The feudal system, prefigured by Richelieu long ago in his commission to the Marquis de la Roche and "following the custom of Paris," based on the tenure of land, was established as soon as peace was obtained, as the best method of building up the colony and of looking after private interests. It was a most suitable method for the time. The feudal absolutism then created, both of church and state, were necessary for the French at a period when they had not learned the first elements of self-government. The pity was that this system of leading strings was too prolonged and overdone, especially as later the French government did not do its duty by the people, thus preventing its progress by ruining its initiative. Had not the bolder spirits broken through it, we should not have had the redeeming point in the history of these times—the brilliant geographical discoveries. But in those early wild times the military civilization now forming and the paternal influence of the clergy at Montreal, seigneurs and parish priests, did much for that distinctively Canadian love of discipline and order, which is the foundation of the great and mighty people Canada is destined to be.
Talon, writing to Colbert on November 13, 1666, says: "I have already commenced the enfiefments by Montreal, the principal fief of this country, in receiving its 'foi et hommage' as also its 'aveux et dénombrements.'" A papier terrier, or land roll, was ordered to be made and a list of all the lands, houses and other properties accurately defined and registered. Uncertain titles were made clear and others made out that had been neglected.
The condition of land tenure was not onerous; the "cens and rentes" paid annually were not an equivalent for value received but a simple recognition of the legal primitive right of the seigneurs, on property given. Thus at Montreal, land sites on the portion reserved for the future town, had been given on the annual payment of five sous an arpent, while on those in the town itself all the annual revenue demanded was a liard for each fathom.
In all the Island of Montreal the tax for each arpent of land was two liards and a half pint of wheat. Thus the receiver of 100 arpents only paid fifty sous and fifty pints of wheat. In the first years, as the soil was not thought to be at its full value, he was relieved of all taxation. Sometimes, even the above slight tax was, for sufficient reason, modified. When any farm or small holding was sold or it passed by inheritance to collaterals, the seigneurs were entitled to "lods et ventes," a tax of one-twelfth of the estimated value of the land. This was usually paid within forty days of the transfer and a rebate was generally given of one-third, but not necessarily. If the farm was sold at a price lower than the seigneur thought proper, he had the right to purchase it back at the estimated value on which the tax of one-twelfth had been demanded. This system was by no means unjust. The seigneur gained very little, for during two centuries there were many lands which passed from father to son, or were passed on by donation without anything accruing to the seigneur who, it must be remembered, had practically granted the lands free to the "censitaires." It was only in later years when the lands became of substantial value that the "lods et rentes" gave a real source of income to them.
The feudal system worked well. Being based on land tenure, it centralized the people and made them powerful against attack, out of proportion to their numbers, as New England found later. It was as wise a system for New France as the introduction into Massachusetts "of free and common soccage."
It was wisely handled, on a more democratic basis than that of France, and there were no real grievances. The habitants and seigneurs moved side by side; indeed they frequently exchanged places. The class distinctions were never thus very arbitrarily defined as in France.
Whatever we may think of the military seigneuries, that of the Sulpicians of Montreal was very beneficial. Their rule was progressive and zealous. Speaking of such religious seigneurs William Bennett Munroe, Ph. D., professor of government, Harvard University, in his chapter in Volume II of "Canada and Its Provinces, 1912," entitled "The Seigniorial System and the Colony," says: "The priests seem to have had faith in the colony—which was more than could be said of all the Carignan officers who took lands from the king. This faith and optimism the priests often communicated to the people around them, and the results were seen in the neighbouring farms. The church in New France never lost, as at home, its grip on the confidence of those from whom it drew its chief strength—the rural classes. While it may seem that the crown was lavish to a fault in satisfying its claim to landed property, yet the church really gave the colony far more than it took away; for, if ever there abode on this earth labours worthy of their hire, these were the pioneer priests whose loyalty and devotion to France appear on every page of early Canadian history. The church owed much to the seigniorial system, but it made ample repayment." (P. 566.)
The parish life of Montreal, as that also of subsequent parishes, was that of an organized community or civil corporation. The head was the seigneur. One section, composed of those able to bear arms, formed the militia with its officers.