Lieutenant-Governor Caulfield—He sends Peter Oapoon and Thomas Button to have the Acadians take the oath of allegiance—Answers of the Acadians—Omissions of the Compiler— Lieutenant-Governor John Doucette—New injunction to take the oath—They consent to remain in the country on certain conditions with regard to the oath—Other omissions.

With this chapter we enter at last into the volume of the Archives.

It will he admitted that the two chapters immediately preceding are nor wanting in significance. The sequel will show that the events of these five years have in themselves alone more real importance than those of the fifteen succeeding years. In fact, subsequent events are so connected with those we have just sketched, that, without them, they become unintelligible or assume a different significance.

While waiting till the course of our narrative has made the learned methods of the Compiler familiar, 1 will leave the reader to his own reflections upon the possible motives of these strange omissions. And, if now and then indignation suggests expressions that may seem severe, I beg pardon for the moment, until this pardon I now solicit shall become complete and shall be spontaneously offered by whosoever bears with me to the end.

The Compiler makes us begin at the second act of the drama. As the curtain rises, we perceive Lieutenant-Governor Caulfield, successor to Vetch, Hobby, and Nicholson, the fourth on the list, in the year 1715, ordering Messrs. Peter Capoon and Thomas Button, officers of the garrison, to betake themselves to Mines, to Beaubassin, to Penobscot, to River St. John and to other places:

“Directing that His Most Sacred Majesty, George, King of Great Britain, France and Ireland, be proclaimed in all parts of his Government. You are likewise to tender the oaths of allegiance to ye Acadians in ye form prescribed."

On the 15th of the following May, Caulfield acquaints the Lords of Trade with the result of the mission of Peter Capoon and Thomas Button.

"Here inclosed are the transactions of M. M. Button and Capoon, by Which you will find that ye inhabitants, beeing most of them French, refused the oath, having, as I am informed, refused to quit the collonny intirely and to settle under ye french government, and I numblie desire to be informed how I shall behave to them .... The Acadians who always maintained this garrison with corn, are most of them quitting the collonny, specially at Mines.

“How is this?” must the intelligent reader of the compiler’s extracts say, he who knows nothing of what happened between 1710 and 1715: “It is now five years since the taking of Port Royal and two years since the treaty of peace, and those Acadians are still in the country, they refuse to take the oath of allegiance and even to go away ? Why, the governors must have been very good and very paternal not to have constrained them by force to either alternative?

That is indeed what the reader must have said to himself in good faith, since historians, who have written since the compilation of this volume, have said substantially the same thing. The Compiler knew well that he was constructing thereby an arsenal where men would come for arms without taking the trouble to look any farther. He knew well that most of those who write history, even when they have aptitude for it, which sometimes they have not, have seldom the patience to meditate, compare, observe and penetrate. He knew well that many of them follow one another in a row to fall into the same rut. There were, however, very simple questions to be asked here, such as these: “What had happened since 1710? Why does the Compiler begin his volume with the year 1715? Why are not the proposed formula for the oath, the replies of the Acadians and the report of Capoon and Button in the volume of the Archives? Why does Caulfield seem to desire and to have ordered the departure of the Acadians, though in a subsequent letter lie says that their departure would be the ruin of the country? Why does the Compiler almost always omit the replies of the Acadians? The documents from them are rare enough to have made it a bounden duty for him eagerly to grant them a place in his volume as well in justice to them as in order to permit us to pass an enlightened judgment on the events that depend thereon. He was not unaware of these replies, since the very letter of Caulfield to the Lords of Trade, which we have just quoted, refers to it: “Herein enclosed are the transactions of Messrs. Button and Capoon."

I am going to supply in part the omissions of the Compiler. In the Colonial Records, N. S., Vol I., we rind, just alongside the documents produced in the archives, the formula of the oath proposed by Caulfield and the replies of the Acadians.

“I, A. I?., sincerely promise and swear that I will bo faithtul and maintain a true allegiance with His Majesty, King George.'

Reply of the Acadians of Mines to Messrs. Capoon and Button:

“To answer what you have done us the honor publicly to annonnce to us last Wednesday, and for replying to which we begged you give us till last Sunday, in which time we have not been able to accomplish what we had promised, seeing that several learn nothing from writings but only viva voce, and, not even knowing exactly of what there was question, returned home without giving any answer.

“We have the honor to signify to you, that no one can be more thankful than we are for the kindness that King George, whom wo recognize as the lawful sovereign of Great Britain, so graciously shows us, under whose rule it will be for us a real joy to remain, as he is such a good prince, if we had not since last summer, made engagements to return under the rule of the King of France, having even given our signatures to the officer sent in his name (M. de la Ronde), contrary to which we cannot act, until Their two Majesties of France and England have disposed of vs otherwise. However, we bind ourselves with pleasure and gratefulness, while we remain here in Acadia, to do or undertake nothing against His Britannic Majesty, King George, of whose proclamation to the crown wre are witnesses, which was made by you, sirs, in presence of the inhabitants of the said places, at Mines, this 12th of March 1715, we, the undersigned, acting and being authorized by all the inhabitants to act according to the power of attorney which they have given us.

(Signed) Jacques Le Blanc, Antoine Le Blanc, Charles Babin, Jassemin, Philippe Melan<;on, Claude Landry, Pierre Terriot, Rene Le Blanc, Pierre Richard, Jacques Le Blanc, Francois llimbaut, Germain Terriau, .Tean Le Blanc. Martin Aucoin, etc., etc.”

We have also the reply of the Acadians of Beaubassin; its purport is exactly the same; it is signed by Michel Poirier, Martin Richard, Michel Bourg, Charles Bourgeois, Francois Doucet, Jean Cyr, Alexis Cormier, as arbiters for the whole population.

Those of Port Royal seem to have acted otherwise. Instead of refusing the oath presented to them, they proposed another formula as follows :—

“I sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful and maintain a true allegiance to His Majesty, King George, as long as I shall be in Acadia or Nova Scotia: and [I stipulate] that I shall be permitted to withdraw wheresoever I shall think fit with all my movable goods and effects, when I shall think fit, without any one being able to hinder me.” -

It is signed by thirty-six names, twenty of which are marked with crosses, and appears to have been accepted by Caulfield.

Without being very explicit, these documents hint at many things. One sees clearly that French delegates had some months previous conferred with Governor Nicholson; that the question of the departure of the Acadians had been referred to the Queen, and that the oath offered them could not be taken into consideration before this decision. The publishing of these documents would have been a key to guide the reader in researches which would have revealed what we have set forth elsewhere, and what the volume of the archives concealed from view.

Thus, these documents confirm anew on certain points those which I have produced, and overthrow the vague insinuation of Caulfield, when he says: “having, as I am informed, refused to quit this colony entirely and to settle under the French government.” He seems to wish to insinuate thereby that lie gave orders to the Acadians to take the oath or to leave, and thus he misrepresents their situation to the Lords of Trade. His instructions to Capoon and Button show nothing of the kind ; the replies of the inhabitants prove the contrary; and a subsequent letter to the Lords of Trade shows that he considered the departure of the Acadians as a calamity. It is therefore ridiculous to suppose that he gave such, orders and received such replies. Moreover, we have seen by several documents that the greater number of the Acadians, iu this year 1715, did not even sow then lands, so truly did they expect to leave in the course of the summer. And, if he had given such orders, he -would be so much the more culpable, since he knew that, a few months before, this question of the departure had been referred by Nicholson to the decision of the Queen, and that the reply had not yet been given.

The only means of reconciling his insinuation with possible facts would be to attribute such a reply, I mean the refusal to depart, to some inhabitants of Penobscot or of the St. John River, where the Messrs. Capoon and Button likewise betook themselves to have the oath taken. These were upon a territory that France claimed; whence their declaration that they would not leave the country. This is the only possible interpretation that I see, otherwise his assertion, “that most of them are quitting the collonny ” would be contradictory and absurd.

In May of the following year Caulfield writes to the Lords of Trade: “I received a letter from ye Acadians of Mines of their resolution to continue in this government, and are making all preparations for improvements as formerly, and they seem impatient to hear what is determined on their behalf."

This letter might seem contradictory; but as the last part shows us that the Acadians were impatient to know the decision respecting the questions submitted to the Queen by Nicholson, it must be inferred that they were always determined to depart as soon as this reply would be known and the means afforded them for departing; else, why would they have been impatient for a reply which was to decide their departure, if their intention was to remain in any case ? The first part, then, means that they agreed to prolong their sojourn till after the harvest (they had not sown the preceding year).

In the ensuing October (1716), writing to the Lords of Trade, he informs them that he has proposed the oath to the Acadians and sends them their replies. We infer therefrom that they reiterated their determination to leave the country, for he adds: “at the same time I am persuaded it will be with reluctancy they leave the country.”

Caulfield was replaced as Lieutenant-Governor by John Doucette (1717). Addressing first the inhabitants of Annapolis, the latter severely enjoined them to take the oath according to the formula which he communicated to them. Tired of waiting in vain for a response to the questions submitted to the Queen by Nicholson, despairing of ever obtaining the facilities necessary to their transmigration, they answered that they all desired to come to a common decision, and for that purpose it was advisable to have all the inhabitants of the other localities assembled at the same time:

“For the present we ean only answer, that we shall be ready to carry Into effect the demand proposed to us, as soon as His Majesty shall have done us the favor of providing some means of sheltering us from the Indians, who are always ready to do all kinds of mischief, proofs of which have been afforded on many occasions since the peace.

“That unless we. are protected from them, we cannot take the oath demanded without exposing ourselves to have our throats cut in our houses at any time, which they have already threatened to do.

“In case other means cannot be found, we are ready to take an oath that we will take up arms neither against His Britannic Majesty nor against France, nor against any of their subjects or allies.”

Up to that time the Acadians had refused to accept any oath that tied them to the country; they wished to depart and hail been waiting to be enabled to do so. From that moment they no longer refused this oath, provided a clause were inserted exempting them from bearing arms against the French or Indians, their allies.

The situation presents no difficulties. Either they must be allowed to leave with their goods and cattle, as signified by the treaty and the letter of the Queen, and obstacles must be removed and the assistance requisite for their transmigration granted them, or the conditions they imposed on their sojourn in the country must be accepted. It might have been disagreeable to have conditions imposed by poor peasants; but either this must be endured or the inconveniences which their departure entailed, at least if justice should regulate the relations between the high and the low, between the weak and the strong. Their conditions were certainly not frivolous. The only enemy that England had to combat in these places was France. Without the acceptance of this condition they could be obliged to take up arms against their compatriots and still worse against their brethren, their relations who resided on the north side of the Bay of Fundy at River St. John, Chipody, Peticodiac, Memrameook and even at Beaubassin on a territory which, it is true, was disputed, but which might eventually be adjudged to France by the commission appointed to decide thereon.

Nothing was more reasonable than the exemption which they claimed, especially when they were deprived of the right of going away ; and those who treat their claim as frivolous have evidently never sounded their inmost hearts to see what would be their sentiments in a similar situation. Later 011 we shall find that the American colonists, who established themselves in 1760 on the lands of the Acadians, were exempted from hearing arms against their brethren of New England at the time of the war of independence; but in that case it was deemed quite natural to grant them this exemption. Not without heart-rending grief had the Acadians resolved to leave their country, their property, these abodes of their childhood bedewed by the sweat of several generations. Oh! assuredly, they would have preferred by far to remain ; but in those days of prejudice, intolerance and absolutism, they feared tlie caprice of their governors, they feared that, sooner or later, obstacles would be raised to the free exercise of their religion Will it be said that their fears were not reasonable, seeing that for three years they had been retained by force in violation of a treaty, at a time when England had not yet emerged from the most intolerant period of her history? They might perhaps run these risks, hut, at least, they did not wish to have to combat their fellow-countrymen and their brethren; they wished to put themselves in a position to be able at any time to quit the country, if the conditions imposed by them should be violated. Upon sufficient reflection we shall find that the sentiments that actuated them arose from the noblest of motives. This persistency in refusing during forty years any oath that exposed them to be obliged to combat their compatriots, does an honor to them of which their descendants may rightly be proud. Parkman could carelessly assert that they were weak of purpose but when there was question of contravening the elementary dictates of human nature, or of conscience, then this firmness energetically faced consequences from which men of our civilized time and probably Parkman himself would shrink.

It was still easier for England to grant their demands, as was done in 1730, than for the Acadians not to make them. In their simplicity, they thought perhaps that in these proposals they had found a very acceptable middle term, which, while allaying their apprehensions, would permit them to preserve their property and their fatherland. It was a proposal that could be considered, discussed and met by another proposal. Could not the local authorities effect a compromise? could they not make allowance for such justifiable rcpuguance, for the obstacles opposed to the execution of a right so evident as was that of their departure? could they not, I ask, limit this exemption of bearing arms to a definite length of time? But no; no concession! “We are the 'authority' and we do not treat with private individuals. You shall not depart, and you must take the oath without reserve, you must depend on our good pleasure.”

Moreover, if they felt no such natural repugnance to fighting the Indians as they felt to fighting their own countrymen, their own safety led them to shun all hostility to the savage. We have seen that Yetch and Caulfield were of opinion that there would be no security for English colonists to settle in the country on account of the hostility of the Indians. Would it have been otherwise with the Acadians, if they had been forced to take up anns against the Indians ? There were certainly between them friendly ties which dated far back; but w hat would these ties have availed under these new circumstances? Does not our friend or ally of to-day become our enemy to-morrow, if he fights against us? .And in that event, what greater security could they have enjoyed than the English colonists? In view of their security the objection to bear arms against the Indians was much more serious than the objection to bear them against the French. What did they really demand, when answering the summons to take the oath ? Nothing more than this reasonable agreement: “Find some means to protect us against the Indians,' and we ask no exemption with regard to them, in spite of the threats which they use against us every day. In default of this means, we will agree to remain in the country and take the oath of allegiance, provided we be exempt from any obligation to bear arms against the French and the Indians.”

Certain historians speak of the efforts made by French authorities to prevail on the Acadians to emigrate, as if, by doing so, they had been guilty of reprehensible intrigues, unworthy of a great nation. It may be accounted ingenious to get quit of one accusation by another; there are always some people who let themselves be duped by any subterfuge, however gross it be. That the French made efforts to engage the Acadians to take advantage of the clauses of the treaty, is a fact not to be doubted. That was their right and their interest, as it was their duty; the Acadians having decided to urge the English authorities to grant all the facilities requisite for their departure. France was a party to the treaty, and, in virtue of this, she had the obligation to protect her former subjects against any violation of those clauses which were profitable to them; and, if France is to be blamed, it is for not having urged the matter with sufficient energy, when the Acadians so earnestly claimed her support, and when her own interests were all in favor of it. It has been pretended that France, under the idea that Acadia might return to her, gradually fought shy of the departure of the Acadians.

That was quite possible; although her indifference to this departure could only be partial, since, besides the uncertainty of such an issue as the return to French dominion, and the fact that the departure of the Acadians would be the ruin of Nova Scotia, there still remained a not less urgent interest for France to people her colony of Cape Breton and Prince Edward Island and to gain strength for future conflicts.

But, we have not here to consider the interests of France and England otherwise than as they explain facts. For the moment, I am examining only the question of right, and I assert that, for both France and England, the lawfulness of their efforts to decide the Acadians to depart or not to depart, was limited to persuasive influence, and that, while France, perhaps on account of circumstances, employed only this expedient, the English authorities used every unlawful means that ruse and force could suggest. Such is the difference, and it is really enormous. And yet, we might view all this with a certain indulgence, if only the English had taken into account their own unlawful conduct in their subsequent proceedings with regard to the Acadians.

As a question of fact, the idea of departure was or appears to have been spontaneous on the part of the Acadians. Port Royal had been in the hands of the English for only three months, when they averred, in an address to the Governor of Canada, that Governor Vetch was treating them as negro slaves, and that they desired to move into French territory. Immediately after the treaty of Utrecht, it was still, as far as we can. judge, by a spontaneous movement, that they sent delegates to Louisburg to treat this same question.

After having given the above response of the Acadians to the summons of Governor Doucette, the Compiler plunges us again into darkness by letting us remain ignorant of what ensued.

We can here clearly perceive an omission of five letters, three of which are from the Governor himself and two replies, one from Abbe Pain, cure des Mines, the other from Mr. de Brouillan, governor of Cape Breton. By the former’s reply we may judge what was the drift of the latter’s answer.

Mixes, 29 March, 1718.

“I have received the letter, with which you honored me, under date of Dec. 5, 1717. I have the honor to signify to you, sir, that these Acadians must be sufficiently acquainted with their duties and obligations without needing my help for what you desire me to do with regard to them. . . . Allow me to declare to you, so that you may have nothing to say against my behavior in this matter, that I am resolved to give no advice for or against the measure: thus you will recognize their natural intentions,” etc., etc.

Felix Pain.

From this reply it appears evident that the Governor solicited the concurrence of this priest to influence the Acadians in the direction of an unconditional oath. In justice we must say that he declares himself satisfied with this reply, and with the priest’s intention not to meddle with temporal affairs. We have likewise the reply of the governor of Cape Breton, and it confirms all that I have previously said respecting the obstacles opposed to the departure of the Acadians.

Louisburg. 21 July, 1718.

“Concerning your complaints that the inhabitants of Acadia had not departed as agreed upon, and that this delay has caused loss to His Britannic Majesty, you must have known, sir, the impossibility in which Mr. Nicholson and other rulers of Acadia have put them of executing what had been agreed upon; some not wishing to let them carry away their effects, and the others not wishing us to send them the rigging to equip the little ships they had built, and which in consequence they were obliged to sell almost for nothing to English merchants. I will not fail to inform the King my master of all you remark to me thereon, so that he may give the orders that he will judge proper.”