Father Perrault expresses a positive impression of the Mi'kmaq nation here which appears to be typical of the paradoxical attitude which these missionaries have of the Indigenous peoples.

Namely, that they are in some ways more virtuous than the Europeans/Christians yet in others more privy to vice (as with the perception of Pierre Biard that the Mi'kmaq are more prone to alcoholism than the French).

Father Perrault appears much more concerned with the strategic advantage (both economic and military) of Cape Breton Island in his preface than Pierre Biard is in the logic of converting the Mi'kmaq nation as a whole.

This might be explained by the purposes of the letters: namely, Pierre Biard is writing a theological argument in defense of catechising prior to baptising the Mi'kmaq.

While Father Perrault is writing a far more explicitly ethnographic and geographic letter about the Island and the Mi'kmaq.

At this stage of colonialism and proselytisation, the Jesuits are focused on both the education of Mi'kmaq along Catholic canonicity as well as the establishment of a Catholicism aligned with either Rome or France.

By this, I mean to say that the Catholicism established in Peru and Mexico (as described by the missionary) did not conform with that of Rome or the colonial power.

This is dissatisfying to Pierre Biard due to his theological beliefs and religious convictions. But, we may be able to imagine why this would be against the interests of the colonial power as well (although this is not mentioned explicitly in the text).

Colonised peoples who practice their religion along the canon of the colonial power would be much easier to control and would be much more loyal (theoretically) than those who do not conform to religious orthodoxy.

Pierre Biard bases his argument on catechising before baptising on the experience of missions in the earlier Spanish colonies.

Even though theses Indigenous nations were settled, and thus arguably more conducive to the institutions of the Catholic Church than that of the semi-nomadic Mi'kmaq, the Spanish missionaries prioritising of Baptism over Catechism led to a more syncretic Catholicism which missionaries like Pierre Biard are not satisified with.

Pierre Biard appears aware of the fact that Catholic institutions are modeled primarily for settled communities rather than primarily nomadic ones like the Mi'kmaq.

At this stage of proselytising, the missionary is not explicitly interested in permanently settling the Mi'kmaq but the seeds for this colonial conclusion are present in his assessment of the situation in Mi'kma'ki/Acadie.

I would counter the point made earlier by snaccarato by highlighting the response from a Mi'kmaw man to the very suggestion that the missionaries have a right to lecture the Mi'kmaq nation on their consumption of alcohol.

The unidentified Mi'kmaw points out that it was the French nation itself which introduced Brandy to their people and they themselves also have issues with excessive alcohol consumption.

The Mi'kmaq appear quite aware of the hypocrisy of the French colonial apparatus in chastising them for behaviour which is both shared and enabled by the colonisers.

The fact that Governor Shirley notes that he needs to publish a separate declaration of war against the "Cape Sable and St. John's Indians" indicates that under British and/or International law these Indigenous peoples were considered to be sovereign nations distinct from either Britain or France.

If they were considered to be subjects of the French crown, as one might presume the French viewed them with Jean-Louis le Loutre's letters, then a declaration of war with the French would have been sufficient.

If they were viewed as British subjects then the use of existing martial law would have been sufficient to deal with their assault of the garrison at Annapolis Royal.

Evidently, despite their absence in negotiations over the European peace treaties and the neglect of the colonial powers to consider their territories as fully sovereign in these negotiations, the Mi'kmaq and other Indigenous nations were still considered to be sovereign peoples living within the boundaries of the colonies.

As predicted, the French argue that the ancient limits of Acadie do not include anything beyond the Eastern Coast of the peninsula. Even the inclusion of the formerly French settlement of Port Royal is considered to be outside of the French definition of Acadie's ancient boundaries.

It is interesting to see that the British predicate their definition of the Acadian limits with the attempts the French administration made to extend its boundaries westward.

It is similarly titled in opposition to the French arguments regarding the territories. The British believe that their positions are incontestable as they are derived from the evidence they have compiled.

I suspect that the French will focus on contesting the "ancient limits" of Acadia with counter-evidence to the British claims.

The inscription here is in French. It translates to:

Map of Part of North America: To serve to the intelligence of memory (i.e. evidence) on the pretensions of the English on the subject of the regulated limits (i.e. borders) with France in this part of the world.

I think it is important to contrast this title, and thus the contents as well, with the title chosen by the British on the following page.