which name I include Acadie, yet by treaties Nova Scotia was always restored to them, except by the treaty of Utrecht. By the Treaty of Utrecht the French ceded all Nova Scotia to England. The dispute at present between the two nations is about the bounds of Nova Scotia, which the French pretend to establish in such a manner as to leave out a great part of that province to themselves under the names of Acadie and Gaspisie. As far as I have read, the English by the Treaty of Utrecht, seem to have a right to all Nova Scotia and Acadia, but as provinces and states seldom think themselves bound by treaties which unsuccessful war, or a bad state of affairs, forces them to enter into, I imagine that France, seeing the importance of Nova Scotia and Acadia, not only to their trade and navigation, but to their colony of Canada, are now endeavoring to avail themselves of a favorable time and occasion to recover by force Nova Scotia and Acadia, which only force and necessity wrested from them.

According ever since the Treaty of Aix-laChapelle, the French have been encroaching on the English in Nova Scotia. They made some settlements at St. John's River in the Bay of Fundy, or as the French call it Baye Francois; they erected forts on the peninsula between Bay Vert and Beaubasin. The English last summer took these places from the French by forces sent from New England, with little loss, and have removed all the French neutrals in Nova Scotia, some say to the number of 12 or 15,000 souls, to their different colonies on the continent, where they have been treated with more or less humanity. It has been the misfortune of 900 and odd of these poor people to be sent to Maryland, where they have been entirely supported by private charity, and the little they can get by their labor, which for want of employment has been but a poor resource to them. Many of them would have met with very humane treatment from the Roman

Catholics here, but a real or pretended jealousy inclined this government not to suffer them to live with Roman Catholics. I offered the government to take and support two families consisting of fourteen souls, but was not permitted to do it.

The case of these poor unhappy people is so hard that I wonder it has not been taken notice of by some of our political writers in England. They, since the Treaty of Utrecht have been permitted to enjoy their property and possessions upon taking an oath of allegiance to the King of England. This oath they say they have never violated, the truth whereof seems to be confirmed by the capitulations of the forts of Beaubasin, by an article whereof the neutrals taken in these forts were pardoned as being forced by the French under the pain of military execution to take up arms. However their fidelity was suspected and they have been sacrificed to the security of our settlements in her part of the world. They have neither been treated as subjects or enemies; as subjects they were entitled to the benefit of our laws, and ought to have been tried and found guilty before they could be punished, and to punish them all, all ought to have been tried and convicted. If they are deemed enemies they ought to be treated as such and maintained as prisoners of war. But no care has been taken here in that respect.

These poor people for their numbers were perhaps the most happy of any on the globe. They manufactured all they wore, and their manufactures were good; they raised in great plenty the provisions they consumed; their inhabitations were warm and comfortable; they were all upon a level, being all husbandmen, and consequently as void of ambition as human nature can be. They appear to be very regular and religious, and that from principle and a perfect knowledge of their duty, which convinces me that they were blessed with excellent pastors. But alas, how is their case altered. They were at once stripped of everything but the clothes on their backs; many have

died in consequence of their sufferings, and the survivors see no prospect before them but want and misery.

The first hostilities on the Ohio began in 1754. The Virginians attempted to build a fort there, which the French prevented, and constructed one themselves called Fort DuQuesne. It was upon his march to this fort that General Braddock was defeated and killed. The victory was as complete as could be. We lost at least 800 in the field. The greatest part of our train and magazines fell into the enemies hands, the rest was destroyed to facilitate our retreat. What adds to our shame is that we suffered this disgrace from between three and five hundred Indians. This information I had from an officer of distinction who I believe knew what he said to be fact, and on whose honor and veracity I have reason to rely. I hope for the honor of the French nation, that Indians were only concerned in this action, for the wounded were all massacred, an inhumanity which I am confident French officers and soldiers would not be guilty of.

The next action of consequence was between the troops under the command of the Generals Dieskau and Johnson near the Lake of the Sacrament. The loss of men on either side was very inconsiderable; I believe we lost most, about three hundred. We were prevented from attacking Fort St. Frederic, as were the French from destroying General Shirley's army at Oswego on Lake Ontario, by cutting off the communication between Albany and that place. In case Dieskau (who is still at New York and likely to live) had been victorious, Shirley must have surrendered himself, his army and Oswego, probably without striking a stroke. Albany must also have surrendered, and New York perhaps might have been destroyed, which will give you a proper idea of the importance of the lucky stand made by General Johnson, whose service has been honorably and bountifully rewarded by his Majesty.