Academic Avenues

The Homes Front: The Accommodation Crisis In Halifax, 1941-1951

by
dart wartime housing

“Cobbled thoroughfares, unpaved sidestreets, an overburdened public transportation system, obsolete water supply, inadequate health services, draconian liquor control regulations, and overcrowded restaurants, cafes, and cinemas combined to produce an atmosphere that would have been oppressive even without the damp climate, gasoline and food rationing, or blackout regulations. In many respects the city resembled a military camp more than an urban community, yet authorities refused to declare Halifax a restricted area.

Halifax landlords were roundly criticized in the national press for charging exorbitant rents, but in reality the cost of housing rose everywhere, as workers arriving from smaller communities to work in war industries competed for available accommodation. Unlike sugar or gasoline, the supply of housing remained essentially unregulated. Even after rent controls were imposed in mid-1941, tenants and landlords found ways to circumvent the system. Native Haligonians did not like what the war had done to their city, although many benefited economically from the war boom. There were too many strangers, too many ships, too many uniforms, too many camp followers.

Halifax was less prepared to house a large influx of workers than cities with a larger industrial and manufacturing base, since industry tended to stimulate housing construction. Under normal conditions, a revivified local economy would soon have spilled over into the building trades, and the housing stock would have expanded to meet the increased demand. That this did not happen in Halifax may be attributed to two main factors: military priorities affected the availability of labour and materials for residential construction, and the majority of the wartime transient population were not industrial workers, therefore the government made scant provisions for housing them.

This failure to expand the housing stock during the war only exacerbated an already chronic shortage of affordable, adequate accommodation caused by two decades of slow economic growth.

Many Hydrostone dwellings administered by the Halifax Relief Commission during the 1930s remained vacant for months on end because the rents were so high. Low income wage-earners— young adults, seasonal workers in primary resource industries, domestic servants—survived the depression by staying at home longer, working short term positions while living in rooming houses, taking cheaper accommodation outside the city and commuting, and returning to smaller communities—where the cost of living was lower—between jobs. New housing construction in Halifax was confined to a relatively small area in the western portion of the peninsula. In older sections of the city, conversion of large homes into apartments was more common than replacement of existing structures. The multiple-family apartment building was almost unknown in Halifax other than the occasional dilapidated tenement where sanitary facilities were often totally inadequate.”

Wartime Housing Limited bungalows for war workers under construction in Dartmouth, ca. 1942. A similar project, the first in Canada, was built by WHL in the north end of Halifax in 1941, and is visible in the background of this photograph. (SOURCE: Public Archives of Nova Scotia, Bollinger Collection #84)

White, Jay. “The Homes Front: The Accommodation Crisis In Halifax, 1941-1951.” Urban History Review / Revue D’histoire Urbaine, vol. 20, no. 2/3, 1991, pp. 117–127. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43562087.

Development of Local Government in Nova Scotia

by

“The basic governmental structure, as it exists to-day, was completed in 1923 with the passing of the Village Supply Act and more recently in 1925 when provision was made for communities. While cities, towns and municipalities constitute the basic units of local government, with villages and communities of lesser importance, a wide variety of governmental organizations perform functions in local areas. Some of these are properly described as units of government, others as types of governmental organization. Still others are merely administrative mechanisms controlled and operated by one or more governmental units.

At the present time the law provides for twelve distinct types of governmental organizations or entities for the performance of certain specific or general functions with the power to raise revenue by taxation or incur expenditures against a particular district. Their geographical and political interrelationship is such that the powers of cities and towns are mutually exclusive from those of the municipality, and in some cases county, of which they constitute an integral geographical part.

But, while only the council of a city or town has power to raise revenue by taxation within that area, the inhabitants may in certain circumstances be brought within the jurisdictional area of either a Joint School Board or a County Board of Health, or both. Nine distinct types may be established to function within the area of a municipal unit. In addition to the municipal government, the law provides for the compulsory organization of school sections, poor districts, fire districts, health districts and for the permissive organization of villages, communities, a County Health Board and either a municipal or a Joint School Board. While the maximum number which must be organized is four, only three have direct tax raising power the municipality, the village and the school section.”

“Development of Local Government in Nova Scotia”, McAllister, G. A. 1943. Public Affairs: A Maritime Quarterly for Discussion of Public Affairs, vol.7, no.1. https://dalspace.library.dal.ca/bitstream/handle/10222/75188/publicaffairs_vol7_iss1_pp26_30.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

From Study to Reality: The Establishment of Public Housing In Halifax, 1930-1953

by

During the Great Depression, various sectors supported the idea of providing shelter for low-income families, but the first public housing project didn’t open until 1949 in Toronto’s Regent Park. The second project arose in St. John’s, Newfoundland, after Confederation, and the third in Halifax, despite perceptions of maritime conservatism. Halifax had advocated for public housing since 1930, with previous attempts failing due to factors like the Halifax explosion and post-war residential construction booms. A coalition of labor unions, professionals, religious leaders, and the building industry campaigned for low-rental housing in Halifax since 1931.

The resistance to public housing, primarily from the federal government and local conservatism, delayed its implementation. Efforts to address housing shortages during World War II faced opposition, leading to delayed action until 1949 when public housing projects for veterans were initiated. The final establishment of public housing in Halifax, particularly the Bayers Road project, was a culmination of over two decades of effort by various social and labor movements. Despite initial opposition, Halifax became an innovative hub for housing programs once federal policies became conducive to public housing development.

“During the great depression, a new vision of shelter for low income families received widespread support from surprisingly varied sectors of the population. Yet, despite the encouragement of labour unions, social workers, planners, architects and important parts of the construction industry, the first public housing project did not actually open until 1949 in Toronto’s Regent Park. The second arose in St. John’s, Newfoundland, immediately after Confederation, and the third, despite the myth of Maritime “conservatism”, was located in Halifax. In fact, Halifax had been one of the first centres of continued agitation for public housing, which began in 1930. The long and tortured history of the public housing campaigns in Halifax tells much about the social forces which both promoted and delayed the birth of public housing across the nation.

Like other Canadian cities, Halifax had experienced pressures for public housing prior to the depression. In 1913, the Nova Scotia legislature passed a measure for the establishment of limited dividend housing corporations, in response to concerns in the city. There was, however, no housing constructed under this act and the efforts to build limited dividend housing collapsed under the impact of the Halifax explosion.1 The city participated in the short-lived federal post-war public housing scheme. It was also the site of the first public housing in Canada, the Hydrostone complex designed by international planning expert Thomas Adams to provide medium income rental housing for those displaced by the Halifax disaster. As in other Canadian cities, the campaign for better low income housing quieted down after the nation experienced a boom in residential construction starting in 1923. At the end of 1930, however, an alliance of labour unions, professionals concerned with housing and social work, religious leaders and the building industry, began to come together.”

“On 31 March 1931, the Labor Council’s newspaper, the Citizen, announced that labour had begun a major campaign for low rental housing. Pledging that “Filthy Tenements Must Go”, the Citizen warned “greedy dabblers in real estate, hungry landlords who thrive on human poverty and want” that “organized labor” was “girding its loins” for the coming “battle”. By this time, as the Citizen noted, organized labour had received the support of service clubs and “the churches in the city of all denominations”, for low rental housing. Representatives of Halifax’s service clubs, churches and unions all served on the Citizens’ Housing Committee. Its members included Major Tibbs of the Halifax Relief Commission, who was favourably impressed by the public housing projects he viewed while on a visit to Vienna. Another prominent member was S.H. Prince, an Anglican priest and social worker, who had been active in relief efforts following the Halifax explosion and who wrote a study of the disaster published by Columbia University”

“At the outset of assuming his housing duties, the federal Cabinet suggested to Cousins that the removal of 4,000 persons from the city would create “the equivalent of 1,000 homes”. Wisely, however, Cousins decided against immediate evictions and commissioned a special housing census. Under his orders, the navy also provided barracks for an additional 3,000 officers and ratings by mid-April 1944. Rejecting entrance controls, Cousins had the federal government undertake a publicity campaign against unwarranted travel to Halifax, “through the C.B.C. news, moving pictures in every theatre in Canada, general press publicity and warnings as to travel in the Halifax-Dartmouth area in the various railway stations in Canada”. Another 4,000 service personnel were removed from the Halifax area, largely through the RCAF’s moving out of the city.

The view that the indolent caused Halifax’s housing problems was finally abandoned by Cousins in his report of 17 July 1944, based on a Halifax-Dartmouth population census, conducted under a special Order-in-Council. This census found that 19,195 arrivals had been added to the city’s pre-war population of 65,000. With the exception of 501 women married to service personnel, only a “very few” were unemployed, or not “members of families whose heads are in business employed in Halifax”. The 501 women did not cause housing shortages, as all but 119 lived in rooming houses, which currently had 349 vacant rooms, and 46 of the 119 persons “living in houses, flats or apartments” were employed in “necessary war work”. The 73 women eligible for eviction consequently amounted to “.890 per thousand of the population” and their deportation would provide only “negligible” relief. The census revealed very clearly that housing shortages continued, as witnessed by cases of a family of eight living in a single room, 25 persons in a four-room house, and 36 in a twelve-room structure. Some 270 houses had been condemned by the Health department, but tenants could not be evicted due to the prevailing overcrowding. A surprising 43 per cent of Halifax’s dwelling units were “not structurally good”. Some 18 per cent had inadequate sanitary facilities; 400 dwellings lacked inside toilets and 2,500 both bathtubs and showers. Another 5,800 homes were heated by stoves.”

“The bizarre proposals for evictions epitomize the strong opposition within the federal government to expanding Wartime Housing’s operations. This conservative tenor was also reflected in the 1944 National Housing Act. It rejected proposals of the Curtis sub-committee of the James Advisory Committee on Post-war Reconstruction, whose members included NSHC Chairman S.H. Prince, for federally subsidized but municipally administered non-profit housing development. Instead, the legislation provided the same unworkable provisions for limited dividend housing as the NHA of 1938 and once again private investors refused to participate in the program. Typically, a 1947 memorandum from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) Halifax office concluded that there was no interest apart from “some well-intentioned people who have no money to put into such a scheme themselves but who think it would be excellent for the general good”.

Since legislation for permanent low rental housing was unworkable, Wartime Housing was perpetuated from 1945 to 1949 to construct rental housing for returning veterans. These projects in Halifax had higher standards than those set by Wartime Housing for the homes of munitions workers. Wartime dwellings originally built in Halifax were placed on top of wood pilings, but the initial 274 units of veterans’ housing had permanent foundations. In 1948, CMHC developed two large veteran rental housing complexes, with 221 units in the first and 66 in the second. These projects on a former military base were developed along the lines of a limited access subdivision with attractive landscaping features. Even these large projects could not meet the demand for veteran rental housing; in 1948, Halifax had a waiting list of 900 persons for such shelter.”

“Although it went only part way to meeting the housing problems reformers decried, the final building of Halifax’s first public housing project was eloquent testimony to the long years of effort of pioneers such as S.H. Prince who had worked for over 20 years to bring it to the city. The Bayers Road public housing project was an achievement of the dedication of almost two decades of efforts by religious leaders and social service agencies, which had been sustained by the continual pressure of the city’s labour movement. In fact, organized labour had played the most important role in the achievement of public housing in Halifax, since its interest continued when that of other sectors of the community lagged or fell dormant.

It took so long to achieve public housing in Halifax largely because of the resistance to the idea that low income families needed subsidized shelter from the body that controlled the purse strings, the federal Department of Finance. Local conservatism also played a role in the long delay between the conception and birth of public housing in Halifax. Although there was a consensus that public subsidies were needed to house low income families, progress was stalled over the insistence that such shelter be operated by private limited dividend companies. Resistance to the innovation of public housing was deep enough to persist by making it taboo even after private investors indicated they did not wish to become involved in carrying out the development of low income housing envisaged for them. Despite such local opposition, when federal policy became flexible enough to develop a workable public housing program, the support nurtured for many years by housing reformers at the municipal and provincial levels permitted its relatively rapid introduction to Halifax. Rather than a bastion of supposed Maritime “conservatism”, Halifax became an important area of innovation for housing programs.”

BACHER, JOHN. “From Study to Reality: The Establishment of Public Housing In Halifax, 1930-1953” Acadiensis, vol. 18, no. 1, 1988, pp. 120–135. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/30302990.

Local Government in Nova Scotia

by

“Prior to 1888 eight towns were incorporated. These were Dartmouth, (1873), Pictou (1874), New Glasgow (1875), Windsor (1878), North Sydney (1885), Sydney (1885), and Kentville (1886), each of which was incorporated by special Act.”

“The Towns Incorporation Act of Nova Scotia was passed in 1888, revised in 1895, and embodied in the consolidation of 1900 and the revised statutes of 1954. It requires a majority vote of the ratepayers of the town in support of incorporation before it can be granted. It also requires a certain population within a specified area-in 1954 a population of over 1500 within an area of not more than 640 acres was required for any new incorporation. A mayor and not less than six councilors are elected for each town. The mayor and councilors generally hold office for two years; but one-half of the council usually retires each year. The mayor and the councilors are eligible for re-election. The council has power to assess, collect, and appropriate all sums of money required by the town for erecting, acquiring, improving and furnishing buildings for public schools, fire department, police office, lockups, town hall or other town purposes, streets, sewers, water, town courts, police, support of the poor, salaries, and other town purposes. It appoints town officers, excepting the stipendiary magistrate.”

Fergusson, Bruce. “Local Government in Nova Scotia” Institute of Public Affairs, Dalhousie University. 1961 https://dalspace.library.dal.ca/bitstream/handle/10222/11024/FergussonLocalGovNS.pdf

The Doctrine of an Inherent Right of Local Self-Government. The Extent of Its Application by American Courts

by

“…from the historical examination of this subject, it becomes manifest that local self-government of the municipality does not spring from nor exist by virtue of written constitutions; that it is not a mere privilege, conferred by the central authority, but that the people in each municipality exercise their franchises under the protection of the fundamental principles just indicated, which were not questioned or doubted when the state constitutions were adopted, and which in the opinion of Judge Cooley and other eminent American jurists, no power in the state can legally disregard.”

“Therefore, it appears clear that in a government in which the legislative power of the state is not omnipotent, and in which it is axiomatic that local self-government is not a mere privilege, but a matter of absolute political right, the existence of unlimited authority in the law making body to concentrate all the powers of local government in the state does not exist”

“When we find how municipal incorporations arose in England, how our forefathers fell into it naturally, upon reaching these shores, without authority other than their own self-asserted authority, how legislatures acknowledged that these self-incorporated towns were valid corporations, we are in a position to realize how utterly erroneous is the doctrine that only the king can incorporate, that towns are only the creatures of the state and are subject to its uncontrolled will, in the absence of express provisions to the contrary in the Constitution.

Municipal incorporation is not the exercise of a power emanating from King, Parliament or Legislature — the gift of a superior to an inferior. It was the result of the evolution of local rights and liberties as between the inhabitants of a manor and its lord,… The rights of municipal corporations therefore are not subject to the uncontrolled and uncontrollable will of the legislature any more than any other fundamental Anglo-Saxon rights, and local self-government itself cannot be interfered with by the legislature even if the state constitution be silent on the subject, reserving always to the legislature power over all general legislation and power to mould the exercise of town power when requested by a town itself.”

McBain, Howard Lee. “The Doctrine of an Inherent Right of Local Self-Government. I. The Extent of Its Application by American Courts.” Columbia Law Review, vol. 16, no. 3, 1916, pp. 190–216. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1110684.

“How far English laws are in force here”: Nova Scotia’s first century of reception law jurisprudence

by

“Thirty years after the Epitome, when the subject had still been up in the air, Murdoch was able to accept “as a rule very generally agreed on, that Acts of the British Parliament passed subsequently to the establishment of our own colony and more especially those enacted since we have had a local representative legislature do not bind us, unless they expressly include the colony in terms.” A better summing-up of Nova Scotia’s first century of reception law jurisprudence could hardly have been given”

“Most scholars of constitutional law are aware that the courts played a significant role, but the nature and extent of that role have been seriously misunderstood. Elizabeth Brown, for example, attributes to the colonial courts the notion that the Commission or Instructions to the governor had introduced those English laws which were necessary and applicable, but such a view formed no part of reception law jurisprudence in the colonial period. The constitutional documents on which it is based do not warrant such a reading, which is anachronistic and falsely inferential and wreaks considerable violence on both text and context. The legislative criteria of agreeableness and non-repugnance articulated in the governor’s Commission did not incorporate a standard “which in practice would be construed as a grant of the laws of England.” The Commission addressed the question not of the extension of English statute law, but of conflicts between prospective colonial legislation and imperial acts potentially in force proprio vigore. As no colonial law enacting an English or British statute could possibly be disagreeable or repugnant thereto, the colonial legislature, once established, might resort to the expedient of copying (adoption through imitation). Whatever else it may have been, the dual legislative standard of agreeableness and non-repugnance did not constitute a de facto extension of English statute law. All that was granted was a law-making body, and a minimum standard for the laws to be enacted by it.

What Brown elsewhere misleadingly calls a “colonial re-enactment by reference statute” — a formulation which perfectly captures the reality of colonial Nova Scotia — was really statutory reception on the Upper Canada model. This is usually referred to in American jurisprudence as a “reception statute.” It might be generically denominated a “statute law declaration act.” Such an Act was passed in North Carolina the very year Halifax was founded, but was disallowed, as were the majority of the few other reception statutes enacted in the Thirteen Colonies before the Revolution. That such Acts were generally post-bellum and observed as the reception date the year 1607, suggests that in pre-Revolutionary America the reception of English law was non-statutory. Clearly, a basis exists for the comparative study of reception law jurisprudence in colonial Nova Scotia and colonial America: “The scholar interested in the history and theory of the doctrine of reception,” admonishes Phillips, “would situate it within the long history of reception disputes in the Thirteen Colonies.”

Cahill, Barry. “How far English laws are in force here: Nova Scotia’s first century of reception law jurisprudence” https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/unblj/article/view/29675/1882524859

Virginia and Nova Scotia: An Historical Note

by

“…the first court of judicature, administering the English common law, within what is now the Dominion of Canada.. at Annapolis Royal, in Nova Scotia, on the 20th day of April, 1721, His Excellency, Governor Phillips, and his council, after full advisement, adopted a resolution constituting themselves a court which was to administer justice “by the same manner and proceedings as the general court” in Virginia. It is a far cry from Nova Scotia to Virginia — and more so in the early years of the eighteenth century than now, but nevertheless for several decades of that century “the lawes of Virginia” were the model and pattern for the new court in Nova Scotia…

Upon the founding of Halifax in 1749, by Governor Cornwallis, the seat of government was changed from Annapolis Royal to Halifax. Cornwallis was instructed to establish courts of justice, and in December of that year he appointed a committee to inquire into and report upon the matter. The following is an extract from their report:

The Committee are of opinion that the form of government in Virginia, being the nearest to that of Nova Scotia, the regulations there established for the General Court and their County Courts will be the most proper to be observed in the Province. The Committee have therefore collected from the laws of Virginia the following regulations with regard to the General Court and the County Courts and the forms to be observed therein

Then follows a detailed code of procedure, which concludes with the following paragraph:

That if any difficulty should arise in explaining any of the above rules and regulations that Recourse be had for explanation to the laws of Virginia, whence most of them are derived, particularly an Act entitled An act for establishing the General Court, pp. 251 to 260, and an Act entitled An Act establishing County Courts p. 332 to 338“

Chisholm, Justice. “Virginia and Nova Scotia: An Historical Note.” The Virginia Law Register, vol. 6, no. 10, 1921, pp. 744–751. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1107268

“As Near as May Be Agreeable to the Laws of this Kingdom”: Legal Birthright and Legal Baggage at Chebucto, 1749

by

“The new governor’s commission gave him power to establish the accepted institutions of civil government: a council, a legislative assembly, courts, and a judiciary. It accorded him the power of the civil executive to defend the colony, exercize the king’s prerogative of mercy, administer public funds, make grants and assurances of lands, and establish fairs and markets. Most significantly, Cornwallis’ commission, tested 6 May 1749, gave authority to the governor “with the advice and consent of our said Council and Assembly or the Major part of them respectively . . .” in Nova Scotia

to make, constitute and ordain Laws, Statutes & Ordinances for the Publick peace, welfare & good government of our said province and of the people and inhabitants thereof and such others as shall resort thereto & for the benefit of us our heirs & Successors, which said Laws, Statutes and Ordinances are not to be repugnant but as near as may be agreeable to the Laws and Statutes of this our Kingdom of Great Britain.

The last clause, as to non-repugnancy and agreeableness to the laws of England, had a long history behind it. And it was a history that included the province of Acadia for three decades before Cornwallis and his colonists arrived at Chebucto. After seven years of essentially military rule following the capture of Port Royal in 1710-under those two rigorous warriors, Samuel Vetch and Francis Nicholson, who took the fort-British Acadia came under the governorship of Col. Richard Philipps in 1717. And there it remained for thirty-two years of increasing neglect and, after the first four years, the continuous absence of the governor.

The Board of Trade was hardly less soporific with respect to the province. In 1719 it finally got around to issuing instructions to Philipps that hinted at the creation of a regular civil government on what was the already accepted pattern for Britain’s colonies, with a legislative assembly to make laws, but directed him in the meantime to follow the 1715 instructions to the Earl of Orkney as governor of Virginia. Clause 62 of the Virginia instructions read:

You are to take Care that no Man’s Life Member freehold or Goods be taken away or harm’d in our said Colony otherwise than by establish’d and known Laws, not repugnant but as near as may be agreeable to the Laws of this Kingdom.

Virtually the same provision had been contained in the January 1682 instructions to Gov. Thomas Lord Culpepper of Virginia.

The non-repugnance and agreeableness clause in colonial enabling instruments originated in the 1632 charter to Lord Baltimore for Maryland, which directed that the laws made by colonial legislative authority were to be “inviolably observed” under penalties,

So, nevertheless, that the Laws aforesaid be consonant to Reason, and be not repugnant or contrary, but (so far as conveniently may be) agreeable to the Laws, Statutes, Customs, and Rights of this Our Kingdom of England.

In this point, so close are the instructions to Cornwallis to the provisions in the 1632 Maryland charter, it is reasonable to suppose that, if the latter was not the immediate parent of the former, it was the remote ancestor.”

Thomas Garden Barnes, “As Near as May Be Agreeable to the Laws of this Kingdom”: Legal Birthright and Legal Baggage at Chebucto, 1749” (1984) 8:3 DLJ 1. https://digitalcommons.schulichlaw.dal.ca/dlj/vol8/iss3/1/

America and West Indies Colonial Papers: September 1720, 1-15

by

The comprises correspondence regarding the security and territorial disputes involving Carolina, Nova Scotia, and the Island of Providence in 1720. Mr. Delafaye conveyed concerns about the security of these regions, prompting inquiries into the state of the Island of Providence and its immediate needs. Meanwhile, Mr. Pulteney reported on negotiations in Paris regarding the ownership of the Islands of Canceaux, situated near Nova Scotia. The British delegation argued for British sovereignty over Canceaux based on the Treaty of Utrecht, while the French claimed ownership citing the treaty’s language and historical governance. The Archbishop of Cambrai supported France’s claim, referencing the treaty’s exclusion of Canceaux from British possession and asserting French fishing rights. Discussions also touched on fishing rights along the coast of Nova Scotia, with France agreeing to abide by the Treaty of Utrecht’s provisions. Governor Nicholson proposed appropriating land for garrisons near future forts in various regions, including Nova Scotia, Virginia, Carolina, and the Bahamas.

Mr. Delafaye to the Council of Trade and Plantations. I have laid before the Lords Justices your representation of the proper measures to be taken for the security of Carolina and Nova Scotia. Their Excys. judging that care should likewise be taken at this time to preserve our Settlement upon the Island of Providence, direct that you report the state of it, and what immediate supplies they may stand in need of etc. Signed, Ch. Delafaye. Endorsed, Recd. 2nd. Read 5th Sept., 1720. 1 p. [C.O. 23, 1. No. 26.]

i. Extract of letter from Mr. Pulteney to Mr. Delafaye. Paris, Sept. 10th (N.S.) 1720.

I was this afternoon with Sir Robt. Sutton at a Conference in the Archbishop of Cambray’s apartment, upon the affair of Canceaux. The Archbishop had with him Monsr. Peque his first Commis, Monsr. Rodeau the Commis of the Marechal d’Etrees, and a captain or master of a ship who has been in those parts of America. We founded our right to the Islands of Canceaux on the Treaty of Utrecht which gives Nova Scotia, and all Islands belonging to it, to the Crown of Great Britain for ever, except Cape Breton and the Islands lying in the mouth of the River of St. Laurentz and in the Gulph of the same name; we said, the Islands of Canceaux were comprehended in the general cession of Nova Scotia as depending on it, and were not excepted with Cape Breton, as not being situated in the mouth of the River, nor in the Gulph of St. Laurentz, but lying very near the coast of Nova Scotia, and joyning almost to the Cape of Canceaux; our demand for excluding the French from the fishery there was founded on the Treaty of Neutrality in America as well as on that of Utrecht, the first declares that they are not to fish anywhere on our coasts, the latter expressly restrains them from fishing on the coast of Nova Scotia within 30 leagues beginning from the island of Sable inclusive and stretching to the South West.

The Archbishop’s assistants claimed a right to the Islands of Canceaux because they are not named in the cession of Nova Scotia, whereas in the cession of Newfoundland it is said we are to have all the Islands adjacent to it, but we shewed in the Article of Nova Scotia, that we are to have tout ce qui depend des dites terres et isles de ce pais là; they then endeavoured to include those islands in the exception with Cape Breton, as being dans l’emboucheure du Golf de St. Lawrentz; the Latin Treaty says—insula vero Cape Breton dicta et aliae quævis tam in ostio fluvii Sti. Laurentis quam in sinu ejusdem nominis— The French runs—Mais l’Isle dite Cape Breton et toutes les autres quelconques situées dans l’emboucheure et dans le Golf de St. Laurent.

They would have the emboucheure relate to the Gulf and not to the River as in Latin, and Monsr. Rodeau to support this, said, that the mouth of the River and the Gulf were the same thing, and therefore emboucheure must necessarily relate to the Gulph; they pretended too that the French Treaty is the original, and the only rule to proceed by, tho’ they were told that the Latin must certainly be our rule, and ought to be theirs in this case, being clear and plain, whereas the French could not properly bear the sense they put upon it, but that there seemed to be an omission, perhaps in the transcribing, of the words du fleuve after l’emboucheure; however allowing the French in their sense we said the Islands of Canceaux which lye without the Gut of Canceaux, cannot be reckoned dans l’emboucheure du Golf, the emboucheure being properly between Cape Breton and Newfoundland the great passage to Canada.

Monsr. Rodeau would have it that there are three emboucheures to the Golf, and the Gut of Canco is one; the Captain pretended that the whole space between Cape Canco and the extremity of Labroder, in which space lye the Islands of Cape Breton Newfoundland and others, was properly the emboucheure du Golf; Monsr. Pequé went further and maintained that Cape Breton and the Islands of Canco (which by their accounts are four leagues, and by ours 7 leagues distant from it) are in the Gulf itself, from these words l’Isle de Cape Breton et toutes les autres quelconques situees dans l’emboucheure et dans le Golf de St. Laurentz; but tho’ this was merely a quirk on the word autres and might as well serve to place them in the mouth of the River; the Archbishop himself seemed to think this observation was very material. As to the fishery they acknowledged the exclusion of 30 leagues from the Island of Sables but were for placing this Island where it might best answer their purpose and instead of drawing the line from thence to the South West, had drawn one, in a map they shewed us, to the South East, and another towards the West directly to the coast of Nova Scotia, so as to cutt off a considerable part of that coast near Cape Canco, and they pretended a right of fishing any where even at Cape Canco without and to the northward of that line.

They would not allow that by the Treaty of Neutrality or by that of Utrecht they are excluded from fishing on our coast, tho’ in forming the Article of that of Utrecht relating to the Fishery, the French themselves had proposed these words—Regis Christianissimo subditis in posterum prohibitum sit, in dictis, insulis, maribus, sinubus aliisve locis ad littus Novae Scotiae sive Acadiae spectantibus, piscaturam exercere—and our Ministers added the clause about the 30 leagues.

They plainly told us, that when they came to treat of the limits of Nova Scotia, they will insist on having that part of the land which is southward of their line, they said too that they had formerly Governors at Cape Canceaux, which they make a cut of Island independent of the Governor of Acadia, and they give us likewise to understand that they will pretend to confine our limits of Nova Scotia to that part only which makes a Peninsula. We did not think it proper at this time to enter into any dispute on this subject. I need not trouble you with all the answers we gave to their several pretensions about Canceaux and the fishery; we insisted on the Islands of Canco because it removes the French still further from our coasts tho’ I fancy the complaint against them is for fishing at Cape Canco itself, but as this was not plainly distinguished in the papers sent to me, which said only Canco in general, we thought it safest to demand the most, especially since the Islands are not far distant from the Cape. The Archbishop seemed to sit by as an Arbitrator, but whenever he put in his word did not do it as an impartial one.

He proposed at last to put something in writing as the resultat, of this conference and as taking it to be on the foot of the Commission, but we said we had particular orders on this subject and were to desire an immediate resolution from the Regent to whom the Archbishop was to report what had been said on both sides; we expect an answer in writing to the Memorial Sr. Robert Sutton gave in, and we shall make a reply. It had been proposed at the Treaty of Utrecht to divide Cape Breton, the South part for us, the North part for the French, and I remember in a letter of Lord Bolingbroke’s on this subject that he says, that if the French insist upon the whole Island it must be with a view to disturb our settlements of Nova Scotia; what are we to judge of their insisting on Islands which lye much nearer than Cape Breton does to Nova Scotia, and even claiming part of the Continent of Nova Scotia. Same endorsement. 51/8 pp.

ii. Reply of the Archbishop of Cambrai to the Memorial of Sir R. Sutton, Aug. 23, (N.S.), 1720. Paris, Sept. 12th. (N.S.) 1720. Refers to Sir R. Sutton’s Memorial. Continues: His Royal Highness has caused to be explained to Sir R. Sutton and Mr. Pulteney the reasons for the claim that the islands of Canceau are no part of Nova Scotia, from which they are separated by a broad and deep arm of the sea, which is the same as that which separates the Peninsula, where Nova Scotia is, from the Island of Cape Breton, and that not only have they not been ceded to Great Britain, but they have been reserved to France by Article 13 of the Treaty of Utrecht, with all the other islands situated in the mouth and in the gulph of St. Lawrence.

These reasons appear so evident and so decisive, that H.R.H. hopes that when they are reported to the King of Great Britain, he will fully recognise their justice, and give orders to prevent the subjects of the King of Isle Royale being disturbed in their fishing about the Islands of Canceau, or in the stay they make there to cure their fish. With regard to the limits prescribed for fishing on the coast to the S.E. of Nova Scotia, H.R.H. has had it explained to Sir R. Sutton and Mr. Pulteney that he would issue instructions in conformity with the 12th Article of the Treaty of Utrecht, to restrain under severe penalties the subjects of the King from fishing within the space of 30 leagues from all the S.E. coast of Nova Scotia, beginning from Sable Island inclusively, and running S.W. Copy. French. 2½ pp.

xi. Memorandum [? by Governor Nicholson]. Proposes that when forts shall be built either in Nova Scotia, Virginia, Carolina or the Bahama Islands, the land adjacent thereto be appropriated for the use of the Garrison etc. 1 p.

“America and West Indies: September 1720, 1-15.” Calendar of State Papers Colonial, America and West Indies: Volume 32, 1720-1721. Ed. Cecil Headlam. London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1933. 132-144. British History Online. Web. 2 April 2020. http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/colonial/america-west-indies/vol32/pp132-144.

America and West Indies Colonial Papers: February 1662

by

These documents address English claims to Nova Scotia against French encroachment, detailing instances of French aggression. Thomas Temple petitions for time to gather evidence to counter French claims and emphasizes Nova Scotia’s strategic importance to England. Various legal opinions and petitions support English sovereignty over Nova Scotia, highlighting historical ownership and treaties. Additionally, there’s a petition regarding fraudulent actions by Thomas Breedon, who obtained a commission for the government of Nova Scotia, leading to his suspension.

The English response to the French Ambassador’s claim asserts Cromwell’s actions in taking forts and countries in Nova Scotia from Lord La Tour were not reprisals from the French but based on a grant from Scotland. It refutes French claims of violence committed by Temple and stresses that Nova Scotia has always belonged to Scotland or England. The document also highlights the commodities in Nova Scotia, its fertile land, and strategic significance in dividing America with Spain and uniting English plantations.

Sir Wadham Wyndham’s opinion supports the English title to Nova Scotia against French claims, citing treaties and desertion of forts by the French. Lastly, there’s a petition from Colonel Temple, the Governor of Nova Scotia, expressing concern over fraudulent actions by Breedon and requesting protection of his assets. The King’s warrant suspends Breedon from the office of Governor due to his actions prejudicing Temple’s possession of Nova Scotia.

“Answer to the Ambassador of France, or rather Mons. Le Bourne, his claim to Acadia and Nova Scotia.” The claims of England to Pentagoet, St. John’s, Port Royal, and La Have, as first possessed by the subjects of that King, and granted to Sir Wm. Alexander and La Tour. The hostile proceedings of Le Bourne in August last, in forcibly taking possession of La Have ; his barbarous usage of the English, turning them upon an island to live upon grass and wade in the water for lobsters to keep them alive, and imprisoning them at Rochelle. That Nova Scotia is of great importance to his Majesty, and as it borders upon New England it would be neither safe nor honourable to give it up, for that would enable the French to invade and infest New England at their pleasure. And since Le Bourne has surprised our plantation and fishing vessel, we may use the Ambassador’s words, and hope for that natural justice common to all nations (as he calls it) Spoliatus ante omnia restituatur. Signed by Tho. Breedon. Indorsed, “Received 19 Feb. 1661-2. read in Council 19 Feb. Mr. Thos. Eliot concerning Nova Scotia.” 2 pp. [Col. Papers, Vol. XVI., No. 15.]

Petition of Thomas Temple to the King and Privy Council. Has for divers years past remained in Nova Scotia, and arrived thence, but on Thursday last. Was utterly ignorant of what hath been pretended to Nova Scotia by the French Ambassador, or any other, and is not yet able to understand what their pretences are. Doubts not to prove, not only a sufficient title to the premises to be held under his Majesty, and that petitioner came lawfully to the acquisition and right thereof, with the expense of vast sums of money, but also that the conservation of Nova Scotia to his Majesty’s crown is of vast concernment. Prays to be allowed a competent time to look up all his evidences and instruct counsel, and for a copy of what the French or any other did offer. Indorsed, “Read in Council ye 26th Feb. 1661-2. To be heard 7th March next. Read in Council the 7th March 1661-2.” 1 p. [Col. Papers, Vol. XVI., No. 23.]

“Answer to the French Ambassador’s claim to the forts and countries in America (Nova Scotia), exhibited in the behalf of the Lord La Tour, Temple, and Crowne, Proprietors.” In 1654 Cromwell took said forts and countries from the Lord La Tour, not as reprisals from the French, but as holding under the Crown of Scotland, as by grant of 40 years date will appear ; nor are they any part of New France as his Excellency affirms, nor lieth near by 200 leagues, but said forts lye in New Scotland, and the sovereignty belongs as properly to his Majesty as Old Scotland doth ; nor were they ever in possession of the French, but when they got them from the English, except Port Royal, and that belonged to the Scotch originally. They never heard of any complaints in 1658 of violence committed by Temple in the house of one De La Have, neither is there any such man in the land, but there is a place so called, which Temple purchased from La Tour and where he built a house ; but one M. Leborny, two or three years since by force took it, so that the violence was on Leborny’s part, who by the King of France’s commission was not to meddle with the English. Neither do they know that any persons were ordained for regulating said differences, but in the league of 1656 there was such an article and a time fixed to perfect it, wherefore they conceive the country was taken as belonging to Scotland, for Cromwell restored it to La Tour. And La Tour is condemned in France as a traitor, for constant adhering to the English. In Richard Cromwell’s time the French offered to give up all claim to the country, so as they might enjoy from La Have northward to New France (or Canada). And the King of France by proclamation at Rochelle prohibited his subjects to come near them in New Scotland. As to losses, they conceive none have lost but La Tour, for he had arms, ammunition, and merchandise taken away, and the soldiers demolished Port Royal and burnt the chief house. Pray that his Majesty’s subjects may not be delivered to any foreign Prince or their country be taken from them ; that there may be a commission to examine witnesses, and La Tour and Temple sent for over, that they may in person make their just defence. There is not a person that holds any land there under the Great Seal of France, or ever did, but under Scotland. 1 p. [Col. Papers, Vol. XVI., No. 24.]

The title of the English to Nova Scotia, and the commodities it yields. Nova Scotia, or Acadia (as the French call it), was discovered by the English to the river Canada in the reign of Henry VII., and further discovered in 1585. “See Hakluyt’s 3rd Volume, and Purchas his Pilgrimage, 8th Book.” In 1627 and 1628 there happened a war with France, and Sir Lewis Kirke, John Kirke and partners, and Sir Wm. Alexander, surprised Port Royal, Fort Quebec, Cape Breton, and other places. On 24th April 1629, acts of hostility were to cease, and all taken to be restored, to the great damage of the Kirkes. On March 29, 1632, by an Article of Agreement, Acadia, Canada, Port Royal, Quebec, and Cape Breton were to be delivered to the French, and the French King to pay 4,436l. to Sir Lewis Kirke by Du Cape, but protected by the French King he could not be compelled to pay the same. The 11th May 1633, our Sovereign, in consideration of 50,000l. charges the Kirkes had been at in surprising Quebec, granted to Lewis Kirke the sole trade in the river, gulfs, lakes, and adjacent islands and continent, for 31 years. In Feb. 1633-4, Kirke sent out the Good Fortune to the River Canada, there being peace with France ; the Boncontempt [sic.] overpowered her and brought her to Dieppe, where she was confiscated. For this ship, worth 12,000l., and the 4,436l., no redress was granted. In 1654 Cromwell seized Port Royal, Fort St. John, Pentagouet, &c. ; and November 3rd, 1655, the French referred that and other differences to arbitration. 1. “Acadia lies between 42 and 45 north lat. including the Great River of Canada, which contains the Gulf of St. Lawrence, which at the entrance is 22 leagues broad, and extends itself 800 miles west by south into many great lakes lying on the backside of the English Plantations ; it may therefore concern his Majesty to keep the places demanded by the French Ambassador, and to plant colonies up and down Canada and Nova Scotia.” 2. It is fertile in corn and pasturage. 3. It is stored with pitch, tar, hemp, masts, timber, furs. 4. The reducement of it under his Majesty’s dominions, will divide America with the Spaniard, and unite all the plantations, between which the French now interpose, and may be able to destroy the fishing and navigation of the English in those seas, and perchance arm the [Mi’kmaq] against them. 3 pp. [Col. Papers, Vol. XVI., No. 25.]

Opinion of [Sir] W[adham] W[yndham]? upon the case between the King of France and Col. Thos. Temple for himself and the King of England, as to the title of the lands and fortresses in Nova Scotia, claimed by the French Ambassador. Under three heads. First, the representation of the French Ambassador, who prays for the restitution of those places. Secondly, the title of the King of England ; it being contended that all these lands and forts in Nova Scotia are distant from Nova Francia many hundred leagues and were never held part of it. Thirdly, the rights of Col. Temple for himself and the King of England ; explanation of the treaty of 1632 for restitution ; treaty between Louis XIV. and Cromwell in 1655 ; no commissioners named by the French King, forts derelict by desertion ; Col. Temple takes possession by patent and now holds these places. Lastly, quotations from legal authorities on both sides, and discussion on the arguments pro and con. The opinion is in favour of the right of King Charles. Latin and French. 40 pp. [Col. Papers, Vol. XVI., No. 26.]

Petition of Col. Thos. Temple, Governor of Nova Scotia, to the King. Thos. Breedon has fraudulently obtained a commission for the government and trade of Nova Scotia. Apprehends that as Breedon is now returning thither, he will seize upon the petitioner’s trading houses, vessels, and goods. Prays for a warrant to prohibit Breedon from doing anything to the petitioner’s prejudice. 1 p. [Col. Papers, Vol. XVI., No. 28.]

The King’s warrant suspending Thos. Breedon from the office of Governor of Nova Scotia, who “did lately by surprise and indirectly obtain from us our Letters Patent and Commission, to the wrong and prejudice of Thos. Temple, Esq., who is in present possession of the same.” See ante, No. 189 ; also No. 274. [Dom. Entry Bk., Chas. II., Vol. V., p. 189.]

“America and West Indies: February 1662.” Calendar of State Papers Colonial, America and West Indies: Volume 5, 1661-1668. Ed. W Noel Sainsbury. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1880. 71-80. British History Online. Web. 2 April 2020. http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/colonial/america-west-indies/vol5/pp71-80.

Page 31 of 33
1 … 28 29 30 31 32 33