It is very easy to tell what country was actually settled by the French as Acadie. Its chief town was Port Royal, now Annapolis, at the head of the Bay of Fundy. Nearly all the settlements of the Acadians were in that vicinity, and for the most part within the peninsula. From these seats they were removed in 1756 by Great Britain, and to them a remnant was permitted to return. The most western settlement of Acadians was on the St. John River near the present site of Fredericton, and no permanent occupation was ever made by them of country west of the St. Croix. It is even doubtful whether the settlement near Fredericton was a part of French Acadie, for it seems to have been formed by persons who escaped from the general seizure and transportation of their countrymen. This settlement was broken up in 1783, and its inhabitants sought refuge at Madawaska; but it can not be pretended that this forced removal of Acadians subsequent to the treaty of 1783 was an extension of the name of their country. The whole argument in favor of the British claim founded on the limits of ancient Acadie therefore fails: First. Because of the inherent vagueness of the term, on which no settled understanding was ever had, although England held it to be synonymous with Nova Scotia and France denied that it extended more than 10 leagues from the Bay of Fundy. Second. Because by its original definition in the grant to De Monts it excludes the whole disputed territory on the one side; and Third. Because in its practical sense, as a real settlement, it is wholly to the east of the meridian of the St. Croix, and this excludes the whole of the disputed territory on the other. The portion of the territory granted to the Duke of York, and which is now the subject of dispute, therefore can not be claimed as a part of Acadie, as it never fell within its limits either by charter or by occupation. _Note VIII_. [Extract from the award of the King of the Netherlands.]