The object of the above restriction is clear. The Company of New France was primarily a trading concern and it wished to secure its rights to the north of Montreal as a trading centre for which it was so well adapted by nature, as it was the natural goal of all the Indian peltry from beyond the Sault. It reserved rights therefore to build forts and habitations there.
It next outlined the political and municipal position of the future colony in respect to the Company. The Sieurs Chevrier (de Fancamp), de la Dauversière and their successors were obliged, to show their faith and homage, to take to the fort St. Louis at Quebec in New France, or other place afterwards designated by the Company, at each change of possessor, as payment, a piece of gold of the weight of one ounce stamped with the seal of the Company of New France; to present besides other signs of acknowledgments of feudal tenure; even to furnish their aveux et dénombrement, [38] the whole in conformity with the custom of Paris,—a land tenure system which prevailed for so long afterward in Canada.
In the matter of Justice, dependence was to be placed on the Sovereign Court which was to be established at Quebec or otherwise, to which appeal could be made from the local judges appointed by the Montreal Company.
Montreal was, thus, crippled beforehand, in its trade extension. The fur trade with the Indians was only allowed as far as the need and use of private persons were concerned. All peltry, over and above this, was to be handed over to the agents of the Company of New France at a price fixed by it, on the pain of confiscation. Montreal's pretensions to future independence were guarded against, by it being forbidden to build any fortress or citadel, this privilege being reserved to the Company should it afterward desire land for these forts and for the settlement and housings of the officers and men around them. In case the Company desired a fort on the mountain, it required five arpents around it, etc. Nevertheless the seigneurs of Montreal might retrench or fortify themselves as much as necessary to protect themselves against the incursions of the savages.
Further limitations were placed on the sources of future population. No grants of land were to be given to those already settled in New France, at Quebec, Three Rivers or elsewhere, but only to those who came expressly to people the lands. In order to insure this, the Seigneurs Chevrier and le Royer were to send a number of men by the next shipment made by the Company.
Finally after the clause annulling the gift of de Lauson as stated above, the document gives order to M. de Montmagny, the governor, to put the said seigneurs in possession of the lands.
Throughout this document there is no mention of the "Company of Montreal." The deed is made out to the two named and to their successors, but it was evidently understood that these were acting for others with no other pretension than belonging to a number of associates of the "Company of Montreal." [39]
Let us return to M. Olier. At the time we are speaking of, this young priest, a man of less than twenty-eight years of age, was a missionary for the country people. He had returned from these to Paris to take a decision on a most important subject, which was, whether or not he should accept the episcopal see of a pious prelate who had been urging its acceptance by him for over eighteen months.
On the feast of the Purification, February 2, 1636, with this need for decision on his mind, M. Olier having retired to the abbey church of St. Germaies-Prés to seek in prayer the solution to his perplexity, believed that he had received a supernatural light.
"Having prayed for some time," he relates in after years, "at morning prayer I heard these words, 'you need to consume yourself in me, so that I may work my whole will in you; and I wish that you may be a light to illumine the Gentiles; lumen ad revelationem Gentium.'"