s^. .. CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHIVI/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical iVIicroreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibiiographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. D D D D D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagde Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur6e et/ou pellicul6e I I Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes g6ographiques en couleur Coloured init (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustraticns/ D Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Reli6 avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re liure serrde peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intdrieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, iorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 filmdes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppi^mentaires: T t L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les ddtaiis de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui ^Buvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la methods normale de filmage sont indiqu4s ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ D Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommag^es Pages restored and/oi Pages restaurdes et/ou pellicul6es Pages discoloured, stained or foxet Pages d6color6es, tachet6es ou piqudes Pages detached/ Pages ddtachdes Showthrough; Transparence Quality of prir Quality in6gale de I'irripression Includes supplementary materia Comprend du materiel suppidmentaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible I I Pages damaged/ I I Pages restored and/or laminated/ [771 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ I I Pages detached/ rri Showthrough/ I I Quality of print varies/ I I Includes supplementary material/ I I Only edition available/ T P o fl b tl si o fi si o T si Tl w t^ dl ei bi ri( re m Pages wholly or partially obscured by errtitta slips, tissues, etc., have been refiimed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6ti) film6es A nouveau de fafon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmS au taux de reduction indiqud ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X y 12X 16X 20X 26X 30X 24X 28X 3 32X t tails I du odifier une mage The copy filmed here hat been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Library of the Public Archives of Canada The Images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in Iceeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the bacic cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol -^ (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. IVIaps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: L'exemplaire film* fut reproduit grAce A la gAnArositA de: 1^ bibliothAque des Archives publiques du Canada Las images suivantes ont M reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettet* de Vexemplaire film«, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimte sont filmte en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la derniire page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration. soit par le second plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmAs en commenpant par la premlAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernlAre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaftra sur la derniAre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole — ► slgnifie "A SUIVRE ", le symbole y signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc.. peuvent Atre filmte d dos taux de reduction diff6rents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dire reproduit en un seul ciichA, 11 est filmA A partir de Tangle supArieur gauche, de gauche A droite. et de haut en bait, en prenant le nombre d'images nAcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent in mAthode. irrbta to pelure. n A n 32X 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 prv-^Br^* 7"^frr' RE M A R K S O N T H E French Memorials CONCERNING THE LIMITS of^CADIA; I^rinted at the Royal Printing-houfe at Paris, and diftributed by the French Minifters at all the Foreign Courts of Europe, WITH TWO MAPS, Exhibititig the Limits: Otkt according to the Syftem of the French ^ as infortcil in the faid Memorials J The Other conformable to the Etiglijh Rights, as fup- ported by the Authority of Treaties, continual Grants of the French Kings, and exprefs PaiTagcs of the beft Frtnch Authors. To which is added, An Answer to the Summary Discussion, &c* ' L N D O If: Printed for T. Jefferys, at the Corner of St, Mar' tirCs-Laney in the Strand. MOCCLVI, ^Price 2s. fid.] ♦■-. t / r-- t ■. \ «. « >■'■' .-f. 1 .,\» >'\* ^ ■ ■-(*«*■ -«"• y . ■* ^ ,r. • *^***« "th^Lr- *_j- 1* rr 9ifpift4fgf» ^M" ^-• lexander 1621, and divided by him into rwo provinces, Alexandria and Cakdonia, ^1 tQ the call pf this Ijne ;:%";''** * * " f^^ c aicte dune TAl AKTIE I>E ^ g NTRIONAX.E^\ Echelle . \.^ Pour (ervir a 1 Tntellegeiice duMemoire ^1, W (iiv h?8 pretentions desAn^ois auihjet \'l / 30 4^7 Y de8JiiTnitt\s rt regleraveclaFrancedans jj ^Mfi cetteRartiedu. Monde. MJI^ llentale de 1' Obfervatoite de Pai is . ^^5\iK^,,__^j<-^^«|||t;S^,jt^.^^ Midi XJ.H^/Tt'ryiAieu^it —Jcnditu, i ■i,.. 4,'^ « »^..V.J.H..- • Explanation for the FR ENCH Map, LIMITS propofed by Engl'tjh comm^f- faries, the 2 ill of September^ ^750r and nth of January^ ^75^- exckifive of Cape-Breton ; with Ihort (trokes -r Limits of Acedia^ and its Banks, by the treaty of Utrecht j marked thud*^ Omq I iiiiiniiiiiiiiuuiiiiiiiiiu a^ .-.;■: :', S c ale. • ACarine Leaques %o to ttHe^ret. 5 io %o J^ 447 I , uilliiiijiliiiiKiiiiiiiiiiit; ritud« ■I iiliiliiililiiiiiiiilmiiHm»- iiiiHiiiHiiiimiiinmmii: T if I ,r ' '^'.^ » t,. ^' . - t' ^ r \ » 4 ,-. i •>- ,> ,+V, ',<',, 4. ■■-r- > ^', ^m& ; M - '^ • - ^i'.i|^'| ! I if (."?5.':<»«' ■•;• >-.4^ 4* "vJV ■* ^ i. A ^'f>> ' ■ i I ' ] REMARKS ,:-j:'r:i/^.;v :rT., O N T H E 'i ^-'3" ' ' French Me MokrALs COMCERNINO /*!.' The Limits of Acadia. TH E political fyftems by which king- doms and ftates may be, and, in reality, are governed, are of two oppofite kinds $ the firft confifls of maxims founded on the ftri<5teft rules of honefly, juftice, equity, inte- grity, benevolence, and humanity -, in Ihorr, conformable to the invariable laws of reufon and nature, jii^i.ut* v^ -, i •; v-.^; : The other derives its principles from the fburccs of fraud, deceit, double-dealing, arti- fice, finefle, chicanery, diflmulation, partiality, bpprelfion, perfidy, force and tyranny. ;».. ■ 1 need not here afk which of thefe two fortS of politics is moft elegible, or conducive to the happincfs of a nation : that is obvious to every good and difcerning man at nift fight; and our Englijh proverb has well determined, that honefly is the heft policy. This is the lenti- ment of the Briiijh nation in general ; and 'tis '^ - B hoped [ 2 J hoped their governors will always conform themfelves to that no lefs divine than falutary Rule. Other nations, or rather the minifters bf other nations, have made choice of the op- pofite fyftem, for regulating their conduft : not that they think it bed of the two, but be- caufe it better fuits with the corrupt principles, and rapacious views, of themfelves or their fo- vereign, whofe flaves they are, and whofe tools in iniquity they fubmit to be. 'Tis true, there are in the world many arbi- tr?.ry or defpotic governments, whofe fyftem of politics is ftridlly juft, and wholly conducive to the public good. On the contrary, there pofl'ibly may be free ftates wherein the faife fyftem prevails ; becaufe the minifters are be-\ come too powerful, and confequently corrupt. But whenever this happens to be the cafe, li- berty in fuch a country, is properly no more than a bare name, and ftrength on the decay : for free ftates can neither fubfift themfelves, nor fup- port their freedom againft powerful neighbours^ but by ftridtly adhering to upright meafures. j, ' Upright politics, fuch as I have defined them, are the bafis of their happy conflitution ; and how can the fuperftrufture fubfift, if the foun- dation be either lapped or taken away ? They muft not do wrong, any more than fuffer wrong? They muft no more dare to make flaves of others, then they would defire to be made flaves themfelves. The rules of upright politics muft: be all uerfeifl:, without exception. One falfe or uiijuft principle, would contaminate the whole^ an(] prove a cancer, which, by- degrees, would in fed, and at length eat up all the reft. Among ^ f 3 ] • Among the governments which have adopted falfe poHtics, as beft to proceed on, that ol tlie French has made itfelf moft remarkable on this fide of the globe. Their minifters began to build on this bad foundation, in the reign of Louis XI. and they who fucceedcd endeavoured to improve their plan, which Richlieu brought to perfeftion, by firft turning thofe politics a- gainft his own nation, and tricking them out of their liberty. •- pi'i i •.'.:■ m- tt .-. , '? ' Ever fince then there is fcarce a treaty or nego- tiation, which the French have had with foreign- ers, wherein their minifters have not made ufe of the rules of their fyftcm to over- reach and gain advantages. Neither is there any nation on whom they have pra^lifed their art, called finelTe, more than on the EngUJh \ nor with whom their endeavours have fucceeded better. Whether it was owing to excefs of honefty, which fufpeds no deceit ; or to ignoraiice, which is eafily impofed on ; or laftly, to infin* cerity, againft which there is no guard, for a long feries of years our minifters were duped, and the nation defrauded by the French, more or lefs, in all their treaties and negotiations. In effefi:, we had been cozen'd by them fo often, withovit taking warning ; and futiered fo many impofitions without refenting, or even feeming to be fenfible of, them \ that they were encouraged at laft: to attempt the moft daring infult on us, that can well be imagined : namely, to leize near three parts in four of a large province, to wit. Nova Scotia ; under pre- 'tence that they had ceded only a little part of *- t.^ B 2 it, li n ^! ' [ 4 ] it, altho' they had by a folemn treaty, in the inoft exprefs terms, given up the whole j and it was to jullity this extraordinary proceeding, that the Memorials which we are about to ani- madvert on, were written. But before we en- ter upoii this tafli, it will be proper to give an account of the work in quedion. ^ .: :■; ,• • \ The Memorials concerning the limits of Acadia^ mentioned in the title of this tra^t, ar^ printed in two voli.m.es, quarto. The firll con- tains (I.) the Memorial of the Enghjh Com- milTaries, William Shirley^ and William Alildmayy Efquires, delivered to thofe of the French King, September iiy iyS^'> rf"iating to the Limits of Nova Scotia^ or Acadia^ and the demands of Great -Britain thereto under the treaty of Utrecht: which takes up five pages, ,,. ;,_. ..,, ^. , , (2.) Two Memorials fent to the Englijh Com- mifl'aries by thofe of the French King, MeiTieurs La GaliJJbniere, and Silhouette. I'he firft of the fam.e date with the Englijhy is an anfwer of two pages, importing; thai by the treaty oi'lltrecht^ the King cedes to Great-Britain, all Acadia, ac- cording to its ancient Limits^ and alfo Poft- Royal or Annapolis. In the fecond, bearing date the 1 6th of November 1750, and confifting of eight lines ; the French CommifTaries, in anfwer to thofe of the Englijhy who deftred that they would explain themfelves more precifeiy, with refpetl to the ancient Limits of Acadia , declare: that the ancient Acadia begins at the extremity of French Bay^ from [^either] Qape St. Mary, or Cape Fourchu i that it extends along the coafi$^ and ends at Cap9 Canfc^u. ■m^^^y"^^---.^\^^u • ^iSHvitp.^,;,! . •' a (30 A [ 5 ] (3-) A Memorial of the £w^///^ Commifliirles, as deJivcred to thofe oi France^ January 11,17/51, containing an anfwcr to the French Memorials: where *n they endeavour, from reafon and au» thorities, to fupport their own fyftem, and re> fute that of the French : efcorted with obferva- tions of the French CommifTarics, by way of notes. Takes up 66 pages. .; , (4.) Memorial of the French CommifTaries^ 05lober 4, 1751, in anfwer to thofe of the Englijh^ delivered on Septmber 21, 1750, and January 11, 1751, containing 181 pagcs^ in all 256. ■;wJ -f v^- 7; "5^uVi^^-; • The fecond volume contains the vouchers and authorities produced on both fides, con- cerning the Limits of Acadia-, confifling of three parts, (i.) Treaties and other public ads, to page 185. ' ♦^^'^ '■^'*' - ' ^ (2.) Authentic pieces produced by the Englijh Commiflaries, in fupport of their Memorial of January 11, 1751 : pages 224, to p. 409. (3.) Authentic pieces produced by the French Commiflaries, in fupport of what they advance in their Memorials of September 2 1 , and No-^ "J ember 16^ lyso-, and 0<^**ii^^iiti^ .4\"v... Vi^iA^vVi ^^kMJ- 11. On 2 * I am of opinion, that on due examination, they will be found to be much more precife and exa^. t It does not appear to have been the defign of Denyt more than Champlain y to determine the Limits oi the coun- b-ies which he defcribes : And, if it had, that defcrip. ^iooj according to Ciar/evoixt (Hid. Nouv. France, vol. i. page having which, ^m and take to akening ig it in rom the of the 3 of the the paf- IS of the :hcm in liberty, itlemen, accom- by way I, take?t plain. •nor of thofe of I defign, le limits I. One they wilt of Deityt the coun- t defcrii>« ice, vol. i. page [ 9 ] II. One or two pafTages of this author arc not fufHcicnt *, on which to ground a jull opi- nion concerning the true denomination of the countries in queition : to determine this it is neceffary to collcdl, compare and explain them one by another-, after which, it will rcidcntly appear^ that the name of Acadia fuits only with the fouib-eaji part of the Pmnjida ■\, ' • ^» ' page 113. and 410. edit. 410 1744) relates to the divlAon of the country or coaAs fouth of St. La-zvrence river, among three or four governors ; whence it was nectfl'ary that the provinces ihouTd have different names, one of which retained that of Jcadia. The CommifTaries take no notice of this divifion, which explains the cafe. Befides, this divifion ( made apparently by the governors themfclves ) did not take place, till after (perhaps fevcral years after) Cha>fi- plain wrote : confequtntly, cannot be oppofed to what this author may fay concerning the bounds of Acadia in hu own time. See the Cotiilud of the French, tvith regard /i Nova Scotia ; where this matter is amply difcufled. * A fingle paflagc of this author was fufficicnt for the purpofe, had they produced it ; nor would it be ncceiTary to collefl any others to explain it : for it explains itlclf. t Whether the name of Acadia fuits only ivith the fottth- eaji part of the Peninfula, or not, according to the pafiages which the Commiflkries have Colleded, is of no fignilicun- cy ; fince the contrary would have e'Vtdently appeared^ had they produced thofe which really are to the purp >fe. Be that as it will, Henry IV. thought Acadia much larger : in his CommiHiOn to de Monti in 1603, he makes him his l.ieu' tenant General in the Countries, Territories, conjls and cm- fines of La,C!id\z^ from the 40 to the 46 degrn of latitude. And a little before he declares, that he had been of a long time informed of the fituation and condition cf the Countries and Ter* ritcries o^Cadia. — Acadia, therefore, at that time, included • at leaft all the main land, a« well as Peninfula, and coall of Etechemins, witrh the lands to the fouth df the 46 parallel ; which entering the 'Continent at the bdttom of Bay feNe^ pafles through the country, and cuts the river of St. Lau- rence, to the north of Montreal. I fay, at leaft fo much, for it is not faid that Acadia end^ at, or is bounded by, the 46ih parallel. C Illllj 1 t ll'l [ to 1 III. In the rnfl chapter of the fccond book of his voyages, (parti, p. 49.) he undertakes to defcribf all the remarkable things along the coafl of Acadia from La Uevc, This defcrip- tion docs not extend beyond the bay of St, Almy *, which is near the entrance of the I'rcnch Bny\', and 'n this point the SietirC^^wi- filain agrees with the Sieur Denys, who places the entrance of Acadia at the end of the Frcfjcb IV. He, in like manner, makes the entrance of the great bay of St. Laurence to commence at the pailage, which is between Cape-Canfeau^ and the Ifie of Cape- Briton. *' There is, fays h?, (p. 96.) a great Bay, which pafils be- tween the Ifle of Cape Briton-^ and the main land, and runs into the Bay of St, Laurence^ through which one fails to Gafpe.^* It is ob- fervable, that the coall which is oppofite to the IJle-RoyaU or Cape- Briton^ is not called Acadia by him, but fimply.the Main-land ||. .,.. ^ V. He feems, on the contrary, to diftinguifh thefe Countries one from the other. In fpeak- • The chapter ends there; but the defcripti'>n o^ Acai,a mull be continued, at leaft, through the fecond chapter, round French Bay, (or that of Fundy) to St. Croh: river, whicli, p. 48. Charnplain places in Acadia \ as he does elfe- where the Cupe of two Bays, and Bay of Mines. Set* herc- afcT, p. 14. nrte *. > t Called by the EngUJhy Bay of Fundy or Argal. X That is quite ftrain'd : he only fays, p. 56. that'Isffj- JJlc makes a paflage from the French Bay^ to the Land of Acadia. Champlain (ays, it makes a paflage (from the foutii) into that Bay, as quoted by the Commiflaries lov/er down. j'; II Is it not eafy to fee that Main-land is here put with great propricry, in contradiftindlion to IJJand, which goes juft before ? This pafTage alfo proves, that the Great Bay to the fouth of Canjeau or Canfo-Gut^ is no part of St. Lau* rcHLC Gulph, as the French pretend it is, :.:■'.; ■^ - .t;i;. ing I i book krtakes )ng the le(crip- of .SV. of the r Cham- i places French ntrance nmcncc lanfeaUy is, fays Tls be- ic main aurencecu herc- Land of le foutii) down, >uc with ich goes o-eat Bay St. Lau^ ing [ " ] ing of two fliips which accompanied him thitl.t' in 1604, with the SIclt dc A'loHts : it i' faiJ (p. 43.) '* 1 hat being arrived at Cah'fedu,,on:: ** ot them fliaped its courfe towards t\\v iHa'id ** of Cape- Britons and the other fail'd more *' at large towards the coalls ot Acadia *." , VI. In the fecond chapter of the fecoiid book he defcribes tiie I''rencb-Ba)\ on which occalion he reports, (p. 52.) ** That he went to an ** Ifland call'd Long-IJland^ which makes a ** pa/fage to go into the Crcat Ircnch Bay^ fo ** named by the Sicur de Monls.'" ,. . ^ . ' VII. Thus from the firll voyaojc of the Sicur de Monts \\i 1604, and very beginning of tlie firft: cftablifliments of the I'rencb in North- America j this part of New France had its pro- per denomination, which was that of French- Bay f , and not Acadia : a province which does not • Nothing like this is faid, as may appear trom the Words of Champlain. — Ejlans a Dieppe, on b'cmivirque : uu V^iflhau va a 'laiioujjdc ; Lcdit du Pont, avec lu Coinniifrion dudit Sieur de Monts a Canjiau, & Je long dc la Coftc vers rifle du Cap-Breton, voir ceux qui contrcviendnMeiit aiix defences de 8a Majclk'. Lc Sicur de Monts prend la route plus a val vers Ics colics de i Acadl". Which woid^ plainly declare, that departing from Diepic, not Cnnfeau, one iliip ihaped its courle (or TadouJ/ac ; the fecond, for Caf:Jl.:u, and the co.ill of drpe Bnton ; and the third, more at lar^je for the coafts ot Acadia. So that the Coinmillarics have ihangeiy mifreprefcntcd the matter, in making; Cl'awpudn fay, that the three Ihips arrived at Cat/feati, and then de- parted for their refpedivc dellinations. I'heir view was to have it thou^rhl, that in de Ah/it's tinrj the coalls 'c?f jicadia lay all (o the weil iif Canfeau, and did not extend rtorthward, and along the gulph of St. Laurenec: although lower down we (hall find that was the cafe, fvom Cham' , plain himfclf, who accompany'd de MoJits. t From the very pah'age they quote, (as well as from many others) the contrary appears. By French Bay, Chu.T.- * C 2 - piidn w ll 1 :1 ^- ,1 [ .2 ] not commence, as hath been Ihewn, till you come to the end * of the faid Bay. : ^* cV^ «> i '^' VIII. In efFeft, the firft chapter of Cham- plain's fecond book, (part i. p. 49.) which pro- fe.iTeth to defcribe .7/ the remarkable things along the coajls of Acadia ; fays not one word either of Port-Royal or of the French-Bay : And the iecond chapter of the fame book, ( page 54. ) which undertakes to defcribe Port-Royal and the French- Bay y does not once mention the name of Acadia ^ or any thing relating thereto i*; which is the more remarkable, as Champlain declares in the fame chapter, that he gave the name to Port-RoyaL , ,t IX. It appears from fe- eral places of his voyages, (p. 209, and 267.) that the name, pe- fla'in means the arm of the fea, which only was fo called hy de Monts ; and not the coaft, or any part of the land. The fame palpable violence they put on the words of Lefcarbot ; and to give a colour to this, introduce their quotations from Denys, in whofe time, about the year 1654, that name was firft Impofed (if at all) on the Continenty (on the occafion mentioned in a fubfequent note,) before thofe from the other two authors, as if they followed him ; although hr wrote 40 or 50 years later than either of them. . ■ * This part is called the end of the Bay, with no more propriety ( for 'tis indeed the beginning or entrance of it ) than the Bay itfelf is called a Province. t What then ? Nor does he in the feventh chapter, where he defcribes the coall from La Hen the reto fi mplain VQ the 1 .- ' ^ f.' of his le, pe- called land, fords of :e their ir 1654, '.ovlinenty before d him ; ither of more e of it J r, wnere : men- it be- e he fo : things fmce, in the either efedive culiaf I i [ 13 1 ciiliar to the coafl, which extends from Acadia to the Almoujhiquoisy ( at prefent call'd New- England) is that of the coaft of the Etechemins, or country of Noiembegiia. X. It cannot be faid that thefe denomina- tions, and that of Acadia, are one and the fame thing. On the contrary, it appears, that Cham* plain confiders them as dilFerent countries. Thefe are, fays he, (p. 93.) all the coafts which we difcovercd, as well of Acadia, as of the Ete* chemins and Almoufliiquois *. XI. He fpeaks in another place (p. 296.) of the coafts of New France j where are, fays he, Acadia, Etechemins, Almoufliiquois, and the great river St. Laurence f ? Aflttl l^ . r v-^>'-<' * According to this account, (i.) there was no country then known by the name of French Buy. [z,] All the coalh difcovercd and defcribed from La Heve round Cape-Sable to Port'Rcyali and from thence round the French- Bay to the Etechemns coafl, belonged to Acadia : And, according to Champlain, (page 60.) the river Faffamaq^uadl^ feems to be the eaftern boundary of thofe Indiar.s. If it be faid that Denys extends the country of the Ete- chemins to Bt. John's river; 'tis anfwcrcd, (i.) that he de- clares, (p. 2.) that^e defcribcs the coaft from Ventagoet to t^hat river by report only ; and page 3 1 . that the Etecbemin coaft ends five leagues well of iV. Croix river. {2.) That, in cafe it did extend to St. JohnSy it will follow, that part of the coaft of the Etechemins, was the fame with, or belonged to, Acadia f fince Champlain (p. 4S..) places St. Croix river in A'odm. Iff on the other hand, it be faid again, that the coafl from Cape Canfeau to Cape Gajpe^ was not in Acadia, becaufe not included in the defcription, to which the paffage iti queftion refers j 'tis anfwered, that does not fol- low : fince then, for the fame reafon, the coaft from La Heve to Canfeau, would not belong to Acadia, although al- lowed by the French Commiffaries to belong to it. This Ihews that the paiTage in queltion is placed inadvertently at the end of the feventh chapter, ir.!lead of jthe eighth. t If it appears from this pafla^;!?, that Acadia was a di- ftindl country from that of tlii; Euujtmtm. Scq. ' ' w k»~S iJ- ■: Jt,/ lope tney will I I I it i: ii [ H ] XII. In his treatife of navigation (p. 96. ) at the end of his voyages, he fays, that if one has a mind to go to the coaft of Acadia^ Souriquois, Etechemins^ and Almonjhiquois^ he Ihould make Cape-Breton *. XIII. In a word, through all the work of Cbamplahty where thefe different countries are mentioned ; that of the Etechemins is not lefs different from Acadia^ than that of Almoujhiquois or New-England f. _r.j, .. . .-.;..,,../. J - ■ XIV. We think we ought not to omit fome paffages in the Sieur Champlain^ which ftill more evince the difference which he makes between the fituation oi' Port-Royal and that of Z^ Heve. XV. The Sieur de Poitrincourt, to whom the Sieur de Monts had given up Port-Royal^ at his will allow, it as plainly appears, that the coaft or country of Acaditty extended from the river 5/. Laurence to that of tht Etechemins i fince Champ'ain (as obferved in the pre- ceding note) n^akes the coaft of Acadia begin where that of the Etechemins ends. * In the table for fupplying names, omitted in his map, (p. 4.) immediately preceding that treatife on navigation, jfie r;»akes a particular divifion for the coaft of Acadia, un. der this title, Returning to the Gulphof9ii. Laurence andCoajl 0/* Acadia : He does not fay the Coaji of the Gulph of St. Laurence, which ftiews that the coaft of Acadia was the fame with that coaft ; as if he had faid, Returning to the CoaJi of Acadia, in the Gulph o/St. Laurence. He begins with the river Ga/pey, and pafHng round the Peninfula of Acadia to Long-JJlandy enters the Bay Fran^oife, which he likewife takes in, { for he mentions the Cape of tiuo Bays and Port of Mines) and ends with the river of the Etechemins : which ihews he included that river as well as the river Gafpey, within the bounds of Acadia. ^^ ^^'^•' '' t This is allowed, fuppofmg the river of the Etechemins to have been the eaftern limits of thofe Indians ; otherwife not, for the reafon given in a preceding note. departure 3. gC. ) ofte has riquois, make ork of ies are lot lefs Jhiquois ' .1 it fome 11 more letween Heve, om the , at his country » th*t of the pre- lere that his map, I'igation, dia, un- and Coaji of St. the fame CoaJi of with the \adia to llkewife d Port of which r Gafpey, techemifii therwife barturc [ 15 ] departure for France^ left there the Sieur Bien- court his fon. According to the marginal note, (p. 90.) the Sieur de Poitrincourt left his fon the Sieur de Biencourt in New France, it does not fay in Acadia *. ,. XVI. Where he fpeaks of the Sieur de Poi- trincourt being returned to Port-Royal -, wc find in the margin thcfe words, (p. 100.) his return into New France, not into Acadia -f. »,♦»•!» «.\»- je/ ■ \A XVIT. But when the Sieur de la Sauffaye was I in Acadia., Champlain fpeaks very differently, and in the fame chapter. 'The Ship, fays he, (p. 104.) arrived at La Heve in Acadia-, and the marginal note indicates, the voyage of La Sauffaye in Acadia, it does not go farther, and add in New France J. ; ■v,;. XVIIL Speaking o£ Cape- Sable, (p. 297.) he fays, ^tisjituated on the coajl of Acadia, and feems to do it for no other reafon, but to di- flinguifh the difference between the fituation thereof. ^ V ■ - ' W I . l^W i * Tnere was no neceffity for it. Would Caen or Rouen be the lefs in Normandy, becaufe faid to be in France ? and is not Acadia^ according to a former quotation, faid to be in Neiu France ? In efFeft, Port-Royal itfelf, (p. 48. ) is de- clared to be in Acadia, as well as 5/. Croix. Is it poffible thefe things could be unknown to the French Commiflaries ? t For an anfwer fee the preceding note. However, I fhall obferve farther here, that if thefe negative inferences ( which they lay fo much ftrefs on, as their chief fupport ) are a proof, that the country in which Port-Royal is fituated, was not in thofe days called Acadia ; they are in like man- ner a proof, that it was not called Canada, as they would have it thought elfewhere. t h^. X It woufd have been ncedlefs to mention two countries when one would fcrve. , . [ >6 ] thereof, and that of Port-Royal^ which he has occafion to fpcak of in the fame place *. i ,.. . ' XIX. Several paflages have been already brought from Champlain^ to prove that he di- llinguifhes the Great Bay of St. Laurence from AcaMa -f. Several others may be cited rela- tive to Gafpefia^ which he defcribes as a coun- try diftind and feparate from Acadia X, But we fhall confine ourlelves to a fingle one, with which we will conclude this article, and which 1 'li ■\ ^1 ■A i I r ii i • That Is only a furmifc widibat any proof to ftipport it; and is beiides rendred void by the proofs already brought to (hew Port -Royal is in Acadia. ■\ The Commiflaries need not have produced any paf- faige to prove, that the Gulph of St. Laurence differs from the country of Acadia^ or the fea from the land ; which they confound here in the fame manner as they have done before, in the l^otc f, p. 1 1 . with regard to French Bay. Char/e^oixt indeed, (vol. i. p. 410. ) pretends that the cbaft of the Continetity from Pemhjkot eafhvard, was divided into three provinces called French-Bay, Bay of St. Latirence, and Acadia ; under three governors, of whom Denys was one : But Denys^ in his hiftory of North America^ mentions no fuch divifion j nor doc. he appear in that fitoation till 1654, when he had a commilfion to be governor of the eaftern coaft. Charlevoix mentions alfo a divinon of the fame coun- ' try or coafts into four provinces, in which Acadia ha« diffe- rent bounds. So little certainty there is in what the French produce on this head^ and fo variable lUe Limits of their Acadia, See the fame h^ft4kd,.at .h^g^ in ,/^^, Q^M iff tke French, before cited. ,- {,<^\ ., ,l.-.j«^k ;,f -.,,.». rtj...... , . X Why ? becaufe he does not fay it is a part or pro- vince oi Afadia* May it not as .well be faid, thatC^f-^/-^/o;i was, in his opinion, no part of Neiu France^ becaufe he no where fays exprelly that it is ? In de Monti patent of December 18, 1603, for an excUiy^ve trade Ga/kepe is men- tioned, yet not faid to be in either Canada or Acadia. Will they allow this to be a proof that it is not in Qanada? if iiot, they mufl allow that argun^ients drawn from the neg- )|;£ls, omii&on« or imp«rfe^on» of authpiSi are of very liiiall, if any weight. ^.avv.^): vtuv? «iw r.?n^ • never- h he has n already at he di- ence from :ited rela- is a coun- a J. But one, with md which f to ibpport oofs already ed any paf- difFers from land ; which J have done encb Bay. [ids that the was divided St. Leairence, 1 Denys was mentions iitaation till 3f the eaftern fame coun- cil has difFe- at the French nits of. their ZondtiSi oftl^e )art or pro- iCi^e-Breton becaufe he 7ts patent of '7epe is men- :adia. Will Qauiada? if Qin the. neg- ue 9f very never- I . t 17 ] •ncvcrthelcfs, will make it evidently appear, that in thofe ancient times Acadia and Gafpe/ia were confidered, not only as two different countries, but alfo at a great diicance from each other •, and that even the Savages of Gafpe were then called Canadians *. ) *yv .iV-,^U> 5f,:l ' , 1 ( ■ V .'"i; I C( (( c< i( (» C( C( c< t( (< XX. " The 25th of April, fays Champlain, (p. 197.) Defdames arrived with the fliallop from Gafpe ; and faid, he had not (t^n. ci- ther any fhips or Savages, nor learned any news, excepting fome which came from the coaft of Acadia, importing, that there were about eight Englijh veflels there, part of them ranging the coafts, and others fifhing •, that the favage Juan ChcUy captain of the Cana- dians, had given them the bell reception he could, and declared, that in cafe the Sieur du Pont, would go mto their country, he fhould want nothing which their hunting could afford." XXI. It appears, in effed, from this paf- fage, that the Savages who inhabited Gafpeftay were called Canadians ■\ 5 which is confirmed likewife ■•VI • He might have added, that the country itfelf was called Canada, as Lc/carhot, and afrer him Snnhir, and other geographers would have it. And then we ^ind a country with two different names, one given to it from the inha- bitants, the other from fome different caufe : And might not this be the cafe with other parts of yuadia, particularly, that called the coafl of the Etechemins F which, ind-jcd, muft be the cafe, fuppofjng with Lefrorhot, that they ex- tended to St. John'% river, as hath been oblisrved before, p. 13. note • t It does not appear by this pa(ra;!;e, that the Savages, who inhabited Gafpejia, were named Canadians ; or, that there were any Canadians there, excepting a few under D J»an Hi' if« U I' [ i8 ] likcwife by the moft ancient maps * j and that Gafpefta and Acadia were confidercd as two coun- tries very different and far from one another +. In (I I;; t; •■ yuan Chou, xvho might have fled thither, retired thither to fifh and hunt, or been driven thither by accident. Befides, by whom were thefe people called Canadians? not by themfclves, but by the French^ on which occafion there goes a tale : that certain Spaniardf having entered the Bay de QjaUurs or of heats y before the time otCartier, and finding no min?s as they cxjjedled, often repeated the words Actmaday that is, here is nothing ; which the Indians having fmce ** then often uttered when they faw any Frenchmen^ thcfe " laiter concluded that Canada was the nan^e of the coun- *' try," on no better grounds then this ridiculous paflag?, related by Charlenjoix nimfelf (HiJIoriu de la Nowv. Fran. vol. i. p, 9 ) would the French have this country called Cavada, and the natives Canadians. But from the time of ' VE/carboti neitiier the country nor the inhabitants have been heard of under that name, unlefs in fome faulty French maps. * By this way of relating the matter, the CommiiTarics would, doubtlefb, have it thought that tiie word Canadians is inferted in thofe moft ancient map^ whereas they give the name of Canada to the country. A circumftance which the Commiffaries would poflibly conceal to prevent the ^ reader from making the fame remarks with us, at p. 1 7. note* however that be, Mr, William de PJJle the king's prime geographer, was fo far from thinking thefe mai-s were a conhrmation, that Gafpefta was inhabited by Canadians i that in his map of Am; France in 1703, he expunged the name of Canada, as fpurious, and reftored that of Gafpefta in its place. t It does not appear from this paflage that Gafpefta and Acadia were confidered as two different countries, other- wife than as^hath been remarked in a former note. But fup- pofing Gafpefta to have been a diftindt country from Acadia^ they could not deduft much on account of it. I queftion if they could prove it extended one inch beyond the Cape called Gafpe, although their geographers fpread the name over more or lefs of the adjacent; country according to the • 'fize of their maps. On the whole, the queftion is never to be determined ty fycli vaguq, remote, and unconnei^ed pafla^s as thefe : i« \ -y fll^ id that 3 coun- :her +. 'm\. In her to fiTh e fides, by kemfelves, s a tale : Zhaleurs or no min?s i Acanaday iring fince meiiy thefe the coun- s paflagp, itry called le time of tants have ►me faulty (mmiiTaries L CiWaJiaxs chcy give nee which reveut the 17. note* {/s prime iS were a Canadians ; unged the jf Gafpejia afpefia and ies, other- . But fup- iTfi Acadia, I queftion the Cape the name "fing to the letcrmincd as thefe : ['9 1. tn this collefbion of paflTages the reader finds ttonc precifely to prove the fy (lem of the French Minifters •, nothing but broken fcraps, which when pieced together, with all the art of the CommilTaries, tall extremely ftlort of making a tolerable inferential proof, much lefs a pofitive one. He will, however, conclude, perhaps, that after profefling to make fo ftridl a fearch in Cbamplairi's voyages, that they haVe omitted nothing which tends more precifely to deter- mine the point in quefcion, either on one fide or the other. For this reafon he will be the more furpriz*d to find that there arc in Cham' plain, paflages omitted by the Commiflaries, which not only come much nearer to the point? than all which they have produced, but, in reality, abfolutely determine it ; that i3, direcftly point out the ancient bounds of Acadia, in the iTioft important part, with great precifion. And this is the more remarkable, as thofe gentlemerl affirm at the beginning of the above-cited Arti-» cle, that the relations of Champlain, are neither y^ precife, nor exa£i as thofe of Denys ; from whence yet they have produced nothing fo precife and €xa^ as either of the two pafiages which I Ihall produce* > • ^-,\^■^ n^vc The firft pafjfage is taken frofn the end of the firft book of his voyages, p. 48. where he fays^ // may be of ufe to defcribe the difcovery of thofe coafts^ during three years and half that I was in it is to be decided by more pofitive and exprefs proof, nc| liable to a double meaning, or two different conltru«5lions, fuch as the CommifTaries have produced ; but capable of only one exprefs meaning, fnch as the CommifTaries found, yet did not think fit to produce. D 2 Acadia, ir I 5'! f i ; [ 20 J Acadia, as zvell at the habitation of St. Croix, as at Port- Royal \ "uuhcre I bad the opportunity to fee and difcover the ivhoU\ as will appear from the fecorid book. Which book, immediately follows. From ri.cle words, methinks, it evidently ap- pears, that, according to Champlain, both St, Croix on ti.e north fide of Fundy Bay, and Port- Royal on the fouth fide, were fituated in Acadia, Nor do I fee how the point can be difputed •, fince the fenfe of the words is precifely fixed by the common ufage of fpeech ; nor are they liable to any equivocal conftru6lion or different meaning. It is therefore fubmitted to the judg- ment of every impartial reader, whether among thole palTages, quoted in the article from Cham- plain^ there is any which proves cither St. Crcix or Port-Royal not to be in Acadia^ fo (Irongly as this quotation proves that both are in Acadia, The precifton and exa^nefs of this proof, with refped to the fituation of thofe two places, is confirmed by another paffage in the preceding page of Chatnplain: where, after faying, that de Monis (the firft fetler, with whom he went) ought to have chofen a place not fo liable to be de- fertedy as vms St. Croix and Port-Royal ; he adds, that if ftich care had been taken^ the people would not in three years and a half have abandoned Acadia. — that is, St. Croix and Port-Royal. Is noi; this a fair confequence ? ^ioniq y^ i-^y V If it be faid, that thefe paflages prove at moft, that thofe two places were fituated in Acadia^ without determining precifely what were its an- cient bounds : or ( which is the fame thing ) what the bounds of Acadia were in the time of Champlain, 'Tis anfwered, that although they do vi . [ 21 ] do not determine what were the bounds oi Aca^ dia in his time ; yet they go a great way to- wards eftablifhing our claims, and deftroying the obje(^ions of the French, For, V'?t.'r::-;r\?'i tj u I > l..# ll.M (i.) As it appears from them tliat Port- Royal^ at that time, 1603, belonged K.o Acadia \ the allegation of the French Commiflarics, that Port-Royal was a feparate difl:ri6t, and that Aca,- dia was no more than the coaft from Cape St, Mary to Caufeau, drops at once. In fhort, that point puts us in poflefllon of, at lead, all the Peninfula oi Nova- Scotia or Acadia, ,*.♦»/.,, ... (2.) As it appears, from the fame paflages, that St, Croix ifle and river, were fituatcd in Acadia ; it follows, that the north as well as fouth coaft of French Bay, belonged to Acadia \ and that the aflertion of the Commiflaries, that by French Bay, Champlain means the coafts fur- rounding that Bay, not the Bay itfclf, proves to be imaginary, and our remarks thereon to be juft, as has been already intimated. At leaft, they mull allow, that fuch proviiice, (fuppofing it then exifted) was part of Acadia ; and by the fame rule, fo might the country of the Ete- cheminSy (at leaft a great part of it-,) however, feeming to be diftinguiihed from Acadia, 7^J^ . ■if'. ",. ^ . ' 1 ■' ~. ' ' ^ ^ (3.) By placing St. Croix in Acadia^ thcfe paf- fages extend its limits to the wcihvard, at leaft, as far as thoie of Nova-Scotia -, which goqs a good way to make out all the Engliftj claim. , If to this it fhould be obje(5bed, that thefe pafTagcs from Champlain, prove, at moil, that Acadiay included within its original bounds the ; Feninfuld^ :)' Peninfula^ v'th the north coafl: of French B.iyi or the Bay of Fundy \ but not that it extended to the river St. Laurence^ as the Englijh Com- miffarics aliedge it did«irA.> tw v ,•..*," rt •-. t »» ^ ''•«)' It may be anfwered, that the pt'efiimption lies, that it did extend fo far, efpecially, as wtf find it fo far extended in the Commilfions of Ij)uis XIII and XIV. to their governors from 1632 to 1710. However, to put the matter quite out of doubt, I (hall produce another paf- flage from Champlairt, omitted alfo by the French Commiflaries, which exprefsly teftifies, that y^ca- dia did anciently, 01 in his own time, extend northward as far as the river St. Laurence i ./ 1 1 ti \i For this author, fpeaking of the river No- rembega^ which he takes to be that of Pemetegoit (or Penob/kot \) exprefsly declares, that the great river St. Laurence, glides along the coafi of both Acadia and Norembegua *. Here is a proof in point, for the Englijh^ and againft the French fyftem ; yet, the Commiflarics of the latter, affirm, that the relations of ChamplatJt, are nei- ther fo precife nor exa^ as thofe of Denys. Let them fhew that Denys has any paflTage fo exadl and precife as this, either in favour of the French, or againft the Englijh fyftem. Nay, let them examine the pafiTages which the Commiflaries have produced, out of their three authors, Deny.\ Champlainy znA V Efcarhot \ and fee, if there be among them all, or by conne<5bing them toge- • D'autre part, il ne p€ut y en *voir qui cntrcht avant dans les terres, d'autantque la grailde tivi^re St. Laurent Cojfcye la Cofie (fAcadlCy (sf de Norembtguey ou il n'y a pas plus de Tune a Tatitre par terre que dc 45; lieues, ou 60 au plus large, en droito ligne. Champl. voy. 1. i. e. iii. p. 65. V V ' ther. Bay. ndcci ;om- i'l . -.'St. ption IS we; ns of from natter r paf- lAca- :xtend r No- letegoit € great \f both proof French latter, nei" Let exc.bl ^rench, them liffaries \Denys^ lere be toge- if Int avant Ldurtfit a pas ^u 60 au p. 65. ther. [ 23 ] iher, they can form out of thi^m all, a proof any thing fi prcdfe and exatly as this fingle paf- fagc which vvc have produced. > tc' ^i\n ')aj 1 This tcftimony of Champlain U focxprefs and direct: a folution of the queftion, fi^hethcr the river St. Laurence was the ancient limit north- ward 0/ Acadia ? that nothing more is wanting to prove that point. However, the paflage, as 3uoted at length in the note, afibrds farther cvi- ence of the thing : for it afligns the breadth of the countr'^ from St. Laurence river to the fouth coaft oi Acadia and Norembeguay to be for the general from 45 to 60 marine leagues ; which mud be the meaning of the words, tho* inaccurately exprefled ; fmce, in fat^t, that is for the general the breadth of the country in queftion, to the fouth of St, Laurence river, from the Kennibek to the gulph of Nova-Scotia or St. Laurence •, and the fame meafure cannot be ap- plied to any thing elfe mentioned in the (juq- lation, He fays, no rivers enter far within the land, for this reafon, that, as the river St. Laurence wafhes the fides of Acadia^ and the country of JSlorcmbcgua \ the land between the river and the fea, is, by that means, fo ftraitened, that it dgcs ^ot exceed the breadth abovemeationed. i^ "^^^ 'Tis true, Champlain does notdr-w the boun- dary line between the two provinces, or mention the points in the river oi St. Laurence^ where the province oi Acadia ends, and that of Norem- begua begins ; neither does he fay on which fide of the river, the province of that name lies : But it appears, fionj fome c^rly geographers in I •f I i -t^i [ 24 J the lad age *, that it lies on the weft fide -, and this feems confirmed by the authority of Count d*EftradeSy who in his conferences with King Charles the fecond, concerning the bounds of jicadia, fays Pentagoet, built at the river Norem- berg^ was the firft place belonging to Acadia +. Which is as much as to (aytAcadia was bounded on the weft by the river of Noremberg or Pe- But whether Cbamplain meant to carry the bounds of Acadia on this fide, fo much back- ward or not, is of no fignificancy : fince it is not my defign to reftrain the EngUJh claim to his account of the Limits, but only to refute the fyftcm of the French Commiflaries ; who have undertaken to prove from his authority, that Acadia^ in his time, comprized no more within its bounds than the fouth coaft of Aca- dia. Whereas, from exprefs quotations from him, it, on the contrary appears, that Acadia^ included not only the whole Penitifula^ but all the Continent.^ northward to the river St. Lau- rence, and weftvvard from the gulph of Sf. Lau- rence to the river St. Croix, if not Penohjkot \ and confequently a fpace of country equal in dimen- fions, at lead, to all Nova Scotia^ as originally granted to Sir William Alexander by King James I. in 1621; ■' . • r, ■A ( I '* I • 1* i 1 1" I As tht French Commiflaries knew this paf- fage of Champlainy ( for it is hardly polTible it could efcape their notice) how could they fay, as they do in their Memorial of O^ober/^y ^^5\^ I .,- • Sec Ogilh's Jmerica, (from the Dutch of D^pfer) p. 1 38. + Count d EJirades Letter to the King, Matrfh 13, 1662. in his EmbafTies and Negociations, torn, ii* .paji2;e ^69. alfo Condu/i of the French, page I i, . ., , . 3 ^ (Art. and • 'ount King Js of orem' dia t* jndcd X Ft' or ■ ' y the back- z it is lim to refute ; who hority, » more )f Aca- s from \Acadiay but all . Lau- t. Lau- and dimen- ginally ames I. [is paf- fible it |ey fay, |yp.i38. 3, 1662. k6l alfo (Art, [ 25 ] (Art. XIl. pat. 3. p. 116.) that /fcaJia Ptevrr had any ancient eflabUfljed hoHnds within lond i* Although I know not if the Engli/h claim is more cftcduLilly cftablifhed by the pa (Tage of Cbafft^ plainy than by this uflertion ot the Commiira- ries : for if Acadia hud no ancient cfiablijhed in^ land bounds^ tliat is, none before a certain pe-* riod i then the firft eftabliflied bounds, which ic had from the grants of Louis XIIL mufl: have been its ancient bounds ; for it cannot be faid, that, becaufe, it had no fettled bounds before, therefore it had no ancient bounds at all ; or that no bounds are the fame thing as bounds : and yet, they fecm to aim at advancing no lefs ab- furdities. In the time of Henry III. who granted de Monts the firft patent for Acadia^ this coun- try had inland bounds, however, it came to lofe them fincc •, which, were fo well known, that the King himfelf declares in his patent, that " he had been of a long time informed of *' the fituation and condition of the countries *' and territories o^ Acadia,*' Thefe words, as they prove that Acadia originally was not a bare toaft, bwt confiftt'd of countries and territories \ fo likcwife they imply, that it had inland bounds. This is farther put beyond doubt, by a fub- fequent claufe, whereby de Monts " is cftabliih- •' ed his lieutenant-general in the countries, •• territories, lands and confines * of la Cadia^ ^ *Sf. i.xSj'. ' *«•« K ««A • The f'remb Commiflafies in thtfir Memorial of the 4th OfO^tieTf 1751. p. 147. change /i But as they uipprefled thofe teftimdnics in tliat Memorial, they took care alfo to fuppreft the Reply to it, which contained thefn : and this fuppreflion, which proves them confcious of what is laid in my firll charge, is the ground of my fecond. The Reply, in which every citation and ar- gument contained in ♦'he French Memorials, is carefully confidered ; was penned by a Minifter of the firfl abilities, who has followed the French Commifiaries, through all their windings and doublings 5 expofed their weak and fophiftical reafonings ♦, Ihewed that the paiTages '-^h. ' they produce often contradict one anoth'^r, o- make, againfl themfelvcs \ and deteded their partiaHty as well in fupprefTing evidence in favour of the EngUJhy as in perverting the fenfe of paflages by miftranllations, or forced conftrudions, in order to compel them to decUre in fuvQur of ,;hdr own fyfteq).. . .. ,.. .^iuil a/*^''* ' ■ ' ■ ^ •■•■ ■•. -r ,• •'•■f .«■-■■• • ( if^^^A^ 1 In reality, from the judicious manncr,in which the author of the Reply has undertaken, to ana- lize the French Memorials, and expofe them tr light; it clearly appears, that they are nothii^f but a heap of .ii>coherent paxTages, brought toge- ther, without either index or contents, and mixed with tedious comments, feemingly, with no other view but to perplex the judgment, and tire- out the patience of their readers : few of whom they knew would ever take the trouble to examine .and, compare theip. ^-^( j% In mort, in this mafrerly review or tKc" con* ;roverfy, (which does no lefs honour tHah juftice I lies in ippreft : and ifcious ground! nd ar- ials, is liniftcr frencB gs and liiftical ■: ihey i maka irtiality of the laflages :ins, in 'our of which o ana- liem tr othirj^ toge- mixed other ire out B they famine c con* justice to [ 29 ] to the nation •,) the whole fyftem of the French Commiflaries is overturned in fo convincing and complete a manner •, that we arc told, from very good authorities, their own Minifter, after am attentive perufal of it, candidly declared, that he thought it, what is the reiil truth, uhanfwera- ble, and that the Englijh claim was thereby eftablilhed to a degree df demonftration. This being the cafe, and e(p(ccially ds the Reply carries in it thofe pafTaiges of Chanipkin; whtch the Commiflaries were fo indiiftrious to conceal 5 it is no wonder that they fliould not defire to fee it in print. ^ f-'^^. unomn i.a '.' V /» k. But fince they fhought fit to print and dif- jperfe their own Memorials, they otight ^ffb\ in common juftice, to have printed the Reply along with them ; and the rather, a!s their Me- morials contained a great deal of new matter, without an anfwer to which the public could not have before them a complete ftate* of the controvcrfy, on both fides. ;^ t ''^¥btti^mnch Nfimffers «i^ctef?;1tef ubwm thefe Memorials and fupprefs the Reply,- after fuch proofs had been prodtrced,* as they knic\^ intirely overthrew their ffi^tm ; plainly fhews a determined defigrt 6n therr fide to imbofe oh all the world,' as' well as t6 pdrfid in dbing in- juftice to the Englijh nation. ; i , Now let us only reffe<^ i Ifttl(i on ihfilt c6ri*- dud on this occafion. If they hk^d reilly Be- lieved that they had juftice' oti their own fide, ^ould they have had' reeoutfc to' the diihoneft rteans" of fupprefH/ig evidence on ours ? W i I IJMf ,1! I [ 30 ] 1^ If tlicy had it in view to ad finccrely in the negotiation, would they ever have had recourfc to means which call their integrity in queftion ? If they had ever intended to do us juftice, would they have perfifted in the oppofition, af- ter they faw we had fo evidently proved our claim ? Would they not frankly, as true French- men ought, have given up the point on the fight of fuch proofs, inftead of fupprelTing thofc proofs, in order to impofe on ftrangers, and ^•jve themfelves a pretence for continuing thq .- What regard ought foreign cowts, any more than the Engli/h, to pay, for the future, to the Memorials of Minifters, who would impofe pn jthem by - And this will appear to have been their de- fign by that publication, even fuppofing they had laid themfelves under no fuch obligation to the contrary, and that it had even been lawful for them to fupprefs the Reply to their Memo- rials : fmce they very well knew that their di- ftributing thefe latter, would naturally occafion the publication of the former ; and fo bring to light thofe very authorities, which they feemed fo induftrious, and it was apparently fo much their intereft, to Itifle and conceal. *!^^V^ *i>l* Frqm this fingle circumftance, it feems evi- dent, that the objedl which the French Minifters had in view, was conlidered by them as a point of the utmoft importance j a point for which they ought to facrifice the moft facred obliga- tions •, and that they wanted but a very fliort fpace of time for executing their fcheme : fincc the printing and difperfing of the Reply, which would expole the injuftice of their pretenfions, as well as the falacy of their proceeding in this particular, would be the work of a few weeks at moll. On the other hand, from the circum- ftance of their dilperfmg thofe Memorials in fo- reign Courts, at the time when their naval prepa- rations for America were in great forwardnefs, it will follow, that the ftrokc, which thty intended* was to be given in Noia Scotia ; and that if they could only have lulPd the Eti^UJh aOeep, till fuch time as they had fitted out their fqua- dronSjthsy mattered not how foon afterjhoth their deception ^,1) :i h ■111 \M [ 3^ ] deception and dcfigns fhould be dctedled : be- caufe they Ihould have accompliflied their ends^ belbre the Englifi could pofTibly have fitted out a fleet to prevent them. As to the reproaches which they might incur from the deception on one fide, and breach of faith on the other, they nwould only have laughed at them with an air of contempt. Far from reproaching themfelves on the occafion, they would have extolled the fuperiority of their own genius and addrefs, for* having made dupes of all Europe in general j and at the fame time compafled their defigns againft the Englijh in particular. That ' hich would be held highly infamous by the ac otors of one political fyftem» would be matter or tri- umph and glory to the patrons of the others with whom the fmalleji profpe£l of fuccefs renders xvery meafure lawful^ though iH itfelf ever Jo ini- qititous and hafe. I cannot help congratulating the nation on the difappointmcnt of the French defigns againft Nova Scotia^ as it is one of the moK happy e- vents which could betide her ; and which was in- tirely owing to our having anticipated them in our armaments both here and in America. The refcuing of that province out of the hands of fuch reftlefs bad neighbours, is of vaft impor- tance to Great-Britain^ on account of its advan- tageous fituation, both for defence and com- merce : for while we are in pofieflion of it wc ihall always be able, by our Ihipping ftation'd on its coaus, to obftru6t the navigation and com- merce of the French when at war, and hinder them from annoying ours, or infefting our colo-^ Ijies hy fea. We jQiall likcwife have it in our power to fecUre a confidcrablc part of the cod- nfhery toourfdves, by eftablifhing fiflicries along nm [ 33 1 the coafts of the Pemnfala, which lie extremely commodious for the purpofe. Not to mention the vaft quantities of timber which the woods Of the country afford for building (hips, and other advantages which may be deriv*d frOm the natural produce. On the other hand, were the French in jpof- feflion of Nova Scotia^ it would prove or the utmofl difadvantage to us : not only as it would give them a large acceflion of country, and afford them opportunity of furrounding us on th^t fide; but alfo, as it would fupply them •with above i6o leagues of fea coaft along the Atlantic ocean, where at prcfcnt they have none, flored with a great number of harbours, the beft in all North America. Thefe would (tivt for retreats, as well for their Shipping on account of trade, as to receive their fleets in time of war, to be at hand either to. attack any of our colonies, obftruft their commerce, or otherwife annoy them. Thefe ports alfo offer them the conveniency of eflablifliing fettled fifheries ; which have always been one of the chief objed:s of their views. . ^ ^ ,, ,, „ ^ It was for thefe reafons that the French wei-e io loath to part with Nova Scotia at the treaty of Utrecht. The fame reafons have tempted them to contravene that treaty, and endeavour to wreft the province from us by force. Their impatience to get intire poffeffion of it, has ap- peared of late more than ever -,' and as by their incroachments^ they had made themfelves mailers of ali but tht Peninfula, it may be taken fcnr granted, that they had determined flrongly to fortify the whole, in cafe they had gotten pof- feffion of the remainder. They would, in particu- .., _ F , lar. J'" \\ I..I 1 it 'I'M '•'ii [ 34 ] \ai\\\^ytforiified St .Jolm^s river, in proper places, from its head to its mouth ; where tlicy woulci have built a ftrong fortrcfs, (and 'tis hoped the Englijh will, without delay^ do the fame) not fo much to keep open a communication all the year round bctv^{ tnCanada and the ocean, as to fccure the country, with the Abnakkl Indiaus^ thofe in- veterate foes to the En^lijb^ in their intereft ; and procure a convenient port in the Atlantic ocean from whence cither to carry on their commerce, or irfell the neighbouring coalU at pleafure. For St. JchtC% harbour lies almoll due north of Port-Royal^ at about lo leagues dift.uice-, a cir- cumftance which renders the poffeflion of that river of great importance to the French^ and of the ut mofl detriment to the English. So that had they feized 'Nova Scotia^ as they intended, in all probability, we never lliould have been able to recover it out of their hands again ; the confe- quence of which, for the reafons above given, muft have 'been the lofs or ruin, in time, of all our other colonies. For this reafon, it may with truth be fafd, that the expedition to Shegnekto^ was the molt important of the four. Had we either been an- ticipated by thq French^ or miffed of our aim, it WQuld have been a lofs, perhaps, never to be retrieved. Whereas, fhould we mifcarry in our attempts againft Crown- Pointy and Niawgra^ as we have done at fort Lc Quefne'^^ the lofs may be repaired another time j as thofe forts are near pur frontiers, and may be attacked without * In reality, there was no occafion for an expedition ^gcinft this fort ; for, if we had one at Nitrrogray or theirs had been taken, it nvould ha-ve obliged the French to abandon their forts to the fcuth-eajl o/^Lake Erie, by rendering them ufe- hfsy as had been obfervcd in the State of the Britifli ^iW French (felonies, Sec. V. ^S.. ^.Ll\ ■ ■ ■ ' y^- going fafd, molt 1 iin- aim, to be n our 'a. as edition theirs bandog "em ufe- •"rench [oine [ 35 1 , going far from home. Nova Scotia^ on x\\t cbnrrary^ is at a confiderable dilhince from Nc-j) England \ and containing at leafl: 15000 French inhabitants *, called Ncuirals^ befides the troops which would be fcnt to gurrifon the torts, would require a very large force to reduce it, as well as Ihlps to trnnfport the men. So that the ex- pedition \voiild be attended with very great ex- pence, and after all, the event would be extreme- ly hazardous and uncertain. Since our good neighbours have been fru- ftrated of their aim, their news-writers have nor icrupled openly to confefs, that the dellinatioii of their fleet, which they had been fo long and fecretly preparing at Breft^ was to have fur- prized and feized that whole province before we (iould have been aware of their defigri ; by landing a large force at Bay Verte^ which were to be joined by the French Neutrals^ and at- tacking Halifax at the fame time ■\\ Had they gotten the flart of oUr fleet, but for ever fo fhort a while, they would infallibly •\Vith eafe have compaffed their long concerted defign. But, thanks to the vigilance of our Mi- Aifters, and the uncommon fpirit of the nation^ their pernicious fcheme has been happily fru- fbrated; and the tables turned againft them, by a feafonable expedition of forces from AVrv £«- ^land, who have driven the French intruders out of thofe parts, and put the Englijh once more in pofTelBon of Nova Scotia ; into wliich, • They have been lately removed to other provinces. t I muft, however, take notice, that there has lately ap^ peared in the papers an article from Parlt, contradiding that declaration. But it it faid to have been confirmed iince^ by the plan of operations and inftruftions of the French ge- neral, found curioufly inclofed in a walhbull, among his baggage, which was taken. ' F 2 ■ " ■' contrary ill [ 36 ] contrary to folcmn treaties, they had forcibly entered, and already ft'ied above two parts in three of the whole. On this occafion, I muft obfcrve the v/idc difference in point of legality and juftice, be- tween their proceedings and ours. For, In wrefting from us fo much oi Acadia in time of peace, and during a negotiation, they have been guilty of notorious breach of faith and treaties : but in what we have done, nothing of the kind can be charged on us ; for as they had entered and feizcd the pofts at St, John'^ river, and Shegnikto^ in a hoftile manner, we had a right by force of arms to drive them out again whenever we thought fit. ;v. Although we have fruftratcd the French de- figns, and recovered what they had taken from us •, yet it will be flill neccfTary in our own juftification, and to take off any prejudices which, the French Memorials may have given to fo- reign courts in their favour, to print the Reply of our Minifters to their laft Memorial *. In the interim, till it appears, the Conduct of the French with regard to Nova Scotia, mentioned before, may in fome meafure fupply the place of it •, as it contains an anfwer to all the principal argu- ments ufed by the French^ befides the chief au- thorities in fupport of the Englijh claim. Luck- ily enough, that tra<5t anticipated the French, Memorials two or three months in their pub-,' lication ; and as it was forthwith tranflated and printed both at Paris and the Hague^ it has, in all probability, been of ufe to prevent foreigners from being prejudiced by thofe Memorials, and •^he.E>f^/y^M'^tnorJa1;vi'hich I call « Reply to the French Memonal of Odober 4, 1751. hath juft now paft out of the prefs ; and hath a large fheet map of Nova Scotia^ and the neighbouring parts, prefixed to it. * -'-'—- r — "- induced t 37 ] induced them to fufpend their judgments till the. faid Reply be made public. It remains only to take notice of the two maps prefixed to this treatife •, about which, however, little more need be laid than what ap- pears on the face of them, where they cirry every thing Which may be neccflary for their explanation, and to Ihew their ule. As the French thought fit to infert one in their Me- morials to illucidate their fyftem, I judged it proper to contraft it with another which exhi- bits the ftate of matters, according to the au- thorities produced by the Englijh. Maps, to be fure, give a more diftiii6l view, as well as con- vey a more quick idea, of things than writing ; by combining the feveral matters fcattercd in difcourfe, and compendioufly exhibiting as in a pidhire the whole at one view. I am glad, therefore, that the French have fet an example, which gives us an opportunity of reducing the controverfy to a narrower compafs, and at the fame time imprefling the force of our evidence by fenfible images. ^*i ♦ A A A A A lt, .♦. ,t. A >f >ti A A A A A il A A A A A A iL A ■! r V 9' 'I* 'I* f '^e pajfages of Denys examined. IHave now finiflied my remarks on the French M.emorials, fo far as relates to my two charges, which, I prefume, are efFcjflually proved. But as I was led by the paflages of Champlain, which the.Commiflaries have fupprefied, to enter a little into the difpute about the ancient bounds oi Acadia -, I have judged it in fome meafure ne- ceffary to confider thofe of. Denys, which I have frequently referred to, and which the French ;.>i'K£i'.'| Com- i , t ' '' I i H I ■ I V [ 3M Gonimiflkrics fet up in oppofition to the aiittid* rity ofthc founder o\ i^^fcheck : lead by not taking farther notice o) th< ni, they may be thought to fupport the French fyftem, and be as conclufive as the Commiflarics would have it believed.. ^ . I have already mentioned the artifice of the Commiffaries in placing their citations from DenySy before thofe of Cbamplain \ although this latter was prior to the other above 30 years in vifiting America^ and 40 as an author. It is likcwife worth obferving, that although they extol Denys fo much for his exaSlnefs^ and de- clare his defign was to determine the limits of the countries which he defcribes ; yet they produce no more than three or four pafTages at mod from this author, which make but about one fourth of the number collefled by them from Cbamplain., befides thofe they have fupprefled. Thcfe paflages, which are inferted ir ^ 15th article of the lame Memorial, or that preceding Champlain*& article, are the following : The firft is : Long-IJle — makes a pajfage leading^ from the French Bay to the land 0/ Acadia* j ana in another place f,/>^«^ out of the French Bay to enter upon the coaji of Acadia. According to the French Commiffaries, thefe two paffages (which I confider as but one and the fame repeated ) clearly point out the commencement and en- trance of the land of Acadia, As if entering tipon a coaft neceffary implied falling in with the entrance.^ or beginning of a coaft : whereas the expreffion does not determine the part of the coaft ; fince fhips may enter upon any part of a coaft. This is ftraining words to ierve a • Denys Jy^kv. Cotes Amer. Septent. torn* i, page 58* t Page 58. ,i,- ,^;,:^, purpofej •*% leading and Ray to to the which ated ) id en- ttering with heicns rve a [ 39 1 purpofc \ or looks rather like playing on words than bringing them to prove any thing. -,>. ' The fecond paflage is taken from the title of the fourth chapter*, which is : Continuation of the conjl of Acadia f, from Le Hcvc to Canfeaii, where it ends. This is the only pafTaore in all Denys which with any precifion feems to favour the French fyftem. *' - . ' The third is from the beginning of the fifth chapter J : Canfeau is a harbour three leagues • deep', and from the Cape begins the entrance of ths Great Bay of St. Laurence. This paflage has nothing to do with the que- ftion i unlcfs, by Bay of St. Laurence, is to be UTiderllood a province, or cnall of that name. But as that does not appear .rom either the paf- fage ttfrrlf, or any other brought by the Com- miiraries -, therefore it mufl: be underftood, in its proper and natural fenfe, for the Bay of that name. However, this pafTage, in which ever of the two fenfes underftood, proves, that Denys fpokc of things as they were in his own time, and not in any antecedent to it; fince Champlain in one of the palfages cited by the Commiffariesi' makes the Bay of St. Laurence to commence at the gut oi Canfeaii y and not at the Cape §. ^;^ ■f > * Denys Defer. Cotes Amer. Septent. page 105. + From hence it appears, th.it the author of the Cotiiiuft of ihi French nxiith refpe^ to Nova Scotia, has committed a miftake, I dare fay, by overfight, not willfully ; in al- ledping, (p. 17. ) that Denys no where fays Acadia end's at' ^anjeau. However, he fliews that in cafe he did, tlic paf- fage would not determine the point in favour of the freitclf,^ fyftem, for the f:me reafons which I (hall produce in the ?ext. ^ ^, 1 DenySf ibid, page 126. - ^ See before, page 10. par. 4, 5 -v^ "-f ag»-'l''t .^ 3 Ic (;'.' r. [ 40 ] It is clear then, that the fecond paflage only can be faid to be exprefs with refpeft to thfe Limits of Acadia •, and that, folely as to one point of them, the place On thfc coaft where they terminated. ' ^'uttv; 'r^.c The three pafiTages, however, according to the French Commiflaries, contain a complete, as well as precife defcription of the ancient bounds of jicaiiiaj or in other words, fet rortn what its limits originally were ; and therefore, they lay great ftrefs on them, as indeed, they ane the only authorities in their power to produce, which feem in any degree exprefs to the purpofe. But fuppofing that they relate all three alike to Acadia •, yet, I (hall make it appear, that they do not in the leafc, ^ vour their fyftem ; and were never intended by the author to defcribe the ancient bounds of the country in queftion. > • In the Frft place, I deny that thefe piafl(ages defcribe the bounds of Acadia, either ancient or modern. For by the bounds or Iimit.i of a country is to be underftood, and will be under- Hood by all but the French Minifters, not the bounds on one fide only, but on all fides ; the inland bouiid?: as well as maritime. I^ovr Bettys defcribes, at moft, no more than the cdaft or ma- ritime limits of Acadia ; confequently, only the limits of part of the country, perhaps, not a third or fourth part of the whole limits, for he does not mention how large it was. ^■'- The Fr^f^ Commiflaries, doubtlefs, to obvi- ate this difficultyj are driven to the nioft abfurd fhift that ever was thought on, even to affirm that Acadia originally had no inland bounds *. Was ; before, page ^5,, 5 t'j.fV i A -^X^H'tr »t- cver z only to thfe :o one where to the as well nds of hat its icy lay ire the , which Btrt like to It they 1 ; and ibe the I. '."}? iaflages tent or of a under- ot thft s; the TDenys orma- ily the a third does obvi- ibfurd that Was cvei: [ 4t ] tver fuch a country as this known in the world before ? A country, like a mathematical linc^ all length and no breadth. A mere coafb ! a naked fhore! which is but one degree from non- exiftence* l»^ 'tH t'.viuo-r.. ? *■ .i-.f.Jfcft s'jpiih -u! r The aflfertion, in reality, refutes itfclf. How- ever, we oppofe to tins extravagant argument, this fliadow of a country, the teftimony of Champlain ; who, in his Voyages to New France, publifhed, as I faid, forty years before Denys\ book, marks the inland bounds of Acadia^ to be the river St. Laurence^ and the country of No- rembegua. It had inland bounds alfo in i6o^. when Henry IV. made de Monts governor of the lands^ territories^ cotifts and borders of Acadia, as far north as the 46th degree of latitude -, with the condition of wh'^'h lands territories^ and coafts.^ he declares he had been well informed^ as hath been already fet forth. Now lands, territories and coafts, could not exift without inland bounds 5 and \i Acadia had inland bounds in 1 603, (doubt- lefs, the fame which Champlain mentions who went with de Monts \ ) who can doubt but it had fuch alfo when Denys wrote ; efpecially, if, as the CommiflTaries pretend, his defcription refers to the limits of ancient Acadia : unlefs they can find an authority before the time of de Monts and Champlain^ which fays, Acadia had no in- land bounds ? ^^ ^^ ,^. ^^^^^ ^^^^, , ,,.,,y,,,,, ,,^ The principle whereon they ground their fubterfuge, is the filence ot Denys and Lefcarbot, of which they would make fome advantage 1 but 'tis a very poor refource. As for Lefcarbot^ he had no opporiunity of knowing any thing of the Tiiatter j having been in the country but G a •■,• !■ Bm« I 1!l u in [ 42 ] a iliort time, aiid never within land, or farther on the coaft than St. John* a river, or La Croix ; and Denys never intended to defcribe more than the coafts. Champlain^ likewife in the part where he defcribes the coafts, fpeaks of the /«- land bounds o^ Acadia no more than Denys \ and yet elfewhere he mentions them occafionally. , If Denys*s not mentioning the inland bounds of Acadia^ be an ar<5ument, that it had no inland bounds, then the countries of the EtecheminSy and Almoujhiquois, muft have had no inland bounds, or were mere coafts, which the Com- miflaries, perhaps, will not fay. They would likewife think it very ftrange in any perfon who Ihould pretend to prove that the provinces of Normandy^ or Picardy in France^ had no inland bounds ; becaufe their portolans, or pilot-books for the coafts do not mention them. The pa- rallel isjuft: fo that for any thing which ap- pears to the contrary, notwithftanding the filence of Denys, the individual Acadia, ancient or mo- dern, whofe coaft, he defcribes, might have had the river Sl Laurence for its inland boundary. Nay, I make no fcruple to affirm, that in his opinion it was fo at the very time he wrote : for although in the book where he defcribes the coafts of A/adta, he does not fay Acadia had inland bounds ; yet, as hath been already obferved of Champlain^ he, in effefl, does it in another place, that is, )n his dedication to Louis XIV. There, after telling the King, ** it was owing to his Majefly*s care, that Canada began to breath again ; aiid that Acadia was no longer in the ha ds of their neighbours ;" he adds, " that the country which he defcribes, made the *' principal and moft ufefulpan of New France. '^ la <4 and made feveral expeditions within land. Whereas, Denys, wlio went over to America^ chiefly on account of trade, never entered the river St. Laurence. From Cape Gafpe to St.John\ river, was the limits of his navigation and know- ledge : for he failed no iarthcr well than that river, as he decl res, p. 2. He was fo fir from knowing any thing certain of the diico- veries made by de Moms and Champlain, that * See Charle'voix, his charaiftcr of them both in his cata- logue of authors, and iu his hiftory oi- A«au France y vol. i. p-4i6, •v^^:\ ^ ' he i J It 111 I * 1 [ 4? ] lie could not tell where the iflc and river Sl Croix was, though at fo frnall a diHancc from *SV. yobn^s : for, Ipeaking of it, (p. 32.) he fays^ '* This place is thoup;ht to have been formerly ** called St. Crcix^ where de Monts and Cham- " plain would have fettled.'* He might have added, and (laid three yiars. Will any body after this expert a more csa£i and precife account <)F Champlain''^ difcoveries, or of the ancient li- mits of Acadiay from Denys^ than from Cham- plain himfelf ? '^fv^^ni^u^^ ^uiu^v^^n. i^w^^i • In reality, Denys never had it in his thought, cither to point out the ancient limits oi Acadia^ or defcribe the bounds of countries, as the Com-^ miHaries would perfuade the world. He does not fo much as fay, the country, whofe coafta he defcribes, was divided into provinces •, or fpeak of the three governments, into which it was actually divided while he was there, and of which himfelf held one. So little exa£i is he in thofe particulars, as well as many others ; his whole defign having been to defcribe the coafts of the country, as they were in his own time ; without any view to what they were before, or how the parts to which they belonged were bounded within land. This, I think, has been already proved to the reader's fatisfaftion : but we Ihall be able to put it ftill farther beyond doubt, if to collecting and comparing different paflages of authors, (the rule laid down by the Commiflaries at the begin- ning of the 1 6th article relating to Champlain for explaining and finding out their meaning ; ) we. add, what they ought to have done, viz. taking into confideration the times which thofe paflages refer ♦ M ' > ■ time ; re, or were [ 49 ] refer to, and the (late of things at that jiin(5lLirc, which were as follows : In 16 j^, the yei^r after the treaty of Si. Germain en Lay was made, Louis XIII. fcnt th*i com- mander tie Razi/fyi to take pofTefTion of ylcaJia, and by his patent appointed him his lieutenant thereof, frcm the river Kinncbcki io the river St. Laurence*,, , Razilly afterwards admitting others to fhare with him in his grant, the government, and property of Acadia^ by agreement, became di- vided at one time ; iikto three, and at another into four provinces, under particular patents from the King.,^ ,j^^ ibu/lihr( bft/rw ,r;. i*irr .^5. ■ ^ >■ :^'''':-'\': '"'•"■ •^"■^ ^ ■'* :' ■ ' (! By the tripartite divifion, " the provinces " were configned to Razilly, la T^our, and Denys. *' The firft had for his fhare, Port-RcyaU and '* all to the fouth as far as New England : the fe- '* cond had Acadia^ properly called, from Port- Royal to Canfeau : the third had the eaftern coafl from Qinjeav to Gafpe.''* .jj |.^ According to the quadripartite divifion *' A- cadia was parted into four provinceji, among fo many proprietaries, who were lieutenant generals for the king. The firft extending from Pen^sgcet to ^/. Jobft's river, was named the province of the Etechemins •\. The fecond, 1.,V „aofiJU£ 10 as^isiiwj? ja5>i3ia4< .J^jiJii' |«^^^^^"" - ♦ Comjsare Charltvofx Hlft. Gen. Nowv. Tim. vol. i. p. 178, and 417. with Count d'Ejira^ffs heucr au Roi, 13 3'^ars 1662 See alfo, Conduct of the French in Ko^va Scotia, p. 12, and 3c. '"'■t Formcny, fays Charh'voix, called Noremhe^uc, (a fa- bulous name and country.) But ic has not io great an extent , H give C( C( cc c< (C C( 4« it [ JO ] from St. John^ river to dipc Sahh\ Frencb Boy *. 1 lie third, /Icadia^ iroin (^ape ^able to Canfcdu : the fbuiih, from Cunjeau to Cj/!<» Rojiers^ called R/v 67. Laurence^ was the government of Denys.** Both thefc divifions of the country in which jDt'w was concerned, feem to have taken place before the year i6^^8, at leaft, the full did \ for Rrzillyy one of the three goveraor-s, died bciorc that year. V IJfTides, thofc two divifions, mentioned by Charkvoix'\\ we find a third made by Louis XIII. in the above-mentioned year J, to regu- late the bounds of government, or partition, be- tween La 'Tour and Charnijay : the full of whom was at tliat time the King's lieutenant gc- era) in Anidia^ and the hitter had fucccedcd to Razilly^ on that commander's deccafe. '.to^^ . l! By this regulation, Charnifay had for his fliarc, " from the middle of i he firm land if the ** French B.iy, wefiward towards the Vn'gins, ♦' [cr New England J liith Fcntagoct [/. Croix by four or live leagues. See his Defer. Geog. and Hill, de Cotes (f Jwer, Sij^tfut. torn. i. ch. [. ip, %\. * By the EngUJh^ the Bay of fundyy the ooaft of which fhis divifiou mull h?ve included. t Vol. i. p. 1 13 and4io. X The King's Letter on this occafion, is inferted by tl>c frt:ach CojnAiifl'afies in the proofs pf their ^'lemorials, P?g^M9S' . . -.-..- \ ** Ikoti] for his which by t]>c lOrialSf Oti] r 5t ] rt;()t ; I nvil bis lieutenant general cf Acadia, ( ,4 y OU1-, from the middle of the fjij Jiny^ to the p^J/({i;c, or yitt of Canf-aii .*'* that i"?, the whole coafT of th^ Jmirh ^r^v, as thry call t'e Bay o{' I !ni(h\ cxrcprlng half of the iv)rt.h main, tfll to /,'/ '■Tour \ am], c()uri'(|iiciHiy, the b'Hiiuls t( t< it of proper /lendii, (lar<>;er in thr hr tlircfloM, ircflolil, than ii\ thr f()urff)Icl (.iivifion) were aiigment-Hl by an adclitioii of near as much coafl as beh^n(j;eil to it iii cither of the twc> other divifions. '['his ac- dninr. of the I'late o{ JcaJin^ fo ncc fTary to ex- pl'iin the pall;ip;es cil'.'d fioni /)(.;m, is fuppn-./lid ry tIicy';v«f^C-omniiffarics, hke every thin^j, die which makes a^^ainlt tlicir fyllein. . y , - From (he premifes, /'/ appear,^ : fii'fl, that wh Ti yfcik!i>\ in I'-eneral, was ii\ ci^.e hantis of one perfo'i, as the commander de Rnzill)\ it hnd its ancirnt name, as well as bounds, fuch as CLu^m- plain aft ri'ood to it, or ruthiT cxtei\ded murli farther weltwaid : but when divided into pro- viiiccs uiuier different governors, ail tlie pro- vinces, for difiindion fake, received dilferent names, excepting one which retaiii'd th>it of jicadia being cilled Acadir.\ ]-/ropcr, (as we find it expreifed above m the (iivii'ion cited truni Chnrlcvcix^ and in other phices of his Jiiuory) to cUninguiili it alfo from tiic general Acadia , or Acadia an laro-e/ 'o^>< «' ^'^^f^' 3?ao"«ti ?'iiiu,,nwtm Secondly, that Acadia proper, changed its bounds, as the provmcea were more or tev/er. Thus, when Acadia^ in general, v/as divided be- tween Charnifay and La Toury proper or fpecial Acadia^ took in the v/hole coaft of the Pcninfula from the gut oiCanfeau, wellward, with the coall of the Continent to the middle oi the French Bi:y ; , :"i'. 11 2 under ii vn 1 M [ 52 ] under the tripartitL- divifion, e^ttending from Can/can to Port-Royal^ the bounds ol proper Acadin^ were leflened by all the coall of the fame Bay, which b:came the name of a diftipdl province ; and when the quadripartite divifioa took place, its limits of coaft were n diiced to that of the fouth-eafl: fide of the Pmnftila from Cape Sable to Canfeau, ■ And this, in fa6l, was the origin of thofc fcanty limits, which the French Commiflaries would impofe as the ancient limits of Acadia : and thus is accounted for that diverfity of fup- pofed ancient bounds; of which to Hnd the right, has fo much puzzhd the French Geographers, fome chufing one fort, fome another. 1 pre- fume now th(.' difficulty is folved^ that they will fee they are all in the wrong. ^^ ^^ nvjur. That thofe limits are all wrong, according t< the fyftem of tiie French Commilfaries, is un- deniable ; becaufe, not correfpondent with thofe afcribed to the coaft of Acadia proper, by Denys^ whofe authority they adhere to. That coaft, under the two-fold divifion, has near twice the extent, which He gives to it ; under the tripartite, fo much more as is from Port- Royal to Cape St. Mary : and, according to the quadripartite divifion, fo much lefs by the fpace between that Cape and Cape Sable, where it beo;ins. * r - ---• — ^^^-^-^ ^... ■ I JO/.I /■ •• " It fs evident then, that tiofie of thefe can be the riglit limits of Acadia , according to the ConnniifTiiries fyftem. But it feems alfo no Icfs evideiit for the fame reafon, that the limits a- fcribed to it by Denys, cannot be the ancient , .- limits. [ 53 ] limits, iinlcfs they can prove from htm that thofr limits were fuch as Acadia luid belore any of the three divifions in queltion took place, or that they were the fame with its original limits. But this fure it is impoflible for them to do, fincc Detjys never fays any fuch thing, and, befidcs fpeaics in the prefent tenfe •, confequently, the coait which he defcrihf s, mull be fuch as it was when he wrote, or at the time when he was go- vernor of St, Laurence Bay in 1 654. So that 'tis evident, when fays Acadia^ ends at CaJipau^ he muft be underftood to f])eak. with refpcft to the bounds of his own government at that time, which began theie, and not with reference to ancient Limits. -il'; i Uil 1£ DefTvs had intended to defcribe the ancient extent of the Acadum coaft, would he not have mentioned it? Would he not have faid, the coaft of Acadia originally began at Ccpe St. Mary, and ended, or did end, at Canfeau \ inftead of faying there is a pufiage from Long IJland to Acadia •, and that Acadia cndeth (that is, dotb end fit this prefent time of ivriting) at Canfeau ? fhould we not have found that extent ccjiforma- ble to what it was, under one of the two provincial divifions, preceding the year 163 8, in both which he was a governor, rather than to what it was fo many years later ? then, indeed, it might with fome lliew of reafon be faid, that Bcnys had defcribed the ancient limits of a urovince of Acadia^ though not the ancient limics of the whole i which are thofe dt-fcribed by his pre- deceilbr, Champlain : but as tl e limits which he afcribes to the coaft, has no fuch conformity, it cannot be faid, that he has defcribed the an- cient limits of cither one or tlie other. And : -, . ) ■ _ ■ _ _ ■ . _ ' ' ' ' One would think that nothing could be couch' cd in more exprefs and precife terms than this article : but what words fo clear and explicit, which the French Miniftcrs will not difpute and cavil at ? for inftnnce, to evade the force of this authority, by Confiyis de I'Acadie, they prete.id, is meant not the Confines, or Limits, of Acadiay but the circumjacent countries. So alfo in their remarks or explanation of de Montsh firft patent oi November 8, i^-o^^ * ; they fay that the King granted him les territoires, cotes ^ pays co7ifins de rjcadie^ impofing them for the words of the patent -f , inllead of tcrritoires, cotes U confins de VAcadie\ as appears from the patent itfelf which they have inferted from Lefcarbot^ in their Pieces Jujiijicatifs^ Art. 9. p. 441. * ■ • Memorial, art. i8. p. 147. alfo note to the En^hjb Memorial, paje xi. '.,,■■. v.^-i;,. t In like manner they hax^e altered the words in fhe claufe relating to the filhery in the commiiTion of Deays. Proofs JuftifiCat. Art, 28. p. 503. iuftcid of ** the prjwcr ** of fettling a feckutary filhery in the extent of tkc faidccun- *' try and i oafs o/' Acadia, as far as Virginia." 7'hey cite the words, as ■ \^W\\.\ '.•4 .iii if, i . .^.: Limits of Acadia ly the Utrecht . ::r'\ '- •; Treaty., '"'•' " ' ■ ■** « 1 Think I have now difcufTed the queftion ahoi\t ancient limits, and iliewcd the infuffi- ciency of he grand authority of the FrenchCom- mifiaries taken from Denys, lb effedually, as icarce to leave them any room for a fmall Chicane • Proofs Juflificat. p. 284. t Ses the fame, p. 286. .il v., ?u .;:i to r 57 ] to fave their uncouth unwcildy fydem, built on that faiidy bottom, from tumbling. Hovvevcis if it was not that I had determined to do ihis^ I need not have given myfelf fo much trouble. 1^'or, after all, it feems of no great importance, with refpeft to the Limits of j^cadin^ whctlier thofe ot Dcnys or Champlaini or whether either of them, be the molt ancient : fii ce the proper queftion will, doubtlefs, appear to be, not what were the ancient or moji ancient Limits of y/^n* diay but what arc the Limits with which it was ceded in the treaty of Utrecht ? It is obvious therefore, that to folve this problem, there can be no occafion for making a laborious fearcli into books, maps, and other authorities : the proper way is to confult the treaty itfelf, and tht tranfadions preceding it. The author of the Conduit of the French, has, in a good mca- fure, proved this, in the critical analyfis which he has made of the words Nova Scotia or Aca- dia^ according to its ancient Limits. And, if re- courfe be had to the preliminary articles figned by the Minillers of both nations, which were the bafis of that treaty ; it will appear, that tlie ancient Limits therein mentioned, arc, in reality, thofe of neither Denys nor Chamflain himfclf : which iaft, though, indeed, more ancient, than the Limits referred to by the treaty, are not fo exten^we by a confidcrable quantity. - The King of France having in April 22, 1 7 1 1 , made propofitions of peace-, after fome time. fpent in fettling terms, Mr. fecretary St. Johi^' attcrwards Lord Bolinhroke, tranfmitted tlic ' refult of Queen Anne, bearing date the 24th of . May 1 7 12, O. S. whereby, among the rell, ^iitt'"^ demanded, that Nova Scotia or Acadia, according to its ancient Limits, fiiould be yielded up. ■■^^- I Louis w. 1 ■ ' ?!■ [J q ' 'll ii * I 1"! V ilk [ 58 ] Louis XIV. made aniwcr, that he was will- ing to coifent to cede Acadia, according to its an- cient Limits, as the ^een demanded. Bur oifercd, in cafe /he would conjeut to rejlore Acadia, the rivet St. GcoYgc JJsmdd thenceforth make the boun- dary * ; or, in other words, the bounds of it, fhould be rejiraincd to that river, as it is ex- prcfled, on a relative occafion + » tor Louis ex- tended the Limits of Acadia as far as the river Kennebek , v.- .= - -■ - - ,- 'i'he Englifh Commiflarics, according to the obvious meaning of the words, explain the King of France\ anfwer thus : that he would cede ancient Acadia^ as was demanded ; but if the Queen would reftore him Acadia^ that is, the fame ancient Acadia, fo ceded, he would re- flrain its bounds to 6V. George's river, befides giving an equivalent. .„i. ,. ,.^ It is evident from the words that the ancient Acadia ceded by Louis XIV. was the fame with th(-. Acadia, required by him to be rellored 5 aijd fince this latter, when its bounds fhould be rei^r:iined to the river St. George, would be much laro;er t^.an the ancient Acndia of the Commifla- rif s -, tonfequently, the ancient Acadia, ceded fii ft in the preliminary articles and afterwards in the treaty of Utrecht, purfuant thereto, is very d'aerent from tlie ancient Acadia, of the French Commiflaries, as being greatly more extended. Let them anaJife the words by the fai<5teft Rules ot Logic or Mathematical Reafoning, and fee ii'th y will ever be able to bring out any other but the fame invariable fcnfc. Pieces Juftific. Art. 32. p. 281,. 282. & Art. 33. 39' t Art. 25. p. 335. I •- w ^ «%kV ««. A To w ■t. 35- To [ 59 ] To make the words of Louis XIV. and his Minilters, convey the fenfe of the prelliU Mi- ni fters -, or, to fuppofe the Acadia ceded by them was their diminutive Acadia, they ought to run in this form. I am willing to cede Aca- dia, according to its ancient Limits, as the Queen has demanded •, but if the Queen will return yka- dia back, I will confent to reflrain or contra6t //, that is, modern Acadia, or the bounds of it, to the river St. George. This would, indeed, ferve their purpofe. But then, it is obvious, that to accommodate his words to this fenfe, it would be abfolutely ne- cefTary to infert the term, modern : for, they can- not pofiibly bear the fame meaning, as they now iland -, the natural and grammatical conftruc- tion of the words being point blank againft fuch a meaning. For the particle /'/ refers to Acedia reftored, (as its next antecedent) and that name is fynonymous with the ancient Acadia yielded up : confequently, that particle can by no means be referred or applied to modern Acadia ; unlefs the ancient Acadia, mentioned in the articles, be underftood to be the fame with the modern Acadia of the CommiiTaries, or with ^.he Acadia of Louis XIV ; v/hich, perhaps, they will not readily grant, although, in reality, it is the cafe, as will be fliewn prefently. ,;;, It may here be noted, that although the King cedes Acadia, with the ad(iition or the words, f.ccording to its ancient Limits -, in order to anf- wer catagorically to the Queen's demand : yet, in requiring ifs ri^ftiti^tion, h«; is content to nvn- tion it fimpiy undci the name of Acadia. This i-^ c i r;2 I 2 IS t<' if * :| \ \ ■ 'h 1% [ 60 ] is the cafe in all the copies of preliminary arti- cles produced \ which ftiews, that the ditrercilce ot terms made no difference in the country, or its bounds, which were ftill the fame. It the Acadia, c^'dcd accordin«: to its ancient J/imits, was the piece of coafl as the Commif- faries pretend, or even the whole Peninfiilas with what propriety could he fay, if it was rcflored, lie would reduce its Limits to the river St. George f for that would not be to reduce, but greatly to eulargi' or extend them ? To fay, therefore, as they would infinuate, art. II. p. I J 2. (in a hurry, and without fpeak- ing plainly enough to be well underilood ) that it was thtir ancitnt Acadia^ which the King ceded by the preliminary articles, is to make the King fpeak either nonfenficaliy, or falacioufly, like themfelves, . ' ' \ .^^ That the ancient Acadia of the Commiflaries, could not poflibly be the ancient Acadia de- manded by the Queen, and yielded by France, appears no lefs evident from "Queen Anne^% in- ftrudions to her plenipotentiaries, December 2^, 171 r, whereby they are ordered to ir.fift, that Louis XIV. fhould qtdt claim, or title, by virtue cf any former treaty, cr otherwije, to the countries called Nova Scotia, and alfo Port-Royal *. Now Nova Scotia, taken either in its mod extended fenle to the Kennibek, as enlarged by Sir William Alexander, Lord Sterling's grant in 16^^, or on- ly according to its original bounds eftablilhed by King Jatnes I. in 162 1, is infinitely, (at leafl many hundred times) larger than the ancient Acadia, (a fea-line only) of the Cgmmifiaries, * Pieces Juftific. Art. 30, p, 358. And like And [ 6i ] And it is not pofTlblc, cither that the Englifb Plenipotentiaries could be ordered to demaiid infinitely more by their inllrudtions, than the Queen intended to demand by her propofals -, or that the Queen, who had then triumphed for io many years over France, and had reduc6d the grand Monarch to the neceffity of fuing to her for peace, fliould yield him more of her own accord than he could pofTibly havedefned •, and in effedt, give up the very country, which yet, through the whole tranfa^tion, flie appears to have fo much fet her heart upon. Thefe are abfurdities which can be reconciled by none but the CommifTaries, who could un- dertake to prove, that only a fcrap of a coun- try is given up, by words, which declare, that the whole was given up ; and, make their late King, and his Minifters put their hands to ra-^ tify palpable nonfenie, or chicanery, in order to give a fandion to their own. . Obferve alfo. that in thefe inftrudions the country demanded, is marked by the name of Nova Scotia only ; becaufe beft known to the Englijh : whereas, in the anfwer of Louis XIV. that of Acadia^ folely is mentioned, becaufe beft known to the French. So that one inflrument explains the other ; and both together fhew the reafon, why the name of Acadia is joined to that of Nova Scotia in the treaty : certainly, lo make it appear in the moft manifeft manner, that both countries, abfulutely, and in their ytmofl extent, were given up, incorporated and indentitied ; in order to prevent any cavil or difputc which might thereafter arife, in cafe it had I !• r; 11 r 'I' i*flt Ik I r [ 62 ] had been ccilfd, as formerly it was to France^ under one ot thole names only. In fliorr, the ancient Acadin^ ceded to Eng- Inndy in the preliminary articles, and in the treaty purfuant thereto, was not only not fo fmaJl as the French CommilTaries pretend : but, in reality, it extended weftward beyond the ri- ver 6'/. Ueor^Cy as hath been akeady remarked, from the offer of Louis XIV. to rcjlrain or con- tract the bounds of ancient Acadia^ to that river. And as the river Kennibek, the bounds afligned to Acadia by Louis XIII. in 1632 or 1633, is only 10 or 11 leagues m /re welt than the river St. Gecrge ^ it follows that the ancient Aca- dia ceded and required back by Louis XIV. could be no other than iht Acadia of Louis XIIL And this might be confirmed, was it neceflary, by the idteriiatives propofed by France in 1 700, for fettling American Limits : in one cafe the wcltern Limits of Acadia were to be rejhained to the river St. George ; in the other the Kenni- bek was to be the boundary *. In effeft, it is not likely that Louis XIV. or his Minilters were acquainted with any other cncient Acadia than that of Louis XIII. bound- ed v/eftward by the faid river, and northward by the river St. Laurence ; which bounds had all iilong been fpeciiied in the CommifTions given to general governors by both the Louis'* s -, from the year 1032, to the time of Subercajje^ from whom Nova Scotia w„s recovered by general ■Nicbolfon^ in 1710. • A farther arg-ument ml2;ht be drawn from the equivalent ollcrc'd by France in lieu of the and- I * See Pieces Jiifiiilc. Art. 25. p. 355, &: 336. e?:t [ «3 1 eMt Acadia^ required to be rcftored. to fhcw that; it could not be the fcaiity coall oi the French CommiflUries. On this occafion T.ouisWV. propofed not only to leave to England the artillery and ammuni- tion of Placentia^ with the iflands near New- foundlandy and give up the libcrry of catching as well as drying fifh on its coafts ; but alfo to add the iflands of Si. Nlartin and Si. Barthok- mew, to the ccfTion he had made of Sl Chrijlo- pher^Sy in the IVcJl- Indies *. • ■ '• • ' •* Any body may judge, if it is likely that Louis XIV. fliould confider ancient Acadia v/oith fCich an equivalent, was it only fuch a piece of coaft as the Conimiflarics would make it -, or that he could then think it worth Icfs than tht: whole y/fW;. , '.rj ■ r* «4* •-% » ' Nay, it may be a queftion, whether the coun- try at the weft-end between the river Si. GuGrgCy and tiie Kemiibek fuppofing it to extend to the river St. Laurence., whic:h lie propofed to give up to Englatid in cafe the Qijecn would accept of his oiier ; would not have been a fufficient equivalent for ancient Acadia., was it luck a fhadow of a country without inla-ad bounds, as the French ConimifTancs reprefent it. 'Tis hoped, for fake t)f this difpute, that, for the fu- ture, if the limits of any country is to be fettled, that the bounds, not on one fide only, but on every fide, will be fpecified, and dclined with the greateft precifion. .• Pieces Juftific. Art. 32. p. 382. -V* 'V* .• Upon h'^ uh O .\ T* li I '■' " [ 64 J Upon the whole it a[)pfars to a degree of dc- monlliMtio!!, that tlic EngUJl:^ by their Memo- rial, claim nothing h.it what is ftri(5tly and iio- neftly their due ; iind that the French have by difpiiting it aifled with the mofl barefaced in- jniiice, mipofition, and ciiicanery, that men de- termined to do the greatefl wrong and violence, could be capable of. ,, , ,, > 0£/obtr iS^ 1755. ->'"r' !'v.i-rt 3>/ii' •• ' ,'UiJ^vei\"i(<.; POSTSCRIPT, .>ri THERE has jufl: now appeared in French^ a flying Sheet, they call it, intitled, A Summary Difcuffion^ ct ,icerning the Ancient Li- jnits of Acadia, ait d the Stipulations of the Utrecht Treaty relative thereto. If this little half -penny cut defcrves not the name of a Catch-penny^ it may be properly enough called a Catch-gudgeon^ being calculated to throw duft in the eyes of the people. Jjy a falfe reprefentation of things ; and by its cheapnefs, to run into the hands of every body. A low, but not impolicit artifice of the French Minifters, by whofe directions we are told in a late article from Paris, it hath been publilhed. The author of this traft, in difcuffing the points in queftion, follows the method ot the Commiflaries, of whofe Memorials it is properly an abridgment. He buries the witnefles, that they may not appear againft bim ; and on t,heir graves builds \\\f> romantic (y^^.m : an inftance in each of the two capital points, will, give- the reader a juft idea of the piece. . ' ^ The Lat jin he [ 65 ] •■''■,• • - - I'he Englijh Commiflarirs, in afcertaining the limits ot Nova Scotia^ hive proved from the books and maps of the French riiemlelvcs, thac chey were all along well acquainted with Nova Scotia, and have given to it the fame limits whicii we give 10 it. ^m the author of the Siimnuiry Dijcul/wn, having taken care not to produce any of thole evidences, thinks he may venture after the commifliiries to allcrt, as he does, page 4 and 6, that the very Name of Nov* Scotia was not kmiOn i and that the country itfelf hud no exijleftce, before the treaty of Utrecht^ whicli ^e pretends gave it a being. However, prefently; r, page 5. he cites the grant of King James I. of Nova Scotia to Sir fVilliam Alexander in 1 62 1 •, and owns the geo- graphers had inferted it in dieir maps and books. In p. 15. he fpeaks of Cromwell's grant of both Nova Scotia and /Icadia to Sir Thomas 'Temple in 1656 ; and alfo of the difpute which arofe about them at the treaty of Breda in 1667 (of which more prefently) \ many papers relating to which are produced in the Pieces Juftificatifs^ from page 275 to page 320 : fo thatjhe author of the Summary Ikvcs me the trouble of refuting him, by doing it himfelf. - * ■J-l'Ti However I fliall add a few inilances more : The expedition of &^ in 1628 and 1629 was enough to have made Nova Scotia known to ail the world, if it had not been known before. For to the recovery of it, he joined the conquefl of C^- nada^ from the famous Champlain, fo otten men- tioned by us -, and the trench may thank the bad councils of thofe times, or elfe the name of Ca- nada would have been abolidied, and that of Kirlc's Land only now been in ufe. But it 1." 1^ I' : If K was i6- i I [ 66 ] was given up again in 16^2 at the inftancc of the Fremb an"^ban^idor, urgrd thereto by Cbamplaif!^ who folicitcd hero the reftitution both of that Country and Nova Sioiia •, which lafl nanie he took care to mai^e known by the uncaiincfs, which it appears to have given him *.]♦,,,; .,,,< Sir Lewis Kirk in his petition to Kin^^ Charles II. previous to the treaty of Breda, oblerves, that King James I. granted Acadia to Sir liilliani- Alexander^ by tlie nar.ie of Nova Scotia -, and that on King Charles I's marriage witli lieurietta Maria, the faid Acadia ox Nova Scotia was reftcred to France. I'his petition is inferted by Ogilhy in his defcription of the country, under tlie titk^ o{ Acadia, or Nova Scotia f^i^M r.t: v.' ^^oi- <> 5 For them to pretend therefore that the name of Nova Scotia was not known, much more that the country had no exillence under that name, before the treaty of Utrecht gave it botli j is only a proof of trench effrontery, and to what defpe- rate fhifts they are driven, to fupport their own faife fyftem. This indeed was never heard of till fince the time of tliat treaty, and now maintained by their commiflioners, wlio Hand alone by them- felves : in oppofition to almoft all their own voyag- ers, hiftorians and geographers, whom they blame on the occafion, excepting Denysy altho* he, as hath been Ihewn before, fays nothing to the purpofe. . This is the Summarift's way of difcufling things, by falfe alfertions only. Men of under- ftantUng fee the abfurdity and ifnpofture : yet, by • See his Voyages, p. a68 and 296. " ''".i- ? ^>(i + See his America, ch. i. led. 5. p. 133. printed in 1672. •g this \ . [ <•>? ] tbis uiilawAil means, he ferves his chief purpofb, which is to capti/atc the unthinking multitude, and animate them agninft the Ettglijh. "'"'i'^^"-'- He a6ls in the fame manner with refpe^l to the ancient Hmits of Aadia : which he reduces to tlie well and Ibuth coaft of the pcninfula •, without citing and anfwering any of the many authorities produced by the Rnglijh Commiflaries, to |.rove that it extended northward, as far as the river St. Laurence. But ahho* he fupprefles the three pafTages of Champlmn^ as well as the irench Com- milfariesi yet he tacitly confefles, that he has il'en them, and even thinks it incumbent on him to fay fomcthing, to lefien their authority. This he does in an indireft way, a'tcr charging the Englijh Commiiraries with multiplying ufelefs quotations, toobfcure and perplex the cafe, (which, indeed, is the fault of the French Commiiraries.) " It is thus, fays he, that they have abufcd one ** or two paflTagcs pf Champlain. But, befidcs, " that this a\ithor has no where exprefsly treat- " ed of the limits of Acad'a ; and that, coofe- *-' quently, one cannot cxpe(5l on this point parti- cularly, either exa£fnefs or precifton ; yet if there be found in his Voyages two paflages which the Englijh cite as favourable to their fyftem, *' there are above ten which are dire^ly contrary " to it. They are to be found cited in the Me- " morials of his Moft Chriftian Majefty's Com- *' miiTaries," . ' , ;^. , .. As this writer knows that one at Jeaft of xhole paflTages of Champlain point out both exaSilj and precifely the northern limits of Acadia -, ought he not to have produced that one, or given the im - port of it, as he hath done by the paflage of Be- nys^ and made his objections to it, if he had any ? i(( iC ■'f '1 "i i K 2 The hi i 1 . m (t> [68] TI\e reader, to be fure, will think he ought : but then he could not have vented fo many fal- firies, as he has done in this paragraph. Not dar--; ing to c'i>z the paiTages himfelf, he lends his readers to look for them in volumes to which he knows, not one in a thoufand of them will have recourfe. This is indeed abufing bodi. He abufes the pafTages by fupprefTing them like the CommifTa- ries i and his readers, by depriving them of an opportunity of judging, whether the Englijh have abufed them or not, as well as by obliging them to take his bare word fo| a pioof. He abufes them, like the Commifaries alfo, in depreciating the authojity of Champlain^ and diminilhing the force of his evidence, as if barely favourable to the Englifh fydem •, whereas it w- frefsly Sind precijely con^rmh it.^ •' >,'/;• • / Laftly, he abuftrs them in affirming, ibat there are ten pajfages in Champlain, wh:ch are dirc^ly iontrary to the Englifh fyllem : the falfity of which our readers may fee by confulting thofe padagea which arc before p; oduced, taken from the fame Memorials, to which the author of the i:umr,ir,ry LiJcuJJicn^rtitv?, his. , ., - 'Tis eafy to fee, that thefe paflages from Cham- plain gaul them terribly ; and that net knowing how to get over them, they think it beft to keep them out of fight. And, indeed, confidering the authority and experience of that perfon, whom they ftile the father and fc under of their ft-tde- ment in Caruxda ; who went over with de MontSy the French diicoverer of thofe parts ; was 27 years there, and 20 of them governor of the country; 'tis no wonder theydr^ad tl^e weight of his evi- dence. But of this enough has been faid already. Altho' [(■9] Altho* the author of the Summary 'DifcuJJion fupprcfles all the evidence in favour of the Englijh^ yet he takes care to produce fome vouchers, fuch as they are, on his own fide. Immediately after depreciating the authority oi Champlain^ P^ge 9,. he tells us that he knows but two perfons who, have treated exprefsly and in detail concerning the limits of Acadia. This muft feem very fur- prizing, if not fufpicious to every body, in cafe the trench fyftem was ie well grounded, as they pretend •, but elpecially when they are inform- ed that only one of them is a Frenchman : tlic other, it leems, is an Englijhman. However tte author of the Summary obferves, that by, their long refidence in America, and the fituaticn of the countries granted to thcnri, they were more at hand than any befides, to know and determine the limits of Acadia. Ought not Champlainy at leall, to have been excepted ? No doubt of it ; and to befure he would, had he been of their fide, or confirmed the ujtimony of Denys, as the Frenck Commiffartes pretend, page 1 79, of their laft Me-^ porial. .M^,., v,t vr'f;'"Jt ^•vtri^i'Ui The reader, who has already feen the ut- molt of their boafted ftrength, may eafily know, without being told, that his Frenchman is De-^ vys. This perfon, he fays, printed a defcripiion of the countries claimed by the Englijh in 1672 ; had been 35 or 40 years in the country which he deicribes ; and was governor of the great bay of S:. La^rence^ from Canfeau to cape Rosters. He adds, that this writer declares in t*^e moft precile and formal manner, that Acadia does net commence till you are out of the French bay^ and that it ends ut Canfcau. They V"- ! I [ 7° ] ■ They who have already read the preceding pages mnft be convinced of the falfity of this af- fertion, ii appHcd to the antient Hmits of '-adia : I fliall therefore pafs to his Englijh evidence, who ii Sir T'bomas Temple ^ whofe teftimony is no lefs ,opporite to their fcheme, than that i-f Denys i$ enable to fupport it. <<.. w *• ■5V >^v\ "With relation to this gentletiHan, he obferves that Crcmwell, having in 1654, taken from the French all the coail frorr* Markgojh ^veftward to tlie river Kennibek^ granted the whole to 3ir I'ho' stiMS Temple in 1656. At the peace of Breda, the lands which had been taken in the late war were mutually reftored : Si. Chrijtopher'Sy Anii- gjta., and Movferat to the KngliJIo j and to France^ under the name cf Acadia., thofe fubdued by Crom- ivell and granted to Sir Thomas, When this treaty came to be executed in 1 66S^ Sir Thomas refuled to obey the liril orders of King Charles, under pretence //^, Fort, rtw^Pentagoet (cr Penobfkot) zvere not in A- cadia -, but that only Le Have and Cape Sable wiere. This the author of the Summary declares, is exactly conforn.ahle to the fentiment of Denys ; and then endeavours to eflabliih the validity of his aflertions on the authority of fuch able pcr- ibns, one French the other F..nglijh, concurring to ^ive Acadia the bounds /'» which Brzncc pre tmdj it cugj^t to be comprized, '-oi 'Ao^i %mtm^ ii9\m^ r*'f The reader, in this dedudion, will fee fome glaring proofs of French chicanry and infmcerity. Kmg Charles II. in execution of the treaty of Breda, by an ad of ceffion, dated the 17th of 7> lebru a [71 Fehruary^ 1667-8 *, declares he hath^rj^w wp aU Acadia, njohkh the faid King of France did for- merly enjoy ^ namely y the forts and habitations cf Pentagoet, St John's, Port-Royal, La Have, *iW Cape Sable. . • • 'I'm-'^: v - jioarj t •-■..-. Mr Mourillon du Bour^ being fent by the French King to take pofleffion of the faid country and forts, he received King Charles's, letter, or order, of the 3 1 It oi December^ 1667 f, to Sir Thomas, to dcHver up ylcadia, namely, the forts abovemen- tioned. Sir Thomas refuting to obey that order,, under pretence that the three firft forts were not in Acadia^ there was a definitive order made out the 6th of Jugufi, 1669; whereby Sir Thomas was commanded to deliver up, the country of A- cadia, as namely .he forts of Pentagoet, St John, Port-Royal, La Have, and Cape Sable, which the French King enjoyed till taken by the Englifli in 1654 and 5 J -, that was by Cromwell, This order v/as delivered to Sir Thomas at Bojlon, by the Chevalier de Grand Fontain, fent thither to receive the country ; and with this order Sii* Thomas complied. ; .n,v^ viv-iv-v 13; ,5 .?y,'> (>.:• V .,'. Nothing can be mor<* evident from the pre- mifes, than that King Charles, as well as the minifters both of England and France, were a- greed and fatisfied that the faid foits were 'n A- cadia ', which indeed was delivered up properly iji the name of thofe forts, and not under its own name. Yet the author of the Summary y from Sir Thomas's denving thofe forts to be in Acadia, y^oxAd ,..* Pieces J'jftific. art. 13. p. 292 and 3, ..— \ S!»0'q;^n^ ^ im \ infift, in oppofition to fuch authority, that the country wherein they were fituated, was not an- ciently called Acadia : becaufe forfooth Sir ^hcmas -knew better than any body elfe the bounds of tlic country which was his property, and of which he was governor, >^o TRvrr ; nf^T-pfir^ wi^\ $j^vw Nothing fure can be more ridiculous and im- pofing than this. They well know the country irt queftion was called Nova Scotia by the Englijh ; and that Sir Thomas took advantage of this cir- cumftance, to avoid giving up a province, which he had purchafed \ and which Charles II. without any juftice, recompence, or proper notice, as he complains, would compel him to furrender t j the French. t : :.v,^.,;,,^ ■■.^>^^.^. ^^W :A^ U;r^:v/i i ... Sir Thomas had yet ftiU a better pretence, or rather authority, for what he alledged, from the grant of Cromwell to him in 1656 : for, by that grant he affirmed *, that all the country from Cape Sahle northward and weftward, including the coall. of the French Bay^ to Penobjkot^ belonged to No- i)a Scotia ; and all eaftward and northward from Cape Sable to CanfeaUy and Cape Roziers, be- longed to vff^^/<7. •»•'« • The patent grants the country and terntories called Aca* dia, and that part of the country called Ho'^a Scotia, from Marltgaft} in the call, to the port and cape of La Hwue, Sec. The grant dillingui flies Jcadiu as a different country from Neva Scotia, the places on whofe coafts are mentioned ; (o that what lay callward from Mi.rltgajh, xoCaufeau, and the river of ^uf- h«k (or St Laurtnce) as Sir Thomas told Dh Bourg, mult be afljgned to Acadia. For what reafon Cromnjuell made the dif- tindlion on occafion of this grant, does not appear ; but his ftrder of the i8:h of September^ 1656, is to deliver up to Col. Ttrnpli the forts of St. John, Port-Royal^ and Ptntagoet in A^ tadiu^ commonly called No-va Scotia, i7i ] 'Tis in this fenfe, doubtlefs, that the letter of Du Bourg II to the French Weft-India Company in 1668, is to be underftood ; where he tells them, that Sir nomas made a wide difference between l\y^<^\2k and Nova Scotia-, affirming, that it ex- T>'- ded from Mirlegafh [near Halifax^ to Pen- tagoet [or Penobjkot]^ and drawing towards Cape-Breton, as far as the river Qiiebek *. Du Bourg adds, ^bus^ Meffrs. he [Sir 'Thomas'] hrj been wrong underftood-, and you fee that Pentagoet, St. John's, Port-Royal, Cape-Sable, and La Heve, fpecified in the orders f, are not in Acadia, but in Nova Scotia J. v^ , . . Wil- the commiflaries allow chefe to be the true and precife an t tent bounds of Acadia •, or that the Peninfula was antiently divided in the manner Sir Thomas reprefents it, one part belonging to Nova Scotia, the other to Acadia ? Sir Thomas therefore feems to have had two rea- fons for faying the firft three places were in Nova. Scotia, and confequently for not giving them up : fince thofe places had been, as he fuggefted, mif- takenly inferted in the order, which only concern- II See lalt Mem. of the French contmij'. art. I 5. p. 310. • To rcftore this paflagc, or render it more intelligible, it mud be read as follows, * AfRrming that it [or No'va Scotia] * extended from Mirltgajh wellward to Pentw^^aet ; and [that * Acadia extended from Mirleujji? eaftward] drawing to Ca^t' * Cnhfeau as far as the river of ^ebek.'' •j- Fiz. the order of 31R oi Deiembcr 166;*, before cited. X This (hews that the reading given in the preceding note but one is the right ; and that the mirtakes in the copy produced were owing to the tranfcribcr, rather than Du B-swg himlclf. Bii: here it iiia\ be obfcrved, that either he or Sir.-7/^f..v:. j mult have cdmniittt-d forne niiflakc; for in :\ letter of Sir 'Thomas^ Art. 14, f ?o2. Cf'pe Sable and La Have r--* faid to belongr to Jc/jdi^ , and yet tliey iVould belong fo Noia Sccfta b^ 6i>p«x',v/'i grant, with which ^^^< Biur/% r^Lort agrees. I. c4 ''/''y It; i : f 1 [ 74 J ed Acadia. Nor did the court difpute the fad:, although they rejedled his plea, and obliged him to furrender them as places in Acadia, ^ ./.The reader may eafily fee, that the defign of the author of the Summary^ and his employers, is to play-off the defence of Sir 'Thomas againft the authority of both the French and Englijh courts, who have afcribed thofe forts to Acadia^ and there- fore would have that oi'Sivcnomas take place. They could willingly confent that their own minifters, who obtained the order to Sir ThomaSy as well as ours, who abjedly approved of it, fhould be judg- ed to be in the wrong, and even to do unjuftice, provided the teftimony of Sir Thomas could be made to favour their fyftem. . .:;...,..., Altho' the two parties feem to differ, yet neither can be faid to be in the wrong : for it wils the fame country, tho* under different names ; one in ufe with the Englijh^ the other with the French^ who claimed them, and had them yielded up folcly under that denomination. : , V',V.-, .^r\ ,t-r: ^ But to come to the point : fuppofing Sir Tho- mas was in the right, and both courts were in the wrong ; let us fee how far his fentiments are conformable to thofe of Denys^ and his evidence fupports the French fyftem. If he denies Port- Riyai belongs to Acadia^ he does not fay with DenySy that place and the other two are fituated on the French bay, and coaft of Etejhemins : he pofitively affirms, that they all belonged to Nova- Sc tia. If Sir Thomas fays with Denys^ that the fouth-eaiT coaft of the Peninfiday from Marlega/h or Ca-pe^ Saule^ to Canfeau, is in Acadia ; De^ys .. ;, 1. ., . They muft likewife, upon his authority, fince they have declared his knowledge of the country to be fo much fuperior to that of others, con- fefs not only that Fort Royal is in Nova Sco- tia i but alfo that this country had its exiftence, and was even very well known, both to the French and Englijh^ long before the treaty of Utrecht. The paflage from D« Bourg's letter, to the French Eaft-India Company, fhews that both he and they were [77^ were no ftrangers to it. In fhort, if it had not been known in the world before, the altercation which happened on this fubjedt from the oppofi- tion given by Sir Thomas temple -, and the mo- tions which it occafioned at the courts both of Paris and London^ was fufRcient to have made it known all over Enrope : For, befides the folici- tations carried on here by the hnnch ambaflra- dor, they were obliged to fend over two French Commiffaries at viifferent times to America to demand the Hirrender of thofe places from Sir Thomas, before he would comply. With what face then can they aflert that it was not known, from its not having been inferted in any treaty before that of Utrecht ? which omif- fion was indeed chiefly owing to the indolence of our court, and its too great complaifance for that of France, during two or three reigns of our Kings. With no lefs afTu ranee, than impertinence, do they alledge, that King James the i ft's grant of Nova Scotia in 1621, is void in itfelf. Be- fides, the queftion is not about the Englijh title to Nova Scotia \ but whether the country was known to them, and the World, by that name ? That they afleited a right to the country before it had the name of Nova Scotia, appears from the expedition of Argal in 161 3, when he took Port Royal and drove the French out of that province, as the CommiiTioners themfclves acknowledge t. But to return to the Summary Difcujfion. People often boaft of their (Irength to conceal the want of it ; and then betray their weaknefs by the methods they take to llipply the defed. The French Commiflarics, if they faw the ill confequences of Sir Thomases teflimony, al' ledged it, doubtlcfs to amufe, not to convince ; with % Pieces juftific art: 2. p- 37^ I ( 1 * < [78] with the fame view have they found out another piece of chicane, to oppofe to the authority of the Britijh and trench minifters at that time, and prove againft it that Port Royal did not belong to Acadia. This piece of chicane is, that the three forts in queftion were not furrendered by the En- glijh as being part 0/ Acadia, but becanfe they had \x.\oi\^t.6. to France before the year 1654. - *Tis true that by the treaty of Breda in i SGy^ Acadia was to be delivered up, and likewife. every thing elfe in America which had belonged to France bet ore the faid year : but it is noTefs . true that they were demanded and given up alio, as belonging to Acadia. To fatisfy every reader in this particular, he need but look back to the claufcs in the adl of cefllon and orders of the King : by which it fhould feem that thofe places made the very effence of Acadia, as it is given up folely under their names, and is confidered as a country only as they belong to it. » - ' - The falacy of this argument of the Commif- faries (for I confider them, and their agent the Stm nidrifty as one and the fame perfon) confifls in their changing the flate of the queftion, by placing It on the motive of the furrender : whereas the queftion is not, on what account thofe places were furrendered, but whether they belonged to ylcadia or not ? And fince the affirmative appears fo evidently to have been the cafe, it matters not on what motive they were furrendered. However the author of the Summary either un- able* or unwilling to make the diftindionjftill pur- fues . ft, . • Moft of the fa£ls and arguments which'the Commiflioners Jifpute, are fo extremely clear, I might fay felf- evident, that [ 79 1 files the argument upon the motive ; alledging, that unlels the circumllance of former polleflion was the reafon for giving up Port Royal^ St, JobfCsy and Pentageot to France, Cayenne in South America muft be confidercd as part of Acadw. , in regard the Aii of reftitution deHvers it up along with them : falacioufly infinuating, as if they were all mentioned together in the fame claiife j whereas they are ceded in two different claufes, Cayenne diftinfl from the reft, as appears from the aft of reftitution itfelf, inferted in the Memo- rials \ : to this a6l, however, he has the front to refer his readers, on a prelum ption, no doubt, that they will take his word for it, without giving themfelves the trouble of enquiring farther. The CommifTaries and their agent have yet another argument, to prove that Port-Royal is not in Acadia ; and this is taken from the words -of the treaty of Utrecht : all Nova Scotia, or A- cadia, and alfo Port-Royal. From whence they would infer that as Port Royal feems to be added to Acadia, it cannot be a part of it. This is til only ir^ftance which looks like an argument amoiig all which they have alledged : for it is doubtlels a ^ jai "naccuracy or improprie- ty in fpeech. Bui then the Englijh CommifTaries Ihcwed, b) feveral parallel inftances, that the words and alfo might be ufed, without caufms the feparation infifted on by the hrench Com- milTaries, who oppofed thofe inftances, as u- that inr was not for their fupp-efling fo many authoririe* and perverting other , one would be apt to imagine that they were H(;itttu c of the ordinary degrees of penetration and dif. cernu vMi,. if that W- not their caie, 'ti< certain by the grofs- nefs'a^ well as number of their chic nries and evafions, that ^ev mult think Jl but ihcuilelvcs, atUall, of their own na- tion, tobelb ^ *' ■ ■ "^' ' , ;"" ; f Pieces Juftif. art. i -. p. iji. fual. vM IMAGE l-VALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I 1.25 IM tlS M^ ^m 12.2 I' ^ mi '' ^ 1^ 12.0 m 1.4 11.6 P /; c> .%. /] ^. >> y^ '/ Hiotographic Sdences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WE3STER,H.Y. 14580 (▼16) S/2-4503 •SJ \ ,v \\ % s^ Ci^ n m [ 80 ] fuai, with quibbles. They rejedt one only be- caufe the word and fingly is ufed inftead of ■f and alfo ; as if the queftion was not to be de- termined by the force or import y but by the num- ber^ of the words. After all, there is no necefTity to produce fimi- lar inftances on this occafion : fince their objedion rtiay be deftroyed by the very words whigh they, alledge to fupport it. ; . For fuppofing it fhould be granted that Porh Royal did not belong to what they call ant tent A- cadia j yet it can 't be denied to have belonged at that time to Nova Scotia^ of which it was always efteemed the capital. ? •,.. . fTft' " ..Ci. So that as the objedion falls with refpeft to this laft country, Port- Royal mull be admitted as part of the whole, in virtue of one name, if not 0^ the odier. ^ And if it be allowed to have been part of the whole, it muft be allowed to have been part of jicadta *, for the two countries being then united, it could not belong to one country and not to the other. Thus let them confider it which way they will, it corned all to the fame thing. '. ^-- •-^^" • That the Englijh minifters infifted on the ceflion . of all Nova Scotia in its greateft extent, as above . f The Englijh CommiiTiries, among others, produce a pafiage from cjie treaty of St. Gerwuirit in 1632, which re- ilores to Lewis XIII. Neiu France^ Ac.dia^ and Canada. This pafl'age is indifputably fimilar; but the Fnnch Com- mifTioners, p. 165 of their laft memorial, wont allow it. Why ? Becaufe it i!> only faid, tutd Canada, notandal/o Canada. ]s not this a defpicahh quibble? As if faying Acadia and Port^ Royal, does not imply a feparation becweea the two, as oiucb as Acadia ««}■•. .J That this is the cafe, appears to a demonftra- tion, from the inftruclions to the Englijh plenipo- tentiaries at the treaty of Utrecht -f, who were or- dered particularly to infift, that the French King fhould quit all claim or title^ by virtue of any for- mer treaty^ or otherwife, to the countries called Nova Scotia, and exfrefsly to Port- Royal. Thefe words were inferted at the particular command of ^een Anne •, and in drefling the xii. article of the treaty J of Utrecht^ exprefsly was changed in- to alfo by the fecretary ; doubtlefs as thinking it more fuitable to the occafion, without imagining it made any alteration in the fenfe, or could ad- mit of a conftrudion prejudicial to the rights of Britain. - HJi*/ 'HJ*^.l ''-<■■ ^1 U J* " s ■■■v---t Laftly, to obviate every cavil, if it fhould be fuggefted, that the words and alfo^ feem to indi- cate as if, at the time of the treaty, Port-Royal * !^ the bounds afligned by the French Commiflloners were the ancient bounds referred to in the treaty, were they mo T fixed and certain than thofe of Hudfon'sBayf And did they not defcrve, as well as thofe, to be fettled by Commif- lloners ? This circurailance alone methinks fhews, that they were the well-known limits, claimed by the Britifh Commif- faric , and noi any of thofe about which the French theia- fcK'e^ can'c agree. + Pieces Juftific. art. 30. p. 372, X See art -^o. p. 372. * was [ 83 ] was judged by the hritijh m-inifters, not to have belonged to Noija Scotia itfelf ; it is anfwered. That befides the manifeft abfurdity and chicanery of this fuggeftion, (as if the capital of a country could be fuppofed to be (ituated out of it, or in a different country) it is deftroyed by comparing the words of the inftruftions with thofe of the treaty. For can it be imagined that Port-Royaly which in 1 7 1 2, was in Nova Scotia^ as by the words of the inftru6lions, and exprefsly^ it appears to have been, fhould in 171 3 be difmembered from it ; and that the words and aljo^ were in- ferted in the treaty to mark that feparation? Muft not an aflertion of this kind appear to every fober perfon a very wild one ? And yet the French Com* miffaries, in aflerting the words and alfo^ exclude Port- Royal from Acadia^ in effect aflert that ab- furdity, no lefs than in faying they exclude it from Nova Scotia, This inftance evinces that the change muft have been made in the manner I have mentioned. But if it fhould ftill be fuggefted by the French Com- miffaries that it was made with a defign to reduce Nova Scotia to the fcanty limits of their ancient Acadia, at the inftance of France ; it is farther anfwered, that fo great a change, fo vaft a dimi- nution of the Britijh claim, muft have occafioned much debate in rhe courfe of tjie negociation, which every body muft have heard of. It could not have taken place in fo profound a filence, with- out throwing a fufpicion of the higheft perfidy on our minifters, for which there does not appear to be the leaft ground. On the other hand, is it pof- fible that on gaining fo great advantage, the French minifters would have been content to mark it by ,*.'^ M 2 the 'I: [84] the change of a fingle word, exprcfsly, into alfo^ amongft fo many hundreds in the fame article, in the oppofitc fcnfe ? would they have rifked fo great an acquifition on fuch flight fecurity as a change, which made fo little alteration in the fenfe? A dubious term, liable to the fame explanation with the word in whofe room it was fuMlituted ? As if they were fatisfied with a phrafe, which gave them but a handle for a future contefl, in- ftead of ample and explicit terms, which they might have commanded ? Ccuid they have thought themfelves fecure with the change of this fingle word, and left fo many other ftrong words {landing in fupport of the tngHjh claim, as they do in the article of ceflion, all Nova Scotia, or Acadia i^itb ail the rights title ^ &c. cf France to the [aid lands ^ &c. To fuppofe things of this nature, is to fuppofe either that the French are very ealy people, and carelels of their interefts, or that they duped our miniflers, by artfully get- ting tlie word exprefsly changed into alfo^ as a thing of no confequence, with a view only to fur- nifh them.felves with a pretence for future difputes. ■■*■ VX-^ . i s ». ■ But this is perhaps to afcribe too much to French addrefs in matters of this nature ; and to tax Louis XIV. with deeper difllmulation and col- lufion than perhaps he was capable of, or if he was, would at that time have put in pradice : fince in his propofals and anfwers to the queen's demands, he exprefleth fo much defire to preferve the peace, and care to prevent any future contefts about the points ftipulated in the treaty*. Would not a prince, who appeared to adl with fuch great caution, have had every thing exprefled at large, and in the clear- ♦ See Pieces juftif, art. 28. and 32. p. 341, and 383. « ■»' J. eft [ S5 ] cfl manner in the treaty, on his own fide ; and had every thing removed on that of the Englijh^ which might create debate, and fruftrate his pa- cific intentions ? . r » »,■■.*• In fhort, any one of the above circiimftances would be fufficient to fhew the abfurdity of fug- gelling the change to have f^een made with a de- fign to reduce either Nova Scotia or /kadi a ; and that j . could not poflibly have happened any other way than hath been mentioned. \ '*'^:''f>i'^^'"f: 1^'' til .,' ti - The words of the inftru6Vions being then ad- mitted to explain thofe of the treaty, as it is pre- fumed every fober and impartial reader will judge they ought ; the objedlion of the commiflioners founded on the words rnd alfo^ muft fall to the ground, by this means like wife, and confequently with it their fyftem. .: ■:!.^. i/r . ,j For it being proved fo many ways, that Port- Roycl is in yla'di^y their fyftem of its antient li.- mits, which .xclud": that place, muft be falie ; and confequently the EngliJIo muft be allowed their demands, as the French cannot pretend to take up another fyftem of antient bounds. Nor indeed have they left themfelves room for another, fince they confine their views to the limits defcribed by Denys : and if they had room for cooking up a fecond fyftem, on what authority would they ground it, fince they acknowledge that Denys is the only Frenchman who hath treated with accu- racy and precifton concerning them ? In thus removing the objeftion grounded on the words and alfo^ it follows, i. That Port -Royal js in Acadia^ as well as in Nova Scotia. 2. That the limits which the French Commiflioners afcribe to |,|:i: ! '4, W'i; |1 i« %m [ 86 J to antlent Acadia^ not comprizing that place, miifl be falfe limits. m I i On the whole : although the French Commifla- ries build fo much on the words or Acadia accord- ing t§ its ancient limits ; and although the ccflion was propofed in that form by England^ yet I would undertake to make it appear that, by placing the Txzxivzof Nova Scotia firll in the treaty, the date of things is fo much altered, that the words ancient limits^ fuppofing them before to have related to Acadia^ are transferred to Nova Scotia^ and refei to it, as their proper antecedent, and not to Aca- dia : for this name, by being placed laft, is by rts fituation deprived of every thing before belong- ing to it, which it afligns to Nova Scotia, in con- fequence of poflefling the firll place ; and receives a fhare of them in common only in confequencc of being united with it. '■■' 'i^^'^^'^'l »< r- r',-- ¥ ; itU :.mii Wv^j In reality the name Acadia, as it now ftands in the treaty, is to be confidered no otherwife than as an explanation, or term fynonymous with that of Nova Scotia -, and might without any inconve- •nience or lofs to the fenfe, be omitted, as in reali- ty it is omitted in pradtice : for no Englijhman in Ipeaking of Nova Scotia, tacks to it the name of Acadia, or fubftitutes this laft najne (which is indeed quite out of ufe) in place of the former. 'C tjvi i\ix v\:iox Jonru:.^* !>w- 2a^r .5V.w^^r.i\ i W*-> *^ *' The French Commiflaries have certainly given to the term alfo its right fignification, in rendring the words thus. Nova Scotia, otherwife called Aca- dia : but by this explanation they fuppofe what I have advanced, that the name Acadia ftands for little niiore than an expletive ; and prove for us, that the words according t$ its ancient limits, refer ' immediately [ ^7 ] immediately to Nova Scctia : nor can they, without the mofl: obvious violence to the rules of gram- mar, be applied to Acadia, This will appear at firrt: fight, in dating the words of the treaty after their manner : France cedes to Great- Britain No- va Scotia, otherwife called Ac dia f, in the wboUt according to its ancient limits. It is plain that the words, otherwife called Acadia, ftand as in a pa- renthefis i and have nothing to do with any thing which goes either before or after, as they ferve only to inform us that Nova Scotia has another name. Neither the words the whole^ nor according to its ancient limits^ can be joined to Acadia : be- caufe Acadia (lands only for a bare name, as the words, otherwife called^ or named Acadia, ^c. pro- perly declare \ and limits belong to lands and ter- ritories, not to names. But as Nova Scotia ftands not for a bare name, but for the country of that name, confequently the words, according to its an^ cient limits^ muft, and indeed only can, refer to Nova Scotia, ' In effed, the expreflion, otherwife called Aca- dia, either feparates thofe words {according to its ancient limits) from Acadia^ or elfe fuppofes them to make part of the name. For as limits^ or do- minions, cannot be afcribed to a fimple name, the faid words can in no fenfe be applied to the name {Acadia) but as being part of it. We may fup- pofe a country named Acadia^ according to its ancient bounds^ but we cannot form an idea of a name (or the name Acadia) according to its an- tient bounds. On this occafion I cannot but obferve, that the Engl'fh CommifTaries having faid \ it was the in- f See note [a] of the Fremh Commidaries to the Engtijh memonal, p. 56. % Ibid. p. 16. tention .(,<. WW "^ "i I* 188] .tention of Frame to ceilc to Br: fain all Acadiaj QT Nova Scotia, according to its ancient limits ; .the French Commiffaxics take up the expreflion, •4nd fay in a note, France did not cede Acadia, or Nova Scotia, according to its ancient limits ; but ,Nova Scotia, otherwise called Acadia, in the whole of ity conformable to its ancient limits, •They add, thefe are the ancient limits of Acadia, , not of Nova Scotia ; By tranfpqfing the words, the fenfe is altered, and obfcurity introduced, where there was n:m before,,- , , )o^^(^ 4; ^^^ nmi%}\\ l^f ' This ftridlure of the French Commiflaries only ferves to fhew how extremely jealous they are of the leail exprclFion which feems to diwart their darling fyftem j and how necdlefsly they multiply their obfervations (which are indeed divided be- tween fuch abje(5t cavils and jockey-like evafions) fince out three lines before the Englifh memorial mentions the cejfwn of Nova Scotia, or Acadia, by the treaty of Utrecht. But the ccnfors had better, I prefume, have let alone their needlefs remark ; fince from the principles laid down in the preced- ing paragraphs, it is manifefl that it would have been kicky for their fyftem, if the claufe of cePion had been worded in that form : for then things would have turned out in their favour ; and they might perhaps have had fome reafon to difpute the Englijh claim to fo much country as they lay pretenuons to. .^j|i ^,j,,^v ^.^^j^u^t j.;.(u^ >*» s v"*-- " As, therefore, the literal meaning, or gram- matical conftrudion of the woids, turns lb point- blank againft them ; I fhall apply to them the ri- gid nile which they lay down in the very next note *, although they often appeal from it j That • Note {b), p. 56, [ ?9 ] the huftncfs (in this difpute) is not to examine how far the defircs of the contradting pcr:crs nniy extend : but Jolcly ti'hat is the refult {or' literal nennirig) of /^^ Treaty, whofe reftri^iiofis or extenfwns arf the f ok objects which the parties have in view, ' ' I therefore fincerely wifli them joy of the ad- Vantages, great or fmall, which they may h-wc gained, as well by their tflablifliing that rule as by their expofition of the term alfo^ and zealous attachment to the form of ccdion, in placing No- va Scotia before Acadia, However I cannot but take notice here, how extremely oppofite P. Char- levois is to them in his fentiments on this occa- fion : for he has adopted the very form which the CommifTaries condemn, citing the words thus : " That the moft Chriftian King cedes to the " Queen'of England^ and her fucceflbrs for ever, *' all Acadia^ or Nova Scotia^ conformable to it<» " antSent boundaries," i^c. * V ' !■» P. Charlevoix was of opinion that France could hot maintain her caufe without inverting the order of the words of cefTion, and making Nova Scotia^ change place with Acadia ; and in cafe the prin- ciples we have proceeded on, in examining that claufe, be juft, it mud needs be as he fays. How- ever, it is not my intention here to decide between them : it is left to our readers to judge which of the two is moft fit to be relied on, the quibbling Com- mifTaries, or the falfifying Jefuit. My bufinefs is only to let the world fee, from the direft oppofition found between thefe two parties, (in barely citing the words of the treaty on which their pretenfions are founded) how little certainty or fincerity there * Hid. Nov. Fran. torn. i. p. 113, N muft n [ 90 ] rnuil be in tlicir citations, and the principles \vI\icTv they proceed upon, as well as in the meaning they put on pafTages •, and whether it is poflible that their fyftem, being in the main the fame, can be right at bottom, when they draw it from fuch different fountains. However, they will wonder at th's the lefs, when they cometoundcrftand that all the chief French geographers and hiftorical writers, at pre- sent, differ from one another, as well as from the mod ancient and refpedable teftimonies, in their opinions concerning the ancient limits of Jcadia •, and that the Commiffaries differ from them all. Charlevoix, in his Hiftory of New Frame *, ac- knowledges, that all the country from Pent(hgoet to Cape- Breton was eomprifed in the treaty of Breda, under the name of y/cadia ; and that fome- dmes the neighbouring coafts went by it. Mr. Dt^- rand, in his memorial prefented to our miniftry in 1 749, afcribes to Acadia the whole peninfula of Nova Scotia ; which he fays is conformable to all the hijlorians, and maps of all nations '[. Mr. Bellin, in his map for Charlevoix*^ Hifiory above- mentioned, 1 744, gives Acadia the fame dimen- fions. Mr. JVilliam de flfle, die' King's premier geographer, in his maps of 1 700 and 1713, extends its limits beyond the peninfula, over one third part of the north main. In his map of America 1723, he reffrains them to fomewhat lefs tJian the penin- fula. Mr. D'Afivilie^s. map of Americay publifhed in 1746, agrees nearly with Mr. de V Ifle\s firft two maps : in a fccond edition of it, he reduced the bounds of Acadia to the peninfula j and in a third to about one half of it. Meffieurs Nic. de rif. J and Buache, the prefent premier geographer, *• Tom. i. p. 4>7- and 113. t Mem. Commiff. Angl. p. 59- par. 71. 5 have 't I 9/ ] Juive alfo done the like in their general rrwip of ihe mw difcovcries io the north of the Soutli-Sca, 1752, <• J The French Commifllirics rejetfl the opinions of tlie feveral perfons abovementioned •, and declare they are all in the wrong (and it muft be allowed only one of them could be right) mifled, as they pretend, by following the Englijh maps, or other bad authorities f j and affirm that the ancient Jca- dia confifts of nothing but the fingle line of coaft from Canfeau to cape St. Mary, including Port- Royal, without any inland bounds -, and to their ideas Mr Robert ^ irk his map of Canada, 175-5, has conformed himfelf. But it has been proved that the Commilfaries have erred themfelves, as much as any of thofc whom they charge with error. It feems very ftrange, if thefe were the real an- cient bounds of Acadia, as ceded in the treaty of Utrecht, that there fhould be any difagreement at all about them : much more that they fhould be known to none but the Commiflaries, who yet take their autliority folely from Dcnys -, whofe book was in the hands of every body, as well rs theirs, though not one but themfelves could make the difcovery. , .^ . k . , 1 ,.ij;i ;'uJ vjT.i'^j., ^jfrriii ^3i It feems farther ftrange, that the Commiifenes could fee the ancient limits m Denys, and not in the more early monuments : likewife, that in a matter of fuch importance, there fliould be bur one author in France vho had treated precifcly and accurately about it. They rejedt the authority of Count d*EJiradeSy the French ambalTador, who f See Mem. Angl. p. 57 to 67. and Mem. Fran. art. 12. p. 117. and art. 13. p. 118 to 123. : • • ' I'l N z tranf- Ill h ii^i »'■■ 1 Si [ 92 ] tranfaded the affairs of the treaty of Breda^ with great approbation of his King, bccaufe he makes Pentagoet the firfl: place in Acadia, . ' They rejeft the authorhy both of the French and Englijh minifters concerned in the faid treaty, and prefer that of Sir Thomas Temple \ becaufe they make Pentagoet y St. John'i fort. Port- Royals and others, to belong to Acadia-, and Sir Thomas does not. ' They reje6l the authority of their Kings Lewis XIII. and XIV. who from the year 1632 afligned the rivers St. Laurence and Kennibek as the Hmits of Acadia •, becaufe 'ti? with them a modern regu- lation, though eftablifhed forty years before Denys wrote. ■^U'iii'CUl ■.r . >• -^1 .* . i*> >'. .-» » * ^. Laflly, they fupprefs, and Gonfequentry reject, tlie tcilimony of Champlain^ the firft difcoverer of Acadia, and thofe parts, in 1 603 -, for no other reafon, doubtlefs, but becaufe he knew the limits^ oi Acadia befl, and his report fubverts their fyftem. A^nniiDt*:. iti i fit^Jtn n-ulmiiM z^m;: iuA'j 'i^r: ' Whatever reafons the French Commiflaries might have to rejed the authority of fome, and differ in opinion from others, it muft needs feem furprizing to every body, that they fhould difa- gree fo widely from Mr. Durandy who but the year before had exhibited to the Englijh Minifters a memorial, explaining the fentiments of the French Minifters with rcfped to the ancient limits, of Acadia, fupported, as he faid, by all the hifto^ fians and maps of all nations, ui*^ tiuuii . .u-,u-^ However, I would not have it thought, that | inipute this receding from their _ edeceflbr's de- mands, t 93 ] jnands, as well as further invafion of the Britijh rights, to the fame rapacious views which ipftigated them at firft, as if they thought that even one half of the Peninfula was too much for us. They would doubtlefs gladly compound for the whole, would we accept of it : nor would they perhaps, for fake of a greater matter than the difference comes to, have given the world, by that varia- tion, fo much reafon to fufpe<5t the juftice of their caufe ; or have jet them fo plainly fee that the li- inits, which they pretend with fo much confi- dence to have been ceded to the Englijh^ were |iot known to themfelves till within thefe four or five years at moft. :jiLX*a: i; i'u\ If it be afked then, what could induce them to blunder thus, and vary, in effeft, from themfelves, with regard to a point which ought to be fuppofed fixed and immutable ? the anfwer is, that if they had adhered to Mr. Durand's defcription of the limils, their fecond grand argument, grounded on the wordsj and alfo Port-Royal^ could not have found a place To make room for it therefore, they changed their firft fyftem ; by reducing the bounds of Acadia from the whole Peninfula to a fmall part of it, on the authority of a paflage of Denys, a modern author, foreign to the purpofe ; and this change fhews, that the appHcation of the words and alfo^ to fupport that redudion, was a difcovcry made by them not till after Mr. Bur and had dclivered-ir his memorial : at which time perhaps the Frmch minifters had not obferved, or fceen informed, tlxat the fame objedtion to the En- flijh claim, had teen ftartcd fome years ago by Charlevoix. •-A>a.i. '^h^r ji^n Liii^-v ! r'?;:"// "T ■ V this [94 ] M V '^ This was indeed an unlucky oveiTight ; and to retrieve it, if poflible, they law would coft them dear. However, they chofe to difavow their firfl agents fyflem, and confefs, that till of late, they had no fixed idea of the ancient limits in qucflion, rather than loie the benefits which they flattered themfelves might accrue from that new quirk : which after all hath been proved to be of no man- ner of fervice, unlefs to mew what defperate Ihifts they have been driven to ; and what contemptible artifices they have made ufe of, to defraud the Englijh of their juft rights. Muft we be the dupes of fuch bare-fac*d juggling .'' Muft we be the dupes of their juggling, and their bung- ling at the fame time ? il' : .?yj«;'::;>.a"oOi. ';'i.« Thus I think I have by fair reafoning, and fub~ ftantial proofs, effedually brought to the ground the French hypothefis, concerning the ancient li- rnits of Acadia -, by beating down the fecond iin- found pillar (founded on the words and alfo) which fupported their chimerical fabrick : for they had but two ; the pafTages ot DenySy already proved wnfound, being the other, . i-i tfi'n.' H'i I I^ave further made it appear, that the ancient limits contended for by the Englijh Commiflaries are the right ; whether they ought to be confidered as thofe defcribed by Cbamplaif?, pr fuch other an- cient limits as are referred to in the treaty of Utrecht, One of thefe two muft be the true and ancient hounds of Acadia : and fince the French Commif- faries have declared in their laft memorial, p. 1 73, that the whole queftion between the two powers is to determine that fingle point, as without doubt it is J methinksj as that queftion is here folved more ways l9S] ways than one, the French minifters ought to ac- knowledge thcmfelves in the wrong, and yield to the Englijh all which they demand to be their due by treaties. If they do not, 'tis prefumed the world will no longer hefitate to conclude, that their dsipute about ancient limits, is a fcheme laid to defraud the Englijh nation of their proper rights, in the mod exprefs terms given-up by folema treaties ; that their defence or fyftem is evidently falacious, impofing, and without the leaft folid foundation ; and that if they Ihould declare war, it will be becaufe they are determined to fupport the mod bare-fac*d quibbles and flagrant inju- ftice. , . . . v . . V liii If therefore they are fmcerely willing to avoid the above cenfure, let them examine things well,, and be fure that they are in the right, before they refolve to maintain them by force. For if the Minifters who fent over Mr. Durand in 1749, could miftake fo egregioufly in afcertaining the limits of Acadia \ why might not thofe have mif- taken, who undertook to fettle them the next year, as they are found in the Memorials of the prefent Commif&ries ? efpecially as, inftead of enlarging; they have diminftied its Kmits more than one half: which ftiould render their determination ftill more fuipicious. ii iri \cw I > 11 ore to baffle truth, and jt^ftify ipjuiUce. , " the [97l the point at once, by removing the heaps of rub- b'fh thrown in the wsly, and bringing it in the fliorteft manner I could to the teft of fadls and reafon, is what, in the prefent remarks, I have undertaken to do. But to return to the Summary DifcuDion. ' .'V, i .. ■.-■» 1-^ T t ■• - •*' ' : ■'-■■■•if '. ■• The author of that traft, having made the moft he could of his two authorities, in fupport of the French lyftem concerning the antient limits of A^ , Wid 32. p, 341, and 383. com-' [ 99 1 tommerce, and annoy our fettlcments oh that fide at pleafurc, as hath been already obfei'vcd. Hence* it would not be long before we ihould be forced into a new war, without any probability of re* moving the evil. This alone muft be a fufficient reafon, if there was no other^ for rejoSling thcit motion* T :, iiom .^* ..4l.(" t ^j... .'/ i.. 1 I -: Their pi-etehce jfbr demanding the poflelBoh of this river is, that it is neceffary for preferving ^ communication with the IJle- Royals or Cape-Brc 'totti and St, JohtCs IJle, as well as between 0/>?oi ' But the i^ea of incibnrcnience or difadVantage to them, is no reafon why the Englijh IhouTci grant their demand, which would be no lefs in- convenient and detrimental to themfelves. At the treaty of .Utr:;cj^t they ^t Cape- Breton ceded to them, under pretence of fecuriftg a free paflage to Canada by the river oi St. Laurence ; now un* der pretence of wanting another free paifage, th^ would fain have the river »S/. John delivered -up to them, „,„v-^ , -'iU ^^t,.^i. xJ If this river be fo necefiary for them, ^s thcv alledgc it to be, fure it was fo at that time as Well as now: and why then did they not apply for it at the treaty of Utrecht, -as. wdl. as forJCapC' •Ml :> f-.. ■' They havt •only one anfwer to make to this, -viz. that although there was the fame occafiori for St. John's river then as now, yet there was O 2 noc '^ I, > cc (( 'k( if- (( (( [ ICO ] nov the fame occafion to apply for it, becaufe they tlid not apprehend that it was ceded by France at that treaty. I'his in effect is what the author of the Suwvtary means, p. 27. \yhcn he affirms, " Nothing was more contrary toishe intenthn of *' FrancCy than to fnppofc (he. ^ould have ceded to England all the south part of thb GULPH of St. Lauf '"nce, as well as the fouth yWf [or country on thv. iide] of theriver 9} that nnmRy as far as Qiiebek: for iiJch ti ccfliom muft have produced much. tnore ftircly than the yielding up of Cape-iBr&ton, all tke eflfec^ which Louis XIY, had fojuiUy; apprehended. *^; - . . ATis in vain to pretend want of intenthv J» and the improbability .of ceding the oountJiy in quct- (lion, from a fuggeftion ofinGonYcni^acieiagainfl: fads : fince the ceffion has been clearly prov'd by fevcral kinds of arguments. This plea Ukewife feems to be contradided by a ckufe in the anfwer of Louis XIV. of the lothofy^wf, 1712^ cited in the fame place ""^ by the author of xhQ Summary. *" For the King, as a reafon why he ought ta have the fole polTefTion of Cape- Bret on^ exprefly pbferves, " that y^cz^/i //:;Mc'^. For the fame reafons, he would re- " ferve to himfelf the liberty of erecting forts in "" theifles (of the giTlph f), and within the mouth ' \ The abfardlvy of ih's fnggeftion is humoufly expofed in the Ciihtiucl af the French, nuith regard ta Nova Scotia, p. 60. •P. 16. •f By the iflef; of the gulph, are to be underwood the iHes [ JO. ] <' of the river 5/. Laurence^ as well as in Cape* *' Brefoft" .r .A-/M .' .'n*^M.- , , Docs not the plain meaning of the King's words fcem to be this, " that by the cefiion of Acadia^ which I have agreed to in the preceding article, my fubjedts will be dq^rived of the communi- *' cation of ^dhk with St. "JohrCs river, which is part of Acadia ib ceded ; if therefore I fliould yield alfo part of Cape- Breton^ my (hips woul4 be hindered, in cafe of a war, from getting in- " to St, Laurence river, which would be the lo(s *' of Canada^ as in that cafe my fubjecfts could •> have tto acce'fs to ic/' Louis therefore thought it but reafonable that he (hould have one free paf- fage to his northern polfeflions ; and 'tis likely our Minifters, from the fame confideration, were in- duced to yield him up Cape- Breton and the ides of St, Laurence giilph. ,.;. (6 i( (( (( t( ,*.*. ^-^if ♦ ,.; But fuppofmg all the country to the north of the Peninfula was to have remained in the hands of the French at the treaty of Utrecht^, Louis XIV. could . not have had the fame plea •, for although his fhip* might be hindered from getting into the river cf St. Laurence^ yet how could Canada be loft, in cafe St, John's river was in his poflefTion ; fmce by that river the French could have admittance to it all the year round ? It is remarkable likewife, that in this^^ place, as elfe where, he fpeaks of the ceflion of Acadia in general, without any limita'- • tion ; and confequently had in view nothing lefs than Acadia in its utmoft extent, f\Kh as he had in general, and io particvilar thofe in the raoi^th of the river St. Laurence, I as appears by comparing the King's anfwer with the propofals of EugUnJ, an ji. par. 4. p. 377. and Vt. 3?- PV. 4- P.i^^r. ,> all [ 102 ] all along granted to his governors, and fecms only to have been known to him. But whether the Englijh (haring with the Fre7tcb the ifland of Cape-Breton would have hindered their ihips from having accefs to the river St. Lau- rence or not i yet it is plain from EnglancPs claim- ing it, and other ides of the gulph of St. Laurence j then in the pofleflion of the French^ and from Yrance'^ referving them by treaty, that it was the intention of the one to have the whole of Nova Scotia or Acadia^ and of the other to yield up iht whole, excepting thofe referved ifles. Thofe iflands being then in the poflbfTion c^' France^ England could have had no pretence of claim to them, but as Nova Scotia was ceded to her, and they originally belonged to it. She was fo far from believing Nova Scotia to be contrac- ted or diminilhed from its antient dimenfions, by the words antictU limits ; that it was by the autho- rity of thofe very words flie undertook to extend her claim and jurifdidion over places then atftually in the hands of France. Nor did France gainfay her, but in efted acknowledged her demand to be jufl : and it was to prevent their paflTmg to Great Britain^ by virtue of the celTion of Nova Scotjuy t!M.t France referved them, particularly Cape Bre- ton^ which never was (much lefs originally was) a ^2in oi Acadia^ If it had. not been for that, France would not have had thcleaft oceaf^on for referving them in the treaty. /Ai.-V)}. ^ ^ -v*?4ji ♦> - Needs there a ftrongcr argument than this, to prove, that under the words Acadia according to its antient limits^ France ceded not only the Pcn^ infuky but likewife all the country to the north of it, as far as the river St» Laureme f Befides, if the i 103 J the iflands at the mouth of that river belonged ta Nova Scotia or Jcadia^ mud not the coaft oppo- fite to them have aifb belonged to it ? Whence it is clear, that Louis XIV. and his Miniftcrs at the treaty of Utrecht^ had nothing fo much in view', as to cede to Great BHtain all the Acadia of his predeceflbr Louis XIII. and all the Nova Scott A pf King y^wtfi I. oi England, ■'• If no more had been ceded to Great B^ii^in by the preliminary articles, than the piece of Penin- Jula^ which the commiflaries would put them off with, fhe would have had no pretence to claim jhofe ifj^ds, as being quite out of the bounds of rhe part fo ceded. ,„,.„ ^. , ., . , ^>' And if fb, is it to be imagined, flie would have prefumed to tell Louis XIV. that hisfubje^is might enjoy the ijland of Cape-Breton in common with thofe of the ^een * ; as it were to offer him a part of what was his own, as well by adlual pof- feflion, as by Hich fcanty ccfTion. ^^ *^v ^t .u\ ,- In that cafe, would not Louis have rejefted the propofal, not only as a new demand, contrary to the articles figned at London the 8th of 05iober^ 1 7 1 1, (in the fame manner as he did with relpe(5t to the iflands in the mouth of the river St. Laurence f :) but alfp as a kind of affront offered to himfelf .'' On the Other hand, fup^dfing. things 10 have been in this fituation, if he thought it fo neceffary to referve by treaty fo fmall a part of Nova Scotia or Acadia^ as thofe iflands, is it likely, that he -would have taken lefs care of the by-for more valu- able part, the ftiain land \ Could he without fuch a t *t » I ' • Pieces juflif.c. art. 31. pgr. 4. p. 376. .+ S.ee art. 27. pv. ^. and the anfwcr, art. 28. par. \. ) fiif- [ '04 1 (iirrendcr, have judged himfclf more feciire of the continent than of tlie iflands, crpccially as he had in expreffi terms yiekled up the 'Whole of that country to Britain f -, ;, ; ^ .', This is on a fuppofition, that the continent to the north of the Peninfula was at that time in the hands of the French King, as well as the iflands. But fuppofing it was then in the pofTefTion of the Knglijh^ as it was by the late conqucll in r 7 1 o (for French intrufions, if there wax* any, did not afte(5l our right * ) there was dill the more rcafon in cafe France Ceded no more than a part of that Peninfula to Britain^ why the remainder of No- va Scotia^ or yfccidia^ fhould have been formally reftored to France, which, for want of fuch au- thentic rellitution, muft want a title to the fame ^ which tide confequently remains in the Englijh. The argument againfl: a partial ceflion of Neva Scotia, or Acadia, in the treaty of Utrecht, drawn from Louis XIV. not referving a right to any part thereof, except the iflands, is corroborated his by not referving a right to fortify any other If that King had judged the eaft coaft of Nova Scotia, or Acadia, belonged to him, is it not likely that he would have required liberty to for- tify fome of its ports, as well as the adjacent illes ? But whatever reafons might be urged for not for- tifying the eaftern coaft of Nova Scotia (on acr count of the neighbouring ifles defending it, or * Bcfides, inftead of depriving the £«^/{/& of the lands, \( any French remained in the country, two>ears after the trea- ty, they became the property of the Englijh by the 14th article of it. % Other* I 105 1 Otherwifc) i yet, if 6V. John'% river had ban in the hands of the French^ and is of fuch im[x)rtance us the author of the Summary alledgcs, mcthiiiks it would have been no Icfs neccflliry to fortify t^c mouth of it, than tliat of the river St. J.nurrfire, as well for fccuring the pafllige up it, as the ftiips in port there i more efpccially, as Port-Roya!^ which lies fo near it to the fouth, was fortified. It feems manifeft therefore, fince Louis XIV. did not referve a right to fortify it, that he did not judge it to be in his poflcnion : and he not only knew that the En^liflo liad conquered it two years before, but was confcious he had given it out of his poUeffion, by ceding to them all Nova Scotia^ or Acadia^ that is, the northern, as well as the fouthern part of the country ; the continent as well as the peninfula. Do not all thefe circumftances clearly evince, as far as inferences can evince, the fallity of the aflertion, that France had no intention to give up the country fouth of the river St. iMurence, which includes St. John\ river } In fliort, the reader fees, that all the arguments which the French bring in fupport of their fyllem, from facls, from reafon, and from circumftances, turn againft them j and concur no lefs to overthrow their fyllem, than thofc brought againft it by the Englijh conm^if- {aries •, fmce they agree with the ceflion of the whole, and are incompatible with that of a part. >■»* , 'i-i *;.H"«->», -■•< I U.. But now we are come about again to St. Job:i*s river, let us fee what our Summarift has farther to fay on this topic, which at prefent feems to be the chief bone- of contention with France. " ' ' ' P * ' ' The } I i°6 ] » The author of the Summary^ to make the refu - lal of the Englijb to yield them the river St. John appear the more invidious, pretends, p. 13. that their reafon is, " Becaufe they intjnd to make a *' communication by land along the coaft, and " round the French (or Fundy) bay, and the moft " eaftern parts of Acadia" Which projedt he treats as chimerical, tho* it will be neceflary when the coMnrr/ comes to be fettled : but fuppofing it fhould not, he ought not to have affigned this as the only reafon they have for the refufal, when there were fo many others of much greater im- portance before his eyes. But it mull be remem- bred, that the whole bufinefs of the Summary is to fupprefs and impofe. As to the fuggeftion, that the Englijh keep this rivjr and the country of Nova Scotia<, chiefly be- caufe their delign is to conquer Canada^ it is fo abl'urd in itlelf, that it fcarce deferves to be taken notice of. If the Engliflj were fo fond of con- quering Canada^ they would have done it many years ago, when there was fmall difficulty in the undertaking to what there might be now. But the French have for a long time given them fo gicat provocation from thence, that their Mini- ilers think we ought to conquer it. However tliat may be, the poifeflion of the river or coun- try in queftion, does not give the Englijh a better opportunity of conquering Canada^ than it would the French of conquering the neighbouring pro- vinces, which would then be furrounded by them. If the forbearing difpofition of the Englijh for many years paft be confidered, it will appear that they Id [ 107 ] they were fo far from having had any intention to conquer Canada, that the/ had fcarce any incHna- tion to preferve their own territories ; while the French^ by their continual encroachments, and building forts on our very frontiers, have demon- ftrated the mod fanguine defire to conquer them. Does not this fhew the folly, as well as hypocrify, of their fuggeftion ? They are either fo thoughtlefs or hardy, as ge- nerally to make ufe of arguments, which, like this, turn againft themfelves. Of a like kind is another fuggeftion of the author of the Sum- mary^ viz. that not only the territories of the French^ but even thofe of the Dutch, Spanicirds, and Portuguefe^ are in danger from the EngUjh^ who have it in their heads to conquer them. This might with fome juftice be laid of the French^ who, by their fettlement at Cayenne^ on the north-eaft coaft of Souib America, have thruft themfelves in, between the Dutch at Sn- rinara on one fide, and the Portuguefe in Bra- ftl on the other, in order to thruil both out, whenever they have an opportunity. By their fettlements at the mouth of the M[fpffippi, and on the adjacent coalls, they have divided Nciv Spain from Florida •, and have intruded on the clainj^ and pofiefiions of the Spaniards, as well as ih^ Englijfj i with a view to carry on, as they do, an illicit trade at their Mexican mines, arid cioubilf Is to feize them at length. Their frequent encroach- ments put it beyond all doubt, that both will b- in danger from them whenever they grow flroiig : Whereas the Englijh territories, being ail coa- f^ned, as yet, to the eaftcrn coaft of Nort'v //- mericay [ io8 ] mmca^ do not come near the territories of either the Duich or Portugucfe •, and only border in one part, of no great extent, on the Spaniards in the peninfula of Florida, , ; . \v ill it not feem ftrange to thofe unacquainted v/ith the Fr^.;:rh politics, that they fhould exclaim fo iTiuch againil the Englijh for cutting logwood in certain places on the Spainjh main, to which they claim a right by agreement, as well as pre- fcription i and at the fame time, befides their other encroachments, have adlually feized near one half, as v/ell as the bed lands, or the ifland of Hifpa^ nicliy from the Spaniards^ under pretence of a title derived from thofe notorious fea- robbers and pirates, the Buccanlers ? Have they not difcover- cd ftrong indications of a defign to conquer Cuba^ vv'hich lies fo at hand, and make themfelves maf- tcrs of the windward paffage ? Is it poflible tlien that the Spaniards can join them againil the Englijh^ on a fuppofition, that they have more to fear from us than the French ? Sucli arguments fure can ferve only to put them in mind of the injuries which the French have done them i and convince them that their greateft dan- ger is to be apprehended from that quarter, rather t;han frcm anv other European nation fettled in /hucrica^ or tlian from them all together ? ■♦ ., ■ I FINIS. f 109 ] /.♦:, - r I I. ;d ADDITIONS. pjge 4.1. line 5. after exiftence, read^ but a ,«w- ' > fiiadow more than their Nova Scotia. ; . '"^ ^:\ *'*;'^ * < I » I r> p. 42. /. 2.