chapter viii.) and has been used by Parkman. The _Documents Collected

in France—Massachussetts Archives_ (vol. ix. p. i.) contains one of the narratives.

The printed materials on the French side are not nearly so numerous as on the English. Of importance is Thomas Pichon’s[1034] _Lettres et Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire du Cap Breton_ (a la Haye, 1760), of which there is an English translation, of the same year, purporting to be copied from the author’s original manuscript.[1035]

Of individual experiences and accounts there are, on the English side, John Montresor’s journal, in the _Coll. of the N. Y. Hist. Soc._, 1881 (p. 151);[1036] _An Authentic Account of the Reduction of Louisbourg in June and July, 1758, by a Spectator_ (London, 1758),[1037] which Parkman calls excellent, and says that Entick, in his _General History of the Late War_ (London, 1764),[1038] used it without acknowledgment. The same authority characterizes as admirable the account in John Knox’s _Historical Journal of the Campaigns in North America_, 1757-1760[1039] (vol. i. p. 144), with its numerous letters and orders relating to the siege. Wright, in his _Life of Wolfe_, gives various letters of that active officer. Parkman also uses a diary of a captain or subaltern in Amherst’s army, found in the garret of an old house at Windsor, Nova Scotia. Some contemporary letters will be found in the _Grenville Correspondence_ (vol. i. pp. 240-265);[1040] and other views of that day respecting the event can be gleaned from Walpole’s _Memoirs of George the Second_ (2d ed., vol. iii. 134).[1041] Of the modern accounts, the most considerable are those in Warburton’s _Conquest of Canada_ (N. Y., 1850, vol. ii. p. 74), Brown’s _History of Cape Breton_, and the story as recently told with unusual spirit and acquaintance with the sources in Parkman’s _Montcalm and Wolfe_ (vol. ii. chap. xix).

Amherst had wished to push up to Quebec immediately upon the fall of Louisbourg, but the news from Abercrombie and some hesitancy of Boscawen put an end to the hope. _Chatham Correspondence_, i. 331-333.

The reports of the capture reached London August 18. (_Grenville Correspondence_, i. p. 258.)

Jenkinson writes (Sept. 7, 1758), “Yesterday the colours that were taken at Louisbourg were carried in procession to Saint Paul’s; the mob was immense.” (_Grenville Corresp._, i. 265.)

Speaking of Amherst’s success at Louisbourg, Burrows, in his _Life of Lord Hawke_ (London, 1883, p. 340), says: “So entirely has the importance of this place receded into the background that it requires an effort to understand why the success of Boscawen and Amherst should have been thought worthy of the solemn thanks of Parliament, and why the captured colors of the enemy should have been paraded through the streets of London.”

Mr. William S. Appleton, in the _Proc. Mass. Hist. Soc_., vol. xi. pp. 297, 298, describes three medals struck to commemorate the siege of 1758. Cf. also _Trans. Quebec Lit. and Hist. Soc._, 1872-73, p. 79.

_A view of Louisburg in North America, taken from near the light-house, when that city was besieged in 1758_, is the title of a contemporary copperplate engraving published by Jefferys. (Carter-Brown, iii. p. 335.) Cf. the view in Cassell’s _United States_, i. 528.

* * * * *

The plan of the siege, here presented, is reproduced from Brown’s _Hist. of Cape Breton_ (p. 297):—

KEY: The French batteries to oppose the landing were as follows:—

C. One swivel. D. Two swivels. E. Two six-pounders. F. One twenty-pounder and two six-pounders. G. One seven-inch and one eight-inch mortar. H. Two swivels. I. Two six-pounders. K. Two six-pounders. N. Two twelve-pounders. O. Two six-pounders. P. Two twenty-four pounders. Q. Two six-pounders. R. Two twelve-pounders.

* * * * *

The points of attack were as follows:—

A. Landing of the first column. B. Landing of the second column.

These troops carried the adjacent batteries and pursued their defenders towards the city. The headquarters of the English were now established at H Q, while the position of the various regiments is marked by the figures corresponding to their numbers. Three redoubts (R 1, 2, 3) were thrown up in advance, and two block-houses (B H 1, 2) were built on their left flank; and later, to assist communication with Wolfe, who had been sent to the east side of the harbor, a third block-house (B H 3) was constructed. Then a fourth redoubt was raised at Green Hill (G H R 4) to cover work in the trenches. Meanwhile the English batteries at the light-house had destroyed the island battery, and the French had sunk ships in the channel to impede the entrance of the English fleet. The first parallel was opened at T, T1, T2, and a rampart was raised, E P, to protect the men passing to the trenches. Wolfe now erected a new redoubt at R 5, to drive off a French frigate near the Barachois, which annoyed the trenches; and another at R 6, which soon successfully sustained a strong attack. The second (T 3, 4) and third (T 5, 6) parallels were next established. A boat attack from the English fleet outside led to the destruction and capture of the two remaining French ships in the harbor, opening the way for the entrance of the English fleet. At this juncture the town surrendered.

Cf. also the plans in Jefferys’ _Natural and Civil Hist. of the French Dominions in North America_ (1760), and in Mante’s _Hist. of the War_ (annexed). Parkman, in his _Montcalm and Wolfe_, ii. 52, gives an eclectic map. _Father Abraham’s Almanac_, published at Philadelphia and Boston in 1759, has a map of the siege.

* * * * *

Treaty at Halifax of Governor Lawrence with the St. John and Passamaquoddy Indians, Feb. 23, 1760. (_Mass. Archives_, xxxiv.; Williamson, i. 344.)

Conference with the Eastern Indians at Fort Pownall, Mar. 2, 1760. (_Mass. Archives_, xxix. 478.)

Pownall’s treaty of April 29, 1760. Brigadier Preble’s letter, April 30, 1760, respecting the terms on which he had received the Penobscots under the protection of the government. (_Mass. Archives_, xxxiii.) Conference with the Penobscots at the council chamber in Boston, Aug. 22, 1763. (_Mass. Archives_, xxix. 482.) Cf. on the Indian treaties, _Maine Hist. Soc. Collections_, iii. 341, 359. The treaty of Paris had been signed Feb. 10, 1763.

THE MAPS AND BOUNDS OF ACADIA.

BY THE EDITOR.

THE cartography of Acadia begins with that coast, “discovered by the English,” which is made a part of Asia in the map of La Cosa in 1500.[1042] The land is buried beneath the waves, west of the land of the king of Portugal, in the Cantino map of 1502.[1043] It lies north of the “Plisacus Sinus,” as a part of Asia, in the Ruysch map of 1508.[1044] It is a vague coast in the map of the Sylvanus Ptolemy of 1511.[1045] For a long time the eastern coast of Newfoundland and neighboring shores stood for about all that the early map-makers ventured to portray; called at one time Baccalaos, now Corterealis, again Terra Nova; sometimes completed to an insular form, occasionally made to face a bit of coast that might pass for Acadia, often doubtless embracing in its insularity an indefinite extent that might well include island and main together, vaguely expressed, until in the end the region became angularly crooked as a part of a continental coast line. The maps which will show all this variety have been given in previous volumes. The Homem map of 1558[1046] is the earliest to give the Bay of Fundy with any definiteness. There was not so much improvement as might be expected for some years to come, when the map-makers followed in the main the types of Ruscelli and Ortelius, as will be seen by sketches and fac-similes in earlier volumes.

In 1592 the Molineaux globe of the Middle Temple[1047] became a little more definite, but the old type was still mainly followed. In 1609 Lescarbot gave special treatment to the Acadian region[1048] for the first time, and his drafts were not so helpful as they ought to have been to the more general maps of Hondius, Michael Mercator, and Oliva, all of 1613, but Champlain in 1612[1049] and 1613[1050] did better. The Dutch and English maps which followed began to develop the coasts of Acadia, like those of Jacobsz (1621),[1051] Sir William Alexander (1624),[1052] Captain Briggs in Purchas (1625),[1053] Jannson’s of 1626, and the one in Speed’s _Prospect_, of the same year.[1054] The Dutch De Laet began to establish features that lingered long[1055] with the Dutch, as shown in the maps of Jannson and Visscher; while Champlain, in his great map of 1632,[1056] fashioned a type that the French made as much of as they had opportunity, as, for instance, Du Val in 1677. Dudley in 1646[1057] gave an eclectic survey of the coast. After this the maps which pass under the names of Covens and Mortier,[1058] and that of Visscher with the Dutch, and the Sanson epochal map of 1656[1059] among the French, marked some, but not much, progress. The map of Heylin’s _Cosmographie_ in 1663, the missionary map of the same year,[1060] and the new drafts of Sanson in 1669 show some variations, while that of Sanson is followed in Blome (1670). The map in Ogilby,[1061] though reëngraved to take the place of the maps in Montanus and Dapper,[1062] does not differ much.

To complete the two centuries from La Cosa, we may indicate among the French maps a missionary map of 1680,[1063] that of Hennepin,[1064] the great map of Franquelin (1684),[1065] the “partie orientale” of Coronelli’s map of 1688-89,[1066] and the one given by Leclercq in the _Établissement de la Foy_ (1691). The latest Dutch development was seen in the great Atlas of Blaeu in 1685.[1067]

With the opening of the eighteenth century, we have by Herman Moll, a leading English geographer of his day, a _New Map of Newfoundland, New Scotland, the isles of Breton, Anticoste, St. Johns, together with the fishing bancks_, which appeared in Oldmixon’s _British Empire in America_, in 1708,[1068] and by Lahontan’s cartographer the _Carte générale de Canada_, which appeared in the La Haye edition (1709) of his travels, repeated in his _Mémoires_ (1741, vol. iii.). A section showing the southern bounds as understood by the French to run on the parallel of 43° 30′, is annexed.

From 1714 to 1722 we have the maps of Guillaume Delisle, which embody the French view of the bounds of Acadia.

In 1718 the Lords of Trade in England recognized the rights of the original settlers of the debatable region under the Duke of York,—which during the last twenty years had more than once changed hands,—and these claimants then petitioned to be set up as a province, to be called “Georgia.”[1069]

In 1720, Père Anbury wrote a _Mémoire_, which confines Acadia to the Nova Scotia peninsula, and makes the region from Casco Bay to Beaubassin a part of Canada.[1070]

In March, 1723, M. Bohé reviewed the historical evidences from 1504 down, but only allowed the southern coast of the peninsula to pass under the name of Acadia.[1071]

In 1731 the crown took the opinion of the law-officers as to the right of the English king to the lands of Pemaquid, between the Kennebec and the St. Croix, because of the conquest of the territory by the French, and reconquest causing the vacating of chartered rights; and this document, which is long and reviews the history of the region, is in Chalmers’ _Opinions of Eminent Lawyers_, i. p. 78, etc.

In 1732 appeared the great map of Henry Popple, _Map of the British Empire in America and the French and Spanish settlements adjacent thereto_. It was reproduced at Amsterdam about 1737. Popple’s large MS. draft, which is preserved in the British Museum,[1072] is dated 1727. When in 1755 some points of Popple told against their claim, the English commissioners were very ready to call the map inaccurate. We have the Acadian region on a small scale in Keith’s _Virginia_, in 1738. The Delisle map of North America in 1740 is reproduced in Mills’ _Boundaries of Ontario_ (1873). The _English Pilot_ of 1742, published at London, gives various charts of the coast, particularly no. 5, “Newfoundland to Maryland,” and no. 13, “Cape Breton to New York.”

Much better drafts were made when Nicolas Bellin was employed to draw the maps for Charlevoix’s _Nouvelle France_,[1073] which was published in 1744. These were the _Carte de la partie orientale de la Nouvelle France ou du Canada_ (vol. i. 438), a _Carte de l’Accadie dressée sur les manuscrits du dépost des cartes et plans de la marine_ (vol. i. 12),[1074] and a _Carte de l’Isle Royale_ (vol. ii. p. 385), beside lesser maps of La Heve, Milford harbor, and Port Dauphin. These are reproduced in Dr. Shea’s English version of Charlevoix. Bellin’s drafts were again used as the basis of the map of Acadia and Port Royal (nos. 26, 27) in _Le petit atlas maritime_, vol. i., _Amérique Septentrionale, par le S. Bellin_ (1764).

The leading English and French general maps showing Acadia at this time are that of America in Bowen’s _Complete System of Geography_ (1747)[1075] and D’Anville’s _Amérique Septentrionale_ (Paris), which was reëngraved, with changes, at Nuremberg in 1756, and at Boston (reprinted, London) 1755, in Douglass’s _Summary of the British Settlements in North America_. It is here called “improved with the back settlements of Virginia.”[1076]

The varying territorial claims of the French and English were illustrated in a _Geographical History of Nova Scotia_, published at London in 1749; a French version of which, as _Histoire géographique de la Nouvelle Écosse_, made by Étienne de Lafargue, and issued anonymously, was published at Paris in 1755, but its authorship was acknowledged when it was later included in Lafargue’s _Œuvres_.[1077] The _Mémoire_ which Galissonière wrote in December, 1750, claimed for France westward to the Kennebec, and thence he bounded New France on the water-shed of the St. Lawrence and Mississippi.[1078] In 1750-51 Joseph Bernard Chabert was sent by the French king to rectify the charts of the coasts of Acadia, and his _Voyage fait par ordre du Roi en 1750 et 1751 dans l’Amérique Septentrionale pour rectifier les cartes des côtes de l’Acadie, de l’îsle Royale, et de l’îsle de Terre Neuve_, Paris, 1753, has maps of Acadia and of the coast of Cape Breton.[1079]

In 1753 the futile sessions of the commissioners of England and France began at Paris. Their aim was to define by agreement the bounds of Acadia as ceded to England by the treaty of Utrecht (1713),[1080] under the indefinite designation of its “ancient limits.” What were these ancient limits? On this question the French had constantly shifted their grounds. The commission of De Monts in 1603 made Acadia stretch from Central New Brunswick to Southern Pennsylvania, or between the 40th and 46th degrees of latitude; but, as Parkman says, neither side cared to produce the document. When the French held without dispute the adjacent continent, they never hesitated to confine Acadia to the peninsula.[1081] Equally, as interest prompted, they could extend it to the Kennebec, or limit it to the southern half of the peninsula. Cf. the _Mémoire sur les limites de l’Acadie_ (joint à la lettre de Begon, Nov. 9, 1713), in the Parkman MSS. in Mass. Hist. Soc., _New France_, i. p. 9.

In July, 1749, La Galissonière, in writing to his own ministry, had declared that Acadia embraced the entire peninsula; but, as the English knew nothing of this admission, he could later maintain that it was confined to the southern shore only. Cf. again _Fixation des limites de l’Acadie, etc._, 1753, among the Parkman MSS. in Mass. Hist. Soc., _New France_, i. pp. 203-269.

On this question of the “ancient limits,” the English commissioners had of course their way of answering, and the New England claims were well sustained in the arguing of the case by Governor Shirley, of Massachusetts,[1082] who with William Mildmay was an accredited agent of the English monarch. The views of the opposing representatives were irreconcilable,[1083] and in 1755 the French court appealed to the world by presenting the two sides of the case, as shown in the counter memoirs of the commissioners, in a printed work, which was sent to all the foreign courts. It appeared in two editions, quarto (1755) and duodecimo (1756), in three and six volumes respectively, and was entitled _Mémoires des Commissaires du Roi et de ceux de sa Majesté Britannique_. Both editions have a preliminary note saying that the final reply of the English commissioners was not ready for the press, and so was not included.[1084] This omission gave occasion to the English, when, the same year (1755), they published at London their _Memorials of the English and French commissaries concerning the limits of Nova Scotia or Acadia_, to claim that, by including this final response of the English commissioners, their record of the conference was more complete. This London quarto volume[1085] contained various documents.[1086]

In 1757 a fourth volume was added to the quarto Paris edition, containing the final reply of the English commissioners, and completing the record of the two years’ conference. The four volumes are a very valuable repository of historical material; and, from printing at length the documents offered in evidence, it is a much more useful gathering than the single English volume, which we have already described. The points of difference between the two works are these:—

The memorial of Shirley and Mildmay (Jan. 11, 1751), given in French only in the Paris edition, and accompanied by observations of the French commissioners in foot-notes, is here given in French and English, but without the foot-notes. The English memorial of Jan. 23, 1753, lacks the observations of the French commissioners which accompany it in their vol. iv.[1087]

Among the “pièces justificatives” in the London edition, various papers are omitted which are given in the Paris edition. The reason of the omission is that they already existed in print. Such are the texts of various treaties, and extracts from printed books.

The London edition prints, however, the MS. sources among these proofs, but does not give the observations of the French commissioners which accompany them in the Paris edition. Among the papers thus omitted in the London edition are the provincial charter of Massachusetts Bay and Gen. John Hill’s manifesto, printed at Boston from Charlevoix.

Vol. iv. of the Paris edition has various additional “pièces produites par les commissaires du Roi,” including extracts from Hakluyt, Peter Martyr, Ramusio, Gomara, Fabian, Wytfliet, as well as the English charters of Carolina (1662-63, 1665) and of Georgia (1732).

The Paris edition was also reprinted at Copenhagen, with a somewhat different arrangement, under the title _Mémoires des commissaires de sa Majesté très chrétienne et de ceux de sa Majesté Britannique. À Coppenhague, 1755._

All three of the editions in French have a map, marking off the limits of Acadia under different grants, and defining the claims of France. It is engraved on different scales, however, in the two Paris editions, and shows a larger extent of the continent westerly in the Copenhagen edition. The fourth volume of the quarto Paris edition has also a map, in which the bounds respectively of the charters of 1620, 1662, 1665, and 1732 (Virginia, Carolina, and Georgia), claimed by the English to run through to the Pacific, are drawn.[1088]

Thomas Jefferys, the English cartographer, published at London in 1754 his _Conduct of the French with regard to Nova Scotia from its first settlement to the present time. In which are exposed the falsehood and absurdity of their arguments made use of to elude the force of the treaty of Utrecht, and support their unjust proceedings. In a letter to a member of Parliament._[1089]

The map of the French claims and another of the English claims are copied herewith from Jefferys’ reproduction of the former and from his engraving of the latter, both made to accompany his later _Remarks on the French Memorials concerning the limits of Acadia, printed at the Royal Printing-House at Paris, and distributed by the French ministers at all the foreign courts of Europe, with two maps exhibiting the limits: one according to the system of the French, the other conformable to the English rights. To which is added An Answer to the Summary Discussion_,[1090] _etc._ London, T. Jefferys, 1756.[1091]

Both of these Jefferys maps were included by that geographer in his _General Topography of North America and the West Indies_, London, 1768, and one of them will also be found in the _Atlas Amériquain_, 1778, entitled “Nouvelle Écosse ou partie orientale du Canada, traduitte de l’Anglais de la Carte de Jefferys publiée à Londres en May, 1755. A Paris par Le Rouge.” Jefferys also included in the London edition of the _Memorials_ (1755) a _New map of Nova Scotia and Cape Britain, with the adjacent parts of New England and Canada_,[1092] which is also found in his _History of the French Dominion in North and South America_, London, 1760, and also in his _General Topography_, etc. A section of this map, showing Acadia, is reproduced herewith.[1093]

* * * * *

The great map of D’Anville in 1755[1094] enforced the extreme French claim, carrying the boundary line along the height of land from the Connecticut to Norridgewock, thence down the Kennebec to the sea. The secret instructions to Vaudreuil this same year (1755) allow that the French claim may be moved easterly from the Sagadahock to the St. Georges, and even to the Penobscot, if the English show a conciliatory disposition, but direct him not to waver if the water-shed is called in question at the north.[1095]

A German examination of the question appeared at Leipzig in 1756, in _Das Brittische Reich in Amerika ... nebst nachricht von den Gränzstreitigkeiten und Kriege mit den Franzossen_. It is elucidated with maps by John Georg Schrübers.[1096]