Armstrong's difficulties with the clergy - he case of Abbe de Breslav, Abbe Isidore, and Messrs Chauvreulx and de St. Poncy— Painful situation of the clergy—Their attitude.

In the preceding chapter I have, of Armstrong’s difficulties, touched only on those which he had with his officers, his council, aud the English merchants of Annapolis. It may reasonably be supposed that he had some also with the priests and the Acadians. Strange to say, those he had with the Acadians are few in number and relate only to the question of the oath before it was settled by Philipps in 1730, and they are of so trivial a nature that the reader may well be spared the recital of them. All may be reduced to some complaints to the Lords of Trade concerning their refusal to take the oath in the form desired; but, if the facts are in themselves insignificant or justifiable, the expressions Armstrong uses are not wanting in force. Their conduct, in so resisting his wishes, is repeatedly termed: undutiful, insolent, contemptuous, etc., etc.

He had far more trouble -with the clergy; but, just as it would be impossible in most cases to judge between Armstrong and Philipps, Armstrong and Cosby, Armstrong and Winniett, so it would be impossible for me to judge between Armstrong and the priests with whom he was at variance. After what is known of Armstrong, who would venture to accept as the exact truth all he has said of Philipps and Cosby, and to believe, upon his simple affirmation, that lie was right and they were wrong? No one, I presume, would l>e so rasli. Similarly, I am utterly unable to decide between Armstrong and these priests. I regret it: for, I would act with the same freedom of mind as if there were question of anything else; I regret it, because, far from discouraging me, problems of this sort have a particular attraction. The reproach I should feel most would be that I let myself be influenced by prejudices, likes or dislikes, all of which is my most sincere desire to eschew. It were. I think, a legitimate inference, after what has been said of Armstrong, that, in his difficulties with Philipps, Cosby or others, the blame was generally on his side, and, when it was not wholly so, he was guilty of having drawn the quarrel upon himself.

The first important difficulty of this kind was with M. de Breslay, parish-priest of Annapolis. All that we know of it is contained in a letter of Armstrong’s to the Lords of Trade, dated June 23d, 1729. This letter, as a matter of course, is published by the Compiler, but, as he only gives the middle of it (the part indicated herein by italics), I transcribe it here almost in full, because the passages he has suppressed modify considerably the part he has given. Armstrong first speaks of a series of insults committed against linn by divers persons of his garrison and others:

“Through the malice of some people who are abetted and encouraged by the favor and countenance of Major Cosby, the Lieut.-Governor of this garrison, who, forgetting his character anil dignity, has condescended to become a party in the malicious contrivances of my enemies, who, without any regard to truth or justice, or His Majesty’s service, have obstructed, vilified and misrepresented all my actions.

“The first person I shall take notice of for his notorious insolence is M. de Bteslay, the Popish priest of this river, who, having for some time past endeavoured to withdraw the people from their dependence on H. M's Government, by assuming to himself the authority of a judge in civil affairs, and employing his spiritual censures to force them to a submission. His insolence and tyranny grouting at last insupportable, I sent the adjudant to him to his house, to desire to speak icith him, but his intelligence proved so good, though nobody was acquainted therewith but Major Cosby, that, before the adjudant could reach his house, he was gone off, and lias ever since absconded in the woods, about this river, among the Indians, pursuing his former practices of obstructing H. M's service, and exciting the savages to mischief. To prevent which, I thought proper, by an order, published, at the Mass house, to command him to be gone out of the Province in a month's time. rail The Sieur Maugeant, whom I employed for to read the same to them in French, in the presence of the Fort Major, M. “Wroth, and some other gentlemen, which, having done, as they were returning back to make me a rei>ort, amongst a crowd of people, they happened to meet Major Cosby, the Lieut.-Governor, on the highway, who, without any provocation, insulted and abused the said Maugeant. . . Major Cosby sent me immediately a complaint against the said Maugeant, alleging1 that he had affronted him, by grinning or laughing in his face. 1 found M. Cosby’s allegations against Maugeant to be frivolous and groundless, and the true reason of the affront and insult to proceed from his resenting the services M. Maugeant had done His Majesty by reading and publishing my orders to the people against their departing the Province without leave, and against M. de. Breslay, the Popish priest, whose cause he avowedly espouses merely in opposition to me."

Such was the accusation. The obvious inference is that M. de 15reslay had been chosen as arbiter; that one of the parties refused to submit to his decision, and that he had made use of ecclesiastical censures to constrain him thereto. But there was question here neither of conspiracy against the safety of the state nor of direct offence against authority. Arbitration has always been allowable in the settlement of differences, and it is devoutly to be wished that this practice were more general. The fact that nations are adopting it in our own time is one of the healthiest signs of social progress in this nineteenth century. The censures may have been misused or indicted for trivial motives; but such abuse bore with it its own remedy, by averting suitors from an arbiter who had so high-handed a way of enforcing his judgments. It was indeed very impolitic of the priest thus at once to rum the popularity of Ins tribunal. However, Armstrong’s brutality must assuredly have been most terrifying to oblige him to flee into the woods for such a peccadillo; and it is known from other sources that for more than a year he did not dare present himself at Annapolis. Very likely the case is not fully stated by Armstrong in his letter, for M. de Breslay, before returning, lodged his complaints in England and defended himself against the accusation of meddling with the affairs of the government, by producing certificates from Philipps and Cosby, attesting that on all occasions, as far as they knew, he had behaved well.* That part of Armstrong’s letter which is eliminated by the Compiler shows us that Cosby had espoused the cause of M. de Breslay. This was important. It was calculated to throw some doubt on the justice of Armstrong’s proceedings, and the Compiler would have acted very kindly had he not deprived the public of this information. Very little is known of Cosby. He may have been no better than Armstrong; but it must certainly have been very disagreeable to him, lieutenant-governor of the garrison, to see himself cast into the shade, supplanted in his authority by this Maugeant. With the above remarks, I leave the de Breslay incident to the reader's judgment.

Another of Armstrong’s difficulties was connected with Father Isidore, who was an interdicted priest. Armstrong wished to place him over the parish of Mines. He ought to have had sense enough to understand that a Catholic population would never consent to accept an interdicted priest. By the fact of his interdiction he had no more right than Armstrong himself to say mass, hear confessions, or administer the sacraments: in diplomatic parlance, his usefulness was gone. In his anger Armstrong did not understand the obstacles he was running Tip against, he wished to impose Father Isidore anyhow; but in this case he was powerless to accomplish his will; there ever remained to the inhabitants the privilege of not attending church, and against that Armstrong could effect nothing. That is precisely what they did, and, to use an altogether modern expression, Father Isidore was boycotted. Indeirae. Armstrong could punish the parish by refusing it another priest the did so as long as his rage lasted.

The most serious difficulty, or at least that which is sometimes cited with accents of indignation against the insolence of the priests, particularly by Parkman, relates to Messrs. de Chauvreulx .and de St Policy. As there is here question of the actions of the Council, the case would seem to deserve, special attention ; but, it must not be forgotten that Armstrong alone was not far from constituting the whole force of the Council. His brutalities had disgusted the most important members and kept them from attending it; those who still consented to attend (and the number was, at the arrival of Philipps in 1730, no longer sufficient for a quorum) had evidently to give up their Independence. They had either to submit to him or to resign, or at least to absent themselves on critical occasions.

After this necessary explanation I shall reproduce in their essential parts the minutes of the Council relating to the case of Messrs. de Chauvreulx and de St. Poncy; it is the last document that the Compiler transmits to us concerning Armstrong’s administration, the document nearest to the time of his suicide.

“Whereupon, MM. de St. Poncy and de Chauvreulx, the two Romish priests, were called in and informed that it was judged necessary before M, de St. Poncy’s departure for Cobequid, that he or M. de Chauvreulx should first go to Pobomconp. along with M. d’Entremont and Amherst, to use endeavors that restitution may be made of the vessel’s sails and such other effects as the Indians had taken.

“They, thereunto, answered His Honor and the Board in a most insolent, audacious and disrespectful manner, saying, that absolutely they would not go, and that they would have nothing to do in the affair ; and, being asked if they would not obey the just and lawful orders of H. M.’s Government, to which M. de Chau-vreulx answered contemptuously with unbecoming air and unmannerly gestures, saying: ‘Que je suis ici de la part du Roi de France,’ and M. de St. Poncy affrontingly affirming the same also, in words to the same effect.

“His Honor therefore told them that he had a mind to send them to France.

“They replied with a laugh and a most haughty insolent air: ‘with all their hearts,’ then turn their backs and went out of the room, seemingly in a great passion, blamming and throwing the doors in a most rude and insolent manner, ami without His Honor's leave left the Board.

“Then M. d’Entremont being called, he said he was very sorry for it, for it was his opinion that the most expedient method to bring these Indians to reason and restitution would be to send a priest; a priest being also much needed to baptize and administer the Sacrament.

“It was resolved to send them out of the Province. “‘Whereupon, the two priests appearing again, their sentence was read ; they resumed their former insolence, calling for chairs to sit down, saying that they did not appear as criminals, and that they had no business with things temporal

Had the Compiler produced the declaration of M. de St. Poncy, which Armstrong communicated to the Lords of Trade with the miuutes of the Council, we should probably be better able to understand the situation. After all, even according to Armstrong’s own statement, it was a storm in a tea-cup. The demand was an imposition, though it might have been accepted if preferred as a polite request and not as an insulting command. How that command was intimated to them is what we should know in order to be in a position to judge; but, even though this detail be not known, Armstrong is sufficiently known; we know he had the knack of offending everybody, and that his difficulties were almost always the consequence of his petulance and fits of anger. It must have been so in this case; otherwise it would be inexplicable that two persons, even though not clothed with the priestly dignity, should become, both at the same moment, on hearing an unforeseen, or apparently unforeseen injunction, so enraged as to answer and act as the minutes of the Council represent them. This is a most exceptional proceeding: a polite request is usually followed by a polite reply, and an insolence generally proceeds from a previous insolence either in the form of words, the attitude and manner, or in the matter, by uttering an imperious order when one has only the right to make a request. Armstrong prudently throws a veil over his manner on that occasion; but if one examine closely, lie will see there was question here of an order, which was more than he had a right to use, on a point that did not regard the duties of these priests ; but even this does not altogether suffice to explain the contents of the minutes of the Council; the order must have been accompanied by unbecoming conduct, or perhaps there may be some other fact which we do not know. As in the case of M. de Breslay, I am of opinion that Armstrong, here also, only makes known a part of the proceedings, and that what is omitted is the most important part.

To support my statement I have at hand a document that would warrant very different conclusions, were I not distrustful of possible rashness in deciding questions of this nature. The document bears upon this very incident. It seems that the religious persecution which Armstrong exercised upon the Acadians of Annapolis had become so intolerable that they addressed a petition to the King of France to interpose in theii favor with the English government, so as to put an end to the persecution by determining more precisely the position and the duties of the French priests in Acadia.

“We beseech,” say they, “Your Majesty to permit us to represent the sad situation to which we are reduced, declaring truly that in the parish of Annapolis Royal, May 29th, 1736, contrary to the treaty and to all the promises made to its when we take the oath of fealty to His Majesty George II., Governor Armstrong forbade Messrs. de St. Poncy and Chauvreulx, our two missionary priests, as worthy ones as we have ever had. forbade them, we repeat, to say mass, to enter the church, to hear our confessions, administer the sacraments to us, and discharge any of their ecclesiastical functions, arrested and obliged them to depart, though the governor. or other persons whom he had gained over to his opinion, were unable to show or prove that our above-named missionaries have any other faults than those of which they pretend to find them guilty, namely, not to have been willing to go far from our jig risk to float a brigantine, which in no way concerns our missionaries anil their functions.

On the following Sunday the governor assembled the deputies and forbade them to do anything or say any prayer in the chapel up the river. These are the sad and deplorable conjunctures to which we are daily exposed with respect to our religion, which oblige us to implore respectfully Your Majesty, that you would deign to have determined and permanently settled the conditions by which our missionaries may hereafter abide, in order that we may not be deprived of spiritual succor, at the least whim of those who command.”

Thus, therefore, according to this document, which did not proceed ab irato as Armstrong’s letters generally did, it was not, or it was not only, in order to make the Indians restore the effects they had carried away from a shipwrecked vessel, that Armstrong ordered M. de St. Poncy to repair to Pobomconp, but also to oblige him to help in floating this stranded vessel. Thus Armstrong was imposing on a French subject and a missionary the compulsory labor he was wont to exact, and had the right to exact from the Acadians, as being British subjects. If such were the case, and the affirmation of the many persons that signed the petition is surely worth Armstrong’s counter-affirmation, we find ourselves in presence of an act of persecution and abuse of authority that is a worthy complement to what we already know of him. This fact explains in a rational manner the insolence of which Armstrong complained, and it would be difficult to explain it otherwise than by an act of this character.

Moreover, even though his severities towards the two missionaries had been justifiable, was not liis forbidding the Acadians to make use of the chnrcli to pray therein another equally tyrannical act? The author of tlie one might very well be the author of the other. Can anything but a long series of arbitrary acts and persecutions, of which, in fact, the petition complains, have forced these people to implore the intervention of the King of France in their favor ? *

From all that precedes it must be evident that the volume of the archives is much too fragmentary and incomplete for the purposes of history. With all my efforts to complete it by the analysis of what it contains and by my researches in other quarters, I feel that the result is unsatisfactory; but I experience at least the satisfaction of a conscientious effort to throw some light on this “ Lost Chapter.” The reader must have already understood what methods the Compiler follows, and also that, when I accuse him of partiality and bad faith, I assert nothing without powerful reasons therefor.

As we are just now concerned with the Acadian clergy, I shall immediately complete my view of them. The facts I have pointed out must be the most important of the individual cases, for they are almost the only ones that have found a place in the volume of the archives, Nevertheless, insinuations of a general character were not wanting against them; far from it. Often, indeed, were complaints made of their influence and the exercise of this influence over the Acadians. It was supposed that the priests did all in their power to preserve them in their attachment to France, to avert them from the oath and induce them to leave the country. We are at liberty to believe that these accusations were well-founded or not, or that they were so to a certain extent. The authorities knew that the priests possessed influence over them, the}' knew that the Acadians obstinately refused to take the oath thrust upon them; this was enough to give rise to suspicions, which sometimes probably had more or less foundation. Here there can be little else than conjecture, and the conclusions may vary according to the points of view, according to one’s greater or less knowledge of the behavior of the clergy; for no doubt this influence, if it really were exercised, must have been used discreetly enough to make it almost impossible for the authorities to detect it.

When I undertook this work, I intended to publish only a series of articles in rectification of what I deemed the errors of an article inserted in “The Week” of Toronto from the pen of the historian, Stevens Pierce Hamilton, who committed suicide at the beginning of this year (1893). His conclusions were to a great extent drawn from the affirmations of the self-murdered Armstrong and especially of what he said of Messrs. de Chauvreulx and do St. Poncy. I thought that the intemperance of his pen was explained by his suicide, that he who wrote on the eve of his own self-destruction was not in a suitable frame of mind to form a sound estimate of history. This is the reason why I have dropped out his name and transformed my articles into the work which I now offer to the public.

Granting the morality of the Acadians which was undoubtedly great, their ignorance which was not less so, their peaceful manners, their isolation, their lively faith, the strictness of the principles of their religion, the clergy’s influence over them must have been great. But, great though it was, Parkman has exaggerated beyond all measure both this influence and its exercise, with the evident object of giving a brilliant illustration tp his favorite theory about the enervating action of the clergy on Catholic peoples. Unquestionably, whoever abdicates his liberty of thinking and acting in the ordinary affairs of life, loses all initiative, becomes enervated. However, I shall have to animadvert on too many greater shortcomings of Parkman’s, to hold him to any severe account for what is, after all, only an exaggeration of facts in themselves partly true. I blame him only for his exaggerations, which are inexcusable.

Enough on a point that would call for very special treatment. Certain it is that the situation of the priests of Acadia at that time was extremely delicate and fraught with danger. They were French subjects and missionaries to their compatriots in an English country bordering on the French possessions, where the interests of both nations were frequently in direct conflict. Their position was awkward and difficult in many ways, and the remedy to this state of things equally difficult to find.

Armstrong thought of replacing these French priests by others of English or Irish nationality. This project could not have been realized : a move in that direction would have provoked the departure of the Acadians. The only remedy to this anomalous situation was to create among the Acadians a national clergy. The authorities could reasonably say to them: We are loyally bound to grant you the free exercise of your religion ; but in our interest and yours, to save you and to save us from a delicate situation, beset with dangers, it is becoming that your priests be chosen from among » your children, in order that their interests may be identical with yours. As this cannot be accomplished at short notice, we give you eight or ten years to attain this object. We shall permit two French priests, of whom one will be stationed at Mines and the other at Annapolis, to be exclusively occupied in educating young men for the priesthood. After this period has elapsed, you must provide for yourselves, and we will no longer permit any French priests to enter into the province, at least so long as France will be our neighbor.

This plan does not seem to have occurred to any one at the time; it probably did not even enter the mind of any of the governors. Until 1730, the question of the oath and of the departure of the Acadians occupied too much place to leave room for any such design. After 1780, Armstrong, as I have just said, thought of English or Irish priests; but the only project entertained in the sequel was, either to expel the Catholic priests and replace them by French Protestant ministers, introducing at the same time among the Acadian population French Protestants or simply English ministers and English colonists, as we shall see later on. There was sometimes a tendency to adopt the first project, because it was thought more acceptable to the Acadians; but oftenest the second pi’evailed. The sentiments of the Acadians thereon must have been little known to those -who conceived either plan, and imagined that they would submit to such a poorly disguised conspiracy. To formulate such a plan supposes that respect for treaties, for conventions, for promises and for liberty of conscience must have been greatly weakened, though, indeed, it must be said, to the honor of the Home Government, that these iniquitous projects formed at Annapolis and Boston never received, as far as I can see, the least encouragement in London.

I am considering in this chapter only the attitude of the clergy from the treaty of Utrecht till 1740. lam trying to show it in a light that will most truly and clearly set forth their share in the events of this epoch. The best way to do this is to examine the state of minds at this time and the interests on which the influence of this clergy could be exercised. It is well known that prejudices and fanaticism were never more rife. We naturally expect expressions of contempt from Protestants to Catholics and from Catholics to Protestants in conversation and private documents; but, in perusing the archives of Nova Scotia, we are astounded to find that even these public documents are full of invective. Armstrong and his predecessors, in their dispatches to the Lords of Trade, invariably use such expressions as “Papists,” “Popish superstition,” “Mass house,” etc., etc. “What better proof of their bad faith can I give?” said Armstrong, “they are papists.”

So long as Catholics and Protestants struggled in each state to remain or to become the dominant element, the persecution was intense and plots frequent. When the fight for supremacy was over, this gradually abated; but there remained the settled idea that the minority were always plotting, whereas in reality, if there were .still any plot, it was oftenest that of the conqueror to definitively crush the conquered. The human mind is inclined to fall into extremes on questions of this sort. Men either sleep peacefully while their enemy is working out their ruin, or they are morbidly sensitive to imaginary intrigues that have no foundation in fact. Thus were the governors of Acadia haunted by the idea that the priests were constantly conspiring against the safety of the state.

The better to comprehend the situation, let us consider the points on which the influence of the clergy could be brought to bear. First, there was the question of the oath and of the departure. Did they use their influence for either alternative? There is room for doubt, but I think it probable that some of the priests did to some extent seek to persuade or confirm the Acadians in the idea of departure or of an oath with proper restrictions.

Practically, outside the fantastical picture drawn by Parkman, here is what generally happens and what must naturally have happened at that time. Priests are not wanting whom no one dreams of consulting about worldly matters, because, devoted entirely to spiritual concerns, they hold themselves entirely aloof from purely temporal interests. Others there are who are very glad to give their opinion when asked; these are consulted by a small number of persons, and their opinion has more or less weight according to the importance of the question and the reputation for wisdom they-may have earned. Finally, there are others, few in number, who seek to impose their ideas and sometimes by unduly interposing spiritual motives ; but, in such cases, there is almost always agitation, murmuring, discord, religious coldness, decrease of influence. One single interposition of this kind by a priest is more remarked than the silence of twenty others, and, at a distance, the noisy exception easily passes for the rule. Thus perhaps may be explained Parkman’s extravagant exaggerations. The rule, however, was not different then from what it is to-day, since, fifteen years later, Abbe Le Loutre was severely reprimanded by the Bishop of Quebec for having meddled with temporal affairs that did not concern him, contrary to the instructions the bishop had given him.

I am of opinion, however, that the majority of the priests expressed privately their opinion on this question of the oath and the departure, but that opinion was so obvious and so manifestly correct that this expression of it was not necessary and bad probably but little influence on the result of the deliberations. Even were it otherwise, it would be very hard to blame a wise and prudent influence exerted on the exercise of a right so evident as was that of the departure, and on a petition so reasonable as was that of adding the restrictive clause to the oath. It was certainly not conspiracy to repeat to the Acadians what they could not otherwise be ignorant of: that they had the right to quit the country, that obstacles to their departure were unjust, that, if they remained, they should impose the condition of not being required to bear arms against the French. What can very properly be termed conspiracy is the action of the governors from Nicholson to Armstrong, who had recourse to all imaginable artifices to prevent the Acadians from taking advantage of the treaty. Moreover, if these priests exercised so much influence, it is astonishing that the Acadians, shortly after the treaty of Utrecht, offered to remain if they were exempted from bearing arms against the French, at a time when France, by this decision, would be deprived of all the strength that this population would have added. Either the priests did only feebly interpose in these questions, or they did not, as people seem to think, busy themselves with the interests of France, or, at any rate they gave precedence to the interests of the Acadians.

Nevertheless, it need hardly be said that in those days of rampant prejudices, any interposition of the priests, however insignificant in itself, must have aroused great anger against them. If such would have been the feelings of purely civil rulers, how much greater must have been the anger of a military authority at a time when its designs could not be thwarted without peril.

Still, I believe, and all the evidence confirms this belief, that the action of the clergy was on the whole conducive to the preservation of peace and the submission of the Acadians. Was there during this period of almost thirty years, from 1718 to 1740, a single insurrection, even a threat to trouble the peace, or a simple brawl? Was there as much as one act of resistance to the orders of the authority, or even one single murder ? I see no trace of anything of the kind in the whole volume of the archives. During all this time there was, properly speaking, only one serious cause of dissension, always the same, the difficulty about taking the oath.

Over and over again were the Acadians ordered to meet and send delegates to Annapolis; sometimes anger got the upper hand, and these delegates, simple bearers of a general decision, were put in irons; and yet, in spite of this provocation to disobedience, did they ever refuse to obey these orders? Is it not astonishing that so many hindrances, so many base subterfuges were unable to produce a single act of prolonged insubordination, when the government, with its little garrison of one hundred to one hundred and fifty soldiers, was unable to constrain by main force a population comparatively numerous, scattered in places of difficult access, in summer difficult, in winter impossible? This is, if well pondered, the most astounding fact in the present history, and it must be well understood in order to appreciate all the rest. It may, therefore, be a mere matter of justice to give the clergy some credit for it especially if they had as much influence as is generally attributed to them. The advantages I have had for forming a correct judgment on this point and the intensity of mv meditations thereon have, T make bold to say, never been equalled by any of those who have written on this subject: I know whereof I speak. This point being understood, the reader will be convinced, in spite of appearances, that I am not indulging in special pleading, but that I am chronicling facts in all their simplicity.

In spite of the noisy and ill-sounding expressions of Philipps and Armstrong, which maybe imputed to their vexation at not being able to force the Acadians to take the oath, I do not tind, from 1713 to 1740, a single well-grounded, or rather well-delined complaint against them, except the following:

From 1720 to 1724 there were general hostilities of Indians on all the frontier of these English colonies and particularly in Maine. In Nova Scotia they were limited rather to depredations than to a serious open war. Eleven Indians seized a merchant vessel in Mines Basin and plundered it. Philipps was highly indignant because the Acadians of the place had not interfered to oppose the seizure of this boat, or to hunt down these Indians. The Acadians were ordered to prepare a document in which they were to express in unequivocal terms, the enormity of their offence; and this document, signed by all the inhabitants, must be delivered by the delegates and the parish priest of the place, and the value of the effects carried off must be paid by' them. All which was faithfully done.

This happened at the beginning of the year 1721, when Philipps had just ordered the Acadians either to leave the country without carrying anything away or to take the oath, and when he had just forbidden them to open a road so as to withdraw from the province. It is probable that the Acadians preferred to sign such a document and reimburse the losses rather than to expose themselves to the vengeance of the Indians; for we know, from other sources, that those who displayed their zeal against the Indians had to suffer disastrous vengeance from the latter, the government being powerless to protect them. Philipps acted very injudiciously in exacting such amends when he had just shown himself so unjust and cruel towards the Acadians. It was precisely in order to avoid the reprisals to which they would be exposed from the Indians, that they had stipulated for exemption from bearing arms against them, anil it was on account of this same danger that, for forty years, English colonists could not be persuaded to settle in the country. It is not easy to understand why Philipps thus forced the parish-priest of Mines to take part in the delegation, if the governor was so anxious to exclude the priests from all temporal affairs. Did he think that the priest himself should have taken up arms to repulse the Indians?

The influence of the clergy, I repeat, must have been exercised to foster peace and submission to the authorities. All the history of Canada is there to prove this assertion. After the treaty of Paris; the Bishop of Quebec even went so far as to excommunicate those who would not submit to the English government, and live persons were, in virtue of this excommunication, deprived of Catholic burial. If Canada is still a British possession, England owes it to this same influence. Let the situation of Canada in 1775 be borne in mind. The country was governed in a military, that is, despotic manner, and did not contain live thousand Englishmen. France had just thrown her sword into the scales on the side of the revolted colonies. Lafayette deputed Frenchmen to Quebec and Montreal to incite the people to shake off the yoke of the Home Government. The clergy opposed with all its might any collusion with the United States, the people took up arms to defend their soil, and the country remained English. After the victory of Trafalgar, so disastrous for France, a solemn 2V Deum was sung in the Cathedral of Quebec. In 1837, in spite of well-founded grievances, much more serious than those which gave rise to the independence of the United States, it was still the clergy’s efforts that paralyzed the rebellion and made it miscarry. Whether or not these proceedings of the religious authority be approved, they are none the less a fact, they constitute none the less, for the clergy, a point of tradition, if not of absolute doctrine. They hold that there can be no lawful revolt against legitimate authority, except when persecution becomes intolerable and when religious interests are gravely threatened in their very foundations. If Canada were ever to separate from the mother country by an act of rebellion, I do not hesitate to say that the Catholic clergy would be the last bulwark of British union, the last refuge of toryism.

It was not otherwise in Acadia. The priests might desire that the country should again become a French colony, much more through fear of religious fanaticism than through pure love of France; perhaps they may have fostered in the Acadians their love for France, they may have sometimes advised them as to their rights and the means of influencing the authorities of Annapolis, counselled them to quit the country when they had a right to do so, suggested a restriction to the oath, communicated in general terms to the French authorities their fears and their hopes. All these things may be supposed, if they cannot be proved, for they are possible and even probable. These things may be approved, blamed, diminished or exaggerated at one’s choice; but what cannot be doubted by any one who knows that clergy—unless, of course, the fact may have occurred exceptionally or in cases of doubtful interpretation—is that the priests, whatever may be thought of them in other respects, did nothing to make the Acadians swerve from their fidelity to the oath and their lawful duties towards the English Government.