Champlain returned to Paris in July and joined his wife, Hélène Boullé, in their home on the rue St. Germain de l’Auxerrois. Together they worked at repairing their troubled marriage. On July 22, 1617, they went together to a leading firm of notaries and signed a contract with a young woman of good family, arranging for her to be a lady’s maid and companion to Hélène. It was a routine legal transaction, very spare in its details, but it tells us something about all the parties. The maid’s name was Isabel Terrier, daughter of a merchant named Richard Terrier. Champlain and Hélène both signed the contract, and it is interesting to see how the notaries described them. Champlain was no longer merely the “sieur de Champlain,” but the “noble homme Samuel de Champlain, Captain in Ordinary to the King in the Western Navy.” Hélène was elevated to “the demoiselle, Madame Eslayne Boullé, his wife.” With each successive legal document, Samuel Champlain and his wife appeared to be of higher rank.
Richard Terrier and his daughter Isabel agreed that she would serve four years, and Isabel’s father warranted that she was “honest and of good character.” Her new master and mistress promised to pay a salary of thirty livres tournois each year, and to advance money to outfit her according to her station. Samuel Champlain and Hélène Boullé were working together at the daily business of life. They were spending more time with each other, but still there were no children.30
In Paris Champlain went to work organizing a new base of support for New France. Troubles continued with Daniel Boyer and the merchants of Rouen, and resentments were growing among investors in Saint-Malo, and La Rochelle as well. Champlain dealt with these problems by turning to financial leaders in Paris. He approached the Chamber of Commerce in that city, and submitted a letter to “Gentlemen of the Chamber.” In twenty paragraphs he made an argument for the economic promise of North America. It highlighted the importance of the new world for the kingdom of France and for individual investors. The tone of the document was different from Champlain’s other promotional writings. It was an appeal to reason, with much discussion and hard evidence of “certain facts,” specific numbers, and precise estimates of profit, but always for what Champlain called “the honor and glory of God, the increase of this realm, and the establishment of a great and permanent trade.”31
First on Champlain’s long list of investment opportunities were the cod fisheries, which he estimated to yield a gross profit of a million livres annually. Champlain reckoned that between 800 and 1,000 French vessels were annually engaged in the North American cod fisheries every year, which was probably accurate, and the number was growing. Champlain asserted that returns of equal value could be found in other fisheries for salmon, sea sturgeon, sea trout, herrings, sardines, eels, and other fish. He reviewed the profits of the whaling industry in oil and bone, and the value of walrus tusks for ivory (“better than elephant’s teeth”) and the vast abundance of seals, which together were worth nearly as much as the cod fisheries.32
Next, Champlain described American forests, with many varieties of trees of “marvelous height” that were suitable for shipbuilding. He had brought home small amounts of sawn oak which were excellent for window frames and wainscoting, white pine that were perfect for masts, conifers in great variety that were good for pitch, tar, and turpentine, and other trees that were suitable for potash. For each product, he estimated the value of an annual crop. He told the Chamber of Commerce about mines that held no promise of gold but were rich in iron, copper, and other minerals. And he mentioned quarries that yielded building stone of the highest quality.
Champlain discussed the trade in furs, beaver pelts, moose hides, deerskin, and buffalo robes. He mentioned the abundance of hemp in America, of a “quality and texture in no way inferior to ours,” and wrote of the possibilities for agriculture, field crops, vines, fruit trees, and herds of cattle on grazing land. Finally, Champlain also described the great rivers and lakes of North America, and wrote hopefully of finding a “short route to China” by way of the St. Lawrence River, noting that he had been working for sixteen years with “little assistance.” He said that he needed help to plant permanent colonies, and asked the Chamber of Commerce to come to his support, as he made his case to the king.
The appeal worked. The Chamber of Commerce agreed to do as he asked. Its officers sent a very strong letter of support to the king on February 9, 1618. They asked Louis XIII to provide Champlain with the means to establish three hundred families in New France. Champlain informed the members of the Royal Council of what the chamber had done, and prepared an address for the king himself.33
Champlain had nothing like the direct access to the throne that he had enjoyed in the reign of Henri IV. He carefully prepared another letter, and addressed it directly “To the King and the Lords of His Council.” Its central argument was different from his appeal to the Chamber of Commerce. He began by reminding them of the work that he had done as an explorer, “both in the discoveries of New France and of various nations and peoples whom he has brought to our knowledge, who have never been discovered before but by him.”34 He told them what had come from these discoveries: information about passages to the “north and south seas,” and the promise of “reaching easily to the kingdom of China and the East Indies.” He spoke of the “planting there of divine worship, by the efforts of the Récollet friars,” and he informed them of the “abundance of merchandise that could be drawn from the countryside every year, through the diligence of workers who might go there.”35
He reminded them of the great stake that France had in North America, where “more than a thousand vessels go each season for fishing and whaling fisheries,” and he asked him to think how much would be lost “if this country would be given up and abandoned to the English and Dutch,” who were “jealous of our prosperity and would seize upon it and enjoy the fruits of our labors”—as indeed they had already done by burning the settlements of the Jesuits on Mount Desert Island and destroying the colony of Poutrincourt in Acadia, and attacking fishing boats in the north.36
Champlain made frequent reference to what had been done and could be done “for the Glory of God” and “the honor of His Majesty.” He made an argument with changes in emphasis that reflected the king’s interests. The first purpose was the establishment of Christianity “among an infinite number of souls.” The second was for the king to become “master and lord of a country nearly 1,800 leagues in length,” and he described its beauty and abundance in lyrical terms.37 A third purpose was to find a passage to China and the East Indies by way of the St. Lawrence, which he had already ascended to a distance of more than four hundred leagues, and beyond that was a great lake more than three hundred leagues in length. He observed that the king could derive a great and notable profit from the “taxes and duties on merchandise from China and the East Indies—I value more than ten times greater than all those levied in France.38
At the center of this great empire, Champlain proposed to build a capital town “as large as Saint-Denis,” and “if it please God and the King,” to call it Ludovica, or Louistown. In it he wanted to erect a great church called the Church of the Redeemer, to commemorate the conversion of the people in this country. On the high ground above Quebec, Champlain proposed that a great fortress should be constructed to control the river, and he planned another town on the opposite shore of the river. To that end he asked for more Récollet friars (the propagation of the faith was again first on the list), and three hundred French families to populate the country, with a military force of three hundred men. Champlain estimated the cost of provisioning this population at 15,000 livres a year for three years. Thereafter he hoped that it could support itself. Mindful of the king’s deep concern about corruption, he proposed that the baron de Roussillon, one of the commissioners of the Chamber of Commerce, should be appointed manager of funds. None of it would be handled by Champlain himself.39
It was an extraordinarily bold statement, carefully crafted for Louis XIII, and it succeeded completely. The ki
ng and his council agreed with enthusiasm. On March 12, Louis XIII signed a letter recognizing the authority of Champlain in command in New France, and ordering his subjects to help implement the plan. “Chers and bien aimez,” it began. “Dearly beloved, on information that has been given to us, that heretofore there has been bad management in the establishment of families and workmen who have been brought to Quebec and other places in New France, we write this letter to you, to declare to you our wish that things might go better in the future, and to make known to you that it is our pleasure that you should assist the sieur de Champlain as far as you can conveniently do so, with the things requisite and necessary for executing the commands that he has received from us … and to carry on all work that he shall judge necessary for establishing the colonies that we wish to plant in the said country, in the interest of our service and for the advantage of our subjects.”40
The king added another phrase that Champlain might have preferred to do without: “All those things were to be done without allowing the said exploration and colonization to disturb or hinder your factors, clerks and agents in the business of the fur trade, in any manner and fashion whatsoever, during the period which we have allowed you.” The letter ended with a royal commandment to all concerned: “In this do not fail. For such is our pleasure. Given at Paris, the 12th day of March, 1618.”41
It was a triumph of court politics. In a systematic campaign, Champlain had shifted his base and broadened it. He gained the strong support of the Paris Chamber of Commerce, the Royal Council, and most important the king himself. It was an extraordinary and hard-won achievement. In a moment of crisis, Champlain had found an opportunity—and made the most of it.
Acting with astounding speed, within a few days of the king’s letters Champlain decided to make another quick trip across the Atlantic. On March 22, 1618, he and his brother-in-law Eustace Boullé left Paris for Honfleur, “our usual place of embarkation.” They were delayed there for two months. Champlain attributed the problem to “contrary winds,” and he did not entirely mean the weather. Ill winds of another sort were blowing in the trading towns. Whatever the problem, it was sorted out in about sixty days. They sailed on May 24, 1618, aboard a grand vaisseau of the Company of New France, a vessel commanded by Pont-Gravé, who was also responsible for the commercial part of the voyage.42
They made a quick crossing and anchored at Tadoussac on St. John’s Day, June 24, 1618. Everything was done in haste. Champlain and Pont-Gravé went immediately up the St. Lawrence River in a petite barque de port of 10 or 12 tons and reached Quebec on June 27. There they remained for a week. Champlain met and talked with the Récollet fathers and found them flourishing. He also visited with the Héberts and was delighted with the condition of their farm. “I inspected everything,” Champlain wrote, “the cultivated land which I found sown and filled with fine grain, the gardens full of all kinds of plants such as cabbages, radishes, cucumbers, melons, peas and beans, and vegetables as fine and as well forward as in France.”43
Champlain remained in Quebec a little more than a week and then continued upriver to Trois-Rivières, reaching that place in two days on July 5. He was concerned about relations between the French and Indians, which had begun to fray while he was gone, particularly in regard to questions of law, order, and justice.44 It was a problem of great difficulty. The French colony was surrounded by much larger populations of Indians. Leaders on both sides wanted to maintain good relations. It was hard to do so among the European residents, who included many troubled characters. It was harder among the Indians, who gave great latitude to individual acts, and it was hardest when these two turbulent groups met and mixed.
Champlain met such a problem on this trip. It centered on the murder of two Frenchmen in 1616. One victim was a locksmith; the other, a seaman named Charles Pillet. This very tangled case filled many pages in Champlain’s published Voyages. “Regarding the account of the affair,” he wrote, “it is almost impossible to extract the truth.” The incident began when one of the two Frenchmen quarreled with a Montagnais Indian. “Through some jealousy,” the Frenchman “beat the said savage,” and “invited others to beat him severely.” There was broad agreement that the Indian had been “ill-treated.”
The Montagnais warrior watched for an opportunity to take revenge. With a comrade he enticed the Frenchman and a friend into the woods. The two Indians murdered the Frenchmen, tried to disguise their deaths as a boating accident, lashed the bodies together, weighted them with heavy stones, and threw them into the water.45 They reckoned without the river, which swept up the bodies and washed them on the shore, where they were discovered with clear marks of the crime. The event caused anger on both sides, and trouble began to grow among the Montagnais and the French.46 Each feared the wrath of the other, and both were “seized with mistrust.” So strong were these emotions that French and Indian leaders feared that a war could break out—even “perpetual warfare.”47
Indian leaders sought to settle the problem by offering reparations, as was their custom. This solution was not acceptable to the French, whose ideas of justice required punishment of the guilty. The murderers were persuaded by other Montagnais to seek a third solution. They surrendered themselves to the French, hoping to confess and receive pardon for the crime. But when one of the murderers entered the French settlement he was arrested, the drawbridge was raised, and the French flew to arms. Some demanded instant execution. Others urged restraint. The Indians surrounded the settlement in great numbers, and tensions rose very high. Then Récollet father Joseph intervened. He recommended that the murderers not be punished immediately but that they should await “the return of the vessels from France, so that following the advice of the captains and others, they could reach a definitive judgment, and with more authority.”48
At that point, Champlain arrived. He made clear his feeling that murder could not go unpunished without inviting more violence in the future. But he also knew that very different ideas of justice prevailed among French and Indians. A European-style execution of the murderers could start a sequence of escalating acts of retribution that could lead to war.49
Champlain proceeded with caution, and with close attention to detail. First he tried to discover the facts of the case. Then he convened a council of elders, consulted with the reverend fathers, met at length with Montagnais leaders, and discussed the case with other Indian nations. An important part of his method was to listen and consult at length. He invited ideas from all sides, and many suggestions were made. At one point the leaders of other Indian nations proposed that they themselves should execute the murderers, which would have started a full-scale war in the St. Lawrence Valley.50
Champlain chose another solution: “We all decided that it was agreed that the savages should feel the enormity of the murder, and yet not to proceed to an execution.” With the helpful advice of the Récollet fathers, he went a different way: the chief murderer would be required to acknowledge his guilt, and would be returned to his people. Guarantees of good behavior should be given by his nation, and by his own father. Two of his sons would be surrendered as hostages, and put in the custody of the Récollet fathers, who would offer them instruction in the Christian religion and the French language. By this means, wrote Champlain, “we decided to settle this matter amicably, and to pass things over quietly.”51
The tangled case of the Montagnais murderers brought out Champlain’s idea of multiethnic justice that was fundamental to his grand design. He faced many difficult problems of order and justice in New France. By trial and error, he found ways to resolve many of them in this same spirit. He rejected the ancient idea of justice as the rule of retribution, which had adherents on all sides. He also rejected the European idea of trial and execution for a murder (which was unacceptable to many Indian nations). And he could not accept the Indian custom of settling murders merely by reparation (which was unacceptable to Europeans). In place of these different ideas of justice, he led others in the invention of an
other set of principles that combined equity and balance with humanity and restraint. He insisted that murder must be punished, but he favored the rule of moderation, and diminished the rigor of customary law on all sides. Most important, he searched for a way to keep the peace, establish a rule of law, and create a standard of justice that all could accept.
On July 5, 1618, Champlain sailed upstream to Trois-Rivières and found a great gathering of Indians who were eager to talk. He wrote that “All the savages of my acquaintance, and with whom in their own country I had become intimate, were awaiting me with impatience and came to meet me, and as though very pleased and happy to see me again, embracing me one after another with demonstrations of great joy.”52
They asked “if I would again assist them in their wars against their enemies, as I had done in the past and I had promised them; by which enemies they are cruelly troubled and harassed.” At Trois-Rivières he also met “several different nations of Indians not known to the French or to the Indians at our habitation.” They also asked the French to “help them in their wars.”53 This was a difficult problem for Champlain. He observed that “there is not a single tribe that lives at peace except the Neutral Nation.” Champlain wanted to have alliances with as many Indian nations as possible, but primarily for the sake of peace. He was willing to lead punitive expeditions against aggressors, but his strategic goal was to stop the killing. This war-weary old soldier hoped for a new world that would be at peace with itself.54
The tabagies at Trois-Rivières ended on July 14, 1618. That day Champlain went to Quebec, where he took leave of the Récollets. He embarked twelve days later with the Récollet fathers Paul and Pacifique, who had wintered there for three years, “in order that they might report both what they had seen in the said country and what could be done there.” They were in Tadoussac on July 27, sailed for France on July 30, and reached Honfleur on August 28, 1618, “with a favorable wind, to everybody’s satisfaction.”55
Champlain's Dream Page 41
