this second door was at ground level or at the main floor level. It is the supposition of the present writer that the rear door gave direct entry to the main floor, but this hypothesis cannot yet be proved. [116]

In addition to these facts, certain other assumptions about the room arrangement can be made at least tentatively on the basis of available evidence. We have already noted that some observers declared that the Big House was two stories in height. [117] We have also seen that Clerk Thomas Lowe in his journal referred to balls, parties, and suppers occasionally being given "upstairs," and that this "upstairs" area evidently was not the same as the dining hall or the Bachelors' Hall, in which rooms the same types of entertainments were also held on other occasions. [118] We have already speculated that this "upstairs" room may have been the same as that which Lowe sometimes termed the "Second Hall" where dances are also reported to have taken place at times. [119]

Thus it seems quite probable that the Big House actually did have at least one large room above the main floor despite its outward appearance of being only a one-story structure. There certainly was ample height for such a room in the large attic, though there evidently were no windows for light and ventilation. And, if there was an upstairs room, there must have been a stairway to reach it.

The key to laying out a logical but necessarily assumptive room arrangement for the Big House is the location of the mess hall or common dining room. This chamber was probably the largest in the building. Certainly it was the most conspicuous. It could accommodate a dining table sometimes described as being 20 feet long and sometimes as being large enough to seat up to 30 persons. [120] As the gathering place for the fort's "gentlemen" three times a day and as the meeting room for religious services and other types of large gatherings, the dining hall undoubtedly was accessible quite directly from the front door, and for obvious reasons it probably was not too distant from the kitchen entrance. It also served as a means of access to at least some of the living quarters.

Unfortunately, problems arise when one attempts to fix the location of the mess room. Ordinarily one would expect to find the dining hall immediately inside the front entrance on the main floor. After an exhaustive study of room arrangements in "Big Houses" at Hudson's Bay Company posts across the continent, architects planning the restoration of Fort Langley, British Columbia, during the 1950's stated: "It will be seen that almost without exception the largest room in these buildings was in the central position and extended from the front of the building clear to the back." [121]

But at Fort Vancouver the most detailed known eyewitness description of the mess room virtually rules out such a location. "The dining hall," wrote Thomas Jefferson Farnham who visited the post in 1839, "is a spacious room on the second floor, ceiled with pine above and at the sides. In the south west corner of it is a large close stove, sending sufficient caloric to make it comfortable." [122]

Did Farnham really mean that the mess room was on the second floor, that is the attic? Or did he mean it was up a flight of stairs from the ground, above the cellar? It is, of course, impossible to be sure on the basis of presently available data, but we have seen that when Thomas Lowe spoke of "upstairs" he evidently meant an attic room which was not the common dining hall. Also, the principal meal at Fort Vancouver was the noon time "dinner," and it seems rather unlikely that it would have been eaten in a room without windows or ventilation. Then, too, a second-floor dining room would have been troublesome to reach from the kitchen, though this fact alone probably would not have ruled out such a location. Taking all these factors into consideration, the present writer is inclined to the view that the dining hall was on the main floor despite Farnham's apparently positive words to the contrary.

Assuming, then, that the mess hall was on the main floor, it would be logical to expect that the room arrangement would have been like that found at most Company posts or at least like that at Fort Simpson on the Mackenzie River where the first floor was much like that at Fort Vancouver in proportion, size, window and door openings, and in having an attached kitchen at the rear. The similarities are made clearly evident by the following diagram of the ground floor of the two-story Big House at Fort Mackenzie (see following page).

Figure 6.

(Based on diagram in Room Layouts in "Big Houses" at Hudson's Bay Company Posts, MS, appendix.)

But at Fort Vancouver, the position of the excavated chimney base, centered about 15 feet in from the front wall and about 26 feet in from the west wall, virtually rules out the possibility that the dining room could have occupied a central position at the front of the house. The chimney would have passed right through a room of any size in such a position. The possibility that the dining room could have extended clear through the house from front to back seems eliminated by Farnham's statement that a large stove stood in the southwest corner of the room. While such a stove need not have been close to the chimney, it seems unlikely that it would have been adjacent to the front door or windows.

Given these limiting factors, it appears logical to assume that the dining room was toward the rear of the house, probably centered along the north wall as shown in the hypothetical floor plan on Page 126 (Figure 7). When dealing with historical matters, however, it is well to remember that logic often plays little part in the disposition of affairs.

Figure 7.

Hypothetical plan, main floor, Big House, Fort Vancouver, 1845.

Much has been taken for granted in preparing the room layout shown in Figure 7, but most of the assumptions are not entirely arbitrary. It is known, for instance, that Doctor McLoughlin had his personal office in the first Big House (1829-1838) and that it lay to the right of the entrance door. [123] There is a local tradition to the effect that after the manager's residence was rebuilt in the eastern half of the fort, McLoughlin shifted his office to the left or west side so that he could better keep his eye on the activities in the courtyard. [124] Since such a move would have been in keeping with McLoughlin's character, it has been reflected in the hypothetical plan.

Admittedly, however, the decision to draw the office as a separate apartment from McLoughlin's sitting room was based on the personal preferences of the present writer, who feels that, given an opportunity, a business man would prefer to conduct his affairs removed from the daily bustle of family life. Also, a separate office permitted a more symmetrical room arrangement. On the other hand, it seems apparent that the office and sitting room were combined in the first Big House of 1829-1838, although it is difficult to be positive on this point. [125]

At York Factory, the Company's principal depot in North America, the chief factor's office was not in his residence, but he prepared much of his correspondence at a large desk in a "writing-room" off the winter mess room in his home. This "writing-room" seems to have been one of the building's two sitting rooms. [126] But at Fort Ellice the factor's private office definitely was a separate room in his residence. [127] Precedent, therefore, both supports and contradicts the assignment of a separate room in the Fort Vancouver Big House for this purpose.

The allotment of three bedrooms to Chief Factor James Douglas and only two to Dr. McLoughlin was also done on a rather arbitrary basis. On the surface, this division might appear reasonable because of Douglas's family of four daughters, while the manager by 1845 may have had no children living in his quarters. But at Hudson's Bay Company posts it was not at all unusual for much larger families than Douglas's to be housed in a single, all-purpose room. [128] Therefore, two bedrooms would ordinarily have been considered ample, even for so exalted a personage as a chief factor. [129]

It will also be noted that no space has been assigned in the hypothetical plan of the main floor to the common sitting or smoking room most often called "Bachelors' Hall." Nor, in the opinion of the present writer, was the Bachelors' Hall on the upper floor of the Big House. We have already seen that Clerk Thomas Lowe did not appear to be talking about the Bachelors' Hall when he mentioned the room "upstairs" that was occasionally used for dances and other social affairs.

The elimination of the Bachelors' Hall from the Big House is thus suggested despite the fact that writers and historians sometimes state positively that the manager's residence contained the public sitting room or Bachelors' Hall. [130] It is easy to see how such an impression could be gained. When visitors after 1838 referred to the sitting room they generally did so in the same breath with the manager's residence and the dining hall, not making clear the locations of each. And some of the eyewitness accounts seem to imply that the Bachelors' Hall was located in the manager's dwelling itself.

For instance, in the edition of John Dunn's The Oregon Territory published in Philadelphia in 1845 a sentence in the description of the fort reads as follows: "In the centre stands the governor's residence, which is two stories high -- the dining hall, and the public sitting room." [131] The singular verb makes it appear as if the two rooms mentioned were in the governor's residence. In the London edition of 1844, however, this sentence reads: "In the centre stand the governor's residence, which is two stories high -- the dining hall; and the public sitting room." [132] The plural verb and the use of the semicolon between the names of the two rooms at least permit one to question Dunn's meaning. Perhaps he intended to indicate that the residence, which contained the dining hall, was a different structure from the public sitting room.

To support the view that the Bachelors' Hall was not in the Big House there are a number of eyewitness statements. In 1843, for example, Clerk Thomas Lowe very shortly after his arrival at the post noted in his journal: "I have been given for my exclusive use one of the rooms in the 'Bachelors Hall' building. There I am to sleep, taking my meals at the general mess table in the Big House." [133] The next year an American emigrant named John Minto and two companions reached Vancouver. From the porch of his dwelling, Chief Factor McLoughlin directed the newcomers to the "stranger's room," which was "across the northeast angle of the area from his residence." After thanking the Doctor, Minto stated, "we entered bachelors' hall." [134]

Unfortunately, the term "Bachelors' Hall" seems to have been used both to describe the individual room which served as the common sitting and smoking hall and the entire row of converted dwellings often known as the "Bachelors' Quarters." Thus it still is not possible to be absolutely certain that these witnesses intended to say that the Bachelors' Hall was in the Bachelors' Quarters, but Lowe's use of the term "Bachelors Hall' building" would seem positive enough to convince all but the most determined sceptics. At any rate, the present writer believes that, on the basis of the evidence thus far available, it seems probable that the Bachelors' Hall or common sitting room was not in the Big House.

As has been seen, archeology has revealed no signs of an interior stairway to the so-called "cellar." Therefore the only stairs provided for in the suggested layout are those to the attic. The space under these stairs and off the entry hail may have been used as a closet. [135] If the new Big House as occupied as early as January 14, 1838, this space under the stairs may have been the "dark room" into which Dr. McLoughlin "dragged" the luckless Captain Brotchie from the tea table when that Company employee refused to drop his plans to marry a part-Indian girl. [136]

Lacking any information about possible upstairs rooms, it is suggested that a section of the attic be lined and ceiled to form a single large hall. In this manner the total number of rooms in the Big House, disregarding the entry hall, would be the required ten. It seems probable that the chimney would have been close behind one wall of such a room instead of intruding into the room itself.

i. Interior finish. The inventory of 1846-1847 describes the manager's residence as being "lined and ceiled." [137] Other witnesses corroborated this information, and one, Thomas J. Farnham, threw additional light on the matter when he said that in 1839 the dining hall was "ceiled with pine above and at the sides." [138] William Gray reported that when he reached the fort in 1836 the partitions in the houses were "all upright boards planed, and the cracks battened." [139] Evidently the new structures built after that date were better finished. Years later Thomas Lowe testified that most of the dwelling's were ceiled with "tongued and grooved dressed boards." [140]

The fact that Farnham made such a point of mentioning that the mess hail was lined with "pine" leads to the conclusion that in 1839 the walls of this room were still unpainted. [141] But in 1866 Lloyd Brooke testified that he believed the interior of the Big House was painted and papered at least between 1849 and 1860. [142] Brooke's statement finds some support in the fact that when archeologists in 1971 examined bricks from the fireplace or chimney in the Big House, some of them showed evidence of having been painted. Green and blue were the colors found. [143]

In short, it is not known if the interior of the Big House was painted in late 1845. But if it was, it is very probable that the two chief factors had the work done at their own expense, since the Company took a dim view of such frivolities. [144]

It evidently was common practice at Company posts to have wainscoting or at least a chair rail about the lower portion of the walls in the principal rooms. [145] Plate LXIII illustrates such wall treatment at the North West Company's Fort William in 1816. A picture of a dwelling room at Moose Factory about 1900 reveals how little styles in interior finish changed over a century (plate LXIV).

When the interior walls were painted, it sometimes was the custom to make the "wainscoting" or the area beneath the chair rail, a different color from the upper section. At York Factory in 1840, for instance, one bedroom in the manager's residence was "pale blue with a wainscoting color of indigo." [146]

Gray stated that in 1836 the floors of the first Big House were of planed boards. [147] It seems safe to assume that this same condition held true for the second manager's residence. At some posts, at least, the floor planks were tongued and grooved. [148] There seems to be no direct evidence as to the practice at Fort Vancouver in this regard.

Although no details of the construction of the interior doors are known, there fortunately are clear pictures of the doors in the Fort William and Lower Fort Garry Big Houses (see plates LXIII and LXV). The remarkable similarity of the doors in these two structures is readily apparent. Evidently six-paneled doors were considered de rigueur for the managers' residences at major depots and headquarters. At least it seems reasonable to assume that this precedent was followed at Fort Vancouver.

The same pictures show that the door locks, with brass pulls instead of round handles, were also similar. Archeologists at Fort Vancouver have uncovered what were apparently the same types of locks and pulls, although it is not now known that they were found on the site of the Big House. [149] In any case, lacking more precise information, it may be assumed that the door hardware was like that in the Big Houses at Fort William and Lower Fort Garry.

There probably was only one fireplace in the manager's residence if our hypothetical room layout is approximately correct and if the archeological evidence truly reflects the situation concerning chimneys. There is, of course, no information available concerning the design of such a fireplace, but it is suggested that one of those in the McLoughlin House in Oregon City be selected as a model.

Landscaping

a. Cannons. As early as 1832 visitors reported that Fort Vancouver contained cannons of large caliber, and by 1834 the location of four of these guns, two "long 18's" and two nine-pounders, was fixed as being in front of the chief factor's residence. Over the next decade or so there were conflicting accounts by travelers as to the sizes and numbers of these guns, but the location seems never to have varied. A detailed account of the evidence on this score has been given elsewhere so need not concern us here. [150]

By 1841 it seems reasonably certain that there were only the two 18-pounders, with a few piled shot, on the ground before the house, centered between the two flights of the stairs and pointing south toward the river. The guns were mounted on sea carriages, which even then were "defective." The pieces had been spiked and were quite useless. [151]

The same condition still prevailed in the 1845-1846 period. Lieutenant Vavasour of the Royal Engineers noted the two 18-pounder guns at the post. [152] The Coode water color sketch shows the same armament, each gun with a pile of shot before it (see plates XI and XII). This drawing also indicates that the equipment required to operate the guns -- ramrods, sponges, etc. -- was kept ready to hand on racks attached to the veranda wall.

The guns were still in place as late as May, 1860, when the British Boundary Commission party photographed the Big House. Even the round shot was there, though somewhat scattered about. Probably these pictures provide enough details to permit replacement of the weapons (see plates XXVII and XXIX). If not, the 1878 photograph of a similar gun at Moose Factory should be helpful (see plate LXVI).

During archeological excavations in 1971 several cannon balls were found in the area in front of the Big House. Another object, "a possible gun carriage part," was uncovered in the same vicinity. J. J. Hoffman, Project Archeologist, believes these items to be remains of the armament display which added to the character and impressiveness of the governor's mansion throughout its entire existence. [153] If so, they may serve as reminders of the harsh discipline which was an integral part of the fur trade, since the guns in front of the Big House formed the posts at which transgressors against Company rules and regulations received corporal punishment. [154]

b. Garden. Dr. McLoughlin's house, said Lieutenant Wilkes in 1841, had "small flower-beds, with grape and other vines, in front." [155] The Coode water color sketch of 1846-1847 confirms this description, for it shows a low, white wooden fence in front of the veranda, behind which green foliage can be seen. This same fence, or a virtually identical replacement, can be clearly observed in the 1860 photographs.

Archeological excavations in 1971 revealed evidence of this fence, which Mr. J. J. Hoffman, Project Archeologist, describes as of "a late period." The archeologists were impressed by the care with which this feature was constructed: "Primary supports for the fence consisted of squared, vertical posts set into subsurface wooden footings. In turn, the wooden footings rested on bricks that served as supportive and leveling devices." [156] The dimensions of the fence have already been discussed in the section on footings.

The grapevines which twined up the front of the veranda were long one of the best-known features of Fort Vancouver. On September 25, 1843, Clerk Thomas Lowe remarked in his journal: "grapes in front of Big House still green." [157] In 1851 newly arrived emigrant John S. Zeiber commented on the "fine grape vines loaded with fruit" that screened the porch. [158] The well-matured vines practically covered the front of the house by 1860 as is shown by the photographs of that year. By then arches of metal rod or pipe had been installed at each end of the porch, evidently to support the vines.

Nothing is known about the types of flowers grown in the plots before the Big House. In a restoration, dahlias would not be inappropriate, since Dr. William Fraser Tolmie imported seeds of this plant in 1833 from Honolulu and sowed them under frame at Fort Vancouver, thus introducing this beautiful flower to the Pacific Northwest. [159]

Furnishings

a. General remarks. A number of visitors to Fort Vancouver made written mentions of certain items of furniture which they observed in the Big House at Fort Vancouver. In addition, there are many pieces of furniture, silveware, earthenware, and jewelry in existence today which are said, upon authority of varying credibility, to have once been used in the manager's residence. And archeological excavations on the sites of the Big House and its adjacent kitchen, as well as at nearby trash pits, have produced sundry artifacts and literally thousands of fragments of ceramic dishes, cups, and other pieces of tableware, many of which undoubtedly graced the groaning boards of the mess hall and the family sitting rooms.

Despite all this evidence, however, we really know very little about how the Big House was furnished. The existing testimony and the claimed association pieces generally raise more questions than they settle. And there are many aspects of the furnishings concerning which we have no evidence whatever.

Under such circumstances, one would ordinarily recommend refurnishing with items which might be found in a typical English or Canadian home of people of equal economic and social position during the same period. After all, Vancouver, having direct communication by ship with London, was scarcely in the same position as the inland posts, where many items had to be imported by bateau or pack animal. But to act on the assumption that imported articles of furniture were commonly found at Fort Vancouver would be to ignore certain facts about the policies and operations of the Hudson's Bay Company.

In 1836 the firm's chaplain at the post, the Reverend Mr. Herbert Beaver, complained that his furniture was rough and his rooms were uncarpeted. Chief Factor McLoughlin was indignant at these demands for what he held to be luxuries. "I consider people ought to satisfy themselves with such things as the country affords," he wrote to the Governor and Committee in London, "and I am Averse to the Introduction of any thing in the country which may lead to unnecessary Expence. Mr. Beavers house is the Best in the Fort. If he is Allowed carpets and imported furniture -- has not every Gentleman in the place a Right to the same Indulgence." [160]

The situation more generally throughout the Company's far flung posts was made clear by Henry Martin Robinson who wrote of a time somewhat later than the period with which we are concerned but whose remarks were applicable to the firm's operations over a long span of years. He said:

As to the comforts of upholstery and furniture in the messroom, and indeed, throughout the entire establishment, but little attention is paid to it. The constantly recurring changes of residence, occasioned by the necessities of their condition, render the officers of the Company as a class, somewhat careless about the accommodations afforded by their houses. At remote stations, the most simple articles of furniture are held to be sufficient, and shifts are made to adapt different objects to uses not contemplated by their makers. The strong, compact wooden trunks or travel-cases used in the country, for example, often constitute the chief pieces of furniture -- if we except, perhaps, a bedstead -- and do duty as chairs, tables, and wardrobe. At the larger posts, however, the residences are furnished with more of the appliances of civilization, and means exist whereby such as may be so inclined can render themselves very comfortable, especially as changes of appointments occur less frequently at headquarters than elsewhere. [161]

Certainly, as shall be seen in detail in the chapters on the Bachelors Quarters and the "Priests' House," the testimony of witnesses amply supports the case for simplicity, and even austerity, of furnishings at Fort Vancouver. But this evidence mainly concerns the living quarters of the clerks, the chaplains, the surgeon, and other lower-ranked "gentlemen," where the furniture was largely supplied by the Company. As a general rule, about all such persons brought with them when they reached the post was what could be contained in two or three of the ubiquitous cassettes, or small wooden trunks used to carry personal belongings throughout the area of the British fur trade, in one or two additional bundles or "pieces" for bedding, tent, clothes, and miscellaneous compressible items, and in a traveling basket for provisions and utensils. And when they left through transfer to another station or for retirement, they took with them about the same amount of baggage. [162]

At the Big House, however, somewhat different standards seem to have prevailed. In 1841 Assistant Surgeon Silas Holmes of the Wilkes expedition found McLoughlin's residence to be "well furnished." [163] Thomas Jefferson Farnham, an American traveler, had been much impressed two years earlier by the "elegant queen's ware" and the "glittering glasses and decanters" that graced the table in the mess hall. [164] It is probable then, that the chief factors did not have the same prejudice against imported items when these pertained to themselves rather than to the lesser employees.

Indeed, it was not uncommon for the chief factors at major posts and depots to live in comfortably furnished quarters. In 1840 Mrs. Letitia Hargrave, wife of the chief factor at York Factory on Hudson Bay, took great satisfaction in describing her sitting room, furnished with tables, a dark carpet, a sofa, her husband's large desk, and her piano. The curtains at the windows were held back by six curtain pins shaped "like so many sunflowers magnified." Mrs. Hargrave admitted that these pins, when they arrived in the annual shipment of invoiced goods from London, had been destined for a lady at Red River. But, she owned, "we seized them." With such autocratic authority, it is little wonder that the factors at major depots got the best of everything.

The Hargrave bedroom contained a French wardrobe painted green with black feet and "a broad stripe of palest yellow," two chests of drawers, a second wardrobe, two book cases, a screen for holding towels and drying cloths, two large mirrors, basin stands, a bed, and a night table. Even the large tin dishes on the stove were green-black and palest yellow in color to match all the other furniture except the basin stands and bed which were still in their original brown. [165], though evidently unfashionable,

With such unimpeachable testimony at hand, it is difficult and perhaps unrealistic not to go along with the romantics who have fostered the idea that chief factors lived with all the grace and elegant surroundings of wealthy West Indian planters. "A certain standard of life was observed at the posts," wrote the knowledgeable Margaret Arnett MacLeod, editor of The Letters of Letitia Hargrave. "Prominent officers usually had personal servants, and serving—men were trained for the officers' mess. Table service was important, and heads of districts usually had their monogrammed silver, and plate chests, and there was crystal on their tables. Donald Ross complained to Hargrave of the fragility of the crystal, saying, 'A man can almost blow the bottom out of the tumblers and as for the Wine glasses a person half seas over might easily swallow Glass and all without knowing any thing about the matter.' Angelique McKenzie's monogrammed silver is hallmarked 1830, and the silver tea service that graced her table at Isle a la Crosse is now in the beautiful Toronto home of a descendant." [166]

Dr. Burt Brown Barker, the great student of the life of Dr. John McLoughlin and a prime leader in the movement to refurnish the McLoughlin House at Oregon City, was a devoted exponent of the gracious living theory. "At Fort Vancouver," he wrote, "Dr. John McLoughlin could make an unusually fine display with the dining table and chairs, probably twenty-four in number, which the Hudson's Bay Company sent him from London. . . . The pair of candelabra, approximately twenty-four inches high, with silver tray and snuffer at hand, appropriately spaced on the table, flanking the sterling silver fruit dish, or castor as the occasion required, with a complete coffee or tea set at the end, supplemented by the pearl handled knives and forks with the accompanying spoons at each place, together with the dessert spoon and fork at the front of the plate, would be a setting to cheer the heart or any guest. Add to this picture . . . four decanters in silver holders on the sideboard." [167]

Undoubtedly there is much truth in these pictures. The mahogany tables, the graceful chairs, the crested silverware, and many other items of furnishings owned by a number of chief factors and other Company officers are still in existence, scattered among descendants or in public museums, restored houses, and other repositories. [168]

Unfortunately, the documentation for assertions such as "these were the dining room table and chairs, which were used originally in old Fort Victoria," or "the square desk belonged to Dr. McLoughlin at Fort Vancouver," is not always as firm as one would wish. It is possible that some of these items, even those now in the hands of, or acquired from, the factors' families, were originally purchased after the Hudson's Bay men had retired to comfortable homes in Oregon City, Victoria, or eastern Canada.

At any rate, before accepting the elegant living tradition in its entirety, it might be well to bear in mind that graceful appointments and imported furniture were far from universal in the Big Houses of the Company's establishments. Describing Christmas dinner in the mess hall at Fort Edmonton -- no unimportant post -- in 1847, the artist Paul Kane wrote: "No tablecloth shed its snowy whiteness over the board; no silver candelabra or gaudy china interferred with its simple magnificence. The bright tin plates and dishes reflected jolly faces. . . . "[169]

A visitor to Fort Simpson on the Northwest Coast as late as 1868 found the main room in the dwelling house furnished with a long table in the center. "This," he said, "with a row of chairs along the walls constituted almost the only furniture." [170] Even at York Factory, the chief depot for all of Rupert's Land, the winter mess hall, while it could boast of a mahogany table had only "country made" chairs, and the floor was uncarpeted. [171]

While it is known that Fort Vancouver had its tablecloths, candelabra, and gaily patterned china, it is virtually certain that some of the refinements of cultured domesticity had not yet reached this distant outpost by 1845. Mrs. Hargrave at York Factory wrote in 1840 that her tables, sofa, and even the desk and piano were "covered with green" while "the beds wear green blankets." She hastened to explain: "I didnt mean that all the blankets are green only the upper one. The rest are beautiful Yorkshire." [172] In other words the covers on the beds were blankets and not the elaborately worked bedspreads and quilts which are the darlings of present-day restorers of historic houses. It can be assumed that similar conditions prevailed at Fort Vancouver, if not in this exact respect then in others.

Clerk George B. Roberts probably hit upon the true explanation for at least a part of the enthusiasm with which visitors described the elegance of the Big House furnishings. "The decanters & fine English glass set off the table," he wrote in later years, "& made it look I suppose superb to those who had come across the country." [173]

Evidently most of the furniture in the Big House, except for the dinnerware and table utensils used in the mess hall, was the private property of the resident chief factors. At least the inventories of "articles in use" at Fort Vancouver do not permit the identification of such Company-owned items as may have been in the manager's dwelling. [174]

b. Mess Hall. Several eyewitnesses have left descriptions of the common dining room as it looked during Dr. McLoughlin's regime. From these we can garner a moderate amount of information about the hall's furnishings. In certain cases, the documentary data can be supplemented by what is known about actual pieces of furniture said to have been in the room, by information about similar items in general, and by comparison with what is known about the furnishings in dining rooms at other Company posts.

Stove. We have already noted Farnham's testimony that in 1839 the dining hall contained "a large close stove" in its southwest corner. [175] Although no further information seems to be available, it is most probable that this stove was manufactured by the Carron Company at Falkirk, Stirlingshire, Scotland. Established in 1760, this firm "for generations" supplied heating equipment to fur traders and settlers in Canada. [176]

Carron stoves came in several sizes and shapes, but the form most favored by the fur trade was an oblong box mounted on short, curved legs. It came in six pieces, which could be disassembled for easy transport and storage. For this reason Carron stoves were found at posts throughout the Hudson's Bay Company's field of operations. [177]

A number of these stoves are still in existence. The present writer saw five or six in storage at Lower Fort Garry National Historic Park near Winnipeg in 1967, and there are several others at house museums scattered over a wide area in Canada. A very similar stove, though not bearing the name "Carron," said to have been brought from Fort Vancouver by Father F. N. Blanchet about 1839 to the Willamette Valley is now in the D. A. R. Memorial Cabin at Champoeg State Park, Oregon. [178]

Pictures of Carron stoves, or stoves of similar design, in use at various fur-trading posts will be found in plates LXIII, LXVII, LXVIII, LXIX, and LXX of the present report. From these pictures it will be noted that it was not unusual to extend the stovepipes for considerable distances. Evidently heat was considered more important than aesthetics.

It will also be observed that the stoves generally stood on a thin platform of metal or stone to protect the floors from fire. When the stoves were near walls, as evidently was the case in the Fort Vancouver mess hall, there were also protective shields or heat reflectors against the walls. At Fort Vancouver, the stoves in "the different Houses" were disassembled and stored each spring and set up again in the fall, seemingly as a further protection against the dreaded danger of fire. [179]

Dining table. In 1839 Farnham judged the table in the Fort Vancouver dining hall to be 20 feet in length. [180] Clerk George Roberts later recalled that during the 1830's and 1840's there were often from 12 to 30 persons, including visitors, taking meals in the hall. [181] If we allow 20 inches for each person along the two sides and place one person at each end, a 20-foot table would seat 26 men with some crowding. Therefore, the evidence given by Farnham and Roberts appears to be in general agreement. Presumably when some special occasion, such as the entertainment of the officers from H. M. S. Modeste, required the seating of more than 26 persons, the fort's carpenter was called in to rig an extension. [182]

Today, at McLoughlin House National Historic Site in Oregon City, the home to which Dr. John McLoughlin moved in 1846 after giving up his active role in Company affairs, there is a beautiful, solid mahogany dining table, "Georgian in style," which is said to have belonged to McLoughlin at Fort Vancouver. [183] Such may have been the case, but it perhaps was not the table from the mess hall. The existing table "when extended," wrote Dr. Burt Brown Barker, "is long enough to seat twelve persons comfortably." [184] So, despite Dr. Barker's conviction that the Oregon City table was the one the Hudson's Bay Company sent to Dr. McLoughlin from London, it scarcely can be the 20-foot table seen by Farnham in 1839.

But even if this table is not the one from the Fort Vancouver mess hall, there is no reason to deny that the common dining table was of mahogany. The winter mess room at York Factory possessed a mahogany table in 1843, and it is quite reasonable to suppose that the great western depot of the Company may have been equally favored. [185]

In addition to the large table, there was a "side table" at which visiting Indian notables were fed. Lieutenant Charles Wilkes in 1841 noted that Casenove, a local chief, could eat at the fort in this manner whenever he chose. [186] Four years later, Lieutenant Warre observed that both Casenove and a visiting chief from above The Dalles were admitted to the dining hall. [187]

Chairs. The chairs used in the mess hall present quite as much of a problem as does the table. No known source specifically mentions chairs, but it is obvious that there must have been a good number, probably as many as 30. York Factory, despite its gleaming mahogany table, had "home-made" chairs to go with it. [188] These probably resembled the locally manufactured chairs at Moose Factory illustrated in plates LXXII and LXXIII. At Fort Victoria in 1850 the dining room chairs were Windsor in design. [189] The Fort Walla Walla inventory of 1855 lists "11 Maple Chairs." [190]

At McLoughlin House National Historic site there are ten "solid mahogany" chairs of early Victorian style which, it is claimed, were sent, as was the table, from London by the Company for the Fort Vancouver dining room (see plate LXXI). These chairs originally were "probably twenty-four in number," according to Dr. Burt Brown Barker. [191]

The history of these handsome chairs is somewhat obscure. According to newspaper accounts about a century later, Dr. William Fraser Tolmie, who at one time had been the Company's surgeon at Fort Vancouver, bought the original set of 24 chairs from the Big House at that post. Presumably this purchase was made at Victoria where Tolmie was living when the movable property from the abandoned Fort Vancouver was brought there in 1860.

At any rate, the chairs for many years graced "Cloverdale," the Tolmie family estate on Vancouver Island. Then, either in 1934 or in 1938 -- accounts differ as to the date -- the Tolmie effects were largely auctioned; and Mr. Joseph A. Hill acquired some of the chairs. For years they remained in storage at the Hill Military Academy, but in 1959 four of them were "discovered" and presented to McLoughlin House National Historic Site.

Newspaper stories describing the accompanying ceremonies state that when found, each of the four chairs had stamped on it the following inscription: "This is to certify that this chair was the property of the Hudson's Bay Co. in the time of Dr. John McLoughlin at Fort Vancouver, Oregon Territory, 1833." By the date of the presentation the McLoughlin House had already acquired other chairs from the same set. [192]

Clearly, this documentation is not as well authenticated as one could wish. In default of evidence to the contrary, however, the chairs in the McLoughlin House probably should be accepted as the pattern for those to be placed in a reconstructed and refurnished mess hall.

Table setting. Thomas Jefferson Farnham made it clear that a tablecloth was used in the Fort Vancouver dining hall. [193] There is no reason to suppose that it was not as "snow-white" as that observed in 1843 in the winter mess room at York Factory by that rather unbusinesslike apprentice clerk and future novelist, Robert M. Ballantyne. [194] The Fort Vancouver pantry inventories list "diaper table Cloths," indicating that the table was graced with linen or cotton, usually white, woven in a repetitive pattern. [195] The inventory of 1845 lists 36 "table Napkins." [196]

Farnham also waxed quite eloquent over the "dinner-set of elegant queen's ware, burnished with glittering glasses and decanters of various-colored Italian wines." [197] Clerk George B. Roberts likewise testified to the presence of "decanters & fine English glass." [198] In 1837 Anna Maria Pittman, a member of the Methodist mission, was quite overwhelmed by the "table set with blue" at which she dined. [199] Although this table probably was in a sitting room and not in the mess hall, the dinnerware must have been similar in both rooms.

It is not a purpose of the present report to attempt to identify specific makes and patterns of dinnerware which were used at Fort Vancouver. Mr. Louis R. Caywood made an excellent start in this direction during his excavations from 1947 to 1952. [200] But at the present time, as a result of later explorations at the site, archeologists are making a completely new study of this matter. When their work is finished it should be a relatively simple matter to select a pattern, preferably blue on white, from among the fragments found near the Big House and its kitchen. Some of the same patterns used in the 1840's, or ones very similar, are still being manufactured in Britain, or at least were until very recently. The quantities of dinnerware of different shapes used in the mess hall will be found in the pantry inventories in the chapter of this report dealing with the Big House kitchen.

Evidently the tableware -- knives, forks, spoons, and so forth -- used in the mess hall was owned by the Company. It, together with such other items employed on the table as candlesticks, decanters, and cruet stands, were included in the annual inventories of "articles in" in the kitchen and pantry. Since one of these inventories will be reproduced in the following chapter of this report, there is no need to enumerate these items here.

It might be pointed out, however, that the ivory handled knives and forks and the "assorted table spoons" listed in the inventory do not seem to measure up to the crested and monogrammed silver so firmly believed in by the romantics. And the tin dish covers and tin teapots are a long way from the silver tea service thought by some to have dressed the "officers' mess."

Having said this much, it is recognized that Chief Factor McLoughlin undoubtedly did possess, as his private property, a considerable amount of fine chinaware and silver. It is quite unlikely that these valuable items were in daily use in the mess hall for the edification of the clerks and Chief Casenove. Dr. McLoughlin's belief that the humble should live humbly has been amply documented. Probably, however, they were employed on special occasions, particularly when there were important guests to be entertained.

Unfortunately, little is known for certain as to the numbers of these items or as to exactly when Dr. McLoughlin acquired them. But there is available some quite precise data concerning the silver that was in his possession after he left the Company's service. This information can be summarized as follows:

Silver plate. After Dr. McLoughlin's death in 1857, the inventory of his estate listed the following pieces of "Silver Plate" which were among the furnishings of his home in Oregon City:

1 Pr. Silver Candleabra [sic]
1 Castor
1 Pr. Silver Candlesticks small
1 Doz. Silver Knives & Forks (pearl han)
4 Decanter Holders
6 Lge. Spoons Extra
3 Prs. Sugar Tongs
29 Lge. Table Spoons
29 Lge. Forks
30 Small Forks
27 Small Desert Spoons [sic]
27 Small Tea Spoons
3 Lge. Ladles
9 Small Ladles
3 Fish Slices [slicers]
2 Salt Spoons
4 Egg Spoons
12 Silver Handle Knives -- desert [sic]
1 Toaster
1 Fruit Dish
2 Coffee Pots
2 Tea Pots
2 Sugar Dishes
2 Cream Pitchers
2 Snuffers & Trays
4 Knife Resters & 2 Butter Knives. [201]

Much of this silver bore the McLoughlin Family crest, a lion rampant. The flatware was stamped with the initials "J. Mc." [202]

The greater number of these items descended to Mrs. George Deering, a great-granddaughter of Chief Factor John McLoughlin. At an unspecified date she had the silver appraised by the director of the Metropolitan Museum. Some of the pieces were found to date from the late seventeenth century. These were sold, but a portion of the remainder, dating from the nineteenth century, were retained in Mrs. Deering's hands and eventually some of them found their way to the restored McLoughlin House in Oregon City.

The McLoughlin silver now in the McLoughlin House includes a tea-pot, sugar bowl and tongs, long serving spoon, fish knife, two large forks, two tablespoons, and two dessert spoons. The flatware was made in Edinburgh by J. McKay in 1829, 1830, and 1831. The tea pot, sugar bowl, and tongs were produced in 1837-1838 by Joseph and Albert Savory of London. "There are also," wrote Dr. Burt Brown Barker in 1959, "nine other silver teaspoons and two soup ladles" which, according to their marks, were manufactured in London in 1811 by Paul Storr. [203]

According to Dr. Barker, who undoubtedly knew more about the McLoughlin House furnishings than any one else will ever know, "all this silver" was used at Fort Vancouver "prior to the arrival of the first wagon train of immigrants in 1843." He believed that the major pieces were acquired by McLoughlin during his visit to London during the winter of 1838-1839. [204]

Miscellaneous dining hall furnishings. It is virtually certain that there was no rug or carpet on the mess room floor. Not even the winter dining hall at York Factory could boast of such a luxury. [205]

In the winter mess room at the latter post the walls "were hung round with several large engravings in bird's-eye maple frames" during the 1840's. [206] In North West Company days the Great Hall at Fort William had been decorated with oil paintings, pastel portraits, and David Thompson's famous map. [207] About 1850 the mess hall at Upper Fort Garry was enlivened by "sporting prints of the day." [208] No witnesses have testified to the presence of similar decorations in the Fort Vancouver dining room, but it is reasonable to suppose that the practice of the times in this respect was followed on the banks of the Columbia.

Dr. Burt Brown Barker has assumed that because the inventory of McLoughlin's estate listed "4 Decanter Holders," there must have been a sideboard upon which they were displayed. [209] There well may have been, but it may have been in the chief factor's quarters rather than in the mess hall. Or, there may have been no sideboard at all. No visitor to the fort mentions such a piece of furniture. And at Christmas dinner at York Factory in 1843, Robert Ballantyne recorded that the decanters of wine, flanked by tumblers and glasses, rested "on the board," meaning, evidently, on the table. [210]

But there is one lesser article of furniture of whose presence we can be certain. The pantry inventory for 1844 mentions a "call Bell," and George Roberts recalled years later how at the end of a meal Dr. McLoughlin, sitting at the head of the dining room table, would suddenly pull the bell tassel and call, "Bruce." In due time the fort gardener, William Bruce, "would be on hand with an open mull from which a pinch [of snuff] would be taken without a word on either side." [211] Certainly a bell pull would be indispensable for any meaningful restoration project!

The only means of lighting mentioned in the pantry inventory are 14 assorted candlesticks of tin, brass, and plated metal of some type. [212] So, unless Dr. McLoughlin from his personal property supplied an argand lamp or another form of lamp as was done by the factors at certain other posts the evening meals at Fort Vancouver were eaten by candlelight. [213]

c. Chief Factor McLoughlin's quarters. As we have seen, the suggestion that McLoughlin's office and his sitting room might be divided into two separate rooms in a reconstructed Big House is made more or less upon arbitrary grounds. There is no known evidence to show that these two functions were not housed in a single chamber in the second Big House as evidently had been the case in the first. At any rate, since so little is known about the furnishings of the office and the sitting room, the two rooms will here be considered as one for the purpose of discussing what pieces of furniture might have been in them.

In the living room at McLoughlin House National Historic Site there is a large square desk which it is claimed, "belonged to Dr. McLoughlin at Fort Vancouver." [214] It is a handsome piece of furniture (see plate LXXIV), although its association with the Big House is not as firmly fixed as one might wish. But undoubtedly this desk or one rather like it was in McLoughlin's quarters at the fort.

One of the items which surely was on or in the desk in McLoughlin's residence was his personal seal, used to impress the wax with which his letters were closed. On November 1, 1836, Narcissa Whitman wrote to her relatives in the East as follows: "You will see the Seal of my host [Dr. McLoughlin] upon the enclosure of this journal. They are over nice in following the rules of etiquette here in some particulars. It is considered impolite to seal a letter with a wafer for the reason that it is wet with spittle. Very impolite to send spittle to a friend." [215]

A wax imprint from McLoughlin's seal is in the McLoughlin House in Oregon City. The impression is one inch long and 3/4-inch wide, and in its center is a coat of arms about half an inch high showing a lion rampant between upright swords, with three crescents. Below is a ribbon motto, "vinces virtute." [216]

Undoubtedly Dr. McLoughlin also kept in his desk his North West Company seal. This relic of his fur-trade service before the coalition with the Hudson's Bay Company in 1821 is today in the McLoughlin House. It is the only North West Company seal known to exist. And also probably in the desk was the silver medal presented to him in 1826 by the Horticultural Society of London for his services to David Douglas. [217]

Another article of furniture said to be "from Fort Vancouver" is the secretary which now stands in the library of the McLoughlin House (see plate LXXV). [218] Here again, the documentation is some what vague, but it is highly probable that Dr. McLoughlin had such a sturdy, handsome desk, with bookcase above, in his apartments.

For one thing, it is known that the chief factor possessed a personal library which was distinct from the subscription library maintained by the employees of the Columbia Department. In 1833 William Fraser Tolmie noted in his journal that he had borrowed from McLoughlin the first and second volumes of von Humboldt's Personal Narrative of Travels in South America. [219] The titles of his other books are not known, but we may safely assume that he had a solid collection of works on medicine, travel, science, and politics and that he had bookcases in which to house them. [220]

When the Whitman party reached Fort Vancouver in September, 1836, the principal members were quickly led to the Big House and into Dr. McLoughlin's "office," where the two ladies were seated on "the sofa." [221] There seems no way of knowing whether this piece was one of the four "Wooden Sofas" listed in the inventory of Company-owned furniture in "Bachelors Hall & No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5" in 1844 or whether it was privately owned by the chief factor. [222] At any rate, it seems probable that after his visit to Europe in 1838 McLoughlin would have had an upholstered imported sofa in his sitting room.

It may also be assumed with reasonable safety that there were two or three upholstered chairs in the McLoughlin living room and office. Even at the inland post of Fort Walla Walla as early as 1836 the Whitmans were "comfortably seated in cushioned arm chairs" by the officer in charge. [223] The Company also carried in stock at the Fort Vancouver Depot "dark stained cane seat chairs." [224] It would not be illogical to suppose that the chief factor purchased several of these for extra occasional chairs.

The wives of the "gentlemen" at Fort Vancouver did not eat with their husbands in the common mess hall. Rather, the women and children dined in their own quarters on food brought in from the kitchen. Therefore, there must have been a table in the sitting room for this purpose.

The table in McLoughlin's quarters must not have been a large one in 1836, because on the arrival of the Whitman party, with its two women, McLoughlin had to direct the carpenter to make an "extra table" which was set up in the Chief Factor's office. [225] A year later another missionary, Anna Maria Pittman, joined 17 other persons seated for dinner "around a long table" which almost certainly was not in the mess hall. [226]

This need for a larger table in his rooms may have induced Dr. McLoughlin to buy one in London, perhaps during his visit in 1838-1839. At least the question comes to mind, is the table now in the McLoughlin House dining room, which is probably too small to have been the mess hall table, the one from the chief factor's quarters?

Among the other items which almost certainly were in Dr. McLoughlin's office was a strong box or safe. One which is said to have belonged to him at the fort is in one of the small bedrooms off the living room in the McLoughlin House. [227] And irons, fire tongs, a tailor's iron used as a doorstop, and a few pewter tankards at the McLoughlin House are also described as being "from the Company," although none except the tailor's iron is specifically claimed to have come from Fort Vancouver. [228]

It is not known definitely that there was a rug on the floor of McLoughlin's sitting room, particularly as early as 1836 to 1838. But it seems reasonable to assume that by 1841, when Holmes described the Big House as being "well furnished," there was carpet on the floors in McLoughlin's quarters. A year earlier there was a Kidderminster carpet in the chief factor's drawing room at York Factory. [229] And certainly draperies, or at least curtains, would have been a feature of a well-furnished home.

In view of the well-documented practice of decorating the mess halls at Company posts with various types of paintings, maps, and framed lithographs, and in light of the known predilection of Oregon pioneers for brightening their homes, even the most humble, with prints, it can be assumed that the walls of the McLoughlin living quarters supported several pictures. [230] In fact, a vivid description of one has been preserved.

On October 6, 1841, Narcissa Whitman wrote to her parents from the Whitman mission at "Wieletpoo" that she had heard of a "picture of a tree" hanging in Chief Factor McLoughlin's "room" at Vancouver, "which represents all Protestants as the withered ends of the several branches of papacy falling off down into infernal society and flames, as represented at the bottom." [231] This reference was to the famed Catholic ladder, which apparently was devised by Father F. N. Blanchet in 1839 as a means of furthering the instruction of the Indians in the Roman Catholic faith. Only manuscript copies circulated until 1844 when a printed version was prepared in Paris. Several examples of the manuscript form have survived. [232]

If there were pictures, there undoubtedly were also mirrors. Large, mahogany framed "Looking Glasses" were carried in stock in the Fort Vancouver Depot. [233] Dr. McLoughlin may have used lamps in his quarters, but these seem to have been scarce articles at Fort Vancouver. Candles seem to have been the usual mode of illumination throughout the establishment.

The historical record tells absolutely nothing about the furnishings of the bedrooms in the McLoughlin quarters beyond the fact that there must have been accommodations for the Doctor and his wife as permanent residents. During most of 1845 their grown son, David, was a rather frequent visitor to Fort Vancouver, and possibly he lodged with his parents at such times, though in December, 1844, he had moved "all his things" to Willamette Falls. [234] Other residents of the McLoughlin quarters on an occasional basis were Mrs. McLoughlin's married granddaughter and infant great-granddaughter. The presence of rugs, carpets, or Indian mats on the floors is conjectural, as is the use of curtains at the windows.

If there was heating in the bedrooms, it must have been by means of stoves. The extension of stovepipes for considerable distances, even through more than one room, was not unusual at Company posts.

The beds present an even more knotty problem. As shall be seen when the furnishings of the Bachelors' Quarters and other houses are discussed, the usual bed at Fort Vancouver was a wooden bunk. That these rough beds were not only for males and persons in the lower ranks of the service is amply demonstrated by the following extract from the diary of Narcissa Whitman describing some of the domestic arrangements at Vancouver in September, 1836:

You will ask what kind of beds are used here. I can tell you what kind of bed they made for us after we arrived, & I have since found it a fashionable bed for this country. The bedstead is in the form of a bunk with rough board bottoms, upon which were laid about one dozen of the Indian blankets. These with a pair of pillows covered with calico cases constitute our bed sheets and covering. There are several feather beds in the place, but they are made of the feathers of wild game. [235]

But there are certain hints in the records to the effect that chief factors may have slept in more commodious beds. During May, 1849, when James Douglas was in fact if not in title the principal officer of the Columbia Department, he paid a visit to the Company's post at Fort Nisqually, on Puget Sound. Shortly before he was due to arrive, the following entry was made in the post journal: "Wren making a four posted bedstead for Mr. Douglas's use." [236] Apparently the usual bunk was not the type of sleeping accommodation to which the chief factor was accustomed.

Lacking more positive information, but going on the basis of the Holmes assertion that the Big House was "well furnished," it seems reasonable to assume that the bedrooms in both the McLoughlin and Douglas quarters were as well equipped as those in the manager's residence at York Factory. Thus, as we have already seen, such items as regular beds of the period, wardrobes, chests of drawers, night tables, commodes, mirrors, and stands for supporting wash basins and holding towels were probably present.

In one of the small bedrooms in the McLoughlin House in Oregon City there is a handsome wash basin, white in color with blue border and bearing the Hudson's Bay Company's coat of arms also in blue. It is said to have come from Fort Vancouver. [237] Such may have been the case, since the Vancouver Depot regularly stocked "blue & white E. Ware washhand Basins." Also kept on hand were cream-colored earthenware basins and "deep tin wash-hand Basins." [238]

One other piece of furniture was sure to be found in the quarters of every one of the Company's "gentlemen." This was the cassette or specially constructed wooden trunk used for carrying personal effects on journeys by boat or horse. In the rooms of the clerks the cassette was a prominent object, often serving as the only chair or table, but in the Big House the sturdy boxes undoubtedly rested under the beds or in corners.

The construction and appearance of these unique objects will be treated in detail in the section on the Bachelors' Quarters, but attention should be drawn here to the fact that the commissioned officers sometimes seem to have had boxes of finer workmanship than those belonging to, say, the clerks. Dr. Douglas Leechman of Victoria, British Columbia, has such a cassette in his possession. It is made of camphorwood and is bound in copper. Its curved top and "alarm lock" are distinctive. According to Dr. Leechman, the officers ordered such boxes made in China. [239]

d. Quarters of James Douglas and family. No information is available concerning the furnishings possessed by the Douglas family during its long stay at Fort Vancouver beyond the fact that when Douglas moved to Victoria in 1849 he traveled part of the way accompanied by five wagons "containing cases of gold dust, bales of Furs and Mr. Ds private property." [240] Therefore, one will have to assume that in late 1845 the furnishings would have been those befitting a prosperous chief factor very conscious of his position as a British gentlemen.

In the case of the Douglas family, however, there probably were, in addition to the imported furniture, chinaware, and silver, more evidences of the frontier than usual at some Company posts in the Indian Country. Mrs. Douglas seems to have retained through life many of the likes and dislikes acquired from her Cree mother. As late as the 1880's an observer noted that Amelia Douglas was still "very fond" of bitterroot, camas, and buffalo tongue "when she can have them" and that she was "much bored" by the dishes of the European dinner table. [241] Thus, while Mrs. Douglas undoubtedly conformed to the styles set by the other wives of Company employees at Fort Vancouver and wore European dress, she probably kept items of Indian manufacture about the house. [242]

In one other respect the equipment of family quarters at Fort Vancouver differed from that found in frontier houses in the United States and eastern Canada at the same period. There were no spinning wheels, looms, or other devices connected with the making of thread and cloth. Visitors to the post were quick to observe that while the Indian and mixed-blood wives of Company employees were skillful seamstresses, they did no spinning or weaving. [243]

In view of Mrs. Douglas's fondness for Indian ways, her quarters may have been distinctive in still another way. Narcissa Whitman had noticed in 1836 that there were "several" feather beds at Fort Vancouver which contrasted with the usual bed covering made of about a dozen blankets. The only material available for ticking in making feather beds, she observed, was brown linen sheeting. "The Indian ladies," she added, "make theirs of deerskin." [244] Could Chief Factor Douglas have reposed each evening on a feather bed covered with deerskin?

Otherwise, the furnishings of the Douglas quarters were probably much like those in the rooms of Chief Factor McLoughlin and his lady, except of course that there were more persons to be accommodated. Beds and other items to provide for a family of six -- two adults and four daughters aged eleven, six, four, and one -- must have been present.

Among the additional items undoubtedly were toys. It was evidently during the 1830's that an American trader created a sensation among the Indians by bringing in a supply of toys described as "squeaking wooden Cats & Dogs." The Company countered by importing from England "that beautiful toy, Hussars on wheels." [245] Perhaps some of these playthings were still avail able to amuse the children of a chief factor during the next decade.

Recommendations

a. When archeologists excavate in the area of the original 1829 stockade (ABED), they should be alert for evidence of the first Big House (1829-1838).

b. The second Big House should be restored to the period just prior to the removal of Dr. John McLoughlin on January 6, 1846, and of his family on January 17, 1846. This dating will permit the furnishing of the structure with items or reproductions of items associated with the "Father of Oregon," the dominant figure in the history of Fort Vancouver.

c. Despite the fact that the veranda across the front of the house apparently was removed pending repair between May 26, 1845, and September 2, 1846, it is recommended that the building be reconstructed with this feature intact as shown in the 1860 photographs. There appears no way of knowing to what degree the veranda was removed and when various parts of it may have been replaced.

d. If some practicable means can be found of providing a waterproof subroofing, it is recommended that the roof of the reconstructed Big House be covered with boards rather than shingles, which do not seem to have been applied to the original structure until August 27, 1846. During the fur trade period, however, the roofs of vertically laid boards were notorious for leaking as they aged and cracked.

e. The house should be reconstructed with most architectural details as shown in the 1860 photographs of the structure. Although the Coode water color of the fort yard in about 1846-1847 shows certain differences, particularly in the front door and windows, there appears to be no way to judge the accuracy of the artist. Further, the Coode drawing does not provide the details which would permit restoration according to the general plan it presents.

On the other hand, it is recommended that the Coode drawing be followed for porch railing details. Evidently it shows the railing, with end ornaments and the center object of unknown utility, more nearly as it appeared in 1845 than do the photographs.

1. For examples see John Warren Dease, Memorandum Book, 1829, MS, entry for October 9, 1829, in The Public Archives of Canada, Ottawa (hereafter cited as PAC); Lowe, Private Journal, MS, 17, 40, 48. The term "Big House" was quite generally used to name the manager's or chief factor's residence at posts throughout the H.B.C. territories.

2. Testimony of J. A. Hardee, in Br. & Am. Joint Comm., Papers, [IX], III.

3. Herbert Beaver, Reports and Letters of Herbert Beaver, 1836-1838, Chaplain to the Hudson's Bay Company and Missionary to the Indians at Fort Vancouver, edited by Thomas E. Jessett (Portland, Oregon, 19 59, 2, 120.

4. Testimony of J. L. Meek, in Br. & Am. Joint Comm., Papers, [VII], 86; William Fraser Tolmie, "Journal of William Fraser Tolmie — 1833," in Washington Historical Quarterly, III (July, 1912), 234; Emmons, Journal, MS, entry for July 25, 1841.

5. Theressa Gay, Life and Letters of Mrs. Jason Lee, First Wife of Rev. Jason Lee of the Oregon Mission (Portland, Oregon, 1936), 152-153.

6. Br. & Am. Joint Comm., Papers, [II], 177.

7. For the sources of the quotations given in this paragraph as well as for a detailed analysis of the conflicting evidence see Hussey, History of Fort Vancouver, 140-146.

8. Francis Ermatinger to Edward [Ermatinger], Thompsons River March 14, 1829, in Ermatinger, Letters, MS, 53.

9. J. S. Smith, D. E. Jackson, W. L. Sublette to J. H. Eaton, St. Louis, October 29, 1830, in 21 Cong., 2 Sess., Senate, Ex. Doc. No. 39, pp. 21-23.

10. Dease, Memorandum Book, 1829, MS, entry for September 6, 1829.

11. Dease, Memorandum Book, 1829, MS, entry for October 9, 1829.

12. This fact is clearly demonstrated by the words of Clerk Francis Ermatinger, who in 1838 announced to his brother Edward, who had been stationed at Fort Vancouver prior to the building of the new fort, the completion of a new residence for Dr. McLoughlin. "The old House you know," he wrote, "and could appreciate the accommodation it afforded you, and you may suppose that it could not be much bettered by removal from the Hill to where it at present stands." Francis Ermatinger to Edward [Ermatinger], Colvile, March 19, 1838, in Ermatinger, Letters, MS, [121]. Actually the first Big House had been dismantled by March 19, 1838, but Ermatinger, at distant Colvile, was not aware of the fact.

13. Dease, Memorandum Book, 1829, MS, entry for November 2, 1829.

14. J. McLoughlin to G. Simpson, Fort Vancouver, March 20, 1830, in Burt Brown Barker, ed., Letters of Dr. John McLoughlin, Written at Fort Vancouver, 1829-1832 (Portland, Oregon, 1948), 93.

15. J. McLoughlin to Governor and Committee, Fort Vancouver, November 15, 1836, in H. B. S., IV, 160-161.

16. Francis Ermatinger to Edward [Ermatinger], Colvile, March 19, 1838, in Ermatinger, Letters, MS, [121].

17. Beaver, Reports and Letters, 82.

18. John Kirk Townsend, Narrative of a Journey Across the Rocky Mountains, to the Columbia River . . . . (Reuben Gold Thwaites ed., Early Western Travels, vol. XXI, Cleveland, Ohio, 1905), 297-298; J. K. T.[ownsend] to [?], Washington, January 26, 1843, in OHQ, IV (December, 1903), 399-402; J. K. Townsend, "Private Journal," in Archer Butler Hulbert, ed., The Call of the Columbia: Iron Men and Saints Take the Oregon Trail (Overland to the Pacific, IV, [Denver], 1934), 226.

19. Fred Wilbur Powell, "Hall Jackson Kelley -- Prophet of Oregon," in OHQ, XVIII (June, 1917), 126.

20. Gray, A History of Oregon, 149-150.

21. Gay, Life and Letters of Mrs. Jason Lee, 152-153.

22. Gray, A History of Oregon, 149-150.

23. Gray, A History of Oregon, 149; Narcissa Whitman to Samuel Parker, Vancouver, October 25, 1836, in Archer Butler Hulbert and Dorothy Printup Hulbert, eds., Marcus Whitman, Crusader, Part One 1802 to 1839 (Overland to the Pacific, vol. VI, [Denver], 1936), 240-242.

24. Beaver, Reports and Letters, 2. In fact, in another place Beaver definitely stated that rooms "occupied by families" opened into the mess room. Ibid., 120.

25. Francis Ermatinger to Edward [Ermatinger], Colvile, March 19, 1838, in Ermatinger, Letters, MS, [121].

26. For mentions of such hospitality, see Hulbert, The Call of the Columbia, 186; Samuel Parker, Journal of an Exploring Tour Beyond the Rocky Mountains . . . in the years 1835, '36, and '37 . . . (2nd ed., Ithaca, N . Y., 1840), 145.

27. Gray, A History of Oregon, 150.

28. Gray, A History of Oregon, 163.

29. Quotation from journal of Narcissa Whitman, in T. C. Elliott, "The Coming of the White Women," in OHQ, XXXVII (September, 1936), 179.

30. Gray, A History of Oregon, 150.

31. Francis Ermatinger to Edward [Ermatinger], Colvile, March 19, 1838, in Ermatinger, Letters, MS, [121].

32. Beaver, Reports and Letters, 82.

33. Testimony of W. H. Gray, Br. & Am. Joint Comm., Papers, [VIII], 184.

34. Caywood, Final Report, 7, 15-16; J. J. Hoffman, Memorandums to Chief, Archeological Investigations, Western Service Center, NPS, Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, July 1, October 1, December 30, 1971, Ms.

35. See Hussey, History of Fort Vancouver, plate XXXVIII.

36. Lowe, Private Journal, MS, 40.

37. Hussey, History of Fort Vancouver, 173-180.

38. Herbert Beaver to Governor and Committee, Fort Vancouver, October 2, 1838, in Beaver, Reports and Letters, 120.

39. E. Ruth Rockwood, ed., "Diary of Rev. George H. Atkinson, D. D., 1847-1858," in OHQ, XL (June, 1939), 181, 184-185; XLI (March, 1940), 14.

40. Wilkes, Narrative, IV, 328-329.

41. Lowe, Private Journal, MS, 30.

42. Henry J. Warre, Diary to Liverpool, 1846, MS, 115-116, which is item 6 in the microfilm strip, Journals of Henry J. Warre, in The Public Archives of Canada.

43. Henry J. Warre, Travel and Sport in North America, 1839-1846, MS, 145, in The Public Archives of Canada; quoted by the kind per mission of Mr. Michael Warre of London, England.

44. Br. & Am. Joint Comm., Papers, [II], 177.

45. Lowe, Private Journal, MS, 11.

46. Lowe, Private Journal, MS, 31-32.

47. Lowe, Private Journal, MS, 57.

48. Ibid., 15.

49. Ibid., 28.

50. Ibid., 32.

51. Ibid., 72.

52. Emmons, Journal, MS, entry for July 25, 1841.

53. Lowe, Private Journal, MS, 33.

54. Beaver, Reports and Letters, 115.

55. For references to David McLoughlin's visits to the fort and his occupation during 1845, see Lowe, Private Journal, MS, 9, 21, 24, 30-31. David left Vancouver early in December, 1845, to escort his widowed sister, Mrs. William G. Rae, back from California.

56. Burt Brown Barker, The McLoughlin Empire and Its Rulers, Doctor John McLoughlin, Doctor David McLoughlin, Marie Louise (Sister St. Henry) . . . . (Northwest Historical Series, V, Glendale, California: The Arthur H. Clark Company, 1959), 132-140. David was born on February 11, 1821.

57. For mentions of visits by Mrs. Ermatinger, wife of Chief Trader Francis Ermatinger, see Lowe, Private Journal, MS, 11, 13, 17, 18, 30. The Ermatinger daughter was born on June 3, 1843. She was called Fanny by her family. Mrs. Ermatinger lived with the McLoughlins before her marriage in 1842, and it can be presumed that she continued to do so during subsequent visits. For information on Fanny Ermatinger, see Ermatinger, Letters MS, 161 [171], 175 [185]-176 71867; and Harriet D. Munnick, "The Ermatinger Brothers, Edward and Francis," in LeRoy R. Hafen, ed., The Mountain Men and the Fur Trade of the Far West, VIII (Glendale, California: The Arthur H. Clark Company, 1971), 166-167.

58. For references to visits by Joseph McLoughlin, Thomas McKay, and other relatives, see Lowe, Private Journals, MS, 11, 17, 23, 31. Joseph McLoughlin was about 36 years old in 1845.

59. At least her eleventh birthday was celebrated on October 23, 1834.

60. Derek Pethick, James Douglas: Servant of Two Empires (Vancouver, B.C., 1969), 16-17, 33, 48.

61. George B. Roberts, "The Round Hand of George B. Roberts," in Oregon Historical Quarterly, LXIII (June-September, 1962), 214.

62. Ibid., 209, 227-228; Lowe, Private Journal, MS, 4.

63. Beaver, Reports and Letters, 143-145.

64. Ibid., 120.

65. Lowe, Private Journal, MS, 17.

66. Ibid., 48.

67. Ibid.

68. In later years W. H. Gray, after describing the enlargement of the stockade enclosure which he said was under way in 1836, wrote: "All the houses were covered with boards in a similar manner in the new quarters." Gray, A History of Oregon, 150.

69. Testimony of L. Brooke, in Br. & Am., Joint Comm., Papers, [VIII], 128, 138.

70. Ibid., [IX], 133.

71. Br. & Am. Joint Comm., Papers, [VIII], 133.

72. Report of a board of officers, Port Vancouver, January 23, 1854, in Br. & Am. Joint Comm., Papers, [IX], 104-106; proceedings of a board of officers, Fort Vancouver, June 15, 1860, in ibid., 75-77. The names of the several chief factors and members of the Board of Management who lived at Fort Vancouver after 1846 are not of immediate concern for this study. For details see Hussey History of Fort Vancouver, 93-96.

73. Testimony of J. A. Hardie, in Br. & Am. Joint Comm., Papers, [IX], 111.

74. Caywood, Final Report, 16.

75. Wilkes, Narrative, IV, 326-327.

76. Silas Holmes, Journal kept by Assistant Surgeon Silas Holmes during a Cruise in the U. S. Ship Peacock and Brigs Porpoise and Oregon, 1838. . . 1842 Exploring Expedition, MS, II, 306, in Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University.

77. For examples, see John Dunn, History of the Oregon Territory and British North-American Fur Trade . . . (London, 1844), 144; testimony of A. McKinlay in Br. & Am. Joint Comm., Papers, [II], 91.

78. Testimony of H. A. Tuzo, in Br. & Am. Joint Comm., Papers, [II], 177; testimony of L. Brooke, in ibid., [VIII], 128.

79. For a discussion of the origin and date of this picture see above in the chapter on the stockade. Since the water color apparently shows the veranda across the front of the Big House as complete, the date of the drawing perhaps can be narrowed to between about September 2, 1846, and May 3, 1847. To be strictly accurate, the water color in the Hudson's Bay Company Archives is not Goode's original painting but a copy of it made in or about 1928. Mrs. Joan Craig (Archivist, H.B.C.) to J. A. Hussey, London, March 22, 1972. However, in order to distinguish this water color copy from other photographic and printed copies, it is for convenience referred to as the "original" water color in this report. The true original water color evidently still is in the possession of the Goode family. A photograph of this true original sketch is reproduced as plate XI of the present report, through the kindness of Mrs. Joan Craig, Archivist, and with the permission of the Hudson's Bay Company. The writer is also indebted to Mrs. Craig for the information on the histories of the copies of the sketch and for biographical data on Lieutenant (later Vice-Admiral) T. P. Goode.

80. Wilkes, Narrative, IV, 332.

81. Hussey, History of Fort Vancouver, plate XXXVIII.

82. For photographs illustrating these variations, see Thompson, Grand Portage National Monument, Great Hall, illustrations, 32, 39, 42.

83. For examples see Thompson, Grand Portage National Monument, Great Hall, illustrations 30, 38.

84. The Fort Vancouver inventory was printed in Br. & Am. Joint Comm., Papers, [II], 118-119; and in T. C. Elliott, "British Values in Oregon, 1847," in Oregon Historical Quarterly, XXXII (March, 1931), 34-35.

85. Br. & Am. Joint Comm., Papers [IX], 133.

86. Caywood, Final Report, 15; interview, J. A. Hussey with J. J. Hoffman and L. Ross, Fort Vancouver NHS, February 23, 1972.

87. Louis R. Caywood, Excavations at Fort Vancouver, 1948 Season (mimeographed, [San Francisco]: United States, Department of the Interior, National Park Service, [1949]), 6-7, and map, sheet 1. No traces of these interior wooden features remained when archeologists reexcavated the site in 1971.

88. Caywood, Final Report, 15-16, and Map of Archeological Excavations, sheet 9.

89. J. J. Hoffman, Memorandum to Chief of Archeological Investigations, San Francisco Field Office, Denver Service Center, NPS, Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, December 30, 1971, MS, in files, Denver Service Center.

90. J. J. Hoffman, Memorandum to Chief of Archeological Investigations, Western Service Center, NPS, Fort Vancouver NHS, September 1, 1971, MS, in files, WSC. Evidently significant remains of these sills were found only along the west wall of the house; another, shorter, section of apparent sill was found along the south wall site. Interview, J. A. Hussey with J. J. Hoffman and L. Ross, Fort Vancouver NHS, February 23, 1972.

91 J. J. Hoffman, Memorandum to Chief of Archeological Investigations, Western Service Center, Fort Vancouver NHS, August 2, 1971, MS, in files WSC.

92. Same to same, July 1, 1971, MS; interview, J. A. Hussey with J. J. Hoffman and L. Ross, Fort Vancouver NHS, February 23, 1972.

93. J. J. Hoffman, Memorandum to Chief of Archeological In vestigations, Western Service Center, NPS, Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, July 1, 1971, MS, in files, Western Service Center; interview, J. A. Hussey with J. J. Hoffman and L. Ross, Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, February 23, 1972.

94. J. J. Hoffman, Memorandum to Chief of Archeological Investigations, San Francisco Field Office, Denver Service Center, NPS, Fort Vancouver NHS, December 30, 1971, MS, in files, Denver Service Center; interview, J. A. Hussey with J. J. Hoffman and L. Ross, Fort Vancouver NHS, February 23, 1972.

95. For a discussion of the possible painter and date of this picture see above in the chapter on the bakery.

96. Popular histories sometimes speak of the two large fireplaces which, together with a Highland piper, graced the Fort Vancouver dining hall. For an example see Mae Reed Porter and Odessa Davenport, Scotsman in Buckskin: Sir William Drummond Stewart and the Rocky Mountain Fur Trade (New York: Hastings House, Publishers, 1963), 91-92. The present writer has been unable to find any authentic basis for such flights of fancy.

97. Henry Drummond Dee, ed. The Journal of John Work, January to October, 1835 (Archives of British Columbia, Victoria, B.C., 1945), 53-54,

98. For a discussion of the dating of this sketch see above in the chapter on the bakery.

99. Lowe, Private Journal, MS, 48.

100. Gray, A History of Oregon, 150.

101. Br. & Am. Joint Comm., Papers, [VIII], 181-182.

102. H.B.C., Account Books, Fort Vancouver, 1844-1845 [Abstract, Cost and Charges of Goods Received], H.B.C.A., B.223/d/158, MS, 120. Of course, not all the shingles mentioned above were used at Fort Vancouver; some were exported.

103. W. H. Gray, A History of Oregon, 150. Apparently the standard width of a plank or deal in England and Canada was nine inches. Whether this practice was followed at Fort Vancouver is not known. It is unlikely that Gray actually measured the roof planks in 1836. For a discussion of Canadian lumber dimensions see Barker, Letters of Dr. John McLoughlin, 351.

104. Personal observation of surviving H.B.C. structures at Fort Langley, Fort St. James, Lower Fort Garry, and other posts, supplemented by Douglas Leechman, Notes and Comments on Hudson's Bay Company Trading Posts in the Mid-nineteenth Century, Extracted from the Literature (typescript, 1958), section on doors, p. [2], citing H.B.C.A., B.226/b/16, fol. 46.

105. See plates LXI and LXII. Another chief factor's house door, that at Fort Edmonton, is shown in Thompson, Grand Portage National Monument, Great Hall, illustration 24. It should be noted, however, that all of these photographs were taken in relatively late years and that the doors shown may not have been installed at the times the buildings were erected.

106. H.B.C., York Factory Indent Books, 1823-1838, H.B.C.A., B.239/n/71, MS, fols. 139d-140; Account Book, Fort Vancouver, 1844 [Inventories], H.B.C.A., B.223/d/155, MS, 101.

107. The photograph of the original Coode water color drawing of 1846-1847 and the water color copy of that drawing now in the Hudson's Bay Company Archives both show what appears to be the front door of the Big House at the extreme right of the pictures (see plate XI). Unfortunately, in the reproductions of the water color copy appearing as plate XII in this report and printed in The Beaver, Outfit 301 (Autumn, 1970) the right edge has been trimmed so that this feature cannot be seen. However, if this feature is in fact a door, then the Coode sketch shows only two front windows to the left of the door, and it does not show the half window of 1860 at all. The present writer is unable to account for these apparent discrepancies between the Coode drawing and the 1860 photographs.

108. Shutter latches and other hardware found during archeological excavations at Fort Vancouver will provide patterns for use in reconstruction. Shutter hardware seemingly identical to that used at Fort Vancouver may be seen on the old Catholic church at St. Paul, Oregon. Information from Mr. Lester Ross.

109. Isaac Cowie, The Company of Adventurers: A Narrative of Seven Years in the Service of the Hudson's Bay Company during 1867-1874 on the Great Buffalo Plains . . . (Toronto, 1913), 211. For Outfit 1838 the Columbia Department requisition called for 3 hundredweight of black paint, 1 of green, 3 of white, 2 of yellow, and 1 of blue. Evidently this was liquid paint, since only 75 gallons of linseed oil were ordered. York Factory Indent Books, 1823-1838 H.B.C.A.B239/n/71, MS, fol. 160.

110. Testimony of L. Brooke, in Br. & Am. Joint Comm., Papers, [VIII], 138.

111. This color is described from the original drawing in the Hudson's Bay Company Archives in London. The drawing has been reproduced in color in The Beaver, Outfit 301 (Autumn, 1970), 52.

112. Maj. W. H. Vinton to Maj. Gen. P. F. Smith Fort Vancouver, October 1, 1849, in Br. & Am. Joint Comm., Papers [IX], 133.

113. For examples of direct statements by eyewitnesses to this effect, see Belcher, Narrative, I, 294; Lowe, Private Journal, MS, entry for June 16, 1843, on p. 1A.

114. Emmons, Journal, MS, entry for July 25, 1841. In a letter of March 19, 1838, Clerk Francis Ermatinger mentioned the completion of the house for "their honors," meaning for the commissioned officers. Ermatinger, Letters, MS, [121].

115. Beaver, Reports Reports and Letters, Letters 120-121. As has been seen, the Rev. Mr. Beaver's remark that interruptions of his sermons by families entering living quarters from the dining room were reduced in the new Big House but still liable to occur, leaves little room for any interpretation but that the quarters in the new building still opened from the mess room.

116. In 1971 archeological excavations revealed an extra footing in the center of the central ten-foot section of the rear wall foundation. The assumption is that this footing supported an upright post which formed one jamb of the rear door. Such undoubtedly was the case, but probably the jamb would have extended down into the sill whether the door was at ground or main floor level. A door at ground level probably would not have been high enough for convenient use in view of the frequent passage by servants between the kitchen and the mess hall. The archeologists found no evidence near the rear door of the foundations of a stairway which would have been required had the entry been at ground level. Also, the Emmons plan does not show the known cellar door in the west wall, leading to the belief that his diagram showed conditions on the main floor.

117. The most positive statement to this effect from an eyewitness at the time seems to be in Dunn, History of The Oregon Territory, 144. Dunn, a postmaster in the Company's service, left the Columbia Department for England about November 1, 1838, so he could have seen the new Big House, but most of his service at the post was prior to the erection of that structure. H.A.B.S., B.239/l/9, MS, 48.

118. For example, see Lowe, Private Journal, MS, 11, 28.

119. Ibid., 72.

120. Thomas Jefferson Farnham, Travels in the Great Western Prairies, the Anahuac and Rocky Mountains, and in the Oregon Territory (Poughkeepsie, N. Y., 1841), 195; Roberts, "The Round Hand of George B. Roberts," in OHQ, LXIII (June-September, 1962), 183.

121. Room Layouts in "Big Houses"at Hudson's Bay Company Posts (typescript, [n.p., n.d.]), 5. The largest room, however, was not always the dining room. There is a great bulk of information available concerning the arrangement of rooms in managers' residences at various Company posts, but the above-cited report, with its appendices, covers the subject so adequately that there is no need to treat the matter further here.

Of particular pertinence, however, is the room arrangement of the Great Hall at Fort William, the North West Company's great depot on Lake Superior. Dr. McLoughlin had served at that post, and undoubtedly it helped to form his notions of what a fur-trading post should be. In the Fort William Great Hall the dining room occupied the central position from front to rear, and it was connected by a passageway to a kitchen at the back. Thompson, Grand Portage National Monument Great Hall, plates 17 and 18. For a description of the Great Hall at Fort William see Gabriel Franchere, Adventurers at Astoria, 1810-1814. translated and edited by Hoyt C. Franchere (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1967), 161-163.

122. Farnham, op. cit., 195.

123. Gray, A History of Oregon, 149, 151.

124. J. A. Hussey, interview with Historian Robert Clark, Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, February 21, 1972. Mr. Clark states, however, that he has not been able to authenticate this rumor or trace it to any reliable source.

125. Gray, A History of Oregon, 148-151; Narcissa Whitman to Samuel Parker, Vancouver, October 25, 1836, in Archer Butler Hulbert and Dorothy Printup Hulbert, eds., Marcus Whitman, Crusader, Part One, 1802 to 1839 (Overland to the Pacific, vol. VI, [Denver,] 1936), 240-242. The pertinent passages in both of these sources concern an extra dining table which Dr. McLoughlin had erected for the female guests. Gray said this table was placed in the office; Mrs. Whitman said it was in the Doctor's sitting room.

126. Margarett Arnett MacLeod, ed., The Letters of Letitia Hargrave (The Publications of the Champlain Society, XXVIII, Toronto, 1947), xlii; Room Layouts in "Big Houses," MS, 5.

127. N. M. W. J. McKenzie, "Forty Years in Service of the Hudson's Bay Company," in The Beaver, vol. I, no. 5 (February, 1921), 15.

128. The Reverend Herbert Beaver early in 1838 reported that a clerk's wife and three children were living in one room, 15 by 30 feet in size, when another clerk, his wife, and five children were quartered with them, making 11 persons in the same room. Beaver, Reports and Letters, 81-82.

129. See examples of manager's residence floor plans in Room Layouts in "Big Houses," MS, 1-5, and appendices.

It is also possible that Douglas, as well as McLoughlin, had a separate office in the Big House. See mention of Douglas's "office" in H. S. Lyman, "Reminiscences of F. X. Matthieu," in OHQ, I (March, 1900), 102. However, Matthieu did not make clear in which building the two offices were located.

130. For an example of such a definite statement see D. Geneva Lent, West of the Mountains: James Sinclair and the Hudson's Bay Company (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1963), 154. No source for this statement is cited.

131. John Dunn, The Oregon Territory, and the British North American Fur Trade. With An Account of the Habits and Customs of the Principal Native Tribes on the Northern Continent, Philadelphia: G. B. Zieber & Co., 1845), 102.

132. Dunn, History of the Oregon Territory, 144.

133. Lowe, Private Journal, MS, 1A.

134. John Minto, "Reminiscences of Experiences on the Oregon Trail in 1844 — II," in OHQ, II (September, 1901), 234-235. For additional evidence on this point, see Hussey, History of Fort Vancouver, 166-167.

135. Although closets as such were not common in early 19th century residences, it is recorded that the manager's house at York Factory in 1840 had "a very large closet" off the dining room. MacLeod, Letters of Letitia Hargrave, 62.

136. Beaver, Reports and Letters, 75-76.

137. Br. and Am. Joint Comm., Papers, [II], 118-119.

138. Testimony of Lloyd Brooke in ibid., [VIII], 128; Farnham, Travels in the Great Western Prairies, 195. By pine Farnham of course meant fir, since no pine trees grew along the lower Columbia River.

139. Gray, A History of Oregon, 150.

140. Br. and Am. Joint Comm., Papers, [II], 33. The use of vertical tongued and grooved boards for finishing the interior walls of Hudson's Bay Company structures was widespread. In such cases one edge of the boards was usually beaded. A splendid example may still be seen at the old warehouse at Fort St. James, B. C.

141. Wilkes in 1841 found that the houses at Fort Vancouver were "unpretending" inside. "They are," he wrote, "simply finished with pine board panels, without any paint." Unfortunately, it is not certain that the Big House fell within the class of buildings he was describing. Wilkes, Narrative, IV, 331.

142. Br. and Am. Joint Comm., Papers, [VIII], 138.

143. J. A. Hussey, interview with J. J. Hoffman and L. Ross, Fort Vancouver NHS, February 23, 1972.

144. Cowie, The Company of Adventurers, 211.

145. In 1834 Dr. William F. Tolmie described the houses at Fort Simpson on the Northwest Coast as "wainscoted within." Dee, The Journal of John Work, 28n. Since the term "wainscoting" generally meant simply wooden lining or panelling, however, it cannot be taken as evidence that the lower portion of the walls received a different treatment from the upper. But in the Big House at Lower Fort Garry, completed in 1832, there were chair rails in the principal rooms. This post and Fort William were considered models to be emulated at other stations in the Indian country. See G. P. de T. Glazebrook, The Hargrave Correspondence, 1821-1843 (The Publications of the Champlain Society, vol. XXIV, Toronto, 1938), 99.

146. MacLeod, The Letters of Letitia Hargrave, 74.

147. Gray, A History of Oregon, 150.

148. Cowie, The Company of Adventurers, 211 (for Fort Qu'Appelle); Leechman, Notes and Comments on Hudson's Bay Company Trading Posts, MS, section on floors, p. [2] (for Fort Kamloops, 1855, 1859).

149. During the 1971 excavations practically no hardware was recovered on the Big House site. The records concerning the artifacts recovered there during earlier excavations are still being studied.

150. See Hussey, A History of Fort Vancouver, 169-170.

151. Emmons, Journal, MS, entry for July 25, 1841 (see plate III); Nellie Bowden Pipes, ed., "Translation of Extract from Exploration of Oregon Territory . . . by Eugene Duflot de Mofras," in OHQ, XXVI (June, 1925), 153; Wilkes, Narrative, IV, 327.

152. M. Vavasour to Col. N. W. Holloway, Fort Vancouver, March 1, 1846, in Papers Relative to the Expedition of Lieutenant Warre and Vavasour to the Oregon Territory, MS, fol. 42d, microfilm in The Public Archives of Canada. It should be noted, however, that an equally qualified witness seven years earlier, in 1839, had said the two large cannons in front of the steps were "long twenty-four pounders ship guns." Belcher, Narrative, I, 294.

153. J. J. Hoffman, Memorandum to Chief, Archeological Investigations, Western Service Center, Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, July 1, 1971, MS.

154. Beaver, Reports and Letters, 36-37.

155. Wilkes, Narrative, IV, 327.

156. J. J. Hoffman, Memorandum to Chief of Archeological Investigations, San Francisco Field Office, Denver Service Center, Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, December 30, 1971, MS, in Denver Service Center files.

157. Lowe, Private Journal, MS, 2A.

158. John S. Zeiber, "Diary of John S. Zeiber, 1851," in Transactions of the . . . Oregon Pioneer Association . . . 1920, 325.

159. William Fraser Tolmie, The Journals of William Fraser Tolmie, Physician and Fur Trader (Vancouver, B. C., 1963), 173, 180.

160. J. McLoughlin to Governor and Committee, Fort Vancouver, November 16, 1836, in H.B.S., IV, 176-176.

161. Henry Martin Robinson, Great Fur Land 96-97, as quoted by Leechman, Notes and Comments Company Trading Posts, MS, section on furniture, (New York, 1879), on Hudson's Bay p. [2].

162. According to the Company's "Standing Rules and Regulations" for 1836, junior clerks and postmasters were allowed a free baggage allowance of 3 pieces (packages weighing 90 to 100 pounds), "first class" clerks were allowed 5 pieces, while "Commissioned Gentlemen" could take 10 pieces. Freight above these allowances had to be paid for. "The Minutes of the Council of the Northern Department of Ruper's Land, 1830 to 1843," in Collections of the State Historical Society of North Dakota, IV (1910-1912), 843-844.

163. Holmes, Journal, MS, II, 306.

164. Farnham, Travels, 195.

165. MacLeod, The Letters of Lotitia Hargrave, 88-89.

166. MacLeod, The Letters of Letitia Hargrave, lvi.

167. Barker, The McLoughlin Empire, 321.

168. For mentions of some of these surviving pieces see Leechman, Notes and Comments on Hudson's Bay Company Trading Posts, MS, section on furniture.

169. Paul Kane, Wanderings of an Artist among the Indians of North America from Canada to Vancouver's Island and Oregon through the Hudson's Bay Company's Territory and Back Again (Toronto, 1925), 262.

170. Teichmann, A Journey to Alaska, 106.

171. MacLeod, Letters of Letitia Hargrave, xlii.

172. MacLeod, Letters of Letitia Hargrave, 89.

173. Roberts, "The Round Hand of George B. Roberts," in OHQ, LXIII (June-September, 1962), 195.

174. During the mid-1840's the Company-owned articles of furniture which might have been in the Big House may have been lumped in with other items in the inventories under the heading "Articles in Use -- Bachelors' Hall & No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5." In 1844 the articles listed in this category were 11 "washhand" basins, 14 beds, 37 chairs, 10 earthenware jugs, 4 wooden sofas, 18 wooden tables, and 7 tablecloths. There was no separate listing for the manager s residence. H.B.C.A. B.223/d/155, MS, p. 156.

It is not clear to which buildings or rooms the words "Bachelors Hall & No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5," refer. If "Bachelors Hall" was intended as the name of a single room (the common sitting room), the numbers 1 to 5 could refer to individual rooms in the Bachelors' Quarters. On the other hand, if "Bachelors Hall" was intended as another name for the entire Bachelors' Quarters, then the numbers could designate separate buildings, though which ones is not clear. On the Emmons plan of 1841 (see plate III), building no. 1 is the Big House, no. 2 is the Big House kitchen, no. 3 is the priests' house, no. 4 is the school or Owyhee church, and no. 5 is the old office. All of these structures seem to have had living quarters in them, but it is not known that Emmons's numbers represented Company usage.

175. Farnham, Travels, 195.

176. Interpretive sign at Lower Fort Garry National Historic Park, Manitoba, Canada, September 20, 1967. The firm, by the way, is still in existence. Patterns for the stoves may still be in the company's files, although it is understood that during modernization of the works in recent years a number of old records were destroyed.

177. For quotations from source materials mentioning Carron stoves at a number of posts, see Leechman, Notes and Comments, MS, section on stoves.

178. Field visit to Champoeg State Park, September 14, 1971.

179. Lowe, Private Journal, MS, 7.

180. Farnham, Travels, 195.

181. Roberts, "The Round Hand of George B. Roberts," in OHQ, LXIII (June-September, 1962), 183.

182. It is known that the carpenter was ordered to make a dining table for McLoughlin's quarters in 1836 upon the arrival of the Whitman party. Gray, A History of Oregon, 151.

183. Perhaps the most convenient source in which to find a statement to this effect is in Barker, The McLoughlin Empire, 321. For a picture of this table see plate LXXI.

184. Barker, The McLoughlin Empire, 321.

185. Robert Michael Ballantyne, Hudson Bay; or, Everyday Life in the Wilds of North America, During Six Years' Residence in the Territories of the Hon. Hudson Bay Company (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1908), 193.

186. Charles Wilkes, "Diary of Wilkes in the Northwest," in Washington Historical Quarterly, XVI (October, 1925), 291.

187. Warre, Travel and Sport, MS, 140-141.

188. Ballantyne, Hudson Bay, 193.

189. John Sebastian Helmcken, A Reminiscence of 1850, typescript, 4, in Provincial Archives of British Columbia.

190. Noted, among other places, in Leechman, Notes and Comments, MS, section on chairs.

191. Barker, The McLoughlin Empire, 321.

192. Leechman, Notes and Comments, MS, section on furniture; Oregonian (Portland), March 14, 20, 1959; Enterprise-Courier (Oregon City, March 19, 20, 1959. The newspaper accounts state that there were already 12 Fort Vancouver chairs at the McLoughlin House when the newly found four were presented, making a total of 16 chairs saved. Dr. Barker's statement noted above presumably is correct. From the information cited by Dr. Leechman, it would appear that Dr. Tolmie acquired the mess hall chairs from both Fort Vancouver and Fort Victoria as well as the dining hall table from the latter!

193. Farnham, Travels, 195.

194. Ballantyne, Hudson Bay, 193.

195. H.B.C.A., B.223/d/155, MS, 153-154.

196. H.B.C.A., B.223/d/160, MS, 144.

197. Farnham, Travels, 195.

198. Roberts, op. cit., 195.

199. Gay, Life and Letters of Mrs. Jason Lee, 152-153.

200. Caywood, Final Report, 51-57.

201. Burt Brown Barker, ed., The Financial Papers of Dr. John McLoughlin . . . ([Portland, Oregon]: Oregon Historical Society, 1959), 19-20.

202. Burt Brown Barker, The McLoughlin Empire and Its Rulers, Doctor John McLoughlin, Doctor David McLoughlin, Marie Louise (Sister St. Henry) . . . (Glendale, California: The Arthur H. Clark Company, 1959), 320.

203. Barker, The McLoughlin Empire, 320.

204. Barker, The McLoughlin Empire, 320-321. Dr. Barker, upon what authority he did not state, described the candelabra as being "approximately twenty-four inches high." Ibid., 321.

205. Ballantyne, Hudson Bay, 193.

206. Ibid.

207. Thompson, Grand Portage National Monument, Great Hall, 84-88.

208. Ibid., 97.

209. Barker, The McLoughlin Empire, 321.

210. Ballantyne, Hudson Bay, 193.

211. Roberts, "The Round Hand of George B. Roberts," in OHQ, LXIII (June-September, 1962), 199-200; H.B.C.A., B.223/d/155, MS, 154.

212. H.B.C.A., B.223/d/155, MS, 153.

213. For the use of an argand lamp in the winter mess hall at York Factory in 1843, see Ballantyne, Hudson Bay, 193.

214. Alice Greve, "Dr. McLoughlin's House," in The Beaver, Outfit 272 (September, 1941), 34.

215. Drury, First White Women, I, 111.

216. Barker, The McLoughlin Empire, 317.

217. Barker, The McLoughlin Empire, 315-316. The medal is also at the McLoughlin House.

218. Greve, "Dr. McLoughlin's House," in The Beaver, Outfit 272 (September, 1941), 33.

219. Tolmie, The Journals, 173.

220. See Ibid., 333 and passim, for the titles of books read by a cultured man of the time and place. Some of Dr. Tolmie's medical books are now at McLoughlin House.

221. Drury, First White Women, I, 101; Gray, A History of Oregon, 151.

222. H.B.C.A., B.223/d/155, MS, 165.

223. Drury, First White Women, I, 94.

224. H.B.C.A., B.223/d/155, MS, 97. This particular inventory is for 1844.

225. Gray, A History of Oregon, 151.

226. Gay, Life and Letters of Mrs. Jason Lee, 152-153. It is possible, of course, that this long table was not in the Big House at all but in another structure used for the accommodation of the missionaries.

227. Greve, "Dr. McLoughlin's House," in The Beaver, Outfit 272 (September, 1941), 34. A picture labeled "Dr. John McLoughlin's safe and strong box" is to be found on the first page of a pamphlet entitled Souvenir Book, Historical Story of the Hudson's Bay Company and Old Fort Vancouver [Vancouver, Washington, 1925]; a copy is in the Provincial Archives of British Columbia.

228. Greve, op. cit., 34. A couch is said to have belonged to Dr. McLoughlin, but it is not definitely linked to Fort Vancouver in this source.

229. MacLeod, Letters of Letitia Hargrave, xlii.

230. In 1841, for example, Wilkes found a print depicting the capture of the Guerriere by the Constitution in the bedroom of a rough cabin at Champoeg belonging to William Johnson, a British subject. Wilkes, Narrative, IV, 347.

231. Transactions of the . . . Oregon Pioneer Association for 1891, 150.

232. For information on the history of the Catholic ladder, see Drury, First White Women, I, 218-225; and Notices & Voyages, 44-45, 230. Opposite p. 44 in the latter work is a reproduction of an original Catholic ladder, painted on cloth, which is now in the Bancroft Library, University of California. Other original copies are in the Oregon Historical Society, the Yale University Library, and the Henry E. Huntington Library and Art Gallery. The Huntington copy was made by Father Blanchet in 1841-1843 and is drawn on paper pasted on cloth. The Washington State Historical Society and Fort Columbia State Park, Washington, have reproductions of interesting Catholic ladders.

233. H.B.C.A., B.223/d/155, MS, 101.

234. Lowe, Private Journal, MS, 11.

235. Drury, First White Women, I, 102-103.

236. Farrar, "The Nisqually Journal," in Washington Historical Quarterly, X (July, 1919), 216.

237. Greve, "Dr. McLoughlin's House," in The Beaver, Outfit 272 (September, 1941), 34.

238. H.B.C.A., B.223/d/155, MS, 93.

239. J. A. Hussey, interview with Dr. Douglas Leechman, Victoria, B. C., October 5, 1967.

240. Farrar, "The Nisqually Journal, in Washington Historical Quarterly, X (July, 1919), 218.

241. Angus McDonald, "Angus McDonald: A few Items of the West," in Washington Historical Quarterly, VIII (July, 1917), 225.

242. The Indian and half-breed wives of Company employees at Fort Vancouver, though they dressed in European style, almost universally wore deerskin leggings for riding.

243. For an example of such statements see Notices & Voyages of the Famed Quebec Mission to the Pacific Northwest, Being the Correspondence, Notices, etc. of Fathers Blanchet and Demers, Together with Those of Fathers Bolduc and Langlois . . . 1838 to 1847, translated by Carl Landerholm (Portland, Oregon, 1956), 146. It must be noted, however, that the Fort Vancouver Depot inventory for 1844 listed "4 spinning Wheels Complete." These may have been ordered for sale to the European wives of employees and to the families of American settlers. H.B.C.A., B.223/d/155, MS, 119.

244. Clifford Merrill Drury, ed., First White Women over the Rockies: Diaries, Letters, and Biographical Sketches of the Six Women of the Oregon Mission Who Made the Overland Journey in 1836 and 1838 (3 vols., Glendale, California, 1963-1966), I, 102-103.

245. Roberts, "The Round Hand of George B. Roberts," in OHQ, LXIII (June-September, 1962), 192.