Champlain's Dream

by David Hackett Fischer

  MONTMORENCY, Henri, the second duc de Montmorency et de Dampville (1594–1632), was the son of Henri, first duc de Montmorency, and Louise de Bourbon en Budos, and brother-in-law of the prince de Condé. He succeeded his uncle, Charles, duc de Dampville, as admiral of France. On February 25, 1620, he received letters patent as viceroy of New France. Twelve days later, on March 8, 1620, he chose Champlain as his lieutenant. Montmorency was one of the most able of all the viceroys of New France, an experienced leader in colonial and maritime affairs. As viceroy, Montmorency restructured the commerce of New France, established the post of intendant, helped provide funds for fortifications, and supported a chapel and residence for the Récollets. Some scholars date the origin of the seigneurial system in New France from a grant of Cap Tourmente and the Île d’Orleans to Guillaume de Caën, January 3, 1624. Montmorency gave strong support to Champlain, increased his powers and his pay, and protected New France at home. The success of Champlain’s leadership from 1620 to 1624 was made possible by his good relations with this viceroy. In 1625, after a tenure of five years, Montmorency resigned his office. He was a strong defender of the traditional rights of the parlements and provinces. Later, Montmorency supported a political movement in Languedoc that the king perceived as treason. Richelieu may also have feared Montmorency as a rival, despite a show of support. In 1632 Montmorency was arrested and executed for treason at the age of 38.5 He was always a faithful friend of Champlain and New France.

  VENTADOUR, Henri de Lévis, duc de Ventadour, var. Vantadour (1596–1680), was the son of Anne de Lévis, duc de Ventadour, and Marguerite de Montmorency, and the nephew of the previous viceroy. In the spring of 1625, Ventadour purchased the office of viceroy from his uncle the duc de Montmorency for 100,000 livres. Ventadour was drawn to the office by his deep religious feeling, and a determination to spread the Christian faith in America. Immediately after his commission as viceroy, his first act was to commission Champlain as his lieutenant. They worked closely together in Ventadour’s Paris mansion. Champlain supported the missionary work that Ventadour desired, and the new viceroy backed Champlain’s plans and purposes. A difference arose between them over Ventadour’s wish to exclude Protestants from New France. Champlain continued to support Henri IV’s solution. He supported a Catholic establishment, but wanted to allow Protestants to live and trade in the colony. The men were able to continue working together even though they were not of one mind on that question.6

  RICHELIEU, Armand-Jean du Plessis, bishop of Luçon, cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church, duc de Richelieu and de Fronsac (1585–1642), was born into the lesser nobility, the son of François du Plessis, sieur de Richelieu, and Suzanne de La Porte. His older brother was killed in a duel by the marquis de Thémines in 1619. He entered the church and became bishop of Luçon to serve his family’s interests; was helped at court by Madame de Guercheville; became first minister of state under the queen regent and went with her when she was banished from court; and helped to reconcile the queen and her son Louis XIII. For that service he was made cardinal in 1622 and member of the King’s Council in 1624. Four months later he became head of the council and chief minister. Richelieu took maritime and colonial affairs into his own hands, and in 1626 the king made him chief and superintendent of navigation and commerce of France. He founded the Company of the Hundred Associates, put his kinsman Isaac de Razilly in charge of Acadia, and grudgingly accepted Champlain as his lieutenant for Quebec and the St. Lawrence Valley. Richelieu brought energy and power to New France. He insisted that it should be always in his hands, but it was not always in his thoughts, and the quality of his decisions was very mixed. He mustered resources for a major colonizing effort by the Hundred Associates, but against much informed advice insisted that a large fleet should sail for New France when a more powerful British fleet was in the St. Lawrence. The entire French expedition was lost, and the Hundred Associates were nearly bankrupted. Richelieu selected leaders in the colony for their rank, religion, and personal loyalty rather than experience and ability. He gave Champlain no support in the critical years from 1633 to 1635.7

  APPENDIX H

  TRADING COMPANIES AND MONOPOLIES IN NEW FRANCE, 1588–1635

  Before 1636, New France was financed through the agency of commercial companies. Strictly speaking they were not private companies but arms of the state. The public-private distinction as we know it did not emerge until the eighteenth century. These companies were created and regulated by the Crown, but were required to raise their own capital and to subsidize colonization, often much against their will. They sought to raise money by licensing trade under grants of monopoly from the Crown.

  The Cartier Monopoly, 1588

  In 1587, Stephen Chaton, sieur de la Jannaye, and Jacques Nouel petitioned King Henri III for a monopoly of the fur trade in New France. Both were captains in the French Navy and nephews of Jacques Cartier. They pointed out that Jacques Cartier and his heirs were still owed a sum of 1,600 livres. A royal commission confirmed their claim. In January, 1588, they received a monopoly on fur trade and mining in New France for twelve years, and authorization to transport sixty convicts to New France and start a settlement. The monopoly was instantly attacked by traders and fishermen and was revoked for all but mining rights. Nothing appears to have come of this colonizing effort.

  La Roche’s Monopoly, 1598

  In 1577, Troïlus du Mesgoùez, seigneur de La Roche-Helgomarche, marquis de Coëtarmoal, vicomte de Carenten and Saint-Lô, received from Henri III authorization to “conquer and take various lands and countries newly discovered and occupied by barbarous people.” He was authorized to be viceroy and feudal proprietor of all lands that he was able to seize, and to rule them as his personal possession. Nothing came of this grant, but its spirit reveals an attitude toward the new world far removed from that of Champlain and his circle. La Roche, as he was called, was himself captured in the French wars of religion and held a prisoner of the Catholic League from 1589 to 1596. In 1598 Henri IV gave La Roche new powers as lieutenant general for “Canada … and adjacent lands” and granted him a monopoly of trade. The king himself contributed 12,000 écus. The result was one of the worst disasters in the history of European colonization.

  Chauvin’s Monopoly, 1599–1603

  In 1599, part of La Roche’s monopoly passed to Pierre Chauvin, sieur de Tonnetuit, a Calvinist merchant born in Dieppe and resident in Honfleur. In 1599 he petitioned the king for a monopoly of the fur trade in a territory that stretched a hundred leagues along the St. Lawrence River. The monopoly was granted for ten years, on condition that Chauvin would transport fifty settlers a year, five hundred altogether. He sent ships to Tadoussac in 1600, traded proitably for furs, left sixteen settlers to their own devices and returned home. Champlain believed that Chauvin’s proposal was a fraud, and that he had no interest in colonization. In any case he failed to meet his commitments. His monopoly of the fur trade, which had been granted for ten years, was withdrawn after three years, partly as a response to protests from rival merchants in Saint-Malo, Dieppe, and La Rochelle. Chauvin died in 1603.

  Aymar de Chaste’s Monopoly, 1603

  In 1603, Chauvin’s monopoly passed to Aymar de Chaste. This admirable man was governor of Dieppe, well connected at court, and respected by those who knew him. He organized a successful group of investors in Dieppe, Rouen, and Saint-Malo. Together they funded a voyage of reconnaissance with Pont-Gravé in command. Champlain went along as geographer, explorer, cartographer, and observer for the king. De Chaste, in bad health, remained in France. This voyage to Tadoussac in 1603 was successful in every way. It identiied sites for settlement, established good relations with the Indians of the St. Lawrence Valley, and turned a profit that has been estimated at 40 percent of its capital. De Chaste died before the voyagers returned, and the company ended with his demise.

  De Mons’ First Monopoly and the Company of Rouen, 1603–08

  In 1603, the sieur de Mons received a ten-year monopoly on tra
de in New France from the fortieth to the forty-sixth parallel, with a requirement to plant a colony of fifty settlers. He founded the Compagnie de Rouen, also called the Compagnie de Mons. In February 1604, merchants invested 90,000 livres in five “portions.” Two portions were reserved for merchants of Saint-Malo; two for La Rochelle and Saint-Jean-de-Luz, and one for Rouen. The investors agreed to send out two trading vessels from Saint-Malo, a trading and whaling ship from Saint-Jean-de-Luz; and two colonizing vessels from Le Havre or Honfleur. Two colonies were founded, at Sainte-Croix Island in 1604–05 and Port-Royal in 1605–07. The monopoly was strongly opposed at court by Sully and rival interests. It was revoked in 1607, and the settlements were abandoned. A period of free trade followed from 1607 to 1608.

  De Mons’ Second Monopoly and the De Mons Company, 1608–09

  On the urging of de Mons and Champlain, Henri IV revived de Mons’ monopoly in 1607, but only for a period of one year, with a requirement to plant settlements in New France. The investment company was recognized in Rouen, and de Mons raised money by individual agreements and loans. This company succeeded in founding the first permanent settlement at Quebec, with Champlain as commandant. The monopoly expired in 1609, and another period of free trade followed from 1609 to 1612.

  Soissons’ Monopoly, 1612

  On September 27, 1612, Soissons received a monopoly of trade for twelve years. It ended abruptly with his death in 1612 before a company could be organized. Trade was in the hands of merchants in the towns of Rouen, Dieppe, Honfleur, Saint-Malo, and La Rochelle.

  Condé’s Monopoly and the Company of Rouen and Saint-Malo, 1613–20

  This new venture followed the failure of the last. It was organized on November 15, 1613, and was variously called Condé’s Company by Champlain, and Champlain’s Company by historians. People at the time spoke of it as the Company of Rouen and Saint-Malo. It operated under a new monopoly of trade in the St. Lawrence Valley, which had been granted to Condé as viceroy and assigned by him to this company for a period of eleven years. The investors agreed to obey the viceroy, support Champlain, and transport six families of settlers. None of these promises were kept, and the company failed.

  Montmorency’s Monopoly and the Old Company de Caën, 1620–1625

  On November 8, 1620, this new group was formed. At first it was called the Montmorency Company, and later the Compagnie de Caën. It received a monopoly on the fur trade from the forty-eighth to the fifty-second parallel for a period of eleven years, later extended to fifteen years. The company was required to pay Champlain’s salary and support his family. It agreed to establish six Récollet missionaries and promised to settle six families in New France. The capital stock of the company was divided in 1621, with seven-twelfths for the Compagnie de Caën and five-twelfths for members of the old Compagnie of Rouen and Saint-Malo.

  Ventadour’s Monopoly and the New Compagnie de Caën, 1626–27

  This was a reconstitution of the old Compagnie de Caën under the authority of the new viceroy, Ventadour. The merchants of Rouen and Saint-Malo were ordered to surrender their share of the company for a lump-sum payment equal to 40 per cent of their stake. In 1627 it came to an end through the efforts of Cardinal Richelieu, who took control of New France and organized a new company.

  The Company of New France, 1627–1632

  This new body was also variously called the Compagnie des Cent-Associés (Company of the Hundred Associates) or Richelieu’s Company. It was founded by Cardinal Richelieu on April 29, 1627, and received a royal charter in May 1628. The first name on the list of a hundred shareholders was that of Richelieu himself. Each was required to pay 3,000 livres. It received a monopoly on the marketing of Canadian furs in Europe and undertook to colonize New France.

  Richelieu caused a disaster when he ordered the directors of the company to send out a large convoy of ships with four hundred people aboard, despite a war with England and warnings that British ships were on the coast. The directors acted against their best judgment, and the French ships were intercepted in the St. Lawrence River. All but one small vessel were captured. The company lost its entire investment and was driven to the edge of bankruptcy. The settlement of Quebec received no supplies or support from Richelieu or the company for two years. Champlain and the French colonists were driven to the edge of starvation and forced to surrender to small forces of British freebooters, along with most of New France.

  Richelieu and Ventadour caused more trouble by seeking a policy of religious conformity in New France. The bylaws of Richelieu’s company required that habitants should be native-born French subjects of the Catholic faith. At first that policy of uniformity was not enforced. Champlain did all in his power to preserve a measure of tolerance for Protestants in the St. Lawrence Valley, while supporting a Catholic establishment under the terms of the Edict of Nantes. But religious conformity slowly prevailed and it was a calamity for New France. Permanent English and French settlements began in America within a year, between 1607 and 1608. By 1760 the more open and diverse English colonies had a population of 1.6 million. New France, with its national and religious restrictions, had a population of 60,000.

  Subsidiaries of the Company of New France, 1632–35

  The Hundred Associates recovered control of New France after the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye, March 23, 1632. The company, desperately short of capital, began to organize subsidiary companies and partnerships that were separately capitalized. They were variously called compagnies particulières or compagnies sous-contractantes. Among the most important in the period from 1630 to 1635 were the following subsidiaries:

  The Company of Bordeaux, 1630, was formed by a consortium of six of the Hundred Associates. It supported the trading forts of the La Tours on Cape Sable and at the mouth of the Saint John River.

  The Company Tuffet succeeded the Bordeaux Company.

  The Company of Normandy was founded in 1631 for the support of the settlement at Fort Ste. Anne on Cape Breton. Champlain may have made a voyage there in 1632.

  The Company Desportes de Lignières took its name from its leader Pierre Desportes de Lignières, one of the Hundred Associates. It succeeded the Company of Normandy and continued to support settlement and trade on Cape Breton.

  The Company Cheffault-Rozée in 1632 raised a capital of 100,000 livres for settlements and trading posts on Miscou Island, in the Baie des Chaleurs, and in the lower St. Lawrence Valley. Champlain himself was an investor.

  The Company Razilly, 1632, led by Isaac de Razilly and supported by Champlain, was authorized to raise capital for the colonization of Acadia, first at La Hève, then at Port-Royal. Under Razilly’s inspired leadership it succeeded in establishing the nucleus of the Acadian population in the years from 1632 to Razilly’s death in 1635.

  The Company of Beaupré under the Hundred Associates acquired title to the seigneury of the Isle d’Orléans and the Côte de Beaupré, on the north bank of the St. Lawrence River, downstream from Quebec.

  Other companies followed after Champlain’s death in 1635, with seigneurial grants and rights to fishing and navigation in the St. Lawrence Valley and other parts of New France.1

  APPENDIX I

  INDIAN NATIONS IN CHAMPLAIN’S WORLD, 1603–35

  A NOTE ON LANGUAGE

  Throughout this book Indians are called Indians, a choice that after a generation of political correctness, requires an explanation. A few years ago I was invited to the Newberry Library in Chicago, to meet leaders from many Indian nations throughout the United States. They had requested a meeting with historians to discuss problems of concern in the literature of American history. In the course of our conversations, I asked what they would prefer to be called. The answers were the same, from Apaches in the southwest to Wampanoags in the northeast. Without exception they wanted to be called by the name of their own nations. I asked what word we should use to refer to all of them together, and they said that “Indian” was as good as any other, and better than some. They used it w
ith pride, and it is adopted here. The pattern of usage is now changing. In the United States, “Indian” is returning to favor without pejorative connotation. In Canada, “first nations” is still preferred, but “Amerindiens” is frequently used. Champlain called the indigenous people of the West Indies “Indiens,” and those of eastern woodlands of North America “Sauvages,” which in the usage of his age meant native forest dwellers. Champlain always wrote of major groups as “nations,” never as tribes. That usage is preferred by many Indians and is adopted here.