[&ANOxG] BOUNDARIES OF NEW BRUNSWICK 179 
tect Alexander and others in their work, and to compensate them if at 
any time he obliges them to withdraw * (Patterson, 101). 
If King Charles was sincere in his belief that he did not yield his 
rights in Acadia by the Treaty of St. Germain, it is very difficult to 
imagine upon what grounds his belief was based. If on the other hand 
he was not sincere, he was trying to deceive either the King of France 
or Alexander, or both, and in this case his deceit was doubtless less for 
any deep design than the temporizing of a weak character, which had 
acted dishonourably towards Alexander and was seeking an exit from the 
difficulty in which it found itself. It was of course upon the pretension 
of the King that he had not yielded his rights in Acadia that New 
Baronets of Nova Scotia continued to be created, and that the Scottish 
Parliament in 1633 passed an act (given by Banks, 14) confirming Alex- 
ander in all of his privileges and dignities in his dominions of Nova 
Scotia and Canada in America. But the claim of the English to Acadia 
did not end here, for, in 1635, the Council for New England passed a 

* In connection with King Charles’s claim that he did not give up Acadia 
by the Treaty of Breda, one point of some interest and possible importance 
here deserves mention. As Patterson has so well shown (‘“ Sir William 
Alexander,” 103), when the Treaty of St. Germain was signed in 1632 some of 
Alexander’s Scottish settlers were settled at Port Royal, and after that place 
was yielded to the French, these settlers vanish from history and their fate 
is unknown, except that LaMothe Cadillac in 1635 (?) found two of them 
there married to French women. What became of the others ? In a docu- 
ment of 1713 (given in the Quebec MS., II., 568) we read ‘‘ Que le Père de la 
Chasse, Missionaire à Pentagouét, dit que les Anglois appellent la Rivière 
St-Jean la Riviére des Ecossais (River of the Scotch), prétendant qu’elle est 
à eux depuis 1606; qu'ils disent en avoir pris possession les premieres et 
avoir fait un fort à 18 lieues à l’embrouchure, dans un lieu nommé Nachouac.” 
This tradition of the Nashwaak fort being of Scotch origin is given inde- 
pendently on the authority of an early Acadian settler, by Perley in his lec- 
tures on the ‘‘ History of New Brunswick” (Educational Review, St. John, 
N.B., March, 1891, 173), and I believe I have seen the statement elsewhere. 
The date 1606 must of course be wrong, but it is very possible then that the 
Scotch settlers from Port Royal did go and settle on the St. John, and if so 
they would naturally build a fort there. If they did, it is possible that it 
was done under instructions from Alexander that King Charles, while giving 
up Port Royal, did not yield his claim to the remainder of Acadia, and hence 
they would be protected in settling elsewhere in the country. Against this, 
however, is the fact that no other reference, documentary or cartographic, 
is known as to the Scotch settling on the St. John or of that river as the 
‘Rivière des Ecossais.’ Moreover, LaTour was settled at the mouth of 
the river from 1631 to 1645, and a settlement of Scotch on the river above him 
could scarcely have escaped mention in some of the documents of the time, 
unless indeed they were taken into LaTour’s employ, as was quite possible, 
since there was no enmity between the French and Scotch settlers. 
