return, but on the contrary, divers of the said inhabitants have openly abetted or privately assisted His Majesty's enemies ... yet His Majesty being desirous of shewing marks of his royal grace to the said inhabitants, in hopes thereby to induce them to become for the future true and loyal subjects, is pleased to declare, that the said inhabitants shall continue in the free exercise of their religion, as far as the Laws of Great Britain shall admit of the same ... provided that the said inhabitants do within three months from the date of such declaration ... take the Oath of Allegiance.' The next clause instructed the governor to report to the Lords of Trade on the effect of the declaration. If the inhabitants or any part of them should refuse the oath, he was to ascertain 'His Majesty's further directions in what manner to conduct yourself towards such of the French inhabitants as shall not have complied therewith.' [Footnote: Public Archives, Canada. Nova Scotia E, vol. ii. Instructions to Governors.] Hopson had tendered the oath to the Acadians. The oath had been refused by them. Their refusal had been reported to the government; and there the matter rested. In another paragraph of the opinion the chief justice asserted that 'persons are declared recusants if they refuse on a summons to take the oath at the sessions, and can never after such refusal be permitted to take them.' This, no doubt, was the law. But the king had ignored the law, and had commanded his representatives in Nova Scotia to tender the oath again to a people who, upon several occasions, had refused to take it. It was not reasonable, therefore, to suppose, as the chief justice did, that the king would be displeased at the performance of an act which he had expressly commanded.