Return of Philipps—All the Acadians of the peninsula take the oath—Nature of this oath—It was entitled “Oath of fealty," (“Serment de Fidelite”), and the Acadians were called “French Neutrals”—What the Compiler thinks of this—Parkman.

Whoever confronts Armstrong's reports on the question of the oath with his letters to the Lords of Trade after his operations, at Annapolis, the other letter that followed the failure of Captain Bennett, his instructions to Wroth and the latter’s report, can easily account for the indignation the Lords of Trade must have felt in presence of this series of administrative tomfooleries and tricks, worthy, at best, of a horse-jockey or a street mountebank. The exploits of Wroth had filled up the measure; all this nonsense must now be stopped; the Government’s dignity gravely compromised l>y Armstrong must be restored; a final and fairly reasonable settlement must be made of this eternal Acadian question.

The Lords of Trade had recourse to Philipps, who always retained the title of Governor of Nova Scotia. It was not without regret that he quitted London where he led so pleasant a life of leisure on his large salary. He himself, in his first attempt, it is true, had not been more fortunate than Armstrong ; but he was able at least to command attention by his high position, his courtly manners, his urbanity; and, at all events, the dignity of the crown would be safe in his hands. Moreover,, knowing by his own experience the inflexible determination of the Acadians with regard to military exemption, he brought with him or was expected to have brought a solution to the difficulty, a middle term, which, he trusted, would give them satisfaction. We know not the tenor of his instructions, but his subsequent acts permit us to form a very correct estimate thereof.

Hardly had Philipps landed at Annapolis when he set to work, and three weeks later, he wrote to the Lords of Trade that he had administered the oath to all the inhabitants of Annapolis, and that at the opening of navigation he would do tbe same for the inhabitants of Mines, Cobequid and Beaubassin. who, it was said, were all disposed to take it resolutely, “as they are pleased to express that the good likeing they have to my Government, in comparison of what they experienced afterwards, did not a little contribute, and therefore, reserved irh.% honor for me; indeed, I have had no occasion to make use of threats and compulsion."

Philipps had arrived in December, 1729. On September 2nd following, he informed the Lords of Trade that he had completed the tendering of the oath to all the Acadians of the province. “A work,” says he, “which became daily more necessary in regard to the great increase of those people, who are this day a formidable body and. like Noah's progeny, spreading themselves over the face of the Province. You are not unacquainted that for twenty years past they have continued stubborn and refractory upon all summons of this kind, but having essayed the difference of Government in my absence, they signified their readiness to comply .... Thus far the peace of the country is settled.”

How had Philipps been able to obtain, and apparently with so much case, what he himself and others had hitherto failed to obtain? Was this, as he boasted, due to the superiority of his methods, to the mildness of his government? What had really happened? What was the nature of the oath obtained? Was there a clause exempting the Acadians from bearing arms against the French and their allies? And if so, was it written or verbal?

The answer is easy. Philipps, it is true, did not explain that to the Lords of Trade, he merely says that he took care not to imitate Wroth’s shameful surrender. Any further statement was unnecessary, since he had but just come from England, his instructions were quite fresh, and the question must have been discussed in all its different aspects before his departure. Philipps well knew by his own sad experience that he could not hope for an unrestricted oath; he must therefore have come with a solution all prepared, and this solution was—to agree by word of mouth with the Acadians that they should be exempt from bearing arms. A written promise annexed to the oath was the difficulty that the authorities co aid not surmount; it was, thought the}', a shameful capitulation, a derogation from the dignity of the crown. It was not so for an oral promise, and that was, I have no doubt, the concession which Philipps was instructed to grant; for, in England at least, it was very well understood that the Acadians could not be obliged to take up arms against their fellow-countrymen. For the Acadians, the objection to an oral promise was the lack of security; but this obstacle was not insurmountable. With a man of Philipps’s high position, newly arrived from England, who vouched for the word of his sovereign, the guarantee seemed sufficient, and diffidence ceased. Such was, I firmly believe, the compromise proposed, discussed and accepted; it readily explains the prompt success of the negotiations.

When Haliburton wrote his history of Nova Scotia, he had not access to the documents we now possess. He does not even seem to have seriously tried to penetrate the problem; but, with his knowledge of this people, his great talent of observation, developed by his experience as a lawyer and a judge, he immediately perceived that the Acadians could not have accepted an unrestricted oath; but he supposes treachery; he recalls Armstrong’s impostures, and supposes that some artifice of the kind had been practised. He cannot have convinced these men, he must have deceived them, says he. He was right in the sense that the Acadians did not indeed take an unrestricted oath. But I do not think they were deceived. The promise was only verbal, but was accepted as a solemn promise. Haliburton, judging according to previous events, cannot believe the Acadians accepted simple oral promises. His mistake arises from his not adverting to the wide distinction they drew between a man of Armstrong's character, so violent, so crafty, so fickle, so little respected by the people about him, a man whose position was after all only secondary, and Philipps with his imposing dignity, his high position and the authorization which he had brought with him from England.

Contrary, then, to several historians, who have su]> posed a written restrictive clause annexed to the body of the oath and afterwards suppressed as was the oath itself, which is not in the archives of Halifax, I assert that, in all likelihood, the Acadians were not deceived by Philipps, that the restrictive clause about not bearing arms was only verbal, and was accepted as such.

I would not undertake to establish the proof of this restriction, had not the Compiler objected to it, and Parkman accepted his objection. According to them the oath of fidelity was taken by all the Acadians voluntarily and without any written or verbal condition.

In support of my contention, I shall first cite Governor Lawrence, the very man who deported the Acadians. In his circular to the governors of New England, which accompanied the transports laden with exiled Acadians, I find the following: “The Acadians ever refused to take the oath of Allegiance, without having at the same time from the Governor an assurance in writing that they should not he called upon to hear arms in the defence of the Province, and with this General Philipps did comply, of which His Majesty disapproved.”

This would seem to prove clearly that there was a written promise: but Lawrence, I have every reason to believe, was mistaken in that detail. The point on which he wished to throw light was the restriction in the oath, and that alone is well founded ; the details, which were only incidental to the principal fact, are false : and it is equally false that His Majesty disapproved this restriction, for not the slightest trace of such disapprobation appears in the public documents. All we see there is a small discussion between the Lords of Trade and Philipps on the construction of a sentence in the oath, a mere matter of grammar. Lawrence, who was not very particular, has construed this simple question of syntax into a formal disapprobation of the oath.

In another letter of Lawrence to Sir Thomas Rob*n-son, of November 30, 1755, we lind the following, relative to the Acadians of Iieaubassin:

“They were the descendants of those French who had taken the oath of allegiance to His Majesty in the time of General Philipps' Government, with the reserve of not taking arms.”

Another letter from Lawrence, in the Archives of Nova Scotia, page 259, contains this passage:

“As the Acadians of this Province have never yet at any time taken the oath of allegiance unqualified.”

Governor Cornwallis, in his letter, dated September 11, 1749, to the duke of Bedford, writes:

“I cannot help saying that General Philipps deserved the highest punishment for what he did here, his allowing a reserve to the oath of allegiance."

The same Governor, addressing the Acadian deputies, said:

“You have always refused to take this oath without an expressed reservation."

Governor Hopson, writing to the Lords of Trade, December 10, 1752, said

“Lord Cornwallis can likewise acquaint you that the inhabitants of Beaubassin who had taken the oath with General Philipps’s condition. ...”

Governor Mascarene, in a letter to Shirley in April 1748, said with reference to the oath obtained by Philipps:

“The Acadians intending to have a clause not to be obliged to take up arms against the. French, though not inserted, they have always stood was promised to them; and I have heard it owned by those who were ot Mines when the oath was administered at that place, that such a promise was given. Their plea with the French, who pressed them to take, up arms, was their oath."

In 1744, when war was raging between France and England, an attempt was made to oblige the Acadians to serve as pilots and guides; but the Acadians, believing that their oath exempted them from a service that appeared contrary to their neutrality, addressed a petition to the governor to ask him his opinion on this point. Governor Mascarene replied:

“If in taking this oath of allegiance, the Government was kind enough to say to you, that ft would not compel yon to take up arms, it was out of pure deference. That they were not thereby exempted from serving as pilots and guides. . . . Whereupon, they withdrew their petition.

There are other proofs of the same kind in twenty different places :n the volume of the Archives, and particularly on pages 204, 233, 234.

It was not without some apprehension that the Acadians consented to waive their claim to a written proof; so, in order to provide for emergencies, they, immediately after the taking of the oath, drew up a certificate, which was signed and attested, and addressed to the minister of foreign affairs in Paris, to be, in case of necessity, appealed to by the French Government.

“We, Charles de la Goudalie, priest, missionary of the parish of Mines, (Grand Pre and River aux Canards') and Noel Alexandre Noirville, priest bacholor of the faculty of theologians of la Sarbunne, missionary and parish priest of the Assumption and of the Holy Family of Pigiguit, certify to whom this may concern, that His Excellency Richard Philipps, etc., etc., has promised to the inhabitants of Mines and other rivers dependent thereon, that he exempts them from bearing arms and fighting in war against the French and the Indians, and that the said inhabitants have only accepted allegiance and promised never to take up arms in the event of a war against the Kingdom of England and its government.

“The present certificate made, given and signed by us here named, this April 25, 1730, to be put into the hands of the inhabitants, to be-available and useful to them wherever there shall be need or reason for it.

"Signed: de la Goudalie, parish priest; Xoel Noirville, priest and missionary.

“Collated by Alexander Hourg Belle-1 fumeur, this 25th April, 1730.”

It would be difficult not to admit the force of the proof I have just given. I might add the very significant fact that, since 1730, the Acadians were universally known by the name of “French Neutrals.” Thus are they very often designated by the official documents emanating from the governors of the province and from the Lords of Trade. To pretend, as the Compiler does, that their oath contained no restriction, would be to destroy all the significance of this appellation, and to suppose an absurdity.

In spite of all this evidence the Compiler says: “Governor Philipps, on his return to Annapolis in 1730, brought the people, at last, to take an unconditional oath, willingly''’ The reader will be curious to know what grounds the Compiler had to establish a pretension that was never alleged at this epoch, and which is expressly and repeatedly contradicted by all the governors of the Province, who succeeded Philipps, namely: by Mascarene, Cornwallis, Hopson, and Lawrence. The reply is very simple: his pretension is utterly groundless. In the entire volume, which he himself compiled, there is not one sentence, not one word that supports his pretension or implies it, whether directly or indirectly. This may appear strange, but it is not so for me who am accustomed to the artifices of the Compiler. It would he difficult to express in fit language the conduct of a man who dares to uphold such views not only without any proof, but against a mass of documents that destroy them.

“In April, 1730,” says the Compiler, “Governor Philipps announced to the council the unqualified submission of the inhabitants.” No such thing occurred. Neither to his council, nor to the Lords of Trade did Philipps ever use the expression unqualifiednor any other equivalent one; at least there is not a trace thereof in the Compiler’s volume, and there can be no doubt that any document that contained such an expression would not have been omitted, as he omits such documents only as are unsuited to his purpose.

Until now I have had to attack only his bad faith, and that was bad enough; but it is, if such a thing be possible, outdone by his presumption. Listen to him;

"The term “Neutral French” having been so frequently applied to the Acadians in public documents, their constant denial of an unqualified oath ever having been taken by them, the reiterated assertions of their priests. . . led the governors at Halifax, in 1749, and at subsequent periods, erroneously to suppose that no unconditional oath of allegiance had ever been taken by the people of Acadia to the British Crown.”

This is really ridiculous. A man must fancy himself endowed with intuitive cognition and born with infused science, before he thus ventures to substitute his own groundless view for the wisely formed opinions of all his predecessors, and to set himself against them all. He is ludicrously in earnest when he proclaims to the world that the term “French Neutral” never had any foundation in fact. The contemporaries of these events, the governors and Lords of Trade, when they made use of it in public documents, knew not what they were saying. Mascarene, who had been present at the taking of Port Royal in 1710, who in 1730 was counsellor to Philipps, and in 1740 governor himself, knew nothing. The officers of the garrison who had been, some of them, witnesses of this tendering of the oath, and who had reported it to Mascarene, Cornwallis, Hopson and Lawrence, knew nothing. All these governors had a thousand ways of ascertaining the true state of the case ; yet, they knew nothing. The facts that they so positively affirm were contrary to their interests and desires, and, nevertheless, they let themselves be imposed upon by the affirmations of the Acadians. What a fraud history is, if this be the case ! But, considering that this attempt to overthrow one of the best established historical facts is supported only by the ipse dixit of a man living in a different century, even though he be a compiler of archives, I prefer to say: What monumental audacity!

Their constant denial........led the governors to believe ”......, as if there had then been a great controversy on this subject between the Acadians and the governors; whereas, I repeat, there is not one sentence, not one word in the whole volume of the archives, compiled by himself, that shows it was so. It is a pure fabrication. And, if in reality this question had been the object of a controversy, it -would be necessary to believe that the Acadians were able to satisfy these governors that their pretensions were well founded, and then it would be rash for a funde siecle compiler of the nineteenth century to dispute the validity of facts a century and a half old. already pondered, matured and accepted by contemporaries whose interest it was not to admit them. “ Their constant denial of an unqualified oath, and the reiterated assertions of their priests ... led the governors erroneously to believe ”____ According to this ineffable compiler, the testimony, the constant affirmations of the Acadians and their priests, all count for nothing, are not worth the least verbal report of the vilest soldier of the garrison; that is no doubt the reason why he has systematically omitted the few documents coming from the Acadians. In this spirit has all this volume been compiled.

Haliburton, it is easy to see, cannot have known the opinion on this subject of the four governors I have just named; however, his powers of observation and his legal instinct, aided by his impartiality, had guided him securely in this search for truth. He had not been able to believe in an oath without restriction ; the subsequent discoveries showed he was right. Thus is true history written; one must possess these qualities to write it; otherwise it is only a lie.

Parkman, on this point, as on many others, has endorsed the opinion of the Compiler. It is so convenient to opinions ready-made. Put, there is this difference between them: while the Compiler had absolutely no ground for his opinion. Parkman had at least the excuse of resting on the Compiler’s authority. Slender as this is, let him have the benefit of it.*

Since the foregoing was written. Mr. Parkmeii in his new work, “A Halt Century of Conflict” has rectified in these terms what he had formerly said: .

“Recently .however, evidence has appeared that, so far at least as regards the Acadians on and near the Mines Basin, the effect of the oath was qua'i fled by a promise on the part of Philipps that they should not be required to take up arms either against French or Indians.”

Mr. Parkiman had accepted the opinion 'if the Compiler without verifying it. I must do him the justice of admitting that he likes to found his statements on something ; but he is wrong in saying: “recently evidence han appeared,” 'or with the exception o& the -avidavit ol Messrs. de la Goudalie, Noirvilk Bi'urg. the entire proof I have produced is drawn from the volume of the Archives itself, v, hich he quotes frequently in his former work, “Wolfe and Montcalm;” however, some labor is needed to combine the factors of this proof. Besides,his correction is incomplete, as he applies to the Acadians of Mines what should apply to all.