THE

CON D U C 'T OFT HE

F R ENe H, With Regard to

NOVA SCOTIA;

From its firfl: Settlement to the prefent Time.

In which are expofed the F alfehood and Abfur .. dity of their Arguments made ufe of to elude the Force of the Treaty of UTRECHT, and fupport their unjuft Proceedings.

In a Letter to a ·Member of Parliament.

LONDON: Printed for T. JEFFERYS, Geographer to His Royal

Highnefs the Prince of Wales, at the Corner of St .. Martin's Lane, near Charing Crofs.

MDCCLIV.

(Price ONE SHII.LINC.)

[ I ]

THE

CONDUCT OFT It E

FRENCH With refpeCt to the

Britifh Dominions in America,

particularly Nov A S COT I A.

SIR,

T HE pre[ent encroachments of the French upon Nova Scotia, one of the moft va­luable Britifh Colonies, is a matter of [0

extraordinary a nature, and fo injurious to the nation in general, that every true friend to his country ought to be fully acquainted wilh it. For this rea[on, as I have made it my bu­fine[s, tho' a private perfon, to enquire into the motives of their daring conduct, I thought it my duty to communicate to the .public my ob­fervations thereupon; in which I propofe to make appear, that the proceedings of the French, on this occafion, is one of the moft flagrant infults upon both the majefty and underftanding of the Britifh nation that ever could be arempted. Their defign is nothing lefs than to wreft from us

• B a Ipa-

[ 2 ]

a fpacious province, which was originally our own; and which, not many years finee they had given up, and confirmed, to us, by the molt 10lemn treaties. With t~is view they have entered and fetded in the very heart of it, in defiance of all our remonftrances; feizing above two part~ in three of the whole. To juftify this invafion of our territories, they pretend that we are entitled to no more than the finall fhare they have left us, which is at moft the peninfula or fouthern divifion of NO'!Ja Scotia; and fup­porting their injuftice by force, have actually built forts at the entrance of that penil{ula, where we remain, as it were, penned up by tnem, till fuch time as, by a due exertion of our power, they iliall be obliged to withdraw beyond the river of St. Lawrence.

They have ftuck at nothing to give a colour to this open infraction of the Utrecht treaty, and violation of the faith of nations. Their geographers and hiftorians have been influenced to proftitute their pens in the molt iliameful manner, to ferve the injurious eaufe; and their principals, who fet them to work, have not been afhamed afterwards to make ufe of fuch cor­rupt evidence, confifting of the loweft chicanry and moft barefaced falfifications, as the chief, and in effect the only arguments on whi€h they ground their pretenfions. In iliort, their rea­fons are [0 confummately fallacious, inconfiftent and trifling, that their defence of the injury ought to be taken for fneer, and is no lefs pro­voking than the injury it felf.

, The .El1glijh, by .right of difcovery of the cabols, In J497, cbum all North America, from

34

[ 3] 34 to 66 or 67 degrees of north latitude; to which they gave no name or names, only that of the Newfoundlands: but negleCting to fettle in tho[e parts, the French, conducted by James Cartior, in 1534, went into the river of Canada or St. Lawrence, and took poffeffion. After~ ward~, in 1562, they made another fettlement in Florida, as it was then called, in the latitude of 34 degrees, which fell in South Carolina. To thefe fettlements they pretended a right by the difcovery of Jlerrazzano, in 1524, from 34-to 50 degrees of latitude, altho' it was 27 years pot1:erior to that of the Cabots ; to all which extent of country they gave the name of New Frcmcc.

After a long interruption of near IOoyears, the French, in 1603, began to renew their voyages to Canada; and not content herewith, in a few years hlore made fettlements in the country then called La Cadia, not only on the [outh coaft of the pen­infula, and at Port Royal, but alfo on the coafts to the north of the bay of Argalor Fundy (called by them Baye St. Francoije,) at the rivet of Pen~ tagoet 30 leagues fauth-weft of the river St. Croix. All this while they met with little at no oppofition from the Englifh: but in 1613 the governor of Virginia finding that the French had not only intruded northward; within the Englifh difcoveries, but had 'alfo encroached within his limits, the place above mentioned ly­ing below the latitude of 45 (to which the grant in 1606 from King James I. to chief juftice Popham and others, extended) rent commodot~ Argal with 3 {hips, who demolifhed their forts, ruined their colonies, and carried away feveral of them prifoners.

B 2 To

[ 4 ] To fecure this country more effectually to

the crown of England, a few years after, Sir Ferdinanda Gorges being governor of New Eng~ gland, per[uaded Sir William Alexander, fecretary of ftate for Scotland (afterwards earl of Stirling and vifcount Canada) to obtain from King James I. a grant of all the country to the north of the Virginia patent, or beyond 45 degrees, and to the fouth of Canada, under the name of New Scot­land. Sir William accordingly applied to the King, and in 1625 obtained a grant of the lands bounded on the weft by the river St. Oroix; on the north by the great river of Canada; on the eaft by a line drawn through the gulph of St. Laurence to the eaft of Cape B1·itain ii1and, which therefore became a part of it; and on the fouth by the ocean: which country (confidered before under the common name of Virginia) whore bounds are with great minutenefs and precifion aicertained in the faid patent*, the King ap-

pointed

. '~The words of the patent, fa far as relate to the fubjeCi in quellion, are as follow. Dedimus, conceilimus, et difpo­fuirnus, ter,;njque pr;:e(enti charro:e noitro:e, damlls, concedi­mus, et difpor.imns pro:efeCl:o domino Willielmo Alexalldro. hxredlbus fuis vel ailignatis quibukullque h;:ereditarie, omnes ct fingula5 terra', cominen:i;, ac infu\as, fituatas et jacentes in America, inter caput feu promolltorium. cornmuniter Cap. de: Sable appcllatum, jacens prop~ latitudinem quadraginta triuJU graduum, aut ab eo circa, ab iquil10xiali linea verfus [erten­uionem, a quo promontorio verfus Jittus maris tern:lentis ad occidcnrcm, ad lbtionem Sanche Mari;:e navium (vuJoo St. r~;;,cy's ~ay) .;et d~ilJceps verfus feprentrionem per Gi~Cl:am lin~.aJ? IlHrOltum hve allium mag:o«: illius fiationis navium, frajlCle.nte,ffi,. q u;:e excurrit in rerro:e Orientalem Plagam, .inter reglOOls ~unquDrum et Etechemmorum (vulgo Suriquois et f,ltci,u£lInes), ad fi~\ium vulgo n.omine SanCl:;:e Crucis appel­btum, et ad fcatungenem remotlffimam, five fontem ex oc­ciJcnrali ?arte ejufdem qui fe primum pro:ediCl:o fluvio im­HliL:er, nnd>;; per imaginariam direcbm lineam. qua: pergcre

per I

[ 5 ] pointed for the future fhould be called New Scotlalld. And King Charles I. created after­wards for this. new kingdom an order of Baro­nets, which flill fubfifts.

As this country is naturally divided by a gre~t gulf or arm of the fea into two parts; to the north the main land, and to the [outh a large peninfula; Sir William, purfuant to the power which he had by his patent, divided it accord-

per terram, feu currere verfus feptentrionem concipietllr ad proximam navium ftationem Ruvium vel fcaturiginem in magno Ruvio de Cannada fefe exonerantem. Et ab eo per­gendo verf'us orientem per maris oras littorales ejufdem Ruvii de Cannada, ad Ruvium flationem nal'ium portum aut littus communiter nomine de Gachepe vel Gafpie notum et appcl­latum; et deinceps verfus Euronotum ad infulas Bacalaos vel

, • Cap. Briton vocatos, relinquendo eafdem infulas a dextra, et voragjnc~ di8:i magni fluvii de Cannada, five magno ftationis navium, et terras de Newfoundland,' cum infulis ad eafdem terras pertinentibus a finifira: et deineeps ad caput five pro­montorium de Cap. Briton pra:di8:um, jacens prope latitudi­nem quadraginta quinque gradullm, aut eo circa. Et a diao promontorio de Cap. Briton, verfus meridiem et occidentem ad proediaum Cap. Sable, ubi incipit perambulatio, includenda e~ comprehenda intra diCtas maris, oras, littorales, ac carum intra diC1:as maris, oras, littorales, ae earum circllmferentias a'mari; ad onmes terras continentis, cunl R;umiriibus, torren­tibus, finubus, littoriblls, infulis aut maribus Jacentibus prope infra fex leucas'ad aliquam earundem partem, ex oecidentali, bore ali, vel orientali partibus, alarum, littoralium, et pra:­cinBuum earundem. Et ab euro noto (uti j~cet Cap. Britton) et ex auflrali parte ejufdem ubi ell: Cap. de Sable omnia maria ac infuJas verfus meridiem intra quadraginta leucas diaarum orap~m littoralium earllndem magnam infulam vulgari~ t~r apellatam Ifle de Sable, vel Sablon, iIjduden. jacen­verfus 'carban (vulgo fouth-fouth-eall), circa triginta leu­cas a diao Cap. Britton, in mari, et exilien. in latitudine quadraginta quatuor graduum, aut eo circa. ~a: quidem te'rroe pra:diBa: omni tempore a futuro nomine No'Vt¥ ScOfid! in America gaudebunt; quas etiam pra:fatus dominus Willielmus in partes et portiones, ficut ei vifum fuerit divi­det, iifdemque' nomjna pro be,neplacito imponet, una cum omnibus fodinis, tum regalibus, auri et argenti, quam aliis fodinis. ferri, plumbi, cupri, ftanni, reris, &c.

B 3 ingly

J 6 ] ~ngly into two profinces, and gave new names to almoft all the rivers and ports, and even tranOating the names of ,thofe given by the fettlers into Englijh, that no traces, if pollible, of the French unight reinain in the tountry; as appears by the map of No-va Scotia * flill extant, which by his orders wa,s m.ade and publifhed. Thefe then are the ancient or rather the mofl an· dent bounds of New Scotland.' but not all which the Englijh, under that name, claim by the treaty of Utrecht. .

Charle'7.Joix, whore late hiftory of New France is the fund of falfehood and error, from whence the French on thi50ccauon draw all their argu­ments, acknowledges, "That in feveral treaties " he finds the name of New Scotland aJCribed " fometimes to the peninfula, exclufive of the " fouth coaft t [or country lying to the fourh " of the river] of Cenflda, and fometimes to " that coaft, exclllfive of the peninfula;" bL1t fays, " it cannot be proved by any authentic me­" moir, that they both V\<ent by that name at the " fame time." Here is now an allthenticmemoir : I mean the patent granted to Sir William Alex­ander, corroborated by his map, in which that ·re­quifite is found. And this fingle evidence is fllfficient to fhew the vanity of all that author's fuggeftions.

To take away the force of the objeCtion which might be brought from his confellion, that the name of Nova Scotia has been given

* !his map is infefted in Purchas's collection of -voyages, Vol. IV. p. 187z.

t By fouth coall is to be underftood all the country· {o~tho~ the river St. Lot/renee, fee p. 410 par. 3. of Charle­'UOIX Hill. Gen. de Ia No1l'v. Fra.'?C. tho' he ufes the ambiguous txp~effion, in order to miJlead or deceive his reader.

[ 7 ] in treaties to the continent as well as the pen­infula, he fays they are modern changes; where­as the difpute between the Englifh and the French is about· the ancient bounds of Acadia or Nova Scotia, he ought to have faid of Nova Scotia or Acadia; on which occafion he affirms, that what' the EngliJh firft named Nova Scotia, was no more than the eoafl of Acadia,from Cape Sable (or Cape Sandy, as 'ris called in Sir William Alexander's map) to Camceau '*. Now the falGty of this is proved from the above-cited evidence, by which it appears that the firft time the name of Nova Scotia was ufed by the EngliJh, it was given by them to all the country in queftion fouth of the river of Canada. This is fomething de­cifive: there was nothing then to be done, but either to allow this evidence to be good, to deny its validity, or elfe produce it in favour of his aifertion. The firft he would not do, the fecond he could not do, but the laft he ventured on ; accordingly he has the front to affirm, that in England it felf the name of Nova Scotia is given [olely to the peninfula : for that, 4dds he, " William " Alexander earl of Stirling ha'Z-'ing received a " grant oj what had been taken from France, in " this part of Canada, divided the fame into " two provinces, calling the penin/ula New Scot­"land, and gave to the refl the name of New "Alexandria." For this he quotes De Lae!, a very eminent author, who has, as he fay~, in­ferted the grant it felf,

Here the jefuit is guilty of great prevarica­tion ; firft, he fuppretfes what appears from De

. Laett, that the general name of the country,

* Charlev. Hill:. qen. de la Nouv. Fran. tom. i. p. 113·

t See his Novus Orb is, L. ii. c. 23.

B 4 which

[ 8 ] which was fo divided by Sir William Alexander~ was called Nn;; Scotland. 2. If De Laet had faid the contrary, yet he knew, by the words of the patent it felf, infefted by that author, that the name of New Scotland was ordered, from thenceforth to be given to the whole; and therefGre could not be given by the Englifh only to a part. 3. De Laet calls the peninfula New Caledonia, not New Scotland, into which Char­it-:,'oix has changed it, that his readers ihould think the fame name being given to a part, could r,uL be ~riven to the whole; altho' this is a com· mon c~~rt'. 4. Cbarle"'v'cix has fuppreffed the mention of the map of New Scotland, from whence De Laet fays he took thofe particulars, that the reader might not look after this map; whence it may be concluded that Charlevoix h.ld himfelf feen it, Ought any credit to be given to fuen an abandoned writer as this? Lr :111y u[e g1Jde of his authority? The map referred to by De Laet, who wrote in 1633, 'was no doubt the fame we have already men­tioned; for he fays it was but 'lately pub­Ellled, and that be!ides changing the names of provinces. new names are given to other places, conformably to what hath been already obkrved. In that map, the names of the two provinces of Alexandria and Caledonia are engraved in [mall roman letters, and that of New Scotland in Jarge capitals, diftributed into both provinces.

Whether Charle~'oix faw this map, or not, he m~lft have been either wilfully or ignorantly blmd to excefs, in affirming that the Englifh give the name of Nova Sc~tia [olely to the pe­ninfula, !ince the contrary may be [een in their m:lps; and even in the maps of the Frmch themfelves, at leaft, thofe made when the country

w~s

[ 9 ] was in Englijh hands. In a chart of the gulph of St. Lawrence and Canada, made by Le Codier', at Havre de Grace, in 1696, and publifhed by authority of the admiral, the name of New Scotland is given to the North Main, or- that part c~lled Ne'lf} Alexandria, in Sir William Alexander's map. But, fuppofing him ignorant of this, and many more inftances in maps made before hi.ci time, how could he be ignorant of what is in­ferted in his own work, and pafted under his own eye? I mean the map of the Eaflern part of New Fra1zce or Canada, (as it is intitled) made in 1744 by Mr. Belli1z, for his hiftory of that country, wherein the name of NO'l.1tJ Scotia is given to the North Main?

On this occafion, it may be obfcrved as a common rule, that they who confefs againfl themfelves, are more to be believed than thofe who deny for themfelves. But, in thus oppofing one french authority to another, I do not qucte 'one of their ordinary geographers: for Mr. Bellin is hydrographer to the marine, :'.S well as cenfor royal; and his contradicting the author whom he was employ'd to illuftrate, gives a double force to his authority.-If therefore, in a fubfequent map of the fame country, he hath omitted the name of Nova Scotia, it was nor~ .as may be prefumed, in confequcl1ce of being better informed, but becau[e he was othe:wife directed or inclined.

Having reduced the ancient bounds of No-,,'a .scotia to one of it's fourhern coafts, it was neceifary to make thofe of Acadia tally with them; that the Englijh might not be intitled to more, uflder one fienomination, than they could

claim

[ 10 ]

claim by the other. In attempting to do this, Charlevr;ix has difcovered no lefs ignorance. and fourberie, than in the former inftances. He is willinry indeed to altow, "that Acadia [to whofe " bo~nds he would confine Nova Scotia] in­" eludes the whole peninfula, in the opinion of " all the beft geographers and hiftorians, par­" ticularly De Laet, excepting Champlain and "Denys. The firft, he fays, gives, in his voya­" ryes, chap. 8. the name of Acadia to no more " ~han the fouth-coaft of the peninfllla; which " he proves from thefe words, The fiellr de Pont, " with the commiffion of the fieur de Monts, " went to Canceau, and along the coaft of Cape " Briton: the fieur de Monts fhaped his courfe " more at large towards the coafts of Acadia*." From this jefuitical logic we learn two things. 1. That the coa[ts of a country are the whole country; or that France having coafts, is no­thing but coaft. 2. That failing towards the coafts of a country, implies failing towards the fourh coafts of it: confequently to the coaft of Languedoc and Provfi1ce, if applied to France. "Vhat accuracy may we not expect from an hi­fiorian fo acute in his reafonings, and j LIft in his diftinctions? I might add fa quick fighted and difcerning: for he did not fee that his fa1fe afihtion is refuted by the very pafTage which he produces to prove it ; fince, if Acadia be no more than co a fl:s , the IOana of Cape Briton muft be no more, ['( II' [0 much: It muft be only a fingle coaft, while -" iwdia will confift of feveral coafts.

But, what muft be thought of the hone!l:y of this je[c;it, who perverts the meaning of an author in one place, to make him contradict

ill Charlevoix, ibid p. 11 Z.

4 what

[ .1 I ]

what he has declared in feveral places? At the end of that very chapter from whence he has made .the above quotation, ChamplBin tells us " that he was three years and a half in Acadia, H part of the time at St. Croix, l which is on the " north main] and part at Port Royal*'." And purfuant to his promife in the fame place, which is at the end of his firft book, employs his whole fecond book, to defcribe Acadia conform­able to that declaration. 'Tis true Champlain only defcribes the coafts : but fo far was he from limit­ing Acadia to a bare coaft, that he exprefsly fays p. 65' the great River St. Lawrence runs along the fide of Acadia and N orimbegua; which is, in other words, to fay that thofe provinces extended fo far, or that it bounded them to the north. This ought to be allowed for a definitive fentence in the cafe, and from which there Ihould be no appeal: !ince Champlain having been 27 years in thofe parts, and for a long time governor of them, could not poffibly be miftaken in this point; and as he went over with the firft dif­(:overer Dt Monts, in 1603, muft have been ac­quainted with the ancient bounds of Acadia. which it may therefore be prefllmed are thofe which he mentions.

* II ne fera hors de propos de defcrire les dercouvertes de ces wiles, pendant trois ans &. demy qne je fus a l' Acadie. Cant a I'habitation de Sainte Croix, q'all Port R~Jal. all j'ells moyen de voir, et defcollrire Ie tout, comme i] (e verra au livre (uivant. p. 48. Thefe words confirm what is le[s explicitly delivered in the page foregoing, where he fays that " nnce De Monts would not fettle on the river St. Lawrence, " he ought to hllve {ought out a place not [0 liable to be de­.. [erted as was St. Croix and Port Royal." He adds, that .. in cafe Dt Monts had taken [Ilch precaution, the people c~ would not have abandoned the country in three years and a '! half, as they had done Acadia," namely St. Croix and fq,., Royal.

If

[ 12 ]

If it fuould he faid, the paffage only proves, that the river St. Lawrence was the northern boundary of Acadia, when he wrote, but not that it was the ancient or moft ancient boundary: we fay that is begging the quellion, and will be of no avail, unlefs they can {hew, from exprefs authority, that before his time it had a different boundary.

But this cannot be done from the authority of any contemporary voyager to the fame parts: for neither the author of De ]\IIont's voyage, nor Lefcarbot, afcertain the bounds of Acadia. The reafon is, becaufe they do not enter into a geo­graphical defcription of it, and only fpeak of it's limits occafionallv; which is the cafe indeed with Champlain him'\tM: for altho' he men­tions the northern bounds of Acadia, he does 1,ot tell us precifely w hat the wefiern were; we can only gather by inference in general, that it was bounded en that fide by the province of Norim­begua, from the circumftance of the river St. Lawrence waibing the borders of that pro\-ince as well as thofe of Acadia.

However, the defect here may be fupplied ,from the authority of Count D'Efirades, who in his conferences with King Charles II. relating to the bounds of this country alledged, " That in " confequence of the treaty of St. Germain,. in " 1632 , reftitution was made to Frante [of all " the country] from f?2.gebek to the River of "Noremberg [or Penobfcot] where Pentagoe't " is built, which, fays he, is the firft place qf " Acadia~".

* See his letter of March 13, 1662, to the king, in his Ambajf. et Negotiat. tom, ii, p, 368.

It

[ 13 ) . It is plain therefore, that this objeC1:ion is of no force. N either can it be pretended, that becaufe this edition of Champlain's voyage to New Frana was publHhed in 1632., the year in which the treaty of St. Germain was figned, therefore Champlain fpeaksnot of the original bounds of Acadia, but of ~hofe eftabliihed by Lewis XIll. after that treaty: for the grant to Razil(y, which firft afcertained the bounds of Acadia, by regal authority, wa3 not made till the year following. Befides, by Lewis's grant Norimbegua was incorporated with Acadia, as being com prized under that name; whereas Champlain fpeaks of it as a diftinCt pro­vince, feparate from it. It is more likely there­fore that Lewis followed the authority of Cham­plain for the bounds of Acadia, than that he followed the king's.

Let us now return to Charlevoix, andaik; whe­ther is it more likely that thefe things could efcape his obfervation, or that he wilfully over­looked them? This hiftorian of New France

. thought it better, it feerns, to let au~hors appear to differ in their accounts, and leave the bound~ of Acadia undetermined, than produce the tefti­rnony of Champlain which he knew would at once overthrow all his fcheme; as he is revered and ftiled by the ~French, the father and founder of their fettlements in Canada. But what could be his view by fuch conduct? Nothing fme but to perplex the caufe for a time: for he could not but well know that this paffage as well as others of Champlain, which he had fuppreffed, would e'er long be produced a&ainft him, out of that author's voyages.

As for De Laet',s opinion, about the bOllnds of Acadia, it rnu11be confidered that his Nova,

ortis

[ i4 ) Ortis was printed before he faw the edition of Champlain's voyages publifhed in 1632, al .. though his own work was not publifhed till the year after: this appears from his own words, 1. 2.

C. 22. where he fays he had made ufe of Cham­plain's memoirs, but could find no account of the French affairs, after the year 1616; confequently the voyages he confulted were thofe pr~nted in 1614, or in 1619, in 8vo. Had he feen the others he would never have limited Acadia to the penin­fula, but have fix'd its northern bounds at the river St. Lawrence. But, fuppofing he had not; his diffent, tho' a learned and judicious writer, yet would not in the leaft have alter'd the cafeorle!fen'd the authority of Champlain. For, after all, que[­tions of this nature are to be decided folely by the relation of travellers. The opinions of geogra­phers are not to be regarded farther than as they appear to befupported by theauthorityoffuch per­fons; from whom they ought to t;:lke their infor­mation.

But to proceed: if Denys then is of the fame fentiments with Champlain, with refpeCt to the ancient bounds or extent of Acadia, as Charle­voix affirms; thofe fentiments muft be widely different from what that candid author affirms they are, for he fays Denys alfo reduced them to a bare coaft. After fa many flagrant inHances of his want of truth, it may be prefumed that the reader will not take his word for any thing; and we might be fpared the farther trouble of giving any of his afiertions a formal refutation: but as it muft have coft him no fmall pains to broach fo many glaring falfehoods, it would be doing injuftice, both to his abilities and la­bours that way, not to make the public tho·· roughly acquainted with them.

[ 15 ] To fupport his faid affertion, with refpect: to

Denys, he has inferted the fol1owing paragraph, in his biftory. "This perron (Denys) divides H into four provinces, all the eaft and [outh part " of Canada, which in his time had·four proprie­" taries, who were lieutenant- generals for the "king. The firft (extending) from Pentagoiit to " St. John's river, he named the province of the " Etechemins, and is that which was formerly ca11-~, ed Norembegua : to the fecond, from St. Jolm's h river to Cape Sable, he gave -the name of " French Bay: the third, according to him, is " Acadia, from Cape Sable to Camceaux; and " that is it which the Englijh at firft named Nova " Scotia, on the occafion which I flull men­" tion plefently : the fourth, which was his own " property, and government, from Camceaux to

" Cape Rofiers, he called Bay St. Lawrence, " whichothess have called GaJPejie*.

Now taking things as Charlevoix reprefents them, this was only an occafional divifion of the country, made by the proprietaries; in which, for diftinction's fake, the name of Acadia was given to one of the provinces: but he does not make Denys fay that the bounds which are here given to it are the original bounds of Acadia; nor does it follow from the divifion itfelf being fa made, that the name of Acadia did origi­nally extend no farther: for in the partition of countries the bounds of provinces are frequently changed, contraCl:ed or enlarged; of which Charlevoix furnifheth an inftance, with ref peEl to Acadia itrelf. For in anpther divifion, which he mentions elfewhere t, of the country into three

* Hill. Gen. de Ja Nou'V. Frtma, vol. i. p. 1l3. edit. J744. t P. 410•

parts,

( 16 J part" and in which alfo Denys was concerned1

the iecond, which was given to La 'Tour, con­[ai!~t'd half, or perhaps more; of the peninfula : for " be bad, fays the jefuit, Acadia, properly fo ~, called, from Port Ro),a! to CaiUCN!1IX;" that i" as it muft be underftood, by a line drawn from one place to the other; fo that all to the fouth of it belonged to La Tour.

That there was [nch a divifion as this we fhall not difpute: but fuppoGng this to have been the earlieft or the two divifions (which we are at liberty to do, fince there is nothing faid il1 the

, place which requires the contrary) it overthrows Charlc::oix's alTerrion, that Acadia was only a bare eoaft; much more his affirming that it extended only from Cape Sable to Camceaux. It goes farther,

. and, from the expreffion Acadia ptoper, implies, what we have above fuggefted, that this was only a part of a larger country, which went by the name of Acadia, in general, according to a known rule in geography.

It is not at all unjuftifiable in us, to fuppofe this to have been the firft divifion of the two; fince it was in the time of RaziI6', to whom it was granted in 1633, and Charlevoix does not tell us which was the Brft. But the truth is, that the qlladrllparrite divifion was a forgery con­trived by that jefuitical hiftorian, only to cor­roborate his mifconftruEtion of the words of Cbamplain, and fupport one falfehood by another: for Denys mentions no [llch divifion of the country. much !efs under the name of Canada, as Charle-voix affirms; nor indeed any divifion at aJ of it, either in his firft book, or the map pre-

fixed

[ 17 ] fixed to it. In the body of his book he never, to thebeft of our recollection, mentions Canaqa, nor

. ever A'Ca·dia, except it may be in the fixth chap­ter of hi3 firft volume; where he fays, that Long Jfle makes a pailage 'Tom French Bay to the land (not the eoan) ot L'irt1cii,.:; d Ij,j that at the Forked Cape, 12 or 15 kJ.:::,u,:s then~e, there is more cod than in any other place ot Acadia *. But it does not follow from thence, tbJ.c .dcac'ia begins there, or exten€1s no Lnher northward; much lefs does it prove that he: fpeaks of any fuch province as is mentioned in this pretended qua­dn1l'lartite divifion, for either Long Ijland or the Forked Cape, lie many leagues to the north of Cape Sable, where Acadia, according to the faid divifion 'begins. Neither does this imperfect ac­count of Denys agree better with the bounds affigned by Charle·voix to Acadia, in the tripartite divifion recited hereafter: for they were to be­gin at Port Royal; whereas the Forked Cape lies many leagues iliort, or to the weft of that place. Nor does Denys mention where Acadta ends, much lefs does he fay it terminated at Camceaux. But 'fuppofing he had fpoken of Acadia, under anyfuch contracted bounds as are found in ei-

e therof -the aforefaid divifions, it could only have proved, that there was in his time another

• -country of Acadia, anAcadia-proper, or province fo caned :fince, in the patent gr<ll1ted as afore­faid to Razilly, a cotemporary governor with him in Acadia at large; and yet more exprefly it) that of the fedentary or fetded fifhery granted to<himfelfJanuary 3~ 1654; the river St. Law­rence is declared to be the northern boundary of Acadia, . and Kinibek river the weftern. I

. * See Denys Defer Geogr. & Hilt. des Cotes de I'Ameri. que fe,Ften. p. 56. & 6r.

C Denys

[ 18 ] Dtil}s is fa far from faying, in his defcri'ption

()f the coans, that the name of Acadia was limit­ed to any part of the peninfula, or that it was a part of Canada, taken in a proper [enfe*'; that in his dedication to the King, he not only con­fiders them as t¥:o diftincr provinces into which New France was divided, as Champlain before him [eerns to have done; but alfo, under the name of Acadia, clearly comprizes, c0nformable to the faid grants, all the main-land to the [ourh of St. Lawrence river, and eaft of New England, which he bounds with the river Pen­tagoet or Penobjcot. For, after telling Lewis XlV. H it was owing to his, (the King's) care, " that Cal1ada began to breathe again, and that " Acadia was no longer in the hands of their " neighbours," he adds, " that the country " which he defcribes, made the principal and " mon: ufeful part of New France." Thefe laft words are quite unfuitable to a piece of coaft. Beflc1es, as the country \\ hich Denys defcribes com prizes the north-main, as well as the penin­fula, and both had been in the hands of the E1lg1iJb beit a little before, till ceded by the treary of Bred,:, in 1667, it follows, that he com prizes both parts under the name of Acadia; and confcquently, that he confidered Llcadiaas the general name of the whole countrYi even fuppofing it had been given fpecially to one of trle time provinces. If he had done otherwife 1~ .. : WOUld have acted inconfiftently, and in con­tradiction to the king's grants, by which he held his government; and which it was no more in his power to alter, than it was his intereft to .iter it, if he cOllld .

., Tna' j<, t~ken;" a prt of New France; not as fynony­.J":.''', \\l[); t],.;; \,hole, as Jon;e authors take it.

With

[ 19 ] Wi~h regard to the quadrupartite divition

which Charlevoix [0 formally and [0 falfely fa­thers upon Denys, we fhall only o!Jlerve far­ther~·. that this author's book does not afford theleaJl: room for fuch a partition; on the con­trary, if our jefuit had grounded it on the other's mahnerof dividing the coafts, or his defcrip­tion thereof, into parts, he ought to have made fix or ei£ht provinces, inftead of four.

It muft be confeffed that this difhoneft jefuit, thorough-paced in the arts of deceiving, has ftuck at nothing, on this occation, to ferve his caufe: but with all his cunning he could not fee, that in employing fo much chicanry and fraLld, to do injLlftice to us, he has been only l'abouring to undermine himfelf, and overthrow the very point w bich he intended to eftabJifh ; as what he alledges from amhors differing among themfelves, concerning· the bounds of Acadia, -ferves only to prove that originally it had no determinate bounds; and confequently that none of thofe which he trumps up, in cafe they really were to be fOLlnd in the books which he refers to, could be contidered as its ancient limits. He was likewife blind to ano­ther point of importance, namely, that the whcle--country to the fOLlth of Canada river, called by the EngliJhNova Scotia, and a great deal more, went under the name of Acadia, at the very fame time in· which he was reducing its bounds to a bare coaft: for, all that country was, in 1633, granted to Razitly, under the name of Acadia, by Lewis XIII. and the divi­lions he mentions, according to his own account, were not made till after the arrival of Denys, who had a /hare in them, which was not before

C 2 the

[ 20 J the year 1635, as willbe fhewn prefently: from whence it appears, that this je.fuit's ,penetration­and honefty were much of a fize. In·reality,: there is- in all, which this author has written on the fubjett, fo great a mixture of ignorance and difingenuity, that it is fometimes difficult to tell to which of them ,his errors are to be a­fcribed.

Sir William Alexander obtained a fecond grant for Nova Scotia, under the fame limits, from King Charles I. dated 12 July 1625: but neg~ letting to fettle effettually, the French continued to trade as before, and {pread themfelves in fe~ veral parts of the country, till 1627; when war breaking out, on account of the fiege of Ro­chelle, Sir David Kirk was fent with a fleet, not (;>DIy to clear Nova Scotia of the French, (which he did, except at Cape Sable" where La 'l'our was fetded) but alfo to drive them QUe of Ca­nada, or the country north of St; Lawrence river; which noble projett, of his own forming, he effettually executed the next year, by the re· duttion of ~ebek. After this, he gave up to Sir rVilliam the poffeffion of Nova Scotia, or all the country {outh of the river Cana,da, in its full extent; an? kept all Canada, or dIe country to the north of that river to himfelf,appointing Sir Lerwis Kirk governor of ff<yebek, where he refided for a time. This may be called the EngliJh fecond right by conqueft to Nova Scotia. But foon after a peace taking place, both Kirk and his grand atchievement, were [acrificed to the Frmch: for both countries were ingIori~ ouny given \'lP agaill, without any apparent rea­[on, or proper fatisfa€tion; and what is ftiH. more fhameful, all the lands to the weft of NO'lJa

3 SeotiN,

£ 2I )

Scotia, as far as the river Penobfcot: as hath been already £hewn. from the letters.of Count D'Eftradts; altho" Canada only was inlHl:ed on, acc®rding'to Charlevoix; who feems to wonder at the eafinefs with which Acadia was yielded by the EfJglijh *, as'if they wanted to get-rid of it.

Sit· William Alexander, forefeeing what would happen, in 1630 fold his right and title in all Nova Scotia, excepting, Pfirt Royal, to Claude de la crour (who by his permiffion had fetded at St:' 'John's) to be held by him of the crown of Scotland. Two years after, theI7thofMarcb 1632, a treaty was figned at St. Germain en Laye, be­tween Lewis XIII. King of France, and Cbarles I. King of Grtat Britain, for "yielding up " all the places poffdfed by the fubjects of " England in New France, Acadia and Canada ;" of which places only Port Royal, Fort ~ebek and Cape Briton are mentioned; nor does it ap­pear by the grant that tnere were any more to be delivered up. By this treaty it feems mani­feft that Nova Scotia was comprehended under the name of Acadia, for .New France was the general name under which Canada, Acadia, and all their other poffeffions in America then went, as they do at prefent. But if there could be any doubt on that head, it would be removed 'by the paffages above cited from ChamplaiJt, and Count D'Eftrades; which make it evident tha,t Acadia was at that time bounded by the'river St. Lawr~nce, on the north; and P~nob!cof, on ~he weft. .

,! liift. Gen, de la NIU'V. Fran, vol. i p. ~ 76.

C 3 In

[ 1.2 ]

In the opinion of Lewis XIII. Acadia had yet much larger bounds; at leaft he was re­{DIved they fhould have fuch. That prince, not content with thofe which cuftom, before his time, had given to it, and which had been yielded to him by the treaty of St. Germain, pretended that they reached as far as the borders of New ElIgland; and prefuming on the eafinefs with which fo much had been given ~llp to him almoft unallied, took upon him tQ extend them fo far. Accordingly, in the patent and com­million by which he prefeotly after confirmed the purchafe of Acadia to La crour, the boun­daries are exprefsly mentioned, and fixed "to " begin at Cape Gafpe, or the mouth of the " river St. Lcv:-reiZce, and to extend weft as far " as Cape Malabar;" now Cape Cod, in New England: fo that not only all No'vet Scotia was included in the patent, but Lewis had extended his grant over one third more of the Englijh dominions than by the treaty was given up. According to Count D' Eflrades (who was am­baffac10r in England, after the reftoration) Mr. De Razilly was fent to take poffeilion of all Acadia, in con{equence of the treaty of St. Cermcin, and appointed lieutenant-aeneral of the province*; probably becaufe La Tour was a proteftant. This, according to CharlevQix, was in the year 1633, when, to ufe his words, " Aca­" dia was granted to the commander' De Ra­" ::.:i!t." one of the principal members of the " cQmpanyof New France; on condition that " hS' ihould make a fettlement, which he di,d"

* See his letter au Roi, 13 Mars, 1662.

" at

[ 23 ] " at the Port of La Have; but it was of no ,~ great importance '*."

As thofe mentioned by Champlain are the moil: ancient bounds of Acadia, fettIed by Cll­

from; fo thefe prefcribed by Lewis XIII. are the moil: ancient efiablii11ed hy regal authority. If we confider them comparatively! in refpect tD time, the former will be the moft ancient, and the latter the ancient bounds of Acadia: but this will not ferve Charlevoix; he will, for the ancient bounds of Acadia, ha \'e, a more ancient bounds than the ancient, or thofe of Le'l-ois XIII. which he feerns to take no notice of, as if Ollt of the qllefiion; and baving fllppreffed thofe prior to them, mentioned by Champlain, would 14blti­tute, in the room thereof, other fictitious boun­daries of his own, by extending thofe of Ca­nada over all Acadia; under pretence that both provinces were originally included by the IIt­dians, under that denomination: accordingly he affirms, without any proof but his ufual ef­front~ry, " That from the earlieil: times the " favages gave the name of Canada to all the " country on both fides of the river of Canada, " or St. Lawrence, particularly from its mouth " to Saguenayt."

Supporing this to be fact, and that we are to be determined in this point by the cufl:orn of the natives, Acadia could have no bounds at all ; or rather fnch a country never did exifl:: but we fhall 1bew, at the end of this memoir, that \'.:h;]t he affirms on this occafion, is all fllfe, like the reil:; that Canada, when Cartier went thither in 1534, comprized 1)0 more th,m a fmall part of

! Hilt Gen. de Nouv. Fran. vol. i. p. 173. t Hill. p. ". G 4 the

[ ~4 ] the country to the north of the river Hofhelaga" as St. Lawrence was then called ; and lay to the weft of Saguenay river or province, not towards the eaft of it, or the mOllth of St. Lawrence river) as he falfely afferts.

To proceed therefore: in 1635, the people of New England highly refented ~hc little re­gard fhewn to their interefl:s by the King's giving up t{'} Fi'i1l!ce more than was inGiled on; and were much more incenfed at Le7J.;is's ufurping a great deal more than was granted him by the treaty. In 166 5 the council ot P6iJZoutb agreed to furrender their grant of I,Yc.'ue1Jd-cr 162 I (which gave them all the country from 40 to 48 de­grees of latitude) on condition that the gran­tees fhould have particular grants. Sir FVi1!iam Alexander, being one, had his allotment from the river of St. Croix, the weft boundary of Nc'ua Scoti,?, to the river Kinnebeck, bounding Nt!w England to the eail; and from thence to run north to the river of Canada or St. Law­rence: which country was to take the name of NO'lJa Scotia *; and by this means Nova Scotia came to be co-extended with Acadia, as bounded by Lewis XIII. in his grant to Razilly, tWQ years before. Soon after this, the tripartite di­vifion of Acadia, before mentioned, mLlft .have taken place, according to Charle·voix's account, whofe words are thefe, " All which the Englijh " had taken .in Acadia, and on the neighbouring " coail, dun'Jg the war of Rochelle, and before, " having been ref1:ored in 1632 ; all that part

* This part ,(,f l'k7Ja Srotia bc:jn~ gr:1.~1t('c.l i,n 1663 by King C~arleJlI. to h;, brother the Dllke of 10;'k, It took the name of th,e Duke of i~lI'k's land: and on hi; afcending the throne, the ~lllS''',land,. It 1,3.0 fin~e been annexed to the province of Ij":i'l!,F'/,,:; :x;y; ~:ld IS by \,,;,;e c:dlc~ the province of Sa~u.;'!:,{-·o.~·.

of

[ 25 ] " of New France was divided 'into three pro­"vinces, the government and property of " which were granted to th~ commander De " Razilty, young La '['our and Mr. Denys. The " firft had for his fhare Port Royal, and all to " the fouth, as far as New England; the " fecond had Acadiq, properly called, from Port " . Royal to Camceaux; and the third had the "eaftern coaft of Canada from Camceaux " to Gafpe '*." This tranfaClion is related by our jefuit in a very imperfect, conf~fed and fal­lacious manner, conformable to his impofing fcheme. Tho[e words the eaflern coafl of Canada. are inferted, that it might not be thought the name of Acadia was given to the country [outh of St. Lawrence river; altho' it was the pro· vince of Acadia which was then [0 divided.

It was doubtlefs with the fame view, that we find, at the beginning of the paragraph, a diftinEtion made between Acadia and the North­Main, under the denomination of the Northern Coafl. In which he would infinuate two falfities. I. That neither in the grant which was made t'o Razilly fingly of Acadia, nor in that which was made to him and his partners, @if they were different grants) was any part of the North-Main, comprehended under tbat name. 2. That [0

much of the North-Main as fell within his government, was only the coaft, as far as New· England.

If in either of thofe places that author had mentioned the rime of that grant, or the bounds of the province aligned to each of the three governors, as he ought to have done, it would have been eafy to decide the queftion; but he . , '! Charlev. ubi [upr. p. 410.

hath

[ 26 ] hath taken all the pains imaginable to perplex the cafe, and keep his readers from coming at the truth, by jumbling things together. How­ever not fa entirely obfcuring them, but that, we m::;y be able to bring light out of darknefs, and refute him out of his own mouth; for elfe­where, fpeaking of the chev. de Grand Fontaine, three years after, he fays, "The bounds of " his government extended from Q.uinfebeque " to the river St. Lawrence, conformable to the ~'poffefiion taken in 16;0, [it fhould be H 1633'] in the nan~e of Lewis XIII. by the " commander De Ra'Zilly *." From whence it is plain, after all his !huffiing and cutting, that Acadia, which he fays was granted to RaziI6', comprizcd not only the fouth co aft of the North Alain, but al[o what he calls the eaftern coaft of Canada; and, in !hart, all the country in quef­tion to the fm;.th of the river St. Lawrence.

I !hall not ftay to !hew how inaccurately our author has defcribed the provinces or fhares be­longing to the three proprietors, efpecially the firft and third; the laft of w hom, by his account, muft have had much more of the country than the other two. What can one underftand by his faying Razilly had Port Royal, and all to the f.outh as far as New England? Clnce the country which lies to the fouth of Port Ro)'al, is the part of the peninfula which fell to La crour, he ought to have [aid the lands to the north weft on the continent; and to have ailigned, "fter Denys, the river Pentagoet or Penobfcot, rather than New England, for its weftern boundary. Bue perhaps he did not care to ~ave it thought that

,. Ibid,p'4~7'

[ 27 ] Lewis XIII. had granted to that commander more than the EngliJh had given up.

I have taken the pains to trace our jefuit thro' his long windings and. doublings, not fa much ~o prove the point in queftion, as to expofe the fcandalous arts ufed by this difhonefr hifrorian (if one fo ill qualified, and who feldom quotes his a':lthors, fcarce ever regularly, can be called an hiftorian) for we are in poffeffion of the c;ommiffion granted to Grand Fontaine, which will be produced prefend y.

After Razilly's death, Charles de Manou, Cheva­lier Sieur Daulnay, or Daunay de Charnefey, took poffeffion of his property, by an agreement made with tlle brothers of the decea[ed; and in 1647 obtained a grant for the government of Acadia :­but this, f'l-Ys Charlevoix, "muft, in all likeli­" hood be underftood only of that part of the " peninfula which more properly bore the name " of Acadia, as I have already often remark­"ed." Here is another flagrant inftance of this author's fal[ehood: for we are able to pro­puce the original grant or com million to Dau~ 1!ay, under the fign manual of Lewis XIV. which confirms him governor and lieutenant­general in all the countries, territories, coail:s, and confines, of La Cadia, "to begin from " the river St. Lawrence, including as well " the fea-coafr and the adjacent ifles, as the " inhn9 parts, as far as the Yirgines," meaning Virgin/a ; and in another part of the fame com­million ~e is impowered to traffic with the In­Ij.ians, " t:lroughout the Whole extent of the " lands and coath o()f Acadia, fro;n the ri ver ~.~ ~t. Lawrence to the rea, as far as the Virgil1f}s."

, In

[ 28 ] In tbe preamble- to the com mimon, the re~

fans fpecified for granting it are, his having expelled the foreign religionaries from Pmtagoet fort,. which they had feized; that he had taken St. John's fort from Cbarlej St. Etienne de la 'I'our, who held it in rebellion, in favour of foreign religionaries ; and had built four forts aaainft them. However, La 'I'our finding that t~ be a protdbnt and a rebel was the fame thing; made his peace; and changing his religion in 16:5 r, vIas made govern<)r of Acadia, in as ample a manner as Cbarnefey had been before, by the Kiflg of h,t?;;ce, who in the fame commiffion confirmed him his poJIeffion in that country.

Fl'Om what has been faid, I think it is clear to a demonttration, againft Charlevoix and his followers, that the relations of the firft dif­coverers are fo far from confining Acadia to the peninfula, much lefs to a fingle coaft of it, that Champlain, who was the chief and moff: eminent of them, on account of his having long reuded, as well as been governor, in thofe parts, exprd!y declares that the river St. Lawrence was its northern boundary, and that of Norembegua Qr Penobfcot the weftern: whence it follows~ !. That it not only included all Nova Scotia, but extended weftward above 20 leagues farther. z. That the .fi:rft time the government of .Acadia was granted, or its limits afcertained by royal authority, th~ river St. Lawrence was, according to Champlain's information, declareq to be its northern boundary, and the river Ki­nibek i~s weftern.: confequently it comprifed~ 3:ccordwg to the Ideas of the French, all the coun­try fouch of St. Lawrence river, lying between

th¥

( 29 ] the gulf of that name and New E11glatid. 3-That as the fetding of thofe bounds by Lewis XIII. was antecedent to both the divifions men­tioned by CharlevaiK, which confine Acadia to

. part of the ipel'linfula, confequently the country or countries which fince that time have been alledged by the French wri'ters as the whole of AcaiJia, ought only to be confidered as a pare or parts thereof bearing the fame name.

We fhall next fhew how careful Lewis XIV~ and his miniJters were, to affert and preferve thofe limits, on all occafions of difpute or treaty between'the two nations, from thence down to the treaty of .Utrecht, when he was obliged to give up Acadia to the Englijh.

In 1654, Cromwell, difapproving of the alie­natior.l oENova Scotia, and moved by the i,njuftice done the victorious Kirks, who in vain applied ,to the court of France for the [urns y!hich were, agreed by treaty to be paid them, rent M.ajor-General Sedgwick, who with the affiftance .of Ne,w England, recovered almoft all that coun­lry to the Englijh .dominion; dinodging the French, who were fettJed in and about Port Royal, St. Jean and Pentagoet. The French -minifters at Paris ,made preffing folicitations for the reftituticm of this country: but he w.ould rult fuffer .his ambaffador to give the Ie aft ear ,to flJch in,ftances, infiiUng tbat it was the an­JeienJinber#ance of the crown of England {which Qf.Q;fd Ancient refers, perhaps, beyond King James L's grant tothe time of Cabot's difcnvery). This he thought fo undeniably clear, that, by the 25th article of the treaty concluded with Lewis XIV. in N07Jember 1655, he made no

difficulty

( 3b ]

difficulty to fubmit the right of the Engli/h crown [0 the three forts abovementioned to the decHion of three commiffioners, who were to meet in London, and determine it in fix months, pro­vided the Frmch fhould think fit to proceed in that affair; but they never did.

However, Cromwell afterwards granted to Mr. St. Etienne de la 'Iour, in confideration of his father Claude's purchafe, Colonel 'Iemple and Wil­liam Crown, for ever, " The country and terri­" tories called Acadia, and that part of the coun­" try called Nova Scotia, from Marlegajh, on " the eaft, to the port and cape of Heve, lead­" ing along the coaft to Cape Sable to a certain " point now called La 'Iour, heretofore named " Lomney *; thence following the coaft and " iOand to the cloven cape and river Ingogen ; " following the coafl: to Port Royal, and then " following the coaft to the bottom of the bay i " and thence along the bays into St. John's, " to St. John's fort; and thence all along the " coaft to Pentagoet and the river St. George, " unto Mufcongus, fituated on the confines of " New England, on the weft; and extending " from the fea-coaft up in the land, along the " limits and bounds aforefaid, one hundred " leagues; and further, unto the next planta­" tion made by the Dutch or French, or by the " EngliJI) of New England. vVith all and fin­" gular the lands,· territories, Wands, rivers, " feas, pifcaries, woods, &c. jurifdiction of H admiralty, &c. and a1fo thirty leagues into

* R:a:her [omeron, fo called fr.om a perron of that name, wh~ lIved th~re before the time of La 'lour. See Denys',. D..:.cr. An:er. ~eptcnt. ell. 3. p. (, I.

" the

[ 3 1 ]

" the fea,· all along the v coaft aforefaid." vVith fole right of trade, and many other advantages.

Cromwell feemed to have been of the f.'tme fentiments with Ki.ng Charles 1. that, by the treaty of St. (JermlJin nothing but the places were given up: fince by this grant he difpofes of not only, all the Acadia of Lewis XIII. but aifo great part of the country of Canada it felf. In 1656 he, by warrant, made Colonel crhomas

. Cf'emple governor of St. John's, Port Royal and PentagfJet, which arc: faid to be in Acadia, com­

. monly called Nova Scotia ~n America. And in .1662, Sir CJ'homa!.'ftas flgain appointed governor of Nova Scotia and Acadia.,. by King Charles II. During this time the French were earneftly fo-

.liciting to have Acadia reftored to them; and the EngliJh 1 as ftrenuoufiy oppofed it. The .p~opIe, of New England particularly, rent over deputies with a petition to the king and par­liament of Great Britain; in which they alledged many ftrong ;arguments againft the reftitution of Acadia (t!-.is we are told by Count D'Eflrades, in a letter to Lewis XIV. bearing date 27 Feb­ruary 1662) ; they were among other things dif­gufted at th.e French, who, under the name of Acadia, ceded by the treaty of St. Germain, had claimed not only NO'l-'a Scotia, but all the c.ountr.y between it and New England, as before hath been :elated: however, as all the country had been given up, ~lccO\·ding to D'Ejlrades, as far weft as the ri',-er Noremberg or Penob­jcot, that minifter demanded fo much, in con· fequence of the treaty of Breda. Thus, in his letter but now mentioned, he tells them, "That " he had demanded ~f the commiff:oners reftitu. " tion of all Acadia, containing 80 leaguts of

cou.ntry :

[ 32 ]

" country; and that the forts of Pentagoei, " Port Royal and La Heve, fhould be reftored in " the fame condition as they were when taken." In another to the king, December 25, 1664, where he rea[ons in favour of a league with Englmzd, he fays, "By fllch a treaty y<?u may " get Acadia reftored from Pentagoet to Cape " Breton, containing 80 leagues * of coaft.

The treaty of Breda was figned July 2 I,

1667; by the loth article of which" Great -" Britain is obliged to reftore and give up to the " King of France the country called Acadia, in ,- North America, which the moft chriftian " king formerly enjoyed." Purfuant to this treaty an inftrument for reftitution of Acadia was executed by Charles II. February the 17th, 1 66-h by which he [urrenders, " all that country u called Acadia, in North America, which the " Frmch king did formerly enjoy, as namely, C' the forts of Pentagoet, St. John's, Port Royal, " La Heve, and Cape Sable, which the French did " enjoy till the Ellglijh poffeffed themfelves of "-them." The forts were inferted at the requeft of Mr. Rouvigny the French commiffary, as ap­pears from thofe words written in the margin oppofite to the names.

In confequence of this inftrument or obliga­tion, an order was iffued out 8 March 1668, com­manding Sir 'Thomas 'Temple to reftore Acadia- to the French. Under this order reftitution was demanded by Mr. MourilZon dtt Bourg. Sir 'Tho­mas, feeing himfelf unjuftly deprived of his right, by an alienation which King Charles had no

* He might have faid double that number, or more.

power

( 33 ] t>owet to make; and as by the treaty of Breda the country of Acadia !imply was to be reftored, without imy mention of Nova Scotia, he takes advantage of the diftinction which feems to be made between them in Cromwell's grant of 1655, and refu[es to give up the forts of Pen­tagoet, St. 'John, Port Royal, and the reft; alledging that they did not belong to Acadia. On this occafion Du Bourg, in his letter fays, i:' that Sir 'l'homas made Nova Scotia to extend " from MarZegajh to Pmtagoet; and Acadia. " from Marlegajh by Cape Breton, to the river " of S?<.,.uebek or St. Lawrence".

On what ground that diftinB:ion in Cromwelrs grant was made, does not appear: bm Mr. Colbert, the French ambaffador, inufted that Acadia in­cluded all Nova Scotia, as was evident from the grants of both the Lewis's to that time. Here­upon King Charles iffued another order, under his !ign manual, attefted by Lord Arlington, which bears date /lugufl the 6th 1669, requiring Sir 'fho­" mas, without delay to deliver the fa:d country of " Acadia; which formerly belonged to the French " king, namely the forts and habitations of Pen­" tagoet, St. 'John's, Port Royal, Le Heve, and " Cape Sable, which the French enjoyed till dif­" potTeffed by the EngliJh in 1054 and 1655, " according to the lorh and I I th articleli of the " Breda treaty."

Sir 'l'homas theri ,complied ; and, being fick, did, by his depucy-governor William lValko', deliver the faid country to Hubert Dandigny che­valier de Grand Fontaine (who on the 22d of 'july the fame year was commiffion'd under the great feal of France, to recel'Ve Acadia) as appears by the certificates acknow le.dgi ng the deli very of

D ~he

[ 34 ] the three forts of Port Royal, Pentagoet and Gemfuk; which laft was upon St. John's river, many leagues within land. By the treaty of Breda, therefore, and the execution of it, it is clear that the French extended the bounds of Acadia over all Nova Scotia; that is, over both the countries which were fucceffively granted to Sir IFilliam Alexander, under that name.

Charlevoix, who is obliged to take notice of this tranfaCtion, cannot help coofeffing [0 much: yet has the confidence, in contradiCtion to the very treaty, to deny that it ought to be [0; and endeavours to fupport his faWty in his u[ual way, by alledging frivolous reafons, or conceal­ing faCts. He fays, " That Sir William 'l'emple " figned at Boflon an infrrument to the chevalier " de Grand Fontaine, which fecured to France " all the country from Pentagoet to Cape Breton " inc1ufively *." He adds, that the whole had been comprifed in the treaty of Breda, under the name of Acadia; and allows that the neigh­bouring coafrs were fometimes comprehended (or, as he terms it, confounded) under that name: yet would pretend, Pentagoet did not be­long to Acadia; for which he had no other au­thority but Sir fVilliam's faying fa, as above; and which, tho' it might be of ufe to Sir William, becaufe granted by him as part of Nova Scotia difiinCt from Acadia, as before obferved, can be, of no avail to the 1<rench: becaufe they infifl:ed that it did belong to Acadia, and had it furrender­ed as fuch, conformable to the treaty, which, as the fame author confeffes, included it under that name. The fourberie of this author is farther

'" Hill:. de la NouclJ, Fratl. Vol. i. p. 417.

9 [cen .

[ 35 ] feen in what he relates prefently after, "That " the commiffion by which the french governor, " Grand Fontaine, took poffeffion of th:.lt place " [Pentagoet] is dated March thesth 1670, c~ and marks the bounds of his government from " the Kinibeki to the river St. LaW1"enCe, confor­" mabIe to the poffeffion taken thereof in 1630 " [1633] by the commander De Razilly, for " Lewis XIII ;1<."

Here Charlevoix, to prevent contradieting what he affel'ts juft before, fuppreffes the name given to this country in Granq Fontaine's commif· fion: but from the circumftance of R('zilly it is plain it muft have been Acadia; fince it was granted to Razilly under that name, and aIfo to La Tour his affociate, as hath been before fet forth .

. In !hort, this author (who has falfified, mifre­prefented. and miftaken f;) many things in his relation, that it may be [aid to be a hiftory of his own invention, rather than of rea.l facts) pretends that Acadia, with the forts of St. John and Pentagoet, retaken by fome Engli/h in 1674, having been furrendered to France a fourth time, not long after about the year 1680, " Mr. Cham­" bly, who was made commander after Grand " Fontaine, built a little town at Port Royal, " which from this time became the capital or " that government; which, over and above " Acadia, compre~ended all the fouthern coaft " of New France t." Here then, at laft, we meet with the province or government to whch he wi-ll have thofe Forts to belong: but then.it

• Ibid.

is

[ 36 J a province without a name, {loce he will not

allow it that of Acadia; tho', according to cuf­tom, he fhews no reafon why. But, to the au­thority of this bare ipfe dixit we may oppofe that of Mr. William De L' 1jle, premier geographer to the King of France, who, in his maps of North America and New France, the firft publifhed in 1700, the buer in 1703, calls the country in queftion Acadia: whofe bounds he extends over more than one third of the North-Main, in­cluded within the river Kinibeki and St. John's, by a line drawn at fome diftance to the north of this laft river; and which being carried thro' the Ifthmus of Shignikto along the coaft, ter­minates oppofite to the north entrance of the gut of Canfo.

You fee by what lame and abfurd methods this errant flory-teller endeavours to eftablifh a falfehood, on his own bare affertion, in direct contradiction to treaties, numerous aCts of his kings, and declarations of their minifl:ers, as well as other good authority. Bm, fuppofing him ignorant of all the1e facts, and confequently unqualified for the hifl:ory which he undertook to write; yet 'tis [carce pollible he could have been unacquainted with the following paffages of the bawn De La HOlllan, an author made tlfe of in his hiftory, who hath inferted a par­ticular defcription of .dcdit?, as well as Canada, in his voyages to NM'th America, from 1683 to 169+' This amhor,defcribing the bounds of Aca­dia, Jays, "the co aft thereof extends from Kini­" bek, one of the frontiers of New England, to L'ijle " P,;-c:"c', or the Pierced Ij'ir, near the mouth of the " riverSt.Lawrence.-* He adds, that thisfea-coaft • • I? hj~ defc.rjpti~ of C,mada, towards the beginning, he lays this nver :. held to be the great boundary which ji;pa-

1 run,

[ 37 ] " runs 300 Jeagues in length; and has upon " it two great navigable bays, the bay Fral1-" coife and Bay des Chaleurs *." The firft is the bay of Argalor Fundy, the latter is in the bay of St. Lawrence, near the mouth of the river of the fame name. We fee by this, that the French themfe1ves, in Canada, confidered Acadia in the fame extent as they did in Europe; and confe­quently, that the forts of Pentagoet and St. John belonged to it. This is more particularly confirm· ed by what he fays afterwards, " That the three " principal favage nations, the dbenakis, the jV1ik­" maks and the Kanibas, dwell on the coaft of A­" cadia;" On which coaft thofe forts are fitLlated. Obferve alfo, that the words Coa/l of Acadia, are far from implying that AC(ldia is nothing but coaft, as Charlevoix would pretend they are to be underftood, in his quotation from Cham­plain.

'Vhat La Hontan fays is confirmed by La Potherie; an author much elteemed by the French for his integrity, and particularly by Charlevoix, in his lift of authors. In his hiftory of North America, wherever he fpeaks of the Abeltt!guais (or Abenakis) who poffefs all the country between the river St. Lawrence and the fea, to the eait of New England, he almoft always calls them the Abenakis of La Cadia t ; and fpeaking of the expedition of Sir William Phippj againft Canada, in 1690, fays, "That the laft motions

rates the French colDnies from the El1glifo. He likcwi[e, in his map, gives a fituation to Acadia anfwerable to what he does in his defcription.

'" La Hantan New. voy. to North Amer. Vol. i. p. 220. + La Poth. Hill:. d'Am~r. Septent. Vol. iii. p. 86, anJ. hroughout.

D 3 " which

[ 38 ] " which the EngliJh made in La Cadia terminat­" ed at the Pierced Jjland, which is at the en­,- trance of St. Lawrence river *." He like­wire places St. Johl't's, where Villebon was go­vernur, in L' A(adia t. From thefe teftimonies it appears, that rot only the [outh c~, but alf() the eaft coaft, in the bay of St. Lawrence, and in iliort, the whole country from the mouth of the river of that name to the river Kini­beki bounding New England, belonged to Acadia; or went as low down as the year 17°8, when La Potherie returned to France, under that deno­mination: fo that for Charlevoix to deny a faa fo well known and attefted by the very authors whom he pretends to make ufe of in his hiftory, is a proof either of his corrupt principles or great ignorance; and how little knowledge he acquired ~y his voyage to Canada. This re­mark is confirmed by the great imperfeCtions, as well as errors, which are found in his hiftory of that country.

After the furrender of Pentagoet, which had been furprized and taken by a fingle adventurer; the Ellglifh, to fecure the country to the weft­ward, built a good fort at Pemaquid, a- peninfula lying about midway between the river Penta­goet and that of Kinibeki: from whence, watch­ing their opportunity, on Mr. Chambly's remove from Pentagoet, in 168o, they took that fort, with thofe of St. Jchn's and Port Royal, then governed by La Valliere; "And thus, fays " Charlevoix, became the fifth time mafters of " Acadia, and all the country which lies be­" tween it and New England H." This concer-

* P. 90 • t P. 188. Hill. Nouv. Fran. Vol.i. p. 463.

fion

[. 39 ] fion of Charlevoix removes an obje~'tion which hath be~n ftarted by fome, that altho' the Ell­glifo took thofe places, it does not follow that they fubdued or were in poifeffion of the country. But we think that effect does follow; for we know no other way of fubduing a country, and becoming poifelfed of it, bu t by taking the forts and fettlements, as the gallant, but ill re­quited Kirk did, when he fubdued Canada in 1629'

In 168 E, a difpute arifing about the fifhery, the French ambaffador in his memorial fays, " that the coaft of Acadia, or Nova Scotia ex­" tended from L'Ijle Perceoe [near Cape RofiersJ " to St. George's inand [or river] and was polfefs­" ed by the French, till taken in 1664. [meaning " 1654] and reftored again in 1667'"

In 1686, King James 110 fig ned a neutrality with Lewis XIV. for -all North America, by which thofe forts were again given up to the French: but the Englijh, not able to digeft the incroachments of thofe reftlefs and artful neigh­bours, in extending their bounds wefrward be­yond Nova Scotia, under pretence of its being part of Acadia (by which name only it was given up by the two preceding treaties of Sto Ger­main and Breda) therefore in 1687, the governor of New England difpoffelfed the baron St. Caflin, who had repaired the fort of Pentagoe! (which the Dutch fome years before had demolifhed) a1-Jedging that all the country, as far as the river of St. Croix, belonged to his government *. On this occafion,the fame year ,Meffieurs Barillon and Bon­repas ambaLI'ador and ,envoy extraordinary, ap­pointed commiffioners to fdde the neutrality a-

!. Ibid, p. 520. greed

[ 40 J greed on in 1686, with regard to American limits, ~omplained in a memorial againft tl:e EngliJh, " for feizing the {hips and goods.ot Caflin at " Pentagoet, fituated in the province of Acadia; " and expref1y declared that Acadia belonged " to their king; and that, by the treaty of Breda, " Art. 10. and 1 I. it was delivered as fuch " by Sir CJ'homas 'Temple to Le Grand Fontaine, " and by name the fort and habitation of Pen­" tagoe!;" reciting that tranfattion at large, as before fet forth.

The French, unable· of tl}emfelves to preferve the coaft from Pentagoet to Kinibeki, ftirred .up the Abnaqui Indians, who furprifed not only Pemaquid fort, but [everal other little ones, which the EngliJh had on the KilliZ,eki. This conduct fo enraged the colony of Boflon, that governor Pbipps refolved to make an abfolute conquefl: of the whole province of Nova Scotia, or Acadia, which he effected in 1690; but in 169 I, it was retaken by ri!!d'01I. . However, the Englijh tbis year recovered Pt'll1cql!id, which Villa/Jolz in vain attempted the next. In 1696 it was furrendered, by governor Chub, to the French joined by the fame hdi{!JIS.

In 1697, the peace of Ryfu.:ick was concluded: in confequence of which Ne""...,,? Stot:,? was given up, tho' not exprefly named in it; the Fj-ei;ch, in all the furrenders m:lc1: to them, contriving to have the name only of ,icadia empioyed, 2.5

well to avoid acknowledging that ufed by the EngliJb, as becaufe the fuppreffion of it miqht better ferve their views. Accordingly the Frr7zJJ ambalTador at TOi;dcil infli1ed (as Colbert had done after the treaty of Breda)" That its ancient

~, bounsd.

[ 41 ] " bounds were from Cape RojJiers, nigh GaJpie, " to the river Kinibek:" And Mr. Villabon, French governor of Acadia, in a letter to gover­nor Stoughton, dated the 5th of September, 1698, complaining of the incroachment of New Eng­land, fays, " I am likewife expreDy ordered, " on the part of his Majefty, to mantain the " bounds which are between New England and " us, which are from the head of the river Kini­" beki to its mouth, leaving the ftream free to " both nations." .

But altho' the Frmch did not get all which they demanded by this treaty, yet they gained fomewhat more than they had by that of Breda; for the limits of Acadia were fixed at the river St. George, about half a degree more weft: than Pentagoet, and within 12 miles of Pemaquid.

Obferve, in what a fliding manner Charlevoix relates this tran[action:" Altho'," fays he, ".the " bounds of New France, on this fouthern co aft " [he won't call it either Acadia or Nova Scotia] " had been fixed [neither will he tell us when " or how] at the river Kinibeki; and that they " had late'Iy driven the EngliJh out of Pemquit " [PemaquidJ which ought to have belonged " to them by virtue of the treaty, yet, as the " Englijh had returned thither again, Meffieurs " De '1allard and D' Herbaut, the king's com­e, miffioners, were obliged to remove their fran':" " tiers backward, and fix them at the river " St. George, 'fituated almoft: midway between " Kinibeki and Pentagoet. This was fettled in " 1700, by Mr. De Pi!lneu, on the part of the " moil: Chriflian King.; and by Mr. Soudrit, on " the part of his Sritannic l'dajefly *."

* Tom. 2. p. 236. ,\Vhat

[ 42 ]

What this author would unjufl:ly conceal, -r:iz. that the country fo bounded by St. George's river, and which he denominates the fouth coaft ()f Nei.':; France, was Acadia, appears from the, alternatives ~'propofed, April the 9th, 1700, to fecretary Vernon, relating to American limits. The firll atticle has thefe words: " In this cafe " the limits of France, on this fide of Acadia, " fhould be reftrained to the river St. George."

During ~leen Anne's war Wjil1 France, feveral attempts were made to recover F1c~'a Scotia; but .at length, in 17 I 0, general Nicho1fon was fem, who reduced Port Royal, and brought Nova Scotia once more under the obedience of Eng­land. On examining the commiffion of Suber­caJ!e, the governor from Lewis XIV. it was found to be addrefTed thus, "To Daniel Auger de " SubercaJ!e, Knight of St. Lewis, governor of " Acadia, of Cape Breton, the iflands and lands " adjacent, from Cape Rojier of the great river H St. Lav.:;-ence, as far as the eaft parts of f?<3ini­"bee." And, in an obligation for fafe con­dua to the Englijh, who were to convoy him to France, he ftiles himfelf governor of Acadia, &c. in the fame terms with his commiffions. From hence we fee that, notwithftanding the formal agreement in 1700, which fixed the bounds of Acadia at the river St. Croix, the French, in their commiffions given to the go­Vernors of Acadia, frill kept up their claim to the ancient bounds affigned it by Lewis XIII. after the treaty of St. Germain: As if they made fuch agreement only to ferve a prefent turn, without any defign of keeping it longer than they thought it for their conveniency

not

t 43 ] not to break it; and their eonduCl: !inee has verified this remark.

Not long after this, negOtiatIOns for peaee were fet on foot; and on June the loth, 17 I 2,

Lewis XIV. propofed to give up " Placentia " Fort, all Newfoundland and irs fithery, the "il1es of St. Martin and Bartholomew, if " QEeen Anne would eonfent to reftore Acadia, " of which the river St. George fhonld thereafter " be the bounds." But Queen Amze, rejecting that offer, in!ifted that all Nova Scotia ihould be given up, and its name inferted in the treaty, as well as that of Acadia; Iikewife that Port Royal, lately taken, fhould be exprefly mention­ed: which things were accordingly done in the I Hh article at that treaty, in the following terms *. "Art. 12. The moft Chriftian King " fhall take care to have delivered to the Q!.1een

'" Dominus Rex Chriftianiffimus, eodem quo paeis prefen­tis rati habitiones commutabuntur die domin:e regime Magn::e Britannire liceras tabulafve, folenn~s et authentieas tradendas curabit; quarum vigore infulam St. Chriltophori per fub­clitos Britannieos, figillatim de hine poffidendam, Novam Seotiam quoque five Aeadiam totam, limi/iblls luiJ anliqllis comprebenfam, ut et portus regii urbem, nunc Annapolin Regiam diClam, ereterafque omnia in itlis regionibus qure ab iifdem terris et infulis pendent, unaeum earundem infularum terra rum et loeorum dominio, proprietate, poffeffione et quo­lunque jurt, jive per paC/a, jive alio modo qu-ejitlJ, quod Rex Chriftianiffimus Coronre Gallire aut ejufdem fubditi quieunque ad dietas infuJas, terras et 10ea eorumque incolas haetenus habuerunt, Reginre Magnre Britannire ejufdemque eoronre in perp~ttlum cedi conltabit ettransferri, prout eadem omnia nunc cedH ae transfert Rex Chriftianiilimus, idque tam amplis modo et forma, ut Regis Chriftianiilimi fubditis in dietis maribu5 finubus, aliifque loeis ad Enora Novre Scotire, ea nempe qu::e Eurum refpiciunt, intra triginta leucas ineipiendo ab infula vulg? S~ble diet?, eaque indufa et Africum verfuli pergendo, omms pl[catura mterdicatur.

c, of

[ 44 J " of Great Britain on the fame day that the rati­" fication of this treaty {hall be exchanged, " [olemn and authentic letters or infiruments, &, by virtue whereof it fhall appear, that the ~, ifiand of St. Chriflophers is to be poffeffed " alone hereafter by Britijh Subjells; likewife " all Nova Scotia or Acadia, with its ancient " boundaries; as alfo the city of Port Royal, " now called .Annapolis Royal, and all other things " in thofe parts, which depend on the Jaid lands " and iJlands; together with the dominion, pro­" percy and poiTeffion of the faid ifiands, lands " and places: and all right whatfoever by treaties, " or by any other way obtain'd, which the moft " Chriflian King, the crown of France, or any " the Jubjefts thereof have hitherto had to the " Jaid iJlands, lands and places, and the inha­~, bitants of the fame, are yielded and made " over to the ~een of Great Britain, and to " her crown for ever, as the moft Chriflia,'Z King " doth at prefent yield and make over all the " particulars ~bove-faid; and that, i1z Juch <, ample manner and form, that the fubjects of " the Moft Chriflian King fhall hereafter be ex­" eluded from all kind of fifhing in the faid " feas, bays, and other places on the coafts of " Nova Scotia; that is to fay, on thofe which " lie towards the eafi, within 30 leagues, be­"ginning from the ifiand commonly called " Sable, and thence firetching along towards ~, the fouth-weft/'

J t was thOt~ght now, by a treaty fo firongly worded, and m which the name of the country ufed by the Ellglijh, as well as French, had been inferred, that all pretence for cavils or difputes would have been prevented: but in 17 I 9, the

F;"cncb

[ 45 ] French began to nife objeB:ions about the bounds of Nova Scotia, and commiffioners were appointed; but thofe on their fide did not meet. The reafons why, are not mentioned: but we fuppofe it was, becaufe they were afhamed to offer the objeaions communicated to them, if they were fuch barefaced falfehoods and ridi· culous quibbles, as thof~ mentioned by Charle­'Voix and his followers: tor France, to be fure, has men of honour, as well as other countries. However that be, it may be prefumed that Mr. William De L'Ijle, the King of France's principal geographer, had initruetions to curtail the limits affigned by the El1glijh to Nova Scotia; for in his map of America, pub~ifhed in 1723, he re­ftrains the name of Acad£a to a little lefs than the peninfi.lla, which, in his maps of North America and New France, publifhed in 1700 and 1703, as before mentioned, he had extended over more than one third part of the North Main.

This conduB: is not to be wondered at in Mr. De L' Jjle, who took all occafions to defraud the Englijh, fo far as he was able to defraud them, of their rights. In the two maps laft cited he hath exhibited Acadia two thirds lefs than he ought to have done, according to the authority of Champlain, and the fubfequent arants of his Kings, corroborated by treaties. B~t fuppofing

-this to have been owing more to want of car. rying his refearches deep enough, than to defign, w,e hav~ not room t~ think fo favourably of him, With refpett to hiS map of Louijiana pub­lifhed in 17 I 8. F or he has there transfer:ed all C~ro~ina to his o~n nation, by inclofing it Within the green line, as part of LOflijiana,

altho',

[ 46 ] altho', in his map of .iMexico in 1703, he places it among the EngliJh territories. To fupport this bold geographical depredation with a co­lour of j ufiice, under the name of Carolina he writes "That it was fo called in honour of " Charles IX by the French; who difcovered, " took poffeffion of it, and fetded there, in 15 ." By the defect in the date, Mr. De L' Jjle feems on this occafion to have depended for the whole on his memory, which doubtlefs had deceived him. In Laudonniere's voyage we meet indeed with a fort built by him in 1564, at the mouth of the river May, which he named La Caro­line; but not one word of giving that appella­tion to the country. Our neighbours are very dextrous at either expanding, or contracting; for, whenever they pleafe, they can turn a fingle fort into a large country, and reduce a large country into a piece of coaft. The author of the late fix ilieet map of America, has taken notice of his infinr.erity in fuppreffing the king­dom of Ne'W Albion on the weft coaft of Ame­rica, and changing the name of Bay Sir Fran­cis Drake, into that of St. Francifco. I fay of his infincerity: for in his map of the countries jituated to the north 'Weft, made in 1696 '*, he in-fens the country of New Albion, and gives to the port the name of Francis Drake.

The condua of other French geographers, fince the treaty of Utrecht, with refpect to the country in quefiion, is no lefs repugnant to the preceding authorities than that of Mr. De L'Ijle •. Mr. Bellm, in his map of New France, made in

* It makes the third of the particular maps publilhed by his brother 70S. Nicholas de L'!jle, the afironomer, in 175 2 ,

on occallon of~the dijrO<fJeries to the north of the South Sea.

1744,

[ 47 ] 1744, for Cbarlevoix's hiftory, gives to the pe­ninfula the name of Acadia, and to the North Main that of Nova Scotia: whereas he ollght to have given to the whole either one or both of the names, in order co make his map agree with the accounts of the earlieft voyagers, and the regulations of treaties. Mr. Bellin, in his map of the fame country which he publilhed the year following, detached from Charlevoix's hiftory, has omitted the name of Nova Scotia, .and left the nothern main without any name, or without fupplying it, by extending that of Acadia over the whole.

Nor does Mr. Danville on this occaGon ap­pear to be lefs perplexed and at a lofs than Mr. Bellin. In his map of America, publifhed in 1746, he divides the country fouth of St. Law­rence river, by a pricked line carried north from the weft bounds of New England, to 46 degrees of latitude, from whence it runs near eaft by north, through the country to the gulf of St. Lawrence, where it terminates about 10 miles to the north of the ifthmus of Sbegnikto, and Green' Bay. The country to the north of this line, which contains above two thirds of the whole, he allots to France, by colouring it green: but gives it no particular name, only by intruding into it the laft letter of the name of Canada, he would pollibly confider it as part of that country; which yet originally was, he knows, confined to the north fide of the river St. Law­rence, and only one of three provinces into which that country was divided. He does ~he fam.e by the country fouth of it, afiign­mg to It the name neither of Nova Scotia nor Acadia; which laft he confines foIeIy to the

peninfula,

t 48 j peninfula, but afcribes both to the EngliJh do-' minions, by colouring them red.

This reprefentation of the cOuntry in que .. fiion, is fo very inconfiftent with the authori.:. ties above mentioned, that one would almoil: imagine Mr. D' An;;ille had trufted to Charlevoix's report of things, infiead of having had recourfe to the original authors. This is the more proba­ble as he has not given the name either of Nova Scotia, or Acadia, to the north-main or any part of it; and by this means the portion which he allows to the EngliJh, becomes the namelefs pro­vince to be found in Charie7.Joix, as hath been before obferved.

OUt' remark feems to be farther confirmed by the alterations, fiill more inconfiftent with thore authorities, which he hath fince made, in the late imprefiions of the [arne map; having twice contracted, inftead of enlarging, the bounds of the EngliJh po{femons in Nova Scotia or Acedia. The firft time he reftrained them to the peninfula, by drawing the red line th~ough the ifthmus of Sbegllikto: by the fecond caftration he reduces the Englifo pretenfions to little more than one half of the peninfula; by drawing the partition line from Shedabuktu or Milford, through the country fouthward of lvlinas bay, to the north weft coaft. But, as thefe alterations are marked by pricked lines, and the fidl: pricked line is not erafed, who knows but they are miftakes in the colouring? or if not, that on the better information, Mr. D' Am·ille may refiore to EngliJb, by a third ftroke of the pencil, fo much as he has deprived them of by the two firft, if not to all No"..!a Scotia, or the coun.,.:v [outh

. of

[ 49 ] bf St. Lawrejzce river; as frOrll his known cha~ ratter of integrity I am perfuaded he would h'ave done, had he met with the paffage of Champlain fo often mentioned.

As he has not done it, I take it for granted, that it did not occur to him: nor can I other­wife account ~ither for the bOLlnds affigned by him in the fidt impreffion of his map, or for the alterations made in the fecond and third. For if he was acquainted with the limits given to Acadia by Champlain, or claimed by France in aU her treaties with England, in confequence of the treaty of St. Germain, I cannot conceive how he could have afcribed to Acadia no greater extent of country in the firft impreffions of his map; and if he had judged the objec­tions ftarted againft the treaty of Utrecht to hav€ been of any weight, 1 am as much at a IoriO to conceive how he came to give it fo much. On the other hand, if he was not fenGble of their weight when he firft publilhed his map, I {bould be glad to know qpon what grounds he came to be better fatisS.ed Gnce ; and how it happened that he was not made fenfible of his miftakes all at once, but was obliged to alter his map twice upon the occafion.

There conOderations induce me to believe that it was for want of fufficient information ~ for whether he made ufe of Denys, or depended on Charlevoix; he could not find his doubts re.;. folved by either: for the firft, as hath been ob~ ferved, did not meddle with the bounds or divi­lion of Acadia into provinces; and the buG nels of the latter was to puzzle and miflead, not to Inform. In {bort, witllout confulting Champlain,

E [0

[ 50 ] fo as to difcover the paffage in view, he could not decide with certainty, touching the :l:-:cient limits, or rather the moft ancient limits, of the country in queftion: for this reafon I will not charge the alterations with refpeCt to Acadia, 'made in the feveral editions of Mr. D'A11'uille's map, as done with a finifter view, to injure the BritiJh intereft in that country, by diminifhing its bounds; altho' perfons whofe enquiries go no fartherthan the maps, may be induced thereby, on the opinion which the world has juftly entertained of his knowledge and abilities, to believe the late encroachments of his nation, in that part of America at leaft, to be juft.

'Tis true, that Mr. D' Anville, in an[wer to a charge of marking the bounds of {orne BritiJh dominions in America amifs, expreffes a fur­prize" That any body fhould imagine a thing H of this kind done by a geographer, could " be either of prejudice or advantage to the " rights or crowned heads *." I am furprized at it, no lefs than he; for it' would be ftrange in­deed, if the bounds of kingdoms, any more than the fituations of places, were to depend on the arbitrary will of the geographers: that would be to have kingdoms at their difpofal. But then, I fee it has been the cafe ; and at this inftant the maps but juft now mentioned are produced as arguments, to fupport the French allegations. 'Tis hoped however, that fe, the future, thofe things will not be offered as proof, which fo .eminent a geographer has declared to be no proof; and has demonftrated to be none, by varying in a few years fo often, and every time

<I' See Mr. D,71;"ilir's letter. fur t::r.c capie de Ja carte de I'Amer. Septc:nt.: ap. Mem. Franc. Man. 1751. p. 135.

fo

. [ 5 i J , f01:onfidetably, from himfelf. In efi'ett, to al1edgc ~he authority of difcordinggeographers, forafcer­taining the bounds of Acadia, would be as ri­diculous as to undertake -to do the fame from the triangular form of the peninfula, which I have been told fome have acrually done. Nor is

. it at all unlikely: fince; after what has been re­marked of Charlevoix and his followers, the~e is no extravagant demand or affertion; no inconfiftency or chicanry, within the compafs of invention, which the French may not be capable of having recourfe to, when they have any favourite point in view. But to proceed,

Other late geographers have gone farther {bll in this praCtice of curtailing the EritiJh territories. Mefs. Jos. Nicholas de L' Jjle, bro­ther of J-Villiam, and Buache the latter's fon-in-law; who fucceeded him in the poft of premier geogra­pher, in their general map of the new dijcoveries 10 the north of tlx !outh!ea, publiibed in 1752, feem to follow the tripartite divifion mentioned by Charlevoix, as before cited; and Mr. Robert, ~n his late map of Cmlada 1753, thequadrupar­tite divifion, fathered by the fame author on De­nys, or eIte that wild conftrucrion which he would fo abfurclly, as well as falfely, fix on the words of Champlain: for that geographer confines the name ot Acadia to the fouth and wdt coaft only of the peninfuia; with the addition how­ever of Port R(I)'C!, to make it, as he thinks; conformable to the treaty of Utrecht. But why ihould he follow the opinion of two authors only (fuppofing it was their opinion, for we have ibewn the contrar';) when his guide in­formed him, ,but a little before, that ,/lcadia, in the fentiments of all the geographers and hifto-

, E 1 rians

[ 52 ] rians who have written with accuracy, includes the whole peninfula? mufr I, on this occafion, fuppofe that he rejeCts authority to obey orders? Or, mufr I apply to him the words of a certain author, which were thought to have wanted an application: " What difcoveries might not be " made, if people would copy lefs, and give " themfelves the trouble to draw from the foun­" tain-head*?" Had M-r. Robert followed that ruJe, and confulted Champlain himfeIf, he could never have erred fo fhamefully as he has done in this fingle inftance.

But however confiderable this depredation may feem, it is but a trifle compared with ano­ther, which Mr. Robert to fignalize himfelf, we prefume, for his addrefs in geographical flight­of-hand, has committed in the fame map; for by the title of it, he has made a feizure not only of that whole province, but of all the Bri­tifo territories in general. It runs thus, A map oj the nzmtries known by the name of Canada; in wl)jch are diflil1guijhed tbe poffiifioJZs of tbe French and EngliDl. Mr. R. being an enter­prizing gentleman, was refolved to {trike a bold ihoke at once, and difrance all the other French geographers to fuch a degree, that it fhould not be in the power of any of them to go beyond him. He was certainly in the right of it, when his hand was in, not to mince the matter: for the Fj-c1Zch may as well lay claim to the whole as a part. As to hi~ afcribing the province of Ca­'rolina to Canada, which Mr. William de L'Jfle afcribed to Loujfiana, or the impropriety of ex­tending the N arne of Canada over all the Britijh

*" See Journal a:conomique, S.p!. 17) 3, p. 88. dominions

[ 53 ] dominions in America, which in its original ftate was but a fmall province in the neighbourhood of f?2!Jebek" as will be !hewn lower down; they are but trifling inconfiil:encies, which the French

. geographers think no impeachment of either their knowledge or integrity, any more than their contradiCting one another fa enormouily about the bounds of Acadia. Charlevoix forged feveral kinds of erroneous bounds for them, without deelaring for any of them himfelf; and they by adopting everyone a different party, contradict: or difagree with each other. On this occafion, I may obferve, chat, at the fame time they feem to il:rive who fhal! deviate from the truth, and curtail the Englijh pretenfions moil:, they, by their wide difagreement !hew how much at a lofs they are what to fix 00, and how little grounds they have for what they do.

Their difagreement, which in reality at once difcredits and overthrows their fyil:em, is a fuf­ficient refutation of what they would advance; as well as a fufficient anfwer to thofe who would build their demands on fuch feeble and preca­rious authority. However that be, there is no doubt but Mr. Buache (who is fa fond of every production of his own braip, that he will not part with one of them, however monil:rous or deformed, when once his imaginatiol1 has brought it forth; and has aCtually fallen out with his brother de L' Jjle for correcting fame of his errors) will, with due acrimony, refent this impeachment, of his father-in-law's inte­grity or !kill, by Mr. Robert, (with whom alfo he is at variance on the fame oecaGon as with his brother,) and oblige him to reil:ore Carolina ~o LouiJiana. In this, perhaps, he. may have . E3 mo~

[ 54- ] more to fay for himfelf than he has [aid, in his difingeouous and ridiculous defence ,of the blun­dering fituation which he has given to the Ria de los Rep*, ~Lnd other places~ in his map of the new difcoveries to the nortb of tbe South·fea.

But it is time to return from whence we digreffed :

Muft it not feem fL:rpriz.ing to every body, th:lt no[withttanding by feveral treaties we gave up NC'7..'a Scotia to the }reiZcb, when only Acadia was rfL lltioned; yet now they refufe to give back the fame country, tho' it was ceded un­der both names by. the treaty of Utrecht? But the pretence for fuch ftrange reductions is frill more [urprizing, as it is taken from that very treaty which was made on purpofe to prevent any fuch pretences ; and from words which ab­folurely deftroy them, The words, according to the original La(in, are, "Novam Scotiam five " Acadiam totam, limitibus fLlis compr~henfam, " ut-et Annapolim ; that is, All Nova Scotia or " Acadia with its ancient limits, and alfo PorJ­"Rcyal." In thefe words, it feems, they have found out two forts of arguments, properly called SJ!g,ibbles, by which they pretend to prove, That England is by the treaty intitled to no ~ore than a part of the peninfula of Nova Sc(}~ tia, or the whole at moft.

'" For he places the mouth of that river in the latitude of 63 degrees, infiead of 53, contrary both to the journal 2fc~ibtd to De. Fo~te> and the .expre(, de~gn of the vp;agc ; whIch lall: obJetllOll. found In the Remarks before melJEi­ond, he for that f!:afon never takes notice of.

The:

[ 55 ] The firf!: is extorted from the words, All Nova

Scotia, or dcadia, with its antient boundaries. \

The fecond from the words, And alfo Anna­polis Royal.

With regard to the firft argument, they pre­tend, that " the words Ancient limits refer fole­", ly to Acadia, whofe bounds originally being " very fmall, thofe words were inferted by " France to limit Nova Scotia."

Now this allegation is mlde up of feveral faHhoods.

Firft, in affirming that the words ancient li­mits were inferred by France; whereas they were inferted at the inftance of Mr. Secretary St. Job,; (afterwards Lord Bolingbroke) to Mr. de crorcy. Whence it follows thac they could not be in~ ferted to limit Nova Scoti4.; for the EngliJh mi­nifters did not want to leffen [he Britijh pre­tenfions: nor would France have fuffered the name of Nova Scotia only, to be inferred after­wards, in the part which relates to the filhery, if they had inferted the word Acadia here with any fuch defign.

The fecond falfhaod is in affirming that the ancient (by which are nieant the original) li­mits of Acadia, were very fmall ; fince, accord­jng to Champlain himfelf, the father and foul1der of the fettlements in Canada, as the French call him, they exceeded thofe of Nova Scotia in their firft eftabliiliment by King James 1. in' ] 62 I. And fince that author, the firft who hath men­tioned the limits of Acadia, hath declared the river St. Laurence to be the boundary of that country, ~his river 'muft be confidered as its

E 4 ancient,

[ 56 ] ancient, or rather mofl ancient limit, whether it had any other before his time or not.

And here it muff: be obferved, that the pof­[eilion of this tdbmony of Champlain is of great importance in the quefiion; as it will be a perpetual bar againfl: the French claims, and a decifive anfwer to all objections which may be grounded, on the words antient limits, or any other found in the treaty relative thereto: for what are a thoufi:md inferential arguments againil: one pofitive voucher? Such arguments indeed, when the cafe will admit of no other, may be confidered as fair reafoning; qut muil: be looked on as mere chicane and quibble, when fet to oppofe abfolute proofs.

As therefore a clear tefiimony or faEl: like this, is not be di[puted, and is more eafily un­derftood than a courfe of arguments, we might fpare ourfelves the trouble of dwelling any longer on this topic: but being defirous thoroughly to expofe the injuftice and fallacy of the ob. jection, we fhall undertake to fhew, from th~ obviotls meaning of the words themfelves,

[. That the words antient limits do not refer folely to Acadia.

2. That in cafe they did, yet they would not limit or reduce thofe of Nova Scotia.

3. That fuppofing they did limit or re­duce Nova Scotia, and the ancient bounds of Acadia were as fcanty as the French pretend, yet the Englijh pretenfions would not be leffen-cd thereby. .

1. That

[ 57 ] Y. That the words ancient limits do not relate

to Acadia only, or more to it than to Nova Scotia, is clear from the form of expreffion, and. natural conftruCt:ion of the words. -

For as the country of Nova Scotia and Acadia, however different or diverfified by fiwation ,dimen­fions, or otherwife, before their union, become, Py the words of the treaty, not only infeparably united, but aifo identified, or one and the fame; Therefore nothing can be applied to either, as in their feparate nate, but what muft relate to ~he whole in their united flate.

In like manner, the names Nova Scotia, and Acadia, however different before in their fig­nification, on account of the countries which they denominated, in virtue of the words of the treaty, become fynonimous, or lignify one and the fame thing: So that whatever is ap­plied to one is applied to the other, or equally affeCt:s both. And thus the words ancient limits, as well as the adjunct: all, do not relate more toone than to the other.

In effect:, the words have the fame force as if they had £Iood thus, All Nova Scotia, with its ancient limits, and all Acadia with its ancient limits; as they ml,l£I have flood, had the coun­tries ceded been different in fituation: But as they were fuppofed to have been co-extended before, or at leaft one included within the bounds of the other, therefore the prefent form of £Iile was ufed:t- which f3rves the repetition of the ~ords . in q~eft~og~

It

["58' J It is for this reafon, that we render the par­

{age No''.-'a Scotia or A{(!dia,with its ancient li­tJ2its, rather than with their ancient limits; for the Latin will admit of this way as well as the other; and thus it muft be rendered, if the countries be confidered in their feparate fiate, as the French, on this occafion, would have them.

II. It is evident then, that the words ancient li­mits do not relate to Acadia only; but in cafe they did, they could not limit or reduce Nr;va Scotia: It would only follow that Acadia, according to its antient bounds, was equivalent to Nova Scotia; for the whole of both countries being ceded, as before fet forth, there could be no fllch reduction.

But in cafe Acadia had been lefs than Nova Scetia, that would make no alteration in the queftion: for the words unite or incorporate the two; they do not curtail either in order to make one country equal to the other, they operate not by reducing Nova Scotia to the diminutive fize of Acadia, but by enlarging Acadia to the full extent of Nova Scotia. ¥vhere two countries of unequal bignefs are united, will any body pre­tend to fay, that by the u\Ilion the larg~r is re­duced to the dimenfions of the fmaller, unlefs fuch reduction had been exprefly fpecified in the article ? Let them produce an inftance of fuch an abfurdity, if they can.

The words taken feparately alfo declare in the ftrongefi manner, againft any fuch meaning, with which they are wholly incompatible. On one hand, to apply the word all to either of the (:ountries in queftion, under f1.1ch fcanty dimen-

fions

l 59 ] fi~ns as they are reprefented with by the French, looks more like jeft than earneft. What moc­kery or nonfenfe is it to declare, that the wboltJ of fuch extenfive countries is yielded, when only a piece of fea-coaft is yidded; not the hundredth part of the whole: A mighty all, truly! RiJum teneatis? To fay all Nova Scotia or Acadia, that 1', Ollly a part of Nova Scotio, or Acadia, ; or elfe, all Nova Scotia or Acadia; that is, all Acadia, and only a part of Nova 'Scotia, is a contradiction in terms; and yet one of thefe muft be the meaning in the fenfe of the French, if they mean any thing. On the other hand, if no more be ceded than a bare coail, or the periiiifula, how can all, or the whole of both, be faid to be given up ? - And if all, or the whole of both he given up, how can it be pretended that only a part is given up? It cannot be pretended, that ACtldia, under fuch contracted bounds, is equal to Nova Scotia; or that, if only Acadia was yielded un­der thofe circumftances, all Nova Scotia was yie]ded~

The article being w6rded and fuffered to pafs in the prefent form, is a plain indication that the French minifiers never intended to li­mit Nova Scotia, as is pretended. That all fhould be mentioned to be ceded oy them, and only a fmall part intended, feems impoffib!e~ If they had imended to li,.mit, or reduce one country to the other, they would have taken fome other method, confiftent with fllCh a de­fign, and not one fo very repugnant to it. They .would not have faid, all Nova Scotia, or Acadia, with its antient limits,. £hall be ceded; but, Jo f1Jucb only of Nova Scotia flall be ceded, as an-

. . ~~ers

[ 60 ] Jwers to Acadia; not in the mofl AM;PLE, but in the mofl CONTRACTED manner, according to its ancient limits, which bounds likewife would have been fpecified, nor would the ex pence of either words, or thought, have been much greater in one cafe t;, an the other : but to [L1P­pore things were intended in a light fo con­trary to that in which they appear, is to fay, that the French minifters thought one t;1ing, and wrote another; that they did not tmderftand Latin or Grammar; that they were aneep while the article was drawn up and fign­ed ; or eIfe, what will feem altogether as in­credible to the world, that the Englifh had for once outwitted them.

This confideration, likewire, would be fuffi­cient to overthrow the credit of the affertion, that the words Acadia, with its ancient limits, were inferted at the demand of France, if we had no other authority to prove the contrary, as before fet forth. In fhort, the only way to reduce Nova Scotia, by the treaty, to the limits they aim at, is to make appear, that, accord­ing to its ancient bounds,it was no larger than Acadia, according to its ancient bounds; fup-pofing them to be fuch as they pretend. .

Charlevoix probably was aware of this; and to obviate the difficulty, took it in his head not only to fupprefs one pafTage of Champlain, which makes the original limits of Acadia equal at leaft to thofe of Nova Scotia, and corrupt another, in order to reduce Acadia to a bare coaft, but alfo to affirm, that Nova Scotia ori­ginally was no more than that coaft. But this, we prefume, none will be found hardy enough,

like

t 61 ] like the jefuit~ to venture upon; and, befides, the pretended limiting words are againft fuch a modification, as they fuppofe No'Va Scotia to have been greater than Acadia.

III. However, fuppofing, in the laft place, that we fhould grant Charlevoix, and his followers, all tbey contend for, and allow that the antie;;t bounds both of Acadia and Nova Scotia were no more than the fOLlth 'Coaft of the peninfula ; yet it would avail him nothing, on his own prin­ciples, as fuch bounds would be quite out of· the queftion: For by antient bounds they all along underftand mofl antient bounds; therefore, to ufe his own way of reafoning on the fame occafion, cited at the beginning of this memoir * , " Thefe are the mofl antient limits; whereas the " difpute between the El1g1ijh and the French " is about the antient bounds of Acadi{!, or Nova " Scotia."

Now it muft be confidered, that fince the time of thofe fuppofed [canty limits, Acadia has often changed its boundaries. In Champlain's time they were the river St. Lawrence, .and that of Penobfcot. In 1632, Lewis XIII. ex­tended them weftward to the river Kinibeki: By the treaty of Breda in 1667, they were re· ftrained to the river PenobfcoJ ; and by the treaty of R)fWick in I t97, inlarged again to the ri­ver St. G~01ge. So that the antient bounds of ../f,adia muft be one of the firft three determina­tions, any of which will give to England all which ihe lays claim to.

Thus, by a blunder committed in the capital point, as well as in the·reft, he renden abor­

tiv~

• Page 7.

[ 62 j tive his own iniquitous fcheme; and lores a11 the advantages which he propofed by the many facrifices which he had m:lde t)f both his under­franding and confcience; to bring it into the world.

We have now, I prefume, refuted all the principal arguments raifed by the French on thefe words of the treaty under confideration z but we muft not quit this head, without let­ting our readers fee, how ftrongly the Englijh claim is fupported and enforced by the reft of the article. That the treaty fuppofes no fuch fcanty bounds to be ceded, as that author and his followers alledge, nor any thing lefs than the whole, both of Nova Scotia and Acadia, in the ampleft manner, and with their moO: ex­tenfive limits, will appear from the extraordinary circumfpeetion which is fhewn in wording the article in general, more than is to be foulld in any preceding treaty on the fame occaf1On. England was not barely content with the men­tion of Acadia, as in the treaty of Breda, but, bdides the addition of the name of Nova Scotia, -caufed to be inferted every thing elfe which could be thought proper for conveying and fe­curing to her fubjeets the whole, without omit­ting any thing which might give occafion to future cavils. For France is obliged to de­liver up all otber things in thoft parts which depend Oil tbe laid lands and ijlandS"; together with the dominion, properZy, and poJJelfion of the laid lands, ijlands, and places; and all right what­Joever, by treaties, or by any other way obtained, which the mofl Chr~!fian king, tbe cr01.on of France, or any the Jubjefls tbereaj, have hitherto had to tbe ijlands, lands, and places, or i1zhabitants of

4 the

t 63 ] the fame, which are yielded and made over to the ~een of Great Britain, (J.nd to her crown jot· t'Vtr.

N ow let me aik any unprejudiced foreigner; even a French malZ himfelf, whether it can pollibly be imagined, that fo much care was taken in drawing up this article, f,() many diffe­rent kinds of right as well -as poffeffion men­tioned, and fo many {hong words employed the -more firmly to convey them, only to [ecme to us a piece of coa1t, or at moil: the peninfula of Acadia, which is not above one fifth part of the whole? For it is dear, from the expreiS words, that not only the whole of both c-Oun­tries is to be delivered up; but likewife all the lands, places, iflands, of each country which at any time the French were ever in poffeffion of, by virtue of treaties or otherwife. Now, as it is notorious from the articles of feveral treaties between England and France; from the grants of Lewis XIlL and XIV. as well as other authentic atts, as before mentioned in this memoir, that the French have at various periods, :claimed and been in actual poffeffion of all the country to the fouth of SI.- Lawrence river, from the gulf of the fame name to the river Peno/'­[cot, or SI George's, what manner of doubt: can be made but that England is intitled to a.t leaft fo much by the treaty of Utrecht .2

That this is a true {{ate of our claim, appears to be confirm'd from the folIo\,ving facrs. " On June the loth 1712, Lewis XIV. offered " to yield up Ne~foundland and other Wands " to ~een Ann, provided fhe would confent " to reftore Acadia, of which the river St. George

" fhould

[ 64 J ot~ iliould hereafter be the bounds," as before mentioned: but the Queen being refolved that all the country between New England and the gulf of St. Lawrence, which the. was then in poiTeffion of, thould be formally yielded up and relinquilhed by France, rejected the offer: and js it likely that by the treaty of Utrecht fhe .ihould give up yet more? At the treaty of Utrecht all, and much more than what Lewi$ XIV. wapted us to reH:ore, was in our hands; and it appears from the tranfaCtions during the negotiation, that France efteemed Great Britain to have been in actual poffeffiol1 of the whole country of Acadia. By one of the preliminary articles of peace, figned in 171 I, "Each na.­" tion was to keep, what at the publication there­" of in North America they were poffeffed of." Is it not ftrallge effrontery then, to pretend that no more was yielded up to England by the treaty of Utrecht than the peninfula, or part of it ? The French may as well fay. and in effet!: it is faying, that inftead of France yielding up all Nova Scotia or Acadia to us, we yield it up to them, by that treaty. In iliort, it appears from the tranfaEtions of this affair, that the \vhole of Nova Scotia was infifted on by the Englifh minifters, without the leaf!: reduction; and by the treaty it appears that the whole was given up: and yet the French pretend, that by the whole is only to be underf!:ood a parr, contrary to the fat!:, and contrary to reafon.

The fecond argument or cavil, alledged by the French, is taken from the infertion of the words, and aljo Annapolis Reyal: but to aive this ar-_ D

~ument its full torce, we (hall ftate it in t!!~ words of

t 65 ] or-their falfe oracle Charlevoix, who, after re· citing the quadrupartite divifion of the country {outh of the river St. La'[.cnnce, by which Acadia is reduced to the fouth coaft of the pen­infula, "Would not one fay," adds he," that " the treaty-makers had inviewtheopinion of the " two moft ancient authors,in relation to Acadia, " [meaning Champlain and Denys, as he hath " falfely quoted them] when they declare, in " the treaty of Utrecht, crhat the mojl chriflian " King cedes to the ~ueen of England and ber " fuccejJors for ever, All Acadia or Nova Sco­" tia, conformable to its ancient boundaries, as " alfo the city of Port Royal now called Annapolis " Royal, and in general, every thing which de­" pends on the faid lands and iflands of that " country? For fince this treaty adds Port " Royal to Acadia or Nova Scotia, it feems from " thence to follow, that the whole peninfula " was not com prized under the name of Awdia " proper or Nova Scotia *."

To this it is anfwered, that what he WOll ld fallacioufiy infer, does not follow, for the [ubfe­quent reafons. I. Becaufe he fuppofes, the plenipotentiaries took only Acadia or Nova Sco­tia, according to his own imaginary fcanty bounds, under their confideration; whereas it appears from what hath been faid in the preced-· ing article, that they had both countries at large in view. 2. Becaufe, if this argument be of any fignificancy, Port Royal was not comprized under the name of either Nova Scotia or Acadia; and then he furnifhes a reafon why it ought to have been exprefiy mentioned. In effect, as

;I< Charle'1J. Hift. NQu'1J." Fran. Vol. I. p. 113. and Vol. 2. P 374. .

F it

[ 66 ] it was fometimes annexed to the government of the North-main (parcicularly that name­lefs government mentioned by Charlevoix) it might be confidered as aJeparate diftritl: from the peninfula; and by virtue of this ceIlion we are intitled, by that author's own fuewing, at leaft to [0 much of the North·Main as fell within that, namelefs government of which Port Royal was the capital. 3. Becaufe Queen Anne di­rected Lord Privy Seal and Earl Slraifora to demand, "that the French King fuould give " up all claim, by former treaties or otherwife, " to New Scotland, and expreo.y to Port Royal., " now in our poifeffion." This, I hope wiU be deemed a fufficient reafon for inferting the words, and alfo Port Royal, if there was no other.

On this occafion I muft obferve, that in aU difputes of this, nature, which concerns the meaning of treaties, when any difficulty or doubt arifes, recourfe ought to be had to the tranfac­tions during the negotiation, as the moft proper way for removing or explaining them. U nlefs this method be allowed, France. herfelf can fuew no title that ever fue had by treaty to the­country in queftion, call it Acadia or NQVS

Scotia: which evinces how unfair it is to pre­tend to take advantage of fingle words in the treaty of Utrecht, contrary to the obvious mean­ing of all the reft, and tenor of the whole.

Having confidered the obJeCtions of our ad­verfary, I fuall make bold to point out a few corruptions, which may be called forg(iries, which he has committed in the above citation from the treaty o~ Utrecht. The firft corrup-

2- tion

( 67 ] tion is in writing all Acadia 'or Nova Scolia, in­ftead of a11 Nova Scotia or Acadia. By giving Acadia the prekrence, he would infinuare, that the country yielded up was properly andftria­Iy no other than Acadia, and not No'ua Scotia, farther than what p1ight be compriied of it in Acadia: that thus the words ancient boundaries became appropriated thereto;' and the bounds of Nova Scotia are governed by thofe of Acadia. But as the contrary is the cafe, and ]'wva Scotia is placed firft in the treaty; thofe ad vantages which in that fituation would have accrued to

Acadia, muft be afcribed to Nova Scotia; and th us bis fraud turns againft himfi::lf.

Secondly, after the words Lands and Jjlands, he has added of that CO:!;lt7)'; which words are not in the treaty. And why has he dunethis? Doubtlefs, becauie he perceived the woro landr might have reference to more than one country, that is, to both NovaS cotia and Acad:a, confider­ed feperately as diflina countries, And in reality, altho' it was necellary, as thofe countrys were then united or fuppofed to be co-extended, that the words {bould run in their prefent form, 'ujz.

All Nova Scotia or Acadia, yets they might as properly be read all' Nova Scotia and Acadia, as hath bt>en already remarked, and as we find it exprelfed in Cromwell's grant to La 'rour, &e. And therefore, finee by the treaty every thing was to be delivered up to England, which at any time had appertained to either of thofe countries ~ without doubt thofc words, the Jaid Lands, three times repeated, rdi::r to them, both jointly and feparately confidered. For 'otherwife, . We fhould only have found the words, the Jaid Land; which in ftria propriety of fpef;'ch,

F l agree

[ 68 ] ~grce better wilh the words lv-ova Scotia or ~1cadia.

I h3.ve yet one remark more to make on this occafion. In the inference which he draws from the words cited I by him, he ufes the term Acadia Jroper, which implies that there is an ./iwdia in ge1leral, or at large, from which the leffer is diD:inguifhcd by the word proptr, as it is ufual in books of geography, when a pro­vince bears the fame name with the kingdom, as we have already obferved. This Acadia at large, which our impartial author never fpeaks of, is Acadia in its ancient and moD: extended ftate, as it exined from the firft ; that is, in the time of Cbamplain, or was fettled by Lewis XIII. It is with this general Acadia that Charlevoix, and the French geographers, ought to have joined Nv,;(! Scotia, inftead of the proper Acadia, as he has done in confequence of two very falfe affertions, '0°iz. "That the name of Nova Sco­" tic, in England it felf, is given only to the " peninfula; and that it never extended over " both the peninfula and continent at the fame "time." But as we have proved the contrary beyond exception, this alone ought to oblige them to retract their errors and correa their maps.

There is yet another cIaufe to be taken no­tice ot~ in the 12 tll article of the Utrecht treaty, which contributes not a little to confirm all which we have faid with relation to the bounds and extent of Nova Scotia or Acadia, as deli­vered up by the treaty. It is, that which con­cerns the fifhery: for by it the French are ex­cluded from all kind of Ji/hing, within 30 leagues

oj

[ 69 ] of the /hore, in the feas, bays, and otber places [that is rivers, ports and b::nks] on the coa;t of Nova Scotia,flretching dng to the S. lV. of Sable (or Sandy) ifland. Obferve firft, that the name of Nova Scotia only is u[ed here, which plainly indicates what has been already inflfted on, that the country or countries com prized under that

. name, was the object which the French as well as Englijh minifters had chiefly in view.

Secondly, the French are prohibited to £llh not only in a fingle fea, fuch as wafhes the coaft of the peninfula between the capes Sable and Cal1jo, but alfo in all the feas indefinitely, to the. W. or S. W. of the I;7and Sable: Among which is included that of Nova Scotia, extend­ing weft ward from Sable ifland to the borders of New England. In like manner to Nova Scotia, within thofe aforefaid limits, belong the bays, not only of all illes, La Have and the like, which are found on the [aid coaft; but alfo the bays of St. Mary, Annapolis, Minas, Shignekto, St. John, and St. Croix, (all excepting the £lrft contained in the great bay of Argal or Fund) together with that of Penobfcot more to the weft.

Laftly, the words, on thoft which lie towat-ds the eaft, imply that there were other coafts belonging to Nova Scotia, befides thofe und-::r confideration. Now, as thofe referred to by the words above cited, include all which lie along the [eas and bays to the W. or S. W. of Jjle Sable; that is, all the coafts both of the peninfula and the main, to the borders of New England, as hath been proved in the fecond remark; confequentry the implied coa11s muft

F 3.. be

[ 70 ]

be thofe within, and out of, the St. Lawrence bay extending from Cape CanJo to Cape Rojiers. In effect the French, by ehe claufe above-cited were tacitly p~rmitted to fifh along this roaft of NO'va ;';cotia, as not being prohibited from fifhing in the feas and bays to the eaft or north of Jjle Sable; but abfolutely eJrcluded from exercifing that bufinefs on any of the coafts of N07)a Scotia to the weftward of that; ine, within 30 leagues of the fhore.

Havinf! noW done with the French demands on Nova Scotia; it can not be improper, in our turn, to fet forth the more j uft pretenfions which the Englijh have to Canada. This I fi1all do on much better grounds than thofe on which Mr. Rebert, ha5 ventured to comprize the Britifh dominions, under the name of Canada, without al­ledging any authority for his innovation or inva .. Don: nor can he, I'm fme, produce any good one. Some authors iudeed have called [he fame ex­tent of country New France, from Vcrazani's difcovery. real or pretended, in 1524, which yet was 27 years pofterior to that of the Cabots: but I do not remember that the name of Canada was ever given to it by any judicious and equi­table French geographer before Mr. Robert: and this I may venture to affert, that his na­tion has no right of conql,.leU to thofe domini­ons, as the Englijh have to Canada. We ground our claim to this country firft, as being the prior difcoverers of all the north part of America= from 34 to 66 degrees of latitude under the Cabots, in 1497. Secondly, in the intire conqueft of it in 1629, by Kirk. Thirdly, on toe gran~ of Cromwell in J 655, to De LaTour, Sir 'fboma$.

'fempIe,

[ 7[ ] -tfemp!e, and others ~ wherein a confiderable part, if not the whole, of Canada, is made over to more proprietors.

If the French 1hollld fay, that Canada was given up to them by the treaty of St. Germain, in 1632; we deny it, and infift, that the places only were given up, and not the lands: for which we quote the authorities before menti­oned, of both King Charles I. and Cromwell. Befides, in cafe both had been ceded, yet as the conditions of that treaty were never fulfilled, particularly with refpett to the [urns of money made payable thereby, for that reafon, the whole is void. It is void alfo by the trefpafs which the French have now made on Nova Scotia, according to the tenor of ~een Anne's manifefto, difperfed in Canada in 17 II; when the expedition for the reduction of it was on foot: wherein it is faid, "that Canada belonged " to the Englijh, by priority of difcovery; and U that what the French poifeifed there, was by " grants from the Englijh, and confequently " hold it only as a fief; and therefore where ~, the poifeifors turn enemies, it reverts." Now for my part, I know no greater fign of inimi­city, than to corne and fettle in the rnidft: of their neighbour's country, not only without their coofem, but even by downright force.

The French cannot pretend that the above recited reafons are weak or infignificant, who yet alledge as very folid ones, others which are not near fo fhong. But, in cafe they were as frivolous as theirs, they can have no objeaion to them on that accpunt. Nor ought they to

F 4 have

[ 72 ] have Iefs force than folid arguments, if they were not fuch, becaufe in reality the French are not intitled to any: for with thofe who ufe chi­cane, chicane muft be taken for argument. Nei­ther cJ.n they pretend to alledge the [enfe and meaning of the St. Germain treaty, againft the letter ot· it; fince, altho' both [enfe and letter of the treaty of Utrecht be clearly for 1.lS, they will allow neither.

"lis true, altho' we all along were apprized of our title to C{mada, yet we fllff'ered it to lie dormant, thro' a defire rather to lofe fome­tLir 6, than to have difputes with our neigh­bours : ho,vever, fince the French have not only feized on the greater part of one province, and invaded another with repeated hoftilities, but begin by indirect meth0ds to lay pretenfions' to the whole Briti/h empire in America; they have fhewed the Ellg1ijh, that it is high time for them to look to their interefts, and at the fame time put them in mind to revive their antient claim to Callada. 1\ or is this claim a novelty, {tarred cn the prefent occafion, bllt is a claim which England has always kept lip, as "PFears from the claufe in ~1een Anne's manifefto above recited. Thefe reafons I think, are fufFicient to jufcify our pretenfions to Canada. What fol­Jaws will fhevv the vanity and impropriety with which :Mr. RcZm-t has included the Brittfh do­minions in America, under that name.

I therefore, in the Iail: place {ha'l perform my promife, made p. 23 to refute the falfe affertion of Charlevoix; " that from the earlieft times " the favages gave the name of Canada to all

" the

r 73 1 u tbe country -On . both fides. of the river [of " Canada or St. ,Lawrence] pardcularly from its "mouth toS(lguenay." This the hard-mouth'd writer ventllres ,to affirm, without the leafi: proof to fupport his· words; on occafion of Cartier (or the writer of his voyage, who was with 'him· i!1 153'4) faying, that the country does not begin to be {alled Canada, till you come to the ijland " . of Bacchus [now Orleans] near fi2gebek. In this he fays the relator" is mofi: certainly wrong;" and having proved it with a mofi: im­pudent ipJe dixit, above recited, then drops it. Indeed that was all the beft of his play, nor dura he enter farther into the gueftion : for Car­tier. exprefsl)T fays, that Canada was a country or kingdom, lying between thofe. of HoJhelaga (where Mont Real now is) and Saguenay; and Mr. Roberval was afterwards appointed by the King of France governor of them, as fo many different countries ..

From hence we learn two things: firft, that Canada was originally fo far from being the ge­neral name of the country, on both fides the river, or even of that at pre[ent [0 caJIed; that it was no more thaq a fmall part or difi:riCl: of it, on the north fide of the river only, whereof Kebek was the chief town: fecondly, that Canada, i~ftead of lying frolJ1 the mouth of the river St. Lawrence to Saguenay, lay to the weft of the country of Saguenay ([0 called from the river which frill bears that name) which therefore lay between it and the mouth of the river, 250

miles diftant, if itdid not extend fo far .. What abandon'd principles muft the man be of, who can affert fo many glaring falfehoods, as we have ~xpofed, which may be fo eafily confuted? B~t

9 It

[ 74 ] it muft be confidered, that as fome people think lying for the caufe is a proof of their zeal, fo the greater the lie the greater the merit; which would not fufficiently appear, if the fourherie was not eafily detetl:ed.

The French indeed, wanted very early to comprehend the lands on both fides of the river St. Lawrence under forne name which might {eern of India;z original; and as that of Canada had obtained among them for the river, they were defirous to give it to the country. Lefcarbot made the firil: attempt, thinking it proper, " that " like the Indus the banks on both fides 1hould ~, bear it's name *.'~ To bring this about he pretends that the people of GCljhepe [or Gafpe] and the BB)'C de Chajeurs near it, are called Ca~ nadians; and fo from a few people of that name, in this corner of the continent, and at a vail: rliftance from Canada itfelf.at leaft 360 miles, with other nations of Indians between, would have the country, at leaft the fOllth bank of the river, called Ctmada. But, as neither Cartier, Champlain, nor De Monts, who were in the fame bay for fome time, mention any thing of Cana­dians inhabiting the country, it is doubtlefs a Jifrion of his own, grounded on an ancient tra­dition mentioned by authors, and among the Teft by Charlevoix himfelf, viz. that certain " Spaniards having enrer-ed the bay of Chaleurs ~, 0f Heats, before the time of Cartier, and " finding no mines as they expeeted, often re­~ peated the words Aca '!fad-a, that is, here is " nothing ; which the Indians hltving fince then f6 often, utter'd, when t?hey faw any Frenchmen,

.. Lejcarbdf. Hilt de Iii NDtW. Frtm. 1, 3· p. ~z9. ., thefe

[ 75 ] u .there 'latter concluded that Canada was the " name of the country •. " ,

On this falfe foundation fame geographers give the name of Csnada to the country, which in De Mont's patent of 1603, is termed Gafpe or GaJpeJia, as it has been g¢nerally called ever fince. William de L'Ijle obferving the inton­fiftency of placing a colony of Canadians at fucha diftance from Canada-; and on th~ other fide of the river, with other nations of Inditf1tJ and countries between, in his map of New France, or Canada, publifhed in 1703, reftores Gafpijia to it's ancient place, and tranfplants Canada from the eaftern to the weftern corner Qf Nova Scotia, [outh of !?<g·ebek: which, tho' more confiftently fituated than Lefcarbot's Ca­nada, is no[, fOf any thing that appears, a.t all more real.

Thu~, we think. it is fufficiently clear from what has been faid, that the name of Canada was never given to the country {outh of the river St. Lawrence, or to any part of it; neither was the whole river it [elf, any more than the CQlmtty to (he north, caUed Canada fr'Om the tirft, even by the FreKJ(h: for as Canada wasori­gi-nally bl:lt a part of that cO'lfocry, fo the rive~ was called HoJhelaga from the country of Hojhe­l.7lga, before it took the name of Cavada. In a word, the country fouth of the river St. Law­'lienee., bdng. inhabited bydiffel'ent people, the $everal paFtsof it took names a-ccording to the patiQosamong whom it was divided: but it is dear from due teftimoflY of Champlain,. that from thefi,.rft the whole went under the dec{)mi­nation of .dcad'itl, w~e~hei'g~yen to it by the

• Char!,,,,, Hill, de la N~'ll, Fhi~.Vol. L p. <').

Indian;

[ 76 J India1ZS or French. This. name was confirmed to it, and its limits eftablifiled by Lewis XIII. in 1632 or 33.

From this time we find the mime of Acadia conftantly given in treaties to the country yielded to the French; and as both the main and peninfula were always given up, tho' no other name was ufed ; hence 'tis plain all Nova Scotia was comprized under that denomination, unlefs the French can fhew that, under the name of Acadia, nothing befides the peninfula was given up.

In !ho:-t, there needs no plainer confutation of Charlevoix's afiertion than this, that the coun­try [{loth of the river St. Lawrence does not at prefent go by the name of Canada among the French, nor is it 10 denominated in their maps, or indeed by any general name; neither has that author· told 115 when the name of Canada (if it ever had fuch). ceafed, or what name took place of it.

With regard to my ftritl:ures on Charlevoix, I prefllme no reader, who is a friend to truth andjuftice, will think me too fevere on a man who proftitutes the two facred characters of di· vine and hiftorian, to ferve the caMe-of impof­ture; and is capable of forming the infamous defign of violating treaties, and' defrauding a nation in amity with his own, of a confiserable country, by the groffeft falfehoods, quibbles, and prevarications which perhaps ever polluted hi­fiory. The French themfelves have reafon to execrate both him and his legend, (w-hich hence­forth they ought tQ fufpeCl: in every thing)

fince

( 77 ] fwee,his deHgn was ev.idently to embroil them with their neighbours, and draw them into an

. unjuft war; without the leaft real ground or colour on their fide. By inventing fuch palpable falfehoods, he betrays their C:lUfe inftead of de­fending it: and eftablifhes the evidence of the treaty of Utrecht in favou,r of the Engti/h, by the means which he hath employed [O~ defeat it.

FIN I S.

ERR A T A. P. 3,1. 5· for Cartior r. Cartier. p.4. l. II. for 1625 r. 1621. p. 8. I. 2. dele called. p. 13. I. ult. for Nova r. Novas. p. 46. 1. 20. after bas r. in his Remarks. p. 48. remove the from the end of 1. 31. to the end of 1. 11 2. p. 50 .1. ult. for Mem. r. Mere. p. 57·1. 5. for Country r. Countries. p. 58. 1. 20. after either put a full fiop.

JtifJ ptthlijhed by T.'jEFFltRYS, t;~og,.aphel' to His Royal Highnejs the Prinle''qf:lY.aJes.,

I.A' ' Chart or Map of AMERICA, in S,b,Sheets, " including the Atlantic ,and, PaCific Oceans,

with the near~ft CoaO} pf EurQRe;" ,AJia and , Africa, improved withTables and R~m'~l,"ks; for the Servi{;e ofBritilh Navigators. Price iz:s. in Sheets', . '

It A Map of the Inhabited Part of 'VIR­CINJ A, containing alfo the whole Province of Maryland, Part of Penfylvania, 'New Jerfey, and North Catolina, furveyed in 175 I, by J OSHV A.

ijIIty and ~ETER. J EFFJRSON. ,Price I"6~. III. Major W ASHINGTO~'S J oumal, WIth a

Map of the back Settlements ()f Virginia and Courfe of the Ohio, &c. from late Surveys; the only one extant. Price 1 s.

IV. The Seat of War on the Coaft of CHO­ROMANDEL, comprizing the chief European Settlements, with an Explanation. Price 2 s.

And in a few Days will be publiJhed.

1. A Map of NORTH AMERICA, from the French of Mr. DtANVILLF." containing the Englifh, . French and Spanith. Settlements, im­proved in the back Settlements of Virginia and Courfe of the Ohio, illuftrated with geographical and hiftorical Remarks. Price IS, 6 d.

II. An EnglilhChartoftheATLANTlc OCEAN, including the Britifh, French and Spanifu Settle­ments in North America and the Weft Indies ~ with a. Memoir fetting forth the Errors and Im­perfections of the French Charts. Price is.

III. Remarks on the prefent Proceedings- of the French in AM l:.RICA, with Refped to the Bririlh Colonies in general, & c . .. ' .. -