Page:Richard - Acadie, reconstitution d'un chapitre perdu de l'histoire d'Amérique, Tome 3, 1916.djvu/113

Le texte de cette page a été corrigé et est conforme au fac-similé.

Lords du Commerce reste sans écho : il s’y attendait peut-être^[1]. L’objet qu’il avait en vue : préparer graduellement

↑ Notre rôle d’éditeur est souvent pénible à remplir, en ce sens que nous prenons Richard en flagrant délit de manquement à la vérité historique sur bien des points, et que nous le signalons ouvertement. Ce n’est pas pour notre plaisir, certes. Ces constatations nous navrent, mais qu’y faire ? Entre notre affection pour un proche parent et les dictées de notre conscience, saurions-nous hésiter ? Nous sommes responsables devant le grand public et devant la postérité. Sous prétexte d’épargner la mémoire de l’auteur d’Acadie, nous ne pouvons laisser passer des affirmations contredites par la documentation officielle. Voulant établir une thèse impossible, Richard en est réduit à solliciter et à torturer les textes, ou, comme dans le cas présent, à les ignorer complètement. Il prétend que cette lettre du 1^er août 1754 où Lawrence énonce son idée de derrière la tête, à savoir que : if the Acadians refuse the oaths, it would be much better that they were away, est restée sans écho. — Les Lords of Trade y ont cependant répondu, point par point, le 29 octobre 1754 ; leur réponse est dans N. S. D. Akins (P. 235-6-7) et dans Can. Arch. (1894.) B. T. N. S. vol. 36. P. 59. — En voici les extraits les plus typiques : « … tho’we cannot form a proper judgment or give a final opinion of what measures may be necessary to be taken with regard to those (French) Inhabitants, until we have laid the whole State of the case before His Majesty and received his directions upon it, yet it may not be altogether useless to point at some provisional measures which it may be proper to enter upon until His Majesty’s pleasure can be known.
We were in hopes that the lenity which had been shown to those people by indilging them in the free exercice of their religion, and the quiet possession of their lands, would by degrees have gained their friendship and assistance and weaned their affections from the french ; but we are sorry to find that this lenity has had so little effect, that they still hold the same conduct, with respect to them and us, that they did before the settlement of the province, furnishing them with labour, provisions and intelligence and concealing their designs from us…

« It is certain that by the Treaty of Utrecht their becoming subjects to Great Britain (which we apprehend they cannot be but by taking the oaths required of subjects) is made an express condition of their continuance, after the expiration of a year, and therefore it may be a question well worth considering how far they can be treated as subjects without tahing such oaths, and whether their refusal to take them will not operate to invalidate the titles to their lands ; it is a question, however, which we will not take upon ourselves absolutely to détermine, but could wish that you would consult the chief jus-

[p113-1] Notre rôle d’éditeur est souvent pénible à remplir, en ce sens que nous prenons Richard en flagrant délit de manquement à la vérité historique sur bien des points, et que nous le signalons ouvertement. Ce n’est pas pour notre plaisir, certes. Ces constatations nous navrent, mais qu’y faire ? Entre notre affection pour un proche parent et les dictées de notre conscience, saurions-nous hésiter ? Nous sommes responsables devant le grand public et devant la postérité. Sous prétexte d’épargner la mémoire de l’auteur d’Acadie, nous ne pouvons laisser passer des affirmations contredites par la documentation officielle. Voulant établir une thèse impossible, Richard en est réduit à solliciter et à torturer les textes, ou, comme dans le cas présent, à les ignorer complètement. Il prétend que cette lettre du 1^er août 1754 où Lawrence énonce son idée de derrière la tête, à savoir que : if the Acadians refuse the oaths, it would be much better that they were away, est restée sans écho. — Les Lords of Trade y ont cependant répondu, point par point, le 29 octobre 1754 ; leur réponse est dans N. S. D. Akins (P. 235-6-7) et dans Can. Arch. (1894.) B. T. N. S. vol. 36. P. 59. — En voici les extraits les plus typiques : « … tho’we cannot form a proper judgment or give a final opinion of what measures may be necessary to be taken with regard to those (French) Inhabitants, until we have laid the whole State of the case before His Majesty and received his directions upon it, yet it may not be altogether useless to point at some provisional measures which it may be proper to enter upon until His Majesty’s pleasure can be known.
We were in hopes that the lenity which had been shown to those people by indilging them in the free exercice of their religion, and the quiet possession of their lands, would by degrees have gained their friendship and assistance and weaned their affections from the french ; but we are sorry to find that this lenity has had so little effect, that they still hold the same conduct, with respect to them and us, that they did before the settlement of the province, furnishing them with labour, provisions and intelligence and concealing their designs from us…

« It is certain that by the Treaty of Utrecht their becoming subjects to Great Britain (which we apprehend they cannot be but by taking the oaths required of subjects) is made an express condition of their continuance, after the expiration of a year, and therefore it may be a question well worth considering how far they can be treated as subjects without tahing such oaths, and whether their refusal to take them will not operate to invalidate the titles to their lands ; it is a question, however, which we will not take upon ourselves absolutely to détermine, but could wish that you would consult the chief jus-

[1]