Peace-making—Peregrine Thomas Hopson succeeds Cornwallis in 1752—His conciliatory spirit—He inspires great confidence and secures happy results—After fifteen months his health obliges him to return to England.

Le Loutre’s efforts to make the Acadians emigrate were soon exhausted. He may have been disheartened by his failure; he may even have changed his mind as to the advisability of such a course; but probably what made him give up was especially the way the English thwarted him.

On the other hand, there was no longer any talk at Halifax of requiring the oath from the Acadians, who, relying on the righteousness of their claim and on their experience of the past, must have believed that this silence was equivalent to a definitive return to the old state of affairs. This was a cruel illusion. Meanwhile, however, quiet was restored everywhere; so much so, indeed, that, from 1750 to September, 1752, the date of Cornwallis’s departure, hardly any mention is made of the Acadians in the despatches of the governor or in the deliberations of the council. The most important reference to them is in a letter of Cornwallis to the Lords of Trade in September, 1751:

“There is a visible alteration in the behavior of the Acadians; they have this year cultivated well their lands and have great crops, a quantity of corn to dispose of over and above what will serve their families; this will be of great service to this settlement at this critical juncture. Both as to the Acadians and Indians, it would be improper to send the Germans into that part of the country.”

Hitherto Cornwallis had several times suggested that Protestant colonists should be placed here and there among the Acadians, “in order to remove their prejudices in favor of the Romish faith.” But each time the Lords of Trade had rejected his suggestion; and now Cornwallis seemed won over to their views. His attitude towards the Acadians appears to have notably altered. In September, 1750, he had applied for leave of absence, suggesting Lawrence as his substitute; and yet we find Hopson succeeding Cornwallis at the latter’s departure in 1752. In 1750 Cornwallis leaned to harsh measures, .and in this policy Lawrence was the man to continue and improve upon his predecessor. Undoubtedly, from 1750 to 1752, a great change had come over Cornwallis; he seems to have realized that he had blundered, that harshness and stiffness raise up obstacles instead of removing them. Had harshness been the basis of his character, he never could have so materially altered his demeanor. Strongly imbued with military notions, having but an imperfect knowledge of the special status of the people under his jurisdiction, he had honestly thought that it was wise to act as he did on his arrival. He had the good sense to turn back from the error of his ways. However, the consequences of his first mistake were too disastrous to admit of complete reparation; and, able and worthy though he may have been at bottom, the change came too late for a full development of his latent virtues.

Peregrine Thomas Hudson, who succeeded Cornwallis, had been commander-in-chief at Louisburg, and, when this fortress was surrendered to France, after the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, he, with the troops under his command, joined Cornwallis at Halifax. I venture to say that Hopson shared with Mascarene the honor of being the most straightforward, humane and conciliating of all the governors of Acadia since the Treaty of Utrecht. His letters, orders and all his acts prove this assertion. Though Cornwallis left him a legacy of trouble, yet he managed, in a very short time, to make peace with every one. Despite an unfortunate event that hindered his liberty of action, he would probably have reconciled the Indians to English rule had not ill-health obliged him to resign after fifteen months of office.

His kindly disposition led, only two months after his inauguration, to offers of peace from John Baptist Cope, the great chief of the Micmacs. An understanding was arrived at, and some weeks later a treaty of peace was concluded and signed between Cope and the government. Cope pledged himself to exert his influence to persuade all the Indians of his nation to make a final treaty the following spring.

Was this peaceful issue due to the good reputation Hopson had already earned? Was this a bona fide pledge on the part of the Indians, and what share in it should we attribute to Le Loutre? For this John Baptist Cope was, I believe, chief of the Indians in Le Loutre’s mission. The latter could not but be aware of this step; and if he really wielded over the Indians the power that is commonly attributed to him, this treaty, whether feigned or sincere, must have been, at least in part, his work. True, it was broken eight months later, but the motive, viz., the infamous crime of Conner and Grace, affords a full explanation of the rupture; and for eight entire months the Indians observed the treaty faithfully. Now if, as seems probable, Le Loutre favored this treaty, the question naturally presents itself, why did he favor it? The only reason I can see is the confidence inspired by Hopson’s noble character and the sincerity of his dealings with the Acadians. This makes the inference probable that, had there been no violence nor arrogance on the part of Cornwallis, Le Loutre would have done nothing to force emigration upon the Acadians or to stir up the Indians to hostilities. Perhaps the very foundation of Fort Beausejour had no other motive than resistance to the arbitrary proceedings of Cornwallis.

On the 10th of December, 1753, soon after the departure of Cornwallis, Hopson wrote to the Lords of Trade:

“I should be glad to have Your Lordships’ opinion as early in the spring as possible, concerning the oath I am to tender to the Acadians, as directed by the 68th article of my instructions.

“Mr. Cornwallis can thoroughly inform Your Lordships how difficult, if not impossible it may be, to force such a thing upon them, and what ill consequences may attend it. I believe he can likewise acquaint you that the inhabitants of Beaubassin—who hail taken it before with General Philipps’s conditions—made it a pretence to quit their allegiance and retire from their lands, though it was not otherwise offered to them than by issuing the King’s Proclamation to that effect.

“As they appear to be much better disposed than they have been, and hope will still amend, and, in a long course of time, become less scrupulous, I beg to know from Your Lordships in the spring how far His Majesty would approve my silence on this head till a more convenient opportunity.

“Mr. Cornwallis can inform Your Lordships how usef ul and necessary these people are. to us, how impossible it is to do without them, or to replace them even if we had other settlers to put in their places; and, at the same time, how obstinate they have always been when the oath has been offered.

It appears evident by this letter that Cornwallis had come round from his earliest impressions and shared Hopson’s views as to the manner of treating the Acadians. How easy it is, on reading this letter, to feel that we are in the presence of a man in whom kindliness, gentleness, calmness and reflection predominate! He neither can nor will blame his predecessor; yet he none the less implies that there has been blundering, that time and tact will be needed to bring back the spirit of trust so rudely shaken, and to do away with tlie scruples aroused by exacting the oath. No stranger is he to the feelings of the Acadians; he has put himself in their place; he seems to experience their own sentiments. He has gone down into his own soul to listen there to the answer of his conscience, and has heard his own heart tell him that, were he in their place, he could not easily make up his mind to bear arms for strangers against his brothers, for enemies of his religion against his co-religionists, for people whose language lie does not understand against those with whom he has familiar intercourse; hence he sees before him “a long course of time” before their scruples can be effaced. That phrase “less scrupulous,’' shows that he has in very deed consulted his conscience and his own feelings.

Cornwallis had perceived merely the material aspect of their situation. He had thought that attachment to their property was the, great, the only motive of their actions; it had seemed clear to him that all that was needed, to get the better of their sheer stubbornness, was resolutely to place them face to face with the cruel choice between abundance on the one hand and destitution on the other. But, when he saw deputation after deputation unhesitatingly accepting destitution, begging for leave to depart, lie was quite upset; lie could make nothing out of such conduct; either he himself is really moved or he wishes to move them by his words, but his emotion all turns on the enjoyment or the loss of their goods: “Your lands produce grain and nourish cattle sufficient for the whole colony. It is you who would have had the advantages for a long time. We flattered ourselves we would make you the happiest people in. the world.’’’

Hopson's vision was clearer and more far-reaching; he saw that conscientious motives threw all purely material interests into the shade, and therefore he implores the Lords of Trade not to oblige him to urge the question of the oath. “Mr. Cornwallis can inform you how useful and necessary these people are to us, how impossible it is to do without them, etc., etc.”

Could such a description apply to a turbulent and dangerous population, ripe for revolt? Clearly not. And yet the period we have just traversed has been more agitated than that which is to follow' and which immediately precedes the deportation. We have reached 1753, only two years before the terrible event. Advisedly do I use the word “ agitated,” for I intend to convince whoever is open to conviction, without hiding anything and without going beyond official documents, that nothing more serious than agitation occurred throughout the whole extent of the peninsula. And what did this agitation amount to? Merely peaceful meetings of men who discussed the situation, simple peasants who weighed the pros and cons to decide upon the alternative imposed to them. This agitation, if indeed it deserves the name, lasted some months, at most one year, the first of Cornwallis’s governorship.

There is not the slightest sign that these meetings were seditious or even noisy; quite the reverse. When they had decided to choose the alternative of leaving the country, they went directly to inform the Governor and to ask his permission. Before granting it, he obliged them to sow their fields; without a murmur they did so; they sowed what they believed would be reaped by others; then they came back for the promised permission; again were they put off with wretched pretexts, again did they return to their homes without a murmur and remain perfectly quiet. In all this there is not the vestige of a single act of insubordination or even of resistance. And yet there were strong excuses for sedition. Seeing that they had been kept iu the country against their will, that a compromise had been made with them in 1730, they certainly had the right of carrying off their movable goods, which was an important consideration for them. To deprive them of this right was to cast them from plenty into beggary. And yet, without complaint, they yielded tip this manifest right. Does not this submissiveness afford a safe standard by which to judge of their dispositions and of their subsequent conduct?

Cornwallis had mapped out his plan of action before hearing them ; Hopson had taken pains to see and hear everything and consider the motives on which their claims were based. The following order, addressed to the commanders of Forts VieuxLogis ("Grand Pre, now Horton), and Edward (Pigiguit, now Windsor) by Hopson, reveals the same kindly temper observed upon above:

“You are to look on the Acadians in the same light with the rest of His Majesty's subjects, as to the protection of the laws and Government, for which reason nothing is to be taken from them by force, or any price set upon their goods but what they themselves agree to ; and, if at any time they should obstinately refuse to comply with what His Majesty’s service may require of them, you, are not to redress yourself by military force, or in any unlawful manner, but to lay the case before the Governor and wait his orders thereon. You are to cause the following orders to be stuck up in the most public part of the Fort, both in English and French.

“1st. The provisions or any other commodities that the Acadians shall bring to the Fort to sell, are not to be taken from them at any fixed price, but to be paid for according to a free agreement made between them and the purchasers.

"2d. No officer, non-commissioned officer, or soldier, shall presume to insult or otherwise abuse any of the Acadians, w ho are upon all occasions to be treated as His Majesty’s subjects, and to whom the laws of the country are open, to protect as well as to punish.

“At the season of laying in fuel for the Fort, you are to signify to the Acadians by their deputies, that it is His Majesty’s pleasure they lay in the quantity of wood that you require, and when they have complied, you are to give them certificates specifying what quantity they have furnished, which will entitle them to payment at Halifax.’’

P. T. Hopson.

This order was evidently intended to modify or completely change previous orders; else it would have been purposeless. It amounted to saying: Hitherto the Acadians have not been on the same footing as the rest of His Majesty’s subjects; henceforth they shall be. You shall take nothing from them by force; they shall have, like others, the privilege of making bargains for their produce; and if you have reason to complain of them, you shall not employ force or any other illegal means.

This order is just as eloquent a eulogy of Hopson’s character as it is a powerful plea against Cornwallis.

Thus, to all appearances, under the latter’s government the treatment of the Acadians was one thing and that of His Majesty’s other subjects was quite another. The pettiest sergeant could lay bauds on Acadian produce, arid any resistance might be punished as he chose without trial and without appeal. When one reflects on the tyranny inseparable from a military rule, even in our day, a tyranny sometimes bearable from superior officers, but ever growing less endurable with lesser rank, one feels that the abuses of this power committed to subalterns must surely have been occasionally deplorable. Yet, save in one instance under the ferocious Lawrence, there does not appear in the entire volume of the Archives a single case of recrimination on the part of the Acadians.

Perhaps this order may have been inspired by the Lords of Trade; but, as the Compiler does not publish so much as one of their letters to Hopson, Ave can only indulge in conjecture. However, this document is altogether in keeping with what we know of Hopson’s character.

On another occasion he gives us a new proof of his excellent sentiments. Among the emigrants landed at Halifax in the course of the autumn of 1752 were a certain number of decrepit old men and some orphans. Hopson complained to the Lords of Trade against such people being sent out to the colonies. In the course of his letter he cannot refrain from pitying the woes of these wretched beings: “I can assure you, my Lords, that I find this very shocking, for no mortal that has the least humanity can do otherwise than feel to the very heart at the sight of such a scene of misery.”

The character of Cornwallis does not stand out so clearly; lie may have been merely haughty and imperious; but he shows no signs of commiseration. Hopson. on the contrary, proves that he was not only full of equity and kindliness, but also that he had the gift of exquisite sympathy. All his acts are impressed with the same stamp; and so his administration, unfortunately too short, was fertile in happy results, and would have been still happier, had it not been for the dastardly crime of Conner and Grace which revived Indian hostilities for a time.

If his administration had lasted some years, he would, most likely, have won from the Acadians, without any show of force, the unreserved oath required of them. He wrote, July 23rd 1753, to the Lords of Trade that he was privately informed that some Acadians who had left their lands had been delegated to confer about the situation with their fellow-countrymen dwelling on English territory;

“That they went so far as to hold consultations whether they should not throw themselves under the protection of the English Government and become subjects to all intents and purposes; hut there arose a considerable objection to their taking this step, which was. that, as they lived on farms very remote from one another, and of course are not capable of resisting any kind of enemy, the French might send the Indians among them and distress them to such a degree, that they would not be able to remain on their farms.” .

Was Hopson’s information correct? Most probably, for what he relates is in full accordance with the well-known sentiments of the Acadians. No doubt they had the greatest repugnance to the obligation of bearing arms against the French; but the danger of Indian hostility was an equally important matter, and recurs in all their petitions whenever the question of the oath is raised. Cornwallis and afterward Lawrence laughed at this as at a foolish dread. But, as we have here their deliberations among themselves, unknown to the authorities and free from all outside pressure, it is easy to see that this danger was thought by them to be a serious one, since it alone stood in the way of their accepting the oath.

Would they really have been molested by the Indiana at the instigation of the French, if they had taken the oath ? I cannot say; however, I am inclined to believe they would not. It was plainly in the French interest to perpetuate the status of neutrality ; they tried to make the Acadians believe that they would be molested by the Indians if they took the oath ; but, once that oath had become an accomplished fact, I am convinced that no hostility would have been manifested on the part of the French or Indians until the Acadians should actually have had to take up arms against either of them. From that moment, however, they would have been just as much exposed to the hostility of the Indians, just as much their enemies, as were the English colonists, and then, as Hopson says, “As they live on farms very remote from one another, and of course not capable of resisting any kind of enemy,” their position would have been untenable. The Acadians, deliberating with a full sense of their grave interests at stake, and with long experience of the character of these Indians, must be considered the best judges of what was likely to happen. Hopson seems to admit the force of their reasons; unlike Cornwallis and Lawrence, his delicacy of feeling and sympathetic nature enabled him to enter into their views.

Although there is nothing surprising in these deliberations of the Acadians, there is something that rather detracts from the heroic aspect we are wont to view them in, since they now were ready to sacrifice their sentiments to their material interests. However, tlie residue of virtue in them is quite sufficient to endear them to their descendants. Heroic sacrifices are above nature; hesitancy before making them is therefore not astonishing. More than a century had elapsed since their forefathers had opened out the country, several generations had sat by the same hearth. Whatever makes man, especially the husbandman, cherish life, whatever is dear to simple and honest hearts, they saw there in Acadia. It was their fatherland, the home of their ancestors, all the dearer to them because they had founded and created it. Each hill and dale, each glimpse of smiling landscape was sparkling with sweet memories. Those luxuriant meadows that fed their immense herds had been wrested from the sea by their own patient and painful toil. That church whither they came to kneel each Sunday had witnessed the only important events of their simple and peaceful lives. That graveyard held the remains of their kindred, and told iu its inscriptions the story of those who had gone before. How their hearts must have been wrung at the mere thought of going away ! Going! Why, that meant bidding an everlasting farewell to home and country, to all they had and all they loved, quitting ease ami plenty, the joys of the dear old fireside, for exile, separation and penury.

Dear were the homes where they were born.
Where slept their honored dead;
And rich and wide, on every side
Their fruitful acres spread.

On the 12tli of September, 1753, Hopson read to hi? council the following petition

"The inhabitants of Grand Pre, River Canard, Pigiguit, etc., etc., *to take the liberty of presenting their very humble petition to Your Excellency, begging you to remove the difficulty which presents itself with respect to the missionaries who came here, by exempting them from the oath of allegiance which is required of them.

“We hope, sir, that Your Excellency will be kind enough to grant that favor, inasmuch as, when we took the oath of Allegiance to His Britannic Majesty, we took it only on condition that we should be allowed the free exercise of our religion, and a sufficient number of ministers to perform the services.

“It appears, sir, that we would be deprived of this last article, if the Government were to force them to take this oath, because the missionaries would certainly not remain among us on terms which they cannot agree to; we should therefore see ourselves deprived of the main point granted to us.

"Moreover, sir, when we submitted on the terms by which the practice of our religion is granted to us, it was by no means specified that our missionaries should be obliged to take this oath. That is proved by the two missionaries who were present when we took the oath, and who were also entrusted with our affairs, without its being thought necessary to exact of them what is now required of them. Notwithstanding all the expense we have incurred in endeavoring to get them at Louisburg and even at Quebec, the difficulty of this oath prevents them from settling amongst us.”

Hopson granted this request on condition that the priests would conform to what was required of them in the regulations. It was Cornwallis who had, on the 31st of July, 1749, issued an order obliging the priests to take the oath of allegiance. Here again Hopson gives a new proof of his liberality.

On the 27th of the same September another petition was presented to him by those Acadians who had crossed the frontier three years before:

‘"We, the inhabitants formerly settled at Beaubassin and vicinity, beg to inform you that the reason which caused us to leave bur property was the new oath which His Excellency M. Cornwallis wished to exact from us, desiring to break and revoke the one granted to us before. Having learnt since our departure, that if we were willing to return, we should have the same favors that were granted to us formerly, we are ready to accept it under these conditions. It is impossible for us to sign any other oath on account of the Indians, as we have stated on several occasions to His Excellency M. Cornwallis. If he had known better our circumstances he would have seen that it was impossible for its to sign any other than that which we have signed.

“We hope that these articles will be granted to us by Your Excellency, and even ratified by the Court of England, so that those who may succeed Your Excellency shall not make the pretext that His Excellency Cornwallis made in saying that Philipps had no authority from the Court of England for the oath which he granted us.

“These being granted, we shall feel constrained to continue, and even increase our prayer for Your Excellency’s health and prosperity.”

This proposed return of the voluntary exiles was another happy result of the good reputation Hopson had so soon earned. He granted all their requests except that which bore on a restriction to the oath, for he had not then the necessary authority for making this concession.

It is worth noting that the petitioners, though always respectful, yet, being safe from restraint beyond the frontier, freely stigmatize as a pretext Cornwallis’s proceedings towards them when revoking the agreement entered into with Philippe. The statement was true, but they would not have dared to express it in this way had they still been under English rule. Now, if their proposition was accepted, they wanted to be shown an express ratification from His Majesty.

Here ends Hopson’s career as Governor of Acadia.