CHAPTER VII.

THE WARS ON THE SEABOARD: THE STRUGGLE IN ACADIA AND CAPE BRETON.

BY CHARLES C. SMITH,

_Treasurer of the Massachusetts Historical Society_.

ALL through its early history Acadia, or Nova Scotia, suffered from the

insecurity to life and property which arose from its repeated changes

of masters. Neither France nor England cared much for a region of so

little apparent value; and both alike regarded it merely as debatable

ground, or as a convenient make-weight in adjusting the balance of

conquests and losses elsewhere. Nothing was done to render it a safe

or attractive home for immigrants; and at each outbreak of war in

the Old World its soil became the scene of skirmishes and massacres

in which Indian allies were conspicuous agents. Whatever the turn of

victory here, little regard was paid to it in settling the terms of

peace. There was hardly an attempt at any time to establish a permanent

control over the conquered territory. In spite of the capture of Port

Royal by Phips in 1690, and the annexation of Acadia to the government

of Massachusetts in 1692, it was only a nominal authority which England

had. In 1691, the French again took formal possession of Port Royal

and the neighboring country. In the next year an ineffectual attempt

was made to recover it; and this was followed by various conflicts,

of no historical importance, in different parts of this much-harassed

territory. In August, 1696, the famous Indian fighter, Captain Benjamin

Church, left Boston on his fourth eastern expedition. After skirting

the coast of Maine, where he met with but few Indians and no enemies,

he determined to proceed up the Bay of Fundy. There he captured and

burned Beaubassin, or Chignecto, and then returned to St. John.

Subsequently he was superseded by Colonel John Hathorne, a member of

the Massachusetts council, and an attack was made on the French fort

at Nachouac, or Naxoat, farther up the river; but for some unexplained

reason the attack was not pressed, and the English retreated shortly

after they landed. “No notice,” says Hutchinson in his _History of

Massachusetts Bay_, “was taken of any loss on either side, except the

burning of a few of the enemy’s houses; nor is any sufficient reason

given for relinquishing the design so suddenly.”[889] By the treaty of

Ryswick in the following year (1697) Acadia was surrendered to France.

The French were not long permitted to enjoy the restored territory.

In May, 1704, Church was again placed in command of an expedition

fitted out at Boston against the French and Indians in the eastern

country. He had been expressly forbidden to attack Port Royal, and

after burning the little town of Mines nothing was accomplished by him.

Three years later, in May, 1707, another expedition, of one thousand

men, sailed from Boston under command of Colonel March. Port Royal

was regularly invested, and an attempt was made to take the place by

assault; but through the inefficiency of the commander it was a total

failure. Reëmbarking his little army, March sailed away to Casco Bay,

where he was superseded by Captain Wainwright, the second in command.

The expedition then returned to Port Royal; but in the mean time the

fortifications had been diligently strengthened, and after a brief

view of them Wainwright drew off his forces. In 1710 a more successful

attempt for the expulsion of the French was made. In July of that year

a fleet arrived at Boston from England to take part in a combined

attack on Port Royal. In pursuance of orders from the home government,

four regiments were raised in the New England colonies, and sailed from

Boston on the 18th of September. The fleet numbered thirty-six vessels,

exclusive of hospital and store ships, and on board were the four

New England regiments, respectively commanded by Sir Charles Hobby,

Colonel Tailer, of Massachusetts, Colonel Whiting, of Connecticut, and

Colonel Walton, of New Hampshire, and a detachment of marines from

England. Francis Nicholson, who had been successively governor of New

York, Virginia, and Maryland, had the chief command. The fleet, with

the exception of one vessel which ran ashore and was lost, arrived off

Port Royal on the 24th of September. The garrison was in no condition

to resist an enemy, and the forces were landed without opposition. On

the 1st of October three batteries were opened within one hundred yards

of the fort; and twenty-four hours afterward the French capitulated.

By the terms of the surrender the garrison was to be transported to

France, and the inhabitants living within cannon-shot of Port Royal

were to be protected in person and property for two years, on taking

an oath of allegiance to the queen of England, or were to be allowed

to remove to Canada or Newfoundland.[890] The name of Port Royal was

changed to Annapolis Royal in compliment to the queen, and the fort

was at once garrisoned by marines and volunteers under the command of

Colonel Samuel Vetch, who had been selected as governor in case the

expedition should prove successful. Its whole cost to New England was

upward of twenty-three thousand pounds, which sum was afterward repaid

by the mother country. Acadia never again came under French control,

and by the treaty of Utrecht (1713) the province was formally ceded to

Great Britain “according to its ancient limits.” As a matter of fact,

those limits were never determined; but the question ceased to have

any practical importance after the conquest of Canada by the English,

though it was reopened long afterward in the boundary dispute between

Great Britain and the United States.

By the treaty of Utrecht, France was left in undisputed possession of

Cape Breton; and in order to establish a check on the English in Nova

Scotia, the French immediately began to erect strong fortifications

at Louisbourg, in Cape Breton, and invited to its protection the

French inhabitants of Acadia and of Newfoundland, which latter had

also been ceded to Great Britain. Placentia, the chief settlement in

Newfoundland, was accordingly evacuated, and its inhabitants were

transferred to Cape Breton; but such great obstacles were thrown in the

way of a voluntary removal of the Acadians that very few of them joined

their fellow countrymen. They remained in their old homes, to be only a

source of anxiety and danger to their English masters. At the surrender

of Acadia to Great Britain, it was estimated by Colonel Vetch, in a

letter to the Board of Trade, that there were about twenty-five hundred

French inhabitants in the country; and even at that early date he

pointed out that their removal to Cape Breton would leave the country

entirely destitute of inhabitants, and make the new French settlement

a very populous colony, “and of the greatest danger and damage to

all the British colonies, as well as the universal trade of Great

Britain.”[891] Fully persuaded of the correctness of this view, the

successive British governors refused to permit the French to remove to

Canada or Cape Breton, and persistently endeavored to obtain from them

a full recognition of the British sovereignty. In a single instance—in

1729—Governor Phillips secured from the French inhabitants on the

Annapolis River an unconditional submission; but with this exception

the French would never take the oath of allegiance without an express

exemption from all liability to bear arms. It is certain, however, that

this concession was never made by any one in authority; and in the two

instances in which it was apparently granted by subordinate officers,

their action was repudiated by their superiors. The designation

“Neutral French,” sometimes given to the Acadians, has no warrant in

the recognized facts of history.

Meanwhile the colony remained almost stationary, and attracted very

little notice from the home government. In August, 1717, General

Richard Phillips was appointed governor, which office he retained

until 1749, though he resided in England during the greater part

of the time. During his absence the small colonial affairs were

successively administered by the lieutenant-governor of Annapolis, John

Doucette, who held office from 1717 to 1726,[892] and afterward by the

lieutenant-governors of the province, Lawrence Armstrong (1725-1739)

and Paul Mascarene (1740-1749). Phillips was succeeded by Edward

Cornwallis; but Cornwallis held the office only about three years, when

he resigned, and General Peregrine Thomas Hopson was appointed his

successor. On Hopson’s retirement, within a few months, the government

was administered by one of the members of the council, Charles

Lawrence, who was appointed lieutenant-governor in 1754, and governor

in 1756.

In 1744 war again broke out between England and France, and the next

year it was signalized in America by the capture of Louisbourg.

Immediately on learning that war had been declared, the French

commander despatched a strong force to Canso, which captured the

English garrison at that place and carried them prisoners of war to

Louisbourg. A second expedition was sent to Annapolis for a similar

purpose, but through the prompt action of Governor Shirley, of

Massachusetts, it failed of success. Aroused, no doubt, by these

occurrences, Shirley formed the plan of capturing Louisbourg; and early

in January, 1745, he communicated his design to the General Court of

Massachusetts, and about the same time wrote to Commodore Warren,

commanding the British fleet in the West Indies, for coöperation. His

plans were favorably received, not only by Massachusetts, but also by

the other New England colonies. Massachusetts voted to raise 3,250

men; Connecticut 500; and New Hampshire and Rhode Island each 300. The

chief command was given to Sir William Pepperrell, a wealthy merchant

of Kittery in Maine, of unblemished reputation and great personal

popularity; and the second in command was Samuel Waldo, a native of

Boston, but at that time also a resident of Maine.[893] The chief of

artillery was Richard Gridley, a skilful engineer, who, in June, 1775,

marked out the redoubt on Bunker Hill. The undertaking proved to be so

popular that the full complement of men was raised within two months.

The expedition consisted of thirteen armed vessels, under the command

of Captain Edward Tyng, with upward of two hundred guns, and of about

ninety transports. They were directed to proceed to Canso, where a

block house was to be built, the stores landed, and a guard left to

defend them. The Massachusetts troops sailed from Nantasket on the 24th

of March, and reached Canso on the 4th of April. The New Hampshire

forces had arrived four days before; the Connecticut troops reached the

same place on the 25th. Hutchinson adds, with grim humor, “Rhode Island

waited until a better judgment could be made of the event, their three

hundred not arriving until after the place had surrendered.”[894]

The works at Louisbourg had been twenty-five years in construction,

and though still incomplete had cost between five and six millions

of dollars. They were thought to be the most formidable defences in

America, and covered an area two and a half miles in circumference.

A space of about two hundred yards toward the sea was left without a

rampart; but at all other accessible points the walls were from thirty

to thirty-six feet in height, with a ditch eighty feet in width.

Scattered along their line were six bastions and three batteries with

embrasures for one hundred and forty-eight cannon, of which only

sixty-five were mounted, and sixteen mortars. On an island at the

entrance of the harbor was a battery mounted with thirty guns; and

directly opposite the entrance of the harbor was the grand battery,

mounting twenty-eight heavy guns and two eighteen-pounders. The

entrance to the town on the land-side was over a draw-bridge defended

by a circular battery mounting sixteen cannon. It was these strong and

well-planned works which a handful of New England farmers and fishermen

undertook to capture with the assistance of a small English fleet.

Pepperrell was detained by the ice at Canso for nearly three weeks,

at the end of which time he was joined by Commodore Warren with four

ships, carrying one hundred and eighty guns. The combined forces

reached Gabarus Bay, the place selected for a landing, on the morning

of the 30th of April; and it was not until that time that the French

had any knowledge of the impending attack. Two days later the grand

battery fell into Pepperrell’s hands through a fortunate panic which

seized the French. Thus encouraged, the siege was pressed with

vigor under very great difficulties. The first battery was erected

immediately on landing, and opened fire at once; but it required the

labor of fourteen nights to draw all the cannon and other materials

across the morass between the landing-place and Louisbourg, and it

was not until the middle of May that the fourth battery was ready.

On the 18th of May, Tyng in the “Massachusetts” frigate captured a

French ship of sixty-four guns and five hundred men, heavily laden with

military stores for Louisbourg. This success greatly raised the spirits

of the besiegers, who, slowly but steadily, pushed forward to the

accomplishment of their object. Warren’s fleet was reinforced by the

arrival of three large ships from England and three from Newfoundland;

the land-gate was demolished; serious breaches were made in the walls;

and by the middle of June it was determined to attempt a general

assault. The French commander, Duchambon, saw that further resistance

would be useless, and on the 16th he capitulated with the honors of

war, and the next day Pepperrell took possession of Louisbourg.

By the capitulation six hundred and fifty veteran troops, more than

thirteen hundred militia, and other persons, to the number in all

of upward of four thousand, agreed not to bear arms against Great

Britain during the war, and were transported to France in fourteen

ships. Seventy-six cannon and mortars fell into the hands of the

conquerors, with a great quantity of military stores and provisions.

The number killed on the side of the French was three hundred, and

on the side of the English one hundred and thirty; but subsequently

the latter suffered heavily by disease, and at one time so many as

fifteen hundred were sick from exposure and bad weather. Tidings of the

victory created great joy in New England, and the news was received

with no small satisfaction in the mother country. Pepperrell was

made a baronet, Warren an admiral, and both Shirley and Pepperrell

were commissioned as colonels. Subsequently, after a delay of four

years, Great Britain reimbursed the colonies for the expenses of the

expedition to the amount of £200,000.

[Illustration: A FRENCH FRIGATE.

[After a cut in Paul Lacroix’s _XVIII^{me} Siècle_, p. 129.—ED.]]

The capture of Louisbourg was by far the most important event in the

history of Nova Scotia during the war, and the loss of so important a

place was a keen mortification to France. As soon as news of the fall

of Louisbourg reached the French government, steps were taken with a

view to its recapture and to the punishment of the English colonists by

destroying Boston and ravaging the New England coast. In June, 1746, a

fleet of eleven ships of the line, twenty frigates, thirty transports,

and two fire-ships was despatched for this purpose under command of

Admiral D’Anville; but the enterprise ended in a disastrous failure.

Contrary winds prevailed during the voyage, and on nearing the American

coast a violent storm scattered the fleet, driving some of the ships

back to France and others to the West Indies, and wrecking some on

Sable Island. On the 10th of September D’Anville cast anchor with the

remaining vessels—two ships and a few transports—in Chebucto; and six

days later he died, of apoplexy, it is said. At a council of war held

shortly afterward it was determined to attack Annapolis, against the

judgment of Vice-Admiral D’Estournelle, who had assumed the command.

Exasperated, apparently, at this decision, he committed suicide in

a fit of temporary insanity. This second misfortune was followed by

the breaking out of the small-pox among the crews; and finally after

scuttling some of the vessels the officer next in command returned to

France without striking a single blow. In the spring of the following

year another expedition, of smaller size, was despatched under command

of Admiral De la Jonquiere; but the fleet was intercepted and dispersed

off Cape Finisterre by the English, who captured nine ships of war and

numerous other vessels.

Meanwhile, and before the capture of Louisbourg, the French had made

an unsuccessful attempt on Annapolis, from which the besieging force

was withdrawn to aid in the defence of Louisbourg, but they did not

arrive until a month after its surrender. In the following year another

army of Canadians appeared before Annapolis; but the place seemed

to be so strong and well defended that it was not thought prudent

to press the attack. The French accordingly withdrew to Chignecto

to await the arrival of reinforcements expected from France. While

stationed there they learned that a small body of New England troops,

under Colonel Noble, were quartered at Grand Pré, and measures were

speedily adopted to cut them off. The attack was made under cover of

a snow-storm at an early hour on the morning of the 4th of February,

1747. It was a complete surprise to the English. Noble, who was in bed

at the time, was killed fighting in his shirt. A desperate conflict,

however, ensued from house to house, and at ten o’clock in the forenoon

the English capitulated with the honors of war.[895] This terminated

active hostilities in Nova Scotia, from which the French troops shortly

afterward withdrew. By the disgraceful peace of Aix la Chapelle (1748)

England surrendered Louisbourg and Cape Breton to the French, and all

the fruits of the war in America were lost.

After the conclusion of peace it was determined by the home government

to strengthen their hold on Nova Scotia, so as to render it as far

as possible a bulwark to the other English colonies, instead of a

source of danger to them. With this view an advertisement was inserted

in the _London Gazette_, in March, 1749, setting forth “that proper

encouragement will be given to such of the officers and private men,

lately dismissed his Majesty’s land and sea service, as are willing

to accept of grants of land, and to settle with or without families

in Nova Scotia.” Fifty acres were to be allotted to every soldier

or sailor, free from the payment of rents or taxes for the term of

ten years, after which they were not to be required to pay more than

one shilling per annum for every fifty acres; and an additional

grant of ten acres for each person in a family was promised. Larger

grants, with similar conditions, were to be made to the officers; and

still further to encourage the settlement of the province the same

inducements were offered to “carpenters, shipwrights, smiths, masons,

joiners, brickmakers, brick-layers, and all other artificers necessary

in building or husbandry, not being private soldiers or seamen,” and

also to surgeons on producing certificates that they were properly

qualified. These offers were promptly accepted by a large number of

persons, but apparently by not so many as was anticipated.

In the following May Edward Cornwallis, then a member of Parliament,

and uncle of the first Marquis of Cornwallis, was appointed

captain-general and governor in chief, and at once embarked for Nova

Scotia with the new settlers. On the 21st of June he arrived in

Chebucto harbor, which all the officers agreed was the finest harbor

they had ever seen; and early in July he was joined by the transports,

thirteen in number, having on board upward of twenty-five hundred

immigrants. The shores of the harbor were wooded to the water’s edge,

“no clear spot to be seen or heard of.”[896] But by the 23d of the

month more than twelve acres were cleared, and preparations were made

for building. A month later the plan of the town was fully laid out,

and subsequently a line of palisades was erected around the town,

a square fort was built on the hill, and a space thirty feet wide

cleared outside of the defensive line. By the end of October three

hundred houses had been completed, a second fort had been built, and

an order had been sent to Boston for lamps to light the streets in the

winter nights. Halifax, as the new town was called, had already begun

to wear the appearance of a settled community; and in little more

than a year its first church was opened for religious services. From

the first, the growth of Halifax was strong and healthy; and it soon

became a place of considerable importance. So early as 1752 the number

of inhabitants amounted to more than four thousand. Stringent rules

were adopted to insure public order and morality; and very soon the

governor and council proceeded to exercise legislative authority.[897]

But their right to do this was expressly denied by the law officers at

home.[898] Accordingly, in the early part of 1757 a plan was adopted

for dividing the province into electoral districts, for the choice

of a legislative body, and was sent to England for approval. Some

exceptions, however, were taken to the plan; and it was not until

October, 1758, that the first provincial assembly met at Halifax,

nineteen members being present.

In the mean time, in 1755, occurred the most memorable and tragic

event in the whole history of Nova Scotia. Though England and France

were nominally at peace, frequent collisions took place between their

adherents in Nova Scotia and elsewhere in America. Early in 1755 it

was determined to dispossess the French of the posts which they had

established on the Bay of Fundy, and a force of eighteen hundred men

was raised in New England, for that purpose, under Lieutenant-Colonels

Scott and John Winslow. The chief command of the expedition was given

to Colonel Robert Monckton, an officer in the English army. The first

and most honorable fruits of the expedition were the capture of the

French forts at Beauséjour and at Gaspereau, both of which surrendered

in June. A few weeks later Winslow became a chief instrument in the

forcible removal of the French Acadians, which has given his name an

unenviable notoriety. It was a task apparently at which his whole

nature relucted; and over and over again he wrote in his letters at the

time that it was the most disagreeable duty he had had to perform in

his whole life. But he did not hesitate for a moment, and carried out

with unfaltering energy the commands of his superior officers.

For more than a generation the French inhabitants had refused to take

the oath of allegiance to the king of England, except in a qualified

form. Upon their renewed refusal, in July, 1755, it was determined to

take immediate steps for their removal, in accordance with a previous

decision, “to send all the French inhabitants out of the province, if

they refused to take the oath;” and at a meeting of the provincial

council of Nova Scotia, held July 28th, “after mature consideration,

it was unanimously agreed that, to prevent as much as possible their

attempting to return and molest the settlers that may be set down on

their lands, it would be most proper to send them to be distributed

amongst the several colonies on the continent, and that a sufficient

number of vessels should be hired with all possible expedition for

that purpose.”[899] Accordingly orders were sent to Boston to charter

the required number of transports; and on the 11th of August Governor

Lawrence forwarded detailed instructions to Lieutenant-Colonel Winslow,

commanding at Mines, and to Major John Handfield, a Nova Scotia

officer, commanding at Annapolis, to ship off the French inhabitants in

their respective neighborhoods. As the crops were not yet harvested,

and there was delay in the arrival of the transports, the orders could

not be executed until the autumn. At that time they were carried

out with a sternness and a disregard of the rights of humanity for

which there can be no justification or excuse. On the same day on

which the instructions were issued to Winslow and Handfield, Governor

Lawrence wrote a circular letter to the other English governors in

America, expressing the opinion that there was not the least reason

to doubt of their concurrence, and his hope that they would receive

the inhabitants now sent “and dispose of them in such manner as may

best answer our design in preventing their reunion.” According to the

official instructions five hundred persons were to be transported to

North Carolina, one thousand to Virginia, five hundred to Maryland,

three hundred to Philadelphia, two hundred to New York, three hundred

to Connecticut, and two hundred to Boston.

On the 4th of September Winslow issued a citation to the inhabitants

in his immediate neighborhood to appear and receive a communication

from him. The next day, he recorded in his journal, “at three in

the afternoon, the French inhabitants appeared, agreeably to their

citation, at the church in Grand Pré, amounting to four hundred and

eighteen of their best men; upon which I ordered a table to be set

in the centre of the church, and, having attended with those of my

officers who were off guard, delivered them by interpreters the king’s

orders.” After a brief preamble he proceeded to say, “The part of duty

I am now upon is what, though necessary, is very disagreeable to my

natural make and temper, as I know it must be grievous to you who are

of the same species. But it is not my business to animadvert, but to

obey such orders as I receive, and therefore without hesitation shall

deliver you his Majesty’s orders and instructions.” He then informed

them that all their lands, cattle, and other property, except money and

household goods, were forfeited to the Crown, and that all the French

inhabitants were to be removed from the province. They were, however,

to have liberty to carry their money and as many of their household

goods as could be conveniently shipped in the vessels; and he added,

“I shall do everything in my power that all those goods be secured

to you, and that you are not molested in carrying them off, and also

that whole families go in the same vessel, and make this remove, which

I am sensible must give you a great deal of trouble, as easy as his

Majesty’s service will admit, and hope that in whatever part of the

world you may fall you may be faithful subjects, a peaceable and happy

people.”[900] Meanwhile they were to remain under the inspection of the

troops. Toward night these unhappy victims, “not having any provisions

with them, and pleading hunger, begged for bread,” which was given

them, and orders were then issued that for the future they must be

supplied from their respective families. “Thus ended the memorable 5th

of September,” Winslow wrote in his journal, “a day of great fatigue

and trouble.”[901]

Shortly afterward the first prisoners were embarked; but great delay

occurred in shipping them off, mainly on account of the failure of the

contractor to arrive with the provisions at the expected time, and it

was not until November or December that the last were shipped. The

whole number sent away at this time was about four thousand. There

was also a great destruction of property; and in the district under

command of Winslow very nearly seven hundred buildings were burned.

The presence of the French was nowhere welcome in the colonies to

which they were sent; and they doubtless experienced many hardships.

The governors of South Carolina and Georgia gave them permission to

return, much to the surprise and indignation of Governor Lawrence;[902]

and seven boats, with ninety unhappy men who had coasted along shore

from one of the Southern colonies, were stopped in Massachusetts. In

the summer of 1762 five transports with a further shipment of these

unfortunate people were sent to Boston, but the General Court would not

permit them to land, and they were ordered to return to Halifax.[903]

The removal of the French Acadians from their homes was one of the

saddest episodes in modern history, and no one now will attempt to

justify it; but it should be added that the genius of our great poet

has thrown a somewhat false and distorted light over the character of

the victims. They were not the peaceful and simple-hearted people they

are commonly supposed to have been; and their houses, as we learn from

contemporary evidence, were by no means the picturesque, vine-clad, and

strongly built cottages described by the poet. The people were notably

quarrelsome among themselves, and to the last degree superstitious.

They were wholly under the influence of priests appointed by the French

bishops, and directly responsible to the representatives of the Roman

Catholic Church at Quebec. Many of these priests were quite as much

political agents as religious teachers, and some of them fell under

the censure of their superiors for going too much outside of their

religious functions. Even in periods when France and England were at

peace, the French Acadians were a source of perpetual danger to the

English colonists. Their claim to a qualified allegiance was one which

no nation then or now could sanction. But all this does not justify

their expulsion in the manner in which it was executed, and it will

always remain a foul blot on the history of Nova Scotia. The knowledge

of these facts, however, enables us to understand better the constant

feeling of insecurity under which the English settlers lived, and which

finally resulted in the removal and dispersion of the French under

circumstances of such heartless cruelty.

In May of the following year, war was again declared between France

and England; and two years later Louisbourg again fell into the hands

of the English. In May, 1758, a powerful fleet under command of

Admiral Boscawen arrived at Halifax for the purpose of recapturing a

place which ought never to have been given up. The fleet consisted

of twenty-three ships of the line and eighteen frigates, beside

transports, and when it left Halifax it numbered one hundred and

fifty-seven vessels. With it was a land force, under Jeffery Amherst,

of upward of twelve thousand men. The French forces at Louisbourg were

much inferior, and consisted of only eight ships of the line and three

frigates, and of about four thousand soldiers. The English fleet set

sail from Halifax on the 28th of May, and on the 8th of June a landing

was effected in Gabarus Bay. The next day the attack began, and after

a sharp conflict the French abandoned and destroyed two important

batteries. The siege was then pushed by regular approaches; but it was

not until the 26th of July that the garrison capitulated. By the terms

of surrender the whole garrison were to become prisoners of war and to

be sent to England, and the English acquired two hundred and eighteen

cannon and eighteen mortars, beside great quantities of ammunition and

military stores. All the vessels of war had been captured or destroyed;

but their crews, to the number of upward of twenty-six hundred men,

were included in the capitulation. Two years later, at the beginning of

1760, orders were sent from England to demolish the fortress, render

the harbor impracticable, and transport the garrison and stores to

Halifax. These orders were carried out so effectually that few traces

of its fortifications remain, and the place is inhabited only by

fishermen.

A year after the surrender of Louisbourg a fatal blow was struck at

the French power in America by the capture of Quebec; and by the

peace of Paris, in February, 1763, the whole of Canada was ceded to

Great Britain. The effects of this cession, in preparing the way for

the independence of the principal English colonies, cannot easily be

overestimated; but to Nova Scotia it only gave immunity from the fear

of French incursions, without in the slightest degree weakening the

attachment of the inhabitants to England.

CRITICAL ESSAY ON THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION.

IN recent years much attention has been given to the study of

Acadian history by local investigators, and important documents for

its elucidation have been obtained from England and France, and

the provincial archives have been put in excellent order by the

commissioner of public records. To his intelligent interest in the

subject we are indebted for one of the most important contributions

to our knowledge of it, his _Selections from the Public Documents of

the Province of Nova Scotia_.[904] This volume comprises a great mass

of valuable papers illustrative of the history of Nova Scotia in the

eighteenth century, systematically arranged. The first part consists of

papers relating to the French Acadians, 1714-1755; the second part, of

papers relating to their forcible removal from the province, 1755-1768;

the third, of papers relating to the French encroachments, 1749-1754,

and the war in North America, 1754-1761; the fourth, of papers relating

to the first settlement of Halifax, 1749-1756; and the last part, of

papers relating to the first establishment of a representative assembly

in Nova Scotia. Mr. Akins has added a sufficient number of biographical

and other notes, and has inserted a conveniently arranged Index.

Next in importance to this volume are the publications of the Nova

Scotia Historical Society, which was formed in 1878, and incorporated

in 1879. Since that time it has printed four small volumes of

_Collections_, comprising many valuable papers. Of these the most

important is the journal of Colonel Winslow at the time of the

expulsion of the Acadians, printed (vol. iii. p. 114) from the original

manuscript in the possession of the Massachusetts Historical Society.

There are also (vol. i. p. 119) the diary of the surgeon, John Thomas,

at the same time,[905] beside a journal of the capture of Annapolis

in 1710, a history of St. Paul’s Church, Halifax, and other papers of

historical interest and value. The fourth volume contains a Memoir

of Samuel Vetch, the first English governor of Nova Scotia, with

illustrative documents, and the journal of Colonel John Winslow, during

the Siege of Beauséjour, in 1755.[906]

Another work of great authority, as well for the later as for the early

history of Nova Scotia, is Murdoch’s _History of Nova Scotia_.[907]

Written in the form of annals, it is somewhat confused in arrangement,

and a reader or student is under the necessity of picking out important

facts from a great mass of chaff; but it is a work of wide and thorough

research, and should be carefully studied by every one who wishes to

learn the minute facts of Nova Scotia history.

The early history of Nova Scotia, from its first settlement down to the

peace of Paris in 1763, is treated with much fulness by James Hannay

in a well-written narrative, which is not, however, entirely free from

prejudice, especially against the New England colonies.[908] But, for

thoroughness of investigation and general accuracy of statement, Mr.

Hannay must hold a high place among local historians. Fortunately his

labors are well supplemented by Duncan Campbell’s _History of Nova

Scotia_,[909] which was, indeed, published at an earlier date, but

which is, however, very meagre for the period when Acadia was a French

colony.

Beside these, there are several county and town histories, of which

the best is Dr. Patterson’s _History of Pictou_.[910] It is a work

of diligent and faithful research, gathering up much traditional

knowledge, and especially full in details respecting the origin and

later fortunes of Pictou Academy. There are also a considerable number

of local histories in manuscript in the archives of the Nova Scotia

Historical Society.

[Illustration]

AUTHORITIES

ON THE FRENCH AND INDIAN WARS OF NEW ENGLAND AND ACADIA, 1688-1763.

BY THE EDITOR.

=A.= KING WILLIAM’S WAR.—This was begun Aug. 13, 1688. A truce

was concluded by Captain John Alden at Sagadahock, Nov. 19, 1690.

(Hutchinson’s _Massachusetts_, i. 404; _Mass. Hist. Collections_, xxi.

p. 112, from the Hutchinson papers.)

Pike and Hutchinson’s instructions for making a truce, Nov. 9, 1690,

are given in James S. Pike’s _New Puritan_ (p. 128), and (p. 131) the

agreement at Wells, May 1, 1691.

Sewall (_Letter Book_, p. 119) writes Aug. 1, 1691, “The truce is over

and our Indian war renewed. The enemy attempted to surprise Wells, but

were disappointed by a party of ours [who] got into the town but about

half an hour before.”

Submission and agreement of eastern Indians at Fort William Henry,

in Pemaquid, Aug. 11, 1693. (_Mass. Archives_, xxx. 338; Mather’s

_Magnalia_; _New Hampshire Provincial Papers_, ii. 110; Johnston’s

_Bristol, Bremen, and Pemaquid_, p. 193.)

Accounts of the French capturing vessels in Massachusetts Bay

(1694-95), correspondence between Stoughton and Frontenac (1695),

and various plans for French expeditions to attack Boston (1696-97,

1700-1704), are in _Collection de manuscrits relatifs à l’histoire de

la Nouvelle France_ (Quebec, 1884), vol. ii.

A bill to encourage the war against the enemy is in the _Mass.

Archives_, xxx. 358. Details of Church’s expedition in 1696 to Nova

Scotia are given in Murdoch’s _Nova Scotia_, i. 233. Cf. also J. S.

Pike’s _Life of Robert Pike, the New Puritan_.

Nicholas Noyes, _New England’s Duty and Interest to be a Habitation

of Justice and a Mountain of Holiness_, an election sermon, Boston,

1698 (Sabin’s _Dictionary_, xiii. no. 56,229; Haven’s list in Thomas’s

_History of Printing_, ii. p. 343; Carter-Brown, ii. 1,546), has in

an appendix (pp. 89-99) an account of a visit of Grindall Rawson and

Samuel Danforth to the Indians within the province, in 1698.

Submission of the eastern Indians at Pejebscot (Brunswick), Jan. 7,

1699. (_New Hampshire Hist. Soc. Coll._, ii. 265; _N. H. Provincial

Papers_, ii. 299; E. E. Bourne’s _Wells and Kennebunk_, ch. xv.; _Mass.

Archives_, xxx. 439.)

Submission of the eastern Indians, Sept. 8, 1699. (_Mass. Archives_,

xxx. 447.)

Various documents concerning the making of a treaty with the eastern

Indians, 1700-1701, are also in _Mass. Archives_, vol. xxx.

The events of this war are covered in Cotton Mather’s _Decennium

Luctuosum, an history of remarkable occurrences in the long war ...

from 1688 to 1698_, Boston, 1699. (Sibley’s _Harvard Graduates_, iii.

p. 67.) It was reprinted in the _Magnalia_.

A detail of the sources on the different attacks and fights of this war

is given in Vol. IV. of the present work, pp. 159-161.

=B.= QUEEN ANNE’S OR GOVERNOR DUDLEY’S WAR.—One of the first acts of

the ministry of Queen Anne was to issue a declaration of war against

France, May 15, 1702, opening what is known in Europe as the “War

of the Spanish Succession.” Governor Dudley in June, 1703, went to

Casco, to avert by a conference the Indian participancy in the war,

if possible. Campbell, the Boston postmaster, in one of his _Public

Occurrences_ says that Dudley found the Indians at the eastward “two

thirds for peace, and one third for war.” (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._,

ix. 495.) These latter were the more easterly tribes, who came

under French influence, and in Aug., 1703, Dudley issued at Boston

a broadside declaration against the Penicooke and eastern Indians.

(Haven’s list, p. 351.) Plunder and massacre along the frontier

settlements at the eastward soon convinced the people of New England

that they must prepare for another murderous war. (Cf. “Indian Troubles

on the Coast of Maine,” documents in _Maine Hist. Coll._, iii. 341.)

The first organized retaliatory assault was the maritime expedition to

the Bay of Fundy, led in 1704 by Col. Benjamin Church.

Church’s own part in this expedition is set forth in the _Entertaining

Passages_,[911] where will be found Governor Dudley’s instructions to

Church (p. 104). John Gyles, who in his youth had been a captive among

the French and Indians, when he learned to speak French, served as

interpreter and lieutenant.[912] Church’s conduct of the expedition,

which had promised much and had been of heavy cost to the province,

had not answered public expectation, and crossed the judgment of such

as disapproved the making of retaliatory cruelties the object of

war. This view qualifies the opinions which have been expressed upon

Church’s exploits by Hutchinson (_Hist. Mass._, ii. 132); Williamson

(_Hist. Maine_, ii. 47); and Palfrey (_Hist. N. Eng._, iv. 259). Hannay

(_Acadia_, 264) calls Church “barbarous.” It is his own story and that

of Penhallow which have given rise to these opinions.

[Illustration]

Church’s instructions had not contemplated the risks of an attack on

Port Royal, and in ignorance of this Charlevoix accuses the assailants

of want of courage, and Dr. Shea, in editing that writer,[913]

stigmatizes the devastations as “inhuman and savage,” and refers to a

French account in _Canada Documents_[914] (III. ii. pp. 648-652) called

“Expeditions faites par les Anglois de la Nouvelle Angleterre au Port

Royal, aux Mines et à Beaubassin de l’Acadie.”

The French early the next year, under Subercase, inflicted similar

devastation upon the Newfoundland coast, though the forts at St.

John resisted an attack. There is an original account by Pastour de

Costebelle, dated at Plaisance, Oct. 22, 1705, in the possession of Dr.

Geo. H. Moore, which has been printed in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._,

Feb., 1877. Charlevoix (Shea’s translation, iv. 172) naturally relishes

the misery of these savages better than he does the equally brutal

business of Church.

Palfrey (iv. 269) found in the British Colonial Office a paper dated

Quebec, Oct. 20, 1705, containing proposals for a peace between New

England and Canada, in which Vaudreuil[915] suggested that both sides

should “hinder all acts of hostility” on the part of the Indians.

Cf. for this attempted truce and for correspondence at this time

between Dudley and Vaudreuil, _Collection de manuscrits relatifs à

l’histoire de la Nouvelle France_ (Quebec, 1884), vol. ii. pp. 425-28,

435-40, 452.

The Abenakis continuing to disturb the borders,[916] Dudley planned an

attack on Port Royal, which should be carried out, and be no longer

a threat;[917] and Subercase, then in command there, was in effect

surprised in June, 1707, at the formidable fleet which entered the

basin. Inefficiency in the English commander, Colonel March, and

little self-confidence and want of discipline in his force, led to the

abandonment of the attack and the retirement of the force to Casco

Bay, where, reinforced and reinspirited by a commission of three

persons[918] sent from angry Boston, it returned to the basin, but

accomplished no more than before.[919]

These successive disappointments fell at a time when the two Mathers

were defeated (through Dudley’s contrivances, as was alleged) in the

contest for the presidency of Harvard College. This outcome made for

Dudley two bitter and unscrupulous enemies, and any abuse they might

shower upon him gained a ready hearing in a belief, prevalent even

with fair people, that Dudley was using his own position for personal

gain in illicit trade with Acadia. There have been reprinted in the

second volume of the _Sewall Papers_ three testy tracts which grew out

of this conjunction of affairs. In them Dudley is charged with the

responsibility of these military miscarriages, and events are given

a turn which the careful historian finds it necessary to scrutinize

closely.[920]

[Illustration]

[Illustration]

Palfrey (iv. 273) pictures the universal chagrin and details the

efforts to shift the blame for the failure of this expedition.

Charlevoix gives a pretty full account, but his editor claims that

the English chroniclers resort to vagueness in their stories. In some

copies of Diéreville’s _Relation du voyage du Port Royal de l’Acadie_

(Amsterdam, 1710) there is an appendix on the 1707 expedition, taken

from the _Gazette_ of Feb. 25, 1708.[921]

Events were tending towards a more strenuous effort at the reduction of

Acadia. Jeremiah Dummer, in London, had in 1709 presented a memorial

to the ministry arguing that the banks of the St. Lawrence belonged

of right to New England.[922] It is printed in _The Importance and

Advantage of Cape Breton_, London, 1746.[923] In April, 1709, the home

government despatched orders to the colonies[924] for an extended

movement on Montreal by way of Lake Champlain, and another on Quebec by

water,—the latter part of the plan falling to the lot of Massachusetts

and Rhode Island, who were promised the coöperation of a royal fleet

and a force of veterans.[925] Colonel Vetch, who was a prime mover in

the proceeding, brought the messages of the royal pleasure, and was

made the adjutant-general of the commander, Francis Nicholson; but the

promised fleet did not come, and the few king’s ships which were in

Boston were held aloof by their commanders, and a project to turn the

troops, already massed in Boston, against Port Royal, since there was

no chance of success against Quebec unaided, was abandoned for want of

the convoy these royal ships might have afforded.[926] Nicholson, the

companion of Vetch, returned to England,[927] and the next year (1710)

came back with a small fleet, which, with an expeditionary force of New

Englanders, captured Port Royal,[928] and Vetch was left governor of

the country.[929]

[Illustration: ANNAPOLIS ROYAL.

One of Des Barres’ coast views (in Harvard College library).

The key of the fort at Annapolis, taken at this time, is in the cabinet

of the Mass. Hist. Society. (Cf. _Catal. Cab. M. H. Soc._, p. 112;

_Proceedings_, i. 101.)]

Col. William Dudley under date of Nov. 15, 1710, sent to the Board of

Trade a communication covering the journal of Col. Nicholson during

the siege, with correspondence appertaining, and these papers from

the Record Office, London, are printed in the _Nova Scotia Hist. Soc.

Collections_, i. p. 59, as (p. 64) is also a journal from the _Boston

News-Letter_ of Nov. 6, 1710. Sabin (ix. no. 36,703) notes a very

rare tract: _Journal of an Expedition performed by the forces of our

Soveraign Lady Anne, Queen, etc., under the command of the Honourable

Francis Nicholson in the year 1710, for the reduction of Port Royal in

Nova Scotia_, London, 1711. A journal kept by the Rev. Mr. Buckingham

is printed from the original MS., edited by Theodore Dwight, in

the _Journals of Madam Knight and Rev. Mr. Buckingham_ (New York,

1825).[930]

The war was ended by a treaty at Portsmouth, July 11, 1713. (_Mass.

Archives_, xxix. p. 1; _N. H. Hist. Soc. Coll._, i. p. 83; _N. H. Prov.

Papers_, iii. 543; _Maine Hist. Soc. Coll._, vi. 250; Penhallow, 78;

Williamson’s _Maine_, ii. 67.)

There was a conference with five of the leading eastern Indians at

Boston, Jan. 16, 1713-14, and this treaty is in the _Mass. Archives_,

xxix. 22. A fac-simile of its English signatures is annexed. Another

conference was held at Portsmouth, July 23-28, 1714; and this document

is also preserved. (_Mass. Archives_, xxix. 36; _Maine Hist. Soc.

Coll._, vi. 257.)

Dr. Shea (_Charlevoix_, v. 267) says that no intelligent man will

believe that the Indians understood the law-terms of these treaties,

adding that Hutchinson (ii. 246) admits as much.

The papers by Frederick Kidder in the _Maine Hist. Soc. Collections_

(vols. iii. and vi.) were republished as _Abnaki Indians, their

treaties of 1713 and 1717, and a vocabulary with an historical

introduction_, Portland, 1859. (Field, _Indian Bibliog._, no. 829;

_Hist. Mag._, ii. p. 84.) It gives fac-similes of the autographs of the

English signers and witnesses; and of the marks or signs of the Indians.

A later conference to ratify the treaty of 1713 was published under the

title of _Georgetown on Arrowsick island, Aug. 9, 1717.... A conference

of Gov. Shute with the sachems and chief men of the eastern Indians_,

Boston, 1717. (Harvard Col. library, no. 5325.24; Brinley, i. no. 431.)

This tract is reprinted in the _Maine Hist. Soc. Coll._, iii. 361,

and in the _N. H. Prov. Papers_, iii. 693. See further in Penhallow,

p. 83; Niles, in _Mass. Hist. Coll._, xxxv. 338; Hutchinson, ii. 199;

Williamson’s _Maine_, ii. 93; Belknap’s _New Hampshire_, ii. 47; Shea’s

_Charlevoix_, v. 268; Palfrey’s _New England_, iv. 420.

Shute was accompanied to Arrowsick by the Rev. Joseph Baxter, and his

journal of this period, annotated by Elias Nason, is printed in the _N.

E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, Jan., 1867, p. 45.

Of chief importance respecting this as well as other of the wars,

enumerated in this section, are the documents preserved in the State

House at Boston. The _Mass. Archives_, vol. xxix., covers Indian

conferences, etc., from 1713 to 1776; vol. xxxiv. treaties with the

Indians from 1645 to 1726; and vols. xxx. to xxxiii. elucidate by

original documents relations of all sorts with the Indians of the east

and west, as well as those among the more central settlements between

1639 and 1775.

The chief English authority for Queen Anne’s and Lovewell’s wars is

_The History of the wars of New England with the eastern Indians, or

a narrative of their continued perfidy from the 10th of August, 1703,

to the peace renewed 13th of July, 1713; and from the 25th of July,

1722, to their submission, 15th December, 1725, which was ratified

August 5th, 1726_. _By Samuel Penhallow._ Boston, 1726. The author

was an Englishman, who in 1686, at twenty-one, had come to America to

perfect his learning in the college at Cambridge, designing to acquire

the Indian tongue, and to serve the Society for the Propagation of the

Gospel among the Indians. Trade and public office, however, diverted

his attention, and he became a rich tradesman at Portsmouth and a man

of consideration in the public affairs of New Hampshire. His book is

of the first value to the historian and the object of much quest to

the collector, for it has become very rare. Penhallow died Dec., 1726,

shortly after its publication. It has been reprinted in the first

volume of the _N. H. Hist. Society’s Collections_, and again in 1859

at Cincinnati, with a memoir and notes by W. Dodge.[931]

[Illustration: SIGNERS OF THE CONFERENCE.

(_January 16, 1713-14._)]

A more comprehensive writer is Samuel Niles, in his _French and Indian

Wars_, 1634-1760. Niles was a Rhode Islander, who came to Harvard

College the first from that colony to seek a liberal education, and,

having graduated in 1699, he settled in Braintree, Mass., in 1711,

where he continued till his death in 1762. Palfrey (vol. iv. 256) has

pointed out that Niles did little more than add a sentence, embody

a reflection, and condense or omit in the use which he made of the

_Memorial_ of Nathaniel Morton, the _Entertaining Passages_ of Church,

the _Indian Wars_ of Hubbard, the _Magnalia_ of Mather, and the

_History_ of Penhallow; so that for a period down to about 1745, Niles

is of scarcely any original value.

[Illustration: _Fac-simile from a copy in Harvard College library._]

John Adams (_Works_, x. 361), who knew the author, lamented in 1818

that no printer would undertake the publication of his history. The

manuscript of the work was neglected till some time after 1830 it was

found in a box of papers belonging to the Mass. Hist. Society, and was

subsequently printed in their _Collections_, vols. xxvi. and xxxv.[932]

[Illustration: _Fac-simile slightly reduced from the copy in Harvard

College library._]

There are two other important contemporary printed accounts of this war.

Col. Benjamin Church furnished the memoranda from which his son Thomas

constructed a book, very popular in its day, and which was published in

Boston in 1716, as _Entertaining Passages_,[933] etc.

Cotton Mather, on the restoration of peace, reviewed the ten years’

sorrows of the war in a sermon before the governor and legislature,

which was published as _Duodecennium Luctuosum—the History of a

long war with Indian savages and their directors and abettors_,

1702-1714.[934]

[Illustration: GUT OF ANNAPOLIS.

NOTE.—The above cut represents the entrance to the Annapolis basin,

as it would appear to a spectator at the position corresponding to

the letter B in the words “Baye Françoise” in the northwest corner

of the map on the opposite page. It follows on a reduced scale one

of the coast scenes made by the British engineers to accompany the

hydrographic surveys, published by Des Barres, just before the American

Revolutionary War, and which frequently make part of the _Atlantic

Neptune_. A modern drawing of the view looking outward through the gut

is given in E. B. Chase’s _Over the Border_ (Boston, 1884), where will

be found a view of the old block house in Annapolis (p. 64), which

stood till 1882.

The map (on the opposite page) is by the royal (French) engineer

Nicolas Bellin, and was published by Charlevoix in his _Histoire de

la Nouvelle France_, and is reproduced in Dr. Shea’s translation of

Charlevoix, v. p. 170; and on a reduced scale in Gay, _Pop. Hist. U.

S._, iii. p. 125. A MS. plan (1725) is noted in the _Catalogue of the

King’s Maps in the British Museum_, i. p. 38; as also are other plans

of 1751, 1752, 1755. One of date 1729 by Nathaniel Blackmore is plate

no. 27 in Moll’s _New Survey of the Globe_. One of 1733 is in the North

collection of maps in Harvard College library, vol. ii. pl. 11. One of

1779, after a manuscript in the Dépôt des Cartes in Paris, is no. 11 in

the _Neptune Americo-Septentrional_. This Bellin map may be compared

with the draughts of the basin made in the early part of the preceding

century by Lescarbot, published in his _Histoire de la Nouvelle France_

(1609), and by Champlain as given in his _Voyages du Sieur de Champlain

Xaintongeois_ (1613),—both of which maps are produced in the present

_History_, Vol. IV. pp. 140, 141.

There is on a previous page a view of the town and fort of Annapolis at

the upper end of the basin. Various papers respecting Annapolis Royal,

as it was called after coming into English possession, can be found

in the _Belknap Papers_ (MSS.) in the library of the Massachusetts

Historical Society, including letters from Governor Richard Phillips,

Lieutenant-Governor John Doucett, and Paul Mascarene. The history of

Nova Scotia so much centres in Annapolis, previous to the founding of

Halifax, that all the histories of Acadia and Nova Scotia tell the

story of the picturesque and interesting region in which the town is

situated. (Cf. Vol. IV. p. 156.)

Jacques Nicolas Bellin, the maker of the opposite map, as he was of all

the maps given by Charlevoix, was born in Paris in 1703, and died in

1772. He was one of the principal hydrographers of his time in France,

and was the earliest to hold a governmental position in the engineer

department of the Marine. He has left a large mass of cartographical

work, chiefly given on a large scale in his _Neptune Français_ (1753 in

folio) and his _Hydrographie Française_ (1756 in folio). The same, with

other maps reproduced on a smaller scale, constitute his _Petit Atlas

Maritime_ (1764, five volumes in quarto). All of these publications

contain maps of American interest, and in 1755 he printed a special

contribution to the study of American cartography, _Mémoires sur les

cartes des côtes de l’Amérique septentrionale_.]

The uneasy disposition of the times upon the conclusion of the peace

may be followed in Gov. Shute’s letter to the Jesuit Father Rasle,

Feb. 21, 1718 (_Mass. Hist. Coll._, v. 112); in the conference with

the Penobscots[935] and Norridgewocks, at Georgetown, Oct. 12, 1720

(_Mass. Archives_, xxix. 68); and in the letter of the eastern Indians

(in French) to the governor, July 27, 1721 (_Mass. Hist. Coll._, xviii.

259).

=C.= LOVEWELL’S OR GOV. DUMMER’S WAR.—There are documents from the

Penhallow Papers relative to the Indian depredations at the eastward in

the _N. E. Hist. and Gen. Register_, 1878, p. 21. Some of them antedate

the outbreak of the war. Charlevoix (Shea’s ed., vol. v. 268) tells

the story of the counter-missions of the French and English; and the

Indians, incited by the French, made demands on the English, who held

some of their chiefs as hostages in Boston. (_Mass. Hist. Coll._, 2d

ser., viii. 259; _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. 903; Kip, _Jesuit Missions_,

13.) The seeming truce with the Abenakis was further jeopardized by

the act of seizing (Dec., 1721) the younger Baron de St. Castin, when

he was taken to Boston for examination. After a detention of five

months he was set at liberty.[936] A more serious source of complaints

with the Indians before the war was the attempt to seize Father Rasle

in Jan., 1722, by an expedition sent to Norridgewock under Col.

Westbrook, but in the immediate charge of Capt. Harmon. (_N. Y. Col.

Docs._, ix. 910; Rasle in Kip, 15.) Rasle was warned and escaped, but

the party found letters from Vaudreuil in his cabin, implicating the

Quebec governor as having incited the increasing depredations of the

Indians.[937]

The war began in the summer of 1722. Gov. Shute made his declaration,

July 25, 1722 (_Mass. Archives_, xxxi. 106), and the Rev. Benjamin

Wadsworth, at the Thursday lecture, Aug. 16, made it the subject of his

discourse. (Brinley, i. no. 429.)

[Illustration]

In March, 1723, Col. Thos. Westbrook made a raid along the Penobscot.

(_Mass. Hist. Coll._, xxii. 264; _N. Y. Col. Docs._, ix. 933.)

Capt. Jeremiah Moulton, under orders of Col. Westbrook, made a scouting

expedition in the early summer of 1723, and dated at York, July, 4, his

report to Lieut.-Gov. William Dummer, which is printed in the _Maine

Hist. and Genealog. Recorder_, i. p. 204. (Cf. Penhallow, 96; Niles in

_Mass. Hist. Coll._, xxxv. 345; Williamson, ii. 120.) In 1723 there

was an Indian raid on Rutland, in which the Rev. Joseph Willard and

two children were killed, and two others were carried off. (Cf. Israel

Loring’s _Two Sermons_, Boston, 1724, cited in Brinley, i. no. 1,928.)

A conference was held at Boston, August 22, 1723, of which there is a

printed account among the _Belknap Papers_ (MSS.), in the Mass. Hist.

Soc. library.

On the 21st July, 1724, there was another conference with the Indians

held at St. Georges fort. (_Mass. Archives_, xxix. 154.)

In Aug., 1724, Moulton and Harmon were sent to make an end of Rasle’s

influence. They surprised the Norridgewock settlement, and Rasle was

killed in the general slaughter. The opposing chroniclers do not agree

as to the manner of his death. Charlevoix (Shea’s ed., v. 279) says he

was shot and mutilated at the foot of the village cross. The English

say they had intended to spare him, but he refused quarter, and had

even killed a captive English boy in the confusion. His scalp and

those of other slain were taken to Boston.[938]

[Illustration]

In Nov., 1724, Capt. John Lovewell and two others had petitioned to be

equipped to scour the woods to the eastward after Indians, and, the

legislature acceding (Nov. 17) to their request, Lovewell enrolled

his men and made three campaigns in quick succession. The journal of

his second expedition (Jan.-Feb., 1724-5) is in the _Mass. Archives_,

vol. lxxxvi., and is printed by Kidder in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal.

Reg._, Jan., 1853, and in his _Expeditions of Capt. John Lovewell_.

It was on the third of these expeditions, May 9, 1725, that Lovewell

encountered the Indians near a pond in Fryeburg, Maine, now known as

Lovewell’s pond, upon whose wood-girt surface the summer tourist to-day

looks down from the summit of the Jockey-Cap. Their leader was killed

early in the action, which lasted all day, and only nine of the English

who remained alive were unwounded when the savages drew off.

The news reached Boston on the 13th of May. Kidder gives the despatches

received by the governor, with the action of the council upon them.

On the 17th an account was printed in the _Boston Gazette_, which is

also in Kidder. The day before (May 16) the Rev. Thomas Symmes, of

Bradford, who had gathered his information from some of those who had

escaped, delivered a sermon in that town, which, when printed with an

“historical preface or memoirs of the battle at Piggwacket,” became

popular, and two editions were printed at Boston during the same

year. Both editions are of the greatest rarity. The first is called:

_Lovewell lamented, or a Sermon occasion’d by the fall of the brave

Capt. John Lovewell and several of his valiant company in the late

heroic action at Piggwacket_. Boston, 1725.[939] The other edition was

entitled: _Historical memoirs of the late fight at Piggwacket; with

a sermon occasion’d by the fall of the brave Capt. John Lovewell and

several of his valiant company.... The second edition, corrected_.

Boston, 1725.[940] A third edition was printed at Fryeburg, with some

additions, in 1799. The narrative, but not the sermon, was later

printed in Farmer and Moore’s _Historical Collections_, i. 25. At

Concord (N. H.), in 1861, it was again issued by Nathaniel Bouton, as

_The original account of Capt. John Lovewell’s Great Fight with the

Indians at Pequawket, May 8, 1725_.[941] Mr. Frederic Kidder, in _N. E.

Hist. and Geneal. Reg._,[942] Jan., 1853 (p. 61), printed an account

of Lovewell’s various expeditions, with sundry documents from the

_Massachusetts Archives_, which, together with the second edition of

Symmes, were later, in 1865, embodied in his _Expeditions of Capt. John

Lovewell and his encounters with the Indians, including a particular

account of the Pequauket battle_.[943] This is a faithful reprint of

the Symmes tract, while those of Farmer and Moore, and of Bouton,

introduce matters from other sources. The bibliography of Symmes’s

sermon is traced in Dr. S. A. Green’s _Groton during the Indian Wars_,

p. 134.

The relations of the French to the Abenaki war during 1724-25 are shown

in various documents printed in the _N. Y. Coll. Docs._, vol. ix., as

when the French ministry prompts the governor of Canada to sustain

the savages in their struggle with the English (p. 935); a memoir is

registered upon their condition (p. 939); Intendant Begon reports on

the war (p. 941); other letters are written (p. 945); and the ministry

again counsel the governor to instigate further hostilities (p. 956).

A journal of a scout by Westbrook, beginning June 23, 1725, is among

the _Belknap Papers_ (MSS.).

Four eastern sagamores came to Boston, Nov. 10, 1725 (_Mass. Archives_,

xxix. 191; Murdoch’s _Nova Scotia_, i. 429), and a treaty with them was

signed Dec. 15, 1725, known as “Dummer’s treaty” (_Mass. Archives_,

xxxiv.), which was ratified at Falmouth, Aug. 6, 1726. (_Mass.

Archives_, xxix. 230; xxxiv. See also Penhallow, 117; _N. H. Hist.

Coll._, i. 123; _N. H. Prov. Papers_, iv. 188; Niles in _Mass. Hist.

Coll._, xxxv. 360; Williamson, ii. 145, 147; Palfrey, iv. 443.)

This treaty was separately printed under the title of _Conference with

the Indians at the ratification of peace held at Falmouth, Casco Bay,

by Governour Dummer, in July and August, 1726_. Boston, 1726, pp. 24.

It was reprinted in 1754. (Cf. Brinley, i. 432, 434; Harvard College

library, 5325.32.)

There was another Indian treaty at Casco Bay, July 25, 1727. (_Mass.

Archives_, xxix. 256.) In Akins’s _Pub. Doc. of Nova Scotia_ is a

fac-simile of a copy of this treaty, attested by Dummer, evidently made

to be used by Cornwallis in 1749, in negotiating another treaty. (Cf.

_N. H. Hist. Coll._, ii. 260, where the treaty is printed; and the

explanation of the Indians in _N. Y. Col. Docs._, ix. 966.)

This treaty of 1727 was separately printed as _Conference with the

Eastern Indians at the further ratification of the peace, held at

Falmouth, in Casco Bay, in July, 1727_. Boston, 1727, pp. 31. It was

reprinted in 1754. (Cf. Brinley, i. 433, 434.)

Cf. also _Conferences of Lieut.-Gov. Dummer with the Eastern Indians

in 1726 and 1727_. Boston, 1754. For the treaties of 1726-27, see also

_Maine Hist. Coll._, iii. 377, 407; _N. H. Prov. Papers_, iv. 255-258;

Palfrey, iv. 444.

There is in the _Mass. Archives_ (xxix. 283) the document which

resulted from a conference with the Eastern Indians in the council

chamber in Boston, Dec. 9-Jan. 15, 1727-28.

Dr. Colman’s memoir of the troubles at the eastward in 1726-27 is in

the _Mass. Hist. Coll._, vi. 108. (Cf. _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, x.

324.)

The French were disconcerted by the treaty of 1727, as sundry papers in

the _N. Y. Col. Docs._, vol. ix., show. They reiterate their complaints

of the English encroachments on the Indians’ lands (p. 981); observe

great changes in the Abenakis since they made peace with the English

(p. 990); and the king of France tells the Canadians he does not see

how the Indians could avoid making the treaty with the English (p.

995).[944]

The letters of caution, which Belcher was constantly writing

(1731-1740) to Capt. Larrabee, in command at Fort George, Brunswick,

indicate how unstable the peace was. (_N. E. Hist. & Gen. Reg._,

Apr., 1865, p. 129.) The continued danger from French intrigue is

also shown in Colman’s memoir, etc., in _Mass. Hist. Coll._, vi. 109,

and in the repeated conferences of the next few years: _Conference

of his Excellency Governor Belcher with the chiefs of the Penobscot,

Norridgewock, and Ameriscoggin tribes at Falmouth, July, 1732_. Boston,

reprinted at London. (Haven in Thomas, ii. p. 428; Carter-Brown, iii.

482; Harv. Coll. lib., 5325.33; Brinley, i. no. 435.)

_A Conference held at Deerfield, the 27th of August_ [to Sept. 1],

1735, _by his Excellency, Jonathan Belcher, and Ountaussoogoe and

others_, etc. [Boston, 1735]. (Brinley, i. no. 437.) This tract is

reprinted in the _Maine Hist. Coll._, iv. 123.

[Illustration: LOVEWELL’S FIGHT.

From the map in Bouton and Kidder.]

Conference with the Penobscots at the council chamber in Boston, June,

1736. (_Mass. Archives_, xxix. 317.)

The nine Penobscot chiefs who held this conference were lodged with

one John Sale in Boston, who renders an account of his charges for

twenty-four days’ entertainment of them, which is suggestive. He

charges for three half-pints of wine, per day, each; for twelve pence

worth of rum per day, each; for 120 gallons of cider; for damage

done in breaking of sash doors, frames of glass, China bowl, double

decanter, and sundry glasses and mugs; for two gross of pipes and

tobacco; for candles all night; for showing them the rope-dancers; for

washing 49 of their “greasy shirts;” and “for cleaning and whitewashing

two rooms after them.” The following “memorandum” is attached: “They

eat for the most part between 50 and 60 pounds of meat per day, beside

milk, cheese, etc. The cider which they drank I sold for twelve

shillings per quart. Besides, they had beer when they pleased. And as

for meat, they had the best, as I was ordered.”

Conference with the Penobscots and Norridgewocks, June 28-July 6, 1738.

(_Mass. Archives_, xxix. 336.)

Conference with the Penobscots at the council chamber in Boston, Aug.

25-Sept. 2, 1740. (_Mass. Archives_, xxix. 364.)

Conference with the Penobscots, Dec. 3, 1741. (Mass. Archives, xxix.

376.)

“Projets sur la prise de l’Acadie, 1741.” (Parkman MSS. in Mass. Hist.

Soc., _New France_, i. p. 1.)

_Conference held at the Fort at St. George in the County of York, the

4th of August, 1742, between William Shirley, Governor, and the Chief

Sachems and Captains of the Penobscott, Norridgewock, Pigwaket or

Amiscogging or Saco, St. John’s, Bescommonconty or Amerescogging and

St. Francis tribes of Indians, August, 1742._ (Carter-Brown, iii. no.

703; Brinley, i. no. 440. Cf. Williamson, ii. 209.)

=D.= KING GEORGE’S, SHIRLEY’S, OR FIVE YEARS’ WAR.—France had declared

war against England, Mar. 15, 1744 (_Coll. de Manuscrits_, Quebec,

iii. p. 196), and the capitulation of Canso had taken place, May 24.

(_Ibid._, iii. p. 201.) In July, 1744, Pepperrell and others, including

some chiefs of the Five Nations, met the Penobscots at St. Georges

and agreed to join in a treaty against the Cape Sable Indians. The

Penobscots did not keep the appointment. War was declared against the

Cape Sable and St. John’s Indians, Oct. 19, 1744. The General Court

of Massachusetts offered a reward for scalps; and a proclamation was

made for the enlistment of volunteers, Nov. 2, 1744. (_Mass. Archives_,

xxxi. 506, 514; printed in W. W. Wheildon’s _Curiosities of History_,

Boston, 1880, pp. 107, 109.)

The most brilliant event of the war was impending.

The French had begun the construction of elaborate defences at

Louisbourg in 1720. A medal struck in commemoration of this beginning

is described in the _Transactions_ (1872-73, p. 75) of the Literary and

Historical Society of Quebec.

[Illustration]

It has always been open to question from whom came the first suggestion

of the expedition of 1745. The immediate incentive seems to have been a

belief, prompted by the reports of prisoners released from Canso, that

Louisbourg could be captured, if attacked before relief could reach it

from France. Judge Robert Auchmuty, of Roxbury, developed a plan for

the capture in the _Gentleman’s Magazine_ for July, 1745,—the same

number in which was also printed the news of the attack and capture.

When the paper was reprinted in a thin folio tract shortly afterwards,

he or some one for him emphasized his claim to the suggestion in the

title itself as follows: _The importance of Cape Breton to the British

Nation, humbly represented by Robert Auckmuty_ [sic], _Judge, &c., in

New England. N. B. Upon the plan laid down in this representation the

island was taken by Commodore Warren and General Pepperill the 14th of

June, 1745_. London, 1745.[945]

[Illustration]

It is claimed on behalf of William Vaughan that he suggested the

expedition to Governor Wentworth, of New Hampshire, who in turn

referred him to Governor Shirley. An anonymous tract, published in

London in 1746, _The Importance and Advantage of Cape Breton truly

stated and impartially considered_,[946] often assigned to William

Bollan, and believed by some to have been inspired by Vaughan, says

that Vaughan had “the honor of reviving, at least, if not of having

been the original mover or projector,” of the expedition, since it

is claimed that Lieutenant-Governor Clarke, of New York,[947] had

suggested the attack to the Duke of Newcastle as early as 1743.

Douglass (_Summary_, etc., i. 348) says that Shirley was taken with the

“hint or conceit” of Vaughan, “a whimsical, wild projector.” Hutchinson

says that Vaughan “was called the projector of the expedition,” and

Belknap accords him the priority in common report.[948] When Thomas

Prince came to dedicate his sermon, preached on the Thanksgiving day

following the triumph, he inscribed it to Shirley as the “principal

former and promoter of the expedition;” but the language hardly claims

the origination, though Shirley was generally recognized as the moving

spirit in its final determination.[949]

[Illustration: PEPPERRELL.

After a painting, now owned by Mrs. Anna H. C. Howard, of Brooklyn,

N. Y., and which has descended from Pepperrell. (Cf. _Penna. Mag. of

Hist._, iii. p. 358.) This likeness, painted in London in 1751 by

Smibert, is also engraved in Parsons’ _Life of Pepperrel_l, in Drake’s

_Boston_, and in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, Jan., 1866,

where Dr. Parsons gives a genealogy of the Pepperrell family. There

is in the _Memorial Hist. of Boston_ (ii. 114) an engraving after an

original full-length picture in the hall of the Essex Institute at

Salem,—artist unknown. See also Higginson’s _Larger History_, p. 188.]

[Illustration:

A sword of Pepperrell is shown in the group of weapons engraved in

Vol. III. p. 274. (Cf. _Catal. Cab. Mass. Hist. Soc._, p. 123; _Proc.

Mass. Hist. Soc._, v. 373; and Parsons’ _Life of Pepperrell_.) Views of

the Pepperrell mansion at Kittery, where considerable state was kept,

are given in Parsons (p. 329), and in a paper on Pepperrell by J. A.

Stevens in the _Mag. of Amer. History_, vol. ii. 673. Cf. also Lamb’s

_Homes of America_ (1879), and _Appleton’s Journal_, xi. 65.]

The earliest account of this mettlesome enterprise, which showed

special research and opportunities, was that of Dr. Belknap in his

_History of New Hampshire_, which was written in 1784, less than

forty years after the event, and when he might have known some of the

participants. The most important of the _Pepperrell Papers_ had fallen

into his hands, and he made good use of them, after which he deposited

them in the cabinet of the Massachusetts Historical Society, where

they now are, bound in two volumes, covering the years 1699-1779, but

chiefly concerning the Louisbourg expedition.

[Illustration: PEPPERRELL ARMS.

This cut of the Pepperrell arms is copied from one in the _Mag. of

Amer. Hist._, Nov., 1878, p. 684.]

With them in the same depository are the _Belknap Papers_, three

volumes,[950] as well as a composite volume, _Louisbourg Papers_,

devoted entirely to the expedition.[951] Others of the scattered papers

of Pepperrell have since been found elsewhere. Dr. Usher Parsons, in

his _Life of Pepperrell_,[952] beside using what Belknap possessed,

sifted a mass of papers found in an old shed on the Pepperrell estate.

This lot covered the years 1696-1759, and some of them were scarcely

legible. The mercantile letters and accounts among them yielded little,

but there was a smaller body of Pepperrell’s own letters and those of

his correspondents, which proved of more or less historical value.

[Illustration]

Unremitting search yielded gain to Dr. Parsons in other directions.

Some manuscripts coming from a Kittery house into the hands of Capt.

Luther Dame, of Newburyport, were reported upon by Col. A. H. Hoyt in

the _New England Hist. and Geneal. Reg._ (Oct., 1874, p. 451), in a

paper afterwards reprinted by him, separately, with revision; but they

throw no considerable light upon the Louisbourg siege. They would add

little to what Parsons presents in chronologically arranged excerpts

from letters and other records which make up his account of the

expedition.[953]

Of all other contemporary accounts and aids, most, so far as known,

have been put into print, though George Bancroft quotes a journal of

Seth Pomeroy,[954] not yet in type; and there are papers which might

still be gleaned in the _Mass. Archives_. There are in print the

instructions of Shirley, and a correspondence between Pepperrell and

Warren (_Mass. Hist. Collections_, i. 13-60); letters of Wentworth

and Shirley on the plan of attack, and other letters of Shirley

(_Provincial Papers of New Hampshire_, vol. v. pp. 931, 949, etc.);

and many others of Pepperrell, Warren, Shirley, etc. (_Rhode Island

Colonial Records_, vol. v.). The _Colonial Records of Connecticut_

(vol. ix.) for this period give full details of the legislative

enactment regarding the part that colony bore in the expedition; but

the absence of most of the illustrative documents from her archives

during that interval deprives us, doubtless, of a correspondence

similar to that which is included in the Rhode Island printed _Records_.

Shirley’s letters to Governor Thomas, of Penna., respecting the

preparations for the Louisbourg expedition, are in _Penna. Archives_,

i. 667, etc.

Stray letters and documents of some interest, but throwing no essential

light upon historical events, are found in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal.

Reg._, v. 88; xii. 263; xix. 225, etc.

Various accounts of the siege, of no great extent were published

soon after its close. Chief among them was an _Accurate journal and

account of the proceedings of the New England land forces, during

the late expedition against the French settlements on Cape Breton

to the time of the surrender of Louisbourg_, Exon, 1746 (40 pp.).

The manuscript of this journal was sent to England by Pepperrell to

his friend Capt. Henry Stafford; and as printed it was attested by

Pepperrell, Brig.-General Waldo, Col. Moore, Lieut.-Col. Lothrop,

and Lieut.-Col. Gridley.[955] This journal was printed, with some

curious verbal differences, as an appendix to a _Letter from William

Shirley, Esq., to the Duke of Newcastle, with a Journal of the Siege

of Louisbourg_, London, 1746. It was by vote of the legislature, Dec.

30, 1746, reprinted in Boston, once by Rogers and Fowle, and again by

J. Draper.[956] An account by Col. James Gibson, published in London in

1745, as a _Journal of the late siege by the troops of North America

against the French at Cape Breton_,[957] contained a large engraved

plan of the siege, of which a reduced fac-simile is annexed.[958]

The narrative was edited in Boston in 1847 by Lorenzo D. Johnson,

under the misleading title _A Boston merchant of 1745_. Other diaries

of the siege, of greater or less extent, have been printed, like

Wolcott’s,[959] in the _Collections_ (vol. i.) of the Connecticut

Historical Society; Curwen’s in his letters (_Hist. Collections Essex

Institute_, vol. iii. 186), and in his _Journal_, edited by Ward (p.

8); Craft’s journal (_Hist. Coll. Essex Inst._, iv. p. 181); that of

Adonijah Bidwell, the chaplain of the fleet (_N. E. Hist. and Geneal.

Reg._, April, 1873); and the folio tract entitled _A particular

Account of the taking of Cape Breton by Admiral Warren and Sir William

Pepperell, with a description of the place ... and the articles of

capitulation, By Philip Durell, Esq., Capt. of his majesty’s ship

“Superbe_.” _To which is added a letter from an officer of marines_,

etc., etc., London, 1745. Durell’s account is dated June 20, 1745, in

Louisbourg harbor. Douglass gives the force by sea and land before

Louisbourg. _Summary_, etc., i. 350.

A list of the commissioned officers of the expedition, drawn from the

_Belknap Papers_, is edited by Charles Hudson in the _N. E. Hist. and

Geneal. Reg._, Oct., 1870.[960] In _Ibid._, April, 1868, a list of 221

names of the common soldiers had been printed; but in July, 1871, a

much longer enumeration is made out by Mr. Hudson from the Pepperrell

papers, the Council Records, and other sources. Potter in the _N. H.

Adj.-General’s Report_, ii. (1866, pp. 61-76), afterwards published

as _Mil. Hist. of N. H._, gives the New Hampshire rolls of Louisbourg

soldiers.

On the occasion of a Thanksgiving (July 18, 1745) in Boston, two

sermons preserve to us some additional if slight details. That of

Thomas Prince, _Extraordinary events the doings of God and marvellous

in pious eyes_, Boston and London, 1745 (Harv. Coll. lib., 4375.42

and 43), is mainly reprinted in S. G. Drake’s _Five Years’ French

and Indian Wars_, p. 187; and that of the Rev. Charles Chauncy, the

brother-in-law of Pepperrell, _Marvellous Things done by the right hand

and holy arm of God in getting him the victory_, was printed both in

Boston and London.[961]

* * * * *

The capture of Louisbourg and the question of the disposition of the

island at the peace led to several expositions of its imagined value to

the British Crown, among which may be named:—

_The importance and advantage of Cape Breton considered, in a letter

to a member of Parliament from an inhabitant of New England_, London,

1746. (Brinley, no. 69.) This is signed “Massachusettensis.”[962]

_Two letters concerning some farther advantages and improvements

that may seem necessary to be made on the taking and keeping of Cape

Breton_, London, 1746. (Carter-Brown, iii. no. 822.)

_The importance and advantage of Cape Breton, truly stated and

impartially considered. With proper maps_, London, 1746. (Carter-Brown,

iii. no. 823.) The maps follow those of Bellin in Charlevoix. Its

authorship is usually ascribed to William Bollan. (Sabin, ii. 6,215.)

_The great importance of Cape Breton demonstrated and exemplified by

extracts from the best writers, French and English_, London, 1746.

This is a plea against the surrender of it to the French. It is

dedicated to Governor Shirley, and contains Charlevoix’s map and plan.

(Carter-Brown, iii. no. 821.)

_An accurate description of Cape Breton, Situation, Soil, Ports, etc.,

its Importance to France, but of how much greater it might have been to

England; with an account of the taking of the city by the New England

forces under General Pepperell in 1745_, London, 1755.

_Memoir of the principal transactions of the last war between the

English and French in North America, from 1744 to the conclusion of the

treaty at Aix-la-Chapelle, containing in particular an account of the

importance of Nova Scotia and Cape Breton to both nations_ (3d ed.,

London, reprinted, Boston, 1758.)

Douglass (_Summary_, etc.), the general historian nearest the time,

was an eager opponent of Shirley, and in his account of the expedition

he ascribes to good luck the chief element in its success. He calls

it “this infinitely rash New England Corporation adventure, though

beyond all military or human probability successful.” (_Summary_,

etc., 1751, ii. p. 11.) “Fortified towns are hard nuts to crack, and

your teeth have not been accustomed to it,” wrote Benjamin Franklin

from Philadelphia to his brother in Boston. (_Franklin’s Works_, vii.

16.)[963]

Accounts of the expedition enter necessarily into the more general

narratives, like those of Hutchinson (_Mass. Bay_); Chalmers (_Revolt_,

etc.); Minot (_Massachusetts_); Gordon (_Amer. Rev._); Marshall

(_Washington_); Bancroft (_United States_); Grahame (_United States_);

Williamson (_Hist. of Maine_); Murdoch (_Nova Scotia_, ii. ch. 5);

Haliburton (_Nova Scotia_); Stone (_Sir Wm. Johnson_, vol. i.); Palfrey

(_Compendious Hist. of New England_, iv. ch. 9); Bury (_Exodus of

the Western Nations_, ii. ch. 6); Gay (_Pop. Hist. United States_);

Drake (_Boston_). The _Memorial Hist. Boston_ (ii. 117) and Barry’s

_Massachusetts_ (ii. 140, etc.) give numerous references. Joel T.

Headley has a popular narrative in _Harper’s Monthly_, xxviii. p. 354.

Garneau (_Hist. du Canada_, 4th ed., ii. 190) offers the established

French account. Cf. _Lettre d’un habitant de Louisbourg contenant une

relation exacte de la prise de l’Ile Royale par les Anglais_, Quebec,

1745. (Sabin, x. no. 40,671.)[964]

The present condition of the site of Louisbourg is described by Parsons

(_Life of Pepperrell_, 332); by Parkman (_Montcalm and Wolfe_); by J.

G. Bourinot in his “The old forts of Acadia” in _Canadian Monthly_, v.

369; and in the _Canadian Antiquarian_, iv. 57.

* * * * *

Maps, both French and English, showing the fortifications and harbor of

Louisbourg are numerous.

Both editions of Charlevoix’s _Histoire de la Nouvelle France_, the

duodecimo in six volumes, and the quarto in three volumes issued in

1744, the year before the siege, have plans of Louisbourg and its

fortifications, and the same are reproduced in Dr. Shea’s translation

of Charlevoix. They are the work of Nicholas Bellin, and to the same

draughtsman belongs _Le Petit Atlas Maritime_, 1764, in the volume of

which devoted to North America, there are other (nos. 23, 24) plans of

the harbor and fortifications.

Following French sources is a _Plan des fortifications de Louisbourg_,

published at Amsterdam by H. de Leth about 1750. A “Plan special de

Louisbourg” is also to be found on the map published by N. Visscher at

Amsterdam, called “_Carte Nouvelle contenant la partie de l’Amérique la

plus septentrionale_.”

Among the French maps is one “levé en 1756,” after a plan of

Louisbourg, preserved in the Dépôt des Cartes de la Marine in Paris.

This appeared in 1779 in the _Neptune Americo-Septentrional_, “publiée

par ordre du Roi;” and another, dated 1758, “levé par le ch^{ev.} de la

Rigaudiere,” was accompanied by a view, of which there is a copy in the

_Mass. Archives; Docs. collected in France, Atlas_, ii. 5. In this last

(composite) Atlas (ii. nos. 44, 45) are maps of the town and harbor,

and a large plan of the fortifications, marked “Tome i. no. 23,” which

can probably be identified.

[Illustration]

[Illustration: CAPE BRETON, 1746.

Reduced fac-simile of the “Map of the Island of Cape Breton as laid

down by the Sieur Bellin, 1746,” annexed to _The Importance and

Advantage of Cape Breton, truly stated and impartially considered_,

London, 1746. A general map of the island of Cape Breton, with Bellin’s

name attached, is found in the several editions of Charlevoix and in

the _Petit Atlas maritime, par le S. Bellin_, 1764. The earliest more

elaborate survey of this part of the coast was the one published by J.

F. W. Des Barres, in 1781, in four sheets, _The South East Coast of

Cape Breton Island, surveyed by Samuel Holland_. A map by Kitchen was

published in the _London Mag._, 1747.]

Richard Gridley,[965] of Massachusetts Bay, who was present as an

officer of the artillery, made a plan of the fortifications after the

surrender, and this, called a _Plan of the City and Fortifications of

Louisbourg from surveys made by Richard Gridley in 1745_, was engraved

and published by Jefferys, in 1758, and was used by him in his _History

of the French Dominions in America_, London, 1760 (p. 124), and in his

_General Topography of North America and the West Indies_, London, 1768

(no. 25).[966]

[Illustration: GRIDLEY’S PLAN AS REDUCED IN BROWN’S CAPE BRETON.]