This said, he left them and went to say holy mass, which M. Dauversière heard, with a devotion altogether difficult to express when the mind is not aglow with the same fire that consumed these great men. Thanksgiving over, M. Olier gave M. de la Dauversière one hundred pistoles, saying to him: "Take this then to commence the work of God!" Thus the first interview ended.

Dollier de Casson leaves his readers to imagine with what joy and eagerness this news is received by the "dear Baron le Fancamp." This M. Fancamp afterwards became a priest and joined Dollier de Casson at Montreal and no doubt he had told the first historian of Ville Marie his story himself per longum et latum. Three new associates, friends of M. Olier, were induced to finance the new venture, of whom the first was the Baron de Renty, a man of admirable qualities, pious and filled with apostolic zeal. These six, forming the nucleus of the Société de Notre Dame de Montréal, determined to fit out an expedition to embark in the spring of 1641.

But as yet they had no claim on the Island of Montreal. As we have learned, this had been ceded to M. de la Chaussée in 1636 and transferred to M. de Lauson in 1638, who had become the intendant of Dauphigny where he was now residing. With daring boldness M. de la Dauversière and M. de Fancamp, journeyed to Vienne in Dauphigny to arrange terms with him for the cession of the island to them. De Lauson had not colonized it, or carried out any of the conditions requiring its being tilled, but he was not easily disposed to relinquish what was a valuable possession for the advancement of his family, the more so as he learned that his interests were jeopardized by the new company. He therefore refused to discuss the question.

A second attempt and visit were made, this time with success, for M. de la Dauversière had secured in the meantime the powerful co-operation of Father Charles Lalemant, who had been the first Jesuit superior of the Canadian missions, having been sent out in 1621.

Lalemant knew Canada well and had great influence with the Company of the Hundred Associates. He had been superior of the church of Notre Dame de Recouvrance in Quebec, as well as Champlain's confessor, and had had naturally many official relations with M. de Lauson in his capacity as intendant of the company. As he was held in great esteem by M. de Lauson, Father Lalemant, who since his return from Canada two years before was now the procurator of the missions of the society, was a powerful advocate for the cession.

Accordingly the cession was granted by deed dated Vienne, August 7, 1640, to Pierre Chevrier, écuyer, Sieur de Fancamp, and Jérome de Royer, Sieur de la Dauversière. This declares "that M. Jean de Lauson cedes, has given and transferred, purely and simply the Island of Montreal, situated on the River St. Lawrence, above Lake St. Peter, entirely as it was given by the gentlemen of the Company of New France to M. de la Chaussée for them and theirs to enjoy, having regard to the same duties and conditions expressed in the act of the fifteenth of January, 1636."

A second contract was signed, the same afternoon, by which "M. de Lauson as much in his own name as the legitimate administrator for Francis de Lauson, écuyer, Sieur de Lyrée, his son, yields to them the right of navigation and passage on all the extent of the River St. Lawrence as well as the right of fishing in this river, within ten leagues around the Island of Montreal and that in consideration of the great number of men which they are to cause to pass into this island to people the colony and to aid to till the lands adjoining those of the said Sieur de Lyrée, with the duty of giving him each year six pounds of fish, as a token of simple acknowledgment."

In December following the general assembly of the Company of the Hundred Associates or the "Société de Nouvelle France" was held in Paris in the house of M. Bordier, secretary of His Majesty's council and a former director of the Company.

The whole project of the establishment of the new company for Montreal was discussed and its conclusions drawn up in a deed of concession, to M. de Fancamp and M. de la Dauversière, dated December 17, 1640. It annulled and revoked all the concessions granted by the act of the Company dated January 15, 1636, to M. de Chaussée as well as the concessions and transferences made thereafter of the same "pretended rights," the whole being null and revoked through failure of the execution of the conditions imposed within the time ordered. In the perusal of this act we can see the relations of the two companies. That of the Associates of Montreal is clearly regarded as a purely religious body anxious to aid the parent body in its very great desire to establish a strong colony in New France to instruct the savage peoples of that place in the knowledge of God and to draw them to civilized life. Thus they are very ready to grant them lands to aid in this praiseworthy enterprise, to wit: etc., which are clearly defined. In granting this they restricted the concession originally made to M. de Chaussée of the whole island by reserving to themselves the head of the island by a line drawn from the Rivière des Prairies up to Lake St. Louis to the distance of about four leagues from the mountain. In compensation they granted what afterwards became known as la Seigneurie de St. Sulpice.

"Moreover, an extent of land two leagues wide along the River St. Lawrence by six leagues deep in the aforesaid lands, to be taken on the north side of the same bank where the Assumption River empties into the said St. Lawrence River, and to begin at a post which will be planted on that same bank at a distance of two leagues from the mouth of the same Assumption River, the rest of the said two leagues of frontage to be taken in a direction running towards the said St. Lawrence River; whatever lies between the Rivière des Prairies and Assumption River and between Assumption River and the above mentioned fort, being reserved to the said company proposing to set up thereon later as forts and habitations."—Edits et Ord., Quebec, p. 21.