subjects of the Acadians,[216] who at that time, having constantly
refused the oath of allegiance, were not entitled, under the treaty, to
the exercise of their religion. Governor Armstrong wrote sixteen years
after: "By some of the above papers your Grace will be informed how high
the French government carries its pretensions over its priests'
obedience; and how to prevent the evil consequences I know not, unless
we could have missionaries from places independent of that Crown."[217]
He expresses a well-grounded doubt whether the home government will be
at the trouble and expense of such a change, though he adds that there
is not a missionary among either Acadians or Indians who is not in the
pay of France.[218] Gaulin, missionary of the Micmacs, received a
"gratification" of fifteen hundred livres, besides an annual allowance
of five hundred, and is described in the order granting it as a "brave
man, capable even of leading these savages on an expedition."[219] In
1726 he was brought before the Council at Annapolis charged with
incendiary conduct among both Indians and Acadians; but on asking pardon
and promising nevermore to busy himself with affairs of government, he
was allowed to remain in the province, and even to act as cure of the
Mines.[220] No evidence appears that the British authorities ever
molested a priest, except when detected in practices alien to his proper
functions and injurious to the government. On one occasion when two
cures were vacant, one through sedition and the other apparently through
illness or death, Lieutenant-Governor Armstrong requested the governor
of Isle Royale to send two priests "of known probity" to fill them.[221]

Who were answerable for the anomalous state of affairs in the
province,--the _imperium in imperio_ where the inner power waxed and
strengthened every day, and the outer relatively pined and dwindled? It
was not mainly the Crown of France nor its agents, secular or clerical.
Their action under the circumstances, though sometimes inexcusable, was
natural, and might have been foreseen. Nor was it the Council at
Annapolis, who had little power either for good or evil. It was mainly
the neglect and apathy of the British ministers, who seemed careless as
to whether they kept Acadia or lost it, apparently thinking it not worth
their notice.

About the middle of the century they wakened from their lethargy, and
warned by the signs of the times, sent troops and settlers into