America and West Indies
September 1720, 1-15

Sponsor

Institute of Historical Research

Publication

Author

Cecil Headlam (editor)

Year published

1933

Pages

132-144

Annotate

Comment on this article
Double click anywhere on the text to add an annotation in-line

Citation Show another format:

'America and West Indies: September 1720, 1-15', Calendar of State Papers Colonial, America and West Indies, Volume 32: 1720-1721 (1933), pp. 132-144. URL: http://british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=74106 Date accessed: 24 October 2014.


Highlight

(Min 3 characters)

September 1720, 1-15

Sept. 1.
Whitehall.
220. Mr. Delafaye to the Council of Trade and Plantations. I have laid before the Lords Justices your representation of the proper measures to be taken for the security of Carolina and Nova Scotia. Their Excys. judging that care should likewise be taken at this time to preserve our Settlement upon the Island of Providence, direct that you report the state of it, and what immediate supplies they may stand in need of etc. Signed, Ch. Delafaye. Endorsed, Recd. 2nd. Read 5th Sept., 1720. 1 p. [C.O. 23, 1. No. 26.]
Sept. 5.
Whitehall.
221. Mr. Popple to Samuel Buck. The Board desires to speak with the Lessees of the Bahamas, etc. v. 1st Sept. [C.O. 24, 1. p. 48.]
Sept. 7.
Whitehall.
222. Mr. Popple to Mr. West. Encloses for his opinion in point of law Act passed in Barbados 1716, to confirm and make more effectual certain deeds or indentures of lease and release bearing date 1st and 2nd of March, 1707, and made or mention'd to be made between Robt. Lowther and Joan his wife of the one part, and the Rt. Honble. Kath. Viscountess Lonsdale etc. of the other, and to confirm an indenture, 1714, made between the Honble. John Frere and Robt. Lowther and his wife, widow of Robert Carleton etc. [C.O. 29, 14. pp. 80, 81.]
Sept. 8.
Whitehall.
223. Mr. Delafaye to the Council of Trade and Plantations. Refers to enclosures. Countinues: The Lords Justices direct that you endeavour to procure the chart and informations desired, etc. Signed, Ch. Delafaye. Endorsed, Recd. 8th. Read 13th Sept., 1720. 1 p. Enclosed,
223. i. Extract of letter from Mr. Pulteney to Mr. Delafaye. Paris, Sept. 10th (N.S.) 1720. I was this afternoon with Sir Robt. Sutton at a Conference in the Archbishop of Cambray's apartment, upon the affair of Canceaux. The Archbishop had with him Monsr. Peque his first Commis, Monsr. Rodeau the Commis of the Marechal d'Etrees, and a captain or master of a ship who has been in those parts of America. We founded our right to the Islands of Canceaux on the Treaty of Utrecht which gives Nova Scotia, and all Islands belonging to it, to the Crown of Great Britain for ever, except Cape Breton and the Islands lying in the mouth of the River of St. Laurentz and in the Gulph of the same name; we said, the Islands of Canceaux were comprehended in the general cession of Nova Scotia as depending on it, and were not excepted with Cape Breton, as not being situated in the mouth of the River, nor in the Gulph of St. Laurentz, but lying very near the coast of Nova Scotia, and joyning almost to the Cape of Canceaux; our demand for excluding the French from the fishery there was founded on the Treaty of Neutrality in America as well as on that of Utrecht, the first declares that they are not to fish anywhere on our coasts, the latter expressly restrains them from fishing on the coast of Nova Scotia within 30 leagues beginning from the island of Sable inclusive and stretching to the South West. The Archbishop's assistants claimed a right to the Islands of Canceaux because they are not named in the cession of Nova Scotia, whereas in the cession of Newfoundland it is said we are to have all the Islands adjacent to it, but we shewed in the Article of Nova Scotia, that we are to have tout ce qui depend des dites terres et isles de ce pais là; they then endeavoured to include those islands in the exception with Cape Breton, as being dans l'emboucheure du Golf de St. Lawrentz; the Latin Treaty says—insula vero Cape Breton dicta et aliae quævis tam in ostio fluvii Sti. Laurentis quam in sinu ejusdem nominis— The French runs—Mais l'Isle dite Cape Breton et toutes les autres quelconques situées dans l'emboucheure et dans le Golf de St. Laurent. They would have the emboucheure relate to the Gulf and not to the River as in Latin, and Monsr. Rodeau to support this, said, that the mouth of the River and the Gulf were the same thing, and therefore emboucheure must necessarily relate to the Gulph; they pretended too that the French Treaty is the original, and the only rule to proceed by, tho' they were told that the Latin must certainly be our rule, and ought to be theirs in this case, being clear and plain, whereas the French could not properly bear the sense they put upon it, but that there seemed to be an omission, perhaps in the transcribing, of the words du fleuve after l'emboucheure; however allowing the French in their sense we said the Islands of Canceaux which lye without the Gut of Canceaux, cannot be reckoned dans l'emboucheure du Golf, the emboucheure being properly between Cape Breton and Newfoundland the great passage to Canada. Monsr. Rodeau would have it that there are three emboucheures to the Golf, and the Gut of Canco is one; the Captain pretended that the whole space between Cape Canco and the extremity of Labroder, in which space lye the Islands of Cape Breton Newfoundland and others, was properly the emboucheure du Golf; Monsr. Pequé went further and maintained that Cape Breton and the Islands of Canco (which by their accounts are four leagues, and by ours 7 leagues distant from it) are in the Gulf itself, from these words l'Isle de Cape Breton et toutes les autres quelconques situees dans l'emboucheure et dans le Golf de St. Laurentz; but tho' this was merely a quirk on the word autres and might as well serve to place them in the mouth of the River; the Archbishop himself seemed to think this observation was very material. As to the fishery they acknowledged the exclusion of 30 leagues from the Island of Sables but were for placing this Island where it might best answer their purpose and instead of drawing the line from thence to the South West, had drawn one, in a map they shewed us, to the South East, and another towards the West directly to the coast of Nova Scotia, so as to cutt off a considerable part of that coast near Cape Canco, and they pretended a right of fishing any where even at Cape Canco without and to the northward of that line. They would not allow that by the Treaty of Neutrality or by that of Utrecht they are excluded from fishing on our coast, tho' in forming the Article of that of Utrecht relating to the Fishery, the French themselves had proposed these words—Regis Christianissimo subditis in posterum prohibitum sit, in dictis, insulis, maribus, sinubus aliisve locis ad littus Novae Scotiae sive Acadiae spectantibus, piscaturam exercere—and our Ministers added the clause about the 30 leagues. They plainly told us, that when they came to treat of the limits of Nova Scotia, they will insist on having that part of the land which is southward of their line, they said too that they had formerly Governors at Cape Canceaux, which they make a cut of Island independent of the Governor of Acadia, and they give us likewise to understand that they will pretend to confine our limits of Nova Scotia to that part only which makes a Peninsula. We did not think it proper at this time to enter into any dispute on this subject. I need not trouble you with all the answers we gave to their several pretensions about Canceaux and the fishery; we insisted on the Islands of Canco because it removes the French still further from our coasts tho' I fancy the complaint against them is for fishing at Cape Canco itself, but as this was not plainly distinguished in the papers sent to me, which said only Canco in general, we thought it safest to demand the most, especially since the Islands are not far distant from the Cape. The Archbishop seemed to sit by as an Arbitrator, but whenever he put in his word did not do it as an impartial one. He proposed at last to put something in writing as the resultat, of this conference and as taking it to be on the foot of the Commission, but we said we had particular orders on this subject and were to desire an immediate resolution from the Regent to whom the Archbishop was to report what had been said on both sides; we expect an answer in writing to the Memorial Sr. Robert Sutton gave in, and we shall make a reply. It had been proposed at the Treaty of Utrecht to divide Cape Breton, the South part for us, the North part for the French, and I remember in a letter of Lord Bolingbroke's on this subject that he says, that if the French insist upon the whole Island it must be with a view to disturb our settlements of Nova Scotia; what are we to judge of their insisting on Islands which lye much nearer than Cape Breton does to Nova Scotia, and even claiming part of the Continent of Nova Scotia. Same endorsement. 51/8 pp.
223. ii. Extract of letter from Sr. Robert Sutton to Mr. Secretary Craggs. Paris, Sept. 16th (N.S.), 1720. Describes conference as above, writing Pequé, Pecquet, and Rodeau, Renaudot. Continues: We had a sort of tumultuary conference, the design whereof we clearly perceived to be no other than to justify the French fishery, and maintain their claim to the said Islands, in order to wch. they had framed false charts, in which they had placed the Islands near the middle of the mouth of the Gut between Acadia and Cape Breton, and drawn a line from the Island of Sable N.W. according to their compass cutting the coast of Acadia a good way to the S.W. of Cape Canceaux, by which means they endeavour to shew that the fishery about the Cape belong'd to them, and some of them went so far as to insinuate, that a district of ground at the Cape, where they said about 40 French familys were settled, is not part of Acadia, because there has been a separate French Govr. of Canceaux, Cape Breton and the other Islands of the Golph of St. Lawrence. After we had detected and expos'd these fallacies, they contended, that all the Islands in the mouths of the said Golph were left to them by the Treaty of Utrecht, for proof whereof they alledg'd the words of the 13th (v. preceding). When we had beaten them out of this retrenchment, they were reduc'd to the necessity of maintaining, that the Islands in question are in the Golph of St. Lawrence, and are consequently to remain to France, reckoning the said Golph to be all the sea and streights contain'd within lines drawn from one of the outmost Capes to another, by wch. rule indeed according to their mapps, the said Islands are situated in the Golph. We used all the arguments we could to disprove this assertion, and their way of opening so wide the jaws of the Gulph of St. Lawrence: We told them we had always understood, that a sinus or Golph is a space or extent of sea incompass'd by land, the mouth whereof is formed by the two opposite points of land, wch. advance into the sea nearest to one another. That besides the Islands of Cançeaux were manifestly ceded to Great Britain with Acadia, to wch. they had always belong'd, being close to the coast of that country. The Archbishop of Cambray said, that a report of the Conference shou'd be made to the Duke Regent to the end that he might take his resolution thereupon. But we insisted, that if they still had anything to object agst. the reasons we had alledg'd to prove our right to the Islands, it shou'd be done by way of answer to the Meml., wch. I had presented upon that subject, reserving the liberty to reply to their answer. We took our leave with telling them, that we hoped they were convinc'd of the King's right to the Islands of Canceaux, and that we insisted on the same for the reasons wch. we had given, reserving to ourselves to produce such other proofs, as we may be supplied with from England, to set the matter in a clearer light, etc. We shou'd have been better enabled to make our rights clearly out, if we had been provided of a true chart with a compass and scale shewing exactly the situation of the Islands of Cançeaux, and the true distances of the several islands, capes and countrys, wch. fall under our view and consideration. I cannot say, we find the French much dispos'd to give up their unreasonable and groundless pretension. But if it be of importance to Great Britain to use the means necessary to exclude the subjects of France from fishing at the Islands of Canceaux, and you judge it requisite for that purpose to demonstrate our right more fully and plainly than we have hitherto done we shall enforce our proofs with such further arguments, as you shall please to furnish us. Same endorsement. 4 pp. [C.O. 217, 3. Nos. 8, 8. i., ii.; and (without enclosures) 218, 1. p. 473.]
Sept. 8.224. Mr. Buck and the Copartners for settling the Bahama Islands to the Council of Trade and Plantations. Describes expence they have been at in clearing the Islands of pirates and preparing defences against the Spaniards, who lately attacked the Island of Providence with 5 men of war, 3 brigantines and 11 sloops with 1400 regular troops of wch. design ye Governour haveing had timely notice he had given out armes and amuunition to above 700 men of ye inhabitants, who drove off ye Spaniards that landed and forced them to cutt and put to sea. They still threaten the Island. It is necessary to have a fort of about 12 large cannon built upon Hogg Island, for the security of the harbour, and to add a line of 12 large cannon to the fort already built on Providence. The inhabitants have been often in armes, and upon this late occation kept under Martiall Law above two months, wch. has expended most of the amunition and provisions, the Lessees did about two months agoe send out a supply of provisions for the garrison inhabitants and above 70 Spanish prisoners of warr with some powder in ye shipps Providence and Samuel with 40 recruits and other passengers about 100 in number. The Lessees have great reason to apprehend that the pirates they have routed out, whoe are now groun strong in those parts, intend to collect their whole strength in order to give them what disturbance they can and they cannot defend themselves against so powerful an attempt without the assistance of the Government haveing already expended much greater sums then have ever yett been layd out by any private Adventurers upon so small incouragement etc. Pray for the despatch of an Independant Company, 24 pieces of cannon, 2 ten inch mortars, 500 barrels of powder and ammunition etc. Signed for ye rest of ye Lessees and selfe, Sam. Buck. Endorsed, Recd. Read 8th Sept., 1720. 1½ pp. [C.O. 23, 1. No. 27.]
Sept. 9.
Whitehall.
225. Council of Trade and Plantations to the Lords Justices. Quote from preceding Memorial, and recommend despatch of stores of war requested therein. [C.O. 24, 1. pp. 49–53.]
Sept. 13.
Whitehall.
226. Mr. Delafaye to the Council of Trade and Plantations. Encloses following. Concludes:—The Lords Justices direct that you enquire into this matter and report the state of it with your opinion what is proper to be done therein. Signed, Ch. Delafaye. Endorsed, Recd. 15th. Read 20th Sept., 1720. 1 p. Enclosed,
226. i. Order of King in Council, 9th May, 1719. Ordered that the French vessels seized by Capt. Smart at Canso but detained by the Governor of New England, although condemned, be restored to Capt. Smart to dispose of them and their cargo and the produce to be divided among the officers and company of H.M.S. Squirrel. Set out, A.P.C. II. No. 1314. Signed, Robert Hales. Endorsed as preceding. 3¼ pp. [C.O. 217, 3. Nos. 10, 10. i.; and (without enclosure) 218, i. pp. 477, 478.]
Sept. 13.
Antigua.
227. Governor Hamilton to the Council of Trade and Plantations. Refers to letter etc. of 22nd Aug. etc., duplicates whereof I have directed to be made out in order to be sent by some other conveyance. Sends answers to queries relating to St. Philips' parish etc. I have had an account of the death of Antony Fox, a Member of the Council of Montserrat etc. Recommends Nathaniel Webb, Collector of the said Island, to succeed him, being well affected to H.M. etc. Signed, W. Hamilton. Endorsed, Recd. 28th Dec., 1720. Read 6th July, 1721. 1 p. Enclosed,
227. i. List of papers following. Same endorsement. 1 p.
227. ii. Minutes of Council and Assembly of Antigua, forwarding following replies. 20th July, 1720. 3 pp.
227. iii. Replies of the Parishioners of St. Philips to (a) who are for, (b) who are opposed to the building of a new parish Church. Endorsed as covering letter. 3¼ pp.
227. iv. List of parishioners for and against building the new Church, with the number of acres and slaves they own. 53 against, 18 for. Acreage and slaves nearly equal. 22nd Aug., 1720. 2 pp.
227. v. Representation of several parishioners of St. Philips to Governor Hamilton in favour of the new Church. Same endorsement. 15 Signatures. 3 pp.
227. vi. Minutes of Council of Antigua, 23rd Aug. 1720. Upon reviewing above replies, the Council were of opinion that the answers of those in favour of the Church were true, whilst some of those by opponents were false and malicious. Particularly the town of Willoughby Bay is not a place of trade as therein set forth, but decayed and inconsiderable etc. Same endorsement. 1 p.
227. vii. Plat of the Parish of St. Philips, Antigua. Same endorsement. 2 pp.
227. viii. "A large Chart of the Island of Antigua," received from the Council of Trade and returned back by Governor Hamilton with corrections and explanations. Same endorsement. 1 large p.
227. ix. Corrections of above Chart. Signed, John Teatt, Surveyor Genl. Same endorsement. 1 p. [C.O. 152, 13. ff. 231, 231, 232v., 233, 234v., 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241–244, 245v.–246v, 247v.–250v.]
Sept. 13.
Whitehall.
228. Order of Lords Justices in Council. Referring draft of Commission and Instructions for the Governor of Carolina to the Attorney and Solicitor General for their opinion on Thursday next. Signed, Edward Southwell. Endorsed, Recd. Read 11th Jan., 1720/1. 1 p. [C.O. 5, 358. ff. 61, 62v.]
Sept. 14.
New Haven.
229. The Governor and Company of H.M. English Colony of Connecticut to the Council of Trade and Plantations. In obedience to your Lordships commands which I communicated to the General Assembly, it was ordered that a map of the Colony, should be drawn and transmitted to your Lordship; Which map is herewth. humbly offered; and should have been sooner, but that it required a considerable time to take an exact surveigh of the Eastern and Southern bounds, so far as we have been able to proceed. Your Lordships will observe that the lines on the North, and on the West, don't agree with the bounds in our Charter. On the North, the Province of Massachusetts, come within the true line of division between them and us; and take out of this Government, the towns of Woodstock, Enfield and Suffield with some part of Springfield and Westfield, which are therefore noted with red lines in this Chart. On the West, the Province of New York have carried their claime and Government quite thorow this Colony from South to North, and cutt us asunder 20 miles East of Hudsons River, which is therefore noted by a red line parallel to that River, and at 20 miles distance from it. The Colony of Rhode Island, has for several years, claimed the Narrogansett Country, which lies in the Eastern part of this Colony. And we have been obliged to content ourselves with what is left us, tho' but a small part of what is comprised in our Charter. But in that small part of we are free from the intrusions of any forreigners. Our regard to peace, and desire to live in a good understanding with our neighbours, has prevail'd with us to content ourselves, under what is claimed and held by the Provinces of Massachusett Bay and New York; But, as to Narroganset which is claim'd by Rhode Island, if we should loose that country, which was setled by orders and grants from the Government of this Colony, in many parts of it, many years since, it would be a great prejudice to the Colony. Which we humbly beg yr. Lordships leave to suggest, because, (as we understand) the Government of Rhode Island is making application to H.M., that they may be allowed in their pretensions to ye Narrogansett Country. If they should proceed in that application, as your Lordships will have consideration of it, so, we make no doubt, but that we shall be able to give your Lordships entire satisfaction that the whole Narrogansett country belongs to this Colony, as is shewn in the map etc. That the boundaries on the North, and on the West, do at all vary from those fixed in our Charter, is purely from our submission to considerable loss, rather than live in contention with the adjoyning Provinces, of Massachusett and New York, whom we could not prevail with to settle the dividend lines between them, and us, without such compliance on our part. Signed, Gordon Saltonstall. Endorsed, Recd. 7th, Read 14th Feb. 1720/1. For map enclosed vide Book of Maps. 2 pp. [C.O. 5, 1266. ff. 3, 3v., 4v.]
Sept. 14.
Albany.
230. The Mayor, Recorder, Aldermen, Commissioner for Indian Affairs and Justices, on behalf of the Inhabitants of Albany, to the President and Council of New York. Represent the deplorable condition of the Frontiers. The Five Nations are in a stagering condition, the French partly by threats and partly by presents and fair means having obtained such an awe and influence over them that the principal Sachims of one of the Sinneke Castles called Ounahee have given a large belt of wampum to the Governor of Canada to pitch out a place for them near him when they shall go, setle and remove, which the said Governr. has already laid out between Lapreerie and Chambly near Montreal some Sachims and Indians of that Castle are already gon in order to setle there, and in short many shall follow their example if not speedily prevented. Tho' the other Indians of the Five Nations are wel enough inclined to the British interest they dare not oppose the French in any of their designs as is manifest by their suffering the French to setle above the carrying place of Iagara at Ochsweegee and also to suffer them to make another setlement below the great Falls of Iagara this summer the only passage the Five Nations must unavoidably use when they go and come from hunting and that all the Far Indians must use in carrying on the trade so advantagous to H.M. interest and his subjects in these parts etc. This place has been setled above 100 years meerly upon account of trade with the Indians etc., all which is wholy cut off at once by the French setling there. It is not without great grief and anxiety that we must represent the reproach we daily have from the French and their and our Indians that our fortifications are quit out of repair they were but stockados at first and are now all roten and fallen down whereas our neighbours of Canada have not only ever since the Peace been strengthening themselves with stone forts for the Indians that are under their protection which are all garrisoned with proper officers and soldiers which know to keep the Indians firm to their interest and that at Chambly where there are not above five or six families, there is a stone fort made almost impregnable, the Government of France sparing no cost and charge in fortifying all places of their frontiers that are contiguous to this Colony and by this very means draw many of our Indians to them alleging they have a country wel fortified where they can live secure. The French for many years past have had and stil have the liberty to go and stay among the Five Nations especially among the Sinnekes whose number consists above 1000 men to debauch them from their fidelity to H.M. which Nations have an awe on many Far Nations which are tributary to them etc. The Five Nations are the balance of the Continent of America who if the French bring over to their interest will prove the ruin of many thousand families etc. If these matters be not remedied and a war break out, the inhabitants will be necessitated to remove their families and effects for their better security and think he that got away first was the happiest man etc. Propose that the French be removed from their settlements on land resign'd by the Five Nations to H.M.; a fort built in Covenant Place and Tierondequat about 10 leagues from the Sinnekes' Castle and one at Ochjagara and a sufficient number of brisk young men posted there with proper officers and an intelligent sensible man reside there to defeat the intreagues of the French etc. And to prevent all inconveniencies that may happen by peoples trading at their Plantations with the Indians it may be so ordered that the Indian trade be wholly and solely confin'd within the walls of the City of Albany pursuant to the Charter of this City and that all persons be admitted to trade within the City and nowhere else and that a law be made to inflict severe penalties on those that shall transgress. Lastly, that his Most Gracious Majestie would be pleased to order there be stone walls made at Albany and Schinectady and such other places on the frontiers as H.M. shall think fit, and so large that the women and children may be secur'd in time of extremity etc. Signed, John Riggs, Evert Banker, Wessel Ten Broeck, Hend. v. Renselaer, Myndt. Schuyler, Johs. Cuyler, Hend. Hansen, Abraham Cuyler, Johs. Pruyn, Harmanus Wendel. Endorsed, 14th Nov., 1720. 3 pp. [C.O. 5, 1092. No. 15.]
Sept. 15.
Whitehall.
231. Council of Trade and Plantations to the Lords Justices. Reply to 8th Sept. We have endeavor'd to get further information etc. Upon which occasion having discoursed with Col. Nicholson, Col. Vetch and Mr. Capon, they all agree that ye Canço Islands are not in the mouth of ye River of St. Lawrence nor in ye Gulph of that name, particularly the two last who have often been there; but they could give us no other lights into this matter than what we have already sent to Mr. Pulteney. As we have not in our Office any maps of this country that may be entirely depended on, we sent to the Lords of the Admiralty to know, if they could furnish us with any, but received for answer that they had none, nor was Cap. Smart, who seized the French ships there yet returned, whose information might have been of great service upon this occasion. This gives us an opportunity of laying before your Excellys. what we have formerly represented, the necessity of sending an able person from hence to take a survey, and make exact maps of all the several Colonies from North to South, which the French have done for themselves, from whence they reap great advantages whilst we continue in the dark. As Mr. Capon has lived many years in Nova Scotia, and been many times upon the Cape and Islands of Canco, we submit it to your Excellys. whether it may not be proper to send him over to Paris to Mr. Pulteney, while this dispute lasts, that he may be ready to give the necessary informations upon this subject to H.M. Ambassador and Commissary there. [C.O. 218, 1. pp. 474–476.]
Sept. 15.
Whitehall.
232. Mr. Delafaye to the Council of Trade and Plantations. The Lords Justices send you the enclosed Memorial from the Archbishop of Cambray, etc., that if your Lordps. have anything to offer, in answer to the allegations in it, you may send it to Sir Robert Sutton and Mr. Pulteney, for the better enabling them to make a reply. They also send, for your consideration, the enclosed papers offered by Colo. Nicholson appointed Govr. of Carolina, desiring your opinion what is necessary to be done in the sevl. particulars he mentions, and that you may report the same as soon as possible, in regard that no time should be lost in dispatching him to his Government. Signed, Ch. Delafaye. Endorsed, Recd. Read 16th Sept. 1720. 1 p. Enclosed,
232. i. Extract of letter from Sir Robert Sutton to Mr. Secretary Craggs. Paris, Sept. 21st (M.S.], 1720. Encloses following. Continues: We shall defer making a reply, till we receive further instructions from you etc. ¼ p.
232. ii. Reply of the Archbishop of Cambrai to the Memorial of Sir R. Sutton, Aug. 23, (N.S.), 1720. Paris, Sept. 12th. (N.S.) 1720. Refers to Sir R. Sutton's Memorial. Continues: His Royal Highness has caused to be explained to Sir R. Sutton and Mr. Pulteney the reasons for the claim that the islands of Canceau are no part of Nova Scotia, from which they are separated by a broad and deep arm of the sea, which is the same as that which separates the Peninsula, where Nova Scotia is, from the Island of Cape Breton, and that not only have they not been ceded to Great Britain, but they have been reserved to France by Article 13 of the Treaty of Utrecht, with all the other islands situated in the mouth and in the gulph of St. Lawrence. These reasons appear so evident and so decisive, that H.R.H. hopes that when they are reported to the King of Great Britain, he will fully recognise their justice, and give orders to prevent the subjects of the King of Isle Royale being disturbed in their fishing about the Islands of Canceau, or in the stay they make there to cure their fish. With regard to the limits prescribed for fishing on the coast to the S.E. of Nova Scotia, H.R.H. has had it explained to Sir R. Sutton and Mr. Pulteney that he would issue instructions in conformity with the 12th Article of the Treaty of Utrecht, to restrain under severe penalties the subjects of the King from fishing within the space of 30 leagues from all the S.E. coast of Nova Scotia, beginning from Sable Island inclusively, and running S.W. Copy. French. 2½ pp.
232. iii. Governor Nicholson to Mr. Delafaye. Encloses following for the Lords Justices' directions thereupon etc. The account of the necessarys and Indian trade and presents etc. I had from Collo. Barnwell and I hope he may be despatched to goe with us etc. Signed, Fr. Nicholson. Endorsed, Recd. Read 16th Sept., 1720. 1 p. Enclosed,
232. iv. Comments and queries upon following proposals. No signature or date. 3 pp.
232. v. Col. Barnwell to [? Governor Nicholson]. Encloses following, etc. Signed, Jno. Barnwell. Tracts of land should be secured to the garrisons etc. Sept. 8, 1720. ¾ p.
232. vi. Proposed Instructions for the Commander of the Independent Company designed to erect a garrison at the mouth of the River St. George alias Alatamaha. ¾ p.
232. vii. A list of presents proposed for Governor Nicholson to carry to the Indians etc. Signed, Fr. Nicholson, Joseph Boone, Jno. Barnwell. ¾ p.
232. viii. Invoice of a cargo of Indian trading goods of about £1000 sterl. value. 1 p.
232. ix. An account of the necessaries to be provided for the use of the 100 men now bound for S. Carolina. 10th Sept. 1720. Signed, Jno. Barnwell. 1 p.
232. x. Memorandum (? By Governor Nicholson). Proposes that the Governor of Carolina should meet the Governor of Virginia on his way thither and settle the questions of the Indian trade and the securing of the frontiers etc., and also the Governor of Providence, in order to arranging for mutual support etc. The Governor of Virginia to be instructed to recommend to the Assembly not to dispose of the sum (£10,000) they have in bank until H.M. pleasure be further known. One chief reason for the late differences between the Governor and Assembly (of Virginia) is supposed to have been the manner of disposing off the said money, the Governor seeming to expect about half that money the sum of the miles travelled being drawn out to about 5000 etc. Without such order, the money may not be used for defence of the frontiers etc. 1¾ pp.
232. xi. Memorandum [? by Governor Nicholson]. Proposes that when forts shall be built either in Nova Scotia, Virginia, Carolina or the Bahama Islands, the land adjacent thereto be appropriated for the use of the Garrison etc. 1 p.
232. xii. Memorandum [? by Governor Nicholson]. Proposals for orders as to building the forts, etc., Indian trade and presents for Indians. The latter to include prints of His Majesty and the Royal Family, and some new guineas etc. for the chiefs to wear on red ribbons. The King's picture at length and H.M. Arms large for publick buildings with plate and other furniture for H.M. chapel etc. A chaplain to be appointed, etc. A frigate of the same rate as that attending Virginia to be ordered. A commission for trying pirates. 1 p.
232. xiii. An account of stores of war sent to Carolina. ½ p. The whole endorsed, Recd. with Mr. Delafaye's letter etc., Read Sept. 16th, 1720. [C.O. 217, 3. Nos. 9, 9. i., ii. (covering letter and enclosures i., ii. only); and (without enclosures) 218, i. pp. 476, 477; and (enclosures iii.–xiii. only) 5, 358. ff. 25, 26–27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33–34, 35, 39, 41v.]