Lawrence becomes Lieutenant-Governor—His accusations against the Acadians—Project of expulsion—The Lords of Trade.

My aim has been to pick out by preference and relate the facts supposed to tell against the Acadians, as they are to be found in the volume of the Archives. This I have faithfully done hitherto and will continue to do. The following letter from Lawrence to the Lords of Trade, dated August 1st, 1754, is clearly the document that contains the gravest accusations against them. I produce it almost entire despite its length :

“Your Lordships well know, that the Acadians have always affected a neutrality, and as it has been generally imagined here, that the mildness of an English Government would by degrees have fixed them in our interest, no violent measures have ever been taken with them. But I must observe to Your Lordships, that this lenity has not had the least good effect; on the contrary, I believe they have at present laid aside all thought of taking the oath voluntarily, and great numbers of them are at present gone to Beausejour to work for the French, in order to dyke out the water at the settlement I informed Your Lordships they were going to make on the north side of the Bay of Fundy, notwithstanding they were refused passes which they applied for to go thither. And upon their complaining that they could get no employment with the English, they were acquainted that as many as would come to Halifax should be employed, tho' in reality, I had no employment for them, but I proposed to order them to widen the road to Shubenecadie, as I very well knew if I could get them once here, it would put off their journey to Beausejnur, and would be no expense to the Government, as T was sure they would refuse the work for fear of disobliging the Indians. But, as they did not come. I have issued a Proclamation, ordering them to return forthwith to their lands, as they should answer the contrary to their peril.

“They have not for a long time brought anything to our markets, but on the other hand have carried everything to the French and Indians whom they have always assisted with provisions, quarters and intelligence, and, indeed, while they remain without taking the oath to His Majesty—which they never will do till they are forced—and have incendiary French priests among them, there are no hopes of their amendment.

“they possess the best and largest tracts of land in this Province, it cannot be settled with any effect while they remain in this situation, and, though I would be wry far from attempting such a step without Your Lordships' approbation, yet 1 cannot help being of opinion that it would be much better, if they refuse the oath, that they were away."

Why this change of tone from the pressing invitation to return which he sent to the emigrated Acadians a few weeks ago? The reason is very plain: Lawrence had just made up his mind to deport the Acadians, nor does he scruple to let his intention he known. Up to this time he had been only president of the Council awaiting Hopson’s return. Now he must be aware that Hopson is not to return and that his own appointment as lieutenant-governor is sure; it was, indeed, officially announced a few weeks later.

The better to prepare the Lords of Trade for his perfidious designs, he had to depict the conduct of the Acadians in the most sombre colors. The above letter is tlie result of his efforts in that direction. As the correspondence and the official acts of the governors for the past four years did not hint at the slightest infringement of orders throughout the entire peninsula,, it behooved Lawrence to pave the way for specific allegations by general complaints, so that his change of tone might seem to be supported by facts. This is the only explanation that can be offered of the general accusations contained in the above letter, which are either false or greatly exaggerated.

My purpose being to reply to each and every one of Lawrence’s accusations, I now take up those which are contained in the foregoing letter. He accuses the Acadians of intercourse with the French and of having assisted the latter by selling them their produce. This must have been true in Mascarene’s time, and before, when there was only one fort at the extremity of the province, and when there was practically no protection of the frontier line. But no government has a right to complain of such infractions, when it neglects the necessary precautions against them. Experience proves that, when breaches of a law are easy and unaccompanied by risk of punishment, the most virtuous and loyal people will wink at them. Loyalty and obedience offer no remedy to the greed of gain. Surely, the Acadians would need to have been endowed with superhuman perfection, if they had not sometimes taken advantage of a situation that enabled them to do a good stroke of business without let or hindrance. Moreover, Mascarene never complained of these business relations with the French in time of peace; on the contrary, iu one of his letters he very wisely remarks that this traffic should be ignored, because the Annapolis garrison could not consume all the produce of the farmers, and therefore, to stop that traffic was to paralyze farming interests; besides, he adds, it is a source of profit to everybody because it brings into the country French money, which otherwise would go to Canada or elsewhere. When war broke out in 1744, the Acadians, as we have seen, whether at the Governor’s suggestion or perhaps of their own accord, formed an association to prevent all such business relations. They themselves undertook police duty for the Government against their fellow-countrymen, and, after the war, those of them who were suspected of infringing the prohibitory decree were arrested on complaint of the members of this association. The most loyal of subjects could have (lone no more and would have been justified in doing less.

Since the foundation of Halifax and the building of forts at Grand Pre, Pigiguit and Beaubassin, the English Government had the means of preventing all commercial or other relations between the French and the Acadians; and, in point of fact, such misdemeanors in this line as eluded the vigilance of the English must have been few and far between, as the Archives do not mention one single complaint before the courts. Had there been any complaints, Lawrence would not have been slow to order an investigation and severely to punish the guilty.

Granting, however, that there may have been some breaches of law on this score, they would be but the veriest trifles, occurring in all times and places and among all nations, subject to the cognizance of law-courts, and at any rate quite too unimportant to figure as an argument in a tragic event like the deportation.

“They have not for a long time brought anything to our markets,” was Lawrence’s perfidious assertion, I say perfidious, because he wrote these words to the Lords of Trade on the 1st of August. At that date it could not well be otherwise : the preceding harvest must have been sold or consumed long before, and the coming harvest was still standing. Probably Lawrence’s implied accusation had no other ground than this ; but this was a plausible ground for a man that was on the look-out for pretexts to make his point. He relied upon the Lords of Trade not noticing that the beginning of August was a date far removed from the usual time for the sale of last year’s crops. There were also other local conditions which would no doubt escape their notice. For instance, it cannot be supposed that the Acadians went one by one to sell their produce at Halifax, which was so far off. and the road to which was almost impassable on foot. They must have employed agents to carry their produce by water. Now the only commercial agents in Acadian centres were English: Blin, Donnell, Winniet, Jr., at Annapolis; Rogers at Cobequid; Arbuckle at Fort Lawrence; Dyson and Manger at Pigiguit and Grand Pre. Mauger had another store at Halifax, and, if I mistake not, Blin, Donnell and Winniet had other stores either at Grand Pre or Fort Lawrence. To these men, therefore, must the Acadians have sold their produce, and through them must all purchases have been made. As in Lawrence’s mind the smallest things easily usurped the proportions of great ones, or took their place when the latter could not be found, he has taken the trouble to enter the following item in his official papers: “Their desiring— the Acadians—to sell their grain to Mr. Dyson and refusing it to Mr. Mauger for the same money appears very extraordinary.”

While the public documents do not contain, to the best of my knowledge, one single specific case of commercial relations between the Acadians and the French, attributed by name to one in particular or to several collectively, they do contain many cases of business transactions between the French and some English merchants, particularly Arbuckle and that very Mauger whom Lawrence seems to have taken under his protection. And as to general charges against Englishmen, many will be found at pages 630, 638, 640 of the Archives. I will quote one only. Writing to the Lords of Trade, November 27th, 1750, Cornwallis said: “lam assured the New England people have this year carried numbers of dollars to Louisburg. . . . They supply Louisburg with every necessary, and the advantage upon this traffic is so great, that they go sooner there than to this Port.” I am almost ashamed to have to weary the reader with these trifles ; but, as the deportation has no more solid basis than these, and as its justifiableness must stand or fall with the accusations of its author, I am forced to discuss these childish charges with becoming gravity.

In the letter of August 1st, 1754, Lawrence speaks but tentatively and hesitatingly as yet of his deporting plan, though this is clearly what he means in spite of the care with which he veils his design. He is content with humbly submitting to the Lords of Trade his opinion that, if the Acadians, who have the finest farms of the province, refuse to take the oath, “it would le much better that they were away, though” he would be very far from attempting such a .step without” their “Lordships' approbation.” Doubtless the deportation is already-decided upon; the means thereto and the date alone remain to be settled. Lawrence's only concern now is to prepare the Lords of Trade for au approval of the deed beforehand, if possible, or for an acceptance of accomplished facts which is to be wrung from them by dint of misrepresentations. This letter is the first step in the course he has already planned. He cannot hope to bring the Lords of Trade to approve so cruel a measure as deportation would be so, as yet, he confines himself to an indefinite suggestion: “it would be better that they were away;’’ and he submits his will to theirs with the most humble deference: “I would be very far from attempting such a step without Your Lordships'’ approbation. For the time being he intends merely to predispose them against the Acadians. By a skilful renewal of the dose he hopes to bring them gradually round to his way of thinking. Besides, has he not full power in his own hands? Can he not, by continued severity, provoke the Acadians to some acts that will justify on his part an increase of rigor?

When Lawrence wrote that the Acadians had better be away, his real intention cannot have been to let them join the French at Beausjour, since he had, precisely at that time, issued a proclamation obliging, under severe penalties, those who had just left the country to return immediately. He knew of the pressing and reiterated instructions of the Lords of Trade to his predecessors, and to himself a few’ months ago, urging the governors to avoid whatever might, by alarming the Acadians, lead to their departure. The consequences of their voluntary departure must have seemed to him too disastrous, or at any rate too threatening, to be thought of for a moment. No; what he had in view was, manifestly, a forced departure to places chosen by himself, that is to say, a deportation such as he accomplished twelve months later.

For the past four years at least the only act of disobedience specified in the volume of the Archives is mentioned by Lawrence in the letter I am now reviewing. Three hundred Acadians had gone off to Beausejour, as he tells us, to assist their emigrated countrymen in the work of dike-building. Had they or had they not left with the intention of returning no more? It would be hard to say. What we know, through Lawrence himself, is that they asked leave to go and were refused. Nor should we forget that, five years before, Cornwallis, driven to his wits’ end, had promised passports, as soon as the state of the country would allow, to all who might wish to quit the province. If the three hundred intended not to return, then, with or without passports, it was high time to take advantage of the promises of Cornwallis, whether these were sincere or not. If, on the other hand, those absentees had left with a mind to come back, then Lawrence might be justified in taking proper measures to enforce their return and even to punish their disobedience. Very likely some of them had left for good, while others intended to decide at Beausejour whether or not they would return. Lawrence’s increasing severity was already making people anxious, as this unauthorized departure shows.

The season for the building of dikes was a very short one, and tlie present undertaking at Beausejour was the first serious attempt to secure farms for those who had emigrated in Cornwallis's time. These refugees were the relatives, the brothers of the Acadians, who naturally wished to assist them in a labor that promised to lift them out of poverty and furnish food for their families. The helpers who had gone to Beausejour were themselves exposed, at any moment, to be expelled from the province if the unrestricted oath were exacted. In such a juncture they would be glad to find beyond the frontier relatives and friends able to help them in their turn. Thus in a way they were really working for themselves.

They were ordered to return directly. In all likelihood the order was promptly obeyed by those who, intending to return, had left their families behind; else the Archives would certainly mention severe measures against the disobedient, their families or their property. When Lawrence gave an order, he was not to be trifled with, as the Acadians knew to their cost.

That Lawrence had by this time determined on the deportation is, I think, clear enough. True, the evidence is still vague and indefinite, though convincing as far as it goes. Patience will be needed by those who follow my line of proof: for the chain of evidence is a long one. But every link is there. The last letter I have quoted from Lawrence is, properly speaking, only the first link in the chain that constitutes the main strength of this Lost Chapter. The entire evidence, strong in induction and analysis, will be equally strong in official documents of undoubted authenticity.

However, before proceeding further, let me anticipate asi objection which doubtless is already taking shape in the reader’s miml: viz., the improbability of such an inhuman purpose based on no grave cause and born of sheer cruelty. Right here, then, let me affirm that the deportation, iu the mind of its chief authors, was neither a justifiable act nor a deed of cruelty pure and simple, but a means of acquiring wealth by despoiling the Acadians of their cattle and their lands. On this point 1 entertain the hope that, long before the reader has finished the book, he will be fully convinced that I ani indulging in no historical fiction.

Forestalling somewhat the strict chronological sequence of events, I will now give the answer of the Lords of Trade to Lawrence’s insidious letter:

“We cannot form a proper judgment or give a final opinion of what measures may be necessary to be taken with regard to those inhabitants, until ice have laid the whole state of the case before His Majesty and receive his instructions upon it.

We were in hopes that the lenity which hail been shown to those people by indulging them in the free exercise qf their religion, and the quiet possession of their lands, would by degrees have gained their friendship and assistance and weaned their affections from the French, and we are sorry to hear that this lenity has had so little effect.

“It is certain that by the Treaty of Utrecht their becoming subjects to Great Britain (which we apprehend they cannot be but by taking the oath required of subjects) is made an express condition of their continuance, after the expiration of a year, and therefore it may be a question well worth considering how far they can be treated as subjects without taking such oaths, and whether their refusal to take them will not operate to invalidate the titles to their lands; it is a question, however, which we will not take from ourselves absolutely to determine, but could wish that you would consult the Chief Justice upon this point and take his opinion, which may serve as a foundation for any future measure it may be thought advisable to pursue.

“As to those of the District of Beaubassin who are actually gone over to the French at Beansejonr, if the Chief Justice should be of opinion that by refusing to take oaths 'without a reserve or by deserting their settlements to join the French, they have forfeited their title to their lands, we could wish that proper measures uvre pursued for carrying such forfeiture into execution by legal process. . . .”

Lawrence must have expected something better. Of course he had gained his point in that he had indisposed the Lords of Trade and prejudiced their minds ; but he may have hoped that their reply would contain some declaration that should be a more definite step toward his chosen goal. Unfortunately for him his proposal, “ it would be better that they were away,” was merely referred to His Majesty or rather eluded. Politeness forbade the Lords of Trade expressing doubts about Lawrence’s accusations; but the difference of tone between him and Hopson in so short an interval must have struck them, as the tenor of their letter seems to show. However, they in no way depart from their habitual wisdom and serenity. They seem to fear that he may act arbitrarily; they strongly advise him to keep to the rules and traditions of his office, to consult the Chief Justice as to whether the refusal to take the oath will invalidate the title-deeds of those who remain in the province, and even to ask his opinion on this matter with respect to those who have (putted the province. Should the Chief Justice decide that these latter have by their departure forfeited their titles, resort should be had to legal process of confiscation.

This letter is a fair average specimen of all those addressed to the governors of Acadia; and from one who, like myself, seeks nothing but historic truth, distributing praise or blame irrespective of persons, though always finding it more agreeable to praise than to blame, this letter naturally elicits the remark that the Lords of Trade hardly ever swerved from this wise and prudent course. If we take into account the circumstances of time and place, the pressure exercised upon them, the misrepresentations made to them, their conduct, viewed as a whole, certainly deserves no very severe censure and is often praiseworthy. I have not the slightest doubt that they would have treated the Acadians very differently iu the matter of the oath, had they been aware of all the facts I have recorded about the hindering of their departure by Nicholson, Vetch, Armstrong, Philipps, and Cornwallis. These hindrances are, for obvious reasons, not mentioned in the letters of these governors; they could not mention them without condemning themselves. This important fact must not be overlooked by those who wish to be just to the Lords of Trade.

Furthermore, this letter seems to prove conclusively that, when Cornwallis placed the Acadians in the cruel dilemma of taking the oath or of leaving without their movables, he must have been going beyond his orders, since the Lords of Trade here show that they are doubtful even as to the Government’s right to confiscate the immovables of those who had left the province.