Seigneurial system of New France

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
A typical seigneurial layout of New France[1]

The mode of seigneurial land tenure in New France was the semi-feudal system of land distribution used in the North American colonies of New France.[1]

Introduction[edit]

The seigneurial system was introduced to New France in 1627 by Cardinal Richelieu.[2] Richelieu granted the newly formed Company of New France all lands between the Arctic Circle to the north, Florida to the south, Lake Superior in the west, and the Atlantic in the east. In exchange for this vast land grant and the exclusive trading rights tied to it, the Company was expected to bring two to three hundred settlers to New France in 1628, and a subsequent four thousand during the next fifteen years. To achieve this, the Company subgranted almost all of the land awarded to it by Cardinal Richelieu. Despite the official arrangement reached between Cardinal Richelieu and the Company of New France, levels of immigration to French colonies in North America remained extremely low. The resulting scarcity of labor had a profound effect on the system of land distribution. In practice, the lands were arranged in long, narrow strips called, seigneuries, along the banks of the St. Lawrence River, its estuaries, and other key transit features. Both in nominal and legal terms, all French territorial claims in North America belonged to the King of France. French monarchs did not impose the seigneurial system on New France, and the king’s actual attachment to these lands was virtually non-existent.[3] Instead, Seigneurs were allotted land holdings and presided over the French colonial agricultural system in North America.

This physical layout of seigneurial property developed as a means of maximizing ease of transit, commerce, and communication by exploiting naturally occurring riparian networks (most notably, the St. Lawrence river) and the relatively sparse man-made infrastructure. A desirable plot had to be directly bordering or in very close proximity to a river system, which plot-expansion was limited to one of two directions—left or right.[4]

Geographic Characteristics[edit]

Seigneuries were the most macro-level of land division in New France but, within them, there existed several subdivisions of landholdings. Immediately below the level of seigneurie was that of the roture. Throughout New France, there came to exist several thousand rotures. Furthermore, these rotures were remarkably uniform in terms of size. Barring extreme cases, it is estimated that around 95% of all rotures were between 40 and 200 square Arpents in size, though most were likely 120 arpents or less.[5] Rotures of less than 40 square arpents were considered to be of little value by habitants.[6] To maximize simplicity when surveying, rotures were almost invariably distributed in rectangular plots following a ranged system wherein the first range bordered the river, and was the first to be filled, followed by the second behind it and so on. Typically, the proportions of such rectangles coincided with the ratio of 1:10 for width and length, respectively.However, extremes all the way up to 1:100 are known to have occurred.[7] This method of land division confers obvious advantages in terms of easy access to transportation and cheap surveying, but also allowed habitants to live remarkably close to families on neighboring plots—often within a few hundred yards—creating something of a proto-neighborhood.[8]

Although legislation and enforcement varied depending on the period and administration, a Habitant’s rights of entitlement to their roture could not be revoked as long as they paid their dues to the seigneur and satisfied the requirements of tenir feu et lieu which stipulated that they were obliged to improve their landholdings or they would be confiscated.[9] By ordinance of the Intendant in 1682, a habitant could not hold more than two rotures.[10]

In response to these increasingly subdivided agricultural plots and the issues of diminishing agricultural productivity associated with them, the Governor and the Intendant of New France petitioned the King in 1744 to issue a new ordinance rectifying the matter. The King responded by requiring the minimum plot size which a habitant might cultivate or reside to be one Arpent and a half of frontage by 30-40 arpents in depth.[11] A final characteristic of landholdings en roture is that the size of the plot typically varied in direct proportion with its distance from the nearest town, while its population density varied inversely.[12]

The St.Lawrence Valley[edit]

So easy was the St.Lawrence route that almost any inhabitant of Canada could become a fur trader with a minimum of effort.[13] However, as a base for agricultural settlement the lower St. Lawrence was lacking in two categories: there was very little good land, and the outlet to the markets was difficult.[14] The St.Lawrence route to the heart of a continent was the easiest along the eastern seaboard; and partly for this reason, French-speaking explorers and traders had pushed across half of a continent before many Englishmen.[15] However, a colony along it’s shores was a poor base from which to maintain sea connections with the lands of the Atlantic rim.[16] Seigneuries were conceded along the river in long narrow trapezoids so that as many seigneurs as possible would benefit from river frontage.[17] Furthermore, the St. Lawrence was an omnipresent element of Canadian life.[18] The St. Lawrence plain was covered by a dense forest that culminated a variety of deciduous species predominated near Montreal, but the coniferous representation increased steadily towards the northeastern end of the colony.[19] However, soils along the lower St.Lawrence are rarely of exceptionally good quality predominantly because most are slightly acid, deficient in some nutrients, heavy in texture and poorly drained.[20] Much of the land that could easily be worked was composed of sandy soils in which many crops do not thrive.[21] Therefore, despite the fact that the St. Lawrence river offers merchants, settlers and indigenous peoples access to trade routes, this river is unfortunately flawed when it needs to provide for the land. This problem will ultimately pose as a threat to the seigneurial system. Moreover, the proficiency of land worsened due to rudimentary agricultural practices which did not aid in necessary crop rotations or the fertilization of land.[22] More often then not, the fertility of these soils declined much sooner than expected.[23] If French companies had made agricultural settlement their primary objective, they would probably have established a colony to the south as close to Jamestown as possible, unfortunately this was not the case because the companies were formed for the fur trade, for which the St. Lawrence was the obvious base.[24] Once the fur trade declined, as it had by the end of the seventeenth century, the broad lines of European penetration in North America had been set and France could not expand to the south into land which by then was claimed and occupied by others.[25]

Population Distribution[edit]

In 1667, four years after the arrival of the first ship of settlers, the population was distributed along the north shore on both sides of Quebec for ten miles while settlement began to encroach further inland along the Saint-Charles River and close to the newly established Charlesbourg.[26] Furthermore, approximately 450 people were settled in and around Ile d’Orleans, 200 in Trois-Rivières, 800 on the Ile de Montréal while the south shore of the St. Lawrence was left virtually unsettled.[27] Between 1667 and 1692 the population increased from 4,000 to 11,000.[28] Consequently, the population was distributed further, reaching as far as 20 miles on either side of Quebec on the north shore and for several miles along the Saint-Charles River while Ile d’Orleans was settled around its perimeter.[29] From 1692 to 1712, the population of Ile d’Orleans did not increase; however, by 1737 it had expanded by nearly a thousand.[30] From 1712 to 1739, the population increased most drastically in Montreal and least rapidly in Trois-Rivières.[31] It is by 1739 that the population increased to over 40,000 and distribution spanned for nearly thirty miles below Quebec on the north shore.[32] Although along the south shore, around Trois-Rivières, the land remained largely unsettled, population on the south shore was consistently distributed for fifty miles from Quebec.[33]

A Feudal Mode of Tenure[edit]

The seigneur rented most of the land to tenants, known as censitaires or habitants, who cleared the land, built a house and other buildings, and farmed the land. A smaller portion of the land was kept as a demesne (land owned by the seigneur and farmed by his family or by hired labour) which was economically significant in the early days of settlement though less thereafter.[34] The seigneurial mode of land tenure differed somewhat from its counterpart in France; the seigneurs of New France were not always nobles, though many were. Seigneuries in North America were granted to military officers, and as in France many were owned by the Catholic clergy.[35] However, the system was feudal in the sense that there was a clear displacement of wealth happening from censitaires to their seigneurs which was not at all based on market forces (as land was plentiful and labor was not) but rather a system institutionalized by the crown.[36]

The censitaires paid several fees to the seigneur that were generally paid in wheat, the largest and best known one was called cens et rentes and was a yearly fee for the use of the land. Others included a sale tax called lods and ventes, a grist mill banalité, the tithe as well as other minor charges.[37] These fees were most often demanded in kind (in wheat or livestock etc.) and could be arguably manipulated to the point that while the fee nominally remained the same, in real terms it may have risen throughout the period.[38]

The habitants were able to divide their land for their children according to the The Custom of Paris in New France once they had families of their own, meaning that in the event of the death of a spouse, half the estate went to the surviving spouse, with the other half divided among the children (both male and female).[39] This could lead to an unusual (for the time period) number of women, generally widows who were in charge of large amounts of property. However, it is also worth noting that most widows remarried within a short time of their spouse’s death and often the meticulous splitting of estates demanded by the Custom of Paris was disregarded in favor of quickly solidifying the new union.[40]

Elsewhere this kind of property inheritance law often led to fragmentation of estates. However, the subsistence level farming of many of the habitants in New France made fragmentation impossible and so it was common practice for one heir to buy out the others’ land, keeping estates in more or less one piece.[41] It is also worth noting that anything but direct inheritance the property might be subject to the lods and ventes fee of 1/12th of the value of the property due to the seignior.[36][41]

Types of Land Grants[edit]

In 1627, the responsibility to establish the seigneurial system in Canada fell upon the Company of 100 Associates.[42] For the next thirty years, the Company subgranted approximately seventy seigneuries.[43] Although, it was necessary for the Company to gain royal consent for the subgranting of land, it was up to its on discretion to choose the size, shape, title and grantees for each land grant.[44] Various types of grantees acquired land grants through the seigneurial system. Lords received lands with the expectation of dividing them into smaller lots for settlers whom they had to recruit themselves.[45] Additionally, these lords had the right to divide the land into sub-fiefs and arrière-sub-fiefs for family, friends and business associates.[46] Members of the Company, their prominent friends and the Jesuits received the largest seigneuries granted in Canada.[47] The majority of the land grants conceded by the Company were situated between Montreal and Quebec while grants above Montreal were avoided to prevent competition in the fur trade and possible conflict with the Iroquois.[48]

Life on a Seigneury[edit]

Close attention to the actual workings of the seigneurial system has shattered that view. In the early days of settlement at least, seigneurs learned that there was little to be earned collecting rents from subsistence farmers, and is they did little to recruit tenants.[49] They did not develop their estates into cohesive economic communities, they rarely lived on them, and they mostly drew an insignificant income from their rents.[50] Never the less, the central reality of the system - the seigneur’s property rights - made the seigneurial regime important, not as a social system, but simply as a financial burden on tenant farmers.[51] In early New France, when populations were small and tenant scarce, seigneurs may have earned little money from their tenants and paid little attention to their estates, but they still demanded their rents and services, and they awaited better returns as the tenant population grew. Seigneurial revenues rarely made the clerical orders or military aristocrats who received them richer, but they surely made the habitants poorer.[52] Little of this money ever returned to the land. It was sent off to the clerical orders in France or spent maintaining the aristocratic style of life in the towns.[53] Seigneurs may have been distant and uninvolved in the life of their seiagneuries, but for the habitants the consequence was not independence from the seigneur. The habitant not only owed these rents but were also obliged to the tithe (that is to pay one twenty-sixth of their crop) to support the parish priest, to do militia service in wartime, and to give unpaid labour to the Crown when roads, fortifications, and other public works were undertaken.[54]

The Seigneur as a Social and Political Figure[edit]

The Cent-Associés was commanded by their charter from the King of France to bring in settlers while it was administering the new colony. The Company granted Seigneuries to anyone who seemed likely to bring in settlers. Robert Griffard, a surgeon who had visited New France in the 1620s, became one of the first to participate in this system.[55] In 1634 he received the seigneurie of Beauport just east of Quebec. Gifford came from the town of Mortagne in Perche, and it was he and a couple of friends who recruited the early rush of Perche settlers to the colony.[56] Few Seigneurs imitated Giffard’s efforts, and most active Seiagneuries around Quebec, Montreal and Trois-Rivières. Already the characteristic look of the land of New France was being established. Nearly all seigneuries were long, narrow blocks set almost at right angles to the riverfront, and the routers in them were also long and narrow. Settlers wanted to be close to neighbours, and river access was precious because it was essential for travel and trade.

The seigneurs were not necessarily aristocrats: one did not need to be a nobleman to acquire a seigneurie, and getting one did not confer nobility status. But the colonial aristocracy took the lead in landholding. In 1663 half the seigneurs were noblemen (or noblewomen, usually widows who had acquired their husbands estates’), and they held three-quarters of all the land granted by the King.[57] The proportion of seiagneuries held by aristocrats would grow as officers of the Régiment de Carignan and later the Ministry of Marine companies acquired the lands that helped bind them to the New World.[58] “Those who pray,” the clergy, and expected to be supported by the third estate, “those who labour,” and the church was leading landlord throughout the history of New France.[59] Granting seiagneuries to orders of priests and nuns was not simply a charitable gesture, for many of the religious orders had the money and skill to develop their estates. Perhaps the most successful example was the seigneurie of Montreal Island, where the Sulpicians appointed able managers and set money developing their lands. They were rewarded with rapid growth and expansion, and they would own much of Montreal Island.[60] Not all church seiagneuries were held by religious orders. Bishop François de Laval, an aristocrat as well as a clergyman, was personally the seigneur of the Ile d’Orléans near Quebec.[61] Like the aristocracy, the church would expand its landholdings over the years.

The scarcity of aristocrats in New France's early years encouraged social mobility, and many commoners had a chance to become seigneurs. A famous case study of this mobility is Charles Le Moyne, a Dieppe innkeepers’ son, who came to New France in 1641 as a fifteen-year-old engagé to serve the Jesuits among the Huron.[62] He would later be ennobled by the King after the Iroquois wars of the 1650s.[63] Charles le Moyne died in 1685. His status in death was Sieur de Longueuil et de Châteauguay, and he left a fortune and several seigneuries to his family of fourteen.

In theory, a seigneur was not just a landlord but also a leader his community. As a soldier, he would organize and command its defences.[64] He would be part of the parish church, which he personally might have had built.[65] As owner of the land, as builder of the mill, and as the richest man around, he would be the economic power of the community.[66] His imposing manor house would reflect and confirm his status as head of his people, the rural squire around whom the seigneurie revolved.


Justice in The Seigneurial System[edit]

The Seigneurial system in New France, served not only as a system of land distribution but also played an involved role in legal disputes and court cases in the imperial space.[67] As the supreme legal authority in the region belonged to the Conseil Supérieur and the intendant of Quebec, who were empowered by the crown, the legal authority of the seigneur was maintained by these stately positions. The early Canadian governments would often go to great lengths to maintain seigneurial forms of authority, though occasionally would punish abuses towards the peasants to quell animosity.[68] Such “abuses” primarily concerned nepotism and the misallocation of quality land to the seigneur’s family members, directly against the Edicts of Marly.[69] Women in the Seigneuries, notably played a more active role in legal proceedings than would their Continental French counterparts, in some cases even occupying seats of plaintiffs and defendants in public court. In rare cases this was extended to women representing their husbands in court as opposed to the opposite which was much more common.[70].

New France in Economic Theory[edit]

Some historians suggest that the structure of the seigneurial system itself might have caused delays in economic growth for New France. Morris Altman, for example argued that by shifting disposable wealth and therefore spending power from the censitaires to the seigneurs the system deeply altered the economy of New France. Furthermore, since the seignieurs rarely had their estates as their chief source of income, the relatively insignificant sums of money from the cens et rentes were used largely in the purchase of luxury items which were almost always imported from France.[71] Altman theorizes that since the censitaires would have either re-invested this money or bought goods produced locally, this was damaging to the economy of New France and limited growth.[72] Though Altman later altered the precise estimates he made (based on annual outputs) of how much disposable income the censitaire might have been deprived of (and therefore the amount of local investment lost) he confirmed his original thesis that the seigneurial fees reduced growth through wealth transfer.[73] Other historians such as Allan Greer have also argued that the wealth transfer limited the growth of the censitaires’ farms as well as other local enterprises, which in the long run might limit general economic growth.[74]

After the British conquest[edit]

After the Battle of the Plains of Abraham and the conquest of Quebec by the British during the Seven Years' War, the system became an obstacle to colonization by British settlers. The Quebec Act of 1774 retained French civil law and therefore the seigneurial system.

It remained relatively intact for almost a century. This was the prime land; also many Englishmen and Scotsmen purchased seigneuries; others were divided equally between male and female offspring; some were run by the widows of seigneurs as their children grew to adulthood. Over time land became subdivided among the owners' offspring and descendants, resulting in increasingly narrow plots of land.

When Quebec was divided in December 1791 between Lower Canada (today's Quebec) and Upper Canada (today's Ontario), a 45.7 km (28.4 mi) segment of the colonial boundary was drawn at the west edge of the westernmost contiguous seigneuries along the St. Lawrence and Ottawa rivers, accounting for the small triangle of land at Vaudreuil-Soulanges that belongs to Quebec rather than Ontario. Only two outlying seigneuries were ever established in the area that became Upper Canada, being located at L'Orignal[75] on the Ottawa River and Frontenac[76] at the eastern end of Lake Ontario at what is now Kingston and Wolfe Island.[77]

Abolition[edit]

The seigneurial system was formally abolished by the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada and assented to by Governor Lord Elgin on 18 December 1854 in An Act for the Abolition of Feudal Rights and Duties in Lower Canada.[78]

The act called for the creation of a special Seigneurial Court composed of all the justices of Lower Canada, which was presented a series of questions concerning the various economic and property rights that abolition would change.

Some of the vestiges of this system of landowning continued into the 20th century as some of the feudal rents continued to be collected. The system was finally abolished when the last residual rents were repurchased through a system of Quebec provincial bonds. In 1935, the Quebec Parliament voted a law repealing seigneurial tenure and setting up a commission in charge of ensuring that the lords, before November 11, 1936, receive payment of the capital represented by the rents to be perceived.[79] This system was known as the "Syndicat national du rachat des rentes seigneuriales" (SNRRS) (loosely translated as the "National Union for the redemption of seigneurial rents"). Many censitaires continued to pay the annual rent even after the passage of the 1854 law repealling the system, and the SNRRS was founded to finally roll-up the system.[80]

The stated roll of the SNRRS was "facilitate the release of all lands or lots of land annuities who replaced manorial rights". The system was promoted by Télesphore-Damien Bouchard, the Liberal deputy and mayor of Saint-Hyacinthe, who stated that "a very large number of censitaires have not yet redeemed [bought back] for over the seventy years that they have been able to do so [since the passage of the 1854 law]" and they must " make an annual pilgrimage to pay [the annuities], very often, to a stranger who has acquired rights originally belonging to our ancestral families". These former censitaires were however not entirely finished with these annuities as it would fall upon the municipalities to take over the process by levying a new tax (called special or seigneurial tax) equivalent to what was still owed to the creditors/lords. The Act of 1935 transformed the amount due under the 1854 Act, in an amount equal to the capital. This amount could be paid in a lump sum or in up to 41 annual installments of the same amount as that of the old annuity. The annual payment would then serve to reduce the total amount owing, without further expenditures for either the censitaire or the government. Some examples of the situation: For a land of four and a half acres (1.5 hectare) in size, located in Courville on the territory of the lordship of Beauport, Bernard Philemon owes a capital of $5.00 or an annual rente of 0.30 cents. For neighboring land, totaling 10 acres (3.4 hectares), Edmond-François Grenier pays 0.60 cents annually on a capital of $10.00.[80]

The work of the SNRRS was briefly on hiatus from 1936-1940 during the government of the Union Nationale. Taken up again in 1940, the work of the SNRRS was taken up again the provincial Liberal government in 1940; the SNRRS was to determine what remains of the lord / censitaire relationship in the province, and to answer two questions "Who owns what?" and "Who gets what?". This was to be a complex issue because, since 1854, many lords and their descendants were relieved of their rights to accrued benefits to the profit of third parties. This task was given to a team of two notaries to determine which were claims were legitimate, and the actual amount to be paid under the 1935 law. Seigneurs were to provide proof of ownership or transfer of their rights under the 1854 Act. Compared to the situation of the short cadastre (survey) of 1854, it was determined that annuities owed amount to no more than 25% of the original amount owed by the censitaires overall. Some had not been paid since the 19th Century. To rectify the situation for once and all, the SNRRS issued an edict dated September 15, 1940 stating that whatever was due no later than November 11 of that year was to be paid directly to the Lord as before. Any amount owing after that date would be paid to the municipality.[80]

The amounts paid to the various municipalities were unequal as they did not directly correspond with the boundaries of the former seigneuries. Many municipalities allowed a lump sum payment of the amount owing, rather than impose a small annual tax over the 41 years as permitted. The final installment paid to the SNRRS by the municipalities was made eleven years earlier than planned, on November 11, 1970 instead of November 11, 1981, due to an apparently effective management of the system.[80]

Historical Evidence and Modern Impact[edit]

St. Lawrence River by SPOT Satellite. "Long lots" can be discerned at the riverside

There has been great discrepancy between the historical evidence on New France available to historians and the subsequent representation and dissemination of this evidence by historians and consequently, by teachers in Quebec schools. Francophone historians have tended to emphasize Canada while neglecting Acadia and Louisiana and this negligence is apparent in school curriculums.[81] Moreover, in Quebec, the study of New France has become analogous with the emphasis on the primacy of the French language and culture in the history of Canada.[82] Despite this highly slanted view of New France having been adopted by the Quebec school system, there is substantial extant historical evidence that demonstrates the result and the scope of the implementation of the seigneurial system in New France. Remnants of the seigneurial system can be seen today in maps and satellite imagery of Quebec, with the characteristic "long lot” land system still forming the basic shape of current farm fields and clearings, as well as being reflected in the historic county boundaries along the St. Lawrence River. This form of land use can be seen along the Red River in southern Manitoba and along certain portions of the South Saskatchewan River in Saskatchewan near Batoche, where significant Metis and French Canadian settlement occurred. Additionally, seigneurial land use can also be seen in such images of Louisiana, which also was founded as a French colony with somewhat similar agricultural patterns. The work of the SNRRS can be evaluated by reviewing the fonds given in 1975 by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs (which looked after the SNRRS) to the Quebec National Archives. These documents constitute an amount equal to 20.5 meters of textual records.[80]

A comparable seigneurial system was the patroon system of heritable land established by the Dutch West India Company. The company granted seigneurial powers to the "patrons", who paid for the transport of settlers in New Netherland. The system was not abolished by the British when they took possession of the Dutch holdings.

The Problem With the Seigneurial System[edit]

Canon Lionel Groulx describes the seigneurial system as “une des lignes de force du Canada d’autrefois”.[83] The seigneurie was the basic unit of social and economic organization, and initially recognized as the social center of every neighborhood.[84] Furthermore, it provided a social and economic framework in which the development of a new colony could proceed.[85] However, despite the fact that such a promising system is seen as the center around which Canada developed, there are several problems which emerge.[86] When agricultural settlement began, no one knew how much land a censitaire had to clear before he could produce an agricultural surplus, or what a seigneur had to control before he could hope to profit from his seigneurie. Least of all, was it possible to be certain whether a feudal system which had been shaped in France, where land was scarce and the economy predominantly agricultural, could be made to function in a rough, new environment that had previously attracted French interest primarily because of its furs.[87] The seigneurial system is more so considered as a “regime” system of colonization which gave Canada a social and economic structure which was only slightly reminiscent of medieval feudalism.[88] To begin with, this system significantly weakened the colony because the seigneurs were indifferent to the responsibilities of settling and developing their seiagneuries.[89] Furthermore, even though the system provided a framework for colonization, the majority of seigneuries failed to attract settlers to Canada.[90] The idea of independence associated with unmanageable habitants clearly ill fits that of an influential seigneurial system because they often depended on their seigneurs, who predominantly were seldom more prosperous and frequently less experienced in a Canadian environment.[91] Moreover, several of these habitants were coureurs de bois and as capable as any white men of fending for themselves in the North American wilderness.[92] If this seigneurial system was by any means “une ligne de force” and if a small fraction of the social and economic life of the colony developed within a seigneurial framework, then the patterns of social and economic activity which appeared on the land would reflect the connection.[93] Furthermore, a closer look at the geographical data could reflect even more so why the seigneurial system had such flaws. For the most part, the seigneurial system left an altogether insignificant impression on the geography of early Canada.[94] The settlement in it of itself expanded along the St. Lawrence and patterns of social and economic activity developed there in ways that rarely reflected a seigneurial framework.[95] This is because the seiagneuries were indefinite units on the land due to the fact that their boundaries were usually known only vaguely.[96] The seigneurial system itself was largely irrelevant to the geography and as equally irrelevant to the way of life which emerged there in early Canada.[97].

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ a b Lee, Michael. "Seigneurial System". The Canadian Encyclopedia. Historica Foundation of Canada. Retrieved 28 October 2007. 
  2. ^ Richard Colebrook Harris, The Seigneurial System in Early Canada: A Geographical Study. McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1984. 21.
  3. ^ Pritchard, James S. In Search of Empire : The French in the Americas, 1670-1730 [in English]. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004.76
  4. ^ Hayes, Derek. “Historical atlas of Canada : Canada’s history illustrated with original maps.” Vancouver; Seattle: Douglas & McIntyre ; University of Washington Press, 2002. 76.
  5. ^ Richard Colebrook Harris, The Seigneurial System in Early Canada: A Geographical Study. McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1984. 117
  6. ^ Richard Colebrook Harris, The Seigneurial System in Early Canada: A Geographical Study. McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1984. 118
  7. ^ Richard Colebrook Harris, The Seigneurial System in Early Canada: A Geographical Study. McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1984.119
  8. ^ Richard Colebrook Harris, The Seigneurial System in Early Canada: A Geographical Study. McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1984.121
  9. ^ Richard Colebrook Harris, The Seigneurial System in Early Canada: A Geographical Study. McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1984.130-131.
  10. ^ Richard Colebrook Harris, The Seigneurial System in Early Canada: A Geographical Study. McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1984. 128.
  11. ^ Guérin, Thomas. Feudal Canada: The Story of the Seigniories of New France, 1926.45.
  12. ^ Richard Colebrook Harris, The Seigneurial System in Early Canada: A Geographical Study. McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1984.138
  13. ^ Harris, Cole, Seigneurial System in Early Canada A Geographical Study. McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1984, 19
  14. ^ Harris, Cole, Seigneurial System in Early Canada A Geographical Study. McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1984, 19
  15. ^ Harris, Cole, Seigneurial System in Early Canada A Geographical Study. McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1984, 17
  16. ^ Harris, Cole, Seigneurial System in Early Canada A Geographical Study. McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1984, 18
  17. ^ Harris, Cole, Seigneurial System in Early Canada A Geographical Study. McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1984, 12
  18. ^ Harris, Cole, Seigneurial System in Early Canada A Geographical Study. McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1984, 12
  19. ^ Harris, Cole, Seigneurial System in Early Canada A Geographical Study. McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1984, 12
  20. ^ Harris, Cole, Seigneurial System in Early Canada A Geographical Study. McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1984, 16
  21. ^ Harris, Cole, Seigneurial System in Early Canada A Geographical Study. McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1984, 17
  22. ^ Harris, Cole, Seigneurial System in Early Canada A Geographical Study. McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1984, 17
  23. ^ Harris, Cole, Seigneurial System in Early Canada A Geographical Study. McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1984, 17
  24. ^ Harris, Cole, Seigneurial System in Early Canada A Geographical Study. McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1984, 19
  25. ^ Harris, Cole, Seigneurial System in Early Canada A Geographical Study. McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1984, 19
  26. ^ Harris, Cole. The Seigneurial System in Early Canada: A Geographical Study. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1984.
  27. ^ Harris, Cole. The Seigneurial System in Early Canada: A Geographical Study. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1984.
  28. ^ Harris, Cole. The Seigneurial System in Early Canada: A Geographical Study. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1984.
  29. ^ Harris, Cole. The Seigneurial System in Early Canada: A Geographical Study. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1984.
  30. ^ Harris, Cole. The Seigneurial System in Early Canada: A Geographical Study. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1984.
  31. ^ Harris, Cole. The Seigneurial System in Early Canada: A Geographical Study. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1984.
  32. ^ Harris, Cole. The Seigneurial System in Early Canada: A Geographical Study. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1984.
  33. ^ Harris, Cole. The Seigneurial System in Early Canada: A Geographical Study. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1984.
  34. ^ Greer, Allan. Peasant, Lord, and Merchant 8-9. Pritchard, James S. In Search of Empire : The French in the Americas, 1670-1730 [in English]. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004.10.
  35. ^ Greer, Allan. Peasant, Lord, and Merchant 8-9. Pritchard, James S. In Search of Empire : The French in the Americas, 1670-1730 [in English]. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004. 80.
  36. ^ a b Altman, Morris. "Seigniorial Tenure in New France, 1688-1739: An Essay on Income Distribution and Retarded Economic Development." Historical Reflections / Réflexions Historiques 10, no. 3 (1983): 361.
  37. ^ Altman, Morris. "Seigniorial Tenure in New France, 1688-1739: An Essay on Income Distribution and Retarded Economic Development." Historical Reflections / Réflexions Historiques 10, no. 3 (1983): 338
  38. ^ Greer, Allan. Peasant, Lord, and Merchant : Rural Society in Three Quebec Parishes, 1740-1840 [in English]. Toronto; Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, 1985. 123
  39. ^ Pritchard, James S. In Search of Empire : The French in the Americas, 1670-1730 [in English]. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004. 87.;Greer, Allan. Peasant, Lord, and Merchant : Rural Society in Three Quebec Parishes, 1740-1840 [in English]. Toronto; Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, 1985. 74.
  40. ^ Pritchard, James S. In Search of Empire : The French in the Americas, 1670-1730 [in English]. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004. 119.
  41. ^ a b Pritchard, James S. In Search of Empire : The French in the Americas, 1670-1730 [in English]. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004. 87.
  42. ^ Courville, Serge, and Richard Howard. Quebec: A Historical Geography. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2008.
  43. ^ Harris, Cole. The Seigneurial System in Early Canada: A Geographical Study. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1984
  44. ^ Harris, Cole. The Seigneurial System in Early Canada: A Geographical Study. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1984
  45. ^ Courville, Serge, and Richard Howard. Quebec: A Historical Geography. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2008.
  46. ^ Courville, Serge, and Richard Howard. Quebec: A Historical Geography. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2008.
  47. ^ Harris, Cole. The Seigneurial System in Early Canada: A Geographical Study. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1984.
  48. ^ Harris, Cole. The Seigneurial System in Early Canada: A Geographical Study. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1984.
  49. ^ Greer, Allan. 1985. Peasant, Lord, and Merchant: Rural Society in Three Quebec Parishes,1740-1840. Toronto: University of Toronto Press
  50. ^ Greer, Allan. 1985. Peasant, Lord, and Merchant: Rural Society in Three Quebec Parishes,1740-1840. Toronto: University of Toronto Press
  51. ^ Greer, Allan. 1985. Peasant, Lord, and Merchant: Rural Society in Three Quebec Parishes,1740-1840. Toronto: University of Toronto Press
  52. ^ Greer, Allan. 1985. Peasant, Lord, and Merchant: Rural Society in Three Quebec Parishes,1740-1840. Toronto: University of Toronto Press
  53. ^ Greer, Allan. 1985. Peasant, Lord, and Merchant: Rural Society in Three Quebec Parishes,1740-1840. Toronto: University of Toronto Press
  54. ^ New France. Règlements Généraux du Conseil Souverain Pour la Police. 11 mai 1676. Cote : TP1,S28,P1314. http://pistard.banq.qc.ca/unite_chercheurs/description_fonds?p_anqsid=201502251413202393&p_centre=03Q&p_classe=TP&p_fonds=1&p_numunide=812054
  55. ^ "Biography – GIFFARD DE MONCEL, ROBERT – Volume I (1000-1700) – Dictionary of Canadian Biography." Biography – GIFFARD DE MONCEL, ROBERT – Volume I (1000-1700) – Dictionary of Canadian Biography. Accessed February 25, 2015. http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio.php?id_nbr=305.
  56. ^ "Biography – GIFFARD DE MONCEL, ROBERT – Volume I (1000-1700) – Dictionary of Canadian Biography." Biography – GIFFARD DE MONCEL, ROBERT – Volume I (1000-1700) – Dictionary of Canadian Biography. Accessed February 25, 2015. http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio.php?id_nbr=305.
  57. ^ Gadoury, Lorraine. La Noblesse De Nouvelle-France: Familles Et Alliances. La Salle, Québec: Hurtubise HMH, 1992. 102
  58. ^ Gadoury, Lorraine. La Noblesse De Nouvelle-France: Familles Et Alliances. La Salle, Québec: Hurtubise HMH, 1992. 45
  59. ^ Gadoury, Lorraine. La Noblesse De Nouvelle-France: Familles Et Alliances. La Salle, Québec: Hurtubise HMH, 1992. 93
  60. ^ Pearson, Timothy G. Becoming Holy in Early Canada. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2014. 85.
  61. ^ "Biography – LAVAL, FRANÇOIS DE – Volume II (1701-1740) – Dictionary of Canadian Biography." Biography – LAVAL, FRANÇOIS DE – Volume II (1701-1740) – Dictionary of Canadian Biography. Accessed February 25, 2015. http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/laval_francois_de_2E.html.
  62. ^ Biography – LE MOYNE DE LONGUEUIL, CHARLES, Baron De LONGUEUIL (1687-1755) – Volume III (1741-1770) – Dictionary of Canadian Biography." Biography – LE MOYNE DE LONGUEUIL, CHARLES, Baron De LONGUEUIL (1687-1755) – Volume III (1741-1770) – Dictionary of Canadian Biography. Accessed February 25, 2015. http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/le_moyne_de_longueuil_charles_1687_1755_3E.html.
  63. ^ Biography – LE MOYNE DE LONGUEUIL, CHARLES, Baron De LONGUEUIL (1687-1755) – Volume III (1741-1770) – Dictionary of Canadian Biography." Biography – LE MOYNE DE LONGUEUIL, CHARLES, Baron De LONGUEUIL (1687-1755) – Volume III (1741-1770) – Dictionary of Canadian Biography. Accessed February 25, 2015. http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/le_moyne_de_longueuil_charles_1687_1755_3E.html.
  64. ^ Grenier, Benoi. Brève Histoire Du Régime Seigneurial. Montréal: Boréal, 2012.73.
  65. ^ Grenier, Benoi. Brève Histoire Du Régime Seigneurial. Montréal: Boréal, 2012.89.
  66. ^ Grenier, Benoi. Brève Histoire Du Régime Seigneurial. Montréal: Boréal, 2012.123.
  67. ^ "Exhibitions/Administration/The Administration of Justice". Champlain2004.org. Retrieved 2010-06-30.
  68. ^ Greer, Allan. 1985. Peasant, lord, and merchant: rural society in three Quebec parishes, 1740-1840. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.102
  69. ^ Greer, Allan. 1985. Peasant, lord, and merchant: rural society in three Quebec parishes, 1740-1840. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.102
  70. ^ Coates, Colin MacMillan, and Colin MacMillan Coates. 2000. The metamorphoses of landscape and community in early Quebec. Montreal [Que.]: McGill-Queen's University Press. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10135230. 103
  71. ^ Greer, Allan. Peasant, Lord, and Merchant : Rural Society in Three Quebec Parishes, 1740-1840 [in English]. Toronto; Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, 1985. 89, 138.
  72. ^ Allan Greer "Seigniorial Tenure in New France, 1688-1739: An Essay on Income Distribution and Retarded Economic Development." Historical Reflections / Réflexions Historiques 10, no. 3 (1983): 335-75. 371
  73. ^ Altman, Morris. "Note on the Economic Burden of the Seigniorial System in New France, 1688-1739." Historical Reflections / Réflexions Historiques 14, no. 1 (1987): 141.
  74. ^ Greer, Allan. Peasant, Lord, and Merchant : Rural Society in Three Quebec Parishes, 1740-1840 [in English]. Toronto; Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, 1985. 138.
  75. ^ "The Seigneury of L'Orignal". Retrieved 2012-09-10. 
  76. ^ "René-Robert Cavelier de La Salle at Cataracoui". Ontario Heritage Trust. Retrieved 2012-09-10. 
  77. ^ Mrs. James Hawkins (1967). "History of Wolfe Island". Retrieved 2012-09-10. 
  78. ^ An Act for the Abolition of Feudal Rights and Duties in Lower Canada, 18 Vict., cap. III. 
  79. ^ Lacoursière, Jacques; Provencher, Jean; Vaugeois, Denis (2000). Canada - Québec : Synthèse historique 1534-2000 (in French). Sillery, Québec: Septentrion. p. 302. 
  80. ^ a b c d e Grenier, Benoit (Autumn 2010). "" Le dernier endroit dans l’univers" À propos de l’extinction des rentes seigneuriales au Québec, 1854-1974" ["The last place in the universe" About the extinction of seigneurial Quebec, 1854-1974]. Revue d'histoire de l'Amérique française (in French) (Institut d’histoire de l’Amérique française) 64 (2): 75–98. doi:10.7202/1017839ar. Retrieved 25 July 2014. 
  81. ^ Gilles Havard and Cecile Vidal, “Making New France New Again,” Common-Place 7 (2007) online at www.common-place.org • vol. 7 • no. 4 • July 2007
  82. ^ Gilles Havard and Cecile Vidal, “Making New France New Again,” Common-Place 7 (2007) online at www.common-place.org • vol. 7 • no. 4 • July 2007
  83. ^ Harris, Cole, Seigneurial System in Early Canada A Geographical Study. McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1984, 5
  84. ^ Harris, Cole, Seigneurial System in Early Canada A Geographical Study. McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1984, 6
  85. ^ Harris, Cole, Seigneurial System in Early Canada A Geographical Study. McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1984, 6
  86. ^ Harris, Cole, Seigneurial System in Early Canada A Geographical Study. McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1984, 6
  87. ^ Harris, Cole, Seigneurial System in Early Canada A Geographical Study. McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1984, 4
  88. ^ Harris, Cole, Seigneurial System in Early Canada A Geographical Study. McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1984, 5
  89. ^ Harris, Cole, Seigneurial System in Early Canada A Geographical Study. McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1984, 6
  90. ^ Harris, Cole, Seigneurial System in Early Canada A Geographical Study. McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1984, 6
  91. ^ Harris, Cole, Seigneurial System in Early Canada A Geographical Study. McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1984, 6
  92. ^ Harris, Cole, Seigneurial System in Early Canada A Geographical Study. McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1984, 6
  93. ^ Harris, Cole, Seigneurial System in Early Canada A Geographical Study. McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1984, 7
  94. ^ Harris, Cole, Seigneurial System in Early Canada A Geographical Study. McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1984, 12
  95. ^ Harris, Cole, Seigneurial System in Early Canada A Geographical Study. McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1984, 7
  96. ^ Harris, Cole, Seigneurial System in Early Canada A Geographical Study. McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1984, 5
  97. ^ Harris, Cole, Seigneurial System in Early Canada A Geographical Study. McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1984, 8

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  • Mathieu, Jacques. "Seigneurial system". The Canadian Encyclopedia. Historica Foundation of Canada. Retrieved 25 April 2008. 
  • Harris, Richard Colebrook (1966). The Seigneurial System in Early Canada. A Geographical Study. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press. p. 247. 
  • Trudel, Marcel (1956). The Seigneurial Regime. Ottawa: Canadian Historical Association. p. 18. 

External links[edit]