The Census of Acadia at La Hève in 1708 states:

“ francois de la hève 7e familles Claude guedry 60 ans / Marguerite petit pas 48 / Charles son fils 21 / Augustin 16 / Claude 16 / Joseph 10 / Pierre 8 / Paul 6 / Marie sa fille 14 / francoise 4”

Translation:
“french of la hève 7th families Claude guedry 60 years / Marguerite petit pas 48 / Charles his son 21 / Augustin 16 / Claude 16 / Joseph 10 / Pierre 8 / Paul 6 / Marie his daughter 14 / francoise 4”

Claude Guédry, age 60 years, and Marguerite Petitpas, age 48 years, have living with them at La Hève eight children (Charles, Augustin, Claude, Joseph, Pierre, Paul, Marie and Françoise)4518,4489.

Also living at La Hève near Claude Guédry and Marguerite Petitpas is another son Jean-Baptiste Guédry with his new wife Madeleine Mius. They have no children.

The Census of Acadia at La Hève in 1708 states:

“ francois de la hève 8e familles Jean baptiste guedry 24 ans / Madelaine mieusse 14”

Translation:
“french of la hève 8th families Jean baptiste guedry 24 years / Madelaine mieusse 14”4519,4489

    ____________________

“ Joseph Guidry (Jean Baptiste Guidry and Magdeleine Mius) bn. 30 Nov. 1716, bt. by Claude Guidry, his grandfather, ceremonies 12 July 1717 spo. Jean Babin and Marguerite Landry, wife of Pierre Richar (SGA-2,2) “

Joseph Guédry, son of Jean-Baptiste Guédry and Madeleine Mius, was born 30 November 1716 and was baptized on 12 July 1717 at Grand-Pré, Acadia. Sponsors at his baptism were Jean Babin and Marguerite Landry, wife of Pierre Richar. He had been earlier baptized by his grandfather Claude Guédry.4522,4642.

    ____________________

“It would appear that Marie and Claude Guédry must have been Jean-Baptiste Guédry’s children because no other son of Claude Guédry had started a family prior to 1720.”4615

    ____________________

“ D - Pendaison à Boston de deux Acadiens et trois Amérindiens pour piraterie.
La paix avait été conclue, mais cela ne veut pas dire que tout devait entrer dans le calme du jour au lendemain. Nous avons déjà fait allusion à ce que les Anglais ont appelé l’act de piraterie perpétré au début de septembre 1726 à Merliguesh, (Lunenburg), sur la personne de Samuel Daly, de Plymouth, Massachusetts, et de son équipage, de la part d’Acadiens et d’Amérindiens de l’endroit, pour lequel Jean-Baptsite Guidry, fils de Claude et de Marguerite Petitpas, marié à Madeleine Mius, fille de Philippe II Mius d’Entremont, ainsi que son propre fils, de même nom que son père, et trois Amérindiens furent condamnés à être pendus à Boston, où ils furent exécutés le 13 novembre suivant (n.s.). Même si cet événement ne se passa pas précisément au Cap-Sable, nous allons cependant le raconter en entier, d’abord parce qu’il concerne des Acadiens qui étaient originaires du Cap-Sable ou qui y étaient étroitement liés, et ensuite parce qu’il s’agit d’un fait unique, mais très peu connu, de l’histoire de l’Acadie, à savoir la pendaison de deux Acadiens et de trois Amérindiens accusés de piraterie.

1 - Récit des faits.
Nous connaissons deux sources qui nous donnent le détail de cette affaire, d’abord le récit du docteur Benjamin Colman, qui la raconte dans ses Mémoires, et ensuite les Archives de la Cour Suprême du comté de Suffolk, Boston, où le procès pour pirateries eut lieu.

a - D’après le docteur Benjamin Colman.
Malgré la longueur de récrit du docteur Benjamin Colman, nous croyons qu’il vaut la peine d’être transcrit ici en son entier. En voici la traduction:

Samuel Daly de Plymouth, dans un voyage de pêche, entra dans le havre de Malagash le 25 août
[5 septembre, n.s. - 1726], pour s’approvisionner d’eau, quand voyant sur la côte
Jean-Baptiste, un Français, il le pria de venir à bord, ce que Baptiste et son fils firent à
l’instant. Et après qu’ils eurent conversé amicalement de la paix qui venait d’être conclue entre
les Anglais et les Amérindiens, maître Daly invita Baptiste en bas, dans la cabine, pour boire.
Entre-temps, le fils de Baptiste prit le canoë et alla à terre. Daly et son second, avec trois
autres hommes, furent assez simples pour prendre le canoë du sloop et s’en aller à terre,
laissant à bord Baptiste, qui, refusant d’embarquer avec eux, dit qu’il appellerait son fils pour
qu’il vienne le chercher, ce qu’il fit en français. Alors son fils s’en vint avec deux
Amérindiens, qui, aussitôt à bord du sloop, descendirent le pavillon anglais et dirent aux Anglais
à la côte de demander quartier. Baptiste se ceingnit les reins du pavillon et y inséra un pistolet.
Daly, à terre avec ses hommes, alla trouver madame Giddery, la mère de Baptiste, la priant
avec instance d’aller à bord avec lui et intercéder auprès de son fils de lui rendre son sloop.
- Après quelque temps, elle alla avec lui. Mais voilà que maintenant un certain nombre d’autres
Amérindiens étaient montés à bord, et le menacèrent avec leurs haches à main. Bientôt Baptiste
lui ordonna de mettre à la voile. Mais Daly et ses hommes épiaient la première chance qu’ils
auraient de se soulever contre les Français et les Amérindiens, ce qui arriva dès le lendemain.
Baptiste ayant descendu dans la cabine avec trois Amérindiens, Daly en ferma l’entrée et eut
facilement raison du fils et des Sauvages qui se trouvaient sur le pont, et ensuite, faisant feu
dans la cabine, les trois Amérindiens sautèrent à la mer. Daly amena ses prisonniers à Boston,
où, à ls Cour de l’Amirauté, le 4 octobre (v.s.), Baptiste, son fils et trois Sauvages, à un procès
pour piraterie, furent trouvés coupables et condamnés à mourir. Ils furent exécutés le
2 novembre [13 novembre, n.s., 1726] (a).

b - D’après les Archives de la Cour Suprême du comté de Suffolk.
Les Archives du la Cour Suprême du comté de Suffolk ajoutent quelques détails intéressants à ce récrit. C’est ici que nous apprenons que le nom du fils de Jean-Baptiste Guidry était le même que celui de son père, Jean-Baptiste, ce pourquoi on distingue toujours l’un de l’autre en employant les termes “senior” et “junior”, ou en appelant le Père “Old Baptiste”, le vieux Baptiste. Joseph Roberts, un membre de l’équipage, témoigna qu’à Merliguesh il alla à terre, où il rencontra, en plus des trois Amérindiens amenés à Boston, deux Français et trois autres Amérindiens. Il donna la main à Philippe Mius, qui évidemment était le fils cadet du baron Philippe Mius d’Entremont et de Madeleine Hélie, âgé d’environ 65 ans à cette date, qui demeurait justement à Merliguesh, comme nous avons déjà dit; il n’y eut en effet aucun autre de ce nom à cette epoque. John Robert lui demanda si la paix avait été établie, et reçut pour réponse qu’il y avait une “bonne paix”. Il y avait ici également Jacques Mius, que nous avons déjà mentionné comme celui qui était, croyons-nous, l’aîné du deuxième groupe des enfants de Philippe Mius d’Entremont et de Marie,
amérindienne. Ces deux se rendirent à bord du bâtiment avec John Roberts, dont le témoignage nous révèle en plus le nom d’au moins trois Amérindiens, à savoir Jacques, Philippe et Jean Missel, probablement pour Jean Michel. D’après le même témoignage, c’aurait été Philippe Mius, qui parlait un peu anglais, qui aurait demandé à descendre dans la cabine, (“philip Mews Spoke Some English - askt him to drink a dram & eat Some Cold Victuals”). C’est alors que le déposant fait savoir qu’il fut maltraité par les Amérindiens et même par Philippe Mius et par Jacques Mius, celui-ci lui ayant dérobé une certaine quantité d’objets personnels, même une bague en or. Il n’est pas dit comment ces deux derniers réussirent à s’échapper; peut-être étaient-ils au nombre des “trois Amérindiens” qui, d’après Colman, sautèrent à la mer.

2 - Motifs pour l’acte de piraterie.
Au cours du procès, le procureur de la Couronne insista sur le fait qu’il s’était agi d’un acte de piraterie et demanda que les coupables amenés à Boston soient condamnés à être pendus, ce qui était dans le temps le châtiment pour un tel délit.

Jean-Baptiste Guidry, père, lui-même, témoigna au cours de procès que le 4 spetembre (n.s.), veille de la prise du bâtiment, Joseph Decoy, du Cap-Breton, revenant de Boston, où il était venu faire du commerce, s’arrêta à Merliguesh et dit que les Anglais retenaient son fils et que la seule manière qu’il pouvait être délivré serait de saisir le bâtiment en question, ce que lui et les autres avaient voulu faire.

(12) p. 1604
On trouvera un compte rendu du procès qui conduisit à la pendaison des deux Acadiens et des trois Amérindiens aus Archives de la Cour Suprême du comté de Suffolk, (Suffolk Court Files - 14ième plancher du nouveau bâtiment, Boston), Vol. 211, document 26283, les nos 4 et 5, et le Vol. 216, no 28868.

Le docteur Benjamin Colman, après avoir fait le récit que nous avons rapporté, ajoute le paragraphe suivant que nous traduisons de l’anglais:

Les Amérindiens se plaignaient que les Français les incitaient à de telles practiques exécrables
et ils désiraient que ceux de leur nation en soient avertis. Baptiste [Guidry, père] aussi
semblait s’adoucir, quoiqu’il se fût toujours montré un ennemi cruel des Anglais; maintenant il
désirait que ses amis puissent vivre désormais dans des sentiments d’amour et d’amitié envers
les Anglais et se comporter aimablement envers eux. - Il s’est agi ici d’un cas évident et
horrible des Français incitant les Amérindiens à ces vols et meutres, comme ils en ont souvent
commis sans aucune provocation de notre part.... Mais maintenant la bonne Providence divine
les a découverts, et a exercé sa vengeance sur eux pour leur trahison et leur vilinie; et notre
gouvernement les a sagement pendus, Amérindiens et Français ensemble, comme ils méritaient
de mourir selon les lois de tout pays. Il est à souhaiter que cette découverte au sujet des
Français sera pour eux un avertissement et leur exécution un terreur pour les Amérindiens, et
que le tout, par la bonne volonté de Dieu, conduira à l’établissement de la paix.

Sans doute c’est à cette affaire que fait allusion le ministre dans sa lettre du 10 juin 1727 à Saint-Ovide, quoique ce soit sans une parfaite exactitude, le havre de La Hève et repris par eux, qui amenèrent à Boston deux jeunes Amérindiens, après en avoir tué deux autres (a).

Il ne semble pas que l’on puisse prêter foi à la nouvelle qui arriva à Boston en juillet 1727 par voie du Canada et de Pentagoët et fut transmise par les Amérindiens à l’effet que les Amérindiens du Cap-Sable auraient tué 200 Anglais à Plaisance. Si la chose était vraie, d’autres documents en parleraient, mais on n’en trouve nulle trace ailleurs. Dummer pour sa part dira qu’il ne donne pas grand crédit à cette histoire (b).

1603
(a) - Coll. of the Mass. Hist. Soc., Vol. 6, (1799), pp. 109-110.
- Thomas C. Haliburton, A General Description of Nova Scotia; illustrated by a new and correct
Map, (1st ed., Halifax, 1923), p. 196.

1618
(a) - Coll. de Mss rel. à la N.-F., vol. III, p. 134.
(b) - Coll. of the Maine Hist. Soc., 1st Series, Vol. III, p. 428. “

Translation:
“ D - Hanging at Boston of two Acadians and three Indians for piracy.
Peace had been concluded, but that does not mean to say that all must become calm overnight. We have already alluded to that which the English have called an act of piracy committed at the beginning of September 1726 at Merliguesh (Lunenburg), on the person of Samuel Daly, of Plymouth, Massachusetts, and on his crew, of the concern for Acadians and for Indians at that place, for which Jean-Baptiste Guidry, son of Claude and of Marguerite Petitpas, married to Madeleine Mius, daughter of Philippe II Mius d’Entremont, at the same time as his own son, with the same name as his father, and three Indians were sentenced to be hung at Boston, where they were executed the 13th of November following (n.s.). Even if that event did not happen precisely at Cap-Sable, we go on nevertheless to tell it in full, at first because it concerns some Acadians who were originally from Cap-Sable or who were closely connected, and then because it is a matter of a unique event, but very little known, from the history of Acadia, namely the hanging of two Acadians and of three Indians accused of piracy.

1 - Account of the events.
We are aware of two sources which give us the detailed account of this affair, at first the account of the doctor Benjamin Colman, who relates it in his Mémoires, and then the Archives of the Supreme Court of the County of Suffolk, Boston, where the trial for piracy took place.

a- From the doctor Benjamin Colman.
In spite of the length of the account of the doctor Benjamin Colman, we believe that it is worthwhile to be transcribed here in full. Thus here is the translation:

Samuel Daly of Plymouth, on a fishing voyage, put into Malegash harbour, to water, on the 25th
of August [5 September, n.s. - 1726], when seeing John Baptist, a Frenchman, on the shore, he
hailed him, and asked him to come on board; which Baptist and his son presently did; and after
some friendly talk of the peace, lately concluded between the English and Indians, master Daly
asked Baptist down into his cabin to drink. The meanwhile, Baptist’s son took the canoe and
went ashore. Daly and his mate, with three more men, were so simple as to take the sloop’s
canoe and go ashore, leaving Baptist on board, who declined to go with them, saying, that he
would call his son to carry him, which he soon did in French, and off came his son with two
Indians, who, as soon as they had got on board the sloop, took down the English ensign; the
Indians bidding the English on the shore to ask quarter. Baptist girded the ensign about his
waist, and tucked a pistol in it. Daly, with his men on shore, went to Mrs. Giddery, the mother
of Baptist, and begged her to go on board with him, and intercede with her son to restore him his
sloop. - After some time, she went with him, but now several more Indians had got on board,
who threatened him with their hatchets. Baptist soon ordered him to come to sail; but Daly and
his men watched for the first opportunity to rise upon the French and Indians, and found one the
very next day; upon Baptist’s going down into the cabin with three of the Indians, Daly shut
the cabin door upon them, easily mastered the son and the Indians upon the deck, and then firing
into the cabin, the three Indians threw themselves into the sea. Daly brought his prisoners to
Boston, where at a court of admiralty for the trial of piracies, on the 4th of October (v.s),
Baptist, his son, and three Indians were found guilty and condemned to die, and were executed
on the 2nd of November [13 November, n.s., 1726].

b - From the Archives of the Supreme Court of the County of Suffolk.
The Archives of the Supreme Court of the County of Suffolk add several interesting details to this account. It is here that we learn that the name of the son of Jean-Baptiste Guidry was the same as that of his father, Jean-Baptiste, which is why we always distinguish the one from the other by using the terms “senior” and “junior”, where by calling the Father “Old Baptiste”, the old Baptiste. Joseph Roberts, a member of the crew, testified that at Merliguesh he went ashore, where he met, in addition to the three Indians brought to Boston, two Frenchmen and three other Indians. He gave his hand to Philippe Mius, who evidently was the younger son of Baron Philippe Mius d’Entremont and of Madeleine Hélie, age of 65 years at that date, who lived precisely at Merliguesh, as we have already said; he had in fact nothing other than his name at that time. John Robert asked him if the peace had been established, and received in response that there was here a “good peace”. There was here also Jacques Mius, who we have already mentioned as the one who was, we believe, the eldest of the second group of children of Philippe Mius d’Entremont and of Marie, Indian. These two returned on board the ship with John Roberts, whose testimony reveals to us in addition the name of at least three Indians, namely Jacques, Philippe and Jean Missel, probably for Jean Michel. According to the same testimony, it would have been Philippe Mius, who spoke a little English, who would have asked to go down in the cabin, (“philip Mews Spoke Some English - akst him to drink a dram & est Some Cold Victuals”). It is while giving evidence he makes known that he was handled roughly by the Indians and even by Philippe Mius and Jacques Mius, these having stolen a certain quantity of personal things, even a gold ring. He does not say how these last two managed to get away; perhaps they are numbered among the “three Indians” who, according to Colman, jumped into the sea.

2 - Motives for the act of piracy.
In the course of the trial, the attorney for the Crown insisted on the fact that this was a question of an act of piracy and demanded that the culprits brought to Boston be sentenced to be hung, which was at the time the punishment for such an offense.

Jean-Baptiste Guidry, père, himself, testified in the course of the trial that September 4th (n.s.), the day before the capture of the ship, Joseph Decoy, of Cap-Breton, returning from Boston, where he had gone to trade, stopped at Merliguesh and said that the English kept his son and that the only way he could be rescued would be to seize the ship in question, which he and the others had tried to do.

(12) p. 1604
One will find a report of the trial which led to the hanging of the two Acadians and the three Indians at the Archives of the Supreme Court of the County of Suffolk, (Suffolk Court Files - 14th floor of the new building, Boston), Vol. 211, document 26283, Nos. 4 and 5, and Vol. 216, No. 28868.

The doctor Benjamin Colman, after having made the account which we have reported, added the following paragraph which we translate from the English:

The Indians complained that the French misled them into such villainous practices, and wished
their countrymen would take warning by them. Baptist also seemed to relent, and though he had
always shown himself a bitter enemy to the English, he now wished his friends would live in
love and friendship hereafter with them, and carry kindly to them. - This was a plain and
horrid instance of the French their instigating the Indians to those villainous robberies and
murders, which they have so often committed without any provocation on our part. And no
doubt it was from their rage at the peace lately made, and in hopes that this might be resented
by us as an open and manifest breach of it, and prove a means of a new war, that they led the
Indians into this cursed act on the first opportunity that offered. They had also found the war
gainful to them, and were loth to lose the plunder and spoil it brought them; partly from the
Indians, who carried all they took to them; but more especially from the advantage, which the
war gave them to head the Indians in the spoils they made the last war upon our fishing vessels.
But now the good providence of God discovered them, and took vengeance of them for their
treachery and villainy; and our government wisely hung them up, Indians and French together; as
they well deserved to die by the laws of all nations. We hope this detection of the French will be
a warning to them, and their execution a terror to the Indians; and the whole turn, by the good
will of God, to the establishment of the peace.

Without doubt it is to this affair that the minister alludes in his letter of 10 June 1727 at Saint-Ovide, although it is without complete accuracy, when he speaks of an English ship seized in the harbor of La Hève and recaptured by them , who brought to Boston two young Indians, after having killed two others (a).

It does not appear that we can believe the account which arrived at Boston in July 1727 by way of Canada and of Pentagoët and was conveyed by the Indians to the effect that the Indians of Cap-Sable would have killed 200 English at Plaisance. If the matter were true, some other documents would have spoken of it, but we find no trace of it elsewhere. Dummer for his part will say that he did not give much credit to that story (b).

1603
(a) - Coll. of the Mass. Hist. Soc., Vol. 6, (1799), pp. 109-110.
(b) - Thomas C. Haliburton, A General Description of Nova Scotia; illustrated by a new and correct Map, (1st ed., Halifax, 1923), p. 196.

1618
(a) - Coll. de Mss rel. à la N.-F., vol. III, p. 134.
(b) - Coll. of the Maine Hist. Soc., 1st Series, Vol. III, p. 428. “4643

    ____________________

“ Acadiens et Amérindiens pendus à Boston 13 novembre 1726
A l’été de 1726, le caboteur Joseph Decoy, Acadien du Cap-Breton, se rendit à Boston faire du commerce, où on retint son fils, pour une raison qui n’est pas donnée. En désespoir de cause, il fut obligé de s’en retourner sans son fils. Chemin faisant, il s’arrêta le 4 septembre à Merliguesh (aujourd’hui Lunenburg), et raconta aux Acadiens qui y étaient établis ce qui était arrivé. La seule manière de délivrer son fils, leur dit-il, serait de s’emparer de l’un des nombreux bateaux de la Nouvelle-Angleterre qui faisaient pêche sur les côtes de l’Acadie, et de le garder en otage afin d’en faire l’échange pour son fils.

On n’eut pas à attendre longtemps. Dès le lendemain, le capitaine Samuel Daly, de Plymouth, Massachusetts, entra dans le havre de Merliguesh afin de s’approvisionner d’eau. Sous prétexte de rendre une visite de courtoisie au capitaine et à son équipage, un certain nombre d’Acadiens de Merliguesh, ainsi que quelques Amérindiens, se rendirent à bord. Il y avait Philippe II Mius d’Entremont, fils du baron et de Madeleine Hélie; son propre fils Jacques, dont la mére était une Amérindienne; son gendre Jean-Baptiste Guidry, fils de Claude Guidry et de Marguerite Peitipas, marié à Madeleine Mius, fille de Philippe II; et le fils de Jean-Baptiste Guidry, du même nom que son père.

Pendant que l’équipage se trouvait à terre, sûrement pour se procurer de l’eau, d’autres Amérindiens se rendirent à bord, afin d’aider les Acadiens à s’emparer du bateau. Lorsque le capitaine et l’équipage revinrent à bord, les assaillants s’en emparèrent et déclarèrent qu’ils saisissaient le bateau. Jean-Baptiste Guidry, père, prit charge de la situation; il descendit le pavillon anglais, s’en ceignit les reins et y inséra un pistolet. Le lendemain, quand on se disposait à faire voile pour une destination qui n’est pas donnée, Baptiste, père commit l’imprudence de descendre dans la cabine avec trois Amérindiens; c’est alors que Daly réussit à en fermer l’entrée. Ceux qui gardaient les prisonniers sur le pont, voyant qu’ils seraient facilement vaincus, se jetèrent à la mer, laissant Daly et son équipage avec leurs captifs, qui étaient Jean-Baptiste Guidry, son fils et trois Amérindiens, dont les archives nous ont conservé les noms, à savoir, Jacques, Philippe et Jean Missel (mis probablement pour Michel). Daly amena ces cinq prisonniers à Boston, où, à la Cour de l’Amirauté, le 15 octobre, Baptiste, son fils et les trois Amérindiens, à un procès pour piraterie, furent trouvés coupables et condamnés à mourir. Un mois plus tard, le 13 novembre, tous les cinq montaient sur l’échafaut à Boston et expirèrent, la corde au cou. C’est ainsi, de conclure un auteur du temps, que la bonne Providence divine a exercé sa vengeance sur eux pour leur trahison et leur vilenie... C.-J. d’Entremont, ptre “

Translation:
“ Acadians and Indians Hung at Boston 13 November 1726
In the summer of 1726, the coasting vessel pilot Joseph Decoy, Acadian of Cap-Breton, went to Boston to do some trading, where they detained his son, for a reason which is not given. As a last resort, he was compelled to return without his son. On the way he stopped the 4th of September at Merliguesh (today Lunenburg), and related to the Acadians who were settled there what had happened. The only way to rescue his son, he told them, would be to seize one of the numerous boats of New England which fished on the coasts of Acadia, and to keep it as hostage in order to exchange for his son.

They did not have to wait long. As early as the next day the Captain Samuel Daly, of Plymouth, Massachusetts, came into the harbor of Merliguesh in order to supply himself with water. On the pretext to pay a courtesy visit to the captain and to his crew, a certain number of Acadians from Merliguesh, as well as several Indians, went on board. There was Philippe II Mius d’Entremont, son of the baron and of Madeleine Hélie; his own son Jacques, whose mother was an Indian; his son-in-law Jean-Baptiste Guidry, son of Claude Guidry and of Marguerite Petitpas, married to Madeleine Mius, daughter of Philippe II; and the son of Jean-Baptiste Guidry, of the same name as his father.

While the crew were ashore, surely to get some water, some other Indians went on board, in order to help the Acadians to seize the boat. When the captain and the crew returned on board, the assailants seized them and declared that they were taking possession of the boat. Jean-Baptiste Guidry, père, took charge of the situation; he took down the English flag, bound it around his waist and put a pistol in there. The next day, while they prepared to sail to a destination that is not known, Baptiste, père committed the unwariness to go down in the cabin with three Indians; this is when Daly succeeded to seal up the entrance to them. Those who were guarding the prisoners on the deck, seeing that they would be readily overcome, threw themselves into the sea, leaving Daly and his crew with their captives, who were Jean-Baptiste Guidry, his son and three Indians, of whom the archives have preserved for us the names, namely, Jacques, Philippe and Jean Missel (translated probably for Michel). Daly brought these five prisoners to Boston, where, at the Court of Admiralty, the 15th of October, Baptiste, his son and the three Indians, at a trial for piracy, were found guilty and sentenced to die. A month later, the 13th of November, all five climbed on the platform at Boston and died, the rope on the neck. This is thus, to conclude an author of the period, how the good divine Providence has exerted his vengeance on them for their treachery and the vile action ... C.-J. d’Entremont, ptre. “4588,4589

    ____________________

“ SOME MEMOIRS FOR THE CONTINUATION FO THE HISTORY OF THE TROUBLES OF THE NEW-ENGLISH COLONIES, FROM THE BARBAROUS AND PERFIDIOUS INDIANS, INSTIGATED BY THE MORE SAVAGE AND INHUMAN FRENCH OF CANADA AND NOVA-SCOTIA. BEGAN NOVEMBER 3, 1726. BY BENJAMIN COLMAN, D.D.

It was at Falmouth, in Casco Bay, August the 5th, 1726, that the honourable William Dummer, lieutenant governor and commander in chief of his majesty’s province of the Massachusetts Bay, with the honourable John Wentworth, esquire, lieutenant-governor of New Hampshire, and major Mascarene, delegated from his majesty’s province of Nova-Scotia, concluded a peace with Wenemovet, chief sachem and sagamore of the Penobscot tribe. We then were ready to flatter ourselves, that a foundation was laid for some lasting peace with these treacherous natives. Not but that we were well aware of the narrow and feeble foot that peace was built on; only one tribe of the Indians appearing and acting in it; though, as they declared in the name of the other eastern tribes, and promising to resent it, and join with us, in case any of the tribes should rise against us. Nevertheless, they had suffered so much in the last short war, through the blessing of God upon the councils and arms of the provinces; that we thought they would be glad of peace, and then our trading-houses were now put into so good order, to the great advantage of the savages, that we concluded their interest would keep them quiet. For the Indians may buy of us far cheaper all sorts of goods they need, than they can of the French; and the goods in our trading-houses are carried, in a manner, to the very doors of the eastern tribes. But notwithstanding all these reasonable prospects, and hopeful grounds of peace, within less than a month the French and Indians began new outrages upon us.

Samuel Daly of Plymouth, on a fishing voyage, put into Malegash harbour, to water, on the 25th
of August, when seeing John Baptist, a Frenchman, on the shore, he hailed him, and asked him to come on board; which Baptist and his son presently did; and aftersome friendly talk of the peace, lately concluded between the English and Indians, master Daly asked Baptist down into his cabin to drink. The meanwhile, Baptist’s son took the canoe and went ashore. Daly and his mate, with three more men, were so simple as to take the sloop’s canoe and go ashore, leaving Baptist on board, who declined to go with them, saying, that he would call his son to carry him, which he soon did in French, and off came his son with two Indians, who, as soon as they had got on board the sloop, took down the English ensign; the Indians bidding the English on the shore to ask quarter. Baptist girded the ensign about his waist, and tucked a pistol in it. Daly, with his men on shore, went to Mrs. Giddery, the mother of Baptist, and begged her to go on board with him, and intercede with her son to restore him his sloop. After some time, she went with him, but now several more Indians had got on board, who threatened him with their hatchets. Baptist soon ordered him to come to sail; but Daly and his men watched for the first opportunity to rise upon the French and Indians, and found one the very next day; upon Baptist’s going down into the cabin with three of the Indians, Daly shut the cabin door upon them, easily mastered the son and the Indians upon the deck, and then firing into the cabin, the three Indians threw themselves into the sea. Daly brought his prisoners to
Boston, where at a court of admiralty for the trial of piracies, on the 4th of October, Baptist, his son, and three Indians were found guilty and condemned to die, and were executed
on the 2nd of November.

The Indians complained that the French misled them into such villainous practices, and wished
their countrymen would take warning by them. Baptist also seemed to relent, and though he had always shown himself a bitter enemy to the English, he now wished his friends would live in love and friendship hereafter with them, and carry kindly to them.

This was a plain and horrid instance of the French their instigating the Indians to those villainous robberies and murders, which they have so often committed without any provocation on our part. And no doubt it was from their rage at the peace lately made, and in hopes that this might be resented by us as an open and manifest breach of it, and prove a means of a new war, that they led the Indians into this cursed act on the first opportunity that offered. They had also found the war gainful to them, and were loth to lose the plunder and spoil it brought them; partly from the Indians, who carried all they took to them; but more especially from the advantage, which the war gave them to head the Indians in the spoils they made the last war upon our fishing vessels. But now the good providence of God discovered them, and took vengeance of them for their treachery and villainy; and our government wisely hung them up, Indians and French together; as they well deserved to die by the laws of all nations. We hope this detection of the French will be a warning to them, and their execution a terror to the Indians; and the whole turn, by the good will of God, to the establishment of the peace. “4617

    ____________________

“ Hanging of two Acadians and three Indians in Boston
[Reprint of Heritage Series, by Rev. C. J. d’Entremont taken from: The Vanguard, Yarmouth, N.S. January 31, 1989]

Captain Joseph Decoy, from Cape Breton, used to trade in Boston with his vessel. This was in the 1720’s. On one of his trips he took with him his son, who was detained in Boston for a reason which was not given. On his way back, he stopped at Mirliguesh, now Lunenburg, and told the Acadians and Indians what had happened. He told them that the only way that his son could be redeemed would be to seize one of the many vessels from Boston and vicinity fishing on the coast of Nova Scotia and offer it in ransom for his son. This was September 4, 1726 (New Style).

They did not have to wait long. The very next day, captain Samuel Daly, of Plymouth, Massachusetts, on a fishing voyage, put his sloop into Merliguesh Harbour to fetch fresh water.

John Roberts, one of the crew, went on shore and met some frenchmen and some indians. Among the group was Philippe Mius d’Entremont, Jr. son of the Baron Philippe Mius d’Entremont, Sr., and of Magdeleine Helie. He shook hands with him and they spoke of peace which had just been signed between the English and the Indians. John Roberts took Philippe Mius d’Entremont, Jr., his son Jacques with him when he went back to the sloop. In the meantime, Daly invited another Acadian, Jean-Baptiste Guidry, to do likewise, which he did the same with his son of the same name. This was Jean-Baptiste Guidry (now written Jeddry), 42 years old, the son of Claude Guidry and of Marguerite Petitpas. He had married Madeleine Mius, the daughter of Philippe Mius d’Entremont, Jr., and of Marie, his Indian wife.

After a friendly conversation, Daly asked his guests down into his cabin for a drink. In the meantime, Jean-Baptiste Guidry, Jr., went ashore. He was soon followed by Daly, his mate and the three members of the crew, plus Philippe Mius d’Entremont, Jr., and his son Jacques. Jean-Baptiste Guidry, Sr., refused to go, saying he would call his son to come and get him, which he did in French, so thought Daly and his men.

The son came back to the sloop with some Indians. As soon as they got aboard, they took down the English ensign, which Jean-Baptiste Guidry, Sr., girded about his waist, and tucked a pistol into it. That is when the members of the crew on shore were told to ask for quarter. Immediately, Daly went to Mrs. Guidry, “the mother of Baptiste”, says one version, thus Marguerite Petitpas. He begged her to come on board with him and intercede with his son to restore his sloop. She finally consented to go.

Others followed, so that on board, at a time there were the five men of the sloop, Jean-Baptiste Guidry, his son, his mother, Philippe Mius d’Entremont, his son Jacques and six Indians. Mrs. Guidry did not succeed in her plea, on the contrary. The Indians, at this time, even threatened the crew with their hatchets. John Roberts testified that “Philip Mews” and an Indian, by the name of Jean Missel, took hold of him and trussed him into the forecastle. “Philip Mews spoke some English - asked him to drink a dram and Eat Cold Victuals.” It is then that Jacques Mius struck him and “told him he would kill him and cut his head off - called him a Son of a B.....”. He stole from him, among other things, his gold ring.

Jean-Baptiste Guidry, Sr., seems to have take charge of the situation. He soon ordered Daly to come to sail. This was just before 8 o’clock in the evening. It is not clear what happened to Philippe Mius d’Entremont, Jr., his son, and Mrs. Guidry, because the next day they were not in the sloop; there were only Jean-Baptiste Guidry, Sr., his son and six Indians, apart from the five members of the crew. Most probably they left in the evening or during the night to take Mrs. Guidry home, maybe with the intention to come back next day to help Jean-Baptiste Guidry, Sr.

It is not stated how far they sailed. Daly and his men watched for the first opportunity to rise upon their captors. It so happened that they found one the very next day. Jean-Baptiste Guidry, Sr., went down into the cabin with three Indians, leaving the three others with his son to guard the prisoners. But Daly managed to shut the cabin door upon them and to master the son and the three Indians who were on deck. He then fired into the cabin. The three Indians jumped into the sea, while Jean-Baptiste, Jr. was kept at bay. And so finally Daly was in full charge of the sloop.

Daly left immediately for Boston with his five prisoners, the two Guidrys and the three Indians, whose names we have, viz., Jacques, Philippe and Jean Missel, put probably for Michel; they could have been brothers.

In Boston, they were found guilty of piracy on the high-seas, for which the penalty prescribed by the law was to be hung by the neck till death follows. The trial had taken place October 15th (New Style). And thus those two Acadians and three Indians from Merliguesh were hung in Boston on November 13 of the same year 1726.

The narrator, Dr. Benjamin Colman, from whom we hold this story from his memoirs, along with the Supreme Court of Suffolk County in Boston, blames the French for this conspiracy, rather than the Indians who “complained that the French misled them into such villainous practices.” Then he adds: “The good providence of God ... took vengeance of them for their treachery and villainy; and our government wisely hung them up ... as they well deserved to die by the laws of all nations.” “4572,4618,4619

    ____________________

“ 5 - Madeleine Mius.
Madeleine Mius, que l’on trouve au recensement de 1708, ayant 14 ans, née en 1694, mariée à Jean-Baptiste Guidry, âgé de 24 ans, né en 1684, était nécessairement du Deuxième Groupe. Cette famille est la 8ième et dernière recensée à La Hève en 1708. Lorsque ce recensement fut pris, il semble qu’elle venait d’épouser Jean-Baptiste Guidry, fils de Claude et de Marguerite Petitpas, de Merliguesh, puisqu’ils n’avaient pas encore d’enfants. Avec sa soeur Anne, elle fut la seule des enfants de ce Deuxième Group à épouser un Acadien, à qui on doit peut-être ajouter Pierre, si
vraiment il épousa Marguerite Lapierre. On ne sait pas combien ils eurent d’enfants. Cependant
l’histoire nous a transmis le nom de deux d’entre eux. D’abord, celui de Joseph, né le 12 novembre 1716 et baptisé le 10 juillet suivant, selon les registres de Grand-Pré (11). L’autre nom que nous avons est celui de Jean-Baptiste, le même que son père, ce pourquoi nous croyons qu’il était plus âgé de Joseph, peut-être même l’aîne, d’autant plus qu’en 1726, au début de septembre, il était déjà assez âgé pour prendre part avec son père, ainsi qu’avec d’autres Acadiens et des Amérindiens, dans le havre de Merliguesh, à ce que les Anglais ont appelé un acte de piraterie sur la personne de Samuel Daly et celles de son équipage, dont nous avons fait mention un peu plus haut et dont nous parlerons plus longuement au chapitre 31ième. Pour cet acte, avons-nous dit, Jean-Baptiste Guidry, père, et Jean-Baptiste Guidry, fils, ainsi que trois Amérindiens, furent pendus à Boston le 13 novembre de cette année 1726.

(11) p. 1014
La copie du registre de l’église Saint-Charles de Grand-Pré qui se trouve dans la voûte de l’évêché de Yarmouth, dont l’original est en Louisiane, donne à la mère de Joseph Guidry, né le 12 novembre 1716, son de Jean-Baptiste, le nom de Marguerite Mius, au lieu de Madeleine Mius. Parce que cet enfant est né en 1716, Bona Arsenault dira que les parents se sont mariés vers 1715, quoiqu’ils fussent déjà mariés au recensement de 1708; et en plus il les place à Cobequid, parce que le baptême de ce même enfant fut entré dans les registres de Grand-Pré; cependant ils habitaient La Hève (b).

Dans ses listes généalogiques qui se trouvent aux Archives publiques du Canada, à Ottawa, Placide Gaudet, au sujet des Mius, fait mention d’une Madeleine Mius qui aurait épousé un Jean-Baptiste Pierre, Amérindien. Nous n’avons pas pu trouver en aucun endroit mention de ce couple. On peut difficilement supposer que l’éminent généalogiste ait voulu écrire Jean-Baptiste Guidry. Disons que l’on trouve un Amérindien du nom de Jean-Baptiste Pierret, qui agit comme parrain à Port-Royal le 14 avril 1733 pour un enfant du nom de François, “fils de François Chegan et Cécile, sauvages mikmak”. Il n’est pas impossible qu’après le décès de son mari en novembre 1726, Madeleine Mius, veuve de Jean-Baptiste Guidry, se soit mariée en secondes noces. Mais si la chose est arrivée, nous sommes en peine pour dire où Placide Gaudet aurait trouvé ce renseignement.

1033
(b) Bona Arsenault, Historie et Généalogique des Acadiens, en 2 volumes. (Le Conseil de la Vie Française Amérique, Québec, 1965). Vol. II, p. 835. “

Translation:
“ 5 - Madeleine Mius.
Madeleine Mius, whom we find in the Census of 1708, being 14 years old, born in 1694, married to Jean-Baptiste Guidry, age of 24 years, born in 1684, was necessarily of the Second Group. This family is the 8th and last censused at La Hève in 1708. When that census was taken, it seems that she was just married to Jean-Baptiste Guidry, son of Claude and of Marguerite Petitpas, of Merliguesh, since they did not have any children yet. With her sister Anne, she was the only one of the children of the Second Group to marry an Acadian, to which we must perhaps add Pierre, if indeed he married Marguerite Lapierre. We do not know how many children they had. Nevertheless
history has given us the names of two among them. At first, that of Joseph, born 12 November 1716 and baptized the 10th of July following, according to the registers of Grand-Pré (11). The other name that we have is that of Jean-Baptiste, the same as his father, the reason why we believe that he was older than Joseph, perhaps even the eldest, so much the more that in 1726, at the beginning of September, he was already old enough in order to take part with his father, as well as with some other Acadians and some Indians, within the harbor of Merliguesh, in that which the English have called an act of piracy on the person of Samuel Daly and those of his crew, of whom we have made mention a little above and of whom we speaker longer in the 31st chapter. For that act we have said Jean-Baptiste Guidry, père and Jean-Baptiste Guidry, fils, as well as three Indians, were hung at Boston the 13th of November of the year 1726.

(11) p. 1014
The copy of the register of Saint-Charles de Grand-Pré church which is found in the vault of the Diocese of Yarmouth, of which the original is in Louisiana, gives for the mother of Joseph Guidry, born 12 November 1726, son of Jean-Baptiste, the name of Marguerite Mius, instead of Madeleine Mius. Because that child is born in 1716, Bona Arsenault said that the parents are married about 1715, although they were already married in the Census of 1708; and, in addition, he places them at Cobequid because the baptism of that same child was entered into the registers of Grand-Pré; however, they were living at La Hève (b).

In his genealogical lists which are found at the Public Archives of Canada in Ottawa, Placide Gaudet, on the subject of Mius, makes mention of a Madeleine Mius, who would have married a Jean-Baptiste Pierre, Indian. We have not been able to find in any place mention of that couple. We can with difficulty suppose that the eminent genealogist meant to write Jean-Baptiste Guidry. We have found an Indian with the name of Jean-Baptiste Pierret, who acts as godfather at Port-Royal 14 April 1733 for a child with the name of François, “son of François Chegan and Cécile, Micmac savages”. It is not impossible that after the death of her husband in November 1726, Madeleine Mius, widow of Jean-Baptiste Guidry, is united in a second marriage. But if the matter has occurred, we are at a loss to say where Placide Gaudet would have found that information.

1033
(b) Bona Arsenault, Histoire et Généalogique des Acadiens, in 2 volumes. (Le Conseil de la Vie Française Amérique, Québec, 1965). Vol. II, p. 835. “4700

    ____________________

“ La Famille D’Entremont
Si nous savons à peu près, quoique vaguement, quand les trois précédents son décédés, nous n’avons absoluement rien au sujet du décès des deux autres, Philippe and Madeleine. Nous croyons que la dernière fois que Philippe est mentionné dans aucun document fut en l’année 1726 lorsqu’il prit part au début de septembre à Merliguesh à ce que les Anglais ont appelé un acte de piraterie sur le bâtiment de maître Samuel Daly, de Plymouth, Massachusetts, quand son gendre Jean-Baptiste Guidry, marié à sa fille Madeleine, et son petit-fils, Jean-Baptiste Guidry, fils, furent pendus à Boston le 13 novembre de cett même année, avec trois Amérindiens du même endroit pour le délit en question. Nous parlerons de cette affaire au chapitre 33ième. Quant à Madeleine, dernier des enfants du baron Philippe Mius d’Entremont, nous n’avons absoluement rien au sujet de son décès; la dernière mention qui est faite d’elle est au recensement de 1686. “

Translation:
“ The D’Entremont Family
If we know, although vaguely, about when the three preceding have died, we have absolutely nothing on the subject of the deaths of the other two, Philippe and Madeleine. We believe that the last time that Philippe is mentioned in any document was in the year 1726 when he participated at the beginning of September at Merliguesh in that which the English have called an act of piracy on the ship of Master Samuel Daly, of Plymouth, Massachusetts, when his son-in-law, Jean-Baptiste Guidry, married to his daughter, Madeleine, and his grandson, Jean-Baptiste Guidry, fils, were hung at Boston the 13th of November of that same year, with three Indians of the same place for the offense in question. We will discuss that affair in chapter 33. As for Madeleine, last of the children of Baron Philippe Mius d’Entremont, we have absolutely nothing on the subject of her death; the last mention that is made of her is in the census of 1686. “4701

    ____________________

“ 9 - Anne Mius.
Anne Mius naquit en 1705, même si le recensement de 1752 la ferait naître en 1709. Elle épousa Paul Guidry, dit Gravois, né en janvier 1701; par erreur le recensement de 1708 le fait naître en 1702 et celui de 1752 en 1705. Il fut baptisé par le Père Félix Pain le 8 septembre 1705. Il était le frère de Jean-Baptiste, époux de Madeleine Mius, qui devait être pendu à Boston en 1726. Cette famille fera sa résidence à Merliguesh, comme celle de Jean-Baptiste, son frère. Les Guidry étant dit parfois Labrador, nous nous demandons si ce qui est indiqué comme la ferme de Labrador, (Labrador’s Farm), propriété de Paul Labrador, que l’on trouve sur une carte de Merliguesh de 1753, ne se rapporterait pas à notre Paul Guidry. Aussi ce qui est donné ailleurs comme la maison de Labrador, (Labrador’s House), devait nécessairement étre la maison qui se trouvait sur cette ferme (a). Nous parlerons davantage des Labrador au chapitre 35ième.

Ce fut leur fille Judique qui naquit à Boston en 1722 (b), comme nous avons déjà dit. Agée de 16 ans, demeurent à “Merligues à la coste de l’Est”, cette Judique Guidry épousera le 12 novembre 1737, à Grand-Pré, Jean Cousin, âgé d’environ 21 ans, capitaine de navire marchand et pilote pour le roi à Louisbourg, fils de feu Guy Cousin et de Charlotte M., de l’évêché de Dol, en Bretagne. Le recensement de 1752 le dit natif de Saint-Malo. Notons que Bona Arsenault a tort de placer cette famille à Pobomcoup et de dire que le mariage eut lieu à Port-Royal (c). Une fille de ce couple, du nom de Madeleine, était à Cherbourg en 1767, non mariée, dite “de Louisbourg, fille de Jean ... et de Judith Guédry qui étoit fille d’un Anne Dantremont, parente des Cydessus” d’Entremont réfugiés à Cherbourg (d). On remarquera qu’elle se dit de Louisbourg, quoiqu’au recensement de 1752 la famille de Jean Cousin fût à la baie des Espagnols, aujourd’hui le havre de Sydney.

Marguerite, une autre fille de Paul Guidry et d’Anne Mius, née en 1732, épousa à la baie des Espagnols le 11 février 1754

le Sr Jules César Félix de la Noue, fils de feu haut et puissant Seigneur Messire Toussaint Marie de la Noüe, Chevalier au Parlement de Bretagne, et de dame Marie Madeleine Prassac, natif de la paroisse de Quaissais, évêché de St. Brieux, [quand] Damoiselle Marguerite Guédry, fille de Paul Guédry et de noble dame Anne D’Entremont, natifs de la paroisse Ste Croix en la Cadie, [est dite avoir eu pour mère] une fille d’une Sauvagesse concubine de Mius D’Entremont, Acadien.

C’est pour cette dernière raison que M. d’Ailleboust, commandant de l’île Royale, avait non seulement refusé au sieur de La Noüe la permission de contracter ce mariage, mais lui avait même défendu de retourner à la baie des Espagnols. Le sieur de La Noüe présenta alors sa démission au commandant, qui ne voulut pas l’accepter. Mais le Père Hyacinthe Lefèvre, Récollet, du Port-Dauphin, fit le mariage malgré la défense de l’autorité civile, qui pour cela le déclara “clandestin, scandaleux et abusif et annulé” (a). M. d’Ailleboust fit mettre le sieur Bogard de La Noüe en prison et ensuite le fit passer en France. Le ministre d’autre part suggéra que le missionnaire qui avait fait le marriage soit également renvoyé en France, ce qui arriva en cette même année 1754, apprenons-nous de M. Joubert, capitaine aux troupes de la Marine, qui, dans une lettre du 15 septembre 1754, disait à M. de Surlaville:

Le chevalier La Noüe est passé par order de la Cour, en France, ainsi que le moine.

Le ministre suggérait en plus que la fille et la famille de Paul Grivois soient envoyées au Canada. Ecrivant le premier juillet 1754 à MM. de Drucour et Prévost, il dit:

Rien de plus irrégulier et de plus dangereuse conséquence que le mariage du Sr Bogard de la Noue. M. D’Aillebout a bien fait de le faire arrêter, et le roi approuvera qu’il soit renvoyé en France. Pourront envoyer au Canada la fille et la famille de Paul Grivois. Il est à désirer que le missionnaire qui s’est prête à la célébration de ce mariage puisse être renvoyé en France, et il convient que la justice s’explique sur la nullité d’un mariage si contraire à toutes les règles (a).

Déjà sous-lieutentant de grenadiers dans Bresse en 1743, enseigne de la Lieutenance-Colonelle dudit régiment en 1744, lieutenant au même corps en 1745, enseigne en second à l’île Royale en 1750, son mariage de février 1754 n’empêcha pas le chevalier de La Noüe d’être fait enseigne en pied le premier avril suivant. Après être passé en France, il dut revenir à l’île Royale, car le 20 février 1758 on trouve:

Ordre pour faire servir le Sr Bogard de la Noüe, enseigne à l’île Royale, en qualité de lieutenant à la Louisiane (b).

Dans une liste de lieutenants en pied de l’île Royale, allant de 1747 à 1763, on trouve le Chev. de La Noüe Bogard retiré (c). Quant à sa légitime épouse, nous ne savons pas ce qu’elle devint; nous ne savons même pas si elle put vivre avec son mari, malgré les protestations de l’autorité civile.

Quant à ses parents, ils avaient fait baptiser un enfant à Port-Lajoie le 19 novembre 1749. Au recensement de la baie des Espagnols, île Royale, en 1752, il est dit qu’ils y étaient depuis le mois d’août 1750. Ils ont alors avec eux cinq garçons et une fille (d). Durent-ils s’exiler au Canada après le mariage de leur fille? Nous n’avons rien trouvé à leur sujet après ce mariage.

1016
(a) - Winthrop Bell, The “Foreign Protestants” and the Settlement of Nova Scotia, (University of Toronto Press, 1961), p. 431.
- Collection Northcliffe, p. 24 de l’éd. fr.; p. 22 de l’éd. ang.
(b) - Rapport concernant les Arch. Can. pour l’année 1905, vol. II, 1re Partie, p. 44 de l’éd. fr.; p. 45 de l’éd. ang.
(c) - Bona Arsenault, Histoire et Généalogie des Acadiens, (Le Conseil de la Vie française en Amérique, Québec, Canada, 1965), vol. II, p. 876.
(d) - Rapport concernant les Arch. Can. pour l’année 1905, vol. II, 3ième Partie, p. 202 de l’éd. fr.; p. 144 de l’éd. ang.

1017
(a) - Rapport concernant les Arch. Can. pour l’année 1905, vol. I, VIe Partie, pp. 492-3.
(b) - Rameau de Saint-Père, Une Colonie Féodale en Amérique. L’Acadie. (1604-1881), (Paris, Librairie Plon, imprimeurs-éditeurs. - Montréal, Granger Frères, libraires-éditeurs. - 1889), vol. II, p. 376, en transcrivant cet extrait des registres du Greffe du Conseil supérieur de Louisbourg, a fait un certain nombre d’erreurs, ce qu’a copié Gaston du Boscq de Beaumont, dans Les Derniers Jours de l’Acadie, 1748-1758, p. 113, en note.

1018
(a) - Rapport concernant les Arch. Can. pour l’année 1905, vol. I, VIe Partie, p. 195.
(b) - Gaston du Boscq de Beaumont, Les Derniers Jours de l’Acadie, 1748-1758, pp. 111-113.
- Rapport concernant les Arch. Can. pour l’année 1905, vol. I, VIe Partie, p. 505.
(c) - J. S. McLennan, Louisbourg, (1918), p. 343.
(d) - Rapport concernant les Arch. Can. pour l’année 1905, vol. I, 1ière Partie, p. 45 de l’éd. fr.; p. 46 de l’éd. ang. “

Translation:
“ 9 - Anne Mius.
Anne Mius was born in 1705, even if the census of 1752 would make her born in 1709. She wed Paul Guidry, dit Grivois, born in January 1701; in error the census of 1708 makes him born in 1702 and that of 1752 in 1705. He was baptized by Père Félix Pain the 8th of September 1705. He was the brother of Jean-Baptiste, husband of Madeleine Mius, who had to be hung at Boston in 1726. This family will makes its residence at Merliguesh, as that of Jean-Baptiste, his brother. The Guidry were sometimes called Labrador, we ask ourselves if that which is shown as the farm of Labrador (Labrador’s Farm), property of Paul Labrador, that we find on a map of Merliguesh from 1753, did not refer to our Paul Guidry. Also that which is given elsewhere as the house of Labrador (Labrador’s House) must necessarily be the house which is on that farm (a). We talk more about Labrador in the 35th chapter.

It was their daughter Judique who was born at Boston in 1722 (b) as we have already said. Sixteen years of age, living at “Merligues on the East Coast”, this Judique Guidry married the 12th of November 1737 at Grand-Pré Jean Cousin, about 21 years old, captain of a merchant-ship and pilot for the king at Louisbourg, son of the deceased Guy Cousin and of Charlotte M., of the bishopric of Dol in Bretagne. The census of 1752 called him native of Saint-Malo. Notice that Bona Arsenault is wrong to place this family at Pobomcoup and to say that the marriage took place at Port-Royal (c). A daughter of this couple with the name of Madeleine was at Cherbourg in 1767, unmarried, called “from Louisbourg, daughter of Jean ... and of Judith Guidry who was daughter of an Anne Dantremont, relative of the Above” d’Entremont refugees at Cherbourg (d). We noted that she called herself from Louisbourg, although in the census of 1752 the family of Jean Cousin was at the Baie des Espagnols, today the port of Sydney.

Marguerite, another daughter of Paul Guidry and of Anne Mius, born in 1732, wed at Baie des Espagnols the 11th of February 1754

Sr Jules César Félix de la Noue, son of the late and important and powerful Seigneur Messire Toussaint Marie de la Noüe, Chevalier at the Parliament of Bretagne, and of dame Marie Madeleine Prassac, native of the parish of Quaissais, bishopric of St. Brieux, (while) Damoiselle Marguerite Guédry, daughter of Paul Guédry and of noble lady Anne D’Entremont, natives of the parish of Ste Croix in la Cadie, (is said to have had for a mother) a daughter of a Savage concubine of Mius D’Entremont, Acadian.

It is said for that last reason M. d’Ailleboust, commandant of Île Royale, had not only refused to Sieur de La Noüe permission to contract that marriage, but had even forbidden him to return to Baie des Espagnols. Sieur de La Noüe offered then his resignation to the commandant, who did not want to accept it. But Père Hyacinthe Lefèvre, Récollet, of Port-Dauphin, married them in spite of the resistance of the civil authority, which for that declared it “underhanded, scandalous and improper and annulled” (a). M. d’Ailleboust put Sieur Bogard de La Noüe in prison and afterward made him go to France. The minister of another place suggested that the missionary who had married them be also returned to France where he arrived in the same year 1754, we learn from M. Joubert, captain of the troops of the Navy, who, in a letter of 15 September 1754, said to M. de Surlaville:

The Chevalier La Noüe is taken by order of the Court to France at the same time as the friar.

The minister suggested in addition that the daughter and family of Paul Grivois be sent to Canada. Writing the first of July 1754 to MM. de Drucour and Prévost, he says:

Nothing more irregular and of more dangerous consequence than the marriage of Sr Bogard de la Noue. M. D’Aillebout has rightly stopped the thing and the king approved that he be returned to France. Should send to Canada the daughter and the family of Paul Grivois. He desires that the missionary who has lent himself to the celebration of that marriage be returned to France and he agrees that justice is cleared up about the nullity of a marriage if contrary to all the laws (a).

Already sub-lieutenant of the grenadiers in Bresse in 1743, ensign of the Lieutenant Colonel of the said regiment in 1744, lieutenant of the same corps in 1745, second ensign at Île Royale in 1750, his marriage of February 1754 prevented the Chevalier de La Noüe from being made ensign on foot the first of April following. After being sent to France, he had to return to Île Royale because the 20th of February 1758 we find:

Order served Sr Bogard de la Noüe, ensign at Île Royale, in rank of lieutenant at Louisiana (b).

In a list of lieutenants on foot at Île Royale going from 1747 to 1763 we find the Chev. de La Noüe Bogard retired (c). As for his legitimate wife, we do not know what became of her; we do not even know if she was able to live with her husband in spite of the protests of the civil authority.

As for her parents, they had a child baptized at Port-Lajoie the 19th of November 1749. In the census of Baie des Espagnols, Île Royale in 1752, it is said that they were there since the month of August 1750. They have at that time with them five boys and one girl (d). Did they have to exile themselves to Canada after the marriage of their daughter? We have found nothing on their account after that marriage.

1016
(a) - Winthrop Bell, The “Foreign Protestants” and the Settlement of Nova Scotia, (University of Toronto Press, 1961), p. 431.
- Collection Northcliffe, p. 24 of the Fr. ed.; p. 22 of the Eng. ed.
(b) - Rapport concernant les Arch. Can. pour l’année 1905, vol. II, 1st Part, p. 44 of the Fr. ed.; p. 45 of the Eng. ed.
(c) - Bona Arsenault, Histoire et Généalogie des Acadiens, (Le Conseil de la Vie française en Amérique, Québec, Canada, 1965), vol. II, p. 876.
(d) - Rapport concernant les Arch. Can. pour l’année 1905, vol. II, 3rd Part, p. 202 of the Fr. ed.; p. 144 of the Eng. ed.

1017
(a) - Rapport concernant les Arch. Can. pour l’année 1905, vol. I, 6th Part, pp. 492-3.
(b) - Rameau de Saint-Père, Une Colonie Féodale en Amérique. L’Acadie. (1604-1881), (Paris, Librairie Plon, imprimeurs-éditeurs. - Montréal, Granger Frères, libraires-éditeurs. - 1889), vol. II, p. 376, in transcribing that extract from the registers of the Clerk’s Officer of the Superior Council of Louisbourg, has made a certain number of errors which Gaston du Boscq de Beaumont has copied in Les Derniers Jours de l’Acadie, 1748-1758, p. 113, in note.

1018
(a) - Rapport concernant les Arch. Can. pour l’année 1905, vol. I, 6th Part, p. 195.
(b) - Gaston du Boscq de Beaumont, Les Derniers Jours de l’Acadie, 1748-1758, pp. 111-113.
- Rapport concernant les Arch. Can. pour l’année 1905, vol. I, 6th Part, p. 505.
(c) - J. S. McLennan, Louisbourg, (1918), p. 343.
(d) - Rapport concernant les Arch. Can. pour l’année 1905, vol. I, 1st Part, p. 45 of the Fr. ed.; p. 46 of the Eng. ed. “4702

None

Madeleine Mius d'Azy
Madeleine-Marguerite Mius dit d’Azy
Madeleine-Marguerite Mius d’Entremont dit d’Azy
Madeleine-Marguerite Mius d’Entremont
Madeleine Marguerite Mius D’Entremont
Magdeleine-Marg. Mius d’Entremont
Madeleine Mius d’Entremont dit d’Azy
Marguerite Mius d’Entremont
Madeleine Mius dit d’Azy
Madeleine Mius
Marguerite Mius
Madelaine Mieusse
Madeleine Mire

“ 10ème Famille. -- GUIDRY ou GUAIDERY. --
Nous sommes ici en présence d’une de ces familles, problématiques et vagabondes, dont on rencontre le nom très souvent dans les documents, et qui ne figurent même pas dans les recensements. On connaît leur existence, on pressent, par les détails de leur vie, que leur établissement doit être ancien en Acadie, mais on ne saurait en préciser l’époque, ni établir l’enchaînement méthodique des faits qui nous sont connus.

Les registres de Belle-Isle ne fournissent point leur généalogie, mais cette famille y est mentionnée deux fois. Dans la 12ème déclaration de la paroisse de Sauzon, on lit: “que Marie Leblanc, née en 1735 à Pigiguit, se maria à l’île St-Jean, à Anselme Guedry fils de Pierre Guédry et de Marguerite Brosseau, demeurant actuellement (1767) aux îles St-Pierre et Miquelon.”

Puis à la 13ème déclaration de Sauzon, il est fait mention d’une Marie Guédry qui était veuve d’un Benjamin Mius.

Dans les recensements que nous avons de L’Acadie, il n’est fait aucune mention des Guidry, sauf dans celui de 1698, et dans quelques petits recensements des côtes de l’Est.

Voici ce que dit le recensement de 1698: Paroisse de Port-Royal, Claude Guaidry, âgé de 50 ans, marié à Marguerite Petitpas, âgée de 40 ans, 10 enfants: Abraham 20 ans; -- Claude 16; -- Jean-Baptiste 14; -- Charles 12; -- Alexis 10; -- Augustin 8; -- Marie-Joseph 6; -- Claude 4; -- Joseph 3; -- Pierre 6 mois. Abraham l’aîné a donc dû naître en 1678; Claude Guaidry, son père marié vers 1676 à Port-Royal, où il était né en 1648.

Le recensement qui pécède celui-ci était de 1692, on n’y trouve aucune mention des Guaidry; et dans les recensements de 1699 et de 1701, il n’est déjà plus question d’eux. Claude Guaidry n’a donc été à Port-Royal qu’un oiseau de passage; il s’y montre cependant avec les apparences d’un homme civilisé, et d’un agriculteur, 10 vaches, des brebis, etc., etc.; mais il y a fagots et fagots, il y a aussi cultures et cultures, et s’il ramena ses vaches dans les roches de la Hève, il est probable qu’il n’en fit pas des vaches grasses.

En 1701 il résidait dans ce dernier pays de la Hève, car nous avons trouvé dans les registres de Port-Royal, que Claude Guidery et Marguerite Petitpas eurent en 1701 un nouvel enfant qui fut baptisé à Mirliguesh, sous le nom de Paul Guidery, son parrain était un Baptiste Guidery; cet enfant était le onzième garçon de la famille, et c’est celui de tous dont nous pouvons suivre le plus longtemps la trace, comme nous le verrons tout à l’heure.

Dans ces actes figurent de temps en temps des Guidery aux baptêmes et aux mariages, il en est de même dans les documents de la Nouvelle-Ecosse, sous l’administration anglaise; la famille Guidery avec plusieurs autres familles métisses, prirent alors des terres de la main du colonel Mascarene, sur la côte de l’Est. Dans les temps de la proscription, ces families métisses firent leur soumission, et prêtèrent serment aux Anglais.

Vers 1735 nous voyans entrer en scène ce Paul Guidery, le dernier enfant de Claude Guidery, dont nous avons ci-dessus relaté la naissance; c’était un garçon leste, adroit, paraît-il, et surtout fort gai, il est constamment désigné ainsi: Paul Guidery dit Grivois, ou quelquefois le Jovial; il épousa, un peu après 1730, Anne Mius d’Entremont, fille naturelle d’un Mius d’Entremont, et d’une squaw métisse de la côte de l’Est. Une fois marié il continua l’existence de son père, vivants de pêche et de cabotage; il pratiquait la pèche depuis la baie Ste-Marie jusqu’au Cap Nord de l’île du Cap-Breton.

En 1745 on le trouve toujours à Mirligouesh, où il passe pour un excellent pilote côtier (dépêche de M. de Beauharnois du 12 septembre 1745). Le 21 octobre 1747, il est mis hors la loi par Shirley avec 12 autres acadiens. A partir de ce moment, il cesse en quelque façon d’avoir une demeure fixe; les excursions de pêche et de cabotage deviennent son était normal autour de Louisbourg.

Au milieu des dépenses énormes qu’entraîne la création de cette place, il ramasse les miettes de ces prodigalités, et il vit sur as barque avec sa famille. Il fréquentait fort souvent la baie Espagnole d’où il rapportait de la houille et divers matériaux. Ce fut en ce lieu qu’il fit la rencontre d’un officier français nommé Bogard de Lanoue, lequel devint si fortement épris de l’une de ses filles, que, malgré la défense expresse de M. d’Aillebout, commandant du Cap-Breton, il parvint à l’épouser le 17 février 1755. Ce mariage fut attaqué en nullité, au nom du roi, parce qu’il était défendu aux officiers d’épouser des filles de sang mêlé; il en résulta un débat assez scadaleux, que nous avon résumé dans les notes de la colonie féodale, 4ème série No. V.

Après la prise de Louisbourg, Guidry fit sa soumission, comme presque tous les Métis des côtes de l’Est; il rentra dans ses cantonnements et on n’entendit plus parler de lui. Il est probable qu’il existe un bon nombre de descendants de cette famille, parmi les trois ou quatre mille personnes, réputées d’origine française, et qui sont dispersées sur la côte entre Halifax et la cap Sable. Parlent-ils encore français? ont-ils même conservé leurs nome sans trop les défigurer? je l’ignore; mais il est certain qu’ils ont conservé une tradition solide de leur origine française, dont ils réclament l’enregistrement à tous les recensements.

Tous les Guidry néanmoins ne sont pas restés fixés sur cette côte. Un des frères de Guidery le Grivois se rendit, au temps de la proscription, dans l’île St-Jean. Il se nommait Pierre et était né en 1698; un de ses fils nommé Anselme épousa alors dans cette île une fille dite Marie Leblanc, originaire de Pigiguitk. Lorsque l’île fut à son tour occupée par les Anglais, Pierre Guidry et sa femme, Marguerite Brosseau, se réfugièrent à St-Pierre et Miquelon, où ils étaient en 1767, et où leurs descendants existent peut-être encore aujourd’hui.

A quelle époque les Guidry sont-ils venus s’établir en Amérique? Nous n’avons sur ce point aucune donnée bien précise. D’après le recensement de 1698, Claude Guidry était né en 1648; c’est un homme qui avait toujours vécu en dehors du groupe agricole de Port-Royal; bien qu’il eût 23 ans en 1671, bien qu’il fût marié en 1676, et qu’il ait eu une nombreuse famille longtemps avant 1698, il ne figure dans aucun recensement antérieur, ni en 1671, ni en 1686, ni en 1693; on le rencontre fontuitement à Port-Royal en 1698, et depuis lors le nom de Guidry ne se retrouve plus sur aucune liste. Cette famille a donc toujours demeuré avec les sauvages et les Métis; Guidry est un homme de la Hève, il est né là, il y a vécu et il s’y plait; son père devait être une de ces rudes pratiques des côtes de l’Est, qui refusèrent de suivre D’Aulnay à Port-Royal; peut-être était-il venu avec Razilly, peut-être remontait-il au-delà, jusqu’aux compagnons de Latour et de Krainguille. Il est très possible qu’il ait épousé une squaw, comme Latour et plusieurs autres. Rien n’est certain, mais tout cela est possible!

Quoi qu’il en soit, la famille Guidry nous offre les mêmes caractères et les mêmes péripéties que les Martin, les Petitpas, les Lejeune, etc., etc., et on a tout droit de présumer qu’elle est très ancienne dans la contrée. Ces études nous donnent une idée approximative de cette société d’aventuriers que Razilly retrouva à la Hève, et une idée assez nette et assez claire du mélange qui se forma par l’adjonction des familles que ce dernier amena avec lui. Mélange assez mal défini, où prévalurent promptement des allures grossières et vagabondes, dont les traces survécurent longtemps dans certaines familles.

Cet état de choses n’avait cependant pas duré plus de 5 à 6 ans, et cependant D’Aulnay eut beucoup de peine à réagir contre cette influence, lorsqu’il voulut concentrer la populations française à Port-Royal; il fallut exercer une sorte de pression pour déterminer certaines familles à suivre le mouvement, quelque-unes même ne cédèrent point comme nous le voyons; elles restèrent parmi les sauvages et les Métis, ou y retournèrent plus tard. Or il suffit de suivre leur histoire et leur destinée, pour bien apprécier avec quelle sagesse et quelle juste prévoyance D’Aulnay s’établit loin des entrainements de la sauvagerie, à Port-Royal. Dans ce centre exclusivement agricole et français, il lui fut plus facile de préparer l’avenir de la société qu’il allait créer, car c’est dans la pratique d’un travail bien réglé, et d’une patiente économie que se formèrent peu à peu les fortes moeurs du peuple acadien. “

Translation:
“ 10th Family. -- GUIDRY or GUAIDERY. --
We are here in the presence of one of those families, questionables and vagabonds, of whom we encounter the name very often within the records, and which does not even appear in the censuses. We are aware of their existence, we ascertain, from the details of their life, that their establishment in Acadia must be old, but we cannot state precisely the time nor establish the systematic linking of facts that are known to us.

The registers of Belle-Isle do not provide their genealogy, but that family is mentioned there twice. In the 12th declaration from the parish of Sauzon, one reads: “that Marie Leblanc, born in 1735 at Pigiguit, married at Isle St-Jean, to Anselme Guedry, son of Pierre Guédry and of Marguerite Brosseau, now (1767) living at Isles St-Pierre and Miquelon.”

Then in the 13th declaration of Sauzon, there is mentioned a Marie Guédry who was the widow of a Benjamin Mius.

In the censuses that we have of Acadia, there is not made any mention of Guidry except in that of 1698, and in a few small censuses of the East Coast.

Here is what the census of 1698 says: Parish of Port-Royal, Claude Guaidry, 50 years old, married to Marguerite Petitpas, 40 years old, 10 children: Abraham 20 years; -- Claude 16; -- Jean-Baptiste 14; -- Charles 12; -- Alexis 10; -- Augustin 8; -- Marie-Joseph 6; -- Claude 4; -- Joseph 3; -- Pierre 6 months. Abraham, the eldest, must, therefore, have been born in 1678; Claude Guaidry, his father, was married about 1676 at Port-Royal, where he was born in 1648.

The census which preceds this one was of 1692, one does not find there any mention of the Guaidry; and in the censuses of 1699 and 1701, there is already no more question of them. Claude Guaidry has not, to be sure, been at Port-Royal as a bird of passage; he is seen, however, with the appearances of a civilized man, of a farmer, 10 cows, some sheeps, etc., etc.; but men are not all alike, he also has there cultivated land, and he has brought his cows out of the rocks of La Hève, it is likely that it did not suit the fat cows.

In 1701 he resided in this rugged region of La Hève, for we have found in the register of Port-Royal, that Claude Guidery and Marguerite Petitpas had in 1701 a new child who was baptized at Mirliguesh, with the name of Paul Guidery, his godfather was a Baptiste Guidery; this child was the eleventh boy of the family, and he is the main one by whom we can follow the trail the longest time as we will see in a moment.

In these records appear from time to time some baptisms and marriages of the Guidery, there is the same about them in the documents of Nova Scotia, under the English administration; the Guidery family with several other hald-bred families, got then some land from the hand of Colonel Mascarene, on the East Coast. During the time of the exile, these half-bred families made their submission and took the oath from the English.

About 1735 se see entering on the scene this Paul Guidery, the last child of Claude Guidery, of whom we have related above the birth; he was an active, skillful young fellow, it appears, and especially quite merry, he is constantly called thus: Paul Guidery dit Grivois, or sometimes le Jovial; he married a little after 1730, Anne Mius d’Entremont, illegitimate daughter of a Mius d’Entremont and of a half-bred squaw of the East Coast. Once married he continued the life of his father, lifetime of fishing and of the coasting trade; he practiced the fishing from Baie St-Marie to Cap Nord of the Isle of Cap-Breton.

In 1745 we find him still at Mirligouesh, where he is considered an excellent coasting pilot (dispatch of M. de Beauharnois of 12 September 1745). The 21st of October 1747, he is made an outlaw by Shirley with 12 other Acadians. From this moment on, he ceases in any manner to have a fixed residence; the fishing and coasting trips become his normal circumstance around Louisbourg.

In the midst of the huge expenditures which the creation of that situation entails, he gathers the bits of these extravagance, and he lives on his boat with his family. He visited quite often the Baie Espagnole from where is brought back coal and miscellaneous materials. It was in this place that a French officer named Bogard de Lanoue, who became so strongly in love with one of his daughters, that, in spite of the formal pleas by M. d’Aillebout, commanding officer of Cap-Breton, he married her 17 February 1755. That marriage was contested with invalidity, in the name of the king, because it was forbidden for officers to marry girls of mixed blood; there resulted from it a rather scandalous debate, which we summarized in the Notes de la Colonie Féodale, 4th series No. V.

After the capture of Louisbourg, Guidry submitted, as nearly all the Métis of the East Coast; he returned to his quarters and we no longer hear of him. It is probable that there are a considerable number of descendants of this family, among the three or four thousand persons, considered of French origin, and who are scattered on the coast between Halifax and Cap Sable. Do they still speak French? Have they also preserved their names without distorting them too much? I am unaware of it; but it is certain that they have preserved a strong tradition of their French origin, of which they demand recording of it in all the censuses.

All the Guidry nevertheless have not remained settled on that coast. One of the brothers of Guidery le Grivois surrendered, at the time of the exile, on the Isle St-Jean. He was called Pierre and was born in 1698; one of his sons named Anselme married then on that isle a girl called Marie Leblanc, originally of Pigiguitk. When the isle was occupied at his place by the English, Pierre Guidry and his wife Marguerite Brosseau, took refuge at St-Pierre and Miquelon, where they were in 1767, and where their descendants live perhaps even today.

At which time have the Guidry come to establish themselves in America? We do not have any very precise data on that point. According to the census of 1698, Claude Guidry was born in 1648; this is a man who had always lived outside of the agricultural group of Port-Royal; although he was 23 years old in 1671, although he has married in 1676, and that he has had a large family long before 1698, he does not appear in any earlier census, neither in 1671, nor in 1686, nor in 1693; we encounter him by chance at Port-Royal in 1698, and since then the name of Guidry is not met with again on any list. That family has, to be sure, always lived with the savages and the Métis; Guidry is a man of La Hève, he was born there, he has lived there and it pleases him; his father must have been one of those rugged characters of the East Coast, who refused to follow D’Aulnay to Port-Royal; perhaps he had come with Razilly, perhaps he went back further, even to the companions of Latour and of Krainguille. It is very possilbe that he married a squaw, as Latour and several others. Nothing is certain, but all this is possible!

Be that as it may, the Guidry family offers us the same characters and the same vicissitudes as the Martin, the Petitpas, the Lejeune, etc., etc., and we have every right to presume that they are very old in the country. These studies give us an approximate idea of that company of adventurers that Razilly met again at La Hève, and a perception rather distinct and rather free of mingling that took shape by joining of families that this last brought with him. Intermixing defined rather badly, were readily prevailed some rough demeanours and vagabonds, of which the traces survived a long time in certain families.

This state of affairs, however, had not lasted more than 5 or 6 years, and yet D’Aulnay had a great deal of difficulty to react against that influence, when he wanted to concentrate the French population at Port-Royal; it was necessary to exert a sort of pressure in order to cause certain families to follow the movement, some even did not submit as we see; they remained among the savages and the Métis, or returned there later. But it suffices to follow their history and their fate, in order to properly appreciate with what wisdom and what accurate foresight D’Aulnay settled far from the allurements of the wild, at Port-Royal. Within this center exclusively agricultural and French, it was easier for him to prepare the future of the community that he proceeded to create, because it is in the practice of a very steady occupation, and of an enduring economy that fashion little by little the strong manners and customs of the Acadian people. “4507,4508

    ____________________

Bona Arsenault states in the first edition of his excellent book on the genealogy of the Acadians that:

“ GUIDRY DIT GRIVOIS (GUITRY)
1698. - Claude Guidry dit Grivois, 50 ans, marié à Marguerite Petitpas, 40 ans.
Enfants: Abraham, 20 ans; Claude, 16 ans; Jean-Baptiste, 14 ans; Charles, 12 ans; Alexis, 10 ans; Augustin, 8 ans; Marie-Joseph, 6 ans; Claude, 4 ans; Joseph, 3 ans; Pierre, âgé de six mois.
1706. - Autres enfants: Paul, 5 ans; et une fille, Françoise, 1 an.
Claude Guidry dit Grivois arriva en Acadie vers 1671. ”

Translation:
“ GUIDRY DIT GRIVOIS (GUITRY)
1698. - Claude Guidry dit Grivois, 50 years, married to Marguerite Petitpas, 40 years.
Children: Abraham, 20 years; Claude, 16 years; Jean-Baptiste, 14 years; Charles, 12 years; Alexis, 10 years; Augustin, 8 years; Marie-Joseph, 6 years; Claude, 4 years; Joseph, 3 years; Pierre, age of six months.
1706. - Other children: Paul, 5 years; and a daughter, Françoise, 1 year.
Claude Guidry dit Grivois arrived in Acadie about 1671. ”4486

    ____________________

In the second edition of his pioneering book on the genealogy of the Acadians Mr. Bona Arsenault states:

“ GUEDRY et GUIDRY
aussi: Guitry
Claude Guédry dit Grivois, né en 1648, arrivé en Acadie vers 1671, marié vers 1677 à Marguerite Petitpas. Enfants: Abraham, 1678; Claude, 1682; Jean-Baptiste, 1684; Charles, 1686; Alexis, 1688; Augustin, 1690; Marie-Josephe, 1692; Claude, 1694; Joseph, 1695; Pierre, 1697; Paul, 1701; Françoise, 1703. Vers 1700 il a demeuré à Merliguèche, dans la région de Cap de Sable. ”

Translation:
“ GUEDRY and GUIDRY
also: Guitry
Claude Guidry Guédry dit Grivois, born in 1648, arrived in Acadie about 1671, married about 1677 to Marguerite Petitpas. Children: Abraham, 1678; Claude, 1682; Jean-Baptiste, 1684; Charles, 1686; Alexis, 1688; Augustin, 1690; Marie-Josephe, 1692; Claude, 1694; Joseph, 1695; Pierre, 1697; Paul, 1701; Françoise, 1703. About 1700 he lived at Merliguèche in the region of Cap de Sable. ”4509

    ____________________

In the third edition of his pioneering book on the genealogy of the Acadians Mr. Bona Arsenault states:

“ GUEDRY et GUIDRY
aussi: Geddry, Grivas, Guitry
Claude Guédry dit Grivois, né en 1648, arrivé en Acadie vers 1671, marié vers 1677 à Marguerite Petitpas, fille de Claude Petitpas et de Catherine Bugaret. Enfants: Abraham, 1678; Claude, 1682; Jean-Baptiste, 1684; Charles, 1686; Alexis, 1688; Augustin, 1690; Marie-Josephe, 1692; Claude, 1694; Joseph, 1695; Pierre, 1697; Paul, 1701; Françoise, 1703. Vers 1700 il demeurait à Merliguèche, dans la région de Cap-de-Sable. ”

Translation:
“ GUEDRY and GUIDRY
also: Geddry, Grivas, Guitry
Claude Guédry dit Grivois, born in 1648, arrived in Acadie about 1671, married about 1677 to Marguerite Petitpas, daughter of Claude Petitpas and of Catherine Bugaret. Children: Abraham, 1678; Claude, 1682; Jean-Baptiste, 1684; Charles, 1686; Alexis, 1688; Augustin, 1690; Marie-Josephe, 1692; Claude, 1694; Joseph, 1695; Pierre, 1697; Paul, 1701; Françoise, 1703. About 1700 he lived at Merliguèche in the region of Cap-de-Sable. ”4510

    ____________________

“ JEAN-BAPTISTE GUEDRY, né en 1684, CHARLES GUEDRY, né en 1686, et AUGUSTIN GUEDRY, né en 1690, fils de Claude et Marguerite Petitpas, se sont établis à Cobequid. “

Translation:
“ JEAN-BAPTISTE GUEDRY, born in 1684, CHARLES GUEDRY, born in 1686, and AUGUSTIN GUEDRY, born in 1690, sons of Claude and Marguerite Petitpas have settled at Cobequid. “4509

    ____________________

“ JEAN-BAPTISTE GUEDRY, 1684, CHARLES GUEDRY, 1686, et AUGUSTIN GUEDRY, 1690, fils de Claude et Marguerite Petitpas, se sont établis à Cobequid. “

Translation:
“ JEAN-BAPTISTE GUEDRY, 1684, CHARLES GUEDRY, 1686, and AUGUSTIN GUEDRY, 1690, sons of Claude and Marguerite Petitpas have settled at Cobequid. “4510

    ____________________

“ JEAN-BAPTISTE GUEDRY dit GRIVOIS, né en 1684, fils de Claude et de Marguerite Petitpas, de Port-Royal, marié vers 1715 à Marguerite Mius d’Entremont. Enfant: Joseph, 1716. “

Translation:
“ JEAN-BAPTISTE GUEDRY dit GRIVOIS, born in 1684, son of Claude and of Marguerite Petitpas of Port-Royal, married about 1715 to Marguerite Mius d’Entremont. Child: Joseph, 1716. “4511

    ____________________

“ JEAN-BAPTISTE GUEDRY dit GRIVOIS, 1684, fils de Claude et Marguerite Petitpas, de Port-Royal, marié vers 1715 à Madeleine-Marguerite Mius d’Entremont. Enfant: Joseph, 1716. Il a aussi demeuré à La Hève, sur les côtes de l’Est. Il était à Grand-Pré, lors du baptême de son fils Joseph, le 10 juillet 1717. “

Translation:
“ JEAN-BAPTISTE GUEDRY dit GRIVOIS, 1684, son of Claude and Marguerite Petitpas of Port-Royal, married about 1715 to Madeleine-Marguerite Mius d’Entremont. Child: Joseph, 1716. Il has also lived at La Hève on the East Coast. He was at Grand-Pré at the time of the baptism of his son Joseph, 10 July 1717. “4692

    ____________________

“ 11(E) Paul Guidry dit Grivois (Le Jovial) b. 1701 at Mirligueche, baptised sept 8 or Oct 27, 1705 at Port Royal. His godfather was Baptiste, probably his older brother who would have been 17 at the time. m. 1723 Anne Mius d’Entremont dit Azit of Pobomcoup (b. 1705 Philippe & Marie, a Micmac Indian). They lived at Mirligueche until until (sic) driven out by the English, gave the name Grivois in the register at Port Lajoie in 1749, and were at baie des espagnols in Cap Breton in 1752.

He, along with his father and brothers, received some land along the East coast of Nova Scotia from Colonel Mascarene and engaged in farming,fishing and fur trading for a livelihood. Paul was said to be a sharp young man, clever and very merry. His merry disposition is the reason for his nicknames of Grivois and Jovial. He married, a little after 1730, Anne Mius d’Entremont, the illegitimate daughter of Phillip Mius d’Entremont and Marie, his half breed wife.

Once married, Paul continued the life of his father, engaging in a lifetime of fishing and coasting trade from the Bay Ste. Marie to as far north as Cap Nord of the island of Cape Breton. In 1745 we find him at Mirligueche, where he is deemed an excellent coasting pilot according to Mr. de Beauharnois (September 12, 1745). On October 21, 1747, he is declared to be an enemy of the English by Governor Shirley along with 12 other Acadians. From that point on, Paul ceased to have any fixed residence and fishing and coasting trips become his normal occupation around Louisbourg.

Paul’s ship now became his home, where his family was raised. One of his frequent stops was at the Bay Espagnole where he got coal and supplies for his family and ship. It was at the Bay Espangnole (sic) that his daughters (sic) Marguerite met a French officer named Bogatd (sic) de Lanour (sic), who became so in love with her that, despite the please (sic) expressed by M. d’Aillebout, commanding officer of Cape Breton, he succeeded in marriage the 17th of February, 1755. That marriage was contested with invalidity in the name of the King because it was forbidden for officers to marry women of mixed blood.

After the capture of Louisbourg, Paul made his submission as almost all the Metis of the East coast, and little more is hear (sic) of him. “4514

    ____________________

In the Census of Acadia at Merliguèche in 1686 Claude Guédry is listed as:

“La Verdure 35; Sa femme 25 et un Enfant”

Translation:
“La Verdure 35; his wife 25 and a child”

They are living at Merliguèche. In the Census of Acadia of 1686 Claude Guédry is listed as having no arms (guns), cultivated land, cattle nor sheep4537,4540,4541,4592.

Who is the child censused with Claude Guédry and Marguerite Petitpas? No age is given for the child in the census. By 1686 Claude Guédry and/or Marguerite Petitpas had either four or five children between them: Abraham Dugas (born about 1678), Jeanne Guédry (born about 1681), Claude Guédry (born about 1682), Jean-Baptiste Guédry (born about 1684) and Charles Guédry (born about 1686). It is uncertain which of these children Monsieur de Meulles, the census-taker, listed in the Census of 1686 although it is probably not Jeanne Guédry as our only record of her is at her baptism in 1681. She is not recorded in any records as living with Claude Guédry.

    ____________________

Mark Labine in his work on the Guidry dit Labine family states: “It appears that Claude Guidry spent most of his life at Mirligueche, with the security of his wife and family close by. We know from a census taken by a man named Gargas in 1687 that Claude lived in a house in Mirligueche with his wife, Marguerite. With them were at least three children under 15 years of age and five young men over 15 years old. We are not sure who these five young men are. We know that in 1687 Claude had five children, but it’s possible Jeanne (daughter of Keskia) had died in infancy. The census also states that in 1687 eleven Indians lived in wigwams at Mirligueche and that there was one half acre of cleared land as well as two guns.4639” Known children of Claude Guédry and/or Marguerite Petitpas were Abraham Dugas (born about 1678), Jeanne Guédry (born about 1681), Claude Guédry (born about 1682), Jean-Baptiste Guédry (born about 1684) and Charles Guédry (born about 1686). A son Alexis Guédry was born about 1688 and probably was not born by the time of this Census of 1687. It is likely that Jeanne Guédry is not living with Claude and Marguerite since she disappears from the records after her baptism in 1681; she may either have died or has lived with her mother Kesk8a. It is uncertain who the five young men over 15 years of age were.

    ____________________

The Census of Acadia at Port Royal in 1698 states:

“Claude Guaidry 50 10 Bestes a cornes 2 Brebis 8 Cochons 8 Arpens de terre no Arbes fruités 1 fusil no Domestiques / Margtte Petitpas 40 / Enfans: / Abraham 20 / Claude 16 / Jean Baptiste 14 / Charles 12 / Alexis 10 / Augustin 8 / Marie Josephe 6 / Claude 4 / Joseph 3 / Pierre 1/2 “

Translation:
“Claude Guaidry 50 10 Cattle 2 Sheep 8 Pigs 8 Arpents of land, no Fruit trees, 1 gun no Servants / Margtte Petitpas 40 / Children: / Abraham 20 / Claude 16 / Jean Baptiste 14 / Charles 12 / Alexis 10 / Augustin 8 / Marie Josephe 6 / Claude 4 / Joseph 3 / Pierre 1/2 “4486,4515,4516

Claude Guédry, 50 years old, and Marguerite Petitpas, age 40 years, have nine children (Claude, Jean-Baptiste, Charles, Alexis, Augustin, Marie-Josephe, Claude, Joseph and Pierre) plus Abraham Dugas, the child of Marguerite Petitpas and her first husband Martin Dugas. At this time Claude Guédry and his family are at Port Royal and he has 10 cattle, 2 sheep, 8 pigs, 8 arpents of land under cultivation, no fruit trees, one gun and no domestic servants4517,4518.

    ____________________

“ September 10, 1705 Baptism

PAUL LEJEUNE and MARTIN LEJEUNE twins born October 9, 1702 and baptised the same day by PIERRE LEJEUNE
Sons of MARTIN LEJEUNE and MARIE GODET inhabitants of Port Maltois
Sponsors: of Paul were BAPTISTE GUEDRY and MARGUERITE KAGIGONIAS and of Martin were GERMAIN LEJEUNE and CATHERINE KAGIONIAS recorded October 27, 1705 “

Paul LeJeune and Martin LeJeune, twins, born on 9 October 1702 were baptized the same day by Pierre LeJeune. They were the sons of Martin LeJeune and Marie Godet inhabitants of Port Maltois. The baptism is entered in the baptismal registry under the date of 10 September 1705. Sponsors of Paul LeJeune were Baptiste Guédry and Marguerite Kagigonias and sponsors of Martin LeJeune were Germain LeJeune and Catherine Kagigonias. The baptism was recorded on 27 October 17054608,4697.

    ____________________

( “ I - La Famille Le Jeune
. . . .
2 - Martin Le Jeune, de Port-Maltois, né vers 1661 selon le recensement de 1708, se serait marié deux fois:

- PREMIEREMENT à Marie ou Jeanne Kayigonias, de qui seraient issus:

a - Claude Le Jeune, né vers 1684, ayant épousé le 14 septembre 1705, d’après les registres de Port-Royal, quand il est dit de Port-Maltois, Anne-Marie Godet, née vers 1683, fille de Jean et de Jeanne Henry, de La Petite-Rivière, les témoins à ce mariage étant Jean Godet et Monsieur Miuce, (sûrement Philippe II Mius d’Entremont), qui ont signé, et Pierre Briard.

b - Anne Le Jeune, née vers 1686, qui épousa René La Bauve, fils de Noël et de Jeanne Rimbault, (dont le mère, Anne-Marie, mariée à René Rimbault, semble avoir été amérindienne ou métisse).

c - Germain Le Jeune, né vers 1689, d’après le recensement de 1708.

d- Bernard Le Jeune, né vers 1693, d’après le même recensement.

- DEUXIEMEMENT à Marie Godet, probablement celle du même nom qui est née vers 1681, fille de Jean et de Jeanne Henry, soeur de l’épouse de Claude Le Jeune donné ci-dessus. On connaît de ce second mariage les enfants suivants:

a - Théodore Le Jeune, né vers 1700.

b - Paul Le Jeune, jumeau du suivant

c - Martin Le Jeune, jumeau du précédent, tous deux nés le 9 octobre 1702 et ondoyés le même jour par Pierre Le Jeune. Les cérémonies du baptême furent suppléées le 10 septembre 1705, d’après les registres de Port-Royal. Parrain et marraine pour Paul furent Baptiste Guidry et Marguerite Kayigonias; et Germain Le Jeune et Catherine Kayigonias pour Martin.

d - Claire Le Jeune, née vers 1706, mariée à François II Viger, fils de François I et de Marie Mius.

e - Marguerite Le Jeune, née le 9 juillet 1710 et baptisée le lendemain, d’après les reigstres de Grand-Pré.

f - Ernest Le Jeune, né en août 1714 et ondoyé par Benoit Sauvage, et baptisé le 10 juin 1717, selon les reigstres de Grand-Pré, le parrain étant Joseph Bergeux et la marrain Jeanne Le Jeune, fille de Pierre et de Marie Thibodeau et épouse de Jean II Roy, (celui-ci étant fils de Jean I, dit La Liberté, et de Marie Aubois). “

Translation:
“ I - La Famille Le Jeune

2 - Martin Le Jeune, of Port-Maltois, born about 1661 according to the census of 1708, would have married two times:

- FIRST to Marie or Jeanne Kayigonias, of which were issued:

a - Claude Le Jeune, born about 1684, having married the 14th of September 1705, according to the registers of Port-Royal, when it is called Port-Maltois, Anne-Marie Godet, born about 1683, daughter of Jean and of Jeanne Henry, of La Petite-Rivière, the witnesses to the marriage being Jean Godet and Monsieur Miuce, (certainly Philippe II Mius d’Entremont), who has signed, and Pierre Briard.

b - Anne Le Jeune, born about 1686, who married René La Bauve, son of Noël and of Jeanne Rimbault, (whose mother, Anne-Marie, married to René Rimbault, seems to have been Indian or Métis).

c - Germain Le Jeune, born about 1689, according to the census of 1708.

d - Bernard Le Jeune, born about 1693, according to the same census.

- SECOND to Marie Godet, probably that of the same name who was born about 1681, daughter of Jean and of Jeanne Henry, sister of the wife of Claude Le Jeune presented above. We know from the second marriage the following children:

a - Théodore Le Jeune, born about 1700.

b - Paul Le Jeune, twin of the following.

c - Martin Le Jeune, twin of the preceding, both born the 9th of October 1702 and privately baptized the same day by Pierre Le Jeune. The ceremonies of baptism were supplied the 10th of September 1705, according to the registers of Port-Royal. Godfather and godmother for Paul were Baptiste Guidry and Marguerite Kayigonias; and Germain Le Jeune and Catherine Kayigonias for Martin.

d - Claire Le Jeune, born about 1706, married to François II Viger, son of François I and of Marie Mius.

e - Marguerite Le Jeune, born 9 July 1710 and baptized the next day, according to the registers of Grand-Pré.

f - Ernest Le Jeune, born in August 1714 and privately baptized by Benoit Sauvage, and baptized 10 June 1717, according to the registers of Grand-Pré, the godfather being Joseph Bergeux and the godmother Jeanne Le Jeune, daughter of Pierre and of Marie Thibodeau and wife of Jean II Roy, (this one being the son of Jean I, dit La Liberté, and of Marie Aubois). “4698

    ____________________

“ September 8, 1705 Baptism

PAUL GUEDRY born in the month of January 1701 and baptised by Dyon
Son of CLAUDE GUEDRY and MARGUERITE PETITPAS inhabitants of Mirliguich
Sponsors: BAPTISTE GUEDRY and MARIE TIBODEAU recorded October 27, 1705 “

Paul Guédry was baptized by Dyon (Dion or Joseph Guyon also called Joseph Dion, the husband of Marguerite Dugas - Paul Guédry’s half-sister) probably on the day of his birth. His parents are listed as Claude Guédry and Marguerite Petitpas, inhabitants of Merliguich. On 8 September 1705 he was baptized by a priest (Père Félix Pain) at Cap-Sable. Sponsors at his baptism were Baptiste Guédry, his brother, and Marie Tibodeau. The baptism was recorded on 27 October 1705. It seems that Paul Guedry’s baptism by Dyon occurred at Mirliguéche in January 1701 and Paul was later baptized by Père Pain during his trip to the Cap-Sable region in 1705. The baptism then was registered in the baptismal registry of St.-Jean-Baptiste de Port-Royal Catholic Church in Port Royal, Acadia when Père Pain returned to Port Royal4605,4606,4640.

    ____________________

“ September 8, 1705 Baptism
FRANCOISE GUEDRY born January 14, 1703 and baptised by BAPTISTE GUEDRY the day of her birth
Daughter of CLAUDE GUEDRY and MARGUERITE PETITPAS inhabitants of Merlgueche
Sponsors: PIERRE BOURG and JEANNE LEJEUNE recorded October 27, 1705 “


Françoise Guédry was baptized by her brother Baptiste Guedry on the day of her birth - 14 January 1703. Her parents are listed as Claude Guédry and Marguerite Petitpas, inhabitants of Merligueche. On 8 September 1705 she was baptized by a priest (Père Félix Pain) at Cap-Sable. Sponsors at her baptism were Pierre Bourg and Jeanne LeJeune. The baptism was recorded on 27 October 1705. It seems that Françoise Guedry’s baptism by Baptiste Guedry occurred at Mirliguéche in January 1703 and Françoise was later baptized by Père Pain during his trip to the Cap-Sable region in 1705. The baptism then was registered in the baptismal registry of St.-Jean-Baptiste de Port-Royal Catholic Church in Port Royal, Acadia when Père Pain returned to Port Royal4608,4609.

    ____________________

The Census of Acadia at La Hève in 1708 states:

“ francois de la hève 7e familles Claude guedry 60 ans / Marguerite petit pas 48 / Charles son fils 21 / Augustin 16 / Claude 16 / Joseph 10 / Pierre 8 / Paul 6 / Marie sa fille 14 / francoise 4”

Translation:
“french of la hève 7th families Claude guedry 60 years / Marguerite petit pas 48 / Charles his son 21 / Augustin 16 / Claude 16 / Joseph 10 / Pierre 8 / Paul 6 / Marie his daughter 14 / francoise 4”

Claude Guédry, age 60 years, and Marguerite Petitpas, age 48 years, have living with them at La Hève eight children (Charles, Augustin, Claude, Joseph, Pierre, Paul, Marie and Françoise)4518,4489.

Also living at La Hève near Claude Guédry and Marguerite Petitpas is another son Jean-Baptiste Guédry with his new wife Madeleine Mius. They have no children.

The Census of Acadia at La Hève in 1708 states:

“ francois de la hève 8e familles Jean baptiste guedry 24 ans / Madelaine mieusse 14”

Translation:
“french of la hève 8th families Jean baptiste guedry 24 years / Madelaine mieusse 14”4519,4489

    ____________________

“ Joseph Guidry (Jean Baptiste Guidry and Magdeleine Mius) bn. 30 Nov. 1716, bt. by Claude Guidry, his grandfather, ceremonies 12 July 1717 spo. Jean Babin and Marguerite Landry, wife of Pierre Richar (SGA-2,2) “

Joseph Guédry, son of Jean-Baptiste Guédry and Madeleine Mius, was born 30 November 1716 and was baptized on 12 July 1717 at Grand-Pré, Acadia. Sponsors at his baptism were Jean Babin and Marguerite Landry, wife of Pierre Richar. He had been earlier baptized by his grandfather Claude Guédry.4522,4642.

    ____________________

In the third edition of his excellent book on Acadian genealogy Bona Arsenault states about Jean-Baptiste Guédry “Il a aussi demeuré à La Hève, sur les côtes de l’Est. Il était à Grand-Pré, lors du baptême de son fils Joseph, le 10 juillet 1717.”
Translation:
In the third edition of his book Bona Arsenault states about Jean-Baptiste Guédry “He also has lived at La Hève, on the East Coast. He was a Grand-Pré at the time of the baptism of his son Joseph, 10 July 1717.”4692

    ____________________

“It would appear that Marie and Claude Guédry must have been Jean-Baptiste Guédry’s children because no other son of Claude Guédry had started a family prior to 1720.”4615

    ____________________

“13 Nov 1726: ‘We have already referred to what the English called an act of piracy, perpetuated at the beginning of September 1726 at Merliguesh (Lunenburg) against the person of Samuel Daly, of Plymouth, Massachusetts, and his crew, by the Acadians and Amerindians of the place, for which Jean-Baptiste Guédry, the son of Claude Guédry and Marguerite Petitpas and husband of Philippe II Mius d’Entremont’s daughter Madeleine, as well as his like-named son and three Amerindians, were all condemned to be hanged at Boston, where they were in fact executed the following November 13th (n.s.).’ (C. J. d’Entremont, Histoire du Cap-Sable, vol IV, p. 1601).”4615

    ____________________

“ D - Pendaison à Boston de deux Acadiens et trois Amérindiens pour piraterie.
La paix avait été conclue, mais cela ne veut pas dire que tout devait entrer dans le calme du jour au lendemain. Nous avons déjà fait allusion à ce que les Anglais ont appelé l’act de piraterie perpétré au début de septembre 1726 à Merliguesh, (Lunenburg), sur la personne de Samuel Daly, de Plymouth, Massachusetts, et de son équipage, de la part d’Acadiens et d’Amérindiens de l’endroit, pour lequel Jean-Baptsite Guidry, fils de Claude et de Marguerite Petitpas, marié à Madeleine Mius, fille de Philippe II Mius d’Entremont, ainsi que son propre fils, de même nom que son père, et trois Amérindiens furent condamnés à être pendus à Boston, où ils furent exécutés le 13 novembre suivant (n.s.). Même si cet événement ne se passa pas précisément au Cap-Sable, nous allons cependant le raconter en entier, d’abord parce qu’il concerne des Acadiens qui étaient originaires du Cap-Sable ou qui y étaient étroitement liés, et ensuite parce qu’il s’agit d’un fait unique, mais très peu connu, de l’histoire de l’Acadie, à savoir la pendaison de deux Acadiens et de trois Amérindiens accusés de piraterie.

1 - Récit des faits.
Nous connaissons deux sources qui nous donnent le détail de cette affaire, d’abord le récit du docteur Benjamin Colman, qui la raconte dans ses Mémoires, et ensuite les Archives de la Cour Suprême du comté de Suffolk, Boston, où le procès pour pirateries eut lieu.

a - D’après le docteur Benjamin Colman.
Malgré la longueur de récrit du docteur Benjamin Colman, nous croyons qu’il vaut la peine d’être transcrit ici en son entier. En voici la traduction:

Samuel Daly de Plymouth, dans un voyage de pêche, entra dans le havre de Malagash le 25 août
[5 septembre, n.s. - 1726], pour s’approvisionner d’eau, quand voyant sur la côte
Jean-Baptiste, un Français, il le pria de venir à bord, ce que Baptiste et son fils firent à
l’instant. Et après qu’ils eurent conversé amicalement de la paix qui venait d’être conclue entre
les Anglais et les Amérindiens, maître Daly invita Baptiste en bas, dans la cabine, pour boire.
Entre-temps, le fils de Baptiste prit le canoë et alla à terre. Daly et son second, avec trois
autres hommes, furent assez simples pour prendre le canoë du sloop et s’en aller à terre,
laissant à bord Baptiste, qui, refusant d’embarquer avec eux, dit qu’il appellerait son fils pour
qu’il vienne le chercher, ce qu’il fit en français. Alors son fils s’en vint avec deux
Amérindiens, qui, aussitôt à bord du sloop, descendirent le pavillon anglais et dirent aux Anglais
à la côte de demander quartier. Baptiste se ceingnit les reins du pavillon et y inséra un pistolet.
Daly, à terre avec ses hommes, alla trouver madame Giddery, la mère de Baptiste, la priant
avec instance d’aller à bord avec lui et intercéder auprès de son fils de lui rendre son sloop.
- Après quelque temps, elle alla avec lui. Mais voilà que maintenant un certain nombre d’autres
Amérindiens étaient montés à bord, et le menacèrent avec leurs haches à main. Bientôt Baptiste
lui ordonna de mettre à la voile. Mais Daly et ses hommes épiaient la première chance qu’ils
auraient de se soulever contre les Français et les Amérindiens, ce qui arriva dès le lendemain.
Baptiste ayant descendu dans la cabine avec trois Amérindiens, Daly en ferma l’entrée et eut
facilement raison du fils et des Sauvages qui se trouvaient sur le pont, et ensuite, faisant feu
dans la cabine, les trois Amérindiens sautèrent à la mer. Daly amena ses prisonniers à Boston,
où, à ls Cour de l’Amirauté, le 4 octobre (v.s.), Baptiste, son fils et trois Sauvages, à un procès
pour piraterie, furent trouvés coupables et condamnés à mourir. Ils furent exécutés le
2 novembre [13 novembre, n.s., 1726] (a).

b - D’après les Archives de la Cour Suprême du comté de Suffolk.
Les Archives du la Cour Suprême du comté de Suffolk ajoutent quelques détails intéressants à ce récrit. C’est ici que nous apprenons que le nom du fils de Jean-Baptiste Guidry était le même que celui de son père, Jean-Baptiste, ce pourquoi on distingue toujours l’un de l’autre en employant les termes “senior” et “junior”, ou en appelant le Père “Old Baptiste”, le vieux Baptiste. Joseph Roberts, un membre de l’équipage, témoigna qu’à Merliguesh il alla à terre, où il rencontra, en plus des trois Amérindiens amenés à Boston, deux Français et trois autres Amérindiens. Il donna la main à Philippe Mius, qui évidemment était le fils cadet du baron Philippe Mius d’Entremont et de Madeleine Hélie, âgé d’environ 65 ans à cette date, qui demeurait justement à Merliguesh, comme nous avons déjà dit; il n’y eut en effet aucun autre de ce nom à cette epoque. John Robert lui demanda si la paix avait été établie, et reçut pour réponse qu’il y avait une “bonne paix”. Il y avait ici également Jacques Mius, que nous avons déjà mentionné comme celui qui était, croyons-nous, l’aîné du deuxième groupe des enfants de Philippe Mius d’Entremont et de Marie,
amérindienne. Ces deux se rendirent à bord du bâtiment avec John Roberts, dont le témoignage nous révèle en plus le nom d’au moins trois Amérindiens, à savoir Jacques, Philippe et Jean Missel, probablement pour Jean Michel. D’après le même témoignage, c’aurait été Philippe Mius, qui parlait un peu anglais, qui aurait demandé à descendre dans la cabine, (“philip Mews Spoke Some English - askt him to drink a dram & eat Some Cold Victuals”). C’est alors que le déposant fait savoir qu’il fut maltraité par les Amérindiens et même par Philippe Mius et par Jacques Mius, celui-ci lui ayant dérobé une certaine quantité d’objets personnels, même une bague en or. Il n’est pas dit comment ces deux derniers réussirent à s’échapper; peut-être étaient-ils au nombre des “trois Amérindiens” qui, d’après Colman, sautèrent à la mer.

2 - Motifs pour l’acte de piraterie.
Au cours du procès, le procureur de la Couronne insista sur le fait qu’il s’était agi d’un acte de piraterie et demanda que les coupables amenés à Boston soient condamnés à être pendus, ce qui était dans le temps le châtiment pour un tel délit.

Jean-Baptiste Guidry, père, lui-même, témoigna au cours de procès que le 4 spetembre (n.s.), veille de la prise du bâtiment, Joseph Decoy, du Cap-Breton, revenant de Boston, où il était venu faire du commerce, s’arrêta à Merliguesh et dit que les Anglais retenaient son fils et que la seule manière qu’il pouvait être délivré serait de saisir le bâtiment en question, ce que lui et les autres avaient voulu faire.

(12) p. 1604
On trouvera un compte rendu du procès qui conduisit à la pendaison des deux Acadiens et des trois Amérindiens aus Archives de la Cour Suprême du comté de Suffolk, (Suffolk Court Files - 14ième plancher du nouveau bâtiment, Boston), Vol. 211, document 26283, les nos 4 et 5, et le Vol. 216, no 28868.

Le docteur Benjamin Colman, après avoir fait le récit que nous avons rapporté, ajoute le paragraphe suivant que nous traduisons de l’anglais:

Les Amérindiens se plaignaient que les Français les incitaient à de telles practiques exécrables
et ils désiraient que ceux de leur nation en soient avertis. Baptiste [Guidry, père] aussi
semblait s’adoucir, quoiqu’il se fût toujours montré un ennemi cruel des Anglais; maintenant il
désirait que ses amis puissent vivre désormais dans des sentiments d’amour et d’amitié envers
les Anglais et se comporter aimablement envers eux. - Il s’est agi ici d’un cas évident et
horrible des Français incitant les Amérindiens à ces vols et meutres, comme ils en ont souvent
commis sans aucune provocation de notre part.... Mais maintenant la bonne Providence divine
les a découverts, et a exercé sa vengeance sur eux pour leur trahison et leur vilinie; et notre
gouvernement les a sagement pendus, Amérindiens et Français ensemble, comme ils méritaient
de mourir selon les lois de tout pays. Il est à souhaiter que cette découverte au sujet des
Français sera pour eux un avertissement et leur exécution un terreur pour les Amérindiens, et
que le tout, par la bonne volonté de Dieu, conduira à l’établissement de la paix.

Sans doute c’est à cette affaire que fait allusion le ministre dans sa lettre du 10 juin 1727 à Saint-Ovide, quoique ce soit sans une parfaite exactitude, le havre de La Hève et repris par eux, qui amenèrent à Boston deux jeunes Amérindiens, après en avoir tué deux autres (a).

Il ne semble pas que l’on puisse prêter foi à la nouvelle qui arriva à Boston en juillet 1727 par voie du Canada et de Pentagoët et fut transmise par les Amérindiens à l’effet que les Amérindiens du Cap-Sable auraient tué 200 Anglais à Plaisance. Si la chose était vraie, d’autres documents en parleraient, mais on n’en trouve nulle trace ailleurs. Dummer pour sa part dira qu’il ne donne pas grand crédit à cette histoire (b).

1603
(a) - Coll. of the Mass. Hist. Soc., Vol. 6, (1799), pp. 109-110.
- Thomas C. Haliburton, A General Description of Nova Scotia; illustrated by a new and correct
Map, (1st ed., Halifax, 1923), p. 196.

1618
(a) - Coll. de Mss rel. à la N.-F., vol. III, p. 134.
(b) - Coll. of the Maine Hist. Soc., 1st Series, Vol. III, p. 428. “

Translation:
“ D - Hanging at Boston of two Acadians and three Indians for piracy.
Peace had been concluded, but that does not mean to say that all must become calm overnight. We have already alluded to that which the English have called an act of piracy committed at the beginning of September 1726 at Merliguesh (Lunenburg), on the person of Samuel Daly, of Plymouth, Massachusetts, and on his crew, of the concern for Acadians and for Indians at that place, for which Jean-Baptiste Guidry, son of Claude and of Marguerite Petitpas, married to Madeleine Mius, daughter of Philippe II Mius d’Entremont, at the same time as his own son, with the same name as his father, and three Indians were sentenced to be hung at Boston, where they were executed the 13th of November following (n.s.). Even if that event did not happen precisely at Cap-Sable, we go on nevertheless to tell it in full, at first because it concerns some Acadians who were originally from Cap-Sable or who were closely connected, and then because it is a matter of a unique event, but very little known, from the history of Acadia, namely the hanging of two Acadians and of three Indians accused of piracy.

1 - Account of the events.
We are aware of two sources which give us the detailed account of this affair, at first the account of the doctor Benjamin Colman, who relates it in his Mémoires, and then the Archives of the Supreme Court of the County of Suffolk, Boston, where the trial for piracy took place.

a- From the doctor Benjamin Colman.
In spite of the length of the account of the doctor Benjamin Colman, we believe that it is worthwhile to be transcribed here in full. Thus here is the translation:

Samuel Daly of Plymouth, on a fishing voyage, put into Malegash harbour, to water, on the 25th
of August [5 September, n.s. - 1726], when seeing John Baptist, a Frenchman, on the shore, he
hailed him, and asked him to come on board; which Baptist and his son presently did; and after
some friendly talk of the peace, lately concluded between the English and Indians, master Daly
asked Baptist down into his cabin to drink. The meanwhile, Baptist’s son took the canoe and
went ashore. Daly and his mate, with three more men, were so simple as to take the sloop’s
canoe and go ashore, leaving Baptist on board, who declined to go with them, saying, that he
would call his son to carry him, which he soon did in French, and off came his son with two
Indians, who, as soon as they had got on board the sloop, took down the English ensign; the
Indians bidding the English on the shore to ask quarter. Baptist girded the ensign about his
waist, and tucked a pistol in it. Daly, with his men on shore, went to Mrs. Giddery, the mother
of Baptist, and begged her to go on board with him, and intercede with her son to restore him his
sloop. - After some time, she went with him, but now several more Indians had got on board,
who threatened him with their hatchets. Baptist soon ordered him to come to sail; but Daly and
his men watched for the first opportunity to rise upon the French and Indians, and found one the
very next day; upon Baptist’s going down into the cabin with three of the Indians, Daly shut
the cabin door upon them, easily mastered the son and the Indians upon the deck, and then firing
into the cabin, the three Indians threw themselves into the sea. Daly brought his prisoners to
Boston, where at a court of admiralty for the trial of piracies, on the 4th of October (v.s),
Baptist, his son, and three Indians were found guilty and condemned to die, and were executed
on the 2nd of November [13 November, n.s., 1726].

b - From the Archives of the Supreme Court of the County of Suffolk.
The Archives of the Supreme Court of the County of Suffolk add several interesting details to this account. It is here that we learn that the name of the son of Jean-Baptiste Guidry was the same as that of his father, Jean-Baptiste, which is why we always distinguish the one from the other by using the terms “senior” and “junior”, where by calling the Father “Old Baptiste”, the old Baptiste. Joseph Roberts, a member of the crew, testified that at Merliguesh he went ashore, where he met, in addition to the three Indians brought to Boston, two Frenchmen and three other Indians. He gave his hand to Philippe Mius, who evidently was the younger son of Baron Philippe Mius d’Entremont and of Madeleine Hélie, age of 65 years at that date, who lived precisely at Merliguesh, as we have already said; he had in fact nothing other than his name at that time. John Robert asked him if the peace had been established, and received in response that there was here a “good peace”. There was here also Jacques Mius, who we have already mentioned as the one who was, we believe, the eldest of the second group of children of Philippe Mius d’Entremont and of Marie, Indian. These two returned on board the ship with John Roberts, whose testimony reveals to us in addition the name of at least three Indians, namely Jacques, Philippe and Jean Missel, probably for Jean Michel. According to the same testimony, it would have been Philippe Mius, who spoke a little English, who would have asked to go down in the cabin, (“philip Mews Spoke Some English - akst him to drink a dram & est Some Cold Victuals”). It is while giving evidence he makes known that he was handled roughly by the Indians and even by Philippe Mius and Jacques Mius, these having stolen a certain quantity of personal things, even a gold ring. He does not say how these last two managed to get away; perhaps they are numbered among the “three Indians” who, according to Colman, jumped into the sea.

2 - Motives for the act of piracy.
In the course of the trial, the attorney for the Crown insisted on the fact that this was a question of an act of piracy and demanded that the culprits brought to Boston be sentenced to be hung, which was at the time the punishment for such an offense.

Jean-Baptiste Guidry, père, himself, testified in the course of the trial that September 4th (n.s.), the day before the capture of the ship, Joseph Decoy, of Cap-Breton, returning from Boston, where he had gone to trade, stopped at Merliguesh and said that the English kept his son and that the only way he could be rescued would be to seize the ship in question, which he and the others had tried to do.

(12) p. 1604
One will find a report of the trial which led to the hanging of the two Acadians and the three Indians at the Archives of the Supreme Court of the County of Suffolk, (Suffolk Court Files - 14th floor of the new building, Boston), Vol. 211, document 26283, Nos. 4 and 5, and Vol. 216, No. 28868.

The doctor Benjamin Colman, after having made the account which we have reported, added the following paragraph which we translate from the English:

The Indians complained that the French misled them into such villainous practices, and wished
their countrymen would take warning by them. Baptist also seemed to relent, and though he had
always shown himself a bitter enemy to the English, he now wished his friends would live in
love and friendship hereafter with them, and carry kindly to them. - This was a plain and
horrid instance of the French their instigating the Indians to those villainous robberies and
murders, which they have so often committed without any provocation on our part. And no
doubt it was from their rage at the peace lately made, and in hopes that this might be resented
by us as an open and manifest breach of it, and prove a means of a new war, that they led the
Indians into this cursed act on the first opportunity that offered. They had also found the war
gainful to them, and were loth to lose the plunder and spoil it brought them; partly from the
Indians, who carried all they took to them; but more especially from the advantage, which the
war gave them to head the Indians in the spoils they made the last war upon our fishing vessels.
But now the good providence of God discovered them, and took vengeance of them for their
treachery and villainy; and our government wisely hung them up, Indians and French together; as
they well deserved to die by the laws of all nations. We hope this detection of the French will be
a warning to them, and their execution a terror to the Indians; and the whole turn, by the good
will of God, to the establishment of the peace.

Without doubt it is to this affair that the minister alludes in his letter of 10 June 1727 at Saint-Ovide, although it is without complete accuracy, when he speaks of an English ship seized in the harbor of La Hève and recaptured by them , who brought to Boston two young Indians, after having killed two others (a).

It does not appear that we can believe the account which arrived at Boston in July 1727 by way of Canada and of Pentagoët and was conveyed by the Indians to the effect that the Indians of Cap-Sable would have killed 200 English at Plaisance. If the matter were true, some other documents would have spoken of it, but we find no trace of it elsewhere. Dummer for his part will say that he did not give much credit to that story (b).

1603
(a) - Coll. of the Mass. Hist. Soc., Vol. 6, (1799), pp. 109-110.
(b) - Thomas C. Haliburton, A General Description of Nova Scotia; illustrated by a new and correct Map, (1st ed., Halifax, 1923), p. 196.

1618
(a) - Coll. de Mss rel. à la N.-F., vol. III, p. 134.
(b) - Coll. of the Maine Hist. Soc., 1st Series, Vol. III, p. 428. “4643

    ____________________

“ Acadiens et Amérindiens pendus à Boston 13 novembre 1726
A l’été de 1726, le caboteur Joseph Decoy, Acadien du Cap-Breton, se rendit à Boston faire du commerce, où on retint son fils, pour une raison qui n’est pas donnée. En désespoir de cause, il fut obligé de s’en retourner sans son fils. Chemin faisant, il s’arrêta le 4 septembre à Merliguesh (aujourd’hui Lunenburg), et raconta aux Acadiens qui y étaient établis ce qui était arrivé. La seule manière de délivrer son fils, leur dit-il, serait de s’emparer de l’un des nombreux bateaux de la Nouvelle-Angleterre qui faisaient pêche sur les côtes de l’Acadie, et de le garder en otage afin d’en faire l’échange pour son fils.

On n’eut pas à attendre longtemps. Dès le lendemain, le capitaine Samuel Daly, de Plymouth, Massachusetts, entra dans le havre de Merliguesh afin de s’approvisionner d’eau. Sous prétexte de rendre une visite de courtoisie au capitaine et à son équipage, un certain nombre d’Acadiens de Merliguesh, ainsi que quelques Amérindiens, se rendirent à bord. Il y avait Philippe II Mius d’Entremont, fils du baron et de Madeleine Hélie; son propre fils Jacques, dont la mére était une Amérindienne; son gendre Jean-Baptiste Guidry, fils de Claude Guidry et de Marguerite Peitipas, marié à Madeleine Mius, fille de Philippe II; et le fils de Jean-Baptiste Guidry, du même nom que son père.

Pendant que l’équipage se trouvait à terre, sûrement pour se procurer de l’eau, d’autres Amérindiens se rendirent à bord, afin d’aider les Acadiens à s’emparer du bateau. Lorsque le capitaine et l’équipage revinrent à bord, les assaillants s’en emparèrent et déclarèrent qu’ils saisissaient le bateau. Jean-Baptiste Guidry, père, prit charge de la situation; il descendit le pavillon anglais, s’en ceignit les reins et y inséra un pistolet. Le lendemain, quand on se disposait à faire voile pour une destination qui n’est pas donnée, Baptiste, père commit l’imprudence de descendre dans la cabine avec trois Amérindiens; c’est alors que Daly réussit à en fermer l’entrée. Ceux qui gardaient les prisonniers sur le pont, voyant qu’ils seraient facilement vaincus, se jetèrent à la mer, laissant Daly et son équipage avec leurs captifs, qui étaient Jean-Baptiste Guidry, son fils et trois Amérindiens, dont les archives nous ont conservé les noms, à savoir, Jacques, Philippe et Jean Missel (mis probablement pour Michel). Daly amena ces cinq prisonniers à Boston, où, à la Cour de l’Amirauté, le 15 octobre, Baptiste, son fils et les trois Amérindiens, à un procès pour piraterie, furent trouvés coupables et condamnés à mourir. Un mois plus tard, le 13 novembre, tous les cinq montaient sur l’échafaut à Boston et expirèrent, la corde au cou. C’est ainsi, de conclure un auteur du temps, que la bonne Providence divine a exercé sa vengeance sur eux pour leur trahison et leur vilenie... C.-J. d’Entremont, ptre “

Translation:
“ Acadians and Indians Hung at Boston 13 November 1726
In the summer of 1726, the coasting vessel pilot Joseph Decoy, Acadian of Cap-Breton, went to Boston to do some trading, where they detained his son, for a reason which is not given. As a last resort, he was compelled to return without his son. On the way he stopped the 4th of September at Merliguesh (today Lunenburg), and related to the Acadians who were settled there what had happened. The only way to rescue his son, he told them, would be to seize one of the numerous boats of New England which fished on the coasts of Acadia, and to keep it as hostage in order to exchange for his son.

They did not have to wait long. As early as the next day the Captain Samuel Daly, of Plymouth, Massachusetts, came into the harbor of Merliguesh in order to supply himself with water. On the pretext to pay a courtesy visit to the captain and to his crew, a certain number of Acadians from Merliguesh, as well as several Indians, went on board. There was Philippe II Mius d’Entremont, son of the baron and of Madeleine Hélie; his own son Jacques, whose mother was an Indian; his son-in-law Jean-Baptiste Guidry, son of Claude Guidry and of Marguerite Petitpas, married to Madeleine Mius, daughter of Philippe II; and the son of Jean-Baptiste Guidry, of the same name as his father.

While the crew were ashore, surely to get some water, some other Indians went on board, in order to help the Acadians to seize the boat. When the captain and the crew returned on board, the assailants seized them and declared that they were taking possession of the boat. Jean-Baptiste Guidry, père, took charge of the situation; he took down the English flag, bound it around his waist and put a pistol in there. The next day, while they prepared to sail to a destination that is not known, Baptiste, père committed the unwariness to go down in the cabin with three Indians; this is when Daly succeeded to seal up the entrance to them. Those who were guarding the prisoners on the deck, seeing that they would be readily overcome, threw themselves into the sea, leaving Daly and his crew with their captives, who were Jean-Baptiste Guidry, his son and three Indians, of whom the archives have preserved for us the names, namely, Jacques, Philippe and Jean Missel (translated probably for Michel). Daly brought these five prisoners to Boston, where, at the Court of Admiralty, the 15th of October, Baptiste, his son and the three Indians, at a trial for piracy, were found guilty and sentenced to die. A month later, the 13th of November, all five climbed on the platform at Boston and died, the rope on the neck. This is thus, to conclude an author of the period, how the good divine Providence has exerted his vengeance on them for their treachery and the vile action ... C.-J. d’Entremont, ptre. “4588,4589

    ____________________

“ SOME MEMOIRS FOR THE CONTINUATION FO THE HISTORY OF THE TROUBLES OF THE NEW-ENGLISH COLONIES, FROM THE BARBAROUS AND PERFIDIOUS INDIANS, INSTIGATED BY THE MORE SAVAGE AND INHUMAN FRENCH OF CANADA AND NOVA-SCOTIA. BEGAN NOVEMBER 3, 1726. BY BENJAMIN COLMAN, D.D.

It was at Falmouth, in Casco Bay, August the 5th, 1726, that the honourable William Dummer, lieutenant governor and commander in chief of his majesty’s province of the Massachusetts Bay, with the honourable John Wentworth, esquire, lieutenant-governor of New Hampshire, and major Mascarene, delegated from his majesty’s province of Nova-Scotia, concluded a peace with Wenemovet, chief sachem and sagamore of the Penobscot tribe. We then were ready to flatter ourselves, that a foundation was laid for some lasting peace with these treacherous natives. Not but that we were well aware of the narrow and feeble foot that peace was built on; only one tribe of the Indians appearing and acting in it; though, as they declared in the name of the other eastern tribes, and promising to resent it, and join with us, in case any of the tribes should rise against us. Nevertheless, they had suffered so much in the last short war, through the blessing of God upon the councils and arms of the provinces; that we thought they would be glad of peace, and then our trading-houses were now put into so good order, to the great advantage of the savages, that we concluded their interest would keep them quiet. For the Indians may buy of us far cheaper all sorts of goods they need, than they can of the French; and the goods in our trading-houses are carried, in a manner, to the very doors of the eastern tribes. But notwithstanding all these reasonable prospects, and hopeful grounds of peace, within less than a month the French and Indians began new outrages upon us.

Samuel Daly of Plymouth, on a fishing voyage, put into Malegash harbour, to water, on the 25th
of August, when seeing John Baptist, a Frenchman, on the shore, he hailed him, and asked him to come on board; which Baptist and his son presently did; and aftersome friendly talk of the peace, lately concluded between the English and Indians, master Daly asked Baptist down into his cabin to drink. The meanwhile, Baptist’s son took the canoe and went ashore. Daly and his mate, with three more men, were so simple as to take the sloop’s canoe and go ashore, leaving Baptist on board, who declined to go with them, saying, that he would call his son to carry him, which he soon did in French, and off came his son with two Indians, who, as soon as they had got on board the sloop, took down the English ensign; the Indians bidding the English on the shore to ask quarter. Baptist girded the ensign about his waist, and tucked a pistol in it. Daly, with his men on shore, went to Mrs. Giddery, the mother of Baptist, and begged her to go on board with him, and intercede with her son to restore him his sloop. After some time, she went with him, but now several more Indians had got on board, who threatened him with their hatchets. Baptist soon ordered him to come to sail; but Daly and his men watched for the first opportunity to rise upon the French and Indians, and found one the very next day; upon Baptist’s going down into the cabin with three of the Indians, Daly shut the cabin door upon them, easily mastered the son and the Indians upon the deck, and then firing into the cabin, the three Indians threw themselves into the sea. Daly brought his prisoners to
Boston, where at a court of admiralty for the trial of piracies, on the 4th of October, Baptist, his son, and three Indians were found guilty and condemned to die, and were executed on the 2nd of November.

The Indians complained that the French misled them into such villainous practices, and wished
their countrymen would take warning by them. Baptist also seemed to relent, and though he had always shown himself a bitter enemy to the English, he now wished his friends would live in love and friendship hereafter with them, and carry kindly to them.

This was a plain and horrid instance of the French their instigating the Indians to those villainous robberies and murders, which they have so often committed without any provocation on our part. And no doubt it was from their rage at the peace lately made, and in hopes that this might be resented by us as an open and manifest breach of it, and prove a means of a new war, that they led the Indians into this cursed act on the first opportunity that offered. They had also found the war gainful to them, and were loth to lose the plunder and spoil it brought them; partly from the Indians, who carried all they took to them; but more especially from the advantage, which the war gave them to head the Indians in the spoils they made the last war upon our fishing vessels. But now the good providence of God discovered them, and took vengeance of them for their treachery and villainy; and our government wisely hung them up, Indians and French together; as they well deserved to die by the laws of all nations. We hope this detection of the French will be a warning to them, and their execution a terror to the Indians; and the whole turn, by the good will of God, to the establishment of the peace. “4617

    ____________________

“ Hanging of two Acadians and three Indians in Boston
[Reprint of Heritage Series, by Rev. C. J. d’Entremont taken from: The Vanguard, Yarmouth, N.S. January 31, 1989]

Captain Joseph Decoy, from Cape Breton, used to trade in Boston with his vessel. This was in the 1720’s. On one of his trips he took with him his son, who was detained in Boston for a reason which was not given. On his way back, he stopped at Mirliguesh, now Lunenburg, and told the Acadians and Indians what had happened. He told them that the only way that his son could be redeemed would be to seize one of the many vessels from Boston and vicinity fishing on the coast of Nova Scotia and offer it in ransom for his son. This was September 4, 1726 (New Style).

They did not have to wait long. The very next day, captain Samuel Daly, of Plymouth, Massachusetts, on a fishing voyage, put his sloop into Merliguesh Harbour to fetch fresh water.

John Roberts, one of the crew, went on shore and met some frenchmen and some indians. Among the group was Philippe Mius d’Entremont, Jr. son of the Baron Philippe Mius d’Entremont, Sr., and of Magdeleine Helie. He shook hands with him and they spoke of peace which had just been signed between the English and the Indians. John Roberts took Philippe Mius d’Entremont, Jr., his son Jacques with him when he went back to the sloop. In the meantime, Daly invited another Acadian, Jean-Baptiste Guidry, to do likewise, which he did the same with his son of the same name. This was Jean-Baptiste Guidry (now written Jeddry), 42 years old, the son of Claude Guidry and of Marguerite Petitpas. He had married Madeleine Mius, the daughter of Philippe Mius d’Entremont, Jr., and of Marie, his Indian wife.

After a friendly conversation, Daly asked his guests down into his cabin for a drink. In the meantime, Jean-Baptiste Guidry, Jr., went ashore. He was soon followed by Daly, his mate and the three members of the crew, plus Philippe Mius d’Entremont, Jr., and his son Jacques. Jean-Baptiste Guidry, Sr., refused to go, saying he would call his son to come and get him, which he did in French, so thought Daly and his men.

The son came back to the sloop with some Indians. As soon as they got aboard, they took down the English ensign, which Jean-Baptiste Guidry, Sr., girded about his waist, and tucked a pistol into it. That is when the members of the crew on shore were told to ask for quarter. Immediately, Daly went to Mrs. Guidry, “the mother of Baptiste”, says one version, thus Marguerite Petitpas. He begged her to come on board with him and intercede with his son to restore his sloop. She finally consented to go.

Others followed, so that on board, at a time there were the five men of the sloop, Jean-Baptiste Guidry, his son, his mother, Philippe Mius d’Entremont, his son Jacques and six Indians. Mrs. Guidry did not succeed in her plea, on the contrary. The Indians, at this time, even threatened the crew with their hatchets. John Roberts testified that “Philip Mews” and an Indian, by the name of Jean Missel, took hold of him and trussed him into the forecastle. “Philip Mews spoke some English - asked him to drink a dram and Eat Cold Victuals.” It is then that Jacques Mius struck him and “told him he would kill him and cut his head off - called him a Son of a B.....”. He stole from him, among other things, his gold ring.

Jean-Baptiste Guidry, Sr., seems to have take charge of the situation. He soon ordered Daly to come to sail. This was just before 8 o’clock in the evening. It is not clear what happened to Philippe Mius d’Entremont, Jr., his son, and Mrs. Guidry, because the next day they were not in the sloop; there were only Jean-Baptiste Guidry, Sr., his son and six Indians, apart from the five members of the crew. Most probably they left in the evening or during the night to take Mrs. Guidry home, maybe with the intention to come back next day to help Jean-Baptiste Guidry, Sr.

It is not stated how far they sailed. Daly and his men watched for the first opportunity to rise upon their captors. It so happened that they found one the very next day. Jean-Baptiste Guidry, Sr., went down into the cabin with three Indians, leaving the three others with his son to guard the prisoners. But Daly managed to shut the cabin door upon them and to master the son and the three Indians who were on deck. He then fired into the cabin. The three Indians jumped into the sea, while Jean-Baptiste, Jr. was kept at bay. And so finally Daly was in full charge of the sloop.

Daly left immediately for Boston with his five prisoners, the two Guidrys and the three Indians, whose names we have, viz., Jacques, Philippe and Jean Missel, put probably for Michel; they could have been brothers.

In Boston, they were found guilty of piracy on the high-seas, for which the penalty prescribed by the law was to be hung by the neck till death follows. The trial had taken place October 15th (New Style). And thus those two Acadians and three Indians from Merliguesh were hung in Boston on November 13 of the same year 1726.

The narrator, Dr. Benjamin Colman, from whom we hold this story from his memoirs, along with the Supreme Court of Suffolk County in Boston, blames the French for this conspiracy, rather than the Indians who “complained that the French misled them into such villainous practices.” Then he adds: “The good providence of God ... took vengeance of them for their treachery and villainy; and our government wisely hung them up ... as they well deserved to die by the laws of all nations.” “4572,4618,4619

    ____________________

“ 1 - Jacques Mius.
Jacques Mius, qui en 1708 avait 20 ans, dut naître en 1688. On recontre son nom de nouveau en 1726, au début de septembre, lors de l’acte de “piraterie”, de la part de quelques Acadiens et quelques Amérindiens de Merliguesh sur l’équipage du bâtiment dont Samuel Daly, de Plymouth, au Massachusetts, était maître, quand Jacques participa, avec son père Philippe II et les autres, au crime en question, quoiqu’il réussît à s’échapper,, ainsi que son père; cependant son beau-frère Jean-Baptiste Guidry et le fils de ce dernier, du même nom que son père, ne furent pas aussi chanceux; ils furent amenés à Boston avec trois Amérindiens pour être jugés et pendus le 13 novembre suivant; nous parlerons plus longuement de cette affaire au chapitre 31ième. Son nom
revient pour la dernière fois, semble-t-il, en 1755 dans une lettre de Pichon, lorsqu’il est question de son fils Antoine Mius, chef sauvage, même si Pichon ait dit que personne ne sait d’où il vient (a).

1012
(a) - John Clarence Webster, Thomas Pichon, (Special Publication. The Public Archives of Nova Scotia, 1937), p. 82. “

Translation:
“ 1. Jacques Mius.
Jacques Mius, who in 1708 was 20 years old, must have been born in 1688. We encounter his name from news in 1726, at the beginning of September, at the time of the act of “piracy”, on the crew of the ship of whom Samuel Daly, of Plymouth, at Massachusetts, was master, when Jacques participated, with his father Philippe II and the others, in the crime in question, although he managed to escape, in the same way as his father; however, his brother-in-law Jean-Baptiste Guidry and the son of this last, of the same name as his father, were not so fortunate; they were brought to Boston with three Indians in order to be judged and hung the 13th of November following; we speak longer of this matter in the 31st chapter. His name arises again for the last time, it
seems, in 1755 in a letter of Pichon, where there is talk of his son Antoine Mius, savage chief, even if Pichon has said that person does not know from where he comes (a).

1012
(a) - John Clarence Webster, Thomas Pichon, (Special Publication. The Public Archives of Nova Scotia, 1937), p. 82. “4699

    ____________________

“ 5 - Madeleine Mius.
Madeleine Mius, que l’on trouve au recensement de 1708, ayant 14 ans, née en 1694, mariée à Jean-Baptiste Guidry, âgé de 24 ans, né en 1684, était nécessairement du Deuxième Groupe. Cette famille est la 8ième et dernière recensée à La Hève en 1708. Lorsque ce recensement fut pris, il semble qu’elle venait d’épouser Jean-Baptiste Guidry, fils de Claude et de Marguerite Petitpas, de Merliguesh, puisqu’ils n’avaient pas encore d’enfants. Avec sa soeur Anne, elle fut la seule des enfants de ce Deuxième Group à épouser un Acadien, à qui on doit peut-être ajouter Pierre, si
vraiment il épousa Marguerite Lapierre. On ne sait pas combien ils eurent d’enfants. Cependant
l’histoire nous a transmis le nom de deux d’entre eux. D’abord, celui de Joseph, né le 12 novembre 1716 et baptisé le 10 juillet suivant, selon les registres de Grand-Pré (11). L’autre nom que nous avons est celui de Jean-Baptiste, le même que son père, ce pourquoi nous croyons qu’il était plus âgé de Joseph, peut-être même l’aîne, d’autant plus qu’en 1726, au début de septembre, il était déjà assez âgé pour prendre part avec son père, ainsi qu’avec d’autres Acadiens et des Amérindiens, dans le havre de Merliguesh, à ce que les Anglais ont appelé un acte de piraterie sur la personne de Samuel Daly et celles de son équipage, dont nous avons fait mention un peu plus haut et dont nous parlerons plus longuement au chapitre 31ième. Pour cet acte, avons-nous dit, Jean-Baptiste Guidry, père, et Jean-Baptiste Guidry, fils, ainsi que trois Amérindiens, furent pendus à Boston le 13 novembre de cette année 1726.

(11) p. 1014
La copie du registre de l’église Saint-Charles de Grand-Pré qui se trouve dans la voûte de l’évêché de Yarmouth, dont l’original est en Louisiane, donne à la mère de Joseph Guidry, né le 12 novembre 1716, son de Jean-Baptiste, le nom de Marguerite Mius, au lieu de Madeleine Mius. Parce que cet enfant est né en 1716, Bona Arsenault dira que les parents se sont mariés vers 1715, quoiqu’ils fussent déjà mariés au recensement de 1708; et en plus il les place à Cobequid, parce que le baptême de ce même enfant fut entré dans les registres de Grand-Pré; cependant ils habitaient La Hève (b).

Dans ses listes généalogiques qui se trouvent aux Archives publiques du Canada, à Ottawa, Placide Gaudet, au sujet des Mius, fait mention d’une Madeleine Mius qui aurait épousé un Jean-Baptiste Pierre, Amérindien. Nous n’avons pas pu trouver en aucun endroit mention de ce couple. On peut difficilement supposer que l’éminent généalogiste ait voulu écrire Jean-Baptiste Guidry. Disons que l’on trouve un Amérindien du nom de Jean-Baptiste Pierret, qui agit comme parrain à Port-Royal le 14 avril 1733 pour un enfant du nom de François, “fils de François Chegan et Cécile, sauvages mikmak”. Il n’est pas impossible qu’après le décès de son mari en novembre 1726, Madeleine Mius, veuve de Jean-Baptiste Guidry, se soit mariée en secondes noces. Mais si la chose est arrivée, nous sommes en peine pour dire où Placide Gaudet aurait trouvé ce renseignement.

1033
(b) - Bona Arsenault, Historie et Généalogique des Acadiens, en 2 volumes. (Le Conseil de la Vie Française Amérique, Québec, 1965). Vol. II, p. 835. “

Translation:
“ 5 - Madeleine Mius.
Madeleine Mius, whom we find in the Census of 1708, being 14 years old, born in 1694, married to Jean-Baptiste Guidry, age of 24 years, born in 1684, was necessarily of the Second Group. This family is the 8th and last censused at La Hève in 1708. When that census was taken, it seems that she was just married to Jean-Baptiste Guidry, son of Claude and of Marguerite Petitpas, of Merliguesh, since they did not have any children yet. With her sister Anne, she was the only one of the children of the Second Group to marry an Acadian, to which we must perhaps add Pierre, if indeed he married Marguerite Lapierre. We do not know how many children they had. Nevertheless
history has given us the names of two among them. At first, that of Joseph, born 12 November 1716 and baptized the 10th of July following, according to the registers of Grand-Pré (11). The other name that we have is that of Jean-Baptiste, the same as his father, the reason why we believe that he was older than Joseph, perhaps even the eldest, so much the more that in 1726, at the beginning of September, he was already old enough in order to take part with his father, as well as with some other Acadians and some Indians, within the harbor of Merliguesh, in that which the English have called an act of piracy on the person of Samuel Daly and those of his crew, of whom we have made mention a little above and of whom we speaker longer in the 31st chapter. For that act we have said Jean-Baptiste Guidry, père and Jean-Baptiste Guidry, fils, as well as three Indians, were hung at Boston the 13th of November of the year 1726.

(11) p. 1014
The copy of the register of Saint-Charles de Grand-Pré church which is found in the vault of the Diocese of Yarmouth, of which the original is in Louisiana, gives for the mother of Joseph Guidry, born 12 November 1726, son of Jean-Baptiste, the name of Marguerite Mius, instead of Madeleine Mius. Because that child is born in 1716, Bona Arsenault said that the parents are married about 1715, although they were already married in the Census of 1708; and, in addition, he places them at Cobequid because the baptism of that same child was entered into the registers of Grand-Pré; however, they were living at La Hève (b).

In his genealogical lists which are found at the Public Archives of Canada in Ottawa, Placide Gaudet, on the subject of Mius, makes mention of a Madeleine Mius, who would have married a Jean-Baptiste Pierre, Indian. We have not been able to find in any place mention of that couple. We can with difficulty suppose that the eminent genealogist meant to write Jean-Baptiste Guidry. We have found an Indian with the name of Jean-Baptiste Pierret, who acts as godfather at Port-Royal 14 April 1733 for a child with the name of François, “son of François Chegan and Cécile, Micmac savages”. It is not impossible that after the death of her husband in November 1726, Madeleine Mius, widow of Jean-Baptiste Guidry, is united in a second marriage. But if the matter has occurred, we are at a loss to say where Placide Gaudet would have found that information.

1033
(b) - Bona Arsenault, Histoire et Généalogique des Acadiens, in 2 volumes. (Le Conseil de la Vie Française Amérique, Québec, 1965). Vol. II, p. 835. “4700

    ____________________

“ La Famille D’Entremont
Si nous savons à peu près, quoique vaguement, quand les trois précédents son décédés, nous n’avons absoluement rien au sujet du décès des deux autres, Philippe and Madeleine. Nous croyons que la dernière fois que Philippe est mentionné dans aucun document fut en l’année 1726 lorsqu’il prit part au début de septembre à Merliguesh à ce que les Anglais ont appelé un acte de piraterie sur le bâtiment de maître Samuel Daly, de Plymouth, Massachusetts, quand son gendre Jean-Baptiste Guidry, marié à sa fille Madeleine, et son petit-fils, Jean-Baptiste Guidry, fils, furent pendus à Boston le 13 novembre de cett même année, avec trois Amérindiens du même endroit pour le délit en question. Nous parlerons de cette affaire au chapitre 33ième. Quant à Madeleine, dernier des enfants du baron Philippe Mius d’Entremont, nous n’avons absoluement rien au sujet de son décès; la dernière mention qui est faite d’elle est au recensement de 1686. “

Translation:
” The D’Entremont Family
If we know, although vaguely, about when the three preceding have died, we have absolutely nothing on the subject of the deaths of the other two, Philippe and Madeleine. We believe that the last time that Philippe is mentioned in any document was in the year 1726 when he participated at the beginning of September at Merliguesh in that which the English have called an act of piracy on the ship of Master Samuel Daly, of Plymouth, Massachusetts, when his son-in-law, Jean-Baptiste Guidry, married to his daughter, Madeleine, and his grandson, Jean-Baptiste Guidry, fils, were hung at Boston the 13th of November of that same year, with three Indians of the same place for the offense in question. We will discuss that affair in chapter 33. As for Madeleine, last of the children of Baron Philippe Mius d’Entremont, we have absolutely nothing on the subject of her death; the last mention that is made of her is in the census of 1686. “4701

“ C - Restrictions imposées aux Acadiens: Les passeports.
D’après ce qui précède, on pourrait croire que, malgré la paix d’Aix-la-Chapelle, la guerre commencée en Acadie en 1744 se continuait, au moins en mer. C’était, en fin de compte, pour obtenir le monopole de la mer ou des richesses côtières que l’on en venait aux prises. Shirley craignait que les Acadiens s’en mêlent; c’est pourquoi il songeait à les expulser. Déjà certains d’entre eux avaient aidé les envahisseurs au cours de la guerre. Résolu à se montrer intransigeant envers eux, le 21 octobre (v.s.) 1747, il émettait une proclamation ordonnant l’arrestation de ceux qu’il accusait de haute trahison pour avoir prêté main-forte aux Français. Une récompense de 50# était offerte à quiconque appréhendrait dans les six mois l’un ou l’autre des douze criminels suivants, à Louis Gautier et ses deux fils, Joseph et Pierre; Amand Bugeau, dit ici Bigeau; Joseph LeBlanc, dit Le Maigre, que nous avons déjà vu aux prises avec la loi, comme Amand Bugeau; après le siège d’Annapolis; Charles et François Raymond, frères de Jean-Baptiste Raymond, qui épousa Marie-Josephte Mius, fille de Joseph I, dit d’Azy; les deux frères Charles et François, fils de Jean Roy, dit La Liberté, et de Marie Aubois; Joseph Brassard, dit Beausoleil; Pierre Guidry, dit Grivois, frère de Jean-Baptiste qui fut pendu à Boston en 1726 avec son fils, et de Paul, “le bon pilote côtier”; et Louis Hébert (b).

Pour prévenir toute coopération de la part des Acadiens à l’endroit des Français, on leur défendait de se déplacer d’un lieu en un autre sans permission ou passeport. Ce ne fut pas seulement l’autorité anglaise qui formula une telle demande, mais aussi La Galissonière, quoique ce fût pour d’autres motifs, à savoir afin qu’ils ne soient pas molestés par les corsaires.

Nous avons des exemples de ces exigences en Acadie en général, et plus particulièrement au Cap-Sable.

1- En Acadie en général.
Le règle du passeport s’appliquait à tout le monde, sans quoi on risquait de se faire arrêter et de subir les conséquences. Les Archives de la Nouvelle-Ecosse nous révèlent que les missionnaires étaient soumis à cette loi comme tous les autres. Pour donner un exemple entre autres, disons que le 21 septembre 1754, William Cotterell, secrétaire de la province, écrivait au capitaine Alexander Murray, qui commandait au Fort Edward, à Pisiquid, lui demandant d’avertir le pilote Grivois (8) que s’il va à Merliguesh sans passeport, on se saisira de lui (a). Après l’arrivée des colons recrutés en Europe, la même consigne leur fut appliquée (b).

De même que les autorités anglaises de la Nouvelle-Ecosse appliquèrent la loi du passeport aux leurs, afin de les protéger, de même La Galissonière, pour la même raison, demandait aux Acadiens de se munir d’un passeport pour voyager. C’est un fait que les gens ne pouvaient pas aller de l’île Royale à l’île Saint-Jean our vice versa sans passeport des autorités françaises. Cependant cette précaution, pour les protéger contre la menace des corsaires ou “des bâtiments armés en guerre”, pouvait s’avérer inutile, car au dire du comte de Raymond, ils ne respectaient même pas les passeports. A l’été ou à l’automne de 1751, il écrivait que les Anglais manquaient formellement au traité d’Aix-la-Chapelle.

(8) p. 1830
Le pilote Grivois, que le capitaine Alexander Murray devait avertir en 1754 de ne pas se rendre de Pisiquid à Merliguesh sans passeport, ne doit pas être confondu avec Paul Guidry, dit Grivois, que nous avons déjà trouvé comme étant dit “bon pilote côtier”. A cette date, en effet, Paul Guidry devait être à l’île Royale; en 1749, il était à Port-Lajoie, île Saint-Jean, et en 1752 à la baie des Espagnols, île Royale (b).

Il se serait agi plutôt de son neveu, Jean Guidry, dit Grivois, que Placide Gaudet fait naître en 1721, le donnant comme l’aîné des enfants de Pierre Guidry et de Marguerite Brasseau. Il épousa peu de temps avant la Dispersion Marguerite Picot, fille de Michel et d’Anne Blin. Il dut s’enfuir de Merliguesh pour éviter les menaces des Amérindiens qui lui en voulaient parce qu’il était allé avertir les Anglais dans le port de Merliguesh qu’ils cherchaient à s’emparer de leur bâtiment. C’est ce qu’il raconta en effet au gouverneur Thomas Pownall du Massachusetts et aux membres du Conseil le 26 décembre 1757, pendant qu’il était en exil à Wilmington, dans une petition demandant à être envoyé à Charlestown, alors qu’il se nomme John Labardor.

L’humble pétition de John Labardor, déclarant que pendant qu’il demeurait à Maligash [Merliguesh], il était si fidèle à venir en aide à tout Anglais qui était dans le besoin ou était exposé aux cruautés des Amérindiens, qu’un jour en particulier, ayant renvoyé du havre un bateau que les Amérindiens avaient intention d’attaquer, malgré qu’ils l’avaient menacé s’il agissait ainsi, lorsqu’il revint du bateau, ils l’attirèrent dans un guet-apens et tirèrent sur lui avec des chevrotines, dont un certain nombre se logèrent dans sa personne et une trentaines traversèrent son manteau, dont il porte encore les marques, en ayant encore trois dans le dos. N’étant pas satisfaits avec cela, ils menacèrent de lui ôter la vie à la première occasion, ce qui l’obligea d’abandonner son habitation pour s’en aller vivre à Pisiguielle [Pisiquid] (a).

Il raconte le même fait dans une autre pétition du 27 juin 1766 (b).

Claude Guidry, l’ancêtre de la famille, eut pour surnom La Verdure (c). Certains de ses descendants en Acadie furent connus sous le nom de Grivois, tandis que dans la province de Québec, après l’exil, on trouve quelques-uns d’entre eux désignés sous le nom de Labine. Au Massachusetts, Jean Guidry se donne le nom de Labardor, sic pou Labrador. Sans doute c’est lui le Labrador que Cornwallis, le 27 mai (v.s.) 1750, demandait à des délégués acadiens d’appréhender, avec Joseph LeBlanc, J. P. Pitre et Pierre Rembour, pour avoir aidé un certain nombre de soldats du régient Philipps à déserter (d). Ce nom semble être essentiellement un nom amérindien, quoique nous ne le trouvions pour la première fois que vers le milieu du 18ième siècle, en relation avec des gens de Merliguesh. Charles Lawrence, pendant qu’il était surintendant pour l’établissement des “Protestants Etrangers” à Lunenburg, en arrivant ici, le 8 juin 1753, avec ses nouveaux colons, y trouva le Vieux Labrador, (Old Labrador), qui aurait été un Amérindien ou au moins un métis, dit-il dans son journal. Il trouva également son neveu, le nommé Deschamps, surnommé Cloverwater, dont les services furent très utiles à Lawrence. Il n’est pas question de la famille du Vieux Labrador.

Quant à Deschamps, le capitaine Charles Morris disait le 15 mai 1754 qu’il était un Français neutre, à emploi des Anglais (a). En réalité, cependant, son père était acadien et sa mère une Amérindienne. Withrop Bell, dans son Index, l’identifie avec Josesph (ou René) Deschamps (b). Le recensement de l’île Sainte-Jean de 1752 place à l’Anse au Comte Saint-Pierre “Joseph Deschamps dit Cloche, habitant laboureur, natif à l’Acadie agé de 42 ans ... marié avec Judit Duaron, native à l’Accadie, agée de 32 ans”, ayant avec eux cing garçons et trois filles, Philippe, le plus âgé de la famille ayant alors 16 ans. L’année suivante, le 12 février, lorsque celui-ci se maria à Port-Lajoie avec Madeleine Trahan, fille de Jean-Baptiste et de Catherine Joseph Boudrot, on dit que son père était “Nicolas Joseph Dechamps de Saint Martin de Ray, [sic, pour l’île de Ré], évêché de la Rochelle”. Donc le Deschamps du journal de Lawrence ne pouvait pas être ce Joseph, dont le père n’était pas Acadien et la mère n’était pas une Amérindienne. Notons que cette famille de Joseph Deschamps fut envoyée en exil en Pennsylvanie, où une des filles, Blanche, épousa le 14 février 1763 René LeCore (c).

Il y eut en Acadie deux autres personnes du nom de Deschamps, à savoir Isaac, plus tard juge en Nouvelle-Ecosse, peut-être descendant du Huguenot Isaac Deschamps de Boston et ensuite de Narragansett, et de Marie Broussard; et Charles Deschamps de Boishébert, officier militaire, de Québec, que l’on trouve en Acadie à partir de 1747. Mais tous deux sont nés en 1722, et ne peuvent pas être le père de notre Deschamps (d).

On trouve au Massachusetts, au nombre des exilés, Jean Deschamps, né vers 1798, sa femme Jeanne, dite ici Joan, née vers 1703, et leur fille Anne ou Nannette, dite ici Nanny, née vers 1739, mariée à Joseph La Noue. Ils avaient été placés d’abord à Malden, le 28 novembre 1755, mais furent transférés à Stoneham le 17 mars suivant. Les deux parents étaient malades et infirmes et incapables de travailler. Il est assez étrange de trouver en 1760 des factures de Joseph La Noue pour avoir eu soin de ces personnes. Jean Deschamps et sa femme, ainsi que Nannette est ses deux enfants, furent transférés à Boston le 28 août 1760. Notons qu’en 1763, Joseph La Noue et Anne Deschamps avaient deux garçons et une fille (a). Nous ferons mention de cette famille en exile à Stoneham au chapitre 40ième, en rapport avec un des enfants de François Mius qui fut envoyé ici le 3 septembre 1760. Ce Jean Deschamps que l’on rencontre ici pour la première fois, mais dont on n’entend plus parler après 1760, pourrait être le Deschamps du journal de Lawrence, qui disparaît des annales de l’Acadie après 1754 ou 1755.

Quoi qu’il en soit de l’identité de notre Deschamps, il aurait voulu s’établir à Merliguesh, devenu Lunenburg, ayant demandé un lot de terre avec jardins, afin de faire venir de Pisiquid sa femme et ses enfants en les faisant passer par Halifax. Sa mère amérindienne devait être soeur du Vieux Labrador, puisque Deschamps appelait celui-ci son oncle. Ce peut-il que celui que nous considérons comme l’aîné des enfants de Pierre Guidry aurait été également métis, ce pourquoi il se nommait Labrador, nom qu’aurait porté son vrai père? D’ailleurs le Vieux Labrador n’aurait-il pas été lui-même métis au lieu d’un Amérindien pur sang?

Le 24 août 1754, Cotterell écrivait au colonel Patrick Sutherland, du régiment Warburton, qui avait remplacé Lawrence comme commandant à l’établissement de Lunenburg, qu’il lui envoyait 25 Acadiens qui s’étaient échappés de Louisbourg pour éviter la famine, lesquels sons proches parents du Vieux Labrador, (“nearly related to old Labrador”). Il donne neuf noms, dont ceux de Paul et Charles Boutin, de Joseph et de Pierre Guidry, dont les familles avaient été autrefois de la région de Merliguesh. Il y avait en plus Julien Bourneuf, natif de Médriac, évêché de Saint-Malo, Ille-et-Vilaine, marié à Jeanne Guidry, et Sébastien Bourneuf, son frère, quoiqu’il fût natif de Combourg. En plus, on compte François Lucas, Pierre Eric et Claude Erot (b). Au mois d’octobre un autre groupe fut envoyé à Lunenburg, dont la famille qui portait le nom de Labrador.

Aucun de ces Acadiens ne dut rester longtemps à Lunenburg, puisque, par exemple, Jeanne Guidry fut inhumée à Louisbourg le 15 octobre 1755, étant décédée à la suite d’un accouchement. Julien Bourneuf, qui à Louisbourg était sabotier, et Jeanne Guidry avaient eu en 1752 un fils du nom de François, qui fut envoyé en exil en France avec le reste de la famille. Nous nous demandons si ce François est celui qui épousa Michelle Enole, de qui naquit le 19 novembre 1787 François Lambert Bourneuf, l’ancêtre des Bourneuf de la baie Sainte-Marie.

Pour revenir aux Labrador de Mierliguesh, il y avait ici la Ferme Labrador, (Labrador’s Farm), comprenant à peu près sept arpents de terre, sur laquelle était située la Maison Labrador, (Labrador’s House), le tout étant indiqué sur une carte de 1753. En 1762, ce lot, lorsqu’il fut concédé à Patrick Sutherland, est désigné comme ayant déjà appartenu à Paul Labrador, probablement notre Vieux Labrador.

Mather Byles DesBrisay, (1882-1900), rapporte le fait suivant, qu’il tenait de la tradition. Le 13 juillet 1758, deux hommes étant en train de se baigner dans la rivière La Hève, un Amérindien du nom de Labrador tua l’un d’eux du nom de John Wagner. Un certain nombre d’années plus tard, Labrador se vantait auprès du compagnon de John Wagner, du nom de Tanner, du grand nombre d’hommes qu’il avait tués. Tanner à son tour aurait voulu se défaire de Labrador, mais sa conscience ne le lui permit jamais. DesBrisay, l’auteur du récrit, en cuivre et en acier que Tanner avait obtenu de Labrador (a).

Les Labrador, s’ils furent tout d’abord métis, se sont inégrés à la nation micmaque. Ils ne font leur apparition aux registres civils ou ecclésiastiques qu’après l’Expulsion. Dans les registres de l’abbé Bailly, on n’en trouve qu’un seul, du nom de Philippe Labrador, marié à Marie Bisk8ne, tous deux dits mikmaks, qui le 23 décembre 1770 firent baptiser à Halifax un fils du nom de François Noël. Depuis lors, et encore ajuourd’hui, les Amérindiens qui portent le nom de Labrador sont assez nombreux, surtout sur la Côte-de-l’Est, à partir du Cap-Sable jusqu’à Halifax. On en trouve également au Cap-Breton. Les registres de Saint-Anne-du-Ruisseau du Père Sigogne, qui font mention de certain d’entre eux, donnent même François Noël Labrador marié à Anna Labrador, qui le premier juillet 1832 font baptiser un enfant du même nom, François Noël, âgé de huit mois.

Nous connaissons même une personne qui demeure à Birchtown, village voisin de la ville de Shelburne, du nom de Frank Burbine, né le 18 mars 1900, dont le père était Alphée Babin, de Sainte-Anne-du-Ruisseau, fils de Gervais (à Michel-à-Joseph, dit Carino) et de Elisabeth Surette (à Paul-à-Pierre), et la mère Marguerite Labordor. Celle-ci était native de Jordan, comté de Shelburne, fille de François Labordor et de Marie Lucksee. Frank Burbine lui-même a épousé une Labordor, du nom de Anne, fille de Benjamin Labordor et de Marie Covy. Notons que ces gens se servant plutôt de l’orthographe Labordor (a).

1829
(b) - Documents rel. to the Col. Hist. of the State of N. Y., Vol. X, p. 155.
- Beamish Murdoch, A History of Nova-Scotia or Acadie, (Halifax, N. S., James Barnes, Printer and Publisher), 1865-1867. In three volumes. Vol. II, p. 117.

1830
(a) - Winthrop Bell, The “Foreign Protestants” and the Settlement of Nova Scotia, p. 484, note 30.
(b) - Winthrop Bell, The “Foreign Protestants” and the Settlement of Nova Scotia, pp. 339, 346, 501.

1851
(b) - Bona Arsenault, Histoire et Généalogie des Acadiens, vol. I, p. 421, en note.
- Rapport conc. les Arch. Can. pour l’année 1905, vol. II, première Partie, p. 45 de l’éd. fr.; p. 46 de l’éd. ang.

1852
(a) - Mass. Arch., Vol. 23, f. 576.
- Rapport conc. les Arch. Can. pour l’année 1905, vol. II, 3ième Partie, p. 175 de l’éd. fr.; p. 117 de l’éd. ang. - On trouvera une traduction dans l’éd. fr. - La traduction que nous donnons ici est de nous.
(b) - Mass. Arch., Vol. 24, f. 582.
- Rapport conc. les Arch. Can. pour l’année 1905, vol. II, 3ième Partie, p. 189 de l’éd. fr.; p. 131 de l’éd. ang. - On en trouve une traduction dans l’éd. fr.
(c) - La Soc. Hist. Acadienne, 29ième Cahier, p. 363.
(d) - Beamish Murdoch, A History of Nova-Scotia or Acadie, (Halifax, N. S., James Barnes, Printer and Publisher), 1865-1867. In three volumes. Vol. II, p. 180.

1853
(a) - Coll. of the Maine Hist. Society - Baxter Mss., Vol. XII, p. 266.
(b) - Op. cit., p. 653.
(c) - Records of the American Catholic Historical Society of Philadelphia, Vol. I, p. 266, et Vol. II, p. 282.
- Voir Cyprien (l’abbé) Tanguay, Dictionnaire Généalogique des Familles Canadiennes depuis la fondation de la Colonie jusqu’à nos jours, (Province de Québec. - Eusèbe Senécal, imprimeur-éditeur). En sept volumes, 1871. vol. III, p. 366.
(d) - Bulletin des Rech. Hist., vol. 41, pp. 175 et sqq.
- Charles W. Baird, History of the Huguenot Emigration to America, (Baltimore, 1966), Vol. II, p. 212, note 2.
- Coll. Northcliffe, p. 64, note 2, de l’éd. fr.; p. 60, note 2, de l’éd. ang.

1854
(a) - Mass. Arch., Vol. 14, ff. 407 et 408; Vol. 23, ff. 80, 135A, 177, 262, 615; Vol. 24, ff. 137, 137A, 400, 403A, 404, 406, 489.
(b) - Rapport conc. les Arch. Can. pour l’année 1905, vol. II, première Partie, pp. 59 et 60 de l’éd. fr.; p. 61 de l’éd. ang.
- N. S. Arch. - I, pp. 214 et 215.
- Milton P. Rieder, Jr. and Norma Gaudet Rieder, The Acadians in France, Vol. III, (Metairie, Louisiana, 1973), pp. 6 et 14.

1855
(a) - History of the County of Lunenburg, Second Edition, (Toronto, 1895), pp. 343-344.

1856
(a) - N. S. Arch. - I, pp. 193, 215, 223-224.
- Coll. Northcliffe, p. 24 de l’éd. fr.; p. 22 de l’éd. ang.
- Bulletin of the Public Arch. of Nova Scotia - Journal and Letters of Colonel Lawrence, (No. 10), pp. 7, 18, 21, 32, 35.
- Winthop Bell, The “Foreign Protestants” and the Settlement of Nova Scotia. The History of a piece of arrested British Colonial policy in the eighteenth century, (Univeristy of Toronto Press), 1961. pp. 404, 405, 430 431, 447, 483, 484, 510, 653. “

Translation:
“ C - Restricitions imposed on the Acadians: The Passports.
After that above, we are able to judge that, in spite of the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle, the war begun in Acadia in 1744 was continued, at least at sea. That was, to sum up, in order to obtain the monopoly of the sea or some riches along the coast for which they fought with each other. Shirley feared that the Acadians would get involved in it; that is why he proposed to expel them. Already certain ones from among them had assisted the invaders in the course of the war. Determined to appear uncompromising towards them, the 21st of October (v.s.) 1747, he issued a proclamation ordering the arrest of those that he accused of high treason for having given assisstance to the French. A reward of 50# was offered to whomever apprehended within six months the one or the other of the twelve criminals following, namely: Louis Gautier and his two sons, Joseph and Pierre; Amand Bugeau, called here Bigeau; Joseph LeBlanc, dit Le Maigre, whom we have already seen in the fighting against the law, like Amand Bugeau, after the siege of Annapolis; Charles and François Raymond, brothers of Jean-Baptiste Raymond, who married Marie-Josephte Mius, daughter of Joseph I, dit d’Azy; the two brothers Charles and François, sons of Jean Roy, dit La Liberté, and of Marie Aubois; Joseph Brassard, dit Beausoleil; Pierre Guidry, dit Grivois, brother of Jean-Baptiste who was hung at Boston in 1726 with his son, and of Paul, “the good coasting pilot”; and Louis Hébert (b).

In order to prevent total cooperation on the part of the Acadians for the side of the French, they prohibited them from traveling from one place to another without permit or passport. This was not only the English authority who drew up such a demand, but also La Galissonière, although that was for another cause namely so that they would not be molested by the corsairs.

We have some examples of these unreasonable demands in Acadia in general and, more particularly, at Cap-Sable.

1- In Acadia in general.
The passport rule applied to all the people, without which they risked being arrested and suffering the consequences. The Archives of Nova Scotia reveal to us that the missionaries were subject to that law like all the others. To give an example among others, remember that the 21st of September 1754, William Cotterell, secretary of the province,wrote to Captain Alexander Murray, who commanded at Fort Edward, at Pisiquid, asking him to warn the pilot Grivois (8) that if he went to Merliguesh without a passport, they would arrest him (a). After the arrival of colonists recruited in Europe, the same was applied to them (b).

Just as the English authorities of Nova Scotia applied the passport law to them, in order to protect them, likewise La Galissonière, for the same reason demanded of the Acadians to be supplied with a passport in order to travel. It is a fact that the people were not allowed to go from Île Royale to Ile Saint-Jean without a passport from the French authorities. Yet that precaution, in order to protect them against the threat of the corsairs or “of the armed ships of war”, would prove useless because, according to the Count Raymond, they did not respect even the passports. In the summer or in the autumn of 1751 he wrote that the English were formally negligent by the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle.

(8) p. 1830
The pilot Grivois, that Captain Alexander Murray had to warn in 1754 not to go from Pisiquid to Merliguesh without a passport, must not be confused with Paul Guidry, dit Grivois, whom we have already found as being called “a good coasting pilot”. On that date, in fact, Paul Guidry had to be at Île Royale; in 1749 he was at Port-Lajoie, Ile Saint-Jean, and 1752 at the Baie des Espagnols, Île Royale (b).

It may be a question rather of his nephew Jean Guidry, dit Grivois, who Placide Gaudet had born in 1721, calling him the oldest of the children of Pierre Guidry and of Marguerite Brasseau. He married a little before the Dispersion Marguerite Picot, daughter of Michel and of Anne Blin. He had to flee from Merliguesh in order to avoid the threat of the Indians who wanted him because he had gone to warn the English in the port of Merliguesh that they sought to seize their boat. This is what he told in fact to Governor Thomas Pownall of Massachusetts and to the members of the Council the 26th of December 1757, while he was in exile at Wilmington, in a petition asking to be sent to Charlestown, at which time he was called John Labardor.

The humble petition of John Labardor, declaring that while living at Maligash [Merligueche], he was so loyal to lend assistance to any Englishman who was in need or who was exposed to the cruelties of the Indians, that one day in particular, having sent back to the harbour a boat that the Indians intended to attack, notwithstanding that they had threatened him if he acted in this manner, when he returned to the boat, they lured him into an ambush and shot at him with some buckshot, of which a certain number lodged in his body and about thirty went through his topcoat, of which he still bears the marks, in having yet three in the back. Not being satisfied with this, they threatened to kill him at the first opportunity, which compelled him to leave his house in order to go live in Pisiguielle [Pisiquid] (a).

He relates the same matter in another petition of 27 June 1766 (b).

Claude Guidry, the ancestor of the family, had for a nickname La Verdure (c). Certain of his descendants in Acadia were known by the name of Grivois, while in the province of Québec, after the exile, we find some from among them called by the name of Labine. In Massachusetts Jean Guidry gave himself the name of Labardor, sic for Labrador. Undoubtedly he is the Labrador who Cornwallis, the 27th of May (v.s.) 1750, asked some Acadian delegates to apprehend, with Joseph LeBlanc, J. P. Pitre and Pierre Rembour, for having aided a certain number of soldiers of the administrator Philipps to desert (d). That name seems to be essentially an Indian name, although we do not find it for the first time until about the middle of the 18th century, with respect to some people from Merliguesh. Charles Lawrence, while he was overseer for establishing some Protestant Foreigners at Lunenburg, their arriving here, the 8th of June 1753, with some new colonists, found there the Vieux Labrador (Old Labrador), who was an Indian or at least a half-breed, as he said in his journal. He found likewise his nephew, he called Deschamps, nicknamed Cloverwater, whose services were very useful to Lawrence. It is not a question of the family of Vieux Labrador.

As for Deschamps, Captain Charles Morris said the 15th of May 1754 that he was a neutral French, in the employ of the English (a). In reality, however, his father was Acadian and his mother an Indian. Winthrop Bell, in his Index, identifies him with Joseph (or René) Deschamps (b). The census of Ile Saint-Jean of 1752 places at Anse au Comte Saint-Pierre “Joseph Deschamps dit Cloche, resident farmer, native of Acadia, age of 42 years ... married to Judit Duaron, native of Acadia, age of 32 years”, having with them five boys and three daughters, Philippe, the oldest of the family being then 16 years. The following year, the 12th of February, when that one married at Port-Lajoie with Madeleine Trahan, daughter of Jean-Baptiste and of Catherine Joseph Boudrot, he said that his father was “Nicolas Joseph Deschamps of Saint Martin de Ray, (sic, for Ile de Ré), diocese of La Rochelle”. Consequently the Deschamps of journal of Lawrence cannot be this Joseph, of whom the father was not Acadian and the mother was not an Indian. Notice that this family of Joseph Deschamps was sent in exile to Pennsylvania where one of his daughters, Blanche, wed the 14th of February 1763 René LeCore (c).

There were in Acadia two other persons of the name of Deschamps, namely Isaac, later judge in Nova Scotia, perhaps descendant of the Huguenot Isaac Deschamps of Boston and afterwards of Narragansett and Marie Broussard; and Charles Deschamps de Boishébert, military officer, from Québec, whom we find in Acadia from 1747. But both are born in 1722 and could not be the father of our Deschamps (d).

We find at Massachusetts with a number of the exiles Jean Deschamps, born about 1798 (sic 1698), his wife Jeanne, called here Joan, born about 1703 and their daughter Anne or Nannette, called Nanny, born about 1739, married to Joseph La Noue. They have been put first at Malden, the 28th of November 1755, but were transferred to Stoneham the 17th of March following. Both parents were sick and crippled and unable to work. It is rather strange to find in 1760 some bills of Joseph La Noue for having taken care of these persons. Jean Deschamps and his wife, at the same time as Nannette and her two children, were transferred to Boston the 28th of August 1760. Notice that in 1763 Joseph La Noue and Anne Deschamps had two sons and a daughter (a). We do mention that family in exile at Stoneham in the 40th chapter in connection with one the children of François Mius who was sent here the 3rd of September 1760. This Jean Deschamps, whom we met here for the first time, but of whom we no longer hear after 1760, could be the Deschamps of the journal of Lawrence, who disappeared from the public records of Acadia after 1754 or 1755.

Be that as it may of the identity of our Deschamps, he must have wanted to settle at Merliguesh, became Lunenburg, having requested a share of land with gardens, in order to send to Pisiquid for his wife and his children; they having passed through Halifax. His Indian mother must be sister to Vieux Labrador since Deschamps called him his uncle. Is it possible that this one whom we consider as the eldest of the children of Pierre Guidry would have been likewise half-bred, therefore, he called himself Labrador, the name that his real father had born? Moreover, would not Vieux Labrador himself have been half-bred instead of pure-blooded Indian?

The 24th of August 1754 Cotterell wrote to Colonel Patrick Sutherland of the Warburton regiment, who had replaced Lawrence as commandant at the settlement of Lunenburg, that he sent to him 25 Acadians who had gotten out of Louisbourg in order to avoid the famine, of which are near relations to Vieux Labrador (“nearly related to old Labrador”). He gave nine names, of which those of Paul and of Charles Boutin, of Joseph and of Pierre Guidry, whose families had formerly been from the region of Merliguesh. There were in addition Julien Bourneuf, native of Médriac, diocese of Saint-Malo, Ille-et-Vilaine, married to Jeanne Guidry, and Sébastien Bourneuf, his brother, though he was a native of Combourg. In addition, he includes François Lucas, Pierre Eric and Claude Erot (b). In the month of October another group was sent to Lunenburg, among which the family that bore the name of Labrador.

None of these Acadians were to stay long at Lunenburg, since, for example, Jeanne Guidry was interred at Louisbourg the 15th of October 1755, having died after childbirth. Julien Bourneuf, who at Louisbourg was a sabot-maker, and Jeanne Guidry had had in 1752 a son by the name of François, who was sent in exile to France with the rest of the family. We wonder if this François is the one who wed Michelle Enole of whom was born the 19th of November 1787 François Lambert Bourneuf, the ancestor of the Bourneuf of Baie Sainte-Marie.

In order to return to the Labrador of Merliguesh, there was here the Labrador Farm (Labrador’s Farm), containing about seven arpents of land on which was situated the Labrador House (Labrador’s House), both being shown on a map of 1753. In 1762 this lot , when it was granted to Patrick Sutherland, was denoted as having already belonged to Paul Labrador, probably our Vieux Labrador.

Mather Byles DesBrisay (1828-1900) tells the following fact, which he held from tradition. The 13th of July 1758 two men were bathing in the river La Hève, an Indian by the name of Labrador killed one of them by the name of John Wagner. A certain number of years later Labrador boasted close to a companion of John Wagner, by the name of Tanner, of the large number of men that he had killed. Tanner in his manner had wanted to rid himself of Labrador, but his conscience never permitted it. DesBrisay, the author of the story, says to have in his possession a very pretty tomahawk in copper and in steel that Tanner had gotten from Labrador (a).

The Labrador, if they were from the very first half-bred, have not strayed from the Micmac nation. They only make their appearance in the civil or church registers after the Expulsion. In the registers of the Abbé Bailly we find only one, of the name of Philippe Labrador, married to Marie Bisk8ne, both called mikmaks, who the 23rd of December 1770 had baptized at Halifax a son by the name of François Noël. Since then, and even today, the Indians who carry the name of Labrador are rather numerous, chiefly on the East Coast, from Cap-Sable as far as Halifax. We find them also at Cap-Breton. The registers of Saint-Anne-du-Ruisseau of Père Sigogne, who makes mention of certain among them, give even François Noël Labrador married to Anna Labrador, who the first of July 1832 had baptized a child of the same name, François Noël, age of eight months.

We even know a person who lives at Birchtown, a village next to the town of Shelburne, by the name of Frank Burbine, born the 18th of March 1900, of whom the father was Alphée Babin, of Saint-Anne-du-Ruisseau, son of Gervais (of-Michel-of-Joseph, dit Carino) and of Elisabeth Surette (of-Paul-of Pierre), and the mother Marguerite Labordor. She was a native of Jordan, county of Shelburne, daughter of François Labordor and Marie Lucksee. Frank Burbine himself has married a Labordor by the name of Anne, daughter of Benjamin Labordor and Marie Covy. Notice that these people would rather use the spelling Labordor (a).

1829
(b) - Documents rel. to the Col. Hist. of the State of N. Y., Vol. X, p. 155.
- Beamish Murdoch, A History of Nova-Scotia or Acadie, (Halifax, N. S., James Barnes, Printer and Publisher), 1865-1867. In three volumes. Vol. II, p. 117.

1830
(a) - Winthrop Bell, The “Foreign Protestants” and the Settlement of Nova Scotia, p. 484, note 30.
(b) - Winthrop Bell, The “Foreign Protestants” and the Settlement of Nova Scotia, pp. 339, 346, 501.

1851
(b) - Bona Arsenault, Histoire et Généalogie des Acadiens, vol. I, p. 421, in note.
- Rapport conc. les Arch. Can. pour l’année 1905, vol. II, First Part, p. 45 of the Fr. éd.; p. 46 of the Eng. ed.

1852
(a) - Mass. Arch., Vol. 23, f. 576.
- Rapport conc. les Arch. Can. pour l’année 1905, vol. II, 3rd Part, p. 175 of the Fr. ed.; p. 117 of the Eng. ed. - On trouvera une traduction dans l’éd. fr. - The translation which we give is from us.
(b) - Mass. Arch., Vol. 24, f. 582.
- Rapport conc. les Arch. Can. pour l’année 1905, vol. II, 3rd Part, p. 189 of the Fr ed.; p. 131of the Eng. ed. - One finds a translation in the Fr. ed.
(c) - La Soc. Hist. Acadienne, 29th Cahier, p. 363.
(d) - Beamish Murdoch, A History of Nova-Scotia or Acadie, (Halifax, N. S., James Barnes, Printer and Publisher), 1865-1867. In three volumes. Vol. II, p. 180.

1853
(a) - Coll. of the Maine Hist. Society - Baxter Mss., Vol. XII, p. 266.
(b) - Op. cit., p. 653.
(c) - Records of the American Catholic Historical Society of Philadelphia, Vol. I, p. 266, and Vol. II, p. 282.
- Voir Cyprien (l’abbé) Tanguay, Dictionnaire Généalogique des Familles Canadiennes depuis la fondation de la Colonie jusqu’à nos jours, (Province de Québec. - Eusèbe Senécal, imprimeur-éditeur). In seven volumes, 1871. vol. III, p. 366.
(d) - Bulletin des Rech. Hist., vol. 41, pp. 175 and sqq.
- Charles W. Baird, History of the Huguenot Emigration to America, (Baltimore, 1966), Vol. II, p. 212, note 2.
- Coll. Northcliffe, p. 64, note 2, of the Fr. ed.; p. 60, note 2, of the Eng. ed.

1854
(a) - Mass. Arch., Vol. 14, ff. 407 et 408; Vol. 23, ff. 80, 135A, 177, 262, 615; Vol. 24, ff. 137, 137A, 400, 403A, 404, 406, 489.
(b) - Rapport conc. les Arch. Can. pour l’année 1905, vol. II, First Part, pp. 59 et 60 of the Fr. ed.; p. 61 of the Eng. ed.
- N. S. Arch. - I, pp. 214 and 215.
- Milton P. Rieder, Jr. and Norma Gaudet Rieder, The Acadians in France, Vol. III, (Metairie, Louisiana, 1973), pp. 6 and 14.

1855
(a) - History of the County of Lunenburg, Second Edition, (Toronto, 1895), pp. 343-344.

1856
(a) - N. S. Arch. - I, pp. 193, 215, 223-224.
- Coll. Northcliffe, p. 24 of the Fr. ed.; p. 22 of the Eng. ed.
- Bulletin of the Public Arch. of Nova Scotia - Journal and Letters of Colonel Lawrence, (No. 10), pp. 7, 18, 21, 32, 35.
- Winthop Bell, The “Foreign Protestants” and the Settlement of Nova Scotia. The History of a piece of arrested British Colonial policy in the eighteenth century, (Univeristy of Toronto Press), 1961. pp. 404, 405, 430 431, 447, 483, 484, 510, 653. “4232

    ____________________

“ 9 - Anne Mius.
Anne Mius naquit en 1705, même si le recensement de 1752 la ferait naître en 1709. Elle épousa Paul Guidry, dit Gravois, né en janvier 1701; par erreur le recensement de 1708 le fait naître en 1702 et celui de 1752 en 1705. Il fut baptisé par le Père Félix Pain le 8 septembre 1705. Il était le frère de Jean-Baptiste, époux de Madeleine Mius, qui devait être pendu à Boston en 1726. Cette famille fera sa résidence à Merliguesh, comme celle de Jean-Baptiste, son frère. Les Guidry étant dit parfois Labrador, nous nous demandons si ce qui est indiqué comme la ferme de Labrador, (Labrador’s Farm), propriété de Paul Labrador, que l’on trouve sur une carte de Merliguesh de 1753, ne se rapporterait pas à notre Paul Guidry. Aussi ce qui est donné ailleurs comme la maison de Labrador, (Labrador’s House), devait nécessairement étre la maison qui se trouvait sur cette ferme (a). Nous parlerons davantage des Labrador au chapitre 35ième.

Ce fut leur fille Judique qui naquit à Boston en 1722 (b), comme nous avons déjà dit. Agée de 16 ans, demeurent à “Merligues à la coste de l’Est”, cette Judique Guidry épousera le 12 novembre 1737, à Grand-Pré, Jean Cousin, âgé d’environ 21 ans, capitaine de navire marchand et pilote pour le roi à Louisbourg, fils de feu Guy Cousin et de Charlotte M., de l’évêché de Dol, en Bretagne. Le recensement de 1752 le dit natif de Saint-Malo. Notons que Bona Arsenault a tort de placer cette famille à Pobomcoup et de dire que le mariage eut lieu à Port-Royal (c). Une fille de ce couple, du nom de Madeleine, était à Cherbourg en 1767, non mariée, dite “de Louisbourg, fille de Jean ... et de Judith Guédry qui étoit fille d’un Anne Dantremont, parente des Cydessus” d’Entremont réfugiés à Cherbourg (d). On remarquera qu’elle se dit de Louisbourg, quoiqu’au recensement de 1752 la famille de Jean Cousin fût à la baie des Espagnols, aujourd’hui le havre de Sydney.

Marguerite, une autre fille de Paul Guidry et d’Anne Mius, née en 1732, épousa à la baie des Espagnols le 11 février 1754

le Sr Jules César Félix de la Noue, fils de feu haut et puissant Seigneur Messire Toussaint Marie de la Noüe, Chevalier au Parlement de Bretagne, et de dame Marie Madeleine Prassac, natif de la paroisse de Quaissais, évêché de St. Brieux, [quand] Damoiselle Marguerite Guédry, fille de Paul Guédry et de noble dame Anne D’Entremont, natifs de la paroisse Ste Croix en la Cadie, [est dite avoir eu pour mère] une fille d’une Sauvagesse concubine de Mius D’Entremont, Acadien.

C’est pour cette dernière raison que M. d’Ailleboust, commandant de l’île Royale, avait non seulement refusé au sieur de La Noüe la permission de contracter ce mariage, mais lui avait même défendu de retourner à la baie des Espagnols. Le sieur de La Noüe présenta alors sa démission au commandant, qui ne voulut pas l’accepter. Mais le Père Hyacinthe Lefèvre, Récollet, du Port-Dauphin, fit le mariage malgré la défense de l’autorité civile, qui pour cela le déclara “clandestin, scandaleux et abusif et annulé” (a). M. d’Ailleboust fit mettre le sieur Bogard de La Noüe en prison et ensuite le fit passer en France. Le ministre d’autre part suggéra que le missionnaire qui avait fait le marriage soit également renvoyé en France, ce qui arriva en cette même année 1754, apprenons-nous de M. Joubert, capitaine aux troupes de la Marine, qui, dans une lettre du 15 septembre 1754, disait à M. de Surlaville:

Le chevalier La Noüe est passé par order de la Cour, en France, ainsi que le moine.

Le ministre suggérait en plus que la fille et la famille de Paul Grivois soient envoyées au Canada. Ecrivant le premier juillet 1754 à MM. de Drucour et Prévost, il dit:

Rien de plus irrégulier et de plus dangereuse conséquence que le mariage du Sr Bogard de la Noue. M. D’Aillebout a bien fait de le faire arrêter, et le roi approuvera qu’il soit renvoyé en France. Pourront envoyer au Canada la fille et la famille de Paul Grivois. Il est à désirer que le missionnaire qui s’est prête à la célébration de ce mariage puisse être renvoyé en France, et il convient que la justice s’explique sur la nullité d’un mariage si contraire à toutes les règles (a).

Déjà sous-lieutentant de grenadiers dans Bresse en 1743, enseigne de la Lieutenance-Colonelle dudit régiment en 1744, lieutenant au même corps en 1745, enseigne en second à l’île Royale en 1750, son mariage de février 1754 n’empêcha pas le chevalier de La Noüe d’être fait enseigne en pied le premier avril suivant. Après être passé en France, il dut revenir à l’île Royale, car le 20 février 1758 on trouve:

Ordre pour faire servir le Sr Bogard de la Noüe, enseigne à l’île Royale, en qualité de lieutenant à la Louisiane (b).

Dans une liste de lieutenants en pied de l’île Royale, allant de 1747 à 1763, on trouve le Chev. de La Noüe Bogard retiré (c). Quant à sa légitime épouse, nous ne savons pas ce qu’elle devint; nous ne savons même pas si elle put vivre avec son mari, malgré les protestations de l’autorité civile.

Quant à ses parents, ils avaient fait baptiser un enfant à Port-Lajoie le 19 novembre 1749. Au recensement de la baie des Espagnols, île Royale, en 1752, il est dit qu’ils y étaient depuis le mois d’août 1750. Ils ont alors avec eux cinq garçons et une fille (d). Durent-ils s’exiler au Canada après le mariage de leur fille? Nous n’avons rien trouvé à leur sujet après ce mariage.

1016
(a) - Winthrop Bell, The “Foreign Protestants” and the Settlement of Nova Scotia, (University of Toronto Press, 1961), p. 431.
- Collection Northcliffe, p. 24 de l’éd. fr.; p. 22 de l’éd. ang.
(b) - Rapport concernant les Arch. Can. pour l’année 1905, vol. II, 1re Partie, p. 44 de l’éd. fr.; p. 45 de l’éd. ang.
(c) - Bona Arsenault, Histoire et Généalogie des Acadiens, (Le Conseil de la Vie française en Amérique, Québec, Canada, 1965), vol. II, p. 876.
(d) - Rapport concernant les Arch. Can. pour l’année 1905, vol. II, 3ième Partie, p. 202 de l’éd. fr.; p. 144 de l’éd. ang.

1017
(a) - Rapport concernant les Arch. Can. pour l’année 1905, vol. I, VIe Partie, pp. 492-3.
(b) - Rameau de Saint-Père, Une Colonie Féodale en Amérique. L’Acadie. (1604-1881), (Paris, Librairie Plon, imprimeurs-éditeurs. - Montréal, Granger Frères, libraires-éditeurs. - 1889), vol. II, p. 376, en transcrivant cet extrait des registres du Greffe du Conseil supérieur de Louisbourg, a fait un certain nombre d’erreurs, ce qu’a copié Gaston du Boscq de Beaumont, dans Les Derniers Jours de l’Acadie, 1748-1758, p. 113, en note.

1018
(a) - Rapport concernant les Arch. Can. pour l’année 1905, vol. I, VIe Partie, p. 195.
(b) - Gaston du Boscq de Beaumont, Les Derniers Jours de l’Acadie, 1748-1758, pp. 111-113.
- Rapport concernant les Arch. Can. pour l’année 1905, vol. I, VIe Partie, p. 505.
(c) - J. S. McLennan, Louisbourg, (1918), p. 343.
(d) - Rapport concernant les Arch. Can. pour l’année 1905, vol. I, 1ière Partie, p. 45 de l’éd. fr.; p. 46 de l’éd. ang. “

Translation:
“ 9 - Anne Mius.
Anne Mius was born in 1705, even if the census of 1752 would make her born in 1709. She wed Paul Guidry, dit Grivois, born in January 1701; in error the census of 1708 makes him born in 1702 and that of 1752 in 1705. He was baptized by Père Félix Pain the 8th of September 1705. He was the brother of Jean-Baptiste, husband of Madeleine Mius, who had to be hung at Boston in 1726. This family will makes its residence at Merliguesh, as that of Jean-Baptiste, his brother. The Guidry were sometimes called Labrador, we ask ourselves if that which is shown as the farm of Labrador (Labrador’s Farm), property of Paul Labrador, that we find on a map of Merliguesh from 1753, did not refer to our Paul Guidry. Also that which is given elsewhere as the house of Labrador (Labrador’s House) must necessarily be the house which is on that farm (a). We talk more about Labrador in the 35th chapter.

It was their daughter Judique who was born at Boston in 1722 (b) as we have already said. Sixteen years of age, living at “Merligues on the East Coast”, this Judique Guidry married the 12th of November 1737 at Grand-Pré Jean Cousin, about 21 years old, captain of a merchant-ship and pilot for the king at Louisbourg, son of the deceased Guy Cousin and of Charlotte M., of the bishopric of Dol in Bretagne. The census of 1752 called him native of Saint-Malo. Notice that Bona Arsenault is wrong to place this family at Pobomcoup and to say that the marriage took place at Port-Royal (c). A daughter of this couple with the name of Madeleine was at Cherbourg in 1767, unmarried, called “from Louisbourg, daughter of Jean ... and of Judith Guidry who was daughter of an Anne Dantremont, relative of the Above” d’Entremont refugees at Cherbourg (d). We noted that she called herself from Louisbourg, although in the census of 1752 the family of Jean Cousin was at the Baie des Espagnols, today the port of Sydney.

Marguerite, another daughter of Paul Guidry and of Anne Mius, born in 1732, wed at Baie des Espagnols the 11th of February 1754

Sr Jules César Félix de la Noue, son of the late and important and powerful Seigneur Messire Toussaint Marie de la Noüe, Chevalier at the Parliament of Bretagne, and of dame Marie Madeleine Prassac, native of the parish of Quaissais, bishopric of St. Brieux, (while) Damoiselle Marguerite Guédry, daughter of Paul Guédry and of noble lady Anne D’Entremont, natives of the parish of Ste Croix in la Cadie, (is said to have had for a mother) a daughter of a Savage concubine of Mius D’Entremont, Acadian.

It is said for that last reason M. d’Ailleboust, commandant of Île Royale, had not only refused to Sieur de La Noüe permission to contract that marriage, but had even forbidden him to return to Baie des Espagnols. Sieur de La Noüe offered then his resignation to the commandant, who did not want to accept it. But Père Hyacinthe Lefèvre, Récollet, of Port-Dauphin, married them in spite of the resistance of the civil authority, which for that declared it “underhanded, scandalous and improper and annulled” (a). M. d’Ailleboust put Sieur Bogard de La Noüe in prison and afterward made him go to France. The minister of another place suggested that the missionary who had married them be also returned to France where he arrived in the same year 1754, we learn from M. Joubert, captain of the troops of the Navy, who, in a letter of 15 September 1754, said to M. de Surlaville:

The Chevalier La Noüe is taken by order of the Court to France at the same time as the friar.

The minister suggested in addition that the daughter and family of Paul Grivois be sent to Canada. Writing the first of July 1754 to MM. de Drucour and Prévost, he says:

Nothing more irregular and of more dangerous consequence than the marriage of Sr Bogard de la Noue. M. D’Aillebout has rightly stopped the thing and the king approved that he be returned to France. Should send to Canada the daughter and the family of Paul Grivois. He desires that the missionary who has lent himself to the celebration of that marriage be returned to France and he agrees that justice is cleared up about the nullity of a marriage if contrary to all the laws (a).

Already sub-lieutenant of the grenadiers in Bresse in 1743, ensign of the Lieutenant Colonel of the said regiment in 1744, lieutenant of the same corps in 1745, second ensign at Île Royale in 1750, his marriage of February 1754 prevented the Chevalier de La Noüe from being made ensign on foot the first of April following. After being sent to France, he had to return to Île Royale because the 20th of February 1758 we find:

Order served Sr Bogard de la Noüe, ensign at Île Royale, in rank of lieutenant at Louisiana (b).

In a list of lieutenants on foot at Île Royale going from 1747 to 1763 we find the Chev. de La Noüe Bogard retired (c). As for his legitimate wife, we do not know what became of her; we do not even know if she was able to live with her husband in spite of the protests of the civil authority.

As for her parents, they had a child baptized at Port-Lajoie the 19th of November 1749. In the census of Baie des Espagnols, Île Royale in 1752, it is said that they were there since the month of August 1750. They have at that time with them five boys and one girl (d). Did they have to exile themselves to Canada after the marriage of their daughter? We have found nothing on their account after that marriage.

1016
(a) - Winthrop Bell, The “Foreign Protestants” and the Settlement of Nova Scotia, (University of Toronto Press, 1961), p. 431.
- Collection Northcliffe, p. 24 of the Fr. ed.; p. 22 of the Eng. ed.
(b) - Rapport concernant les Arch. Can. pour l’année 1905, vol. II, 1st Part, p. 44 of the Fr. ed.; p. 45 of the Eng. ed.
(c) - Bona Arsenault, Histoire et Généalogie des Acadiens, (Le Conseil de la Vie française en Amérique, Québec, Canada, 1965), vol. II, p. 876.
(d) - Rapport concernant les Arch. Can. pour l’année 1905, vol. II, 3rd Part, p. 202 of the Fr. ed.; p. 144 of the Eng. ed.

1017
(a) - Rapport concernant les Arch. Can. pour l’année 1905, vol. I, 6th Part, pp. 492-3.
(b) - Rameau de Saint-Père, Une Colonie Féodale en Amérique. L’Acadie. (1604-1881), (Paris, Librairie Plon, imprimeurs-éditeurs. - Montréal, Granger Frères, libraires-éditeurs. - 1889), vol. II, p. 376, in transcribing that extract from the registers of the Clerk’s Officer of the Superior Council of Louisbourg, has made a certain number of errors which Gaston du Boscq de Beaumont has copied in Les Derniers Jours de l’Acadie, 1748-1758, p. 113, in note.

1018
(a) - Rapport concernant les Arch. Can. pour l’année 1905, vol. I, 6th Part, p. 195.
(b) - Gaston du Boscq de Beaumont, Les Derniers Jours de l’Acadie, 1748-1758, pp. 111-113.
- Rapport concernant les Arch. Can. pour l’année 1905, vol. I, 6th Part, p. 505.
(c) - J. S. McLennan, Louisbourg, (1918), p. 343.
(d) - Rapport concernant les Arch. Can. pour l’année 1905, vol. I, 1st Part, p. 45 of the Fr. ed.; p. 46 of the Eng. ed. “4702

None

Jean-Baptiste Guédry dit Grivois
Jean-Bte Guédry
Jean-Baptiste Guidry dit Grivois
Jean-Baptiste Guidry
Jean Baptiste Guidry
Jean-Baptiste Guidry, père
Jean-Baptiste Guédry
Jean Baptiste Guedry
Jean Baptiste Guaidry
Jean baptiste guedry
Jean Baptist Guédry, père
Jean Baptist Guidry, père
Jean-Bapiste Guidry, Sr.
Jean-Baptiste Guidry
Baptiste Giddery
Baptiste Guedry
Baptiste Guidery
Père Old Baptiste
le vieux Baptiste
John Baptist
Baptiste, père
Baptist