[GANONG ] BOUNDARIES OF NEW BRUNSWICK 201 
Treaty of Utrecht considered Acadia as extending to and including all 
the mainland to the Kennebec, and that this affords the best rule for 
determining what was the Acadia of that treaty.* 
They next discuss the origin and extension of the name Nova 
Scotia. They cite Alexander’s grant of 1621 and maintain that this 
received the sanction of the King of France through his confirmation 
of LaTour’s rights in 1651.2 They point out that, while Nova Scotia 
originally was limited on the west by the St. Croix, the grant of the 
lands between St. Croix and the Kennebec to Alexander led to the 
gradual extension of the name Nova Scotia to the entire country of 
Acadia. They quote Cromwell’s warrant to Leverett of 1656, Temple’s 
contention, groundless though it was, a French document of 1685,*° and 
the words of the Treaty of Utrecht itself, as showing that Nova Scotia 
and Acadia were coextensive. They maintain that to prevent misunder- 
standing they were used as equivalent in the Treaty of Utrecht. 
They next take up the ownership of the country between the 
Penobscot and the Kennebec, which, however, does’ not concern our 
present subject. 
Next as to the French contention that the cession of Nova Scotia 
or Acadia and Port Royal means that Port Royal is not in Acadia, 

1 The evidence and argument of the Commissioners is quite conclusive and 
unanswerable upon this point, and indeed it was granted by the French 
Commissioners in their reply. Ample other evidence could be cited in sup- 
port of the contention (see page 207, foot-note). 
? This contention of the Commissioners is based upon a remarkable error. 
They state (page 41), that ‘‘In the Year 1630, in Consideration of their Great 
Expences, and the Services done by them [the La Tours] in promoting Set- 
tlements within that Country, he conveyed by Deed to the said Claude de la 
Tour and his Son, and their Heirs for ever, all his Rights in Nova-Scotia, 
excepting Port-Royal, to be held under the crown of Scotland.’ The Commis- 
sioners do not cite any document in support of this statement. Aside from 
its inherent improbability, and, in the light of later events, its impossibility, 
there is the further point that without doubt the commissioners here refer 
to the grant made in that year, 1630, by Alexander to the two LaTours given 
earlier in this paper. Many later writers, even down to our own times, repeat 
this erroneous statement, the error and the history of which are fully and 
conclusively set forth by Slafter in his ‘‘Sir William Alexander,’ pages 
76-77. In one respect, however, Slafter is himself in error (page 74), namely, 
in supposing that it is this grant which the King of France confirmed to 
LaTour in 1651. Slafter was apparently unaware of the existence of LaTour’s 
grant at the mouth of the St. John of 1635, which no doubt was the one the 
King confirmed in 1651. Since the grant from Alexander in 1630 was con- 
tingent upon LaTour’s acceptance of English sovereignty, neither he nor the 
King of France would recognize it in 1651. 
* But this document (given in full on page 614 of the Memorials) does 
not mention Nova Scotia. 
Sec. II., 1901. 13. 
