102 REV. GEOEGE PATTERSON ON 



subjects, who heirefter shall intend the advancement of that work ; ffor their further satis- 

 faction heiriu, we doe heirby requyr you to draw vp a sufficient warrant for our hand to 

 pas vuder our great Seall, to our said Right, etc., the Viscount of Stirling, to goe on in the 

 said ivork, whensoever he shall think fitting, wherby, for the incouragement of such as 

 shall interest themselSis with him in it, he may have full assurance from vs in verba 

 princifds, as we have tieuer meaned to relinquish our title to any part of these cunlreyis, v:hich he 

 ha'h by patents from us, so we shall ever heirufter be readie, by our gracious favour, to pro- 

 tect him, and all such as have or shall heirufter at aney tyme conatrre with him, for /he advancement 

 of the plantaliouns in these boundis foirsaidis ; And if at aney tyme heirefter, by ordour from 

 ws, they shalbe forced to remove from the said boundis, or aney part therof wher they 

 shall happiu to be planted, we shall fullie satisfie them ior all loss they shall susteane by 

 aney such act or ordour from ws. And for your soe doeing, etc. G-reenwich, 14 JuniJ 

 1632." 



Other missives of similar purport followed. There was even an attempt further to 

 raise money on the scheme. On the 2kh April, 1632, the king published a royal letter, 

 oQ"eriug baronetcies to His Majesty's loyal subjects of England and Ireland, on the same 

 terms on which they had been previously offered to those of Scotland. At the same time 

 he declared that, notwithstanding his arrangement with the French king, he had not 

 abandoned his right to New Scotland, bîd ivould certainly carry on the plantation " by com- 

 pleiting of the intendit number of Knight Baronetts or otherwayes," (Reg. of Letters.) 

 But " surely in vain is the net spread in the sight of any bird," and after what had trans- 

 pired none were caught by this contrivance. 



It is difficult to account for the conduct of Charles throughout these proceedings. It 

 seems to manifest stupidity or duplicity altogether inexplicable, or as we are inclined to 

 believe a large mixture of both. How could he suppose that he could afterward maintain 

 his claim to the possession of Nova Scotia, when he was now surrendering to France all 

 that his subjects held there, and that in answer to her claiming it as her right? How was 

 it possible for his subjects to carry on the work of planting a colony there after by the 

 order of their own king, every man of them with all their possessions had been removed 

 from the bounds and their forts and other buildings razed to the ground ? And what 

 reliance henceforward could be placed on " the word of a prince " to be " carefuU to main- 

 teane all his good subjects who doe plant themselfiis there." The extraordinary thing is 

 that the very day he held out such pledges to his subjects, he in fulfilment of his bargain 

 with the French king sent to him a despatch under the Great Seal of Scotland engaging 

 to cause and effect the removal of all his subjects from Port Royal. It may be admitted 

 that giving up the places occupied by his subjects was not quitting his title to Acadie, 

 but it was almost equivalent. It was at least giving the French the benefit of occupation 

 which could only be wrested from them by the sword. 



In the meantime what had become of the settlers on the shore of Annapolis Basin ? 

 By the terms of the treaty of St. Germains signed in March, 1682, we infer that they were 

 still there. If so that would have been the fourth winter of their residence. There are 

 indications that the progress made had been regarded as satisfactory. "Writing in July, 

 1631, the king says, " we understand both by the reports that came from thence, and by 

 the sensible consideration & notice taken thereof by our nyghbour cuntrcyis, how well 

 that work is begun." But on the 10th May Isaac de Razilly received a commission from 



