Paul de ChomedeyL. Closse
Issabelle Moyen
Paul RagueneauJeanne Mance
Claude PijartMarie Moyen
François le Mercier
François Duperon
Marin JannotJacques Vautié
P. GadoysN. G. (Nicolas Gadois)
R. Le CavelierJehan Gervaise
Nicolas hubertMarguerite
Gilbert barbierLandreau
Jacques picotCatherine primoit
Maturine GodéCaterine de la vaux
Janne LemoineChartier

This marriage contract between Lambert Closse and Elizabeth Moyen must have been signed by Jean de St. Père, the first notary of Montreal, but his signature appears to have faded. The flourishes or paraphes at the end of the names were customary at the period to insure against imitation.

This is now the place to introduce the famous quarrels about the liquor trade, which were of passionate interest in New France in the seventeenth century.

It is claimed by the French that the English were the first to introduce the liquor curse to the natives, in payment for furs. When the French returned to Quebec the traders followed suit in spite of the prohibitions of Champlain, Montmagny, d'Ailleboust, de Maisonneuve, de Queylus and Laval.

The letters of the Jesuit missionaries and the contemporary memorialists reveal a shameful story of vice, mingled with that of the establishment of a Christian civilization. Drink made the savages and the Christian neophytes yield to the most deplorable depths of immorality and barbarous brutality. The delights of conviviality gave way to disgusting debaucheries, quarrels and bloody fights. Fathers slaughtered their children; husbands, their wives; and the women became veritable furies. Children, boys and girls, were all demoralized. After a night's carouse the cabins of the Indians were a gruesome sight, heartbreaking to those responsible for the morality of the country. The good nuns were shocked at naked men and women running amuck in the streets of Quebec, clearing all before them at the point of the sword. Notwithstanding prohibitions and ordinances, the scenes of carouses and of carnage continued, because the minority, the traders, maintained the right as necessary for trade alliances with the natives, asserting that they were not responsible for the abuse. On his arrival Laval fought the custom fiercely and finally found himself forced, on May 6, 1660, to fulminate the terrors of the church's excommunication "ipso facto" against the traffickers, and in this he was supported by the Jesuit missionaries. This had a decided effect, backed up by the severe sanctions, even those of death, promulgated by the secular arm of the state, represented by the Baron d'Avaugour.

An unfortunate incident, trivial in itself, destroyed this harmony. It came from the characteristic inflexibility of the soldier governor. He had all the qualities of a soldier who, having made up his mind, is immovable, but he had the defects of these same qualities. What in a good cause would have been constancy in maintaining a point of honour became pigheadedness and impracticability in another. A woman of Quebec had been taken, selling a bottle of wine to the Indians. Her friends and relatives interceded for her to the priest, Father Lalemant, who in turn approached the governor. The governor must have been in a bad humour and not very philosophical, for he did not distinguish between clemency and justice, between a general command and an extenuating circumstance, or legitimate exemption. It was the priest's part to urge clemency, the governor's to exercise justice. Father Lalemant was answered brusquely: "Since the selling of eau de vie is not punishable for this woman, it shall not be so for anyone"—the answer of the man of the sword and not of the lawyer or statesman. Soon the word went around that the governor tolerated the liquor traffic. The obstinate and headstrong soldier would not retract his hasty words and disorders began again. The governor was inactive and shut his eyes, but Laval levelled his threats again at the traders, who now openly revolted, saying they would not be dictated to by bishop, priest, preacher or confessor, since the viceroy was on their side.

It was under these circumstances that de Maisonneuve issued his ordinance forbidding at Montreal what was known to be permitted at Quebec. Hence the passage of arms between the two governors as described. Maisonneuve was supported by the clergy of Montreal. Affairs went from bad to worse at Quebec and on August 12, 1662, the vicar apostolic went to France to place the liquor situation before the king. Thither also went the secretary of the Baron d'Avaugour, Péronne de Mazé, to justify his master and the traders.

Charge and countercharge, and recriminations, exercised the French court. The bishop and the Jesuits were accused of too much severity and clericalism, the governor and traders of too much laxity and avarice. The problem of the relations of church and state had still to be worked out in New France. In the meantime the bishop won; the Sorbonne in 1662 had justified his action; the liquor traffic was forbidden and d'Avaugour was to be recalled. When Laval returned next year, the new governor, de Mésy, accompanied him, the man of his own choice—an unfortunate one as we shall see.

The month following, September, 1662, de Maisonneuve wished to go to France, his object being to secure troops and to arrange for the transfer of the seigneurship of the island from the nearly moribund Company of Montreal to the Seminary of St. Sulpice. Before leaving he appointed the town major, Zacharie Dupuis to take his place and an ordinance to that effect was put up at the door of the parish church dated September 10, 1662. On September 16th he started with Jeanne Mance and the Abbé Souart, conducted by M. Jacques Leber. When at Quebec d'Avaugour forbade Maisonneuve to depart on the ground that he was needed in Montreal to quell the sedition that had arisen there in July in reference to the establishment of a storehouse by the Company of One Hundred Associates. This was but a pretext. Maisonneuve, however, consented to return. Mademoiselle Mance set sail alone on September 20th.