The "volontaires," or day labourers, began to be a trouble, as they were more numerous at Montreal than elsewhere. Many of these were lazy and wanderers, and would not hire themselves out or take up land, and doubtless many of the petty larcenies now commencing, were due to these gentlemen living on their wits. The woods appealed to them and the "coureurs de bois" would soon be recruited from them. The simplicity of primitive manners was going. An ordinance of the "procureur fiscal" in the records of the city for March 9, 1670, shows that precautions had to be now taken to prevent sacks of wheat and flour from being willfully changed at the mill, and their amounts from being falsified.
Theft was severely punished, according to the "greffe" of April 15, 1667. A man who had stolen thirteen bushels of wheat was condemned to be marked with the royal "fleur de lys" and to be sent to the Canadian galleys for three years. On December 20, 1668, another was sentenced to stand outside the parish church for a quarter of an hour, as the people were leaving after mass on Sunday. The town clerk read his sentence out to the people and an officer of justice affixed to the culprit's breast a notice in large characters so that all might read the legend, "voleur de blé" (wheat thief).
Again, on March 8, 1670, a man convicted of stealing from a store by night was condemned by M. d'Ailleboust, under the good pleasure of the sovereign council, to be hanged on a market day, so that by "this dire example, the evil disposed might be intimidated and prevented from committing greater larcenies and other crimes." The condemned man, however, appealed to the sovereign council, and the execution does not appear to have taken place.
Tavern frequentation was also a source of dissipation and trouble. The cabarets became the rendezvous of Montrealers, although they were only licensed for strangers and marketers. In 1669, the intendant came to town and on this occasion at the request of the Seigneurs brought about a special ordinance dated April 2, 1669, which ran as follows:
"Desirous of doing all in our power to stop these dissipations and debaucheries, which serve only for the corruption of morals and the destruction of families and of the colony, we, in execution of this ordinance of the king, very expressly forbid all those who shall keep cabarets or taverns, in the town as well as in the bourgs, villages or other places, to open them to receive any person on Sundays and holy days and during divine service, under a penalty of a fine for the first offence, and of prison for the second. We forbid, under the same penalties, all those domiciled in towns, bourgs and villages where there are cabarets or taverns, even those who are married and have families or households, to go to eat or to drink in these places, and those who keep these cabarets or taverns to give them food or drink, or gaming, under any pretext whatever. They can only sell them wine by the pot, which they shall take home to drink.
"We forbid them also, under the same penalties, to receive in these places any dissolute or lewd men or women, or to give them food or 'aliment' of any kind, or likewise to give to any engagé (hired man) or 'volontaire' food or drink.
"They shall, however, be allowed to give drink in moderation to travelers and to give board and lodging to those who shall be obliged to reside in this town to manage their affairs. Finally we forbid all innkeepers to give credit for their dues or to exact any promise or obligation of payment under the penalty of loss of their stock, for which they shall not take any action of recovery, conformably to Article 128 of the 'Custom of Paris.'"
This ordinance appears to have been strictly enforced for some time, for we find the syndic himself on August 19, 1670, appearing before M. d'Ailleboust to answer a charge of eating and drinking at an inn on a Sunday or a feast day during divine service. The syndic owned up to having contravened the law on a week day, but brought witnesses to prove that he had not broken the ordinance of the Sunday and feast day observance. The innkeeper was condemned to pay the law expenses of the case and to pay a fine to the church.
Even those who broke the ecclesiastical abstinence in these cabarets seem to have been in danger of the secular arm.
A watch was kept by the Seigneurs on the weights and measures and they had them stamped with their seal. In order to see that innkeepers did not substitute others, the procureur fiscal, or his substitute, accompanied by the clerk of the justices and two sergeants, went on a tour of inspection from time to time. (Greffe de Ville Marie, June 11, 1673.)