the ruins are those of the fort, but we should not forget the fact that the site has much altered in the course of two hundred and thirty years, and that building, if such it was, may once have been beyond the reach of the tide. We must also recollect that the Dutch were a people of fixed notions, with little disposition to change, and accuscustomed to build very near the water.

* Since the above was written, through the kindness of Dr. I. S. Mulford, we visited the spot in question, where we were met by Mr. William Hugg, Mr. Joshua Browning and Mr. John Redfield. Mr. Hugg stated that at or near the place we designated (the tide being too high, the logs could not be seen,) were the remains of what he supposed to be an old wharf, and they were also known as such, although he had never heard they had been used as a wharf. At first he indicated a spot nearer the present building, at the point where was once an old staging, and have long been facilities for landing. The distance, however, between the points is very small. He further stated he was sixty-eight years of age, and recollected as far back as 1798. His impression was, the structure was square, not angular as is the case with the remains, and was filled with stones; did not know nor had he ever heard that there had been a wall within it, an inner tier of logs-a store house attached a flood gate at or near, or a road leading to the spot. He remarked that within his memory the water had encroached some twenty or thirty feet, and that the remains could be rowed around in a boat. As it would be just possible to do this now, the discrepancy cannot be reconciled, except upon the supposition that the logs to which Mr. Hugg refers were much farther in the creek.

Mr. Browning, the owner of the premises, said he recollected the spot since 1810, that his father, who died in 1825, purchased the propnrty in 1805, and had never mentioned the existence of any wharf, store house, or flood gate at, or road leading to the spot, and that his attention had been called to the remains in question, by Mr. Redfield, who had discovered them. Mr. Redfield expressed himself convinced they were those of Fort Nassau. That he had lived all his life in the neighborhood, and had never heard of a wharf, store house, or flood gate at the spot, and that there was an ancient flood gate further up the creek.

Mr. James Leman, whom the writer has seen since, stated he was eighty-two years old, commenced to sail out the creek in 1789, and has long been familiar with it. He positively indicates the site of the logs as the position of a flood gate, which had its corresponding support on the sand point on the opposite side of Little Timber creek. He said that the "sand point" was covered with trees, and that a house was built upon it close to the flood gate; that the object of the gate was, in connection with a stone wall, which ran towards the "burnt cabin," to enclose a portion of the sand point as a meadow. At the time referred to, the gates were in good order, and that he had often laid with his vessel within them. He thought the frame work of the logs was square, did not recollect a wall within it, nor a wharf or store house near it, or any where in the vicinity.

Mr. Leman is not sustained as to a flood gate, which is said to have been further up the creek, nor is it possible to reconcile his statement with Mr. Hugg's for a flood gate in good repair, with a house attached, could hardly have so far perished in six years as to leave but a few logs. Such has been the difficulty of ascertaining the truth of facts of comparatively recent existence. It may be mentioned that the title papers of the property afford no evidence of a wharf, store house, flood gate, or road; nor do the surveys or records at Trenton or Burlington, nor those of the Court at Woodbury. It appears by the latter, that a ferry at a very early day was established between Gloucester and Wiccaco. Frequent reference is also made to the ferry at the mouth of Timber creek, but this we are informed by Judge Fisher of Woodbury, was applied to designate the ferry across the creek on the road from Salem to Gloucester, before the erection of a bridge, in contradistinction to a ferry higher up the creek, to Philadelphia or elsewhere. In Scull and Heap's map of 1750, of Philadelphia and environs, which somewhat minutely designates buildings in New Jersey, one is marked on the site of the present structure, on the point of land between the two creeks, and which is the second or third house at different times built on or near the spot, but no other building is noted in the immediate vicinity.

A remarkable instance of this, and one bearing upon our inquiry, is that in 1633, ten years after the erection of Nassau, they built "upon a flat" on the Connecticut river, called by them "Versche," or "Fresh" river, and at the site of the present city of Hartford, near the mouth of Hartford Little river, the trading house or Fort "Van Goede Hoop," or "Huys de Hoop," the fort of "Good Hope," or "House of Hope," which they protected by two cannon.* Fort Nassau, the first Dutch fort built upon the North river was on account of its position swept away in 1617 by a flood.f

Such are all the facts that we have been able to collect as to the history and position of Nassau. And it should not be matter of surprise that we have been unable to ascertain precisely where it was, but rather that we have been enabled to approach the truth. It is not unlikely, that in the obscure recess of some European library, or among the dusty archives of some State paper office, there reposes all the information the curious would seek. The papers procured in Holland by Mr. Brodhead, and which are now in the course of publication through the enlightened liberality of the State of New York, may develop something, but if they do not, the spirit of research will ever lament the loss of what it seeks in those masses of manuscript which that gentleman so properly deplores, but which he arrived too late to rescue.

NOTE. Since this sketch was written we have met Mrs. Tamer Cook, aged 87, who in 1803 resided on the Delaware shore, at the mouth of Big Timber Creek. She says she has heard the Fort was on the south side of Big Timber Creek, (in this respect confirming the map,) and that the remains are still to be seen in a bank of earth, of horse-shoe form, which have been pointed out as those of Fort Nassau. And further, that a number of Indian relics, and Dutch brick with letters upon them, were found at different times on the spot. That an Indian battle took place there, and that she has seen remains dug up in the vicinity. On one occasion they were discovered in a sitting posture; and on another with the head downwards, and resting upon a stone jar, handsomely sculptured with a bead in the edge. In the latter case the skeleton was discovered under a swing near her house, the bones becoming exposed by the wearing away of the soil. The tradition she had from a Mr. Cattel, who lived in the neighborhood, and died a great age. Some twenty-five years ago, I learn, some gentlemen visited the place and pronounced it to be the site of the Fort, but whether from representations made to them at the time by the neighbors, or from exploration, or mere conjecture, cannot be ascertained. It is possible their expression of opinion may have been the only reason for supposing it to have been the location of the Fort, and have given rise to subsequent reports. This will need investigation. The elevation is immediately in the edge of the fast land, and on the margin of what is now meadow, but which was once overflowed, and is about 150 yards from the Delaware, and about 400 from Big Timber Creek.

The spot commands the river, and may have been accessible to vessels. The word "redoubt," used to describe the Fort, may have more significance than we at first supposed. If applicable at all to the remains discovered at the junction of the creek, it is certainly much more correctly so to those to which we now refer. The spot deserves and we hope will receive a thorough examination.

!