Denonville says, “The principal reason of the poverty of this country is the idleness and bad conduct of most of the people. The greater part of the women, including all the demoiselles, are very lazy.” (v) Meules proposes as a remedy that the king should establish a general workshop in the colony, and pay the workmen himself during the first five or six years. (v*) “The persons here,” he says, “who have wished to make a figure are nearly all so overwhelmed with debt that they may be
* N. Y. Colonial Documents, IX. 279.
** Edits et Ordonnances, II. 119.
*** On the General Hospital of Quebec, see Juchereau, 355.
In 1692, the minister writes to Frontenac and Champigny that
they should consider well whether this house of refuge will
not “augmenter la fainéantise parmi les habitans,” by giving
them a sure support in poverty.
**** As late as 1701, six thousand livres were granted
Callieres au Ministre, 4 Nov., 1701.
(v) Denonville et Champigny au Ministre, 6 Nov,, 1687.
(v*) Meules au Ministre, 12 Nov., 1682.
considered as in the last necessity.” * He adds that many of the people go half-naked even in winter. “The merchants of this country,” says the intendant Duchesneau, “are all plunged in poverty, except five or six at the most; it is the same with the artisans, except a small number, because the vanity of the women and the debauchery of the men consume all their gains. As for such of the laboring class as apply themselves steadily to cultivating the soil, they not only live very well, but are incomparably better off than the better sort of peasants in France.” **
All the writers lament the extravagant habits of the people; and even La Hontan joins hands with the priests in wishing that the supply of ribbons, laces, brocades, jewelry, and the like, might be cut off: by act of law. Mother Juchereau tells us that, when the English invasion was impending, the belles of Canada were scared for a while into modesty in order to gain the favor of heaven; but, as may be imagined, the effect was short, and Father La Tour declares that in his time all the fashions except rouge came over regularly in the annual ships.
The manners of the mission period, on the other hand, were extremely simple. The old governor, Lauzon, lived on pease and bacon like a laborer, and kept no man-servant. He was regarded, it is true, as a miser, and held in slight account. *** Magdeleine Boucher, sister of the governor of Three Rivers,
* Meules, Mémoire touchant le Canada et l’Acadie, 1684.
** Duchesneau au Ministre, 10 Nov., 1679.
*** Mémoire d’Aubert de la Chesnaye, 1676
brought her husband two hundred francs in money, four sheets, two table-cloths, six napkins of linen and hemp, a mattress, a blanket, two dishes, six spoons and six tin plates, a pot and a kettle, a table and two benches, a kneading-trough, a chest with lock and key, a cow, and a pair of hogs. * But the Bouchers were a family of distinction, and the bride’s dowry answered to her station. By another marriage contract, at about the same time, the parents of the bride, being of humble degree, bind themselves to present the bridegroom with a barrel of bacon, deliverable on the arrival of the ships from France. **
Some curious traits of this early day appear in the license of Jean Boisdon as innkeeper. He is required to establish himself on the great square of Quebec, close to the church, so that the parishioners may conveniently warm and refresh themselves between the services; but he is forbidden to entertain anybody during high mass, sermon, catechism, or vespers. *** Matters soon changed; Jean Boisdon lost his monopoly, and inns sprang up on all hands. They did not want for patrons, and we find some of their proprietors mentioned as among the few thriving men in Canada. Talon tried to regulate them, and, among other rules, ordained that no innkeeper should furnish food or drink to any hired laborer whatever, or to any
* Contrat de marriage, cited by Ferland, Notes, 73.
** Contrat de marriage, cited by Benjamin Suite in Revue
Canadienne, IX. 111.
*** Acte officielle, 1648, cited by Ferland. Cours
d’Histoire du Canada, I. 865.
person residing in the place where his inn was situated. An innkeeper of Montreal was fined for allowing the syndic of the town to dine under his roof. *