Other events of the war (1744-1748)—Iniquitous projects of Shirley against the Acadians—Their alarms—Letter of Shirley repudiating the supposed projects—It is not judged satisfactory— Shirley procures the authorization of the Secretary of State and issues a proclamation to the Acadians—His correspondence with the Duke of Newcastle—Proclamations of the French commander to the Acadians —Firmness of the Acadians.

Other circumstances add a new and immense weight to the fidelity of the Acadians in this war. If Mascarene had not been obliged to endure the meddlesomeness of Shirley, governor of Massachusetts, there would probably not have been a single exception to the strictest fidelity. Mascarene, by his conduct, admirable in every respect, had gained the esteem and confidence of the Acadians to an almost incredible degree. They came to him as to a friend, as to a father. Whenever any difficulty arose respecting the extent of their obligations, they came to submit it to his decision, and his reply was invariably accepted without a murmur. The documents in hand offer several examples of this, among others the following: Some English officers obliged some Acadians to serve as guides and pilots against the French. Interpreting these orders as contrary to their neutrality, they addressed a petition to Mascarene, entreating him not to oblige them to such service. He entered into long arguments with their delegates to show them that, their oath did not exempt them from this service.

Without hesitation they withdrew their petition, and afterwards no longer objected to any assistance that did not imply the bearing of arms.

Shirley, who was not animated with the same spirit, came near ruining everything, and, once more, Mascarene saved the situation. Toward the beginning of the war, Shirley, somewhat through distrust for the fidelity of the Acadians, but much more through fanaticism and contempt of right and liberty, had proposed a project in regard to them which Murdoch thus epitomizes: “He proposes to intersperse Protestant settlements among the Acadians, taking part of the marsh lands from them for the new settlers. . . .he recommends granting small privileges and immunities for the encouragement of such as should come over to the Protestant communion and send their children to learn English.”

This upright historian cannot help condemning the project: “This suggestion of offering worldly advantages in exchange of profession,” says he, “can hardly be commended in our days.”

This plan included a further injustice, that of arbitrarily depriving the Acadians of the best part of their lands, of that which had entailed the most labor, the marshes. Would his suggestions have been adopted? Certainly, if Shirley had been master of the situation; but, as we shall see elsewhere, the authorities in England were far from taking the same view. The Duke of Newcastle may have been a great briber, he may not have known, as Parkman says, where Acadia was situated on the map; but, at least, he had respect for certain things. Shirley himself may have been very sagacious, but he was laboring under a strange delusion w hen he imagined that, with such projects, he could retain the Acadians in the province.

This design became known to the Acadians in the second year of the war, 1745, but was falsely represented to them as a plan for their expulsion. They were greatly alarmed thereat. The French took every advantage of this rumor to increase this alarm and to overcome the resistance they were meeting with. They argued that such arbitrary acts released them from their oath of fidelity; that sooner or later they would be wholly deprived of the free exercise of their religion, of their priests and their language; that their properties would be confiscated, etc., etc. In this perplexity Acadian deputies from all parts of the province went to consult Mascarene. lie combated their apprehension, and promised to procure a speedy denial from Shirley, and assurances guaranteeing anew the free exercise of then religion, etc.

Shirley clung tenaciously to his project, for, at this very time, August 15, 1746, he wrote to the Duke of Newcastle: . . . “By which means, and removing the Jominh priests out of the Province, and introducing Protestant English schools and French Protestant ministers and due encouragement given to such of the Acadians shall conform to the Protestant religion, and send their children to English schools, in the next generation they would in a great measure become true Protestant subjects.”

When the Acadians had resisted all seductions and saved the province by their neutrality and their labor in repairing the fort, at that very time did Shirley renew his infamous project.

September 16th, four weeks after the above letter,

Shirley, as representative of His Majesty, addressed to the Acadians a letter in which he affirmed: “That the apprehensions of being removed were groundless, and that they might be assured that he would use his best endeavors to obtain the continuance of the Royal favor and protection.”

Three days later, September 19th, Shirley made the Duke of Newcastle acquainted with the situation. As we have seen, Shirley’s plan was not expulsion, but it was none the better for that; it was equivalent to an expulsion and more odious than a mere order to depart, which would have left the Acadians free to go where they liked. It was therefore easy for him to repudiate a project, which, literally, he had not formed, and to remain vague on other matters: but the Acadians were not to be taken in by assurances that were so little defined and so unauthorized.

November 21st, Shirley wrote to the Duke of Newcastle to inform him that his letter to the Acadians had not had the effect of quieting their fears:

“They are still alarmed at the rumor of the design to remove them. New assurances should be given by His Majesty at once; if this was done it would have a great tendency to remove their present apprehensions of being sent off. . . . These measures, together with the introducing of French protestant ministers and English schools, and some small encouragements by privileges to such as should conform to the Protestant religion; the disallowance of the public exercise of the Romish religion, at least after a short term of years, and forbidding Romish priests under severe penalties to come into the country......

“ Just as 1 had finished the last paragraph, a letter from Admiral Knowles was delivered to me in which lie informs me that he has given his opinion to Your Grace, that it will be necessary to drive all the Acadians out of Acadia. . . I am of a contrary opinion, . . It seems very difficult to drive all the Acadians out of Acadia. This would strengthen the French considerably, and would make the reclaiming of the Indians impracticable. . . . But, after their having remained so long in the country upon the footing of British subjects, under the sanction of the treaty of Utrecht, and making improvements on their lands for one or two generations. and being grown up into such a number of families, to drive them all off without further enquiry seems to be liable to many objections. Among others, it may be doubted whether under the circumstances of these people it would clearly appear to be a just usage of them......The exemption of not bearing arms upon any account given to them by Governor Philipps, on their consenting to take an oath of allegiance, whether it was done by him with or without authority, it may perhaps be deemed too rigorous a punishment that would envolve the innocent with the guilty in the loss of their estates and the expulsion out of the country; it is not improbable but that there may be many among them who would even prefer His Majesty’s Government to a French one, and have done nothing to deserve such fate. Some allowance may likewise be made for their bad situation between Canadians, Indians and English, the ravages of all ivhich they have felt by turns in the course of the war; during which they seem to have been continually placed between two fires, the force and menaces of the, Canadians and Indians plundering them of whatever they wanted and deterring them in the strongest manner from having any communication with Ilis Majesty's garrison on the one hand, and the resentment of the garrison for their withholding their intelligence and supplies on the other, though at the same time it was not in a condition to protect them from the enemy. Wherefore, it seems a matter worthy of your Grace’s consideration whether, under such doubtful circumstances, the driving all the Acadians off the country, thereby greatly strengthening the enemy, is more eligible than treating them as subjects.” .

Such is the man whom Parkman sets on a pedestal for the admiration of his fellow-citizens. True, he was “determined,” “energetic,” “resolute,” and these qualities appear to be those which Parkman appreciates above all others. I am willing to make allowances for times and circumstances; but I refuse to believe, that this conduct of Shirley’s was comformable to the code of honor that then prevailed, how low soever that was; and jet all this vile stuff was written to a duke and a secretary of state, and it was the third time he repeated his project, at the very moment when he had just assured the Acadians of his best endeavors to obtain the continuance of the Royal favor and protection; ” when, as he himself said, “they were under the sanction of a treaty,” and, when, as Mascarene said, “they had in no ways joined the enemy.”

Need we be astonished, after this, that a man equally “firm and resolute,” but morally much inferior to Shirley, deported the Acadians without more reason than Shirley would have had at this time? Shirley, however, keeps within bounds; feelings of honor stop him somewhere; the limit is not very high, it is even very low; but we can guess at a vague boundary line which he prefers not to overleap. This vague line is the treaty, that oath with a restriction, the difficult position of the Acadians, their resistance to the seductions and threats of the enemy. On second thoughts, he asks himself whether the Acadians should be blamed for, sometimes, not giving information to the government, when they were prevented from doing so by terrible threats, and when this government was unable to protect them.

These objections would hardly be obstacles, “but the departure of the Acadians would greatly strengthen the enemy and would make the reclaiming of the Indians impracticable.'” This is the serious point. At bottom, the politic aspect alone interests him, and, for this reason, “it is more eligible to consider them as subjects.”

Between Shirley and Admiral Knowles who left such a poor reputation at Boston and elsewhere, there is at least this difference that the former is amenable to diplomatic reasons, while the latter stops at nothing. But, had Shirley’s diplomacy been anything more than skilful wire-pulling, lie must have understood that not an Acadian would remain in the country, if they were deprived of their religion. It is truly remarkable that not one of these governors, except Mascarene and Hopson, realized this, though the proofs of it stared them in the face. Evidently they judged others by their own feelings.

Let us pass to the reply of the Duke of Newcastle on May 30th following (1747):

“As you and Mr. Warren have represented that an opinion prevailed amongst the Acadians, that it was intended to remove them from their settlements and habitations in the Province ; and as that report may probably have been artfully spread amongst them in order to induce them to withdraw themselves from their allegiance to His Majesty and to take part with the enemy; His Majesty thinks it necessary that proper measures should be taken to remove any such ill-grounded suggestions; and, for that purpose, it is the King's pleasure, that you should declare in some public and authentic manner to His Majesty’s subjects, the Acadians of that Province, that there is not the least foundation for any apprehension of that nature; on the country, it is His Majesty's resolution to protect and maintain all such of them as shall continue in their duty and allegiance to His Majesty, in the quiet and peaceable possession of their respective habitations, and that they shall continue to enjoy the free exercise of their religion."

Here again is a striking instance of the immense superiority of the Home authorities on the score of justice and honor. The provincial government systematically misstates all the facts so as to deceive the Home Government; and yet the latter never swerves, to any great extent, from its righteous line of conduct. When Shirley has done all he could to get his infamous project approved, the answer comes back that the Acadians should be promised the free exercise of their religion.”

What is Shirley going to do? We shall see. But first, I shall produce an extract from another of Shirley’s letters to the Duke of Newcastle, addressed to him a few days before the receipt of the preceding one. On July 8th he represented to him that the French had just left Grand Pre to retire to Beaubassin; that they ought to be dislodged, that English-American colonists ought to be settled there in place of the Acadians of this district, “and these Acadians transplanted in New England, and distributed among the four governments there.”

This shows I was quite right in saying that Shirley’s scruples were of a very low order, almost infinitesimal. He was much put out by the orders of the Duke of Newcastle, so much so that, for a long time, he did nothing at all. It was important for the safety of the province to allay as soon as possible the apprehensions of the Acadians, lest they should weary of waiting and allow themselves at length to be seduced and convinced by the French. But Shirley persisted so strongly in his project of Protestantizing the Acadians, that he did nothing for several months, and, when he made up his mind to act, he simply suppressed that part of the Duke of Newcastle’s letter which ordered him to promise them the full exercise of their religion.

He explained his conduct to the Duke on Oct. 28th, when a whole year had elapsed since he had promised the Acadians to procure from the King himself the promises they solicited. In this letter of Oct. 28th, 1747, he informs His Grace that he has just drawn up a proclamation conformable to his letter of the preceding 30th of May; but that he has taken upon himself to omit the clause concerning the free exercise of their religion:

"Because the treaty of Utrecht does not seem to lay His Majesty under an obligation to allow the Acadians the exercise of the Roman Catholic religion.....And, as His Majesty is as yet under no promise to do it, I should hope that methods might be found for weakening the ties of consanguinity and religion. . . which may possibly be cut off or at least obstructed^ by His Majesty making a promise to continue the Acadian* in the free exercise of their religion. . . Therefore, I have taken the liberty to suspend promising them the free exercise of the Romish religion, though it is mentioned in your Grace's letter to have been part of what was to be included in His Majesty’s intended Proclamation, till I could transmit my sentiments to your Grace, and I should have His Majesty’s farther directions upon it; and have in the meantime made a declaration of such points as seemed necessary to be ascertained to the Acadians for quieting their minds and would not admit delay.”

What an accumulation of frauds from Nicholson to Lawrence! Pelion on Ossa. Shirley would, indeed, have included in his proclamation the promise of the free exercise of their religion, but that promise, emanating from His Majesty, might “possibly have been an obstruction.” A trifle, a mere nothing which could not embarrass a statesman. A simple question of not pledging imprudently the name of His Majesty without absolute necessity, in order to be more at liberty to seek some, means of weakening this senseless attachment they have for their religion!

Mascarene communicated to the Acadians Shirley’s proclamation on Oct. 21st, 1747. To their deputies be wrote:

“You have in possession His Excellency William Shirley’s Proclamation, whereby you may be made easy in that respect, yon are sensible of the promise I made to you, the effects of which you have already felt, that I would protect you so long as by your conduct and fidelity to the crown of Great Britain yon would enable me to do so, which promise I do again repeat to you "

I do not believe the Acadians were fully satisfied with Shirley’s proclamation. The tenor of Masearene’s letter seems to indicate that be was anxious about it, and that, knowing the confidence he inspired them with, he relied quite as much on his own personal assurance, to dispel their doubts, as on Shirley’s proclamation. They had been left more than a year under an impression that was but too well grounded. During all this time, in order to maintain their fidelity to the oath, they had resisted the arguments, cajoleries and threats of the French; and if, by exception, some assisted the enemy, these exceptions were so rare that, taking all in all, they count for nothing; and it may be reasonably supposed that these exceptions would not have existed, if the projects formed against them had not come to their knowledge.

In all this I fail to see the “weakness of purpose" with which Parkman entertains us ; it is rather a firmness that resembles obstinacy. The sequel will show how far this firmness went. Here I shall lay aside the documents I possess in order to quote Parkman himself, who, to my surprise, sums them up faithfully enough in his new work “Half a Century’s Conflict: "

“De Ramesay, who was at Grand Pre, on learning the approach of an English force, had tried to persuade the Acadians that they were to be driven from their homes, and that their only hope was in joining with him to meet force by force, but they trusted Shirley's recent assurance of protection, and replied that they would not break their oath of fidelity to King George. On this, de Ramesay retreated to his old station at Beaubassin, and Noble and his men occupied Grand Pre without opposition.”

A few months later, in February, 1747, took place the memorable fight at Grand Pre, which we have already mentioned. Surprised during the night by the French under the command of Coulon de Villiers, who had taken advantage of the darkness and a blinding snowstorm. the English troops occup3’ing this new post were obliged to capitulate after losing, according to French reports, a hundred and forty officers and soldiers killed, among whom were Colonel Noble, his brother, Lieutenants Lechmere, Jones and Pickering, and fifty-four taken prisoners, among whom was Edward Howe, commissary of the English troops in Acadia. Not long before, when some Acadians had warned Colonel Noble that the French were planning an assault on Grand Pre, they were laughed at: “They, the people of Mines,” says Murdoch, “had assured the English that the French would come and attack them, but the English were incredulous, relying on the severity of the winter.”

The French then found themselves masters of Grand Pro, after a battle in which they had defeated and driven away the English; after a capitulation in virtue of which the conquered had given up the post with all it contained, and had pledged themselves to retire to Annapolis and not to hear arms for six months. It was, properly speaking, a conquest of this part of Acadia. The Acadians, who dwelt therein, thus changed masters, at least they might have reasonably believed they did, and it was possible to iind more arguments in favor of this view than of the contrary one. De Ramesay directly understood the advantage he could derive from this situation : he availed himself of it to issue a proclamation in which he declared that, by this battle, France had reconquered this part of Acadia; that the Acadians had thereby become once more French subjects, and that therefore they owed submission and fidelity to the French Government; that they should no longer entertain any relations with the English under severe penalties.

To this proclamation the Acadians replied by a letter of which we have only the conclusion:

“Thus, sir, we beg of you to regard our good will and at the same time our powerlessness, poor people as we are. burdened, most of us with large families, without succor if obliged to evacuate the country, a disaster that daily threatens us, that keeps us in continual fear, for we see ourselves in proximity to those who have been our rulers for such a great numbpr of years.”

Meanwhile, they wrote to Mascarene, explaining their situation and communicating to him a copy of de Ramesay’s proclamation.

Not content with the result of his proclamation, de Ramesay applied to the Governor of Canada to obtain from him orders confirming his own. Upon receiving a reply, he addressed a new proclamation to the Acadiasn, ordering them in the name of the King of France to take up arms against the English, and adding an extract of a letter of the Governor of Canada, which was as follows:

“We consider ourselves as masters of the districts of Beaubas-sin a ad Mines, since we have driven off the English. Therefore, there is no difficulty in forcing the Acadians of these parts to take arms for us ; to which end we declare to them, that they are discharged from the oath that they formerly took to the English, by which they are bound no longer, as had been decided by the authorities of Canada and Monseigneur our bishop.”

The pressure, it must be admitted, was immense. It was Ramesay’s second proclamation, and this time, besides his personal opinion on the lawfulness of his pretensions, be produced that of the Governor of Canada and even that of the Bishop of Quebec. Besides, everything seemed to show that the conquest and capitulation did indeed release the Acadians from their oath of fealty.

Nothing of all this seems to have had any effect on the Acadians. On June 8th following, Shirley wrote to the Duke of Newcastle:

“I have nothing to add to my letters, which I have lately transmitted to Your Grace, except that Mr. de Ramesay is still at Beaubassin with his party in expectation of a reinforcement from Canada. . . and that he has not thought lit to venture again to Mines, but insists in his messages to the Acadians there, that they should look upon themselves as subjects to the King of France, since the New England troops were obliged to retire out of their District by capitulation, but that this has had no effect upon the Acadians, the reinforcement which I sent there afterwards having taken repossession of Mines, . . . and the deputies having thereupon renewed their oath of fidelity to His Majesty at Annapolis.”

It is not easy to see in all of this any sign that the Acadians were “weak of purpose,” and such slaves to the influence of the clergy, since they resisted even the opinion of a bishop, if it be true that this opinion was not invented or misapplied. Subsequent events will abundantly prove that their firmness or even their obstinacy was the same up to the deportation.

What more, then, was wanted to satisfy the Government and deserve its gratitude. ? Mascarene perfectly understood that the safety of the province was due to the firm attitude of the Acadians, and, had he been left to himself. I doubt not they would have received from him a most equitable treatment; but Shirley was far from allowing himself to be guided by such high motives.