The rigor of the Canadian winter, the shortness of the summer season, and persistent annoyance from the Iroquois, who at times had carried their warfare to the very walls of the settlements, combined to make the lot of the French farmer on the St. Lawrence far from prosperous. During many of its early years, New France largely depended for food upon supplies brought out from the mother-country. The fur-trader experienced but little more personal danger than the agriculturist who remained upon his narrow farmhold abutting on the St. Lawrence; while the fascination of the unbridled life of adventure led by the former, free from the restraints of church and society, was such as strongly appealed to young men of spirit. The trade of New France was farmed out to commercial companies and to favorites of the king and his autocratic colonial governors. Unlicensed traffic, such as was carried on by the coureurs de bois, was looked upon as akin to smuggling, and harsh laws were promulgated against it. Nevertheless the forests, far into the continental interior, were penetrated by gay adventurers conducting illicit barter with the red barbarians, while the agriculture of the colony languished. The river-systems of the English coast colonies did not easily conduct to the interior, but the far-reaching waterways of New France were a continual invitation.
French treatment of the Indians.
Iroquois interests were bound up with the Dutch, and after them with the English. The better to improve their own position and to keep up prices, the Iroquois sought to prevent Algonquians of the upper lakes from trading with the Canadians. But French influence in the Northwest was nevertheless strong. Colonial officials cajoled the Indians and plied them with presents; while the wandering traders and their employees dwelt in comparative harmony with the red men, were adopted into many of the tribes, and married squaws, who reared in the forest villages an extensive half-breed progeny.
Paternal policy of France.
The disposition of the French Crown to interfere with the fur-trade and to repress all commercial initiative not emanating from privileged circles, was but an evidence of its general colonial policy. The colony on the St. Lawrence was made continually to feel the hand of the king. In contrast to the free town and county systems of the English, the people of New France had no voice in their government or in the appointment of their officials. Even in the most trivial affairs they looked to the Crown for action.
The administration of New France.
The country was governed much like a province in France. It was divided: (1) for judicial purposes, into districts, with a judge at the head of each, from whom there might be an appeal to the superior council. Within the districts were (2) seigniories, or great estates. The seignior held his land immediately from the king, and parcelled it out among his vassals, the habitants, or cultivators, who paid him a small rent, patronized his shops and mills, and owed him certain feudal obligations. Upon the estates were (3) parishes, in which the curé and the captain of militia were the chief personages. The only public duties exercised by the habitants were in connection with parish affairs, and then the initiative was taken at Quebec, where resided the central authority, vested in the governor, intendant, and council. In 1672, Frontenac attempted to set up in Canada an assembly of the three estates or orders; but Colbert, the king's prime minister, rebuked him, and gave directions for a gradual restriction of all privileges of representation. "It seems better that every one should speak for himself, and no one for all." The people were not permitted to think or act for themselves, and they did not covet the privilege. Without political training, they had no notion of what the English call political rights.
Causes of weakness.
Had King Louis XIV. been a wise monarch, paternalism might not have been a disadvantage for a population of this sort. But the royal patronage of colonial enterprises was spasmodic, sometimes breaking out into extravagant aid, again remarkable for its penuriousness. There were several in the long roll of colonial governors who were men of commanding ability, and well fitted, under right conditions, to make of New France a success,—notably Champlain (1622-1635), Frontenac (1672-1682, and 1689-1698), and De Nonville (1685-1689). But the times and the material at hand were against them. Official corruption ran riot. From the monopolists, who were the present favorites of the king, down to the military commander of the most distant forest trading station, officials considered the public treasury and the resources of the colony as a source of individual profit. The priesthood held full sway; little was done without the sanction of the hierarchy. The missionaries of the faith won laurels for bravery, self-denial, and hardihood, under the most adverse circumstances. But the policy of the Church was too exclusive for the good of the colony. Huguenots, driven from France by persecution, were forbidden by the bishops to reside in Canada, and thus were compelled to contribute their brain and brawn to the upbuilding of the rival English settlements. Of all Frenchmen, these were the best adapted to the rearing of an industrial empire in the New World.
111. Intercolonial Wars (1628-1697).