Nova Scotia, called by the French Acadia, lies between the forty-fourth and fiftieth degrees of north latitude, having New England and the Atlantic ocean to the south and south-west, and the river and gulph of St. Lawrence to the north and north-east. The winter, which continues near seven months in this country, is intensely cold; and without the intervention of any thing that can be called spring, it is immediately succeeded by a summer, the heat of which is almost insupportable, but of no long continuance. The soil in general is thin and barren, though some parts of it are said to be equal to the best land in England. The whole country is covered with a perpetual fog, even after the summer has commenced. It was first possessed by the French, before they made any establishment in Canada; who, by dint of industry and indefatigable perseverance, in struggling with the many difficulties they necessarily laboured under in the infancy of this settlement, subsisted tolerably well, and increased considerably, with very little assistance from Europe; whilst we, even now, should lose the immense expense we have already been at to settle a colony there, and should see all our endeavours to that end defeated, if the support of the royal hand was withdrawn but for a moment. This country, by the possession of which an enemy would be enabled greatly to annoy all our other colonies, and, if in the hands of the French, would be of singular service both to their fishery and their sugar islands, has frequently changed hands from the French to the English, and from the English back again to the French, till our right to it was finally settled by the twelfth article of the treaty of Utrecht, by which all the country included within the ancient limits of what was called Nova Scotia or Acadia, was ceded to the English. This article was confirmed by the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, but, for want of ascertaining distinctly what were the bounds intended to be fixed by the two nations with respect to this province, disputes arose, and commissaries, as we have observed, were appointed by both sides to adjust the litigation.
The commissaries of the king of Great Britain conformed themselves to the rule laid down by the treaty itself, and assigned those as the ancient limits of this country, which had always passed as such, from the very earliest time of any certainty, down to the conclusion of the treaty; which the two crowns had frequently declared to be such, and which the French had often admitted and allowed. These limits are, the southern bank of the river St. Lawrence to the north, and Pentagoet to the west: the country situated between these boundaries is that which the French received by the treaty of St. Germain’s, in the year one thousand six hundred and thirty-two, under the general name of Acadia. Of this country, thus limited, they continued in possession from that period to the year one thousand six hundred and fifty-four, when a descent was made upon it, under the command of colonel Sedgwick. That these were then the undisputed limits of Acadia, his Britannic majesty’s commissaries plainly proved, by a letter of Louis XIII. to the sieurs Charnisay and La Tour, regulating their jurisdictions in Acadia; by the subsequent commissions of the French king to the same persons, as governors of Acadia, in the sequel; and by that which was afterwards granted to the sieur Denys, in the year one thousand six hundred and fifty-four; all of which extend the bounds of this country from the river St. Lawrence to Pentagoet and New England. That these were the notions of the French with respect to the ancient limits of this province, was further confirmed by the demands made by their ambassador in the course of that same year, for the restitution of the forts Pentagoet, St. John’s, and Port Eoyal, as forts situated in Acadia. In the year one thousand six hundred and sixty-two, upon the revival of the claim of France to the country of Acadia, which had been left undecided by the treaty of Westminster, the French ambassador, then at the court of London, assigned Pentagoet as the western, and the river St. Lawrence as the northern, boundary of that country; and alleged the restitution of Acadia in the year one thousand six hundred and thirty-two, and the possession taken by France in consequence thereof, as well as the continuation of that possession, with the same limits, to the year one thousand six hundred and fifty-four, as proofs of the equity and validity of the claim he then made; in which claim and in the manner of supporting it, he was particularly approved of by the court of France. The same court afterwards thought it so clear, upon former determinations, and her own former possessions, that the true ancient boundaries of Acadia were Pentagoet to the west, and the river St. Lawrence to the north, that she desired no specification of limits in the treaty of Breda, but was contented with the restitution of Acadia, generally named; and, upon a dispute which arose in the execution of this treaty, France re-asserted, and Great Britain, after some discussion, agreed to the above-mentioned limits of Acadia; and France obtained possession of that country, so bounded, under the treaty of Breda. The sense of France upon this subject, in the years one thousand six hundred and eighty-five, and one thousand six hundred and eighty-seven, was also clearly manifested in the memorials delivered at that time by the French ambassador at the court of London, complaining of some encroachments made by the English upon the coast of Acadia: he described the country as extending from isle Percée, which lies at the entrance of the river St. Lawrence, to St. George’s island; and again, in a subsequent complaint, made by Mons. Barillon and Mons. Bonrepaus to the court of Great Britain, against the judge of Pemaquid, for having seized the effects of a French merchant at Pentagoet, which, said they, was situated in Acadia, as restored to France by the treaty of Breda. To explain the sense of France, touching the bounds of Acadia in the year one thousand seven hundred, the British commissaries produced a proposal of the French ambassador, then residing in Great Britain, to restrain the limits of that country to the river St-George. They also instanced the surrender of Port Royal in the year one thousand seven hundred and ten, in which Acadia is described with the same limits with which France had received it in the years one thousand six hundred and thirty-two, and one thousand six hundred and sixty-seven. And further to ascertain the sense of both crowns, even at the treaty of Utrecht itself, they produced the queen of Great Britain’s instructions to her ambassadors, in the year one thousand seven hundred and eleven, in which they were directed to insist, “That his most christain majesty should quit all claim or title, by virtue of any former treaty, or otherwise, to the country called Nova Scotia, and expressly to Port Royal, otherwise Annapolis Royal.” To these they added a manifest demonstration, founded on indisputable facts, proving that the recital of the several sorts of right which France had ever pretended to this country, and the specification of both terms, Acadia or Nova Scotia, were intended by Great Britain to obviate all doubts which had ever been made concerning the limits of Acadia, and to comprehend with more certainty all that country which France had ever received as such; finally, to specify what France considered as Acadia. During the treaty, they referred to the offers of that crown in the year one thousand seven hundred and twelve, in which she proposed to restrain the boundary of Acadia to the river St. George, as a departure from its real boundary, in case Great Britain would restore to her the possession of that country. From all these facts it plainly appears that Great Britain demanded nothing but what the fair construction of the words of the treaty of Utrecht necessarily implies; and that it is impossible for any thing to have more evident marks of candour and fairness in it, than the demand of the English on this occasion. From the variety of evidence brought in support of this claim, it evidently results that the English commissaries assigned no limits as the ancient limits of Acadia, but those which France herself determined to be such in the year one thousand six hundred and thirty-two; and which she possessed, in consequence of that determination, till the year one thousand six hundred and fifty-four; that in one thousand six hundred and sixty-two, France claimed, and received in one thousand six hundred and sixty-nine, the country which Great Britain now claims as Acadia, restored to France by the treaty of Breda under that general denomination; that France never considered Acadia as having any other limits than those which were assigned to it from the year one thousand six hundred and thirty-two, to the year one thousand seven hundred and ten; and that, by the treaty of Utrecht, she engaged to transfer that very same country as Acadia, which France has always asserted and possessed, and Great Britain now claims, as such. Should the crown of France, therefore, be ever willing to decide what are the ancient limits of Acadia, by her own declarations so frequently made in like discussions upon the same point, by her possessions of this country for almost a century, and by her description of Acadia, during the negotiation of that very treaty upon which this doubt is raised, she cannot but admit the claim of Great Britain to be conformable to the treaty of Utrecht, and to the description of the country transferred to Great Britain by the twelfth article of that treaty. There is a consistency in the claim of the English, and a completeness in the evidence brought in support of it, which is seldom seen in discussions of this sort; for it rarely happens, in disputes of such a nature between two crowns, that either of them can safely offer to have its pretensions decided by the known and repeated declarations, or the possessions of the other. To answer the force of this detail of conclusive historical facts, and to give a new turn to the real question in dispute, the French commissaries, in their memorial, laid it down as a distinction made by the treaty of Utrecht, that the ancient limits of Acadia, referred to by that treaty, are different from any with which that country may have passed under the treaties of St. Germain’s and Breda; and then endeavoured to show, upon the testimonies of maps and historians, that Acadia and its limits were anciently confined to the south-eastern part of the peninsula. In support of this system, the French commissaries had recourse to ancient maps and historians, who, as they asserted, had ever confined Acadia to the limits they assigned. They alleged, that those commissions of the French government over Acadia, which the English cited as evidence of the limits they claimed, were given as commissions over Acadia and the country around it, and not over Acadia only; that the whole of the country claimed by the English as Acadia, could not possibly be supposed ever to be considered as such, because many parts of that territory always did, and still do, preserve particular and distinct names. They affirmed New France to be a province in itself; and argued that many parts of what we claim as Acadia can never have been in Acadia, because historians and the French commissions of government expressly place them in New France. They asserted, that no evidence can be drawn of the opinion of any crown, with respect to the limits of any country, from its declaration during the negotiation of a treaty: and, in the ends relying upon maps and historians for the ancient limits of Acadia, they pretended that the express restitution of St. Germain’s, and the possession taken by France in consequence of the treaty of Breda, after a long discussion of the limits and the declaration of France during the negotiation of the treaty of Utrecht, were foreign to the point in question. In refutation of these maxims, the English commissaries proved, from an examination of the maps and historians cited by the French in support of their system, that if this question was to be decided upon the authorities which they themselves allowed to belong, and to be applicable to, this discussion, the limits which they assigned were utterly inconsistent with the best maps of all countries, which are authorities in point for almost every part of the claim of Great Britain. They showed that the French historians, Champlain and Denys, and particularly this last, with his commission in the year one thousand six hundred and fifty-five, assigned the same northern and western limits to Acadia which they did; and that Escarbot, another of their historians, as far as any evidence can be drawn from his writings, agrees entirely with the former two. They observed, that all these evidences fall in with and confirmed the better authorities of treaties, and the several transactions between the two crowns for near a century past; and that the French commissaries, by deviating from treaties, and the late proceedings of the two crowns, to ancient historians and maps, only made a transition from an authentic to an insufficient sort of evidence, and led the English commissaries into an inquiry which proved that both the proper and the improper, the regular and the foreign evidence, upon which this matter had been rested, equally confuted the limits alleged by the French commissaries as the ancient limits of Acadia.