Fort Vancouver Historic Structures Report

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.