76 ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA 
6. That after he had committed himself to the policy of deporting 
the Acadians, Lawrence was unrelenting, and acted with the sternness 
of a soldier and with little consideration for the feelings of the un- 
fortunate victims of his policy. 
7. That New England was more directly implicated in the ex- 
pulsion than was the British Ministry, in view of the following facts: 
that the Governor of Massachusetts was jointly concerned with Gover- 
nor Lawrence in devising the plan of deportation; that the details of 
the expulsion were carried out by Massachusetts troops, and that 
Massachusetts vessels, chartered from Massachusetts merchants, offi- 
cered and manned by Massachusetts captains and crews carried the 
Acadians into exile. 
8. That, prior to the expulsion, the Acadians had been so re- 
peatedly threatened by the governors of Nova Scotia, in connection 
with their refusal to take the oath, without any punishment consequent 
upon their refusal, that they were lulled into a state of false security 
and would not believe they were really to be deported until Winslow 
began to put them on ship-board.' 
9. That the Acadian expulsion did not attract anything like the 
attention in England that many modern writers have supposed, but 
was obscured by other events of world-wide interest to such an extent 
that in the eyes of the Lords of Trade it was deemed a matter of local 
importance, which could very well be left to the discretion of the Gov- 
ernors of Nova Scotia and Massachusetts. 
From the controversial point of view the most vital question of 
all remains to be considered, namely, was Lawrence justified in adopting 
so extreme a measure as a general deportation, upon the refusal of the 
Acadians to take the oath of allegiance? On this point the opinion of 
Canadian writers probably will never be unanimous. 
The writer of this paper has honestly endeavoured to divest himself 
of the prejudices that naturally arise in connection with race and 
religion, and to view the events leading up to the Acadian expulsion 
from an impartial standpoint. In so doing he has been driven to the 
conclusion (unlooked for at the outset) that the course pursued by all 
of the parties concerned was quite natural under the circumstances of 
the case.” 
The policy of the Marquis de la Galissonnière and the Marquis 
de la Jonquiére was not an unnatural one for those who wished to pro- 

! See foot-note, page 82 supra. 
2 I am gratified to find that in the discussion which followed the reading of 
this paper at the meeting of the Royal Society, Mr. W. D. Lighthall, one of the 
Fellows of this Society, who has given time and thought to the subject, stated 
that he had reached the same conclusion.—W.O.R. 
