History of Nova Scotia for schools

I can’t vouch for the accuracy of any “firsts” listed here but it’s interesting to see what was expected to merit the attention of students around the time of “confederation”, at least compared to the kind of history I was exposed to in school a little more than a century later. We certainly never delved into Cromwell’s conquest of Nova Scotia or the proprietary regimes, perhaps because it gives perspective to the here and now of arbitrary “Canadian governance”.


“Chapter 1-2: Early settlement
Chapter 3: Sir W. Alexander, and La Tour
Chapter 4: Oliver Cromwell, and Sir Wm. Phips
Chapter 5: Louisburg – The Acadians
Chapter 6: Settlement of Halifax
Chapter 7: The Expulsion of the Acadians
Chapter 8: First Assembly in Nova Scotia – Lousibourg destroyed
Chapter 9: War with America – The Duke of Kent
Chapter 10: The Maroons, and the Chesapeake and Shannon
Chapter 11: Agricola – Colleges
Chapter 12: The Brandy Dispute – Mr. Howe and the Magistracy
Chapter 13: Steam communication, Responsible Government
Chapter 14: The Heroes of Sebastopol – Coal Mines
Chapter 15: The Indian mutiny – Telegraph, etc
Chapter 16: International exhibition, Education Bill
Chapter 17-18: Union of the Provinces
Chapter 19: Opposition to Confederation – Loss of City of Boston – Death of Mr. Howe
Chapter 20: Sketch of the life of S.G.W. Archibald
Chapter 21: Sketch of the life of Thomas C. Haliburton, M.P.
Chapter 22, Sketch of the Life of Dr. Gesner
Chapter 23: Sketch of the Life of Judge Blowers
Chapter 24: Sketch of the Life of Judge J.W. Johnston
Chapter 25: The Steamship “England”
Chapter 26: General description of Nova Scotia, etc.
Chapter 27-28: A trip to the fruit show at Somerset.

Resources of Nova Scotia:
Chapter 29: Coal and Iron
Chapter 30: The Gold mines of Nova Scotia
Chapter 31: The Fisheries of Nova Scotia
Chapter 32: Population of Nova Scotia – Manufactures – Shipbuilding
Chapter 33: The dominion of Canada, Appendix: Sable Island, La Tribune.”

“The first attempt on the part of Europeans to settle on the eastern portion of the Continent was by the Baron de Lery in the year 1518. But he arrived on the coast too late in the season, and after leaving a part of his live stock at Canso, and the remainder on Sable Island he returned to France. The animals left at Canso either perished or were destroyed by the [Mi’kmaq], while a few of those left on Sable Island survived and multiplied.

Several other attempts were made to effect a settlement, the most remarkable of which was an English expedition, at the head of which was a Mr. Hore. It was fitted out in the year 1536, under the patronage of King Henry the Eighth, and consisted of one hundred persons — of whom thirty were men of birth and education — who embarked in two ships. Two months after starting, the expedition arrived at the Island of Cape Breton.

They afterwards sailed for Newfoundland, where they failed in opening communication with the natives. They were reduced to a state of absolute starvation, depending for sustenance on roots, and such fish as the parent birds brought to their nests. In the frenzy produced by hunger one or two men were murdered by their companions, when searching for food on the Island, and their flesh devoured. That evening, some of the company agreed to cast lots who should be killed, rather than that all should perish, when lo ! a sail was seen in the distance which proved to be that of a French ship amply supplied with provisions. But to the disgrace of the English they took forcible possession of her, and sailed for England, leaving the Frenchmen, who rescued them from the very jaws of death, in possession of their dilapidated vessel.

The reckless voyagers had returned to England about the end of October, and were in a few weeks, followed by the Frenchmen whom they had robbed, and who lost no time in making a formal complaint to the King as to the injuries inflicted on them by his subjects. The King, after an examination into the facts made full reparation to the complainants, and pardoned his subjects on account of the miseries they had already endured. For forty years after the expedition of Mr. Hore no effort was made in prosecuting further discoveries in America.

In the year 1578 Sir Humphrey Gilbert got a patent from Queen Elizabeth for the discovery and settlement of new lands. Gilbert was a brave and generous man. His first voyage was unfortunate, for he lost one of the two ships with which he started, which obliged him to return to England. Determined to fit out another expedition, he sold his estate, and with the money thus obtained he fitted out five small vessels in the year 1583. He made for Newfoundland where he arrived in August. In returning to England in a vessel called the Squirrel he and all on board were lost, the vessel having foundered.”

“The English Governor of Virginia having resolved to destroy the French settlements in Acadia sent Captain Argal with several armed vessels to effect his purpose, when the son of Poutrincourt fled to the forest and lived with the [Mi’kmaq]. In the mean time Poutrincourt visited Port Royal where he found a scene of desolation. He accordingly resolved to leave it forever, which he did, returning to France, and fell fighting bravely in the service of his country, in December, 1615. His son seems to have remained in Acadia till his death, which occurred in the year 1624.”

“In the month of August, 1750, the ship Alderney arrived in Halifax with about three hundred and fifty emigrants, who were sent to the opposite side of the harbor, and founded the town of Dartmouth in the autumn of that year. In December following, the first ferry was established, and John Connor appointed ferry-man by order in Council. In the following year the [Mi’kmaq] surprised the little village at night, scalped a number of settlers, and carried off several prisoners. The inhabitants, fearing an attack, had cut down the spruce trees near the settlement, which, instead of a protection as was intended, served as a cover for the enemy.

Captain Clapham and his company of Rangers were stationed on the Blackburn Hill, and, it is said, remained within his block-house firing from the loop-holes during the whole affair. The light of the torches and the firing of musketry alarmed the inhabitants of Halifax, some of whom put off to their assistance, but did not arrive in any force till after the [Mi’kmaq] had retired. The night was calm, and the cries of the settlers and the whoops of the [Mi’kmaq] were distinctly heard on the western side of the harbor. On the following morning several bodies were brought over — [Mi’kmaq] having carried off the scalps.”

“Mr. Campbell, of Dartmouth, had panned gold in 1859, and was the first to advocate the existence of gold in quantity in the Province… Silver ore has not been discovered in the Province in any considerable quantity. Mr. Campbell, of Dartmouth, was the first to discover it in small quantity.”

“The success of the Marine Slips at Dartmouth, which is capable of accommodating only the smallest class of vessels, should inspire capitalists with confidence.”

Campbell, Duncan. History of Nova Scotia: for Schools. Montreal: Lovell, 1874. https://hdl.handle.net/2027/aeu.ark:/13960/t6m04g264

Responsible Government in Nova Scotia

This book discusses the evolution of Nova Scotia’s constitutional and legal institutions during the 18th and 19th centuries in terms of the British institutions from which it sprang. As English settlers established colonies, they carried with them differing political and constitutional views, leading to tensions and migrations. Despite this scattering, the underlying issues persisted and grew, ultimately posing challenges for the British Empire as a whole.

The American Revolution emerged from these tensions, fueled by differing interpretations of political sovereignty and governance. Colonists demanded self-government and local autonomy, rebuffing British attempts at centralized control. The Declaration of Independence asserted the rights of man and consent of the governed, principles rooted in British constitutional history but revitalized in the American colonies.

The clash between local autonomy and centralized control led to the formation of the Articles of Confederation and the principle of federalism in the new American republic. Meanwhile, the colonies sought a partnership with Britain rather than subjugation, reflecting a new conception of empire and fellowship among equals.

This period of revolution and adjustment saw the birth of new constitutional principles and governmental customs, challenging traditional notions of imperial governance. Nova Scotia’s role in this constitutional evolution is highlighted, underscoring the neglected history of its contribution to the broader imperial narrative. Extensive research into original and manuscript sources sheds light on this overlooked aspect of history, providing insight into the complexities of constitutional development during this transformative era.


“From the beginning a most important feature of English history has been the steady evolution of a constitution and the development of legal and political institutions. During the period of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries when her people were expanding into the new world and establishing states as offsprings of the mother country, the constitution at home was undergoing some very necessary adjustments and fundamental changes. While these transformations were wrought primarily for the purpose of meeting the changing circumstances and growing needs of the ancient island kingdom, some of the friction which resulted was profoundly instrumental in sending out to the colonies great groups and sections of her own people, who, when they arrived and settled retained the points of view and the interpretations which had made it unwise and, in some cases, impossible for them to remain at home.

The Puritans, the Cavaliers, the Catholics, and the Quakers all held political and constitutional views somewhat different, representing in those views the points of controversy and change sought before and at the time of their departure. Indeed, no question whatever was actually solved by their removal; rather the difficulties were scattered over a wider field where their growth continued apace, in some cases more virulent than ever, producing in time a more serious problem for the Empire at large than it had been originally for the more limited sphere of the mother country. The need for adjustments was only delayed by this process of scattering, and in time emerged again in a larger form for the Empire as a whole. Also the basic conditions of life in the new world were different, essentially those of the frontier, which tended strongly to bring out, to renew and to revitalize one of the deepest seated characteristics of the British stock, that of self sufficiency.

This added to the difficulty, and out of these two circumstances, — the dissenting colonists and the new life of the frontier — arose a strong sense of constitutional right and a powerful spirit of political and economic independence. This called for statecraft and adjustments of the finest sort from the side of the mother country, but as yet she had not sensed the real meaning of empire, nor was she able to cope successfully with those new problems which expansion and growth had made inevitable.

With the rapid growth and development of the older colonies, and with the acquisition after 1760 of the alien province of Quebec, the problems of political and economic adjustment in the new world became acute. Could the older institutions of the mother country be successfully adapted to the newer conditions and the widely varying circumstances of the several daughter colonies in America? Could the constitution of England in its broad historical meaning be transformed into a constitution for the whole of a vast imperial organization?

The strain was great; the demands for adjustments and change came too quickly upon the government in London; and that government in this evil hour unfortunately was more devoted to a few great private interests than to the larger problems of a growing empire. Indeed, it might be said that in this period the government of England was more a property of those private interests than it was a function of the constitution, and because of this defect it was impossible for the government to consider fairly the broader colonial policy and to preserve the whole of the growing colonial empire under a common Crown.

The deeper problems of adjustment which this British government was not able to meet successfully may be more clearly understood from a study of the constitutional issues of the American Revolution and a consideration of those principles upon which, at first, it was proposed to establish the new American Republic. The democratic life of the new world and the experience in the colonies for over a century of a large degree of self-government had not only produced reinterpretations of some of the older political and legal institutions, but had actually produced new constitutional principles and governmental customs.

The friction and circumstances following 1763 stimulated the colonial statesmen to attempt a definition of some of these new departures. By the time the disruption had been completed and the new republic established those basic principles had been given vivid and dramatic expression.

The Whig parliament in England had drifted far in its interpretation of the state and of its function in the government. Never “weary of expressing their contempt for public opinion” they “denied that members of the Commons sat as representatives of the people.” Standing in sharp contrast with this theory of an all sovereign and irresponsible parliament was the plain assertion in the Declaration of Independence of the rights of man and the “consent of the governed” as the proper basis for all just government wherever found. This broad and fundamental principle involved not only actual self-government for the people but also self-determination for a colony or a state.

But it was not a new constitutional principle, indeed it was as old as the British race and had been understood by such men as Sir Edward Coke in the time of the early Stuarts, and John Locke as he explained the so-called “Glorious Revolution” of 1688. In America this old principle, along with the British stock, had been revitalized and given a new and vigorous emphasis, while at home the Whig parliament and the Hanoverian kings had wandered far from any understanding of its constitutional importance and were unable, therefore, to make those finer adjustments demanded by the colonies prior to 1776.

As a natural corollary to the principle of self-government reasserted by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, was the demand on the part of the thirteen colonies for a system of general government in which the major emphasis should rest, not as the Whigs would have it, upon the central administration, but upon the sacred sovereignty of the local state as a political unit.

The British government had been unable to understand this need but continued to assert that the parliament in London had the power to legislate for them “in all cases whatsoever” and had gone on with its attempt to modify local administration with royal prerogative and centralized control. In this clash of principle — local autonomy versus centralized control — is found the explanation in part, of the first constitution of the new republic, the Articles of Confederation, and the origin of the American principle of federalism.

Of equal importance in the period of revolution and adjustment was the theory held in the colonies of the nature of the empire and of the place of the colony in the larger organization. In harmony with the principle of self-government the colonies maintained that their local legislatures should occupy, a coordinate position under the Crown with the Parliament of Great Britain. In this they were breaking new ground and building slowly a new conception of an imperial organization. Since the people in the colonies were entitled to all the rights of British subjects the colonies could not possibly be considered as possessions of the mother country.

The alternative, therefore, was a partnership relation among them and with the United Kingdom. But again the British government, dominated by the Whig theories, could not appreciate this new interpretation of a larger fellowship as it developed in the growing life of the new world communities. Soon after the organization of the republic this new principle found expression in the definition of the colonial policy of the new American nation. Like the Declaration of Independence, the Ordinance of 1784 came from the vigorous mind of the Virginia liberal, Thomas Jefferson, and the principle of empire which it explains is quite in harmony with his conception of the place of the individual in the social and political organizations. According to this principle, which was finally embodied in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the new states, subsequently formed from this Northwest Territory, should be free and autonomous units:

“That Whenever any of the sd. states shall have of free inhabitants as many as shall then be in any one of the least numerous of the thirteen original states, such states shall be admitted by its delegates into the Congress of the United States, on an equal footing with the said original states.” (Report to Congress, March 1, 1784. Journals of Congress Containing their Proceedings (Philadelphia, 1800), Vol. IX (April 23, 1784), pp. 109-110. In the Ordinance of 1787 “in all respects whatsoever” was added. The same principle is found in the earlier deed to the Northwest Territory given by Virginia to Congress and prepared also by Jefferson: “… and that the states so formed, shall be distinct republican states, and admitted members of the federal union; having the same rights of sovereignty, freedom and independence as the other states.” Ibid., p. 48)

The conception here is clearly that of a union of equals freely associated together, and as such it is a definition of a new colonial policy and of a new imperial order. Upon this conception the new American “empire of liberty,” as it was called by Jefferson, was to expand indefinitely under republican institutions. Little did he realize that the older empire of Britain would also in time accept the same liberal interpretation of its own imperial bond.

A history of this political and constitutional process is the scope of this study. The field is new, for Nova Scotia and the period of her important contribution to the constitution of the newer empire has been neglected by the students of history and politics. (In June 1926, the Canadian Historical Review published the writer’s article, “The First Responsible Party Government in British North America”. Last year, 1929, since the completion of this volume, the Oxford Press published a study by Professor Chester Martin, Empire and Commonwealth, which has a section devoted to the constitutional evolution of Nova Scotia.)

The research, therefore, has involved the use and study of original, and in many cases manuscript sources, hitherto unexploited. Most of these are available in the Public Archives of Canada at Ottawa. Some are in the Provincial Archived of Nova Scotia and others are to be found only at the Public Record Office in London.”

Livingston, Walter Ross. Responsible Government In Nova Scotia: a Study of the Constitutional Beginnings of the British Commonwealth. Iowa City: The University, 1930. https://hdl.handle.net/2027/wu.89080043730https://archive.org/details/responsiblegover0000livi

Nova Scotia and her People (The Family Compact)

There was a spark of academic interest from south of the border that coincided with the abolition of Nova Scotia’s Senate, known as the Legislative Council. It was a change that seemed to signal a final split from its once-colonial brethren who had chosen Statehood and Constitutions for themselves rather than life as subjects under an unwritten, forever fungible constitution. The split can be seen clearly enough in many of the legal libraries of American schools who negated to stock yearly Provincial acts going forward from 1929, as they had up until that point.

I really appreciate Livingston’s perspective, perhaps owing partially to his geographical situation in Iowa, later recognized with first in the nation status, but also as it relates to the American lens and “republicanism” — less so with regard to capital R in terms of the party, more generally as a concept, self government and popular sovereignty. That Nova Scotia is the only legislature instituted before the revolution that survived beyond creates a unique opportunity in terms of studying its constitutional mechanics.

I share some of the concerns of the Family compact of the old days in terms of an elected Senate, certainly one that is directly elected, that it pollutes a branch which should be relatively free of public feeling unlike the lower house. The disappearance of such an institution doesn’t disappear those it was traditionally meant to represent, no doubt these interests are well-served by the present circumstance but under a kind of cover in a unicameral house. That Nova Scotia and all Canadian provinces for that matter now operate without a bicameral check with executives essentially inseparable from the judicial is the antithesis of the protection of liberties and safe government that Howe tried to impart.

Propelled by a pandemic in what has become an all-encompassing green light to unilateral state action, today we plunge headlong into authoritarianism and totalitarianism with no institution or mechanism left to prevent it. Representatives of “the crown” in complete and perfect opposition to “the people”, the people’s management conducted by a government monopoly bureaucracy regulated so as to purport its emanations are that of the people not an insular ruling class. The spirit of the star chamber propels the machinations of its gears, the King’s tea as a concept as applied to an ever-increasing number of its services for which anything but the most inconsequential competition is against the law, the ultimate return to form in what is or has become or has returned to being a proprietary vessel in its entirety.


“The government of Nova Scotia in 1830, like that of the other British provinces having representative institutions, was, as far as conditions would permit, a replica of the government of the mother country. Pitt had spoken of the Constitutional Act of 1791 for Canada as the “very transcript of the English constitution” and the constitution of Nova Scotia was very nearly the same. But according to the British constitutional system as it was understood and interpreted by the British statesmen in the closing years of the eighteenth century, representative institutions in a colony as well as at home did not mean that the government was in any way democratic or responsible to the people of the state. Indeed it was understood by many that the great advantage of the English system was that it was so checked and balanced that any direct control by the people would be virtually impossible. In Nova Scotia the balanced mixture of Monarchy, aristocracy, and representation was characterized by one observer as “John Bull, a farce in three acts.”

The Lieutenant-Governor and the Council acted as sufficient checks upon any pretensions to power which might find expression in the popular branch… The wealthy merchant class, the members of the Established Church, the officials and employees of the government, with their relatives and friends constituted a party, known here as it was known in the Canadas, as the “Family Compact.” In no province was this group so completely entrenched in power as in Nova Scotia, but it must be said also in their favor that the members of this party were able and efficient in the administration of the local government.

The third part of the “farce in three acts” was a House of Assembly elected by the freeholders of the several counties. Supposedly this was a miniature House of Commons, but according to the Whig theory of responsibility, it was the mistake in the whole system. In England the House of Commons was in no sense a democratic assembly, nor was it representative, directly, of the great mass of the English people.

In this body, as in similar bodies in Massachusetts and Virginia a half century earlier, the popular will found expression and the spirit of reform made itself manifest. To be sure the power of this Assembly was sufficiently checked and properly balanced by the Governor and the Council, but even so, it made a breeding place for the germs of reform and discontent which developed out of their local problems, or were brought in either from the United States or the mother Country. It was indeed hardly necessary to introduce this spirit from the outside, for it had been planted by the early settlers, and there were many good reasons for its growth and development. The dissenting pioneers from Scotland and Ireland, and those from early New England, would never be content with a government patterned upon the unreformed oligarchy of eighteenth-century England and administered by a secret Council supported by a “Family Compact” and an Established Church.

The Baptist churches, having come from the Congregationalists of New England, understood the principles of popular representative government, and the Presbyterians not only practiced self-government in their church organizations, but taught it openly for the government of the state. (It is said that Joseph Howe learned first of the principles of responsible government from a Scottish minister by the name of MacCulloch, who founded Pictou Academy as a liberal educational institution in 1820). The Roman Catholics also opposed a government in which they had no voice and which proscribed for them as severely in the colony as it did in the mother country. Indeed, class government by the Halifax aristocracy was almost as much out of place in the growing life of Nova Scotia as had been John Locke’s Grand Model in the wilderness of old Carolina. (The Fundamental Constitution, 1669, see H.R. Fox Bourne, The Life of John Locke (2 vols., New York, 1876), Vol. I, pp. 339 et seq.)

On several occasions prior to 1835 the spirit of reform and opposition showed itself in the local assembly. One of the first of these outbreaks came in an attempt to regulate the financial and banking facilities of the province. In 1825 a group of merchants in Halifax organized a private banking concern, the Halifax Banking Company. It had no charter from the government and proceeded to issue notes without the legal requirement that they should be redeemed in specie. The members of this company were also members of the provincial council, which meant that for a number of years the company possessed a monopoly of the banking business of the province.

The Halifax Banking Company was organized on July 1, 1825, as follows:

Hon. Enos Collins  £10,000
Henry H. Cogswell £10,000
Andrew Belcher £10,000
James Tobin £5,000
Samuel Cunard £5,000
John Clark £5,000
William Prior £5,000
Joseph Allison £5,000
Martin Gay Black £5,000

From 1832 to 1837 five members of the Halifax Banking Company were members of the Council of twelve:

Enos Collins appointed in 1822
Samuel Cunard appointed in 1831
H.H. Cogswell appointed in 1832
Joseph Allison appointed in 1832
James Tobin appointed in 1832

Enjoying the protection and cooperation of the local government, the enterprise was profitable for its stockholders. The province was soon flooded by their paper notes, which led naturally to a serious economic and financial maladjustment. The result was a movement for the incorporation of a regularly chartered banking institution. The liberal reforming elements in the Assembly supported the move, while the Council and Family Compact, as might be expected, opposed it. The agitation resulted in a temporary victory for the reformers and the incorporation in 1832 of the Bank of Nova Scotia, destined in time to be one of the great banking institutions of the new world. The old private company continued, however, and the consequent rivalry of the two banks became a factor in the movement for a reform in the local constitution. (Short accounts of this early episode are give in A.M. Saunders, Three Premiers of Nova Scotia (Toronto, 1909), p.61, and in W.S. Grant, The Tribune of Nova Scotia (Toronto, 1915), pp. 26-27).

From Three Premiers of Nova Scotia: “After the miscarriage of the resolution initiated and supported by the Reformers before Mr. Howe had a seat in the Legislative branch, and which were intended to effect a change in the constitution of the Council, Mr. Howe took a bolder stand in his paper. His editorials attracted much attention, and he was denounced by the old school. In his newspaper work he evidently resorted to the device of writing anonymous articles, purporting to come from different parts of the Province. This awakened much interest in the places where, they were supposed to have been written; and men in these localities not wishing to be outdone by their neighbors, tried their hand at writing for the press. By this stratagem the people were aroused, and latent talent developed. By this and various other schemes Mr. Howe rapidly gained influence with the people. As his opponents became bolder, his friends and popularity increased.
About this time the currency question was a burning subject in the minds of the people. Neither the bank then established in Halifax nor the Government was by law bound to meet their paper by specie payment. This principle soon produced its legitimate fruits. Gold and silver were withdrawn from circulation, and paper money was depreciated. Mr. Howe denounced both the bank and the Government as enemies of the people. In this he was not alone. Among prominent men, Bliss, Huntington, Fairbanks and others stood with him. This abuse, after a short struggle, was removed.”

From The Tribune of Nova Scotia: “Early in the nineteenth century, when there was no bank in the province, the government had issued notes, for the redemption of which the revenues of the province were pledged. In 1825 some of the more important merchants founded a bank, and issued notes payable in gold, silver, or provincial paper. The Halifax Banking Company, as this institution was called, was simply a private company, with no charter from the province, and that it was allowed to issue notes is an instance of the easy-going ways of those early days. No less than five of its partners were members of the Council. Thus the state of affairs for some years was that there was but one bank in the province, that its notes were redeemable in provincial paper, and that the Council was largely composed of its directors, who could order the province to print as much paper as they wished. The Halifax Banking Company was of great benefit to the provincial merchants, and, though its partners made large profits, there is no proof that they abused their position on the Council to aid them in business. But the general feeling in the province was one of suspicion, and the combination of financial and legislative monopoly was certainly dangerous. Soon some other citizens endeavored to found another bank and to have it regularly incorporated by provincial charter, with the proviso that all paper money issued by it should be redeemable in coin. The directors of the Halifax Banking Company fought this proposal fiercely, both in business circles and in the Council, arguing that as the balance of trade was against Nova Scotia, there would rarely be enough ‘ hard money ‘ in the province to redeem the notes outstanding. In 1832, however, popular clamor forced the legislature to grant its charter to the second bank, the Bank of Nova Scotia. The Halifax Banking Company also continued to do a flourishing business, and during the struggle of Howe and his fellow-reformers against the Council, the influence of its partners was one of the chief causes of complaint. In 1873 it obtained a charter from the Dominion, but in 1903 was absorbed by the Canadian Bank of Commerce (CIBC).”


In 1830; the attempt of the Council to prevent an increase of the duty; on brandy by the Assembly brought the two bodies into violent conflict. The Assembly under the leadership of S. G. W. Archibald held that the regulation of taxes, under British precedent, belonged solely to the representatives of the people. The Council on the other hand catered to the wealthy brandy merchants of Halifax who were evidently trying to escape the tax barrier. The controversy was one of considerable warmth and led to a general election in which the party of the Assembly won a signal victory, electing all of their candidates with one exception. For the moment it seemed that the Reform party would be able to control the whole government. Their leader, however, Archibald, was elected to the speakership which removed him from active participation in party politics, and the Family Compact group continued in power. (Parts of the debate on the brandy tax are quoted in Nova Scotia, in its historical, mercantile and industrial relations, Duncan Campbell (Montreal, 1873), pp. 268-276).

From Nova Scotia, in its historical, mercantile and industrial relations: “Since the revolution of 1688 the Lords had ceased to claim a privilege which the Commons had resisted so frequently, and at the time of the collision between the Assembly of Nova Scotia and His Majesty’s Council, it was a settled principle of the constitution, that all charges or burthens on the people must begin with the Commons, and cannot be altered by the Lords.
Much dissatisfaction was expressed in all sections of the country with the Council for the rejection of the revenue bill, and the general feeling was so forcibly evinced in various ways that no doubt could be entertained as to the result of the coming election, which was that all the leaders of the opposition to the action of the Council were re-elected, with the exception of Mr. Beamish Murdoch.
Mr. S. G. W. Archibald was again elected Speaker, and in returning thanks stated his determination to preserve inviolate the privileges of the House.”

In 1829 Howe began to write definitely on political questions. He studied the English papers and pamphlets, and became familiar with the reform movement in the mother country. In 1830, during the brandy dispute, he championed the cause of the Assembly against the Council and the Family Compact. The election of that year was a victory for the Reform party, but the triumph was wasted through want of proper leadership. Howe saw the need of educating the people, particularly those in the rural sections, along political lines, and to that end gave his attention to the publication of what he termed his “Legislative Review,” a series of articles on the political issues of the day. Laboring under a burden of debt, with the success of his paper yet to be won, with no friends among those of the inner circle of Halifax, the young editor attacked the problems of the province with courage and ability. When the new Assembly, elected in 1830, failed to accomplish the reforms for which it had been chosen, he informed his readers and urged them to continue the fight for their just rights and privileges in the control of the local government.

The masses of the plain people caught the inspiration of his zealous appeals and a new party feeling and a new party solidarity began to gather around his leadership. His zeal also brought down upon his head the wrath of the powerful Family compact.


On January 1, 1835, an important date in the history of reform in Nova Scotia, a letter appeared in Joseph Howe’s paper, The Nova Scotian, accusing the magistrates of the city of Halifax of corruption in the management of municipal affairs. (Halifax had not been incorporated as a city but was still under the old system of municipal control, i.e. under a body of magistrates appointed by the Crown).

As might be expected the city government was entirely in the hands of the members of the Family Compact party who had already felt the sting of the opposition of the young editor. In fact the letter had been written and contributed by a friend, but as publisher, Howe was obliged to take the legal responsibility for its appearance and suffer the wrath of the city fathers. This was their opportunity; they could now crush him completely; a heavy fine would mean financial ruin; a jail sentence would cool his zeal, and both would shatter forever his influence as a reformer. At a meeting of the Grand Inquest of the County, therefore, a true bill was lodged again Joseph Howe for criminal libel. (At that time in criminal libel the truth of the libel could not be introduced as evidence. This was changed in England in 1843 by Lord Campbell’s Act).

This meant that the law officers of the Crown would prosecute him as a dangerous character in the community in which he had grown to manhood and where he was respected and loved by a large majority of the population. It was in some respects a cowardly proceeding on the part of the magistrates of the city. Because of the legal circumstances Howe was thus caught in a dangerous and difficult situation. First he went to his friends of the legal profession, but no one of them would take the case of his defense. They were ambitious and did not wish to endanger their future by opposing openly the powers of the inner circle. Their advice to Howe was to admit the guilt of the charge and trust to the mercy of the court for leniency.

Howe was made of finer and stronger stuff and refused positively to entertain the idea of guilt. He would prepare and handle his own defense. It was a brave stand for the odds were heavy against him. He had no legal training, nor even the advantage of a higher education, and his experience in court had been only that of a newspaper reporter. Moreover, the very judges before whom he was to be tried, while men of character, were all friends of the same group that sought his destruction. Undaunted, he borrowed the law books of his friends, and, by the time his case was called, had mastered the law; of libel and was ready for the ordeal of his own defense.

Joseph Howe had many friends among the more democratic elements of the community, and to them the issue of the trial was an important political matter. The government was bent upon destroying the champion of popular interests, one who had lifted up his voice in criticism of maladministration. On the day of the trial crowds of people came to the court to hear the arguments in the case. Howe had written and memorized two paragraphs of his address to the court and jury. With the skill of a trained and experienced lawyer, he convinced his hearers of his innocence and of the injustice of the charges placed against him. For six hours his eloquence and wit held the unbroken attention of the jury and the onlookers. He lifted the case out of the narrow grooves of legal technicalities and placed it beside the great issues over which had been fought the battles for British liberty. The freedom of the press was at stake; one of the fundamental rights of all Britishers had been questioned; and his speech was a plea for its vindication.

He claimed for himself the “impenetrable shield of the British law,” and “those invaluable principles” which “our forefathers fixed and have bequeathed.” When he had finished Howe returned to his humble home where the great emotion, which had filled his soul poured itself out in a flood of tears. He had not known before or even suspected that he possessed such power.

The next morning the Crown’s attorney closed the case with a strong argument in support of the law against public slander and for the conviction of the young editor. But in spite of his efforts and the stern and straightforward instructions of the Chief Justice5 the jury returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty. The joy of the community was unbounded and the feelings of the people could no longer be held in check. Howe was carried to his home on the shoulders of his friends and admirers and the victory was celebrated by a two days’ holiday. Politically Joseph Howe had been born. The leadership had at last been found which the reforming forces of Nova Scotia were to follow gladly for a generation. In this simple triumph a movement was started which was to produce ultimately a method of government under the Crown more freely democratic than that sought and established by the patriots of 1776 under republican institutions. But no man who celebrated the vindication of young Howe, realized the ultimate importance of the occasion.


Howe was already a statesman of the Empire and his vision embraced a world wide organization, based upon “a right understanding” of the ancient Constitution of England. He was seeking not only to adapt the English system to the growing life of Nova Scotia, but also to every other colony under the British Crown. The life of Nova Scotia was fundamentally democratic, and in this quest his great object was self-government without independence; he was seeking all that Dickinson and Jefferson had sought before the fateful hour of 1776, and he knew it could be accomplished without resorting to secession or to republicanism. In short, Joseph Howe, in seeking to adapt the English system to the conditions of life in the new colonies was in reality propounding the question of colonial responsible government, which was the first step in the transformation of the constitution of the Empire. The cornerstone of the Commonwealth was in the making.

The Resolutions were opposed by the Family Compact with all its strength. Some of the best leadership, and some of the most thoughtful people in the province were of that group. The program of the Reform party, they argued, would lead to independence and republicanism. Their liberties were preserved by monarchical institutions, and they pointed to the sad state of the government of the United States as an example of a self-governing democracy which they did not care to follow. The proposal to make the Council elective would “substitute for the high minded independence of Englishmen, the low and groveling subservancy of democracy.” The elective principle should ever be discouraged in order to preserve to Nova Scotia and to posterity the constitution of the mother country.”

Livingston, Walter Ross. Responsible Government In Nova Scotia: a Study of the Constitutional Beginnings of the British Commonwealth. Iowa City: The University, 1930. https://hdl.handle.net/2027/wu.89080043730https://archive.org/details/responsiblegover0000livi

The American Revolution, A History

“Rioting had long been common in England, but many of the popular uprisings of the 1760s were different from those in the past. Far from being limited to particular grievances such as high bread prices, much of the rioting was now directed toward the whole political system. The most important crowd leader was John Wilkes, one of the most colorful demagogues in English history. Wilkes was a member of Parliament and an opposition journalist who in 1763 was arrested and tried for seditiously libeling George III and the government in No. 45 of his newspaper, the North Briton. Wilkes immediately became a popular hero, and the cry “Wilkes and Liberty” spread on both sides of the Atlantic. The House of Commons ordered the offensive issue of the newspaper publicly burned, and Wilkes fled to France. In 1768 he returned and was several times elected to the House of Commons, but each time Parliament denied him his seat. London crowds, organized by substantial shopkeepers and artisans, found in Wilkes a symbol of all their pent-up resentments against Britain’s corrupt and oligarchic politics. The issue of Wilkes helped to bring together radical reform movement that shook the foundations of Britain’s narrow governing class.

Thus in the 1760s and early 1770s the British government was faced with the need to overhaul its empire and gain revenue from its colonies at the very time the political situation in the British Isles themselves was more chaotic, confused, and disorderly than it had been since the early eighteenth century. No wonder that it took only a bit more than a decade for the whole shaky imperial structure to come crashing down.

The government began its reform of the newly enlarged empire by issuing the Proclamation of 1763. The crown proclamation created three new royal governments – East Florida, West Florida and Quebec – and enlarged the province of Nova Scotia. It turned the vast-Appalachian area into an Indian reservation and prohibited all private individuals from purchasing Indian lands. The aim was to maintain peace in the West and to channel the migration of people northward and southward into the new colonies. There it was felt, the settlers would be in closer touch with both the mother country and the mercantile system – and more useful as buffers against the Spanish in Louisiana and the remaining French in Canada.
But circumstances destroyed these royal blueprints…The demarcation line along the Appalachians that closed the West to white settlers was hastily and crudely drawn, and some colonists suddenly found themselves living in the Indian reservation.


In the Quebec Act of 1774, the British government finally tried to steady its dizzy western policy. This act transferred to the province of Quebec the land and control of the Indian trade in the huge area between Ohio and Mississippi rivers and allowed Quebec’s French inhabitants French law and Catholicism. As enlightened as this act was toward the French Canadians, it managed to anger all American interests – speculators, settlers and traders alike. This arbitrary alteration of provincial boundaries threatened the security of all colonial boundaries and frightened American Protestants into believing the British government was trying to erect a hostile Catholic province in the Northwest.


In March 1765, Parliament by an overwhelming majority passed the Stamp Act, which levied a tax on legal documents, almanacs, newspapers, and nearly every form of paper used in the colonies. Like all duties, the tax was to be pain in British Sterling, not in colonial paper money. Although stamp taxes had been used in England since 1694 and several colonial assemblies had resorted to them in the 1750s, Parliament had never before imposed such a tax directly on the colonists.
It is not surprising therefore, that the Stamp Act galvanized colonial opinion as nothing ever had. “This single stoke,” declared William Smith, Jr., of New York, “has lost Great Britain the affection of all her Colonies.”


Convinced that something more drastic had to be done, the British government reorganized the executive authority of the empire. In 1767-68 the government created the American Board of Customs, located in Boston and reporting directly to the Treasury. It also established three new Vice Admiralty courts – in Boston, Philadelphia, and Charleston – to supplement the one already in operation in Halifax, Nova Scotia. In belated recognition of the importance of the colonies, it created a new secretaryship of state exclusively for American affairs, an office that would cap the entire structure of colonial government.”

Wood, Gordon, S. “The American Revolution, A History”. Random House, 2002.

Empire of Liberty

“When in early 1806 Jefferson requested $2 million from Congress to help obtain the Floridas, Senator Stephen Bradley of Vermont proposed an amendment to give the president authority to acquire not only West and East Florida but also Canada and Nova Scotia, by purchase or “otherwise,” by which he meant military means. The amendment gained some support but was defeated. The “Two Million Dollar Act,” as it was called, was bitterly opposed by John Randolph, the Virginia spokesman for the States’ Rights Principles of 1798, largely because the money was to be paid to France, which presumably would influence Spain to surrender the Floridas. Randolph “considered it a base prostration of the national character, to excite one nation by money to bully another out of its property,” and he used this incident to break decisively with Jefferson.” (Randolph, Annals of Congress, 9th Congress, 1st Session (April 1806), 947.)

Wood, Gordon S. “Empire of Liberty, A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815”. Oxford University Press, 2009.

John Adams, to the Abbé de Mably, 15 January 1783

“It would require the whole of the longest Life, to begin at Twenty Years of Age, to assemble from all the Nations and Parts of the Globe in which they are deposited, the Documents to form a compleat History of the American War, because it is nearly the History of Mankind for the whole Epocha of it. The History of France Spain Holland, England and the Neutral Powers, as well as America are at least comprized in it. Materials must be collected from all these Nations, and the most important Documents of all, Such as Shew the Characters of Actors and the Secret Springs of Action, are yet locked up in Cabinets and in Cyphers.”

“…as the Controversy and the War, began in the Massachusetts Bay, the principal Province of New England, their Institutions had the first operation. Four of those Institutions, Should be Studied and fully examined by any one, who would write with any Intelligence upon the Subject because they produced the decisive Effect, not only by the first decisions of the Controversy in publick Councils, and the first determinations to resist in Arms, but by Influencing the Minds of the other Colonies to follow their Example and to adopt, in a greater or less degree the Same Institutions and Similar Measures.

The four Institutions intended are, 1. the Towns. 2. The Churches. 3. The Schools. and 4. the Militia.

1. The Towns are certain Pieces of Land or Districts of Territory, into which the Massachusetts Bay, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Rhode Island are divided.— Each Town contains upon an Average Six miles or two Leagues Square. The Inhabitants who live within its Limits are erected by Law into a Corporation or Body Politick and are vested with certain Powers and Priviledges, Such as repairing the Roads, maintaining the Poor, choosing the Select Men Constables Collectors of Taxes, and other Officers, and above all their Representatives in the Legislature; and that of Assembling, whenever warned to it by their select Men, in Town Meeting to deliberate upon the publick affairs of the Town, or to instruct their Representatives. The Consequence of this Institution has been, that all the Inhabitants have acquired from their Infancy, an Habit of debating, deliberating and judging of public Affairs. it was in these Town Meetings that the Sentiments of the People were first formed, and their Resolutions taken from the Beginning to the End of this Controvesy and War.

2. The Churches are the religious Societies, which comprehend the whole People. each Town composes one Parish and one Church at least. most of them have more than one, and many of them Several. Each Parish has a Meeting house and a Minister, Supported at its own Expence. The Constitutions of the Churches are extreamly popular and the Clergy have little Authority or Influence, except such as their own Piety, Virtues and Learning naturally give them. They are chosen by the People of the Parish and ordained by the neighbouring Clergy. They all marry and have families, and live with their Parishes in mutual Friendship and good Offices. They visit the sick are charitable to the Poor, attend all Marriages & Funerals and preach, twice on every sunday. The least Reproach to their moral Character, ruins their Influence and forfeits their Livings, so that they are a wise virtuous and pious set of Men. Their sentiments are generally popular and they are zealous Friends of Liberty.

3. The Schools are in every Town. By an early Law of the Colony, evey Town consisting of Sixty Families, is obliged, under a Penalty to maintain constantly a School House and a school Master, who teaches Reading, Writing Arithmetick and the Rudiments of Latin and Greek. To this public school the Children of all the Inhabitants poor as well as rich, have a Right to go. In these Schools are formed schollars for the Colleges at Cambridge New Haven, Warwick and Dartmouth, and in those Colledges are educated, Masters for the schools, Ministers for the Churches, Practitioners in Law and Physick, and Magistrates and officers for the Government of the Country.

4. The Militia comprehends the whole People.— By the Law of the Land every Male Inhabitant between Sixteen and Sixty Years of Age is enrolled in a Company and a Regiment of Militia, compleatly organized with all its officers, is obliged to keep at his own Expence constantly in his House, a Firelock in good order, a Powder Horn with a Pound of Powder, twelve Flynts four and Twenty Bullets, a Cartouch Box and an Havresack.—so that the whole Country is ready to march for their Defence at a short Warning. The Companies and Regiments are obliged to assemble certain Times of the Year, at the Command of their Officers, for the View of their Arms and Ammunition and to go through the military Exercises.

Thus, Sir you have a Brief Sketch of the four Principal Sources of that Wisdom in Council, and that skill and Bravery in War, which have produced the American Revolution and which I hope will be Sacredly preserved as the foundations of a free, happy and prosperous People.”

“III. To the Abbé de Mably, 15 January 1783,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/06-14-02-0111-0004. [Original source: The Adams Papers, Papers of John Adams, vol. 14, October 1782–May 1783, ed. Gregg L. Lint, C. James Taylor, Hobson Woodward, Margaret A. Hogan, Mary T. Claffey, Sara B. Sikes, and Judith S. Graham. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008, pp. 172–180.]

The history of the colony of Massachusetts Bay, from the first settlement thereof in 1628, until its incorporation…in 1691

Not just any old moldering title, but that of the second last royalist governor of Massachusetts, Thomas Hutchinson. Written in 1765, at a time when all of the colonies were kindred, just previous to the implementation of the Stamp Act. Although specifically written on the history of Massachusetts, that Nova Scotia was once affixed ensures the inclusion of numerous details.


It is observable that all the colonies, before the reign of King Charles the second, Maryland excepted, settled a model of government for themselves. Virginia had been many years distracted under the government of presidents and governors, with councils in whose nomination or removal the people had no voice, until in the year 1620 a house of burgesses broke out in the colony; the King nor the grand council at home not having given any powers or directions for it.

— The governor and assistants of the Massachusetts at first intended to rule the people, and, as we have observed, obtained their consent for it, but this lasted two or three years only; and although there is no colour for it in the charter, yet a house of deputies appeared suddenly, in 1634, to the surprize of the magistrates and the disappointment of their schemes for power. — Connecticut soon after followed the plan of the Massachusetts. — New-Haven, altho’ the people had the highest reverence for their leaders and for near 30 years in judicial proceeding submitted to the magistracy (it must however be remembered that it was annually elected) without a jury, yet in matters of legislation the people, from the beginning, would have their share by their representatives. — New Hampshire combined together under the same form with Massachusetts, — Lord Say tempts the principal men of the Massachusetts, to make them and their heirs nobles and absolute governors of a new colony; but, under this plan, they could find no people to follow them. — Barbadoes and the leeward islands, began in 1625, struggled under governors and councils and contending proprietors for about 20 years. Numbers suffered death by the arbitrary sentences of courts martial, or other acts of violence, as one side or the other happened to prevail. At length, in 1645, the assembly was called, and no reason given but this, viz. That, by the grant to the Earl of Carlisle, the inhabitants were to enjoy all the liberties, privileges and franchises of English subjects, and therefore, as it is also expressly mentioned in the grant, could not legally be bound or charged by any a without their own consent. This grant, in 1627, was made by Charles the first, a Prince not the most tender of the subjects liberties. After the restoration there is no instance of a colony settled without a representative of the people, nor any attempt to deprive the colonies of this privilege, except in the arbitrary reign of King James the second. The colonies, which are to be settled in the new acquired countries, have the fullest assurance, by his Majesty’s proclamation, that the same form of government shall be established there. Perhaps the same establishment in Canada, and the full privileges of British subjects conferred upon the French inhabitants there, might be the means of firmly attaching them to the British interest; and civil liberty tend also to deliver them by degrees from their religious slavery.

The inhabitants of Acadie or Nova-Scotia lived, above forty years after the reduction of Port Royal under the government of their priests. No form of civil government was established, and they had no more affection for England than for Russia. The military authority served as a watch to prevent confederacies or combinations. The people indeed chose more or less deputies from each canton or division, but their only business seems to have been to receive orders from the governor, and to present petitions to him from the people. Temporal offences, unless enormous, and all civil controversies were ordinarily adjudged and determined by their spiritual fathers. I asked some of the most sensible of the Acadians, what punishment’s the priests could inflict to answer the ends of government. They answered me by another question. What can be a greater punishment than the forfeiture of our salvation? In no part of the Romish church the blind persuasion, of the power of the priest to save or damn, was ever more firmly riveted; and although these Acadians have, for eight years past, been scattered through the English colonies, yet I never could hear of one apostate or so much as a wavering person among them all: and if the Canadians are treated in the same manner, they will probably remain under the same infatuation.”


About this time [1644], much division and disturbance in the colony was occasioned by the French of Acadie and Nova-Scotia. It is necessary to look back upon the state of those countries. After Argall dispossessed the French in 1613, they seem to have been neglected both by English and French, until the grant to Sir William Alexander in 1621. That he made attempts and began settlements in Nova-Scotia has always been allowed, the particular voyages we have no account of. It appears from Champlain, that many French had joined with the English or Scotch, and adhered to their interest. Among the rest, La Tour was at Port Royal in 1630, where out of seventy Scots, thirty had died the winter before from their bad accommodations. La Tour, willing to be safe, let the title be in which it would, English or French, procured from the French King a grant of the river St. John, and five leagues above and five below, and ten leagues into the country; this was in 1627.

This appears from a list of the several grants made to La Tour, communicated to governor Pownall by Monsieur D’Entremont a very ancient French inhabitant of Acadie descended from La Tour, and who was removed to Boston in 1756 and died in a few years after. At the same time he was connected with the Scotch, and first obtained leave to improve lands and build within the territory, and then, about the year 1630, purchased Sir William Alexander’s title. La Tour’s title is said to have been confirmed to him under the great seal of Scotland, and that he obtained also a grant of a baronettage of Nova-Scotia. It is probable the case was not just as represented. King Charles in 1625 confirmed Alexander’s grant, under whom La Tour settled Penobscot, and all the country westward and southward, was at this time in the possession of the English. In 1632, La Tour obtained from the French King a grant of the river and bay of St. Croix and islands and lands adjacent, twelve leagues upon the sea and twenty leagues into the land. The French commissaries speak of this grant as made to Razilly.

By the treaty of St. Germains, the same year, Acadie was relinquished by the English, and La Tour became dependent upon the French alone. In 1634, he obtained a grant of the isle of Sables ; another of ten leagues upon the sea and ten into the land at La Have; another of Port Royal the fame extent; and the like at Menis, with all adjacent islands included in each grant. Razilly had the general command, who appointed Monsieur D’Aulney de Charnify his Lieutenant of that part of Acadie west of St. Croix, and La Tour of that east. In consequence of this division, D’Aulney came, as has been related, and dispossessed the English at Penobscot in the year 1635. Razilly died soon after, and D’Aulney and La Tour both claimed a general command of Acadie and made war upon one another. D’Aulney, by the French King’s letter to him in 1638, was ordered to confine himself to the coast of the Etechemins, which in all his writings he makes to be a part of Acadie. La Tour’s principal fort was at St. John’s. As their chief views were the trade with the natives, being so near together, there was a constant clashing of interest. In November 1641, La Tour sent Rochet, a protestant of Rochel, to Boston from St. John’s, with proposals for a free trade between the two colonies, and desiring assistance against D’Aulney; but not having sufficient credentials, the governor and council declined any treaty, and he returned. The next year, October 6, there came to Boston a shallop from La Tour, with his Lieutenant and 14 men, with letters full of compliment, desiring aid to remove D’Aulney from Penobscot, and renewing the proposal of a free trade. They returned without any assurance of what was principally desired, but some merchants of Boston sent a pinnace after them to trade with La Tour at the river St. John. They met with good encouragement, and brought letters to the governor, containing a large state of the controversy between D’Aulney and La Tour, but stopping at Pemaquid in their way home, they found D’Aulney upon a visit there, who wrote to the governor and sent him a printed copy of an arrêt he had obtained from France against La Tour, and threatened, that if any vessels came to La Tour he would make prize of them. The next summer (June 12) La Tour himself came to Boston, in a ship with 140 persons aboard, the matter and crew being protestants of Rochel. They took a pilot out of a Boston vessel at sea, and coming into the harbour saw a boat with Mr. Gibbon’s lady and family, who were going to his farm. One of the Frenchmen, who had been entertained at the house, knew her, and a boat being manned to invite her aboard, she fled to Governor’s island and the Frenchmen after her, where they found the governor and his family, who were all greatly surprized, as was the whole colony when they heard the news.

The town was so surprized, that they were all immediately in arms, and three shallops filled with armed men were lent to guard the governor home. Had it been an enemy, he might not only have secured the governor’s person, but taken possession of the castle opposite to the island, there not being a single man at that time to defend the place . This occasioned new regulations for the better security of the place. The castle was rebuilt in 1644, at the charge of the six neighbouring towns.

La Tour acquainted the governor, that this ship coming from France, with supplies for his fort, found it blocked up by D’Aulney his old enemy, and he was now come to Boston to pray aid to remove him. La Tour had cleared up his conduct, so as to obtain a permission under the hands of the Vice Admiral and Grand Prior, &c. for this ship to bring supplies to him, and in the permission he was stiled the King’s Lieutenant General in Acadie. He produced also letters from the agent of the company in France, advising him to look to himself and to guard against the designs of D’ Aulney. The governor called together such of the magistrates and deputies as were near the town, and laid before them La Tour’s request. They could not, consistent with the articles they had just agreed to with the other governments, grant aid without their advice; but they did not think it necessary to hinder any, who were willing to be hired, from aiding him, which he took very thankfully ; but some being displeased with these concessions, the governor called a second meeting, where, upon a more full debate, the first opinion was adhered to.

Some of the magistrates, deputies and elders, were much grieved at this proceeding. A remonstrance to the governor was drawn up and signed by Mr. Saltonstall, Mr. Bradstreet, and Mr. Symonds of the magistrates, and Mr. Nath. Ward, Ezekiel Rogers, Nathanael Rogers and John Norton of the elders ; wherein they condemn the proceeding, as impolitic and unjust, and set forth “that they should expose their trade to the ravages of D’AuIney, and perhaps the whole colony to the resentment of the French King, who would not be imposed upon by the distinction of permitting and commanding force to assist La Tour ; that they had no sufficient evidence of the justice of his cause, and in causa dubia bellum non est suscipiendum ; that La Tour was a papist attended by priests, friars. Sec. and that they were in the case of Jehoshaphat who joined with Ahab an idolater, which act was expressly condemned in scripture.

La Tour hired four ships of force, and took 70 or 80 volunteers into his pay, with which assistance he was safely landed at his fort, and D’Aulney fled to Penobscot, where he ran his vessels ashore; and although the commander of the ships refused to attack him, yet some of the soldiers joined with La Tour’s men in an assault upon some of D’Aulney’s men, who had intrenched themselves; but were obliged to betake themselves to flight, having three of their number slain. The ships returned in about two months, without any loss. The governor excused the proceeding to D’Aulney, as not having interested himself in the quarrel between them, but only permitted La Tour, in his distress, as the laws of Christianity and humanity required, to hire ships and men for his money, without any commission or authority derived from the government of the colony. D’Aulney went to France, and, being expected to return the next summer 1644, with a great force, La Tour came again to Boston, and went from thence to Mr. Endicot, who was then governor and lived at Salem, and who appointed a meeting of magistrates and ministers to consider his request. Most of the magistrates were of opinion that he ought to be relieved as a distressed neighbour, and in point of prudence, to prevent so dangerous an enemy as D’Aulney from strengthening himself in their neighbourhood; but it was finally agreed, that a letter should be wrote to D’Aulney, to enquire the reason of his having granted commissions to take their people, and to demand satisfaction for the wrong he had done to them and their confederates, in taking Penobscot, and in making prize of their men and goods at the Isle of Sables; at the same time intimating, that although these people who went the last year with La Tour, had no commission, yet if D’Aulney could make it appear they had done him any wrong (which they knew nothing of) satisfaction should be made ; and they expected he should call in all his commissions, and required his answer by the bearer. They likewise acquainted him, that their merchants had entered into a trade with La Tour, which they were resolved to support them in. La Tour being able to obtain nothing further, returned to his fort. Some of the province of Maine going this summer (1644) from Saco to trade with La Tour, or to get in their debts, put in at Penobscot in their way, and were detained prisoners a few days ; but for the fake of Mr. Shurt of Pemaquid, one of the company, who was well known to D’Aulney, they were released. La Tour afterwards prevailed upon Mr. Wanneston, another of the company, to attempt, with about twenty of La Tour’s men, to take Penobscot, for they heard the fort was weakly manned and in want of victuals. They went first to a farm house of D’Aulney ’s about six miles from the fort. They burned the the house and killed the cattle, but Wanneston being killed at the door, the rest of them came to Boston. In September, letters were received from D’Aulney informing that his master the King of France understanding that the aid allowed to La Tour, the last year, by the Massachusetts, was procured by means of a commission which he shewed from the Vice-Admiral of France, had given in charge that they should not be molested, but good correspondence should be kept with them and all the English, and that, as soon as he had settled some affairs, he intended to let them know what further com-mission he had, &c. Soon after, he lent a commissioner, supposed to be a friar, but dressed in lay habit, with ten men to attend him, with credentials and a commission under the great seal of France, and copy of some late proceedings again! La Tour, who was proscribed as a rebel and traitor, having fled out of France again against special order. The governor and magistrates urged much a reconciliation with La Tour, but to no purpose. La Tour pretended to be a Huguenot, or at least to think favourably of that religion, and this gave him a preference in the esteem of the colony to D’Aulney; but as D’Aulney seemed to be established in his authority, upon proposals being made by him of peace and friendship, the following articles were concluded upon, viz,. The agreement between John Endicott, Esq; governor of New-England, and the rest of the magistrates there, and Monsieur Marie commissioner of Monsieur D’Aulney, Knt. governor and lieut. general for his Majesty the King of France in Acadie, a province of New France, made and ratified at Boston in the Massachusetts aforesaid, October 8, 1644.

“The Governor and all the rest of the magistrates do promise to Mr. Marie, that they, and all the rest of the English within the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts, shall observe and keep firm peace with Monsieur D’Aulney, &C. and all the French under his command in Acadie. And likewise, the said M. Marie doth promise in the behalf of Monk D’Aulney, that he and all his people shall also keep firm peace with the governor and magistrates aforesaid, and with all the inhabitants of the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts aforesaid; and that it shall be lawful for all men, both the French and English to trade with each other , so that if any occasion of offence should happen, neither part shall attempt any thing against the other in any hostile manner, until the wrong be first declared and complained of, and due satisfaction not given. Provided always, the governor and magistrates aforesaid be not bound to restrain their merchants from trading with their ships with any persons, whether French or others, wheresoever they dwell. Provided also, that the full ratification and conclusion of this agreement be referred to the next meeting of the commissioners of the united colonies of New-England, for the continuation or abrogation, and in the mean time to remain firm and inviolable. This agreement freed the people from the fears they were under of ravages upon their small vassals and out plantations. La Tour was suffered to hire a vessel to carry a supply of provisions to his fort ; which vessel he took under his convoy and returned home.

The agreement made with D’Aulney was afterwards ratified by the commissioners of the united colonies, but he proved a very troublesome neighbor notwithstanding. In 1645 he made prize of a vessel, belonging to the merchants of Boston going to La Tour with provisions, and sent the men home (after he had stripped them of their cloaths and kept them ten days upon an island) in a small old boat, without either compass to steer by or gun to defend themselves. The governor and council dispatched away a vessel with letters to expostulate with him upon this action, complaining of it as a breach of the articles, and requiring satisfaction; but he wrote back in very high and lofty language, and threatened them with the effects of his master’s displeasure. They replied to D’Aulney, that they were not afraid of any thing he could do to them ; and as for his master, they knew he was a mighty prince, but they hoped he was just as well as mighty, and that he would not fall upon them without hearing their cause, and if he should do it, they had a God in whom to trust when all other help failed. With this ship D’Aulney made an attempt the same year upon La Tour’s fort while he was absent, having left only 50 men-in it; his lady bravely defended it, and D’Aulney returned disappointed and charged the Massachusetts with breach of covenant in entertaining, La Tour and sending home his lady. They excused themselves in a letter, by replying, that La Tour had hired three London ships which lay in the harbour. To this letter D’AuIney refused at first to return any answer, and refused to suffer the messenger, Capt. Allen, to come within his fort; but, at length, wrote in a high strain demanding satisfaction for his mill which had been burnt and threatening revenge. When the commissioners met in September, they agreed to send capt. Bridges to him, with the articles of peace ratified by them, and demanding a ratification from him under his own hand. D’Aulney entertained their messenger with courtesy and all the state he could, but refused to sign the articles, until the differences between them were composed ; and wrote back, that he perceived their drift was to gain time, whereas if their messengers had been furnished with power to have treated with him and concluded about their differences, he doubted not all might have been composed, for he stood more upon his honour than his interest, and he would sit still until the spring expecting their answer.

The general court, upon considering this answer, resolved to send the deputy governor Mr. Dudley, Major Demson and Capt. Hawthorn, with full powers to treat and determine, and wrote to D’AuIney, acquainting him with their resolution, and that they had agreed to the place he desired, viz. Penobscot or Pentagoet, and referred the time to him, provided it should be the month of September. This was opposed by some, as too great a condescension, and they would have had him come to the English settlement at Pemaquid; but his commission of lieutenant-general for the King or France was thought by others to carry so much dignity with it, that it would be no dishonour to the colony to go to his own home ; but it seems he was too good a husband to put himself to the expense of entertaining the messengers, and wrote in answer that he perceived they were now in earnest and desired peace, as he did also for his part, and he thought himself highly honored by their vote to send so many of their principal men to him; but desired he might spare them the labour, and he would fend two or three of his to Boston, in August following (1646) to hear and determine, &c. On the 20th of September, Messrs. Marie, Lewis, and D’Aulney’s secretary, arrived at Boston in a small pinnace, and it being Lord’s day, two officers were sent to receive them at the water side and to conduct them to their lodgings without any noise, and after the public worship was over, the governor sent Major Gibbons, with other gentlemen and a guard of musketeers to attend them to his house, where they were entertained. The next morning they began upon business, and every day dined in public, and were conduced morning and evening to and from the place of treaty with great ceremony. Great injuries were alleged on both sides, and after several days spent, an amnesty was agreed upon.

One Capt. Cromwell had taken in the West Indies a rich sedan made for the Vice Roy of Mexico, which he gave to Mr. Winthrop : This was sent as a present to D’Aulney, and well accepted by his commissioners, the treaty renewed, and all matters amicably settled. In the mean time, D’Aulney effectually answered his main purpose, for by his high language he kept the colony from assisting La Tour, took his fort from him, with ten thousand pounds sterling in furs and other merchandise, ordnance stores, plate, jewels, &c. to the great loss of the Massachusetts merchants, to one only of whom (Major Gibbons) La Tour was indebted 2500l. which was wholly lost. La Tour went to Newfoundland, where he hoped to be aided by Sir David Kirk, but was disappointed, and came from thence to Boston, where he prevailed upon some merchants to send him with four or five hundred pounds sterling in goods to trade with the Indians in the bay of Fundy. He dismissed the English, who were sent in the vessel, and never thought proper to return himself or render any account of his consignments. D’Aulney died before the year 1652, and La Tour married his widow, and repossessed himself, in whole or in part, of his former estate in Nova Scotia ; and in 1691, a daughter of D’Aulney and a canoness at St. Omers dying, made her brothers and fillers La Tours her general legatees. Under them, and by force of divers confirmations of former grants made by Lewis the 14th, between the peace of Ryswick and that of Utrecht, D’Entremant aforementioned claimed a great part of the province of Nova Scotia and of the country of Acadie. Of part of those in Nova Scotia he was possessed, when all the French inhabitants were removed by order of admiral Boscawen and general Lawrence.

Sir Thomas Temple came first to New-England in 1657, having, with others, obtained from Oliver a grant of lands in Acadie or Nova Scotia, of which he was made Governor. He was recommended by Nathaniel Fiennes, son to Lord Say. Mr. Fiennes calls him his near kinsman. The King having recommended, by a letter Feb. 22d 1665, to the governor and council, an expedition against Canada, the court in their answer to Lord Arlington, July 17th 1666, say that “having consulted with Sir Thomas Temple, governor of Nova Scotia, and with the governor of Connecticut (Mr. Winthrop, who had lately been in England) they concluded it was not feazable at present, as well in respect of the difficulty, if not impossibility of a land march over the rocky mountains, and howling deserts, about four hundred miles, as the strength of the French there, according to reports.

From 1666 to 1670 Mr. Bellingham was annually chosen governor, and Mr. Willoughby deputy governor. Nova-Scotia and the rest of Acadie, which had been rescued from the French by Cromwell, were restored by the treaty of Breda. The French made little progress in settling this country. The only inconvenience the Massachusetts complained of, until after the revolution, was the encouragement given to the Indians to make their inroads upon the frontiers. Sir Thomas Temple who, with others had a grant of the country first from Cromwell, and afterwards from King Charles, thought he had reason to complain, and the King’s order was repeated to him, to give up his forts to the French, some pretense being made for not complying with the first order.

Hutchinson, Thomas. The History of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay. 1765. https://archive.org/details/historyofcolonyo00hutc/page/94/mode/2up

“American history: comprising historical sketches of the [indigenous] tribes”

“The [Mi’kmaq], first called by the French Souriqu’ois, held possession of Nova Scotia and the adjacent isles, and were early known as the active allies of the French.

Marquis de la Roche
In 1598, the Marquis de la Roche, a French nobleman, received from the King of France a commission for founding a French colony in America. Having equipped several vessels, he sailed with a considerable number of settlers, most of whom, however, he was obliged to draw from the prisons of Paris. On Sable island, a barren spot near the coast of Nova Scotia, forty men were left to form a settlement.

La Roche dying soon after his return, the colonists Fate were neglected; and when, after seven years, a vessel was sent to inquire after them, only twelve of them were living. The dungeons from which they had been liberated were preferable to the hardships which they had suffered. The emaciated exiles were carried back to France, where they were kindly received by the king, who pardoned their crimes, and made them a liberal donation.

De Monts
In 1603, the king of France granted to De Monts, a gentleman of distinction, the sovereignty of the country from the 40th to the 46th degree of north latitude; that is, from one degree south of New York city, to one north of Montreal. Sailing with two vessels, in the spring of 1604, he arrived at Nova Scotia in May, and spent the summer in trafficking with the natives, and examining the coasts preparatory to a settlement.

Selecting an island near the mouth of the river St. Croix, on the coast of New Brunswick, he there erected a fort and passed a rigorous winter, his men suffering much from the want of suitable provisions. ‘In the following spring, 1605, De Monts removed to a place on the Bay of Fundy; and here was formed the first permanent French settlement in America. The settlement was named Port Royal, and the whole country, embracing the present New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and the adjacent islands, was called Acadia.

North and South Virginia
In 1606 James the 1st, of England, claiming all that portion of North America which lies between the 34th and the 45th degrees of north latitude, embracing the country from Cape Fear to Halifax, divided this territory into two nearly equal districts; the one, called North Virginia, extending from the 41st to the 45th degree; and the other, called South Virginia, from the 34th to the 38th.

The former he granted to a company of “Knights, gentlemen, and merchants,” of the west of England, called the Plymouth Company; and the latter to a company of “noblemen, gentlemen, and merchants,” mostly resident in London, and called the London Company. The intermediate district, from the 38th to the 41st degree, was open to both companies; but neither was to form a settlement within one hundred miles of the other.


…Early in the following year, 1690, Schenectady was burned; the settlement at Salmon Falls, on the Piscataqua, was destroyed; and a successful attack was made on the fort and settlement at Casco Bay. In anticipation of the inroads of the French, Massachusetts had hastily fitted out an expedition, under Sir William Phipps, against Nova Scotia, which resulted in the easy conquest of Port Royal.

Early in 1692 Sir William Phipps returned with a new charter, which vested the appointment of governor in the king, and united Plymouth, Massachusetts, Maine, and Nova Scotia, in one royal government. Plymouth lost her separate government contrary to her wishes; while New Hampshire, which had recently placed herself under the protection of Massachusetts, was now forcibly severed from her.

In 1707 Massachusetts attempted the reduction of Port Royal; and a fleet conveying one thousand soldiers was sent against the place; but the assailants were twice obliged to raise the siege with considerable loss. Not disheartened by the repulse, Massachusetts spent two years more in preparation, and aided by a fleet from England, in 1710 again demanded the surrender of Port Royal. The garrison, weak and dispirited, capitulated after a brief resistance; the name of the place was changed to Annapolis, in honor of Queen Anne; and Acadia, or Nova Scotia, was permanently annexed to the British crown.

The most important event of (King George’s War) in America, was the siege and capture of Louisburg. This place, situated on the island of Cape Breton, had been fortified by France at great expense, and was regarded by her as the key to her American possessions, William Shirley the governor of Massachusetts, perceiving the importance of the place, and the danger to which its possession by the French subjected the British province of Nova Scotia, laid before the legislature of the colony a plan for its capture. Although Strong objections wore urged, the govenor’s proposals were assented to; Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire, furnished their quotas of men; New York sent a supply of artillery, and Pennsylvania of provisions. Commodore Warren, then in the West Indies with an English fleet, was invited to co-operate in the enterprise, but he declined doing so without orders from England. This unexpected intelligence was kept a secret, and in April, 1745, the New England forces alone, under William Pepperell, commander-in-chief, and Roger Wolcott, second in command, sailed for Louisburg.

At Causcau they were unexpectedly met by the fleet of Commodore Warren, who had recently received orders to repair to Boston, and concert measures with Governor Shirley for his majesty’s service in North America. On the 11th of May the combined forces, numbering more than 4000 land troops, came in sight of Louisburg, and effected a landing at Gabarus Bay, which was the first intimation the French had of their danger. On the day after the landing a detachment of four hundred men marched by the city and approached the royal battery, setting fire to the houses and stores on the way. The French, imagining that the whole army was coming upon them, spiked the guns and abandoned the battery, which was immediately seized by the New England troops. Its guns were then turned upon the town, and against the island battery at the entrance of the harbor.

As it was necessary to transport the guns over a morass, where oxen and horses could not be used, they were placed on sledges constructed for the purpose, and the men with ropes, sinking to their knees in the mud, drew them safely over. Trenches were then thrown up within two hundred yards of the city,—a battery was erected on the opposite side of the harbor, at the Light House Point and the fleet of Warren captured a French gunship, with five hundred and sixty men, and a great quantity of military stores designed for the supply of the garrison. A combined attack by sea and land was planned for the 29th of June, but, on the day previous, the city, fort, and batteries, and the whole island, were surrendered. This was the most important acquisition which England made during the war, and, for its recovery, and the desolation of the English colonies, a powerful naval armament under the Duke d’Anville was sent out by France in the following year. But storms, shipwrecks, and disease, enfeebled the fleet, and blasted the hopes of the enemy.

In 1748 the war was terminated by the treaty of Aix la Chapelle. The result proved that neither party had gained any thing by the contest; for all acquisitions made by either were mutually restored. But the causes of a future and more important war still remained in the disputes about boundaries, which were left unsettled; and the “French and Indian War” soon followed, which was the last struggle of the French for dominion in America.

Expeditions of Monckton, Braddock, Shirley, and Sir William Johnson.
Early in 1755, General Braddock arrived from Ireland, with two regiments of British troops, and with the authority of commander-in-chief of the British and colonial forces. At a convention of the colonial governors, assembled at his request in Virginia, three expeditions were resolved upon; one against the French at Fort du Quesne, to be led by General Braddock himself; a second against Niagara, and a third against Crown Point, a French post on the western shore of Lake Champlain.

While preparations were making for these expeditions, an enterprise, that had been previously determined undertaken. upon, was prosecuted with success in another quarter. About the last of May, Colonel Monckton sailed from Boston, with three thousand troops, against the French settlements at the head of the Bay of Fundy, which were considered as encroachments upon the English province of Nova Scotia. Landing at Fort Lawrence, on the eastern shore of Chignecto, a branch of the Bay of Fundy, a French block-house was carried by assault, and Fort Beausejour surrendered, after an investment of four days. The name of the fort was then changed to Cumberland. Fort Gaspereau, on Bay Verte, or Green Bay, was next taken; and the forts on the New Brunswick coast were abandoned. In accordance with the views of the governor of Nova Scotia, the plantations of the French settlers were laid waste; and several thousands of the hapless fugitives, ardently attached to their mother country, and refusing to take the oath of allegiance to Great Britain, were driven on board the British shipping, at the point of the bayonet, and dispersed, in poverty, through the English colonies.


Nova Scotia, according to its present limits, forms a large peninsula, separated from the continent by the Bay of Fundy, and its branch Chignecto, and connected with it by a narrow isthmus between the latter bay and the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The peninsula is about 385 miles in length from northeast to southwest, and contains an area of nearly sixteen thousand square miles. The surface of the country is broken, and the Atlantic coast is generally barren, but some portions of the interior are fertile.

The settlement of Port Royal, (now Annapolis) by De Monts, in 1605, and also the conquest of the country by Argall, in 1614, have already been mentioned. France made no complaint of Argall’s aggression, beyond demanding the restoration of the prisoners, nor did Britain take any immediate measures for retaining her conquests. But in 1621 Sir William Alexander, afterwards Earl of Stirling, obtained from the king, James I, a grant of Nova Scotia and the adjacent islands, and in 1625 the patent was renewed by Charles I., and extended so as to embrace all Canada, and the northern portions of the United States. In 1623 a vessel was despatched with settlers, but they found the whole country in the possession of the French, and were obliged to return to England without effecting a settlement.

In 1628, during a war with France, Sir David Kirk, who had been sent out by Alexander, succeeded in reducing Nova Scotia, and in the following year he completed the conquest of Canada, but the whole country was restored by treaty in 1632.

The French court now divided Nova Scotia among three individuals, La Tour, Denys, and Razillai, and appointed Razillai commander-in-chief of the country. The latter was succeeded by Charnise, between whom and La Tour a deadly feud arose, and violent hostilities were for some time carried on between the rivals. At length, Charnise dying, the controversy was for a time settled by La Tour’s marrying the widow of his deadly enemy, but soon after La Borgne appeared, a creditor of Charnise, and with an armed force endeavored to crush at once Denys and La Tour. But after having subdued several important places, and while preparing to attack St. John, a more formidable competitor presented himself.

Cromwell, having assumed the reins of power in England, declared war against France, and, in 1654, despatched an expedition against Nova Scotia, which soon succeeded in reducing the rival parties, and the whole country submitted to his authority. La Tour, accommodating himself to circumstances, and making his submission to the English, obtained, in conjunction with Sir Thomas Temple, a grant of the greater part of the country. Sir Thomas bought up the share of La Tour, spent nearly 30,000 dollars in fortifications, and greatly improved the commerce of the country; but all his prospects were blasted by the treaty of Breda in 1667, by which Nova Scotia was again ceded to France

The French now resumed possession of the colony, which as yet contained only a few unpromising settlements, the whole population in 1680 not exceeding nine hundred individuals. The fisheries, the only productive branch of business, were carried on by the English. There were but few forts, and these so weak that two of them were taken and plundered by a small piratical vessel. In this situation, after the breaking out of the war with France in 1689, Acadia appeared an easy conquest. The achievement was assigned to Massachusetts, In May, 1690, Sir William Phipps, with 700 men, appeared before Port Royal, which soon surrendered; but he merely dismantled the fortress, and then left the country a prey to pirates. A French commander arriving in November of the following year, the country was reconquered, simply by pulling down the English and hoisting the French flag.

Soon after, the Bostonians, aroused by the depredations of the French and [indigenous] on the frontiers, sent a body of 500 men, who soon regained the whole country, with the exception of one fort on the river St. John. Acadia now remained in possession of the English until the treaty of Ryswick in 1697, when it was again restored to France.

It was again resolved to reduce Nova Scotia, and the achievement was again left to Massachusetts, with the assurance that what should be gained by arms would not again be sacrificed by treaty.

The peace of 1697 was speedily succeeded by a declaration of war against France and Spain in 1702. It was again resolved to reduce Nova Scotia, and the achievement was again left to Massachusetts, with the assurance that what should be gained by arms would not again be sacrificed by treaty. The first expedition, despatched in 1704, met with little resistance, but did little more than ravage the country. In 1707 a force of 1000 soldiers was sent against Port-Royal, but the French commandant conducted the defence of the place with so much ability, that the assailants were obliged to retire with considerable loss. In 1710 a much larger force, under the command of General Nicholson, appeared before Port Royal, but the French commandant, having but a feeble garrison, and declining to attempt a resistance, obtained an honorable capitulation. Port Royal was now named Annapolis. From this period Nova Scotia has been permanently annexed to the British crown.

The [Mi’kmaq] of Nova Scotia, who were warmly attached to the French, were greatly astonished on being informed that they had become the subjects of Great Britain. Determined, however, on preserving their independence, they carried on a long and vigorous war against the English. In 1720 they plundered a large establishment at Canseau, carrying off fish and merchandise to the amount of 10,000 dollars; and in 1723 they captured at the same place, seventeen sail of vessels, with numerous prisoners, nine of whom they deliberately and cruelly put to death.

As the [Mi’kmaq] still continued hostile, the British inhabitants of Nova Scotia were obliged to solicit aid from Massachusetts, and in 1728 that province sent a body of troops against the principal village of the Norridgewocks, on the Kennebec. ‘The enemy were surprised, and defeated with great slaughter, and among the slain was Father Ralle, their missionary, a man of considerable literary attainments, who had resided among the [Mi’kmaq] forty years. By this severe stroke the [Mi’kmaq] were overawed, and for many years did not again disturb the tranquility of the English settlements.

In 1744 war broke out anew between England and France. The French governor of Cape Breton immediately attempted the reduction of Nova Scotia, took Canseau, and twice laid siege to Annapolis, but without effect. The English, on the other hand, succeeded in capturing Louisburg, the Gibraltar of America, but when peace was concluded, by the treaty of Aix la Chapelle, in 1748, the island of Cape Breton was restored to France.

After the treaty, Great Britain began to pay more attention to Nova Scotia, which had hitherto been settled relation almost exclusively by the French, who, upon every rupture between the two countries, were accused of violating their neutrality. In order to introduce a greater proportion of English settlers, it was now proposed to colonize there a large number of the soldiers who had been discharged in consequence of the disbanding of the army, and in the latter part of June, 1749, a company of nearly 4000 adventurers of this class was added to the population of the colony.

To every private was given fifty acres of land, with ten additional acres for each member of his family. A higher allowance was granted to officers, till it amounted to six hundred acres for every person above the degree of captain, with proportionable allowances for the number and increase of every family. The settlers were to be conveyed free of expense, to be furnished with arms and ammunition, and with materials and utensils for clearing their lands and erecting habitations, and to be maintained twelve months after their arrival, at the expense of the government.

The emigrants having been landed at Chebucto harbor, under the charge of the Honorable Edward Cornwallis, whom the king had appointed their governor, they immediately commenced the building of a town, on a regular plan, to which the name of Halifax was given, in honor of the nobleman who had the greatest share in funding the colony. The place selected for the settlement possessed a cold, sterile and rocky soil, yet it was preferred to Annapolis, as it was considered more favorable for trade and fishery, and it likewise possessed one of the finest harbors in America. “Of so great importance to England was the colony deemed, that Parliament” continued to make annual grants for it, which, in 1755, had amounted to the enormous sum of nearly two millions of dollars.

But although the English settlers were thus firmly established, they soon found themselves unpleasantly situated. The limits of Nova Scotia had never been defined, by the treaties between France and England, with sufficient clearness to prevent disputes about boundaries, and each party was now striving to obtain possession of a territory claimed by the other. The government of France contended that the British dominion, according to the treaty which ceded Nova Scotia, extended only over the present peninsula of the same name; while, according to the English, it extended over all that large tract of country formerly known as Acadia, including the present province of New Brunswick. Admitting the English claim, France would be deprived of a portion of territory of great value to her, materially affecting her control over the River and Gulf of St. Lawrence, and greatly endangering the security of her Canadian possessions.

When, therefore, the English government showed a disposition effectually to colonize the country, the French settlers began to be alarmed; and though they did not think proper to make an open avowal of their jealousy, they employed their emissaries in exciting the [Mi’kmaq] to hostilities in the hope of effectually preventing the English from extending their plantations, and, perhaps, of inducing them to abandon their settlements entirely. The [Mi’kmaq] even made attacks upon Halifax, and the colonists could not move into the adjoining woods, singly or in small parties, without danger of being shot and scalped, or taken prisoners.

In support of the French claims, the governor of Canada sent detachments, which, aided by strong bodies of [Mi’kmaq] and a few French Acadians, erected the fort of Beau Sejour on the neck of the peninsula of Nova Scotia, and another on the river St. John, on pretence that these places were within the government of Canada. Encouraged by these demonstrations, the French inhabitants around the bay of Chignecto rose in open rebellion against the English government, and in the spring of 1750 the governor of Nova Scotia sent Major Lawrence with a few men to reduce them to obedience. At his approach, the French abandoned their dwellings, and placed themselves under the protection of the commandant of Fort Beau Sejour, when Lawrence, finding the enemy too strong for him, was obliged to retire without accomplishing his object.

Soon after, Major Lawrence was again detached with 1000 men, but after driving in the outposts of the enemy, he was a second time obliged to retire. To keep the French in check, however, the English built a fort on the neck of the peninsula, which, in honor of its founder, .was called Fort Lawrence.Still the depredations of the [Mi’kmaq] continued, the French erected additional forts in the disputed territory, and vessels of war, with troops and military stores, were sent to Canada and Cape Breton, until the forces in both these places became a source of great alarm to the English.

At length, in 1755, Admiral Boscawen commenced the war, which had long been anticipated by both parties, by capturing on the coast of Newfoundland two French vessels, having on board eight companies of soldiers and about 35,000 dollars in specie. Hostilities having thus begun, a force was immediately fitted out from New England, under Lieutenant Colonels Monckton and Winslow, to dislodge the enemy from their newly erected forts. The troops embarked at Boston on the 20th of May, and arrived at Annapolis on the 25th, whence they sailed on the 1st of June, in a fleet of forty-one vessels to Chignecto, and anchored about five miles from Fort Lawrence.

On their arrival at the river Massaguash, they found themselves opposed by a large number of regular forces, rebel Acadians, and [Mi’kmaq], 450 of whom occupied a block-house, while the remainder were posted within a strong outwork of timber. The latter were attacked by the English provincials with such spirit that they soon fled, when the garrison deserted the block-house, and left the passage of the river free. Thence Colonel Monckton advanced against Fort Beau Sejour, which he invested on the 12th of June, and after four days bombardment compelled it to surrender.

Having garrisoned the place, and changed its name to that of Cumberland, he next attacked and reduced another French fort near the mouth of the river Gaspereau, at the head of Bay Verte or Green Bay, where he found a large quantity of provisions and stores, which had been collected for the use of the [Mi’kmaq] and Acadians. A squadron sent against the post on the St. John, found it abandoned and destroyed. The success of the expedition secured the tranquility of all French Acadia, then claimed by the English under the name of Nova Scotia.

The peculiar situation of the Acadians, however, was a subject of great embarrassment to the local government of the province. In Europe, the war had begun unfavorably to the English, while General Braddock, sent with a large force to invade Canada, had been defeated with the loss of nearly his whole army. Powerful reenforcements had been sent by the French to Louisburg and other posts in America, and serious apprehensions were entertained that the enemy would next invade Nova Scotia, where they would find a friendly population, both European and [Mi’kmaq].

The French Acadians at that period amounted to Seventeen or eighteen thousand. They had cultivated a considerable extent of land, possessed about 60,000 head of cattle, had neat and comfortable dwellings, and lived in a state of plenty, but of great simplicity. They were a peaceful, industrious, and amiable race, governed mostly by their pastors, who exercised a parental authority over them; they cherished a deep attachment to their native country, they had resisted every invitation to bear arms against it, and had invariably refused to take the oath of allegiance to Great Britain. Although the great body of these people remained tranquilly occupied in the cultivation of their lands, yet a few individuals had joined the [Mi’kmaq], and about 300 were taken in the forts, in open rebellion against the government of the country.

Under these circumstances, Governor Lawrence and his council, aided by Admirals Boscawen and Mostyn, assembled to consider what disposal of the Acadians the security of the country required. Their decision resulted in the determination to tear the whole of this people from their homes, and disperse them through the different British colonies, where they would be unable to unite in any offensive measures, and where they might in time be-come naturalized to the government. Their lands, houses, and cattle, were, without any alleged crime, declared to be forfeited; and they were allowed to carry with them only their money and household furniture, both of extremely small amount.

Treachery was necessary to render this tyrannical scheme effective. The inhabitants of each district were commanded to meet at a certain place and day on urgent business, the nature of which was carefully concealed from them; and when they were all assembled, the dreadful mandate was pronounced,—and only small parties of-them were allowed to return for a short time to make the necessary preparations. They appear to have listened to their doom with unexpected resignation, making only mournful and solemn appeals, which were wholly disregarded. When, however, the moment of embarkation arrived, the young men, who were placed in front, absolutely refused to move and it required files of soldiers, with fixed bayonets, to secure obedience.

No arrangements had been made for their location elsewhere, nor was any compensation offered for the property of which they were deprived. They were merely thrown on the coast at different points, and compelled to trust to the charity of the inhabitants, who did not allow any of them to be absolutely starved. Still, through hardships, distress, and change of climate, a great proportion of them perished. So eager was their desire to return, that those sent to Georgia had set out, and actually reached New York, when they were arrested.

They addressed a pathetic representation to the English government, in which, quoting the most solemn treaties and declarations, they proved that their treatment had been as faithless as it was cruel. No attention, however, was paid to this document, and so guarded a silence government was preserved by the government of Nova Scotia, upon the subject of the removal of the Acadians, that the records of the province make no allusion whatever to the event.

Notwithstanding the barbarous diligence with which this mandate was executed, it is supposed that the banished number actually removed from the province did not exceed 7000. The rest fled into the depths of the forests, or to the nearest French settlements, enduring incredible hardships. To guard against the return of the hapless fugitives, the government reduced to ashes their habitations and property, laying waste even their own lands, with a fury exceeding that of the most savage enemy.

In one district, 236 houses were at once in a blaze. The Acadians, from the heart of the woods, beheld all they their homes possessed consigned to destruction; yet they made no movement till the devastators wantonly set their chapel on fire. They then rushed forward in desperation, killed about thirty of the incendaries, and then hastened back to their hiding-places.

But few events of importance occurred in Nova Scotia during the remainder of the French and Indian War, at the close of which, France was compelled to the transfer to her victorious rival, all her possessions on the American continent. Relieved from any farther apprehensions from the few French remaining in the country, the provincial government of the province made all the efforts of which it was Capable to extend the progress of cultivation and settlement, though all that could be done was insufficient to fill Up the dreadful blank that had already been made.

After the peace, the case of the Acadians naturally came Under the view of the government. No advantage had been derived from their barbarous treatment, and there remained no longer a pretext for continuing the persecution. They were, therefore, allowed to return, and to receive lands on taking the customary oaths, but no compensation was offered them for the property of which had been plundered. Nevertheless, a few did return, although, in 1772, out of a French population of seventeen or eighteen thousand which once composed the colony, there were only about two thousand remaining.

In 1758, during the administration of Governor Lawrence, a legislative assembly was given to the people of Nova Scotia. In 1761 an important [indigenous] treaty was concluded when the natives agreed finally to bury the hatchet, and to accept George III, instead of the king formerly owned by them, as their great father and friend. The province remained loyal to the crown during the war of the American Revolution, at the close of which, its population was greatly augmented by the arrival of a large number of loyalist refugees from the United States. Many of the new settlers directed their course to the region beyond peninsula, which, thereby acquiring a great increase of importance, was, in 1784, erected into a distinct government, under the title of New Brunswick. At the same time, the island of Cape Breton, which had been united with Nova Scotia since the capture of Louisburg in 1748, was erected into a separate government, in which it remained until 1820, when it was re-annexed to Nova Scotia.

The most interesting portions of the history of Nova Scotia, it will be observed, are found previous to the peace of 1763, which put a final termination to the colonial wars between France and England. Since that period the tranquillity of the province has been seldom interrupted, and, under a succession of popular governors, the country has continued steadily to advance in wealth and prosperity.

In 1729 the colony (of Newfoundland) was withdrawn from its nominal dependence on Nova Scotia, from which period until 1827 the government of the island was administered by naval commanders appointed to cruise on the fishing station, but who returned to England during the winter. Since 1827 the government has been administered by resident governors; and in 1832, at the earnest solicitation of the inhabitants, a representative assembly was granted them.”

Willson, Marcius. “American history: comprising historical sketches of the Indian tribes”. Cincinnati, W. H. Moore & co.; 1847. https://www.loc.gov/item/02003669/

“New Scot Lande”

Argals Bay, now the Bay of Fundy, must be a reference to Samuel Argall. Interesting that “The province of Alexandria” as well as “The Province of Caledonia” seem to align with the general jurisdictions of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia today.

Other features include “Cape Brittan” as well as Canso (Campseau), “Blacke” at Nova Scotia’s southern tip, perhaps an earlier derivation and the source of “Cape Negro”, “Cape Sandy” appears to be Cape Sable Island, “Sandy Isle” being Sable Island, “P. Rosignol” perhaps is reference to Western Head, at the mouth of the Mersey River whose source is Lake Rosignol. “Luckesburgh” is also noted, in reference to what, I’m not sure.

See Also:

Copy of the map accompanying Sir William Alexander's pamphlet: "Encouragement to Colonies" 1630. https://archives.novascotia.ca/maps/archives/?ID=6

“Expansion has been from the earliest day the policy of our country…evidence from fathers of the republic”

I’m not sure union is in any way imminent — the plethora of American companies with Canadian subsidiaries, most of which are located in central Canada, seems to indicate that there’s many vested interests whose entire existence depends on upholding the status quo.

Union would certainly complicate affairs for the old Province of Canada, eradicating the artificial economic boost provided to Ontario and Quebec through their role as a kind of exclusive gateway to the US economy — in a similar way to Canadian media entities whose role appears to be as an exclusive gateway to US culture. Only they have the authoritative perspective on American issues and politics that “good Canadians” share, which is almost always about framing the overton window around Democratic party talking points while delegitimizing Republicans and Independents.

In some ways it appears the status quo has settled around the feelings of Gouvernour Morris, who said: “I always thought when we should acquire Canada … it would be proper to govern them as provinces, and allow them no voice in our councils”, (the US Senate), which, with the creation of “Canada” in 1867, was all but guaranteed.

It’s undeniable that the founders were keenly aware of the colonies to America’s north, that some considered them proto-States on an indeterminate timeline to union. If one can set aside the idea of statehood and instead examine the powers of self-government afforded to US territories, it’s clear that even they stand far above and beyond the forever status of childhood imposed on the people “of Canada” by the BNA, though perhaps not its provinces.

I’m in complete agreement with Jefferson, that “no constitution was ever before so well calculated as ours for extensive empire and self-government”. Federalism allows for great difference of opinion as it relates to particularists, while at the same time lending great strength in union, an inversion of that imposed by “Canada” and its clumsy carpentry.

I wonder what the reaction from Nova Scotians would have been, had they known that Washington remembered their pleas from years earlier?

“It’s Only A Question Of Time.” Old Fogyism May Hold Her Back For A While, But She Is Bound To Come To Us.

In all the important ways Canada owes its very existence to the United States. Whether through official channels such as becoming a literal territory, an annexation or adjunct, or as a supposedly “sovereign” and “independent” country, we’ve already “come to them”, we are their buffer state in a number of ways, our security and economy will always depend on what is also a cultural behemoth next door.

The relationship more recently seems to have decayed into a kind of lawfare, in terms of Federal legislation in Canada designed to “answer” the laws of several of the States, interleaved into “newsworthy topics” every evening — along with guns and abortion which serve as a constant drumbeat from “Canadian media” to portray what is Canadian by what is not, namely that which is “American”, a portrayal which will surely misunderstand the topic at hand along with federalism and the constitutions of its 50 parts in order to paint a certain picture for political purposes, treating “Canada” as a unitary monolith in opposition.

It seems to me this divergence is on the increase and that it isn’t at all organic, which I can only assume is how “Ottawa” wants it. There is also “the mother country and her dependencies”, let alone other foreign actors colonial and otherwise to account for. An additional, even more depressing possibility which I haven’t fully accounted for, is that it might be how Uncle Sam wants it — that America’s interests are best served from their perspective by the status quo.


“WASHINGTON PROGRESSIVE. HE HOPED THAT CANADA WOULD BECOME A PART OF THE UNION—HIS VALLEY FORGE LETTER.

“And lastly, another Province (Nova Scotia), which some time ago was very desirous of it, would be added to the Federal Union. It may not be amiss to give Bermuda some consideration, as circumstances in the course of the campaign may lead to the conquest of this island, without incurring much expense, or interfering with other plans. Policy in this case may invite the measure whether it is adopted with a view of retaining or ceding the island by way of composition at a general pacification. Some good and no bad consequences can result from an attempt to take this island by surprise. The island might be carried without much, if any, opposition ; for it is presumed very little would come from the inhabitants, who have often expressed a wish to be united with America and enjoy the benefit of its support.” —George Washington in his Plan of Campaign for the year 1782, in the Revolutionary War, drawn up by him at Newburgh, May 1st, 1782

“Wanting scarcely anything but the free navigation of the Mississippi, which we must have and as certainly shall have as we remain a nation, I have supposed that, with the undeviating exercise of a just, steady and prudent national policy, we shall be the gainers, whether the Powers of the Old World may be in peace or war, but more especially in the latter case.” —George Washington, in a letter to Lafayette, August 11th, 1790.

” I see no objection to our indulging a hope that this country (Canada), of such importance in the present controversy, may yet be added to and complete our Union.” —George Washington, in a letter to General Sullivan, June 16th, 1776.

“The accounts which you had received of the accession of Canada to the Union were premature. It is a measure much to be wished, and I believe would not be displeasing to the body of that people. Your ideas of its importance to our political union coincide exactly with mine. If that country is not with us, it will, from its proximity to the Eastern States, its intercourse and connection with the numerous tribes of Western Indians, its communion with them by water and other local advantages, be at least a troublesome if not a dangerous neighbor to us; and ought, at all events, to be in the same interests and politics of the other States.” —George Washington, in a letter from Valley Forge to Landon Carter, May 30th, 1778.

FRANKLIN HINTED THAT ENGLAND MIGHT HAVE TO GIVE UP CANADA.

“Britain possesses Canada. It might be humiliating to her to give it up on the demand of America. Perhaps America will not demand it. But on the mind of the people in general would it not have an excellent effect if Britain should voluntarily offer to give up this province? And I hinted that, if England should make us a voluntary offer of Canada expressly for the purpose of effecting durable peace and sweet reconciliation, it might have a good effect.”

Benjamin Franklin in 1782 in negotiating with Richard Oswald, the British Envoy, the Treaty of Peace at the close of the Revolutionary War. ” If the United States should think fit to attempt the reduction of the British power in the northern parts of America, or the islands of Bermudas, those countries or islands, in case of success, shall be confederated or dependent upon the said United States.” —Benjamin Franklin in Treaty with France in 1778, written by him.

A NEW YORK STATESMAN. WILLIAM H. SEWARD’S IDEAS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF CANADA.

“Standing here and looking far off into the Northwest I see the Russian as he busily occupies himself in establishing seaports’, and towns, and fortifications, on the verge of this continent, as the outposts of St. Petersburg, and I can say, ‘ Go on and build up your outposts all along the coast, even up to the Arctic Ocean—they will yet become the outposts of my own country—monuments of the civilization of the United States in the Northwest.’ So I look off on Prince Rupert’s Land and Canada and see there an ingenious, enterprising and ambitious people occupied with bridging rivers and constructing canals, railroads and telegraphs to organize and preserve British provinces north of the Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence and around the shores of the Hudson Bay, and I am able to say: ‘It is very well; you are building excellent States to be hereafter admitted into the American Union.'”

William H. Seward in a speech at St. Paul September 18, 1850. “A war about these fisheries ( the British fisheries in North America) would be a war which would result either in the independence of the British provinces or in their annexation to the United States. I devoutly pray God that that consummation may come, the sooner the better; but I do not desire it at the cost of war, or injustice. I am content to wait for the ripened fruit which must fall.” —William H. Seward in a speech in the Senate August 14, 1852.

JEFFERSON AN EXPANSIONIST. HIS DREAM OF AN EMPIRE FOR LIBERTY THE CONSTITUTION WELL ADAPTED FOR IT.

“We should then have only to include the North in our Confederacy, which would be of course in the first war, and we should have such an empire for liberty as she has never surveyed since the creation ; and I am persuaded no constitution was ever before so well calculated as ours for extensive empire and self-government.”

Thomas Jefferson, in a letter from Monticello to James Madison, April 21th, 1809. “Although it is acknowledged that our new fellow citizens (of Louisiana) are as yet incapable of self-government as children, yet some cannot bring themselves to suspend its principles for a single moment.” —Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to De Witt Clinton, Dec. 2d, 1803.

GOUVERNEUR MORRIS said: “I always thought when we should acquire Canada and Louisiana it would be proper to govern them as provinces, and allow them no voice in our councils. In wording the third section of the fourth article of the Constitution I went as far as circumstances would permit, to establish the exclusion.’

Gouverneur Morris of New York, who wrote the third section of the fourth article of the Constitution, in a letter to Henry W. Livingston, December 4, 1803.” The Congress shall have power to make all needful rules and regulations respecting territory or other property belonging to the United States.” Section 3, Article 4, of the Constitution.” I knew then, as well as I do now, that all North America must at length be annexed to us.” —Gouverneur Morris in a letter to Henry W. Livingston, November 25th, 1803.

[Article IV, Section 3: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State, nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.]

UNITY OF EMPIRE. ALEXANDER HAMILTON’S IDEAS CONCERNING THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE UNITED ” Besides the eventual security against invasion, we ought certainly to look to the possession of the Floridas and Louisiana, and we ought to squint at South America. —Alexander Hamilton in a letter to James McHenry, June 21th, 1799. ” I have been long in the habit of considering the acquisition of those countries (Louisiana and Florida) as essential to the permanency of the Union.”

Alexander Hamilton, in a letter to H. G. Otis, Jan. 26th, 1799.” The Farmer, I am inclined to hope, builds too much upon the present disunion of Canada, Georgia, the Floridas, the Mississippi and Nova Scotia from other Colonies. I please myself with the flattering prospect that they will, ere long, unite in one indissoluble chain with the rest of the Colonies.” —Alexander Hamilton, in his ” Vindication of the Measures of Congress” in 1774.”

Walker, Albert H. (Albert Henry). “Expansion has been from the earliest day the policy of our country. The evidence from the fathers of the republic” New York, Republican National Committee, [1900?] http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gdc/scd0001.00139014698

Page 7 of 16
1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 16