lOO EEV. GEOEGB PATTEESON ON 



ostensibly for the relief of Rochelle. In this it failed and except perhaps in the efforts 

 of Kirk hostilities had been carried on languidly, and on the 23rd April, 1629, a treaty 

 of peace was concluded in which it was provided that whatever prizes were taken on 

 either side within two mouths after the signing of the treaty, should be restored. This 

 could have been intended to refer only to vessels taken under letters of marque. Charles 

 understood it so. But supposing it to refer to conquests on laud, it would include 

 Quebec, which had been taken after the treaty had been signed, but it could not refer to 

 Port Royal, which had been in possession of the Scotch settlers since the year previous. 

 MoreoA'er, it had not been captured at all. As Sir Williams puts it; " This business of 

 Port Royall cannot be made lyable to the Articles of the Peace, seeing there was no act 

 of hostilitie comitted therebye ; a Collony onely being planted vpon his Ma'ties owne 

 ground, according to a Patent granted by his Ma'ties late deare father aud Ma'ties selfe 

 hauing as good a right thereto, as to any part of that continent : and both the patent and 

 the possession taken thereupon was in the time of his Ma'ties late deare Father. But 

 neither by that possession nor be the subsequent plantatioun, hath anything been taken 

 from the French, where of they had any right at all, or yet any possession for the time ; 

 and that what might have been done, either before the warre or since the warre without 

 a breach of peace, cannot justly bee complained vpon for beeing done at that time." — 

 (Colonial papers, p. 119.) 



Nevertheless, the French Government demanded the removal of Capt. Kirk, Sir Wil- 

 liam Alexander, and other British subjects, and the surrender of Quebec, Port Royal and 

 the Cape Breton coa^t. Charles asserted his rights aud to his subjects proclaimed his 

 determination to maintain them, but at the same time temporized with the French 

 monarch. He asserts his right to hold these places, but at the very time that he had 

 expressed to the Scottish Privy Council his solicitude to maintain the colony of Port 

 Royal, he had actually agreed to transfer both it aud Quebec to France. Writing to the 

 English Ambassador on the 12th June, 1631, he says : " We have formerly consented & 

 still continue our purpose and resolution that the one, that is, Quebec shall be restored, 

 & from the other (viz.. Port Royal) such of our subjects as are there planted shall retyre, 

 leaving thoge parts in the same state they were before the peace ; which wee do not out 

 of ignorance as yf we did not understand how little wee are hereunto obliged by the last 

 treaty (the Tth article whereof, which is that of restitution, regards only shipps which 

 were then abroade with letters of mart), but out of an affection & desire to complye with 

 our good brother, the French King, in all things that may friendly & reasonably, though 

 not rightly & duly, be demanded of vs." 



Even if this benevolence were real, the propriety of it might be questioned, consider- 

 ing how the interests of his subjects were involved, but in fact the transaction was a sordid 

 one throughout. By the letter just quoted it appears that Charles sold the concessions 

 proposed for hard cash or its equivalent. One-half the dowry of his queen, Henrietta 

 Maria, had never been paid by the French Grovernment, though as stated in this letter 

 they had promised more than once, aud were bound by treaty to do so, but now on con- 

 sideration of " receaving the remainder of theporcon money due unto vs eyther in present 

 payment or good and valuable assignacon," he agrees to " the rendering of Quebec aud 

 retyring from Port Royal." ' 



' The letter will be found in full in the Report on Canadian Archives for 1S84, Ixi, 



