Philippe Mius, also sometimes referenced by his dit name of “d’Azy,” was born around 1660 in Pobomcoup, now Pubnico, to his father, Philippe Mius Sr., and Madeleine Helie.

His parents were French, possibly from Normandy, and his father was Philippe Mius d’Entremont, first Baron of Pobomcoup, now Pubnico. He built a stone manor house, something unheard of in Acadia, near Cap de Sable as the adjutant to Governor Charles de Saint-Etienne de La Tour in 1651. In 1653, Mius was granted the seigneury which became the Barony of Pobomcoup that extended from Yarmouth to the Clyde River in Shelburne County. Additionally, he was in charge of the colony in La Tour’s absence and served as the King’s Attorney as well.

Philippe Mius Sr. built a feudal castle on the east side of the harbor at Pubnico, on an atoll near what is today Hipson’s Bridge. The building stood for a century but was destroyed, as in burned to the ground, along with the surrounding settlement, during the English eradication of the Acadians in 1758.

Today, the story is told at Le Village Historique Acadien de la Nouvelle-Ecosse, across from the Old Acadian Cemetery, and The Musee des Acadiens des Pubnicos and Centre de recherche Pere Clarence d’Entremont.

This stunningly beautiful and remote location was where Philip Jr. was raised. Given his close association with the Mi’kmaq people, he clearly had a lot of freedom to explore the woodlands, and he did so with his Native American friends, learning their survival skills. He became fluent in their language and met their sisters.

The Drama Unfolds

Philippe’s story is unique among Acadian men in many ways. Better stated, everything about Philippe is “different,” even for a man living on a frontier outpost on a continent far from anything that would have been familiar to his parents. The retelling of his life’s story unfurls like the pages of a novel – full of intrigue and unexpected twists and turns the likes of which you could never imagine.

Finding Philippe’s path required every skill I possess – plus a dash of luck. Even now, I feel I’ve barely scratched the surface.

Philippe’s life begins innocently enough…

Philippe Mius Sr. is shown on the 1671 census of Acadia at the Habitation of Poboncom near the Island of Touquet as follows:

Phillippe MIUS, squire, Sieur de Landremont, 62, wife Madeleine Elie 45; Children: Marguerite Marie An, Pierre 17, Abraham 13, Phillippe 11, daughter “la cadette” Madeleine 2; cattle 26; sheep 25.

Philippe Jr.’s age suggests his birth in 1660.

The Island of Touquet is Tusket Island today, 5 or 6 miles across the Bay from Pobomcoup.

These were the only Europeans living in the Habitation of Poboncom near the Island of Touquet. One additional French family lives at Cap Neigre and one at Rivier aux Rochelois. That’s it! The Mi’kmaq people were not enumerated.

These old 1779 maps show the harbors and shoreline.

La Heve was the first trading post and thriving settlement, which means the first seat of Acadia, beginning in 1632. In 1635, the new Governor, Charles d’Aulnay, moved the Acadians and the capital to Port Royal. By the time Philippe was born in 1660, ports in this part of Acadia were outposts used for trading. Today, a museum marks the location of that first fort.

Port Rochelois’ location is noted as “Shelbourn south shore, south of Halifax.”

In 1708, most of the Acadians were living at Port Royal, more than 115 miles distant, or even further away at Les Mines, Beaubassin or other satellite settlements. Contact at that time would have been via boat.

In Honouring Our Ancestors, Janet Chute states that Philippe began trading furs and lived at Ouikmakagan between 1679 and 1685.

Ouikmakagan, a Mi’kmaq summer village with an extensive eel fishery is located on present-day Roberts Island, near the Tusket River, where Philippe’s daughter, Marie Muis married and lived with François Vignee (Viger).

Ouikmakagan was located near Ste. Anne du Ruisseau.

In Two Conquests: Aboriginal Experiences of the Fall of New France and Acadia by Thomas Peace, he tells us that:

Cape Sable was the general term that Europeans used to refer to all of the Mi’kmaq living in Kespukwitk. Unlike Port Royal and La Heve, where the name of the place identified a particular location or key river system, the term Cape Sable referred broadly to a region that stretched from the modern-day village of Port La Tour to the town of Yarmouth. The principal area of occupation was near the Tusket Islands; the Mi’kmaq had a summer village at Ouikmakagan, where there was an extensive eel fishery. The French lived in a village nearby at Pobomcoup, a seigneury that had been conceded to the d’Entremont family in 1653.

The French and the Mi’kmaq lived much more closely at Cape Sable. In 1701 Simon-Pierre Denys de Bonaventure, France’s second in command in Acadia, observed that the French and Mi’kmaq fished together at Ouikmakagan. French settlers were much more dependent on the Mi’kmaq at Cape Sable than elsewhere. Isolated from the larger settlement at Port Royal, one French official felt that the settlers could only survive because of their proximity to the Mi’kmaq.

Chute states that after the death of his first wife, about 1685, Philippe lived for about a year at Ministiguesche, now Barrington Head, with his brother Abraham, then moved to Le Heve, now renamed as La Have.

That may be true, but the 1686 census finds Philippe once again living with his father – but this time, in Port Royal.

Philippe Mius, royal prosecutor, age 77, with son, Philippe, 24, daughter Magdelaine 16, and 40 arpents of land.

Clearly, Philippe’s mother has died sometime in the past 15 years, sometime after the 1671 census, and is probably buried at Pobomcou.

It’s worth noting that both of Philippe Sr.’s older sons, Jacques and Abraham, are married with children and living in Cap Sable beside or near the LaTour family whose surname is sometimes written as Saint-Etienne de La Tour.

Philippe Jr.’s age of 24 suggests his birth in 1662. His father is elderly and widowed, so it’s probable that Philippe Jr. manages the land, livestock, and perhaps the seigneury’s day-to-day operations.

Philippe Jr. appears to be single, but that doesn’t mean he was never married. One must presume that his first wife has died and her relatives are raising their children.

It’s possible that after his wife’s death, Philippe’s father asked him to step away from the Mi’kmaq village and try returning to the European part of Acadia, specifically Port Royal, to help him. Maybe his father was hoping he’d find a nice French wife, like his brothers had, marry, and settle there.

However, to me, finding Philippe as an adult with his father after his wife died speaks of deep grief and the hope of escaping it by going someplace else. Maybe anyplace else to get away from haunting memories of his Mi’kmaq love.

However, the following year, Philippe Sr. willed his seigneury to his eldest son, Jacques, and went to live with his eldest daughter in Grand Pre until his death in about 1700. One has to wonder if this was the plan all along, or if this event signaled a rift in the family. Was Philippe hurt by his father’s choice, especially after moving to Port Royal to help him, or perhaps Philippe Sr. made that choice with Philippe Jr.’s full approval because he wanted to return to living with the Mi’kmaq and his children?

By 1687, Philippe Jr., based on the ages of his children in 1708, had returned to the Mi’kmaq villages in southwest Acadia, along the coastline near Pobomcoup, and married again to a Mi’kmaq woman named Marie.

His heart was clearly not in Port Royal, but outdoors in Southwest Acadia along the wild and stunningly picturesque coastline. His heart would never be tamed, but it would be broken.

Life in Southwest Acadia

The document, Freedom of Commerce: The History and Archaeology of Trade at St. Castin’s Habitation 1670-1701 recounts the excavation of the Baron Jean Vincente de l’Abbadie de St. Castin, who operated a trading post at the confluence of the Penobscot and Bagaduce Rivers, near Castin, Maine. He traded throughout New England, Acadia, and with the Abenaki. On page 121, a table created from the Gargus Census indicates the number of adult European males, adult Indian males, and firearms by location.

The locations relevant to the Mius family include:

Location	Adult European Males	Adult Indian Males	Firearms
Laheve	7	10	8
Merliguech	1	4	2
Port Rochelois	5	6	6
Cape Sable	5	6	8

I suspect that Philippe Mius is the one adult European male living at Merliguech in 1687. If not, he would be one of the men at Laheve or Cape Sable. There weren’t many of either, and there were almost as many French men as Indian men.

With the arrival of Europeans, the Native population dropped precipitously, some estimates by as much as half between 1500 and 1600. I’d wager that the Mi’kmaq population had not recovered.

Chute indicates that around 1690, Philippe established a fur-trading post at the Mi’kmaq village of Chichimichecady on present-day Second Peninsula in Lunenburg County.

Philippe, as well as the Mi’kmaq were fairly fluid, living in wigwams and moving easily with the seasons and opportunity.

When Philippe’s brother Jacques and his wife Ann La Tour inherited the seigneury in 1700, Philippe II visited his elder brother to trade furs and socialize.

Philippe may have married and lived among the Mi’kmaq, but he came and went easily between both cultures.

Baptisms

We know that baptisms regularly took place by nonmembers of the clergy, especially among the Native people who had been converted. We also know that no registers were kept of those baptisms, as was noted in a 1726 trial in Boston. Nonetheless, people did the best they could. After all, no one wanted their child to be condemned to either Hell or Purgatory for lack of a convenient priest.

It’s interesting that Philippe Mius II, who styled himself as “Philippe de Pobomkou” but signed as Philippe Muis, baptized children in 1702. We know this because, in 1705, many of these children were rebaptized at Port Royal, including Jacques Amiraut, who was born July 31, 1702, and baptized the next day by Philippe de Pobomkou. The father was François Amiraut, and the mother was Marie Pitre, inhabitants of Cape Sable.

Cape Sable referred to a general location, not a specific village.

These Cape Sable families were extremely interconnected and intermarried. Joseph Mius’s son, and Philippe’s grandson, Charles, whose mother was Marie Amiraut was born in December of 1702 and baptized by François Amiraut. He, too, was rebaptized in Port Royal by a priest in 1705.

“Sieur de Pobomkou” baptized Angelique Muise on November 16, 1704, two weeks after her birth to Joseph Muise and Marie Amiraut, inhabitants of Cape Sable. Sieur de Pobomkou would have been Philippe’s elder brother, Jacques Mius, then the 2nd Baron de Pobomcoup. Pobomkou was used synonymously with Mius at that point in time.

The 1708 Census

Philippe Mius Jr. lived among and twice married into the Mi’kmaq tribe. Although he clearly retained many of his French ways, including the Catholic faith, all of his children from his second marriage lived permanently among the tribe.

We find Philippe Mius by a different spelling again in the 1708 census, but not in the previous 22 years. He’s not found in the seven censuses between 1686 and 1708, so he’s not living among the French/Acadian families.

In the 1708 census, which includes both French and Native families, in the section titled “Indians from La Heve and surrounding area,” we find:

• Philippe Mieusse, age 48, so born about 1660
• Marie, his wife, 38, so born about 1670
• Jacques, his son, 20, so born about 1788
• Pierre, his son, 17, so born about 1791
• Françoise, his daughter, 11, so born about 1697
• François, his son, 8, so born about 1700
• Philipe, his son, 5, so born about 1703
• Anne, his daughter, 3, so born about 1705

By 1742, Philippe’s son, François, aka Francis, was the chief of the Mi’kmaq and served in that capacity for at least 21 years.

We also find additional people, Philippe’s children, with the surname Mieusse, or similar:

• Cape Sable under “enumeration of the French”: François Vige age 46, his wife Marie Mieusse 28, with 5 children. Marie’s age of 28 puts her birth in about 1680.
• Indians from Mouscoudabouet: Maurice Mieusse 26 with wife Marguerite 27 and two children. Age 26 puts his birth at about 1682.
• Cape Sable Indians: Mathieu Emieusse 26, Madelaine 20 and one child. This puts his birth at about 1682.
• De La Heve under “enumeration of the French”: Jean Baptiste Guedry 24 and Madelaine Mieusse 14. Age 14 puts her birth at age 1694.

Another child of Philippe Jr. is found three houses away from François Vige and Marie Mieusse at Cape Sable:

• Joseph dazy 35, Marie tourangeau 24, with 5 children.

Joseph’s age places his birth in about 1673. His death record on December 13, 1729 says he’s about 55 years of age, and the the name Joseph Mieux dit D’Azy confirms his identity. His descendant’s surname line was often known as D’Azy.

Joseph was considered the patriarch of the “Acadian branch” of the Mius family. He married Marie Amirault, a daughter of François Amirault dit Tourangeau and Marie Pitre of Ouikmakagan. He farmed and fished for a living, and some of his descendants took the surname “Muise.”

Joseph d’Azy Mius was born about 1673 and received land in 1715. He is described as “part Indian who dwelt at Port Le Tore” and is the son-in-law of “Tourangeaut”.

Joseph is later noted as the “part Indian who dwelt at Port Le Tore” which was originally known as Port Lomeron and was where Charles La Tour lived.

This map shows Port LaTare along with the other capes and early forts.

La Tour traded here between 1624 and 1635 when he established another fort at the mouth of the River Saint John.

Several of Joseph’s children intermarried with the Mi’kmaq people, as did two of his full siblings. Joseph’s full siblings were Philippe Mius’s children by his first wife:

• Marie Mius, born about 1680 and married François Viger – their children would have been one-quarter Indian.
• Maurice Mius, born about 1682 and married Marguerite, a Mi’kmaq – children would be three-fourths Indian.
• Mathieu Mius, born about 1682 and married Madeleine, a Mi’kmaq – children would be three-fourths Indian.
• Françoise Mius, born about 1684 and married Jacques Bonnevie – their children would have been one-quarter Indian.

Philippe’s other two sons by his first wife, Mathieu and Maurice, married Mi’kmaq women and engaged in the fur trade, Mathieu at Cape Sable and Maurice at Musquodoboit.

We know that Philippe Mius Jr. was born around 1660, which is probably why researchers have shifted his son Joseph d’Azy Mius’s birth closer to 1679. Various records across the years clearly show Joseph as being half-Native.

Maurice and Mathieu are shown as twins, born in 1682, and Françoise is slotted as the next child, born in 1684.

A 1684 birth is certainly possible, as Françoise would have been 16 in 1700, and young women were clearly marrying at that age in that time and place. Her younger sister was married at 14.

What Was Mi’kmaq Life Like?

Mi’kmaq Portraits Collection, Nova Scotia Museum: “The women are not identified but the one at left wears a skirt known to have been made for Marie Antoinette Thomas; it is now in the collections of the Nova Scotia Museum.”

One of the earliest photographs, taken in 1856, shows a group of adult Mi’kmaq. Several of these men were probably born around the turn of the century. The men with beards would have also had European ancestors, as fully Native people have very little extraneous body hair.

An unexpected find reveals a very early photograph of Molly Muise, a Mi’kmaq elder.

The Nova Scotia Museum provides the following information.

The picture is of Molly Muise who lived to a great age and was so much respected by her white neighbors that they erected a tombstone to her memory.” [Accession Note BA19.6.1, Fort Anne] Her dates of birth and death are not known. This may be the earliest portrait of a Mi’kmaq by a photographic process. Molly Muise (the name was originally the French ‘Mius’ and is now spelled Meuse and Muse as well) is wearing a peaked cap with double-curve beadwork, a dark shirt, a short jacket with darker cuffs, over which she apparently has draped a second short jacket, its sleeves pulled inside, as a capelet. Her traditional dress with the large fold at the top is held up by suspenders with ornamental tabs. In her hands she seems to be clutching a white handkerchief.

Molly is the wife of “Governor” or Chief of the Bear River clan, so Muise is her married name. Based on her apparent age, Molly would have been born sometime in the late 1700s. Her likeness has been painted in a mural on the University of Moncton’s tallest building.

Philippe would be proud!

Originally, Mi’kmaq men wore leather and fur but later adopted a combination of French and English elements in combination with the earlier traditional garb.

Per the Nova Scotia Archives, “men’s traditional dress included a coat copied from contemporary European military uniforms, featuring a collar, cuffs and beaded epaulets; the coat was tied with a woven belt. Men’s dress also included leggings tied to short trousers, plus moccasins and a hat, cap or feather headdress.”

In his Letters from Nova Scotia (1830), Captain William Moorsom observed that Mi’kmaq clothing included a “blue cloth surtout, edged at the seams with stripes of red, open at the neck, closely fitted to the body, and belted round the waist, their leggins [sic] of the same material, and seal-skin or stuffed cap, or a common hat….”

John Thomas “Paddy” Lane, at left, an Englishman adopted as medicine man into the Shubenacadie band of the Mi’kmaq, is dressed in traditional Mi’kmaq attire as he displays his smallpox “cure” which was based on the root of the Indian-Cup or Pitcher plant. Photo from the Nova Scotia archives taken in the 1860s.

Timeline

Philippe’s life was difficult to unravel, in part, because the clues are like bits of dust, blowing from place to place with unapologetic abandon. We have few primary records and need to piece much of the rest together based on scraps and mentions in secondary sources. Nonetheless, genealogists do what we need to do. If you find information I haven’t included, please share it with me.

In this timeline, the ages and birth years of Philippe’s children reveal where he was at that time.

Who	Event	Event Date	Relevant Year	Location
Philippe Mius Jr.	Birth	1660-1662	1660-1662	Pobomcoup
Philippe Jr.	Census age 11	1671	1671	Habitation of Poboncom
Philippe Jr.	Fur trader	c1679	1679-1685	Ouikmakagan, summer village on Roberts Island, near the Tusket River
Philippe Jr.	Census age 24	1686	1686	Port Royal with his father
Philippe Jr.	Married second wife, Marie	c1686/1687	1687	Ministiguesche, now Barrington Head
Philippe Jr.	1687 trader list of European men in villages	1687	1687	Either the only European male in Merliguech or one of a handful at Le Have, Port Rochelois or Cape Sable
Philippe Jr.	Returned to live with Mi’kmaq people	c1687/1688	1687 child born	Le Heve, now La Have
Philippe Jr.	Established fur trading post	c1690	1690	Chichimichecady on present-day Second Peninsula
Philippe Jr.	Visited brother Jacques and Ann La Tour when they inherited seigneury	1700	1700	Pobomcoup, now Pubnico
Philippe of Pobomcoup	Baptized child	1702	1702	Of Pobomcou, mother of infant was habitant of Cape Sable
Philippe Mieusse.	Census age 48	1708	1708	Indians from La Heve and surrounding area
Wife Marie	Census age 38 born c 1670	1708	1670	Indians from La Heve and surrounding area
Jacques Mieusse	Census age 20 born 1688	1708	1688	Indians from La Heve and surrounding area
Pierre Mieusse	Census age 17 born 1691	1708	1691	Indians from La Heve and surrounding area
Françoise Mieusse	Census age 11 born 1696	1708	1696	Indians from La Heve and surrounding area
François Mieusse	Census age 8 born 1700	1708	1700	Indians from La Heve and surrounding area
Philipe Mieusse	Census age 5 born 1703	1708	1726	Indians from La Heve and surrounding area
Anne Mieusse	Census age 3 born 1705	1708	1705	Indians from La Heve and surrounding area
Marie Mieusse, wife of François Vige (with 2 children)	Census age 28 born 1680	1708	1680	Cape Sable enumeration of the French
Maurice Mieusse (with wife and 2 children)	Census age 26 born 1682	1708	1682	Indians from Mouscoudabouet (Musquodoboit Harbour)
Mathieu Emieusse with wife and one child	Census age 26 born 1682	1708	1682	Cape Sable Indians
Madelaine Mieusse with Jean Baptiste Guedry	Census age 14 born 1694	1708	1694	De La Heve under enumeration of the French
Joseph dazy with wife Marie tourangeau, 24, and 5 children	Census age 35 born 1673	1708	1673	Cape Sable enumeration of the French
Joseph d’Azy Mius	Land	1715		Part Indian who dwelt at Port Le Tore (La Tour)
Philippe Mius	Ship visited	1721	1721	Pubnico maybe
Philippe Mius	Daughter kidnapped at Merliguesch	1722	1722	Marie Ann married to Paul Guidry, first child born in captivity in Boston
Marie Ann Muis	Returned to Merliguesch	1723	1723	With husband Paul Guedry and his three brothers
Philippe Mius	Son François Mius and grandson Paul Guedry kidnapped, taken to Boston	July 28, 1723	1723	Merliguesch
Philippe Mius	English ship out of Boston came ashore	August 25, 1726	1726	Merliguesh Harbour
Marie Mius	Marriage to François Vignee (Viger)	1697	1697	Ouikmakagan, near Ste. Anne du Ruisseau
Françoise Mius, presumed daughter	Census, born about 1684 based on children’s ages	1703	1684	Port Royal
Philippe Mius II	Residence in Mirligueche  when piracy event occurred	1726	1726	Mirligueche Village near Lunenburg
Jacques Mius	Residence in Mirligueche  when piracy event occurred	1726	1726	Hung in Boston
Philippe Mius III	Residence in Mirligueche  when piracy event occurred	1726	1726	Hung in Boston
Madelaine Mieusse married to Jean Baptiste Guedry	Residence in Mirligueche  when piracy event occurred	1726	1726	Jean Baptiste Guedry hung in Boston, along with his son by the same name
Joseph d’Azy Mius	Death – about age 55, born 1674	1729		Annapolis Royal

Aside from Port Royal, located near Annapolis Royal, Philippe lived his entire life along south and southwest Acadia.

He may well have traveled to other parts of Canada too, and perhaps New England or Boston. He seemed to have been an intermediary and statesman with a foot in both worlds.

A very interesting tidbit revealed by this timeline is that his daughter, Françoise, born about 1684, is the final child attributed to his first Native wife. After her birth, and presumably his wife’s death, Philippe leaves the Mi’kmaq village.

We know where Philippe is in 1686 – in Port Royal with his elderly father and sister.

Based on the 1708 census, we know where he was in 1687/1688 when Jacques was born, his eldest child by his Native wife named Marie. Marie is too young to have been the mother of his older children.

While he was in Port Royal with his father, presuming his first wife had already died, he had left his children with either his siblings or her family in the tribe.

Two of Philippe’s children, with his first wife, did not live an entirely Native lifestyle. Both Françoise and Marie married Frenchmen, and Joseph married a French woman. By this time, the French/Acadians and the Mi’kmaq people had been depending upon one another for at least two generations, and probably longer, so the Native communities would have been blended by this point. It was reported that the Mi’kmaq spoke a Pidgeon type of language that incorporated some Acadian words, especially when trading or communicating with fishermen who came ashore for fresh water and supplies.

Comparatively speaking, all of Philippe’s children by his second wife lived among the Mi’kmaq people and participated fully in Native society as fur traders.

François Mius, the third youngest, was close to his father, became a chief, and after Philippe II’s death, was in charge of his Chichimichecady fur trading post.

Where Was Philippe?

Based on our timeline so far, we have identified several locations for Philippe and his children.

Pobomcoup, where he was born, La Heve, where we know he lived with his Native family, and locations in between.

These locations are surprisingly distant. Transportation would have been via birchbark canoe.

By 1900, the Mi’kmaq had, for the most part, adopted European clothing, but the wigwams and canoes had changed little.

Here, the Mi’kmaq are paddling a canoe and pursuing a caribou in a lake around 1895.

In 1708, Philippe’s children were found in both Musquodoboit Harbour and on Cape Sable Island, or nearby.

Zooming in to the Caple Sable region shows familiar names like Port La Tour and Barrington which is where Philippe Mius’s first wife was reported to have been from. That makes sense, given that Barrington isn’t far from Pubnico, and some of his children are shown with the Cape Sable Indians. Barrington and the Cape Sable Indians could be one and the same.

One accidental sighting of Philippe might have been recorded on September 26, 1721 when an English ship landed at the settlement at Pubnico where the English officer reported that “the young men were gone a hunting and only the old pommoncoup (sic) left.” They could also have been referencing his brother, Jacques. By this time, Philippe would have been on the north side of 60, but his brother would have been even older.

We don’t have any good drawings of the Mi’kmaq people and wigwams before the Acadian Deportation in 1755, but we do have some from the early 1800s, less than a century later.

A Mi’kmaq encampment at Tufts Cove in 1837, near present-day Halifax

A Mi’kmaq encampment in 1842 near Annapolis Royal with the Governor’s Bridge in the background.

This oil painting from 1860 was based on an earlier work from between 1790 and 1820. I wonder if the wigwams were actually decorated, as illustrated here.

These very much reflect the life of Philippe, who was accepted by the Mi’kmaq as one of their own. He had lived his entire life since childhood among the Native people, marrying two Native wives.

As peaceful and bucolic as these scenes appear, harkening us back to a simpler time, conflict was stirring just beneath the surface.

Peace was elusive and, ultimately, nonexistent.

History writ large, international politics, unfortunate choices, and pure bad luck collided.

Disaster: Piracy on the High Seas

I discovered a very interesting story about Philippe Mius and piracy, told by Father Clarence d’Entremont, here, and also the Acadian Museum featuring his work, here. His article was titled “Hanging of Two Acadians and Three Indians in Boston.”

I’m always skeptical of old stories, although they are fascinating and often, there’s some kernel of truth.

What about this one? Is it true?

First, let’s see what Father d’Entremont, a descendant, had to say. The bolding and notes are mine.

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 is not given. On his way back, he stopped at Merliguesh, now Lunenburg, and told the Acadians and the 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 coasts of Nova Scotia and offer it in ransom for his son. This was September 4, 1726.

They did not have to wait long. The very next day, Captain Samuel Daly, of Plymouth, Massachusetts, on a fishing voyage, put with his sloop into Merliguesh Harbour to fetch fresh water. John Roberts, one of the crew, went on shore where he met some Frenchmen and some Indians.

Note – A sloop is a single-masted sailboat with two sails, as pictured above in an 1899 photo, or the colonial sloop model, below.

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 the peace which had just been signed between the English and the Indians. John Roberts took Philippe Mius d’Entremont Jr., and 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 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.

Note – This puts Philippe at Merliguesch Harbor and on the ship in a friendly fashion. It also establishes which Philippe Mius we’re discussing.

After a friendly conversation, Daly asked his guests down into his cabin to 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 that he would call his son to come and get him, which he did in French, so thought Daly and his men.

Note – Jacques Mius is present as well, and everyone is ashore except for Jean Guidry Sr.

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.

Note – To “Cry for quarter” is an English phrase that means to beg for mercy. In battle, “quarter” has long been used to refer to an exemption from being immediately put to death that the victor grants to a vanquished opponent. A defeated army might have to surrender, but they did not have to ask for or accept mercy (“cry for quarter”).

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 John 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 taken 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.

Note – From this, it looks like Jacques Mius was not on the ship when it sailed, but elsewhere, he is shown to have been. Maybe another son of Philippe was involved, or maybe Father d’Entremont had some incorrect information.

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 his 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 all 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. And thus those two Acadians and three Indians from Merliguesh were hung in Boston on Nov. 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.”

Boston Newspapers

Using OldNews at MyHeritage, I found articles published at the time in a Boston weekly newsletter.

Obviously, the woman and two children weren’t charged, but we also have no idea who they were or what happened to them. If I had to guess, and I do, I’d guess they were the wife of either John-Baptiste Guidry Sr., so Madeleine Mius and her two children, or the wife of Jacques Mius and two of his children. It would surely have been a women who had an interest in one (or more) of the men on board.

We do know that John Guidry’s mother was involved in the situation on land, but she was not Native.

The two Guidry men, one of whom was part Indian, were convicted one day, and the three “Indians,” two of whom were half-French, were convicted the next.

List of Players

I had a hard time keeping track of who did and said what to and about whom. This is even more difficult because of the spelling discrepancies. French names are spelled as they sound in English or using English equivalent names. I’ve constructed a list of players based on a combination of sources, including the court case that follows:

• Capt. Joseph Decoy, from Cape Breton, traded in Boston, and his son was detained for some reason. He stopped at Merliguesh on September 4, 1726, and told the Acadians and Indians what had happened. According to Father d’Entremont, he suggested seizing the Boston vessel and offering it as ransom for his son. (1) Please note that d’Entremont’s date has to be wrong based on the lawsuit.
• Samuel Daly – Captain, stopped at Merliguesh, now Lunenburg, NS, Sept 5, 1726. Asked Jean-Baptiste Guidry (also written Jeddry) and his son by the same name back to the sloop. Then they left the sloop with the mate and three crew. Guidry Jr. returned to the ship with some Indians and, with his father, took control of the ship by taking the standard down and ordering Daly,the mate and three crew, then on land, to call for quarter. Went to find Mrs. Guidry and asked her to talk to her son into returning the sloop to Daly, but she failed. (1) Please note that per the lawsuit, this date was August 25^th.
• John Roberts – crew, along with mate (2), went on shore and met the Frenchmen and Indians. Initially took Philippe Mius and son Jacques back to the sloop (1)
• Nathaniel Sprague – crew (2)
• Silas Cooke – crew (2)
• Philip Sachimus – crew member noted in the Boston transcript by name who was left on the ship with Guidry Sr when the others went ashore (2). Was an Indian with the sloop. He was tied to the masthead by James and Philip Mews.
• Indian with sloop – crew (2) – There’s a second Indian with the sloop, other than Philip Sachimus (2), whose name was John, alias Attaw•n, and who was then in prison.
• Jean-Baptiste Guidry Sr. (John Baptist Jedre, alias Laverdure (2)) – identified as a Frenchman, husband of Madeleine Mius, daughter of Philippe Mius Jr. Stayed on the ship to drink with Doty when the others left. After his son and some Indians returned, told three members of crew on shore, the first-mate, and Daly to cry for quarter. Ordered Daly to set sail about 8 PM. On the sloop in morning. (1) Called himself the skipper of the sloop. At trial, said he was trying to keep the Indians from hurting the sailors. Said Philip Mews, one of the Indians, is his brother-in-law. (2)
• Jean-Baptiste Guidry (Guedry) Jr. – son of Guidry Sr., left the sloop in the evening but came back with other Indians. On the sloop in the morning. (1) Identified as a Frenchman, even though his mother was half-Native, not yet 14-years-old. At trial, said he was taking orders from his father and had been encouraged to participate by the Indians. (2)
• Mother of Jean Baptiste Guidry Sr. – Marguerite Petitpas (French, not Native) – along with son Augustine (4), tried to convince the men to release the ship.
• Philippe Mius d’Entremont Jr. – Met Daly at Merliguesh, left sloop in the evening, and did not drink. (1) Was not on board when sailed (1)
• Philippe Mius’s son who left the ship with him – could have been Jacques who returned.
• Jacques Mius – left the sloop in the evening and did not drink, returned and threatened to kill Roberts and cut his head off, stole his gold ring (1)
• Six Indians on board in the morning with both Guidry men (1)
• Indian 1 – Philippe Mius took hold of John Roberts and trussed him to the forecastle (spoke some English) (1) John-Baptiste Guidry Sr. at trial said that “Indian man Philip” was left on the sloop with him in the evening and that his son returned with two more Indians, that Philippe “struck the sloops colours,” and gave them to Guedry who tied them around his waist (2)
• Indian 2 – John Missel – trussed John Roberts to forecastle with Philip Mius (1) states that he was originally from Sechenecto (Chignecto) and two years before he lived at Menis (Minas) and this summer he came from Menis to Malegash (Mirligueche)
• Indian 3 – Jacques (1)
• Indian 4 – Indian named Germain (2) (3) jumped into the sea but was saved
• Indian 5 – Indian named Lewis, son of Germain (Salmon), above (2) jumped into the sea but was saved (3)
• Indian 6 – jumped into sea but was saved, probably Marsel, whose wife and two children accompanied him on the sloop (2)
• James Mews named along with Philip Mews as the two Indians who returned onto the ship with John-Baptiste Guidry Jr. (2) called himself Captain of the captured sloop (2) took out his knife and struck at Philip Sachimus. Doty testified that James Mews told him there was peace proclaimed between the English and Indians; but the said Mews said he “never would make Peace with the English, for the Governour of Boston kept his Brother, and he would Burn the Sloop and keep the Goods till his Brother was sent home.” Got drunk while they were taking the sloop and told Doty where to steer. Threatened to kill Sprague. In deposition, says he lives at Malegash. Had been drinking rum that they purchased from a French vessel.
• Indian woman and two children were also on board in the cabin. (2) She was the wife of one of the men who jumped into the sea (2)
• Paul Guidry – Jean-Baptiste Guidry Sr. testified that the reason that they had been taking English vessels was reprisals because his son Paul, and brother-in-law, Francis Mews, were detained by the English.
• Francis Mews – Jean-Baptiste Guidry Sr. testified that the reason that they had been taking English vessels was reprisals because his son Paul, and brother-in-law, Francis Mews, were detained by the English.
• James Mews testimony mentions [John] Baptist [Guidry] and his son, John, his brothers Paul and Gold (Gold is probably Claude), and his son-in-law Augustine (4), gave James Mews and the other 5 Indians a bottle of rum and persuaded them to go on the sloop and get provisions. Said that he with Salmon and Lewn (3) went aboard in one Canno (canoe); and three more Indians, viz. Missel, Philip, and Marsel went aboard in another Canno; and sometime after, Marsel went on Shoar again and brought his Squaw and two Children on board the Sloop; and after them, a French Woman with the English Master of the Sloop and a French Man went aboard the Sloop. That the next Morning after the Sloop was taken, James went to breakfast and drank so much that he knows not how the English overcame the French and Indians on board; but when he came to be sober, he found himself bound in the hold of the sloop, and he was kept tied till he came to Boston in the sloop.

1. According to Father d’Entremont
2. Boston admiralty court cases October 4/5, 1726
3. Note that in the 1708 census, we find Germain Memguesse, 28, wife Agnes, 24, Louis, 11, Pierre, 1, Margueritte, 9, and Marie, 6 among the “Indians from La Hever and surrounding area.
4. 7^th family at La Heve in 1708 is Claude Guedry, 60, Marguerite Petit pas 48, Charles 21, Augustin, 16, Claude, 16, Joseph, 10, Pierre, 8, Paul, 6, Marie, 14 and Françoise, 4.

Some genealogists have attributed two of Philippe’s sons as two of the Indians, and some attribute three of his sons. So far in this saga, we don’t know.

Surely, if this is true, there has to be more to the story. Sure enough, there is – in Boston, in the Vice-Admiralty court records.

Full, heartbreaking, testimony.

This transcript is…well…just take a breath and buckle up.

The spelling is left as it and the bolding is mine. The transcript is quoted and indented. My notes providing additional information are not. Images of the justices were not in the original transcript, but I want you to see these men.

Trial in the Vice-Admiralty Court

The Trials of five persons for piracy, felony and robbery, who were found guilty and condemned, at a Court of Admiralty for the trial of piracies, felonies and robberies, committed on the high seas, held at the court-house in Boston, within His Majesty’s province of the Massachusetts-Bay in New-England, on Tuesday the fourth day of October, anno domini, 1726. Pursuant to His Majesty’s royal commission, founded on an act of Parliament made in the eleventh and twelfth years of the reign of King William the Third, entituled, An act for the more effectual suppression of piracy; and made perpetual by an act of the sixth year of the reign of our sovereign Lord King George.

Tuesday, October 4th. 1726. At three a Clock post Meridiem. The Court met according to the said Adjournment.

William Dummer (1677-1761), wealthy merchant, politician, Lt. Governor and acting Governor. Dummer’s War, from 1722-1725, was a series of battles between the New England colonies and the Wabanaki Confederacy, which included the Mi’kmaq and other tribes allied with France. Some battles were fought in Acadia, present-day Nova Scotia. The War was not over until peace was agreed upon in July 1727. Therefore, he was presiding over the trial of three men who were at least part Mi’kmaq, one who was French, and one who was apparently entirely Native – whose people he was leading a war against.

Anno Regni Regis GEORGIJ, Magnae Britaniae, Franciae & Hiberniae, Decimo Tertio.

At a Court of Admiralty for the Trial of Piracies, Felonies and Robberies upon the High Seas, Held at the Court-House in Boston, within the Province of the Massachusetts-Bay in New-England, on Tuesday the Fourth Day of October, Anno{que} Domini, 1726.

PRESENT,

THE Honourable WILLIAM DUMMER Esq Lieut. Governour and Commander in Chief in and over His Majesty’s Province of the Massachusetts-Bay aforesaid, President of the said Court, and the other Honourable Commissioners following, viz.

• William Tailer Esq Of the Council of His Majesty’s Province of the Massachusetts-Bay aforesaid.

William Tailer (1676-1732) was a military officer and politican who commanded an English regiment in the 1710 siege of Port Royal Clearly, which garnered him his Boston Commission as Lieutenant Governor. He served two terms as acting governor, one before and one after this trial. Tailer was clearly not impartial.

• Penn Townsend Esq Of the Council of His Majesty’s Province of the Massachusetts-Bay aforesaid.

Nathaniel Byfield about 1730

• Nathaniel Byfield Esq Of the Council of His Majesty’s Province of the Massachusetts-Bay aforesaid.

Nathaniel Byfield (1653-1733) is described as “a man of positive traits, dictatorial and overbearing, ambitious and revengeful, yet so sound that no decision of his was ever, upon appeal, reversed by a higher court.” Ironically, he was buried in the Old Granary Burying Ground, so may be buried near the men he condemned.

• Thomas Hutchinson Esq Of the Council of His Majesty’s Province of the Massachusetts-Bay aforesaid.
• John Clark Esq Of the Council of His Majesty’s Province of the Massachusetts-Bay aforesaid.
• Thomas Fitch Esq Of the Council of His Majesty’s Province of the Massachusetts-Bay aforesaid.

Thomas Fitch (1668-1736) was a wealthy merchant and owned part of Boston Common, north of Boylston Street. It’s possible that this included the Great Elm Tree.

• Adam Winthrop Esq Of the Council of His Majesty’s Province of the Massachusetts-Bay aforesaid.

Elisha Cook

• Elisha Cooke Esq Of the Council of His Majesty’s Province of the Massachusetts-Bay aforesaid.

Elisha Cooke (1678-1737) was a physician and politician, a Harvard graduate. He owned the Goat Tavern on King Street and was a heavy drinker, but very popular because he loosened the liquor licensing laws.

Jonathan Belcher

• Jonathan Belcher Esq Of the Council of His Majesty’s Province of the Massachusetts-Bay aforesaid.

Jonathan Belcher (1682-1757) was a wealthy merchant and New England slave trader who served as Governor of Massachusetts Bay and later of both New Hampshire and New Jersey. Belcher had a reputation for exhibiting an abrasive personality, which heightened divisions in New Jersey. Historian Robert Zemsky wrote of Belcher, “[He] was almost a caricature of a New England Yankee: arrogant, vindictive, often impetuous despite a most solemn belief in rational action and calculated maneuver.” He was known to be vindictive, and in personal correspondence with friends, family, and supporters, he used condescending names to refer to his opponents.

Years later, after the English expelled the Acadians in 1755 and confiscated their land, in 1761, Belcher signed a treaty on behalf of the English, and Francis (aka François) Mius, held hostage in 1726, signed as the Chief of the La Heve Tribe at Halifax, Nova Scotia. Given what happened to his brothers, brother-in-law, and nephew at the hands of this man, that must have been a horrifically bittersweet day for François.

• Jonathan Dowse Esq Of the Council of His Majesty’s Province of the Massachusetts-Bay aforesaid.
• Samuel Thaxter Esq Of the Council of His Majesty’s Province of the Massachusetts-Bay aforesaid.
• John Turner Esq Of the Council of His Majesty’s Province of the Massachusetts-Bay aforesaid.

Daniel Oliver

• Daniel Oliver Esq Of the Council of His Majesty’s Province of the Massachusetts-Bay aforesaid.

Daniel Oliver (1663-1732) is buried at the Granary Burying Ground.

• Thomas Palmer Esq Of the Council of His Majesty’s Province of the Massachusetts-Bay aforesaid.
• Edward Hutchinson Esq Of the Council of His Majesty’s Province of the Massachusetts-Bay aforesaid.

Edward Hutchinson (1678-1752) was a merchant, treasurer of Harvard College and the brother of Thomas Hutchinson.

• John Frost Esq one of His Majesty’s Council for the Province New-Hampshire.

John Frost (1681-1732) was an officer in the Royal Navy and commanded a British ship of war.

• John Menzies Esq Judge of the Court of Vice Admiralty.
• Josiah Willard Esq Secretary of the Province of the Massachusetts-Bay aforesaid.

Note that Vice-Admiralty Courts were different than other courts, operating with only one purpose – to resolve disputes between merchants and seamen. Furthermore, jury trials were expressly prohibited and people being prosecuted were presumed guilty until or unless proven innocent. This court was run by British-appointed judges, most of whom were wealthy merchants and politicians.

Proclamation was made by the Cryer of the Court, Commanding all Persons to keep Silence, upon pain of Imprisonment, whilst His Majesty’s Commission for the Trial of Piracies, Felonies and Robberies, was in Reading.

Then His Majesty’s Royal Commission, Founded upon the Statute or Act of Parliament made in the Eleventh and Twelfth Years of the Reign of King William the Third, Entituled, An Act for the more effectual Suppression of Piracy; and made perpetual by an Act of the Sixth Year of King GEORGE, was openly Read, and the Court solemnly and publickly Called and Proclaimed.

After Reading the said Commission, His Honour the President of the Court, took the Oath appointed by the aforesaid Statute, and then Administred the same Oath to the other Commissioners before-named.

And in Regard the afore-mentioned Statute directs, that a Notary Publick shall be Register of this Court, the Honourable Commissioners were pleased to chuse Mr. Samuel Tyley, a Notary Publick, to be Register of the said Court, who was Sworn to the true and faithful Discharge of the said Office of Register.

Afterwards Proclamation was made by the Cryer, for all Persons that could Inform this Court, or the Advocate General, of any Piracies, Felonies or Robberies committed upon the High Seas, within the Jurisdiction of the Admiralty of Great Britain, to come forth and declare it, and they should be heard.

Then Capt. Samuel Doty, Nathaniel Sprague, John Roberts, Silas Cooke and Phillip Sachimus were Called, they being bound over by Recognizance to appear at this Court, to give Evidence on His Majesty’s behalf, concerning Acts of Piracy, Felony and Robbery committed on board the Sloop Tryal, by John Baptist Jedre, alias Laverdure, John Baptist Junior, James Mews, Philip Mews and John Missel; And the said Witnesses being all present, the Court, at the Motion of Robert Auchmuty Esqr. His Majesty’s Advocate General, directed the Register to issue out a Warrant to Arthur Savage Esqr. Marshal of the Admiralty, Requiring him forthwith to bring into Court the said John Baptist Jedre, alias Laverdure, and John Baptist Junior from His Majesty’s Goal in Boston, where they were Committed for the aforesaid Crimes, upon the Accusation of the Kings Witnesses before named.

The Marshal of the Admiralty, pursuant to the Warrant directed and delivered to him by the Register, brought the aforesaid two Prisoners into Court; who were Arraigned at the Bar upon Articles of Piracy, Felony, and Robbery, Exhibited against them by the Advocate General, which were read, and are as followeth, viz.

Province of the Massachusetts-Bay, Suffolk, ss. At a Court of Admiralty for the Trial of Piracies, Felonies and Robberies on the High Seas, within the Jurisdiction of the Admiralty of Great Britain, Held at Boston, within the County of Suffolk, on the fourth Day of October, in the Thirteenth Year of the Reign of our Sovereign Lord GEORGE, of Great Britain, France and Ireland, King, Defendder of the Faith, &c. Anno{que} Domini, 1726.

ARTICLES of Piracy, Felony and Robbery, exhibited by Robert Auchmuty Esq His Majesty’s Advocate General, against John Baptist Jedre, alias Laverdure, and John Baptist Junior.

First, For that the said John Baptist Jedre, alias Laverdure, and John Baptist Junior, Not having the Fear of GOD before their Eyes, but being Instigated by the Devil, on the Twenty Fifth Day of August last, about the Hour of Two in the Afternoon of the said Day, together with James Mews, Philip Mews, John Missel, Indians, and others, in or near Mallegash Harbour, about Thirty Leagues Eastward to the Head of Cape Sables, on the High Seas, and within the Jurisdiction of the Admiralty-Court of Great Britain; with Force and Arms, Piratically and Feloniously, did Surprize, Seize, Take and possess themselves of a Sloop named the Tryal, Samuel Doty Master, Burthen about Twenty Five Tons, & of the Value of Five Hundred Pounds, being the Property of His said Majesty’s good Subjects; and then and there, with Force as aforesaid, the said Master, Nathaniel Sprague, John Roberts and Philip Sachimus, Mariners on Board the said Vessel, and all His said Majesty’s good Subjects, and in the Peace of our said Lord the KING being, did Piratically, and Feloniously, make, hold and detain as their Prisoners on board the said Vessel, for the space of Twenty Hours, or thereabouts.

Secondly, For that said John Baptist Jedre, alias Laverdure, and John Baptist Junior, with others, as aforesaid, and with the like Force as aforesaid, then and there within the Jurisdicton aforesaid, Feloniously and Piratically did Rob, Plunder, and Consume all or the greatest part of the Stores and Provisions belonging to said Vessel, of the Value of One Hundred Pounds; and did Rob, Seize, Take and possess themselves of Clothes, Gold Rings, and Silver Buckles, all of the Value of Fifty Pounds, and the Property of His Majesty’s said Subjects.

Thirdly, For that the said John Baptist Jedre, alias Laverdure, and John Baptist Junior, with others as aforesaid, on board the said Vessel as aforesaid, and within the said Jurisdiction, with Force and Arms as aforesaid, and immediately after the taking the said Vessel as aforesaid, Piratically and Feloniously sail’d in quest of other Vessels, in order them Piratically and Feloniously to Seize, Take and Plunder.

All which said several Acts of Piracies, Felonies and Robberies, were by the said John Baptist Jedre, alias Laverdure, and John Baptist Junior, Done and Committed in Manner as aforesaid, contrary to the Statutes and Laws in such Cases Made and Provided, and to the Peace of our said Lord the King, His Crown and Dignity.

R. Auchmuty, Advoc. Gen.

Upon reading the aforesaid Articles, John Baptist Jedre, alias Laverdure, desired that the same might be interpreted to him and his Son John Baptist Junior in the French Language, for that he the said John Baptist (the Father) did not understand English very well; and his Son was wholly Ignorant of the English Language.

Whereupon Messieurs Peter Lucy and Peter Frazier, both of Boston, Merchants, were Sworn Interpreters between the Court and the Prisoners; and then Interpreted the said Articles to the Prisoners, Article by Article; to which they severally pleaded not Guilty.

Then the Court were pleased to Appoint George Hughes, Gentleman, Attorney at Law, to be Advocate for the Prisoners, who accepted that Trust, and prayed for a Copy of the Articles Exhibited against them, & for a further time to prepare for their Trials; And the Court thereupon was Adjourned to three a Clock in the Afternoon.

Tuesday, October 4th. 1726. At three a Clock post Meridiem. The Court met according to the said Adjournment.

PRESENT, The Honourable WILLIAM DUMMER Esq Lieut. Governour and Commander in Chief of the said Province, President; and all the other Commissioners before-named.

Then the Prisoners were brought to the Bar, and their Advocate having been served with a Copy of the Articles exhibited against them, and prepared for their Trial, the said Articles were read again.

After reading thereof, His Majesty’s Advocate made a Speech to the Court as followed, viz.

MAY it please Your Honour Mr. President, and the Honourable the Commissioners, John Baptist Senior, and John Baptist Junior, the Prisoners at the Bar, stand Articled against for Acts of Piracy, Robbery and Felony, Committed upon the High Seas, within the Jurisdiction of the Admiralty of Great Britain, contrary to the Peace of our Sovereign Lord the King, His Crown and Dignity, and the Statutes in such Cases Made and Provided: To which upon Arraignment, they have severally pleaded Not Guilty.

The Word Pirate, with inconsiderable Variation, is taken from the Greek Substantive Peirates, Praedo Marinus, and therefore a Pirate in a Legal Sense is called a Robber on the High Seas: And under this Consideration I’m humbly of Opinion, the Prisoners at the Bar will evidently appear to your Honours, in the Series of this their Trial: Persons whom the Law with the greatest Propriety justly Terms Pirates. And however others may pride themselves in accurately handling abstruse and knotty Cases; I esteem it my Felicity, that the Articles now exhibited to your Honours, are grounded upon plain and clear Matters of Fact; Facts which proceed from the Rancour and Virulency of their evil Hearts, from a craving Appetite, and an insatiable Thirst after inordinate Gain. And finally, Facts if not now timely Corrected by Your Honours experienced Justice, will most certainly terminate in the breaking up of our Fishery, the most valuable Branch of our New-England Trade. But for as much as I’m sensible Glosses with your Honours pass not for Arguments, or Varnish for Evidence; So I’m well assured, when positive and direct Proofs appear before You in their full Proportion, they will have their Usual and Legal Weight in Your Honours Determination: And therefore upon the Evidences I shall produce on the part of the King, I may reasonably expect in Justice to His Majesty, in Compliance with the Laws of our Land, and in a due and tender Regard to this His Majesty’s Province, and the Safety and Preservation of the Lives and Properties of His Majesty’s most Loyal and Dutiful Subjects in this Government, Your Honour and the Honourable the Commissioners will adjudge the Prisoners at the Bar respectively Guilty of all and every the Articles exhibited against them, &c.

Then the Cryer of said Court was directed by Mr. Advocate to call the King’s Evidences.

Afterwards the Witnesses for our Sovereign Lord the King, Namely, Captain Samuel Doty, Nathaniel Sprague, John Roberts, Silas Cooke, and Philip Sachimus, were Called and Sworn, and severally Deposed as followeth, viz.

Samuel Doty of Plymouth in New-England Mariner, and Master of the Sloop Tryal, Deposeth and Saith, That on Wednesday the 25th Day of August last past, (with the consent of his Men) he put into Malegash Harbour, to Water, & from thence designed to Prosecute their Fishing-Voyage near the Isle of Sables; And seeing John Baptist, the Father, on Shoar, the Deponent haled him, and asked him to come on board. And soon after the Prisoners at the Bar, came on board the Sloop in a Canno, when the Deponent ask’d what News? The said John Baptist Jedre, alias Laverdure, answered there was Peace between the English and Indians, and particularly at Boston, Annapolis, and Causo; And thereupon the said Baptist and the Deponent went into the Cabbin, and left the said John Baptist Junior upon Deck; After the Deponent, and John Baptist had drank together, the Deponent went upon Deck with intent to go ashoar in the Canno, but Baptist’s Son was gone ashoar in it, then the Deponent with the Mate and three more Men, took the Sloops Canno, and went ashoar, leaving the said Baptist on board, with Philip Sachimus, the said Baptist declining to go a Shore with them when ask’d, saying he would Call his Son, and he should carry him on Shore. That some short time after the Deponent and his Men had left the Sloop, the said Baptist called to his Son on Shoar, and spake to him in a Language unknown to the Deponent, and presently John Baptist Junior, with two Indians, namely, James Mews and Philip Mews, went into the said Baptist’s Canno, and after they had got about a Gun shot from the Shore, one of the Indians held up his Gun and Fired it, & called to the Deponent and Company as they stood on the Shoar, saying, You English Men, ask for Quarter; and after the Indians had got on board the Sloop, they took down the English Ensign then flying, which the Deponent perceiving, he then went to the House of Mrs. Giddery, Mother to the said John Baptist, and desired her, with her Son Augustine to go on board the Sloop with him, and intercede with the said Baptist that the Deponent might have his Sloop again. And after some Considerable Time, Mrs. Giddery and her Son went on board with the Deponent, when he the Deponent saw the Ensign girded round Baptist’s middle, and a Pistol tuckt in it, which belonged to one of the Deponents Men, namely John Roberts. At which time there were several more Indians on board the Sloop, who pusht the Deponent about the Vessel, and Evilly treated him; and one of them Attempted to strike him with his Hatchet, but was prevented by another Indian. The Deponent further saith, That towards the Evening, the said John Baptist Jedre ordered him to come to Sail, and to Steer the Sloop Eastward; And the next day early in the Morning, they discovered a Vessel, which they tho’t was an English Vessel, when the said John Baptist and the Indians gave out, that they would go and Kill all the English Men on board, and then the Deponent should have his Sloop again; but she proved to be a French Scooner belonging to Cape Breton, which had been at Malegash the day before the Deponents Sloop arrived there. That when the Scooner appeared in sight, the Prisoners with the Indians, divided the Powder and Shot which belonged to the Sloop, put new Flints into their Guns, cut up the Fishing Leads to make Sluggs for their small Arms, and loaded them with design (as they said) to take the said Scooner, if she had been an English Vessel.

And further the Deponent saith, That afterwards he Steered the Sloop for Mahoon Bay, to the Eastward of Ashpetauget, by Order of the said Baptist, who sometimes Steered himself; And when she was about seven Leagues Eastward of Malegash, the Deponent and his Company having agreed to rise upon the French and Indians, took their Opportunity to do it, soon after they had been at Breakfast, on the 26th. of August, when Baptist and three Indian Men with an Indian Woman and two Children were in the Cabbin; And the Deponent shut the Cabbin-Door upon them; but Baptist hearing the English scuffling with the Indians upon Deck, soon came out of the Cabbin, having burst open the Cabbin-Door, and the Mate struck him down with a Club, and Phillip Sachimus threw him overboard; Soon after the English fired into the Cabbin, and the three Indian Men got out of the Cabbin-Windows into the Sea, in order to Swim on Shoar; and Young Baptist and the other Indians were thrown into the Hold; And after the Prisoners and Indians were subdued, Baptist was taken on board the Sloop again from out of a Canno, which lay astern.

Nathaniel Sprague, Mate of the Sloop Tryal saith, That on the 25th. of August last, he went on Shoar at Malegash with Mr. Doty and others, and left John Baptist and Phillip Sachimus on board the Sloop. That soon after the Deponent got on Shoar, Baptist called to his Son to come on board, as the Deponent believes, (tho’ he spake in Language to him unknown) and thereupon the said Baptist’s Son, with two Indians Armed, put off from the Land in a Canno, and when the Canno was some distance from the Shoar, one of them fired a Gun, and said to the English on Shoar, you English Men call for Quarter, and then the said John Baptist Junior, and the two Indians, viz. James & Philip Mews, went on board the said Sloop. And the Deponent, as he stood on Shoar, saw some of them with Baptist take the Sloop’s Ensign down, and then they fired several small Arms into the Air

The Deponent further saith. That he tarried on Shoar till Mr. Doty called to him from the Sloop▪ and told him he believed the French and Indians would give him good Quarter if he came on board; So the Deponent and Silas Cooke ventured to go on board, and as they came along side the Sloop, several of the People on board presented their Guns at them; Some of them had their Hatchets, and others their Knives, and they haul’d him along the Vessel, and Barbarously treated him; And two Indians afterwards held the Mazzles of their Guns at him with intent, as he thought) to Shoot him, so to escape the danger, he jumpt into the Hold. Soon after the said Baptist called to him, and bid him come out of the Hold, or else he would be killed; So the Deponent came upon Deck, and the said Baptist and others bound him with Lines. That Baptist called himself Skipper of the Sloop, and James Mews an Indian, called himself the Captain of her. The Deponent farther saith, that the next day, viz. the 26th. of August, looking out of the Hold, he saw the said Baptist with his Pistol tuckt through the Sloops Ensign, which was round his Waste, and heard him order Mr. Doty to take the Helm. That young Baptist walked the Deck with his Gun. That the French and Indians eat the Sloops Bread, Butter, Pork, and Sugar, and Drank the Rum and other Liquors which belonged to the English. That after Breakfast, one of the English Men called to the Deponent in the Hold, and told him that there was a good Opportunity to rise upon the French and Indians, there being but three or four of them upon Deck; Whereupon the Deponent came upon the Deck and saw Mr. Doty put to the Cabbin-Door, and then he took hold of one of the Indians, who was too strong for the said Doty, and threw him down. By this time John Baptist Junior, who before was lying down on his Gun, got up with it, but the Deponent struck him down, and Baptist (the Father) hearing the Noise, burst open the half Door of the Cabbin, and came out with the Sloops Ensign round his middle, and a Pistol tuckt in it, and got hold of the Deponent, but he flung the said Baptist a-cross the Gunnel, and Philip Sachimus, (who stood to keep the Cabbin-Door fast) took the said Baptist and threw him over-board: About this time John Baptist Junior cryed for Quarter, yet afterwards got a Fisherman’s Pew, and struck at the Deponent with all his might, but mist his Blow, and only tore the Deponents Shirt; Who then knockt the said Baptist down, and he was thrown into the Sloops Hold, together with Philip and James Mews, and the Hatches were shut down upon them; And three Indians who were in the Cabbin, got out of the Cabbin-Windows in order to Swim on Shoar.

That after the Prisoners were subdued, the Deponent saw Baptist the Father, with two Rings and a pair of Stockings taken from John Roberts; And John Baptist Junior had on Mr. Doty’s Cap.

John Roberts deposeth and saith, That he heard John Baptist when he first came on board the Sloop say, there was Peace. That the Deponent went ashoar with Mr. Doty and his Mate, and soon after saw Philip Mews strike the Colours, that the Deponent tarried on Shoar till the Evening when the Sloop came to Sail.

That when he came on board, the Sloops Colours were round Baptist’s middle, with the Deponents Pistol tuckt thro’ the same, and he saw a Gold Ring belonging to him the Deponent upon the said Baptists Finger. That young Baptist stood over the Scattle with a Musket in his Hand. That he loaded a Pistol, and his Father then took it from him. That Baptist called the Deponent Son of a Bitch, hauled him out of his Hammock upon the Floor, and bid him come up and Steer. The next Morning early they discovered a Scooner, when Baptist consulted with the Indians, and supposing she was an English Vessel, they put new Flints in their Guns, and loaded them, and told the Deponent, that if they took the Scooner, they would Kill the English and keep the Scooner, and then the said Doty and Company should have their Sloop again But the Vessel proved to be a French Scooner, which as the said Baptist said, had been lately at Malegash; Baptist then Ordered the Deponent to Steer for Mahoon Bay: But soon after the Deponent assisted the said Doty and Company in subduing the French and Indians as before is Deposed by him the said Doty and his Mate.

SIlas Cooke Deposeth and saith, That he saw John Baptist Junior with a Gun, which was taken from him, and afterwards one of the English Men fired it into the Cabbin, whereupon three Indian Men got out of the Cabbin Window into the Sea. The Deponent further saith, That he saw the Sloop’s Colours round Baptist’s Waste, with a Pistol tuckt into it, and several times he had another Gun in his Hands. That he Ordered the Deponent to Steer for Mahoon-Bay. That the said Baptist took the Vessel’s Biscake, Butter and Cheese, and made use of the Sugar, Tobacco and Pipes, and divided the Powder, and Young Baptist made Sluggs for the Small Arms, with the Leads of the Fishing Lines belonging to the Sloop.

Philip Sachimus being Called Deposeth and saith, That he heard John Baptist when he first came on board the Sloop, say there was a very good Peace. And afterwards Capt. Doty & his Men went ashoar, and left him the Deponent and Baptist on board. That Mr. Doty ask’d him to go a Shoar, but the said Baptist answered he would Cast his Son. After the English Men got a Shoar Baptist Called to his Son John Baptist, who together with James and Phillip Mews, two Indians, came aboard in a Canno. That Phillip Mews and Baptist (the Father) talk’d together, and James Mews took out his Knife and run after the Deponent and struck at him. That young Baptist pointed a Gun at him, but he can’t tell whether he snapt it or no. That the two Indian afterwards tied the Deponent under the Windless, so he could not see who struck the Colours, but afterwards he saw them round Baptist’s middle. That he saw them take the English Mens Guns. This Deponent saw John Baptist Junior had a Pistol and make Sluggs with the Fishing Leads; he also saw John Roberts his Rings upon Baptist’s Finger, and the French and Indians had the Command of the Sloop the Capt. Do•• and his Company overcame them the next day.

After the Evidences for the King were heard, Mr. George Hughes, Advocate to the Prisoners at the Bar pleaded in their Behalf, in Manuer following, viz.

May it please Your Honour, Mr. President, and the rest of the Honourable Commissioners of this Court:

It is not without Regret that I appear before this Honourable Court in behalf of the Prisoners at the Bar: But the Sense of my Duty, and my real Desire that the World, and more especially their Country men, should be convinced of the fair and impartial Trial they will receive, weigh down all Objections to my appearing for them. And although they may labour under some Inconveniences on Account of their not understanding the English Tongue, yet I take that to be sufficiently made up to them, by the great Candour and Impartiality your Honours have shown in granting them Interpreters and otherwise.

As it is my Province to speak only to Matters of Law, I shall endeavour to perform it as well as the very little time I have had will allow; and waving any Observations upon the Evidences that have been Sworn, humbly beg your Honours Consideration of two Matters, which I conceive worthy thereof. The first of which relates equally to both the Prisoners, the last to John Baptist Junior only.

I am well perswaded there hath been a great peice of Villany lately acted in the Harbour of Malagash, by the seizing and taking of Capt. Doty and his Men and Vessel, in which the Prisoners may have borne their part, but your Honour, and the rest of the Honourable Court, will well distinguish Crimes of different Natures, and not Condemn Persons for Piracy because they may be Guilty of Notorious Robberies or other Crimes, and I submit it to your Honours whether the Prisoners can be adjudged Guilty of Piracy. My Lord Chief Justice Hale in his Plac. Coron. treating of Piracy says,

It extends not to Offences in Creeks or Ports within the Body of a County, because punishable by the Common Law.

Pag. 77. Jacob’s Edition. And says another Book,

If a Pirate enter a Port or Haven, and Assaults and Robs a Merchant-Ship at Anchor there, this is no Piracy, because it is not done Super Altum Mare, but it is a downright Robbery at the Common Law, the Act being infra Corpus Comitatus, Jacob’s Lex Mercat. Pag. 183.

Medio, both which agree with the Definition of Piracy given by my Lord Coke in his Comments upon Littleton, Pag. 291. a. If then it appears to your Honours, (as I think it must by the Evidence) that the Facts charged upon the Prisoners were Committed in an Harbour within the Body of a County: And supposing they were the real Actors thereof, they are not guilty of Piracy, but ought to be tried at the Common Law, as Robbers, by a Jury, and your Honours will acquit them of the Articles now exhibited against them by the Advocate General on His Majesty’s behalf.

But, May it please your Honours, The Case of the young Lad at the Bar, John Baptist Junior, is distinguished from that of his Father, on account of his tender Years; being (as his Father informs me) not fourteen Years of Age; an Age which renders a Person incapable in the Law, of committing any Crime so as to be punished with Death, he being set upon the same Foot with a Mad-man by my Lord Coke upon Litt Pag. 247. b. who says,

That in Criminal Causes, as Felony, &c. the Act and Wrong of a Mad-man shall not be imputed to him, for that in those Causes, Actus non facit reum, nisi Mens fit rea: And he is Amens (id est) sine mente, without his Mind and Discretion, and Furiosus solo furore punitur, A Mad man is only punished by his Madness. And so it is of an Infant, until he be of the Age of Fourteen, which in Law is accounted the Age of Discretion.

It cannot be expected I should produce any Evidence of the Age of this Lad, who was born and educated in the Woods among the Wild and Salvage Indians, where no Register of Births or Burials is kept; he knows not his own Age, but by the Information of his Father, who here declares in publick Court, his Son is but Fourteen this Fall; there is no Evidence to disprove him in this Assertion, and where the Scale is but even, Your Honours will give the Ballance in favour of Life.

Your Honours will likewise be pleased to consider the great Influences a Father hath upon his Son, not only in his Example but Precepts, as corrupt Nature is prone enough to evil; the Perswasions of a Father, or the fear of his Frowns and severe Corrections, back’d with his Example, are strong and powerful Instigators to do Evil.

Upon the whole, I submit the Case of the Prisoners to Your Honours wise Consideration, not in the least doubting of your just and impartial Judgment.

Then the said John Baptist in his own Defence alledged, That the People belonging to the aforesaid French Scooner (who he said had been at Malegash lately to buy Cattle to carry to Cape Breton) prevailed with him to do what he had done; telling him, that it would be the best way in order to get his Son Paul from the English, to take and keep one of their Vessels till they got him out of their Hands.— And further he added, That he had no design to kill any of the English, but hindred the Indians from hurting them with their Knives.

John Baptist Junior pleaded for his Excuse, That what he did was by his Father’s Order, and that the Indians advised him to assist in taking the said Vessel.

Afterwards John Baptist (the Father’s) Examination, taken before Samuel Checkley and Habijah Savage Esqrs. two of His Majesty’s Justices of the Peace, was Read, and is as follows, viz.

The Examination of John Baptist Jedre, alias Laverdure.

THIS Examinant saith, That he lived at Malegash, and that on Wednesday the 25th Day of August last past, a Sloop with English Colours flying, came into the Harbour of Malegash, one Doty Master, and the Examinant and his Son went on board in a Canno; and his Son presently went on Shoar in the Canno. Soon after Mr. Doty and all his Men (except one) went on Shoar in the Sloop’s Canno, to drink some Punch (as they said) at the Examinant’s Mother’s House, and he was asked by Captain Doty to go on Shoar with him, but he saw so many in the Canno, he told the said Doty he would call his Son to fetch him ashoar in his the said Baptist’s Canno, which he went ashoar in: So the Examinant, with an Indian Man called Philip, were left on board the Sloop.— After some time the Examinant called to his Son, who with two Indians came on board the Sloop in a Canno; and after them two Indians more, namely one Jerman and his Son Lewis, came on board in another Canno.— The Examinant saith, That his Brother-in-Law Philip Mews, one of the Indians, struck the Sloop’s Colours, and gave ’em to him, and he tyed ’em round his middle.— That he told the English there was Peace with the Indians; Afterwards another Canno came on board with two Indian Men, a Squaw and two Children. And further the Examinant saith, That the Indian Philip, who was left on board, was tyed soon after the Indians came on board, least he should do them some Mischief, but afterwards they sent him ashoar to tell the Master to come on board. He saith that he saw the Cabbin-Door open, but can’t tell whether it was broke open or no.— That his Son had John Roberts’s Pistol but fell a sleep with it, and so the Examinant took it, and fastened it thro’ his Girdle, that he never fired it, his Hands being weak he had not strength to fire; The Examinant saith his Mother came on board the Sloop, but did not ask the Indians on board, the Reason why they took the Sloop from the English in time of Peace, because she understood some time before, they designed to take what English Vessels they could, notwithstanding the Peace, by way of Reprizals, by Reason the Examinant’s Son Paul, and his Brother-in-Law Francis Mews were detained by the English.

The Examinant further saith, That the French at Louisbourg told the Indians the Peace which was made with the English would not continue long.— The Examinant also saith, That the Indians intended to carry the Sloop to his Plantation; and accordingly James Mews the Indian Captain, ordered the Skipper Doty to weigh Anchor towards the Evening, and set sail for Mohune Bay.— That that Night they dressed some Victuals, that the next Morning early they saw a Scooner, which they supposed at first to be an English Vessel, but when they came near they discovered she was a French Scooner which they had traded with some Days before at Malegash.— That when they first espied her, they Cut up the English Fishing Leads, and beat them into Sluggs, divided among them the English Men’s small Arms, and loaded them with the Sluggs, and the Indians took the English Mens Cloaths & other things, and particularly the Examinant took from the Indians two Gold Rings and a pair of Silver Buckles, which they said they found in the Cabbin in a Handkerchief.— And after Breakfast on the 26th. day of August in the Morning, the English took their Opportunity to rise upon the Indians, when there was but a few of them upon Deck, and the Examinant with three Indian Men, an Indian Woman and her two Children were then in the Cabbin, when the Skipper Doty came from the Helm, and shut the Cabbin Door, but the Examinant opened it, and was no sooner come upon Deck but the Mate knockt him down and threw him over-board, but he took hold of the Sloops Canno which lay astern, and the English took him on board again. The Examinant says, That one of the Indians, who jumpt out of the Cabbin Window into the Sea, had on the Master’s Jacket; And when the Examinant came on board again, the Indian Woman informed him that her Husband and two more Indian Men being in the Cabbin, the English fired two Guns into the Cabbin, and they three got out of the Cabbin Windows, but the Examinant believes they were Drowned, the Sloop then being about four Miles from the Shoar, and the French Scooner bearing away from them, as the Indian Woman told him.

Signum John X Baptist Jedre, alias Laverdure.

Suffolk, ss. Boston, Septemb. 3. 1726.

Taken and Signed before us, Samuel Checkley, Habijah Savage, Just. Pacis.

Stephen Boutineau, Interpreter.

Attest. Samuel Tyley, Not. Pub.

Which Examination was then Interpreted by Messieurs Lucy and Frazier, to the said Baptist, who owned the same to be true.

Then the King’s Advocate. Recapitulated the Evidences, and Replied upon the Prisoner’s Advocate in the following manner.

May it please your Honours,

THE Prisoners at the Bar having nothing further to offer, nor their Advocate for them, I shall therefore with all possible Brevity, discharge the remaining part of my Duty, in closing this Trial, that has thus long exercised your Honours great Patience; and in order to this, I shall in the first Place recount the several principal Facts proved upon the Prisoners, and as I humbly conceive, unquestionably maintain my Charge against them, and lastly consider the Defence made by their Advocate for them. The Matters of Fact appear so Full and Irresistable, that neither the Prisoners themselves attempt to falsify them, or even to suggest any colourable Argument for their Extenuation: And are such, that were they committed upon the High Sea, their Advocate concedes would clearly amount to Piracy.

And therefore I shall only summarily Mention to your Honours, that besides the general Evidence against the Prisoners, of their Aiding, Assisting, Concurring and Assenting with others in the Taking, Robbing and Plundering the Sloop Tryal, mentioned in the Articles, it’s proved particularly upon the Prisoners, they were the first that entered the said Vessel: That Baptist the Father, under a pretence of going ashoar in his Son’s Canno, prevailed on the Master to leave him aboard; and to give the greater Terror to His Majesty’s Subjects, and Aggrandize himself, he made a Sash of the Ensign, and therein tuckt Roberts’s Pistol, assuming the Name of Skipper, ordered Mr. Doty to come to sail, and to steer the Sloop Eastward; and when a Scooner appeared in sight, he and his Son, with others, divided the Powder and Shot belonging to the Vessel, new flinted their Guns, converted the Fishing-Leads into Sluggs, and therewith loaded their Small-Arms: That he helped with others to bind the Mate of said Vessel, and also piratically robbed Roberts of two Rings and a pair of Stockings, and was active in consuming and destroying the Vessel’s Provisions and Stores.

The Facts proved upon John Baptist Junior, the other Prisoner, are for the most the same in Substance; more especially that he was originally let into the Secret, for when the Canno was but not half way in her return to the Sloop, then it was that a Gun was fired into the Air, and the English were required to cry for Quarters. That he was not only the Person confided in for bringing about their wicked Designs, but that he had so well executed that part that was judged the most Trusty, that he was left to stand Gentry over the Arms: That he charged his Father’s Pistol; was Armed with a Gun; had on him a Cap, the Property of one of the Men belonging to the Sloop; And finally, with a Fisherman’s Pew made several attempts to destroy Sprague, even after he had Quarters given. All which in the Law amount to several Acts of Piracy.

From whence it evidently appears, that the Articles in respect to Matters of Fact, are fully proved upon the Prisoners; but whether such Facts amount to Piracy at Sea, or Robbery at Land, in Point of Law, remains a Question; which naturally leads me to the Consideration of those Points in Law offered by the Prisoner’s Advocate in their Defence.

And First, he argues, that the Vessel when seized and taken by the Prisoners and others, was at an Anchor in the Port of Malegash, near the Land, and Infra Corpus Comitatus, and therefore is only Robbery at the Common Law.

If a Pirate enters a Port or Haven, and Assaults and Robs a Merchant-Ship at Anchor there, this is no Piracy,* because it’s not done Super Altum Mare, but a down right Robbery at the Common Law, and the Anonimous Author for this quotes Moor, 756.

In Answer, the Case is not truly given us by that Author, as reported by Sir Francis Moor; neither is the Author in putting said Case consistent with himself; for his following Words are,

And if the Crime be committed either Super Altum Mare, or in great Rivers within the Realm, which are looked upon as Common High-Ways, then it is Piracy.

Which plainly militates with what the Author immediately before asserted for Law. But to return to the Case in Moor’s Reports; the first Question there put by the Lord Chancellour to all the Judges was, If the Clergy extended to Piracy, upon an Arraignment on the Stat. 28. H. 8. And Resolved, It did not, unless the Piracy was done in a Creek or other River, in which the Common Law before the Stat. had Jurisdiction; and not if it was done in Alto Mari, and out of the Body of the County. And these Words, In which the Common Law before the Stat. had Jurisdiction, fully imply, since the Stat. the Common Law has not Jurisdiction. And the Words of the Stat. are,

All Treasons, Felonies, Robberies, &c. Committed in or upon the Sea, or in any other Haven, River, Creek or Place where the Admiral hath, or pretends to have Power, Authority, or Jurisdiction, &c.

My Lord Coke thereupon Comments thus;

These Words,* says he, (Or pretends to have, &c.) are thus to be understood: Between the High-Water Mark and Low-Water Mark: For tho’ the Land be Infra Corpus Commitatus at the Re-flow; yet when the Sea is full, the Admiral hath Jurisdiction super aquam, as long as the Sea flows.

Now the Place where the Seizing and piratically Taking the Vessel in the Articles, was in the Port of Malegash, where the Sea is always full, and consequently within the Admiral’s Jurisdiction. But the Books make a further distinction between Creeks, Ports and Havens, actually challenged as part of the Bodies of Counties,* and from whence a Jury may come. And Ports, Creeks and Havens, that are out of every County, from whence no Jury can come, the former appertains (as is said) to the Jurisdiction of the Common Law Courts, the latter confessedly to the Admiralty. But if all Ports, Creeks and Harbours are generally and without this Distinction, out of the Admiralty’s Jurisdiction, then these Words of the Stat. 28. H. 8.

Upon the Sea, or in any other Haven, Creek, or other Place where the Admiral hath, or pretends to have Power, &c. would be Vain and Idle, as also the Words of the Stat. of the 12, 13. W. 3. Ch. 7 which say,

All Piracies. &c. Committed upon the Sea, or in any Haven, Creek or Place where the Admiral hath Jurisdiction, &c.

All which clearly shews, that there are such Havens, Rivers and Creeks where the Legislature supposes the Admiral to have Jurisdiction; and which most indisputably are such Havens, Rivers and Creeks, that (in my Lord Coke’s Words) are out of every County, and from whence no Jury can come; which is the Circumstance of the Port where this Vessel was piratically taken by the Prisoners. But what silences all Arguments of this Nature, in respect to the Admiralty’s Jurisdiction in Ports, Creeks and Havens, touching Acts of Piracy, and removes all Pleas of this sort, are the Words of the Stat. 8. K. G. Ch. 24. Sect. 1.

And if any Person belonging to any Ship or Vessel whatsoever, upon meeting any Merchant-Ship upon the High Seas, or in any Port, Haven or Creek whatsoever, shall forcibly Board and Enter into such Ship, and tho’ they do not seize and carry her off, shall throw over-board or destroy any part of the Goods or Merchandizes belonging to such Ship, the Persons guilty thereof, shall be deemed and punished as Pirates:

And therefore I shall rest this part of the Prisoner’s Defence, and proceed to the Consideration of the other Point of Law offered by their Advocate, and Calculated for John Baptist Junior, namely, That he was at the time of the taking the said Vessel, an Infant under the Age of Fourteen, not sui juris, and by Law no Act of Piracy or Felony can be imputed to him.

To which I answer, The Gentleman is wrong in his Hypothesis, as by Evidentiâ Personae; neither did the Father or any other pretend to say the Prisoner was under the Age of Fourteen. And for as much as such a Special Defence is to exempt the Party from the Punishment of a General Statute, it’s incumbent upon the Gentleman to make Legal Evidence of the Fact relied upon. But my Lord Hale, under Murther, says,

An Infant within the Age of Discretion,* kills a Man, no Felony; as if he be Nine or Ten Years old: But if by Circumstances it appeareth he could distinguish between Good and Evil, it is Felony; as if he hide the Dead, make Excuses, &c.

That the Pirates looked upon this John Baptist Junior as a Person capable of distinguishing, is evident by committing the greatest Trust and Charge unto him, namely, the Guard over the Arms; and that he could distinguish between Good and Evil, is plain, when he cry’d for Quarters, and afterwards when he thought himself sufficiently armed with a Fisherman’s Pew, attempted the Destruction of Sprague, thereby as far as in him lay, preventing the regaining of the Vessel: By all which, and by many more incident Matters of Fact that turned out in the Evidence, it clearly appears he was a free Agent, and capable of making Legal Distinctions. And for as much as there is no Discrimination in respect to the Crimes charged upon the Prisoners, as Your Honour values the preservation of the Laws of the Land, the Lives and Properties of His Majesty’s Subjects, and would studiously avoid any fatal Consequence that may attend an illegal Acquittal; I hope there will be as little distinction in respect to their Sentence, but that Your Honour will justly pronounce them equally Guilty.

The Advocate General having Concluded, the Court was cleared; and after mature and deliberate Consideration of what the King’s Witnesses Deposed, the Prisoners Defence made by themselves and their Advocate, together with the Replication of the Advocate General, the Court voted Unanimously, that the said John Baptist Jedre, alias Laverdure, and John Baptist Junior, are severally Guilty of Piracy, Felony and Robbery, according to the Articles Exhibited against them.

Then they were brought to the Bar again, and the President pronounced the said John Baptist Jedre, alias Laverdure, and John Baptist junior severally Guilty. — Whereupon the Advocate on Behalf of His Majesty moved, that Sentence might be given against them according to Law. Then they were severally askt if they had any thing further to say why Sentence of Death should not be pronounced against them, and they Alledging nothing but what was offered before in their behalf on their Tryal, the President pronounced Sentence against them severally in the words following, viz.

You— are to go from hence to the place from whence you came, and thence to the place of Execution, there to be hanged up by the Neck until you are Dead, and the Lord have Mercy upon your Soul.

After Sentence was given against the Prisoners, the Marshal of the Admiralty was Ordered to remand and keep them in safe Custody within His Majesty’s Goal in Boston.

Then the Court was Adjourned to Wednesday, the fifth day of October Current, at ten a Clock in the Forenoon.

Next, Prosecution of the Mews Men

The father and son pair, John Baptist Jedre dit Laverdure and his son by the same name were prosecuted, followed by the Mews men and John Missel as found in the admiralty court record.

Wednesday October the fifth 1726. ten a Clock Ante Meridiem.

PRESENT, All the Commissioners before-named.

The Court being opened by Proclamation, the King’s Advocate moved, That James Mews, Philip Mews and John Missel, three Indians, who were imprisoned for Acts of Piracy, Felony and Robbery, might be brought to the Bar, to Answer to Articles exhibited against them for those Crimes. And accordingly, the Marshal of the Admiralty in Obedience to a Warrant to him directed, brought them into Court, and they were Arraigned at the Bar, upon the said Articles, which were read, and are as followed, viz.

Province of the Massachusetts-Bay, Suffolk, ss. At a Court of Admiralty for the Trial of Piracies, Felonies and Robberies on the High Seas, within the Jurisdiction of the Admiralty of Great Britain, Held at Boston, within the County of Suffolk, on the fourth Day of October, in the Thirteenth Year of the Reign of our Sovereign Lord GEORGE, of Great Britain, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &c. Anno{que} Domini, 1726.

ARTICLES of Piracy, Felony and Robbery, exhibited by Robert Auchmuty Esq His said Majesty’s Advocate General, against Philip Mews, James Mews and John Missel, Indians.

First, For that the said Philip Mews, James Mews, and John Missel, not having the Fear of GOD before their Eyes, but being Instigated by the Devil, on the Twenty Fifth Day of August, last, about the Hour of Two in the Afternoon of the said Day, together with John Baptist Jedre, alias Laverdure, John Baptist Junior, and others, in or near Malegash Harbour, about Thirty Leagues Eastward to the Head of Cape Sables, on the High Seas, and within the Jurisdiction of the Admiralty-Court of Great-Britain; with Force and Arms, Piratically and Feloniously, did Surprize, Seize, Take and possess themselves of a Sloop named the Tryal, Samuel Doty Master, Burthen about Twenty Five Tons, and of the Value of Five Hundred Pounds, being the Property of His said Majesty’s good Subjects; and then and there, with Force as aforesaid, the said Master, Nathaniel Sprague, John Roberts and Philip Sachimus, Mariners on Board the said Vessel, and all His said Majesty’s good Subjects, and in the Peace of our said Lord the KING being; did Piratically, and Feloniously, Make, Hold and Detain as their Prisoners on board the said Vessel, for the space of Twenty Hours, or thereabouts.

Secondly, For that the said Philip Mews, James Mews, and John Missel, with others as aforesaid, and with the like Force as aforesaid, then and there, within the Jurisdiction aforesaid, Feloniously and Piratically did Rob, Plunder and Consume all, or the greatest part of the Stores and Provisions belonging to said Vessel, and of the Value of One Hundred Pounds; and did Rob, Seize, Take and possess themselves of Clothes, Gold Rings, and Silver Buckles, all of the Value of Fifty Pounds, and the Property of His Majesty’s said Subjects.

Thirdly, For that the said Philip Mews, James Mews, and John Missel, with others as aforesaid, on board the said Vessel as aforesaid, and within the said Jurisdiction, with Force and Arms as aforesaid, and immediately after the taking the said Vessel as aforesaid, Piratically and Feloniously sail’d in quest of other Vessels, in order them Piratically and Feloniously to Seize, Take and Plunder.

All which said Acts of Piracies, Felonies and Robberies, were by the said Philip Mews, James Mews, and John Missel, Done and Committed in Manner as aforesaid, contrary to the Laws and Statutes in such Cases Made and Provided, and to the Peace of our said Lord the KING, His Crown and Dignity.

R. Auchmuty, Advoc. Gen.

Then Captain John Gyles was Sworn Interpreter, between the Court and the Prisoners at the Bar, and Interpreted the said Articles to them in the Indian Language, Paragraph by Paragraph, to which they pleaded severally, not Guilty.

And Mr. George Hughes, who was appointed by the Court to be Advocate for the Prisoners, prayed that he might have a Copy of the Articles Exhibited against them, and time allowed to prepare for their Defence, and that the said Captain Gyles the Interpreter might be with them. To which the Court consented, and Ordered that their Tryal should come on in the Afternoon at three a Clock, to which time the Court was Adjourned.

October the fifth, three a Clock Post Meridiem.

The Court met according to the said Adjournment.

PRESENT, All the Commissioners afore-named.

The Prisoners, viz. James Mews, Philip Mews, and John Missel, were brought to the Bar, and the Articles exhibited against them (which their Advocate was served with a Copy of) were read again.

Then the Witnesses for our Sovereign Lord the King, Namely, Samuel Doty, Nathaniel Sprague, John Roberts, Silas Cooke and Philip Sachimus were called and Sworn, and severally Deposed as follows, viz.

Samuel Doty saith, That on the 25th. day of August last, two of the Prisoners, viz. Philip Mews and James Mews, together with John Baptist Junior, went on board the Deponent’s Sloop in Baptist’s Canno Armed, and about a Gun shot from the Shoar, one of them held up his Gun and fired, and said to the said Deponent and his Company, then standing on the Bank, Now you English Men call for Quarter: And soon after they got on board the Sloop, they took down her Ensign, and fired a volley with their small Arms. That about a Quarter of an Hour afterwards, John Missel with three more Indians went aboard.

That sometime afterwards, when the Deponent went on board, James Mews, one of the Prisoners took the Deponents Hat from him, and spake to him in English saying, Now I am Captain of the Vessel, do you call your Men a board, or I’le send ashoar presently and kill them all.

That James Mews told the Deponent there was Peace Proclaimed between the English and Indians; but the said Mews said he never would make Peace with the English, for the Governour of Boston kept his Brother, and he would Burn the Sloop and keep the Goods till his Brother was sent home.

That afterwards when the Deponent’s Mate came on board, two of the Prisoners, viz. James Mews and Philip Mews, took hold of him and dragg’d him upon the Deck, threatning to kill him; and also told the Deponent that he would go on Shoar, and kill the rest of his Men that were there, unless he called them an board; and soon after they got on board, the Vessel came to sail by Baptist’s Order, and the said Philip and James Mews hoisted up the Anchor.— That the said Philip Mews searched the Deponent’s Pockets afterwards, and tools seventeen Shillings from him.— That John Baptist for the most part Ordered the Deponent what Course to Steer; Captain James Mews, as he called himself, having got Drunk.

That all the Prisoners in their turns, draw’d the Rum which belonged to the English Men; Drank plentifully, and eat of the Sloop’s Cheese, Butter and other Provisions.— And lighted a great Number of Candles, which were burning all Night— That the next Morning they saw a Scooner which was supposed to be an English Vessel, and all the Prisoners (except James Mews who was then in Drink) divided the English Mens Arms, Powder and Shot, put new Flints into their Guns, and made ready to fight the English on board the said Vessel; John Missel in particular charged his Gun, but when they came up with her, they discovered she was a French Scooner belonging to Cape Breton, that had lately been at Malegash for Cattle, as the Deponent understood. Then John Baptist Ordered the Deponent to Steer for Mahoon-Bay, near his Plantation — But soon after the English perceiving that Baptist, and three Indian Men were in the Cabbin, that James Mews and John Baptist Junior were asleep upon Deck, and that John Missel was a Fishing, and Philip Mews only was walking on the Deck, who with the said Baptist were Ordered to stand as a Guard over the English, they took this Opportunity to rise, and made themselves Masters of the Vessel, three of the Indians having jumpt over board out of the Cabbin Windows, and others being thrown from the Deck into the Hold.

That John Missel helpt to seize the Mate when he first went on board, and was as Active afterwards as the rest of the Indians upon all Occasions.— That the Indians struck the Mate several blows, hauled him by the Head and Shoulders, and threatned to kill him with their Hatchets and Knives which they held in their Hands.

Nathaniel Sprague Deposeth and saith, That on the 25th. of August last, when he got on Shoar it Malegash, he saw the three Prisoners now at the Bar, with other Indians on Shoar, and asked them what News, the said James and Philip Mews answered there was a very good Peace. The Deponent ask’d the Indians how they knew ’twas Peace? Philip Mews answered that the Penobscut and Cape Sable Indians had lately been at Annapolis with the Governour, who informed them he had made Peace with the Indians.— That the Deponent heard John Baptist on board the Sloop call to his Son on Shoar, who soon after with James and Philip Mews went Armed in a Canno towards the Sloop. That one of them fired a Gun, and said to the English on Shoar: You English Men call for Quarter, and then went on board the Sloop, and he saw one of them take up an Ax and break open the Cabbin Door; then two of them went into the Cabbin; afterwards they struck the Colours, and discharged their small Arms.— That afterwards the Deponent saw two Cannos with Indians in them go on board the Sloop.— And some time after they sent on Shoar an Indian belonging to the Sloop, namely Philip Sachimus, to tell the English to come on board and they would give ’em good Quarter; but if they would not come on board, to inform them they should all be killed. Whereupon the said Mr. Doty went on board.— And afterwards the said Doty called to the Deponent and Silas Cooke, and told them there were two Indians on Shoar would kill ’em, if they did not come on board; so they went on board, and some of the Indians stampt on the Deponent, others hauled him about, and held their Hatchets over his Head, threatning to kill him; but others came to his help— And particularly James Mews (one of the Prisoners at the Bar) threatned to kill him, and would have taken away his Life, (as this Deponent believes) had not another Indian Interposed. Afterwards the Deponent got into the Hold, where he had not been long, before some of the Company bid him come upon Deck, and threatned if he did not they would cut him all to peices, so he went upon Deck, when James Mews and other Indians kickt him, and struck him several blows.— That Philip Mews stood by when Baptist bound him. And James Mews held a Knife to his▪ Throat, and told him he would be the Death of him; And once Swore at him, saying, God Dam your Blood, you shall not live a Minute longer, and struck at him with his Knife, but another Indian Interposed, and while they were striving together the Deponent got from them.

The Deponent further saith. That he saw the said James Mews have a Gold Ring, a pair of Silver Shoe-Buckles, and a Neckcloth belonging to John Roberts, and Philip Mews had a pair of Trowzers belonging to another of Mr. Doty’s Men.

That when the English rose upon the French and Indians, James Mews was on the Windless, Philip was near him, and John Baptist Junior was lying upon or near his Gun.— Missel was on the Deck with a Gun in one Hand, and a Fishing line in the other, a Fishing.

That the Deponent saw Mr. Doty leave the Helm, and put to the Cabbin Door, and he took hold of Philip Mews Gun, but he flung Mr. Doty on the Floor, then Roberts and Cooke went to the said Doty’s Assistance; John Missel in the Interim went to the Cabbin Door, and endeavoured to open it, but was hindred by an Indian belonging to Mr. Doty, viz. Philip Sachimus, who stood by the Door; But Baptist got out at the Cabbin Door, and was soon thrown over board— The Deponent further saith, That John Missel, with a Gauft struck the Deponent, and tried to haul him into the Hold with it, but the Deponent having a Fisherman’s Pew in his Hand, struck at the said Missel, who fell backward, and so escaped the blow.

John Roberts Deposeth and saith, That when he went ashoar at Malegash, he saw the three Prisoners, with three other Indians and two French Men, and the Deponent shook Hands with Philip Mews, and ask’d him whether there was Peace? He answered (in the hearing of other Indians) there was a good Peace, and that now the English and Indians were all one Brothers. That afterwards the said James and Philip Mews and Young Baptist put off from the Shoar in a Canno, and some distance from the Shoar one of them fired a Gun, and bid the English call for Quarter. That the Deponent afterwards saw them go aboard the Sloop, and James Mews with an Ax cut open the Cabbin Door, and Philip Mews and John Baptist struck the Colours.— That the Deponent with Philip Sachimus, and another Indian belonging to the Sloop, returned on board the Sloop when she was under Sail going out of the Harbour, about eight a Clock at Night.— That when he got on board, Philip Mews and John Missel, two of the Prisoners, took hold of him, and thrust him into the Fore-castle.

That afterwards James Mews called him Son of a Bitch, struck him several blows, and threatned to kill him.— That Philip Mews stood Century with the Deponent’s Gun.— That James Mews had the Deponent’s Ring, a pair of Buckles and a Handkerchief.— That John Missel, in his turn, stood Century with his Gun.— That Philip Mews took a Plush pair of Breeches, and a pair of Trowzers from him.

That Baptist order’d the Deponent to go to James Mews for Bread, who took up a Bag with the Bisket in it, and beat him round the Cabbin, calling him Son of a Bitch, &c.

That Philip Mews told the Deponent, when they saw the Scooner which they took for an English Vessel, that they would kill the English and give Mr. Doty and his Men their Sloop again.

SIlas Cooke Deposeth and saith, That the Shot and Powder belonging to the English was divided by Missel and others; And afterwards when they went in quest of another Vessel, he shew’d his Satisfaction at it.

Philip Sachimus Deposeth and saith, That Philip and James Mews came by him with a Knife when they first came on board the Sloop, and tyed him, and threw him before the Windless. And broke open the Sloop’s Cabbin Door, and afterwards assisted in carrying the said Sloop away.—— And that John Missel stood Century upon Deck with a Gun.

Then the Examination of the Prisoners taken upon their first Arrival at Boston, before Samuel Checkley and Habijah Savage Esqrs. two of His Majesty’s Justices of the Peace, were read to the Prisoners in the words following, viz.

The Examination of James Mews.

James Mews, Indian, Examined saith, That he lived at Malegash, that about twelve or thirteen days agone, he with five more Indians bought of the French there a Bottle of Rum, and were going over a carrying place when John Baptist and others called to them, and told them there was an English Vessel coming into the Harbour of Malegash, and the said Baptist and his Son John, his Brothers Paul and Gold, and his Son in Law Augustine, all living at Malegash, gave the Examinant and the other five Indians a Bottle of Rum, and over perswaded them to turn back and go on board the Sloop, and told them, now was their time to get Provisions.— The Examinant further saith, That the said John Baptist and his Son went first aboard the Sloop, which had English Colours, and struck the Colour or Ensign, and tied it round his middle: That afterwards the Examinant with Salmon and Lewn went aboard in one Canno; and three more Indians, viz. Missel, Philip and Marsel, went aboard in another Canno; and sometime after Marsel went on Shoar again, and brought his Squaw and two Children on board the Sloop; and after them a French Woman with the English Master of the Sloop, and a French Man went aboard the Sloop: That the Indians told the English that no Harm should come to them after they got on board.— The Examinant saith, that when he first went on board the Sloop, there was an Indian belonging to the Sloop, tied, but he was soon set at liberty; that two of the three Indians that got out at the Cabbin Windows help’d to weigh the Anchor, and gave Orders to carry the Sloop round the Point to the Indian Wigwams.— That the next Morning after the Sloop was taken, he went to Breakfast, and Drank so much that he knows not how the English overcame the French and Indians on board; but when he came to be sober, he found himself bound in the Hold of the Sloop, and he was kept tied till he came to Boston in the Sloop. The Examinant further saith, That about a Month ago he was at Menis (Minas), where there were near two hundred Indians with the French Fryar, who came together to say Prayers, and then they scattered themselves about the Country; the French told the Indians that there was no Peace then, and bid the Indians, if they met any English Men, to take them. Since which time he hath been at Menis twice from Malegash, where he had been, at times, about thirteen days, and most of the French at Menis, when he was there last, told him there was no Peace, and that the Indians might take the English Vessels as they did formerly.— But at the same time some few of the French there, told him that there was Peace.— He heard the Fryar say there was no Peace, and the Indians said be must be gone, if there be a Peace, because he has been very much for War.— He knows of no Feast or Consultation at Malegash, between the French and Indians, to take any English Vessels there by way of Reprizals.

James Mews,his X Mark.

Suffolk, ss. Boston, Septemb. 5th. 1726.

Taken and Signed before us, Samuel Checkley, Habijah Savage, Just. Pacis.

John Gyles, Interpreter.

Attest. Samuel Tyley, Not. Pub.

The Examination of Philip Mews.

Philip Mews being Examined, saith, That he lived at Malegash, and came from thence about fourteen Days agone.— That he was at Malegash when Captain Doty’s Sloop arrived there. That he went on board in a Canno with two Persons, viz. his Brother James Mews, and Baptist’s Son, John Baptist Junior, and found Baptist (the Father) on board, and one Indian Man, belonging to the Sloop.— He says the Indians were perswaded by the French to go on board the first Vessel they saw, and take one half the Company of English and keep them Prisoners, and send ‘tother half with the Vessel to Boston; for otherwise if they did not, the French at Menis, and also Indians that came from Cape Breton, told the Examinant, that the English would not deliver up the Indian Prisoners. That two of the Indians who jumpt over board, Advised the Examinant when they saw the Sloop to go on board, and Baptist called to him and the other Indians, to make haste and come on board.— The Indians before they went aboard, had Rum of Mr. Gold, and drank it near his House, and three of them got Drunk; and as they were going to their Wigwams, they saw Mr. Doty’s Sloop coming into the Harbour of Malegash, and then the French at Malegash, viz. Baptist, and two of the Indians that jumpt over board, perswaded the Indians to go on board the Sloop, which then had Red Colours, such as English Men wear.— That Salmon when he come on board, said he wou’d cut the Colours to peices, but Baptist and the Examinant took ’em down, and Baptist tyed ’em round his middle. That James Mews was present, and bid ’em take care that the Indians did not cut ’em to peices.— Old Salmon’s Son tyed Philip the Indian belonging to the Sloop. That the Drunken Indians fired several Guns up into the Air, tho’ the Examinant desired them not to fire — That he went down the Hold and loosed the Mate in the Hold, and also loosed the Indian that belonged to the Sloop who was bound, which made the Drunken Indians angry with him, and they struck him for doing so.— That he assisted in hauling up the Anchor with another Indian now in Prison, called John, alias Attaw•n, (and one English Man) and Sailed round a great Neck in order to go to their Wigwams, where they intended to keep three of the English Men, and send the rest away to Boston in the Sloop. The next Morning they saw a Scooner, which proved to be the French Vessel they had been on board some days before▪ The Indians prepared to meet ’em, and loaded their Arms; and the Drunken Indians said, if she had been an English Vessel, they would have taken her, but the sober Indians said one Vessel was eno’ to take.— That the Examinant had none of the Ammunition, and was careful that so the English might loose nothing.— That James had a Gold Ring, and afterwards returned it to the English. That Lewis had the Silver Buckles, and they were returned to the English after they took their Vessel again; The Examinant saw Baptist have a pair of the English Mens Stockings; Salmon had a Wastcoat, and Marsel had a pair of Breeches.— That when the English rose up against the Indians, the Examinant was on Deck, and Baptist’s Son and the Examinants Brother were asleep. That there were three Indian Men, a Woman and two Children in the Cabbin, besides Baptist, who was coming out, and an English Man knockt him down and threw him over board: That the Examinant had several blows. That three Indians went out of the Cabbin Window about a Mile from the Shoar, and the French Scooner was near, and two Cannos astern were a drift, so he believes they were not Drowned.— That Baptist said one Vessel was enough to take.

Signum Philip 〈☐〉 Mews.

Suffolk, ss. Boston Septemb. 5th. 1726.

Taken and Signed before us, Samuel Checkley, Habijah Savage, Just. Pacis.

John Gyles, Interpreter.

Attest. Samuel Tyley. Not. Pub.

The Examination of John Missel.

John Missel Examined saith, That he formerly lived at Seckenecto, that two Years agone he lived at Menis, and this Summer, viz. about a Month ago he came from Menis to Malegash, where he was when Mr. Doty’s Sloop arrived in that Harbour. As the Indians sat on the Bank, they saw the Sloop come in. Mr. Baptist and his Son first went on board the Sloop.— Baptist’s Son came on Shoar, and talk’d with the Indians as they were going over a carrying place, but he was at some distance, so don’t know what was said.— Then James Mews and his Brother Philip wert on board with Baptist’s Son; before which time the English were come on Shoar in their Canno.— That he and Salmon, with a Squaw and two Children went on board in a Canno, being first called upon by Baptist to come on board.— That James Mews or Baptist hail’d the Indians on Shoar, and told ’em they had taken the Vessel, and bid ’em come on board; When they called, Baptist and Philip took the Colours down; and when he came on board, Baptist tyed ’em round his middle. He knows not who tied the Indian belonging to the Sloop.— That when it was Evening, the English came on board.— That the French made a Prisoner of the Master Doty, at an Old Woman’s House, and she with her Son and the Master went on board together. That James Mews said, lets come to Sail, and gave orders to hoist the Anchor, and Marsel and Lewis help’d to weight it with Salmon. They were to go to Baptist’s Plantation round the Point. The next day in the Morning early they saw a Vessel, which proved to be a Vessel which the French said they saw some days before.— Some of the Indians fitted their Arms, saying, that if it was an English Vessel they believ’d she would fight ’em, seeing the Indians had taken the Sloop.—— That Baptist perswaded them to carry the Sloop round towards his Plantation, but soon after Breakfast was over, some of them were Drunk, and he and Philip were Fishing, and three Indian Men and the Squaw and two Children, with John Baptist, were in the Cabbin, and the Skipper shut the Cabbin Door upon ’em; that the English were all upon Deck, and struck him down, that James and Baptist’s Son were asleep forward.—

That the said Baptist came out of the Cabbin, and was knockt down and thrown over board, the English fired into the Cabbin, and three Indians thereupon got out of the Cabbin Windows; there was one Canno adrift, which the Indians tryed to get into, but the Canno oversat; ’twas not far from the French Vessel, but he believes the People on board did not see the Indians; ’twas about a Mile from the Shoar, and he believes they were Drowned — He had his share of the English’s Powder and Shot, but he had no Gun.— He heard the Indians had been at Port-Royal, and heard some of them say that there was Peace with the English and Indians. But he heard some of the Indians say they wondred that if there was Peace, they did not bring the Indian Prisoners from Boston.

Signum John 〈☐〉 Missel.

Suffolk ss. Boston Septemb. 5th. 1726.

Taken and Signed before us, Samuel Checkley, Habijah Savage, Just. Pacis.

John Gyles, Interpreter.

Attest. Samuel Tyley, Not. Pub

After Reading the above Examinations, the Prisoners were severally Askt whether the same were true? And altho’ their Advocate advised them, that they were not obliged to own in Court, what they owned before the Justices aforesaid; Yet they severally acknowledged that their Examinations were true.

Then was Read the Ratification made the fourth day of June last, at His Majesty’s Fort of Annapolis-Royal, of the Articles of Peace stipulated by the Delegates at Boston, the fifteenth day of December foregoing, (which Articles were also Read) in behalf of the Penobscot, Narridgwalk, Saint John’s, Cape Sables, and other Indian Tribes belonging to, and Inhabiting within His Majesty’s Territories of Nova-Scotia, &c. And by Major Paul Mascarene, Commissioner for the Province of Nova-Scotia, in behalf of His Majesty.

Afterwards the Prisoners being ask’d whether they had seen any of the Indians that were at the Ratification of the Peace at Annapolis? They answered, they had been in Company with several of the Indians, whose Names were subscribed to the said Ratification; And particularly James Mews owned, that about twenty days before the said Doty’s Sloop was taken, he was in Company with Antoin, one of the Chiefs of the Indians at Menis, and about eight or ten days afterwards, he saw Indian Simon, who used to carry Letters from Menis, &c. to Annapolis-Royal, and was present, as he understood, at the Negotiation of the Peace; and the said James and Philip Mews, both signified to the Court their belief that Antoin was at Annapolis treating of the Peace; and they also owned, that they lately saw Captain Walker, alias Piere, one of the Chiefs of the Indians at or near Malegash and Sabuckatook, who was at Annapolis at the Treaty; and that his Brother Catouse was returned from thence, since the Ratification of the Peace.

Then the Prisoners Advocate made his Pleas in their Defence, in the following manner, viz.

I Now a second Time appear before Your Honour, Mr. President, and the rest of the Honourable Commissioners of this Court, in behalf of some Persons accused of Piracy: Who tho’ they be Indians, have and will experience so much Candour and Indulgence from this Court, as must convince even the barbarous and Salvage Tribes to which they belong, of Your great Justice and Impartiality. Your Honours, I doubt not, are sensible I am not send of this Office: But my Duty to Your Honour, and the Honourable Court, and desire that nothing may be neglected, which in Justice to the Prisoners ought to be declared, engage me in this Affair.

I humbly submit it to Your Honours, Whether at the Time the Facts they are accused of, are laid to be committed, they were not Enemies, or in a State of War with us: ‘Tis true it appears, that the Ratification of the Peace between His Majesty’s Government of Annapolis-Royal, and the Cape Sable Indians, was made at Annapolis on the fourth of June last; but that regards that Government only; and the Covenant on the part of the Indians, that they not commit Hostilities, &c. extends to the Inhabitants of that Province only. The Vessel seized at Malegash, in which the Evidences for the King were, belongs to His Majesty’s Subjects of this Province: And the Prisoners declare, that at the Time of the taking Capt. Doty and his Vessel, they neither knew or heard of the Ratification of the Peace between this Province and the Indians at Cas••; but on the contrary, were informed even by English men, as well as French, among the latter of which, were (as they inform me) Monsieur St. A•••e of Me••, and his Son John Baptist, and by two eminent Cape Sable Indians, S••••age and A•••••age, that there was no Peace made, but only talked of; and that but a Day or two before the Facts are charged in the Articles to be committed.

The Ratification indeed at Cases, was on the fifth of August, but that does not argue that the Prisoners were acquainted with it, they living in a far, remote and distant Place of another Government: And being but an inconsiderable Number of People, the Law will not, with Submission, presume a Person to be knowing of a thing, unless there appear some Circumstances by which it may be reasonably concluded, he cannot but know it. If therefore the Prisoners were in a State of War with us, what they have done, they may well justify, by the Laws of GOD, Nature, Nations and Arms: And their declaring to Doty and his Men, that it was Peace, may be reasonably accounted a Stratagem of War, to draw and ensnare them in their Churches; which fort of Stratagems are very frequently made use of in War.

Your Honours may well remember what I urged yesterday in favour of the two French-men, which therefore I shall not spend Your Time in insisting on, since the Sentence You have passed upon them, manifests it to be over-ruled; I mean, that the Fact charged being committed within the Body of a County, amounts only to a Notorious Robbery, which is triable at the Common-Law by a Jury, and not to Piracy: And herewith agrees the Definition of Piracy, given by Mr. Advocate General. I shall only beg leave to add to what I then said, That as the Fact was certainly begun when the Vessel was at Anchor in the Harbour; so it being but one continued Act, ought to be tried where it was begun, i. e. within the Body of the County.

The Carriage of the Prisoners to the Men, was very Unjustifiable in their beating of them, &c. But this I attribute partly to their barbarous Natures and Customs, and partly to their Drink. John Missel seems to have had the least share in the Affair, he not coming on board till after the Colours were struck: But I shall leave their Cases to Your Honour’s wise Consideration, and doubt not of a Judgment equal to the Merit and Justice thereof.

Afterwards the Prisoners being ask’d, if they had any thing to say for themselves, more than their Advocate had observed on their behalf?— James Mews said, he was in Liquor; and they all excused themselves by alledging, that it was the first Offence of that Nature they had been Guilty of, &c.

Afterwards the King’s Advocate Reply’d upon the Prisoners Advocate, as follows, viz.

May it please Your Honour, Mr. President, and the Honourable Commissioners,

I Shall not now Trespass upon Your Patience, in reiterating the several Matters of Fact proved upon the Prisoners: And more especially when I consider they turn out as strong, if not stronger against them, than against those two that justly received their Sentence Yesterday.— And of this their Advocate is perfectly convinced, and therefore industriously waves any Advantage that otherwise may be taken to the weakness of the Evidence; and rests their Defence on an Allegation, That at the Time of Committing these Facts, they were in a State of Enmity with us, ignorant of the Ratification of the Peace, and therefore not guilty of Piracy, by the Law of Arms, &c.

To which I Answer:— That the Gentleman is the second Time mistaken in Fact. For on the Fifteenth Day of December, 1725. the several Tribes of the Eastern Indians, St. John’s and Cape Sables, &c. by their Delegates, did enter into Articles of Pacification at Boston, with the Governments of the Massachusetts-Bay, New-Hampshire and Nova-Scotia, whereby among other things, they promised in behalf of their respective Tribes,

That they will cease all Acts of Hostility, Injuries and Discords, towards all the Subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, and not offer the least Hurt, Violence or Molestation to them, or any of them, in their Persons or Estates; but will henceforward Hold and Maintain a firm, constant Amity and Friendship with all the English, and will never Confederate or Combine with any other Nation to their Prejudice.

And further, there are also inserted in the said Articles of Pacification these Words, viz.

We (meaning the said Delegates, in behalf of themselves and their respective Tribes) Submitting our selves to be Ruled and Governed by His Majesty’s Laws, and desiring to have the Benefit of the same.

And on the fourth Day of June following, at Annapolis-Royal, the Chiefs and Representatives of the said Indians, in Compliance with the said Articles, stipulated as aforesaid, by their Delegates, and in Obedience thereunto, Solemnly Confirmed and Ratified the same. By all which it most evidently appears, that the Indians were not, as pretended, at the Time of executing the several Acts of Piracy charged upon them, in a State of War with the Crown of Great Britain, but in firm Amity with His Sacred Majesty, and to be Governed by His Majesty’s Laws, and Entituled to the Benefit of them.

And if any Foreigner, Subject to any Prince or State in Amity with the Crown of England, commit Piracies on the Ships or Goods of the English, the same is Piracy, within the Stat. 28. H. 8. Sea-Laws, p. 478. q.

Having thus unanswerably acquitted this Prosecution from the Exception, I beg leave to give a sho[r]t Answer to what further was offered by the Advocate for the Prisoners, under this Head, namely, that they were ignorant of these Negotiations, and therefore the Crime of Piracy ought not to be imputed to them.

I must observe to Your Honours, It’s a settled Maxim in respect to the Breaches of Penal-Laws, Ignorantia non excusat Legem. And was the Fact truly so, who is chargeable with the Omission? The Chiefs and Delegates in Duty ought to apprize (as doubtless they did) their respective Tribes, of the said Articles of Pacification and Confirmation, and not the Government that stipulated with them. But from their own Words, and Words spoke in their hearing, as appeared in the Evidence, and also from the Circumstances in the Case, it must be collected they were fully sensible of all these Solemn Treaties and Proceedings; for ashoar one of them saluted the English as the French did aboard, by saying, It’s Peace; the English are now all one as Brothers: And by their own Acknowledgement, they had seen and conversed with some of their Chiefs, that had at Annapolis Confirmed the said Articles of Pacification since such Confirmation, and once in particular, but a very inconsiderable Time before their perpetrating this their wicked Act; so that there is neither Colour or Shadow to suppose them Ignorant; or according to Law would such Ignorance exempt them from the Punishment justly due to their Demerits.

Therefore I doubt not but Your Honours will in like manner declare them Guilty, as You lately have the other Accomplices in these their wicked Actions.

The Advocate General having Concluded, the Court was cleared; Then the Commissioners fully and deliberately weighed and considered the Evidences against the Prisoners, and also the Defence made by them and their Advocate, together with Mr. Advocate General’s Replication, &c. And Voted Unanimously, That the said James Mews, Philip Mews, and John Missel, were severally Guilty.

Then the Prisoners were brought to the Bar again, when the President Pronounced them severally Guilty of Piracy, Felony and Robbery, according to the Articles Exhibited against them.

Whereupon the Advocate General on His Majesty’s behalf, demanded Sentence against them.

And the Prisoners when ask’d what they had further to say, why Sentence of Death should not be Pronounced against them, alledging, they had nothing to say more than had been offered upon their Trial; The President of the Court accordingly Pronounced Sentence against them severally, in the Words following, viz.

You — are to go from hence to the place from whence you came, and from thence to the place of Execution, and there to be hanged up by the Neck, until you are Dead; and the Lord have Mercy upon your Soul.

FINIS.

Analysis

Bill Wicken provides an analysis in “A Case Study in Mi’kmaq-New England Relations in the Early 18^th Century” here.

Bill quotes from a letter written by the Governor at Ile Royal to officials in France regarding the incident:

“After the young men who were at Port Royal to receive there some presents had left, seven or eight other Indians had found an English vessel in the port of La Heve on the Eastern Coast, they seized it, pillaged it, but became drunk. The English re-assumed control, killed two, three threw themselves into the sea, and the two others were transported by the said English to Boston. Those who had jumped into the ocean were saved by a vessel from this island which they had found in the port…”

The Governor’s account seems to be incorrect, as none of the testimony mentions that two people were killed. Furthermore, this extract was used to illustrate the deep-seated conviction that the Native people were deeply hostile to the English. This perception was probably reinforced by the fact that the Mi’kmaq people and others along the coastal regions spoke French as a second language due to decades of interaction, and seldom spoke English.

In reality, the French had a lot of influence on the Mi’kmaq, even to the point of “endorsing” or “confirming” François Mius as chief in 1742. They accepted him, making negotiations and relations with the Mi’kmaq much easier, from their perspective.

Given what François himself endured at the hands of the English, and what the English had done to his brothers, brother-in-law, and nephews, I wouldn’t be one bit surprised to discover that François despised the English – but that’s only my projection – as there’s no way to know.

Wicken discussed life among the Mi’kmaw people who lived at Mirligueche. He notes that the Native people along the coastal areas away from Port Royal and Annapolis Royal interacted less with Europeans, except, of course, for fishermen and traders.

Coastal Life

Given that the Mi’kmaq did not farm extensively, they depended upon the sea and rivers for food, at least in the summers. They transported their goods in woven baskets, sometimes traveling long distances.

The priests told of 300 people or perhaps more congregating at Mirligueche for social and political reasons.

Merligueche, where Philippe and his family lived, is located in present-day Lunenburg near or at the Old French Cemetery, which contains the earliest known burials. Mahone Bay is just north of Hermans Island, and LaHave is near the 331 marker, at the bottom. The Acadian families who intermarried with the Mi’kmaq lived here.

According to Marty Guidry’s research, in 1745, Cornwallis reported that Merlgueche was a small harbor five leagues east of LaHeve with only eight settlers, including Paul Guidry, alias Grivois, a jovial and jolly man who was a good coast pilot.

Was this the Paul who had been held hostage in 1726?

In 1746, Abbé Le Loutre wrote a “Description of Acadia” in which he said:

From Chegekkouk he went to Misliguesch et Haivre which is 25 leagues further; here there are a dozen French families and 3 to 400 Indians who assembled here.

In 1748, a “Description of L’Acadie” indicates that there were 20 families at Mirliguèche:

Mioligueche at three leagues from La Haïve, the missionary has started building a church, it has twenty French families and 300 to 400 Indians assembled there since the month of June.

By 1753, only one French family remained at Merliguèche – that of “Old Labrador,” who was probably Paul Guidry.

The Guidrys had gone to Ile Royal but returned in 1754 to escape starvation.

This coastline with its sheltering harbors was ancestral Mi’kmaq land where their wigwams dotted the landscape – where they had initially welcomed and trusted the light-skinned blue-eyed men sailing huge wooden ships from across the sea.

The Fort Point Museum, near LaHave, tells their story today.

In the fall, kin-related groups of two to five families each moved inland, where they hunted together and preserved furs, which they traded for European goods. Nicolas Denys, an English prisoner at Port Royal in the 1650s, recorded that fishermen traded tobacco and brandy for furs in the spring.

The Mirligueche Mi’kmaq, a core group of families, inhabited villagesfrom one generation to the next along the coastline between Mirligueche and Mahone Bay.

This same pattern of generational stability was found in other regions in Mi’kmaq villages in the Piziquid River (Avon River) and Chignecto as well.

Who Were Those Indian Prisoners?

Indian John Missel testified that “He heard the Indians had been at Port-Royal, and heard some of them say that there was Peace with the English and Indians. But he heard some of the Indians say they wondered that if there was Peace, they did not bring the Indian Prisoners from Boston.”

What Indian prisoners was he referring to?

We find the answer buried in Wicken’s document, on page 18:

The intensification of the Wabanaki-New England war from 1722 until 1725 increased tensions between fishermen and Mirligueche inhabitants. With the valuable Eastern Coast fishery in jeopardy, the Massachusetts government commissioned a galley ship to protect its fishermen. The commander of the vessel, Joseph Marjory, ranged the Eastern Coast, intercepting Acadian-owned boats and indiscriminately attacking Mi’kmaq people. On 28 July 1723, while anchoring near Mirligueche, Marjory captured seven unnamed individuals, whom in his correspondence he identified as “Indians”. This group consisted of three adult men and four children, one 16 years old, another 10 or 12 years old and “two others about 7 or 8 years old.” Conclusive proof is lacking, but a reading of the subsequent evidence suggests that among the prisoners were Jean Baptiste Guedry’s son, Paul, who would have been about eight years old at this time, and François Meuse, the brother of James and Philippe Meuse. While Paul Guedry was Metis by birth, he, like his older brother Jean Baptiste fils, would have spoken Micmac and so his identity could easily have been mistaken by Marjory.

Or, perhaps Marjory selectively categorized his hostages opportunistically.

With the ratification of the peace treaty with New England by the Mi’kmaq at Annapolis Royal in June 1726, the Meuse and Guedry families no doubt expected that their sons would be returned. When this did not occur, one available course of action ws to seize Doty’s vessel and hold the crew until the New Englanders released their kin. In his deposition, Guedry (the father) is recorded as saying that “they designed to take what English vessels they could, notwithstanding the Peace, by way of Reprizals, by Reason the Examinant’s Son Paul, and his Brother-in-Law Francis Mews were detained by the English”. Philippe Meuse made reference to the “Indian Prisoners”, but he did not specify whether he had any relation to them. His brother, James, however, had told Samuel Doty that “there was Peace Proclaimed between the English and Indians; but the said Mews said he never would make Peace with the English for the Governour of Boston kept his Brother, and he would Burn the Sloop and keep the Goods till his Brother was sent home”.

But that’s not all.

According to Rev. Clarence-Joseph d’Entremont in Historic du Cap-Sable de l’An Mil au Traite de Paris, 1763 (Eunice, LA: Hebert Publications, 1981), pp. 1139-1141, 1150-1151, 1595-1597, 1615-1616, 1622-1623, 1625:

In the early summer of 1722 the Indians of Maine waged a war against the English in New England to retaliate against the English seizing their highest chief Joseph d’Abbadie de Saint-Castin and destroying their village Nanrantsouak – even burning the church and rectory. Governor Shute of Massachusetts issued a declaration of war on 25 July 1722 – a war known by several names, including The Three Years War, Rale’s War, Lovewell’s War and Governor Dummer’s Indian War. The English Governor of Acadia, Richard Phillips, was at Canso when Governor Shute declared war. He immediately sent troops along the east coast of Acadia including Merligueche where he recovered English vessels, and imprisoned Indians and Acadians. Among those captured by the English were four sons of Claude Guedry and Marguerite Petitpas – Claude, Philippe, Augustin and Paul. Perhaps the Acadians were imprisoned because of their strong ties to the Micmacs – both through intermarriage and through friendships.

The Guedry families first were taken to New Hampshire and then to Boston where they remained in captivity until the summer or fall of 1723.

We know this to be a fact because, Judith, born in 1722, the eldest child of Paul Guedry and his wife Anne Marie Mius (aka Anne d’Entremont, daughter of Philippe Mius and his second Native wife, Marie), was noted as a “Native of Boston” by the census-taker in April 1752 when living at Baie-des-Espagnols on Ile Royal.

By inference, this also means that Philippe Mius’s daughter, Anne Marie, was ALSO taken captive in 1722, but was reportedly returned in 1723.

This means that in total, four of Jean-Baptiste Guidry’s brothers had been taken hostage, presumably along with their families, in 1722, followed by Jean-Baptiste Guidry’s 8-year-old son Paul in 1723. Then, Jean-Baptiste Guidry himself and his namesake son in 1726 while drunkenly trying to capture the sloop to exchange for Paul.

We don’t know who else was captured in 1722, but given that the Guidry and Mius families lived in the same village, I wouldn’t be the least surprised if more of Philippe Mius’s children were taken captive. In fact, I’d be surprised if they weren’t.

This means that Philippe Mius’s daughter, Anne Marie, was taken captive, along with her husband, Paul Guidry, in 1722, and their first child was born in captivity in Boston before being returned the following year.

Then, François Mius and the younger Paul Guidry were taken captive in 1723. Was it during the same trip that the English returned the 1722 captives? Surely not, but who knows? Of course, this was in the middle of Dummer’s War, so anything was possible.

We know that two of Philippe’s sons, his daughter’s husband, and his grandson were tried for piracy in 1726 and convicted to death by hanging.

There’s a long and sordid history here of the English taking French, mixed-Acadian, and Mi’kmaq hostages along the Nova Scotia eastern coastline.

Why wasn’t any of this taken into consideration, given the undisputed fact that the hostages had never been returned, even after the English/French treaty was ratified in June of 1726? This scenario casts doubt upon the circumstances involved and, if not justifying the Guidry/Mius/Missel actions, certainly makes them far more understandable – especially given that this seemed to be a part of “normal” warfare right up until the English decided that it wasn’t. Prior to the peace treaty, boats were regularly taken. The English patrolled, looking for “Indians” to capture.

When the admiralty actually did question the two Meuse brothers, they asked about whether they knew there was a peace treaty, and both said they doubted if that was true. In fact, they had been informed by both the English and the French that it was not. The French recommended that they should take English vessels. Even a Fryer said there was no peace. Only one thing might have convinced them differently – and that would have been the return of the hostages.

If a peace agreement had been reached, but their brethren were not returned, then was a peace treaty actually reached? Or had peace simply “been spoken of,” as some reported?

Were these men and their families being used as political pawns by the political elite who wanted to use terror, torture, and murder as weapons of war and, secondarily, to “convert” the “unrepentant,” in the words of Cotton Mather?

Were these men simply “collateral damage” as far as the English were concerned – useful to their war effort?

So, Let Me See if I’ve Got This Right?

Two hours. Yes, two hours. That’s apparently all it took for 19 pillars of the English colonial community in Boston, under the direction of the man leading Dummer’s War against the Acadians and Native people, to hear all the evidence against three men, hear what their defender had to say, allow time for the interpreter to do his job, and then convict them to DEATH!!

How in the bloody hell was justice served? Or was “justice” never really the point?

The “piracy” occurred on August 25th, and the sloop had to sail back to Boston, which, based on an actual voyage in 1776, would have taken at least 3-4 days.

Guidry signed a document nine days later, on September 3rd, 1726, so maybe three days after they arrived in Boston. That document was submitted at trial. The three “Indian” men gave a similar statement on September 5th. Guidry’s son was one-fourth Indian, but wasn’t referenced as such. Philippe Mius’s sons were half-Indian and half-French. Guidry’s wife was their sister.

Based on the court records, the defendants were not permitted to testify at all. The witnesses for the King, meaning Captain Doty, his first mate and crew members, certainly testified. The five men on trial were not afforded the opportunity to say anything other than answering one perfunctory question before their sentence was pronounced: whether there was any reason why they should not be sentenced to death.

That was it!

I have questions that deserve answers.

When they arrived in Boston, how were they questioned? Under what conditions? Had they been tortured? What was in those documents? Did they understand what they had signed? The only man who spoke any English was John-Baptiste Guidry Sr. Based on his “signature,” he couldn’t read or write. The other men didn’t speak any English and needed interpreters.

And how about John-Baptiste Guidry Jr., who, at the age of 13, didn’t sign anything, NOR did he get to testify???

Yes, the men were drunk and boneheaded. There’s no doubt about that.

But where is the culpability for the English – the Bostonians? And I don’t mean the ship’s Captain, I mean the founding fathers sitting in their powdered wigs deciding the fate of those four men and one boy. Those very men dressed in their finery sitting on that bench condemning one Frenchman, his quarter-Native son, and three “Indians,” two of whom were half-French, to death?

If the peace treaty had been ratified in June 1726, and it was, why did the English NOT return their captive family members? And if a piece of evidence used AGAINST the defendants was the December 1725 peace treaty, which was ratified six months later, why did the English NOT return those captives earlier?

If that “evidence” of understanding was applicable to the goose, it was certainly applicable to the gander as well.

Who held the English to account? Don’t they bear some responsibility for creating or at least not resolving this situation before it escalated into a dangerous situation that would cost five men their lives?

And given that the English very clearly knew that they had not returned their captive family members, WHY would they doubt for one minute that the “Indian” men would doubt that there was a peace treaty in effect? Men who did NOT speak English AND who lived on the other side of the Acadian peninsula, AND who claimed that they had been told both by English AND French, including a Priest, multiple times, that there was no peace. Wouldn’t the best indication that peace was at hand have been for the hostages to be returned? Isn’t that what the Guidry and Mius men wanted?

Wouldn’t that have prevented the whole thing?

Why hadn’t the hostages been returned?

No one, not one person, denied that fact.

If a treaty was not in effect, then the French and Native people could continue to do as they had done before: take fishing boats to trade for captives.

What other hope did they have of recovering their family members?

Why was the capture of seven Native people and holding them as hostage for more than three years, in spite of two peace treaties, acceptable in the first place? And that followed a similar capture in 1722 that included a pregnant woman from the same family.

Were these families being targeted, or were they simply easy prey because they were friendly and willing to trade and provide fresh water to ships?

How could the Justices of the Vice-Admiralty Court possibly have ignored that information? How could they be sure that these men WEREN’T telling the truth? There was no contradictory testimony. There wasn’t time for anything in that kangaroo court. Three men sentenced to death in two hours. WOW. The trials of all five took place over two days, and the Guidry men had been condemned the day before.

And, while we’re asking questions, did their family members who were still held hostage, probably in the very same jail, have to endure the trial and conviction and then the deaths of their family members who were trying to save them?

Were they forced to watch?

Did they watch out of respect and solidarity despite their own pain?

The child, Paul Guidry, would only have been 11 and would have witnessed his father, brother, and uncles hang, enduring torturous deaths for attempting to save him.

MY GOD!

How indescribably horrific! Of course, that’s assuming Paul was still alive.

And what happened to the woman and two children who were on the sloop?

The youngest person convicted, and hung, Paul’s slightly older brother, Jean-Baptiste Guidry Jr., was only 13, hadn’t even reached the age of 14, was clearly a minor, and could not be convicted as an adult, according to their defense – yet he was convicted anyway and hung right alongside his father and uncles.

How could this ever be construed as actual justice???

This was vengeance, pure and simple, sold as a combination of religious and entertainment spectacle. The Sunday before most executions, an “execution sermon” was preached. The condemned could choose to attend and, hopefully, create even more entertainment by confessing publicly and “redeeming their souls.”

Cotton Mather, who was utterly fascinated with pirates, tried, unsuccessfully, to convert Pirate William Fly and to coerce a confession and religious sermon out of him. Preacher Benjamin Coleman used that opportunity to preach an execution sermon for Fly, which he refused to attend, just three months before Jean-Baptiste Guedry, his son, Philippe Mius, Jacques Mius, and John Missel were tried and convicted.

In the words of Marcus Rediker, Boston and other cities “staged spectacular executions” of pirates. Ironically, our family members may well have been the last pirates hung in Boston.

Alcohol

Unfortunately, alcohol was clearly the secondary catalyst for what occurred – the first having been the failure of the English to return the captives they had held for more than three years. They had plenty of time to return those men.

If the English had lived up to their part of the agreement, there would have been no motivation for the situation to escalate.

Without alcohol consumption, the acts that turned out to be piracy would probably not have transpired at all. Cooler heads would have prevailed. One could go so far as to say that were it not for the alcohol consumption, those five men wouldn’t have died – so essentially – alcohol killed them, with the English as executioners.

The fishing industry was known for high alcohol consumption, and the French had traded with the Indians for rum the day before. The Native community was decimated by alcohol in a wide variety of ways – and still is.

According to the book “Maritime Labor in Colonial Massachusetts,” fishing vessels carried enough alcohol on average to supply each crew member with six ounces of run and a quart of cider daily. Cider, in this context, means hard cider. Fishermen had little to trade to the Mi’kmaq, so alcohol and tobacco became important trade items for fresh food after weeks of eating moldy hardtack, salted meat, and nasty water.

Alcohol was an important social aspect used to seal friendships and consummate trade deals. Mi’kmaq chiefs and elders often complained to the French and English authorities about the harmful effects of the trade in liquor upon their people. In 1713, a French missionary reported that the New England fishermen “goe to find” the Mi’kmaq “in their habitations with brandy and make them drunk as well on shore as on board their vessels.”

In his testimony, the elder Guedry stated that he had been advised by the vessel from Ile Royale harboring at Mirigueche that seizing an English boat “would be the best way in order to get his son Paul from the English, to take and keep one of their vessels till they got him out of their hands.”

These proceedings and convictions in Boston concerned the English governor of Nova Scotia. After learning of the hangings, Lieutenant-Governor Lawrence Armstrong sent gifts to the Mi’kmaq villages along with communications telling them he had no part in what the Boston Council had done to their brothers.

Wicken draws the following conclusion:

Unable to determine how and when prisoners were to be released, the Meuse and Guedry families relied upon their own understanding of the 1726 treaty. That understanding, however, was tempered by a distrust of the Massachusetts government. French officials and Acadians played upon this distrust and advised members of the Meuse family that if they wished to see their relatives again, they should hold some fishermen hostage. The Meuse brothers were willing to do so not only because fishermen constituted an economic threat to their fishery, but also because of cultural differences with the fishermen which had created social tensions between them.

The events of 25 and 26 August 1726 occurred principally because of the political upheaval which marked Mi’kmaq relations with New England during the late 17^th and early 18th centuries.

The Execution

The Boston News-Letter was published weekly.

In this edition, they reported on November 3^rd that yesterday, November 2nd, the men were executed, which, according to their sentence, was by hanging.

Wikipedia reports that Geudry’s wife, children, mother, and other family members were present at his execution, but I’m not sure that’s accurate.

The prosecutor and others used the trial as a counter to local customs, which allowed the holding of a group (all Englishmen) responsible for an individual’s crimes. They also used it as a test case for separating English law, as applied to Acadia, from the law applied to First Nations groups like the Wabanaki Confederacy. Guedry and his son were tried as Acadians, but the Mius brothers and another man were classed as “Indians” and were tried separately.

However, the English were more than happy to make an example out of all of their deaths.

March to Death – the Dead Man’s Jig

Now that we know, the least we can do is walk along and trace the final days of their lives.

This 1775 map of Boston provides the location of the goal (jail), the courthouse, and the Boston Common where hangings took place.

Legend “G” was the King’s jail, and “E” was the courthouse.

According to the trial transcript, the men were held at the jail. In all probability, François Mius and Paul Guidry were held there, too, and had been for more than three years. Some prisoners were “put out” to families, but I doubt that was the case because they would assuredly attempt to escape and had the skills to accomplish just that. Keep in mind that Indians were considered “savages,” literally.

Their reunion would have been terribly conflicted – a moment of joy followed by the horrific realization that this was not going to end well.

I can only imagine the anguish experienced by the long-suffering captives. It was bad enough that their freedom had been taken from them, but now, their would-be rescuers were going to die.

Maybe not.

They would have held out hope for the month after they arrived until their trial on October 4^th and 5^th.

Hope that maybe there would be justice. Hope that both they and their relatives would be released. Hope that their prayers would be answered.

After their trial, hope that maybe, just maybe, something would change. Peace maybe? Some unknown force would save them?

Something.

Anything.

Prayer?

God?

Divine intervention?

Hope against hope.

The old jail and courthouse were within sight of each other, as shown in this 1743 map..

The stone jail had walls three feet thick, unglazed windows barred with iron and doors covered with iron spikes. The passageways were described as “like the dark valley of the shadow of death.” Daniel Fowle, a Boston printer, stated that “…if there is any such thing as hell upon earth, I think this place is the nearest resemblance of any I can conceive of.”

In 1797, the Charitable Society voted that each prisoner was to have a blanket and “as much fuel as necessary to keep them comfortable during the inclemency of the season.”

Of course, these prisoners, including François Mius and Paul Guedry, had been deprived of their freedom under horrific circumstances 75 years earlier – apparently long before the basic needs of hostages or prisoners were taken into consideration. Were they not considered human?

Why was there no humanity or compassion? How was that acceptable?

Surely, the families of the men being held knew that, too, which motivated them to find a release regardless of the consequences.

This original Court House in Queen Street burned in 1747.

Jean-Baptiste Guedry, his son by the same name, Philippe Mius (the third), Jacques (James) Mius, and John Missel would have been escorted down the block to this courthouse where the justices would already have been gathered.

Were the captives allowed to attend the trials of their family members? Were they forced to?

Or did they anxiously wait for their return to the eternal darkness of the jail to hear their fate?

Where was the woman and the two children?

At that time, executions were performed by hanging, which took place on the branches of the old hanging tree known as The Great Elm in the Boston Common.

In this 1768 view, John Hancock’s house is across the common in the distance. That’s probably the Great Elm, at left.

The Common, a large park-like area that was originally used for grazing animals, was only about three blocks from the courthouse, but the men weren’t to be hung immediately.

In fact, they were allowed to languish for almost another month. I wonder why.

Were they allowed contact with their captive family members during this time?

Hangings were public spectacles. Part entertainment and part gruesome deterrent.

The Great Elm, known as “Boston’s oldest inhabitant,” was over 100 years old by 1722.

According to Mary Farwell Ayer, “Tradition asserts that many of the early executions in Boston took place on a limb of this tree. Many persons were tried and condemned to death during the seventeenth century.” Native Americans, including the medicine man, Tantamous, were executed there in 1675-1676 during King Philip’s War.

Ann Hibbins, a Puritan, was hung from that tree in 1656.

Clearly, Ann was executed by moving the ladder away as she dangled and strangled. I can’t even…

Stereoscopic view of the Great Elm in winter. I’d wager that the hanging branch is the stubby, broken one closest to the bottom. With little effort, I can turn back time and see five bodies hanging limply from those branches.

This tree was clearly revered, as it was fenced for protection from damage from climbing.

This stereoscopic image was taken before the tree fell under its own weight in 1876 during a storm. Some of the wood was salvaged and made into a chair, on display at the Boston Public Library today.

On the morning of November 2^nd, I assume the men knew that this was the fateful day.

The day they had been dreading.

According to George Francis Dow:

Public executions were usually more or less a public holiday. The condemned was taken in a cart through the streets to the gallows. Not infrequently a sermon was preached by some minister on the Sunday previous to the execution and speeches from the gallows always thrilled the crowd. The execution of pirates drew many people from some distance. The gibbeting of the bodies of executed persons does not seem to have been general.

In 1724 the head of Capt. John Phillips, the pirate, was brought into Boston in pickle. He had been killed by “forced men” who had risen and taken the pirate ship. Only two of his company lived to reach Boston for trial and execution, and one of them, John Rose Archer, the quartermaster, was sentenced to be “hung up in Irons, to be a spectacle, and so a Warning to others.” The gibbet was erected on Bird Island which was located about half-way between Governor’s Island and East Boston. In the Marshal’s bill for expenses in connection with the execution appears the following item:

“To Expenses for Victuals and Drink for the Sherifs, Officers and Constables after the Executions att Mrs. Mary Gilberts her Bill £3.15.8.”

This makes me ill.

The prisoners would have been paraded through the streets on their way to their execution – either walking or in a cart. They passed by the Burying Place beside the WorkHouse, where the poor were harshly punished for their poverty. Perhaps it was the WorkHouse residents who dug their graves. Maybe they saw five piles of dirt beside five graves in a row – one just slightly smaller than the rest.

Or worse yet, had they been forced to dig their own graves? Were there five graves, or were all five simply dumped together into one?

Was the day warm and beautiful, with multi-colored leaves gracing the Elm that would soon be their gallows, or had the fall’s cold rains begun to fall and soak into the souls of Bostonians?

Was the mob cheering their execution, or perhaps booing them?

Stories survive of the loved ones of the condemned who had been hung and whose corpses remained, swinging, riding into town under cover of darkness, cutting their body from the tree, and burying them someplace on park grounds. The Commons then was more of a neglected field, not the park setting that had developed a century later.

Today, it’s thought that more than 5000 burials of the poor and executed, aka murdered, reside in or near the Old Burying Ground, with many discovered along present-day Boylston Street.

Was their father, Philippe, somehow notified? Please tell me he was not present. I can’t bear to think of him having to watch two of his sons die like that, gasping for air, along with his grandson and son-in-law.

The Reverend Cotton Mather held a morbid fascination with pirates and was known to walk along with them on their final trip from the prison to the gallows. He alternated between trying to provide for their salvation and questioning them about their activities.

Let us hope that death occurred quickly, by what is known as “the long drop,” where the weight of the body breaks the neck of the person being hung, resulting in nearly immediate death. If the neck is not broken, death usually results from asphyxiation within 10-20 minutes, as the brain is deprived of oxygen via compression of both the airway and the carotid arteries. But sometimes, for the truly unfortunate and unlucky, death can take longer – up to a day.

Regretfully, for our family members, the long-drop method wasn’t introduced until 1872. If they received the much more humane long drop, as opposed to the short drop, where the ladder, stool, or cart was simply moved away, allowing the condemned to dangle by the neck until death claimed them, it was quite by accident.

When they were cut down, the braid pattern of the hangman’s noose was probably firmly imprinted into their necks, and they would have suffered the final indignity of soiling themselves publicly as they died.

Yes, it was quite the public spectacle that people flocked to witness as a morbid form of recreation. Five pirates hanging in the same day probably had a massive draw.

Using Google Maps and other tools, I was able to find the location of the “Great Elm” today.

I was able to approximate the location on the 1775 map.

The Burying Ground shown on this map had not been established in 1726. At that time, what was known as the “Burying Ground” was part of Boston Common and is today the Old Granary Burying Ground. Ironically, some of their convictors are buried there. Perhaps our men haunt them.

The convicted men would have walked this path to the commons. The nooses would already have been waiting for them, along with the crowds, anticipating the “show.” And perhaps, their family members waited too.

I pray that their family members didn’t have to witness yet one more thing. Gibbeting.

Gibbeting

William Fly, the notorious pirate, and I mean pirate in the more traditional sense, had a short-lived career. He began pirating in April 1726 when he led a mutiny and subsequently made and hoisted the much-feared skull-and-crossbones Jolly Roger pirate flag. Fly, and his crew then captured five ships before being captured themselves and subsequently tried in Boston for piracy.

Fly was convicted and hanged on July 4^th, 1726, along with three of his crewmates. The newspaper carried slightly different verbiage for Fly, though, as he was to “be hung in chains.”

What does that mean?

This article from 1935 provides additional information.

Further research indicates that only the most notorious of pirates who had committed the most heinous of crimes, including murder, were gibbeted, meaning that after death, their bodies were hung in cages on display on an island in the bay as a warning and deterrent to would-be pirates and other law-breakers.

While our men were condemned to death by hanging, there is no notification that they would be “hung in chains,” nor any indication that they were.

What a relief!

Burial

Where would the men have been buried?

There were only three cemeteries in Boston at that time, and given the proximity, the Granary Burying Ground is the most likely interment location in what was probably a mass grave.

The other two potential burial sites are King’s Chapel and Copps Hill. We will never know, of course.

Since we don’t know where the unfortunate Acadian, mixed-Acadian and Indian men wound up, the best I can do is to note the marker of the tree from whose limbs they swung. Probably all 5 of them hung together, dancing the dead man’s jig, until someone cut them down and did something with their bodies.

God, what a horrific spectacle that must have been.

They clearly did not die a peaceful death but one of torturous anguish, exactly as intended, nor are they resting in peace now.

Justice, by any possible definition, failed them.

It’s ironic that they may have been the last pirates hung in Boston.

The 20^th Century

In 1986, I stayed in Boston at a hotel near Copley Square, across from the train station. Of course, I had absolutely no idea that my ancestors’ sons, grandson, and son-in-law had met with such a gruesome and tragic end just a few blocks away.

I was only a mile and a half from the old courthouse, which became the State House.

Less than a mile from the Great Elm.

Had I known this history and how close I was, I would have taken a walk and paid my respects.

Aftermath

As if this wasn’t already bad enough.

After the Guedry, Mius, and Missel executions, New England colonial officials had the trial transcripts translated into French. A group was organized to travel to Acadia to read the transcripts to French Acadians and in native Mi’kmaq villages. The campaign was intended to demonstrate to Acadian and Native Nova Scotia settlers how English law would be applied, and the potential, no, the assured, outcome. They made it very clear that as unjust Justices, they were ruthless, and there would never be a positive outcome.

The English clearly perceived this entire affair as a welcome opportunity to exploit the five men as examples. I don’t even need to ask if that played a role in their convictions.

Every Acadian and Native person in Nova Scotia would have known it was unjust – and would VERY clearly have understood the intended message. The English would apply any sort of pressure they wished. The King and his appointed Justices were all-powerful. And brutal. Full stop.

The trial and subsequent execution of Guedry, his son, the Mius brothers and Missel were among many such incidents that marked a continued rise in tensions between New England and the Native people who were allied and related to Acadian settlers in the region.

The tensions eventually culminated in the Great Expulsion, known as Le Grand Dérangement, of the Acadians from Acadia from 1755 to 1764, during and after the North American French and Indian War.

Philippe Muis’s Children

Given that Philippe lived among the Mi’kmaq for his entire life, we’re lucky to know as much as we do about his children. Still, much is missing.

We know he had two Native wives, based on his known children’s birth years, but there could have been more.

Child	Birth	Death	Locations	Spouse	Children
Joseph Mius aka d’Azy, d’Entremont	Abt 1679	Dec. 13, 1729	Born Pobomcoup, Cape Sable, died at Annapolis Royal	Jeanne Amirault dit Tourangeau	13
Marie Mius	Abt 1680	After 1712	Born in Pobomcoup, Cape Sable	François Viger	7
Mathieu Mius	Abt 1682	After 1708	Born in Pobomcoup, Cape Sable	Madelaine unknown Mi’kmaq	1
Maurice Mius	Abt 1682	After 1708	Born in Pobomcoup, Cape Sable, lived Mouscoudabouet	Marguerite unknown Mi’kmaq	2
Françoise Mius	Abt 1684	1715-1717	Born in Pobomcoup, Cape Sable, lived at Port Royal	Jacques Bonnevie dit Beaumont	5
Jacques Mius	Abt 1688	Nov. 2, 1726	Born in Pobomcoup, Cape Sable, or La Heve, died in Boston	Unknown, White says he married about 1715	Possibly 5 or so
Marie Mius	Abt 1689	After 1732	Born in Pobomcoup, Cape Sable, or La Heve	Jean Baptiste Thomas, says Mi’kmaq in child’s baptism	3
Pierre Mius	Abt 1691	After 1708	Born in Pobomcoup, Cape Sable, or La Heve
Madeleine Mius	Abt 1694	After 1716	Born in Pobomcoup, Cape Sable, or La Heve	Jean-Baptiste Guidry	4 or 5
Jean-Baptiste Mius	Abt 1695	After 1730	Born in Pobomcoup, Cape Sable, or La Heve	Mi’kmaq wife buried in Port Royal in 1730	Unknown
Françoise Mius	Abt 1697	After 1735	Born in Pobomcoup, Cape Sable, or La Heve	Pierre Cellier	Unknown
François Mius	Abt 1700	After Aug. 22, 1763	Born in Pobomcoup, Cape Sable, or La Heve, lived	Unknown	At least one named Jacques
Philippe Mius	Abt 1703	Nov. 2, 1726	Born in Pobomcoup, Cape Sable, or La Heve, died in Boston	Probably none
Anne Marie Mius	Abt 1705	Abt Oct. 15, 1778	Born Pobomcoup, Cape Sable, or La Heve, died in Lyon, France	Paul Guedry, brother to Jean-Baptiste Guedry Sr.	8-10, first child born when Anne and Paul were held hostage in 1722 in Boston

Philippe’s children, beginning with Jacques, born about 1688, were born to Philippe’s second wife.

What Happened to Philippe Mius?

I’ve asked myself this question over and over again. In August 1726, his son, François, aka Francis, as well as his grandson, Paul Guidry, had been held hostage in Boston since July of 1723. More than three years.

Philippe, then age 66, would be getting increasingly desperate. Would his son survive? Was he still alive? Was he being tortured? Would he ever come home? Would he come home brainwashed after having lived among the English for three years? No, surely not, given that he was an unwilling prisoner.

Not only that, but John-Baptiste Guidry’s son, Paul, about eight years old, also held hostage, was Philippe’s grandson. Would Paul even remember his family? Would he remember the Mi’kmaq language, or would he only speak English? What had he been told? Was he even alive?

How did Philippe sleep at night? How had he slept for the past 1100+ nights since they had been taken hostage? His daughter and her husband had been taken hostage the years before, too. Did Philippe have nightmares?

Why hadn’t his son and grandson been returned?

Was something wrong?

We’ll never know whether Philippe was waiting for an opportunity that synchronistically sailed into the harbor that fateful day in late August 1726, or if he just happened to be in the right place at the wrong time.

What we do know is that Philippe was friendly, greeted the English fishermen, shook hands, boarded the ship by invitation, and then left the ship without incident. There’s no record that he was drinking, although he could have been.

His sons, son-in-law, and grandson didn’t fare nearly as well. They got themselves drunk, took advantage of the situation, tried to capture or kill the sailors, and commandeer the ship – fully intending to hold it for ransom for the return of their family members.

Yes, everything backfired in the most horrific nightmare scenario possible.

Two of Philippe’s sons, his daughter’s husband, and her son were all hung for piracy just 10 weeks later, on the second day of November.

We know that François Mius, Philippe’s son who was held hostage, was, at some point, returned because he eventually became a Mi’kmaq chief, but we don’t know when or how he made his way home.

I found a record that confused me, so I’m correcting the error, but leaving it here in case it confused others too. On June 2, 1751, François Mius (corrected, François Mius d’Azy, son of Philippe’s son, Joseph) and Jacques d’Entremont II, signed a document regarding weir usage among the Mi’kmaq with Eustache Jecoudamate at Poubomcoup. Thank you to my cousin who has the original documents for this correction.

Paul Geudry, the child who was kidnapped in 1723, was named after his father’s brother, who, ironically, was kidnapped in 1722 and released.

There’s no record of a younger Paul Guedry, other than his name in these records. None of Jean-Baptiste Guedry and Madeleine Mius’s children were baptized except Joseph, born in 1716, about whom nothing more is known. Young Paul may or may not have come home.

On that terrible November day in 1726, not only did Philippe’s two sons, son-in-law and grandson, perish at the end of a hangman’s noose, but they had to witness, watch, and listen to each other during the process.

Jacques Mius, about age 38, was probably married. If so, his widow lost her husband and their children, if any, were orphaned. By age 38, he probably had several children.

Philippe Mius, his father’s namesake, was about 23 and probably never married. Of course, he lost his life and his future.

François Mius, the son held captive, would have been about 23 when captured and 26 when his brothers were hung. He went on to become the Chief of the Mi’kmaq band where he lived but probably dealt with the phenomenon we understand today as survivor’s guilt for the rest of his life. We know he eventually had one son, Jacques, clearly named for his brother who was hung, who inherited his father’s medal from King Louis XV, and was elderly in 1812.

Madeleine Mius had recently married Jean-Baptiste Guedry, according to the 1708 census. She lost both her husband and her 13-year-old son to the hangman in Boston 18 years later – not to mention that her son Paul Guedry was still held captive. I shudder to think. That poor women.

So. Much. Grief.

While these deaths had to be utterly crushing for their families, especially given the extenuating circumstances, it’s also important to understand the concept of family more broadly. In the 1708 census, the only census that enumerated any of the Mi’kmaq people, the Indians of Pintagouet (near Georges Island in Halifax Harbor), were enumerated by wigwam, not by family, by their missionary, Father de la Chasse.

Ages were not given, but we find the following number of people living in the same wigwam:

• First wigwam – 16
• 2 – 11
• 3 – 16
• 4 – 25
• 5 – 18
• 6 – 17
• 7 – 27
• 8 – 17
• 9 – 16
• 10 – 18
• 11 – 19
• 12 – 21
• 13 – 6
• 14 – 17
• 15 – 25
• 16 – 13
• 17 – 3
• 18 – 6
• 19 – 7
• 20 – 35
• 21 – 6
• 22 – 8
• 23 – 15
• 24 – 13
• 25 – 7
• 26 – 5

388 people resided in 26 wigwams, which averaged about 15 people per wigwam. These people clearly lived in extended families. In some cases, four or more females in the same wigwam are named “Marie,” which, of course, is a very common Catholic baptismal name. Some people have European names, some have Native names, some have last names, and some don’t. Many names appear to be in the Mi’kmaq language, and none have ages or relationships listed.

This drawing of the interior of a wigwam in 1837 looks fairly spacious. Note the wooden hook for cooking in the one iron pot. Philippe’s home probably looked something like this a century earlier.

So, the entire village of Merliguesh, along with any others living in wigwams at LaHeve (127 people in 22 families), Cape Sable (97 people in 20+ families), and Mouscoudabouet, northeast of present-day Halifax, where two of Philippe’s sons lived as two of 30+ families in 1708 would have grieved these men as “family” however you care to define family.

Everyone would have been related in one way or another. The newcomers had been the French, like Philippe Mius and Jean-Baptiste Guidry who had arrived in the past century and intermarried.

Some researchers show Philippe’s death around 1730, but I can find no further record of Philippe after 1726.

Did these senseless deaths kill him too?

Was he yet another victim?

I can’t make Philippe’s life better, or ease his heartbreak, but I can tell his story – their story. The story of his family and mine.

I can sit and hold space with him.

I can reveal the injustices done to his sons by those powerful, wealthy English merchants who were supposed to mete out justice, but, in reality, used them to wage a form of terroristic warfare. These five men were simply figureheads, representing both the French and the Indians – representative bodies to punish and kill because the English couldn’t kill them all. Of course, those injustices were simply the appetizer, a horrible foreshadowing of the genocide coming in 1755.

The only people interested in justice were the victims and their families, if they knew.

Thankfully, Philippe would have been 95 by 1755 when the horrors of the Acadian Removal began, and had likely been in the Spirit World for a quarter century. Only two of his known children survived the deportation.

• Ironically, Anne Marie, who was held hostage in 1722 and was married to the elder Paul Geudry, was shipped back to France.
• We know that Philippe’s son, Chief François Mius, survived until at least August of 1763, when he signed another agreement with the English.

It’s certainly possible that a few of Philippe’s other children survived the Deportation, too. Mathieu and Maurice, fur traders, could have survived quietly and disappeared into the woods when the English came to deport the Acadians. The fate of some of Philippe’s daughters is also unknown.

Philippe lived in two worlds whose cultures were tightly interwoven yet sometimes clashed badly, causing irreparable harm to the people caught in the ever-tightening vice. Two powerful nations, the French and English, wished to rule, control, and sometimes destroy the Mi’kmaq trapped between them.

Philippe was a Frenchman who had never seen France and lived in a Native world. He was a moderator and mediator, attempting to bridge and unite those worlds to create a better life for his family and his people. In doing so, he endured an unfathomable level of heartbreak, the depths of which we will never know.

Rising from the ashes, soaring on Eagles’ wings, his blood, strength, and power flow in the veins of hundreds of descendants today.

I hear your voice, Philippe, calling me, and I am coming to walk the path with you.

Viva Philippe!

_____________________________________________________________

Follow DNAexplain on Facebook, here.

Share the Love!

You’re always welcome to forward articles or links to friends and share on social media.

If you haven’t already subscribed (it’s free,) you can receive an e-mail whenever I publish by clicking the “follow” button on the main blog page, here.

You Can Help Keep This Blog Free

I receive a small contribution when you click on some of the links to vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase your price but helps me keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the links in the articles or to the vendors below if you are purchasing products or DNA testing.

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Uploads

• FamilyTreeDNA – Y, mitochondrial and autosomal DNA testing
• MyHeritage DNA – Autosomal DNA test
• MyHeritage FREE DNA file upload – Upload your DNA file from other vendors free
• AncestryDNA – Autosomal DNA test
• AncestryDNA Plus Traits
• 23andMe Ancestry – Autosomal DNA only, no Health
• 23andMe Ancestry Plus Health

Genealogy Products and Services

• MyHeritage Subscription with Free Trial
• Legacy Family Tree Webinars – Genealogy and DNA classes, subscription-based, some free
• Legacy Family Tree Software – Genealogy software for your computer
• OldNews – Old Newspapers with links to save to MyHeritage trees
• Newspapers.com – Search newspapers for your ancestors
• NewspaperArchive – Search different newspapers for your ancestors

My Book

• DNA for Native American Genealogy – by Roberta Estes, for those ordering the e-book from anyplace, or paperback within the United States
• DNA for Native American Genealogy – for those ordering the paperback outside the US

Genealogy Books

• Genealogical.com – Lots of wonderful genealogy research books
• American Ancestors – Wonderful selection of genealogy books

Genealogy Research

• Legacy Tree Genealogists – Professional genealogy research