THE INTERCOURSE OF LETTERS: TRANSATLANTIC CORRESPONDENCE IN EARLY CANADA,

1640-1812

A thesis submitted in confomity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy,

Graduate Department of History, in the University of Toronto

O Copyright by Jane E. Harrison, 2000

National Library 1+1 of Canada Bibliothèque nationale du Canada

Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Services services bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395, nie Wellington OttawaON K l A W OttawaON K 1 A W Canada Cana&

The author has granted a non- exclusive Licence allowing the National Library of Canada to reproduce, loan, distribute or sel1 copies of this thesis in microforrn, paper or electronic formats.

The author retains ownership of the copyright in this thesis. Neither the thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it may be printed or otherwise reproduced without the author's permission.

L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive permettant a la Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou vendre des copies de cette thèse sous la forme de microfiche/nlm, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique.

L'auteur conserve la propriété du droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés ou autrement reproduits sans son autorisation.

Iane E. Harrison, "The intercourse of Letters: Transatlantic Correspondence in Early Canada, 1640- 18 12 (Ph. D., Department of History, University of Toronto, 2000)

ABSTRACT

This thesis is about the process of transatlantic letter-writing between Canada and

Europe from the 1640s to the War of 1812. In this era, M o r e the advent of mass

communications in the mid-nineteenth century, there was little or no postal service;

communications depended largely upon commercial shipping; correspondents played an

active role in the transmission of the mails; the seasonal tirnits on navigation in the Saint

Lawrence shaped patterns of communications; letters t w k months to cross the Atlantic;

and correspondence was vulnerable to delay and loss. Focusing on the evidence provided

by the letters thei,iselves, this thesis reveais a process that was, despite the limitations on

communications, complcx, nch, dynamic, and often remarkably effective. This study

argues, in thc first instance, that the cffectiveness of the early mails can only usefully be

cvaluatcd in thc contcxt of contemporary expectations. Correspondents distinguished

clcarly between good and bad years, and it is from thcir perspective that we need to assess

the frcqucncy of opportrinitics by which thcy could write, the spacing of these

opportunities ovcr time, thc length of thc communications season, and the riskiness of

conditions in a particular year. Second, conditions for communications werc not static:

they varied significantly fkom year to year, but also improvcd dramatically ovcr tirne--

most significantly afte: the Conquest whcn the rigid scasonal constraints of the French

rcginie werc broken. Third, the pre-institutional structures on which the mails depcnded

wcre rcmarkably effective. Individual letter-writers developed forms and conventions of

lcttcr-writing that minimized the consequences arïsing from the 10s or delay of letters,

and managcd their correspondcnce in ways that rnaximized the opportunities to write.

Moreovcr, corrcspondents operated within a culture of communications that linkcd elite

corrcspondcnts and mcmbcrs of the broader community in a complicated wcb of mutual

obligation and assistance. The mles of this system wcre tacit rather than explicit, its

proccsscs thc product of convention rather than of legislation. But for al1 that it was

rcmarkably cffcctivc.

It has become a cliche to observe that "it takes a village to raise a child." Yet, Our

dcpendence upon the community in which we live is a crucial fact of Our existence, and

particularly true of the thesis-writing process. 1 have been pnvileged over the years to

receive support from many quarters.

The kerncl of the idea for this thesis carne out of work that 1 did in the mid-1980's

as a historical researcher undcr contract to the National Postal Museum in Ottawa. 1 am

gratcful to thc Museum and its former director Johanne LaRochelle for giving me

pcrmission to makc use of the rcscarch notcs 1 prepared for them for this project. 1 owe a

particular debt to Françinc Brousseau, now the director of the Canadian Postal Museum

within the Canadian Muscum of Civilization, for designing the initial rcsearch project that

got mc intcrcstcd in the carly history of the mails and for her continued interest and Y

support. More reccntly i am indebtcd to the Museum's historian John Willis who has

sharcd with mc a fcw bits and picccs of material that thc museumfs research has

su bscqucntly uxicovcrcd.

My own research over the years has bccn aided by thc helpfulncss and expertise of

many librarians and archivists. I wish to acknowlcdge in particular the staffs of the

National Library of Canada, Ottawa; the National Archivcs of Canada, most notably

Marianne McLcan, Patricia Kenncdy, and Bruce Wilson; thc Archives National de Québec

and thc Archives du SCminairc du Québec in Qucbcc City; thc Archives dc l'université de

Montrcal and thc McCord Muscum in that city; the Baldwin Room of thc Central

Rcfcrcncc Library. Toronto; thc Public Archivcs of Ontario; the Fisher Rare Book Library

at thc University of Toronto; and Janc Lynch of the Interlibrary Loan Scrvices at thc J.P.

Robarts Library at the University of Toronto. Financially, this projcct has been supported

by thc Univcrsity of Toronto in the form of two Maurice Cody Research Fcllowships and

numerous tutorial assistrinceships within the Department of History; and the Ontario

Graduatc Scholarship Fund. 1 owc a particular debt of gratitude to my parents Barbara and

Alcx. Hamson whosc generous financial assistance in more recent years has made the

completion of this thesis possible.

Thc path towards the completion of this projed was not always a direct one, but it

was challenging and fulfilling. The time that I took out of the middle of the project to

fm 1640 . .

writc and publish M l Next Year: 1 e t - 1830, a more popular trcatmcnt of the history of the early mails, helped me to solidify

sonic of my idcas about thc history of carly communications and to reach out to a broader

audiencc than any thesis will ever have, and 1 am grateful to the Canadian Postal Museum

for giving me this opportunity. The birth of my children, Matthew and Emma, in the early

stagcs of my rcsearch undoubtedly slowed my progress but helped me realize the depth of

my commitmcnt to the work 1 was doing and gave me fulfilment in my personal Life.

Throughout thc doctoral proccss 1 have been pnvileged to enjoy the companionship of the

chansine mcmbcrship of thc "Robarts history lunch crowd" including Megan Armstrong,

Eilccn Consc!,-Hcywood, Simon Dcvcreaux, Stcphcn Heathorn, Tim Jenks, Greg Smith,

and Tori Smith. 1 am gatcful for the support of many fiicnds within the program

including Barbara Clow, Valcrie Korinek, Shannon McSheffrey, Eric Reiter, Julia Roberts,

and Nicki Young, as wcll as friends from outside this world including Susan McLeod

O'Rcilly, Susan Padmos and David Paton, who provided me with room and board in

Ottawa whilc 1 was conducting niy rcsearch. Maureen McCarthy gcnerously proofread a

nurnbcr of chaptcrs at the \-cry end. At various stagcs 1 rcccived input and advice fiom

many of thcsc fricnds, as wcll as froni rncmbcrs of thc Early Canada Discussion Group

and of thc Frcnch Colonial Historical Society, amongst whom 1 am particularly grateful to

Jim Phillips, Pctcr iMoogk, Bill Eccles, and Jim Pritchard. The membcrs of my ihcsis

cornrnittcc wcre unfailingly gcncrous in their support and timc: 1 am grateful to Ian

Radforth for his hclpful cnticism of both draft papcrs and thesis chapters; to Arthur Silvcr

for his warmth, humour, carcful rcading, and probing questions; and finally to my

supcrvisor Allan Grccr for his paticncc, rcspcct. and encouragement throughout.

Fcw doctoral studcnts arc as lucky as 1 havc bccn not only to havc the support of

such a broad community of friends and scholars, but to have cnjoycd the concrete and

ongoing support of a number of particularly close fnends and colleagues. From the very

bcginning of my program, Paul Deslandes and 1 talked about Our work and womed about

its progess. From afar, he has continued to encourage me and support me in everything I

do. Later on, 1 had the good fortune to meet Adam Crerar, Jeff McNaim, Jane Thompson,

and Deborah van Seters, who welcomed me into their circle of friendship and rnutual

support. 1 could never have imagined a group of friends with greater faith iii each others'

abilitics and more willing to take the time to read and endlessly criticise each others

scribblings and draft chapters. 1 value beyond words the contribution they made to my

thcsis and my lifc in thc 13st lew years. The person, abovc al1 who dcserves thanks for his

support throughout this process is Charlie Trainor. Few partners are capable of the kind of

emotional and intellectual support he has given me dunng rny years in the programme and

throughout our lives together. Hc has acccptcd without cornplaint the sacrifices my career

choicc has mcant, ncvcr qucstioning my right to pursue my intcrcsts, and providing endless

hours of concrcte advice and support. As in everything 1 achieve, this thesis is testimony

to how wcll WC work as a tcam.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Abbreviations

Editorial Note

Introduction

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chap t cr 3

Chaptcr 3

Chaptcr 5

Chaptcr h

Chaptcr 7

Conclusion

Bibliographv

"Adieu pour cettc année:" The seasonality of communications during the French regime

".J1espère vous écrire par tous les vaisseaux": Fluctuations in Shipping and the Expectations of Contemporary Corrcspondcnts

"Ce qu'on confic à la mer est sujet au hasard:" Confronting the Risks of Communications

Depcnding On Others: The Mails of Custom and Convention

Bcyond the Imagc of a Closed World: Alternative Opportunitics for the Mails

Thc Conqucst: Pcrsistcnt Structures and New Options

The Many Diffcrcnt Worlds of Communications at the Tum of the Ccntury

"Des fruicts du Paradis terrestre"

vii

viii

1

26

LIST OF ABBREVLATIONS

ANQ : Archives nationalcs du Québec

ASQ : Les archives du séminaire de Québec

DCB : Dictionary of Canadian Biography

NAC : National Archives of Canada

P A 0 : Public Archives of Ontario

RAPQ : Rapport de l'Archiviste de la Province de Québec

EDITORIAL NOTE

When quoting from original sources, spelling, capitalization, and punctuation have

not been corrected or modernized. The use of the term "[sic]" is confined to instances

where the meaning of a word is unclear, or could be misleading. The following

conventions have been used when dealing with passages that are missing or difficult to

read. Whcre the reading of a word is uncertain, it is p1ace.d within tnangular brackets.

Where a word or phrase is lost or illegible, it has been replaced 5y an ellipsis in triangular

brackcts <...B. Al1 cditorial comments appear within square brackets.

In late July 1657 Marie Guyart, Soeur de l'Incarnation, sat down within the

confines of the Ursuline convent at Quebec to write a quick letter to her son claude.'

Three vessels had already arrived fkom France that year and lay anchored below the ciiffs

of the tiny scttlement on the Saint ~awrence.' They had entered the port over the

prcvious threc months, bringing a welcome cargo of letters hom Claude, whom she had

left behind in Francc when she set sail to pursue an apostolic life in Canada eighteen years

before. One 1 s t vessel would arrive later that season, but already a £ht ship was

preparing to leave on its retum joumey eastward across the Atlantic, and she humed to

send a letter by it. We know that Marie dc l'Incarnation wrote a number of other letters to

Claude that summcr. Two vessels set sail from the colony in September and some of her

lctters wcrs undoubtedly despatched on them. Finally, on 15 October she prepared ~ W O

final lcttcrs for Claude. In one of thcse she commented, "Voici la dernière lettre que vous

rcccvrez dc moy cctte annke, parce qu'il nc nous reste ici qu'un vaisseau qui lève l'ancre

pour partir."' The last vessel to sail from Quebec that year lcft the same day? With the

onsct of wintcr the river would frccze, closing navigation completely and cutting the

colony off frcm Europe until the following spnng. Nine months later, on 11 July 1658,

- 1 6 7 3 ) : , cd. by Dom Guy Oury (Solesmes: Xbbayc Sainre-Picrrc, 1971). [Hercaircr -1, Quebec. Marie de I'lncarnaiion to Claude, 27 Julj* 1657, pp. 56s-90.

2Sce James Pritchard, "Ships, Men, and Cornmercc: A Study of Maritime Activity in New France" (Pm Diss., University of Toronto, 1971), Appendix k. "Ship Traffic between Quebec and France, 1645-1667."

3 . q , Maue_de, Marie de l'Incarnation to Claude, 15 October 1657, p. 594. The other letter of the same date is pp. 591-92. Unless otherwise noted, ail letters cited were written at Quebec.

"C.-H. Lavcrdière et H.-R. Casgrain, - , Montréal, 1892, p. 220, quoted in ibid., h. 1, p. 591.

the first French vcssel of the new shipping season arrived." It was probably that vesse1

which brought Marie de l'incarnation three letters fiom Claude: the first word fiorn him in

Little more than one hundred years later, the Swiss-bom merchant, Lawrence

Ermatinger, was similarly dctennined to maintain a regular correspondence with Europe.

Ermütinger had corne to Canada shortly aftcr the British Conquest in 1760 and eventuaily

establisiied himsclf in busincss at Montreal, where he was both an active participant in the

fur trade and an agent for a number of London merchants. On 26 July 1770 Ermatinger

wrote a letter to the London merchant, Benjamin ~rice. ' This was one of a series of

lettcrs which he wrote that summer and fa11 to commercial correspondents overseas;

cornmenting on his own affairs, providing information about markets, placing orders, and

discussing a myriad of issucs rclating to thcir mutual intcrcsts. Ermatinger would write

thrcc more lettcrs to Price himself whilc thc navigation was open, despatching them, as

Maric de l'Incarnation had donc, by thc vcsscls that sailcd to Europe from thc port of

Qucbec. Thc last of these was dated 30 ~ c t o b e r ? However, in contrat to Marie de

lflncamation's customary pattern of lettcr-writing, this letter did not bnng Ermatinger's

corrcspondence with Pricc to an end. Ermatinger continucd to write regularly throughout

rhc winter, sending his lettcrs through New York as long as the navigation in the Saint

Lawrcncc was c10scd.~ Pricc in tum wrotc to Ermatingcr monthly.lo

Pcrhaps nothing bcttcr dcmonstrates thc distance that separated his cxperience from

Marie de 1'lncarnatimfs than a comrncnt madc by Ermatingcr in a lettcr writtcn on 30

S-d,- - , p. 237, quoted in &id., fn. 3, p. 599.

, Maric de I'Incarnation to Claude, 21 August 1658, pp. 596-98.

'NAc, Ermatingcr Family Papers, MG 19 A2, Scrics 1, Vol. 1, Lawrcncc Ematinger Letterbook (1770- 78). Moiirreal, Ematinger 111 Benjamin Price, London. 36 July 1770, pp. 5-6.

W., Mcirirrcal, Emiaririgcr to Pricc, Loriclon, 13 August 1770, p. 12; the two subsequcnt letters wcre riatcd 15 Scprcmbcr and 30 Ocwbcr for which sec, samt: to same, 15 February 1771, pp. 55-56.

'W., Ematingcr io Price, London, 15 Fcbruary 1771, pp. 55-56, in which he refers to earlier letters of the 22 December 1770 and 19 January 1771.

' O h i d . , Ermatinger to Price, London, 26 May 1771, pp. 63-64 in which Ermatinger acknowiedges receipt of various letters from Price dated 23 Decembcr; 12 lanuary, 12 February. In his letter of 8 Iunc 1771 to Price, p. 65, Ermatinger acknowledged two more letters Crom Price dated 7 and 23 March.

Octo bcr 1770 to anot hcr London mcrchant. Whereas Marie de l'incarnation customarily

bid her correspondents farcwcll in her late fa11 letters, Ermatinger included a plea in bis to

be kept informed. "We have no News at present," he wrote, "You have al1 the News on

Your Side, and as news from England is very acceptable to hear in this parte of the World,

1 hope You'll favour me with some, and to Lett me hear from You by every Opportunity,

Via New York.""

Thcsc stories capture a crucially important transition in the nature of transatlantic

conmiunications in the carly history of Canada from a period when thcy were limited and

quitc ngidly scasonal to one in which correspondents had routine acccss to news and

letters £rom Europe year-round. With notable exceptions, histonans have rarely paid

attention to the circumstances of carly Canadian correspondents. The letters

contcmporaries wrote are important sources in the study of the past, but the process that

made that correspondence possible is generally takcn for granted. W e have been content to

look at the nlost superficial qualities of early lctter communications, and to describe them

as awkward, risky and slow, applying this swecping characterization equally to the earliest

ycars of Europcan scttlcmcnt in Canada and to the latc eightecnth ccntury. Casually, we

accept a vision of thc Atlantic as a great bamer which the mail servicc of the past appears

inadcquatc to bridge cffectively. in doing so, we are companng the early mails,

anachronistically, against Our own conception of ease, safety, and speed and adopting an

imagc of carly communications which has more to do with its superficial appearance than

with rcrility.

Thc world Canadians inhabitcd beforc thc advent of mass communications in the

rnid-ninctccnth ccntury is in many ways quite fo rc ie to us. Thcre was little or no postal

scrvicc; the mails dependcd on Atlantic shipping; correspondents played a prominent role

in thc transmission of the mails; and lcttcrs travcllcd far more slowly than now. The

purposc of this study is to understand how thc early mails functioncd and to detail how

rhcy changcd. It looks spccifically at the proccss of transatlantic lcttcr-writing12 between

''Ibid., Em-iatingsr to Mcss'rs Pruirty and Son, London, 30 Oçtober 1770, pp. 33-34.

lZScholars have used the tcnn communications to cover a wide variety of concepts. For a particularly broad definition of communications sec James Carey, "A Cultural Approach to Communications," in

as Culture: Fssays on (Unwin Hyman, 1989; repr., New York: Routledge,

the temtory that contemporaries called Canada and Europe fiom the 1640s to the War of

1812. Focusing on the movement of letters in and out of the Saint Lawrence comdor, its

main goal is to determinc how readily those who resided in the colony--whom for

convcniencc 1 will refer to throughout as canadians13--could communicate with fiiends,

family, and associates overseas. It reveals a world that was far more

and complex than we have customarily thought and one that changed

time. *

dynamic, effective,

substantially over

WC acccpt as an cisiom that thc spced, form, pattern, rhythm, and culture of

con~munications affects how WC think, behavc, do business and are govcrned. Today, the

media arc preoccupied with the question of how Our world is being transformed in the new

"information age." Almost daily we are besiegcd by the speculation of experts over how

computcrs, the internet, fibre optics, and other technologies are changing the workplace;

altering Our sense of community; affecting freedom of speech; whittling away national

sovcreignty; changing how wc think; and even influencing our sensc of self.14 Lwking

to the past, scholars havc writtcn about thc changcs brought about by radio and

tclcvision." Othcrs have focuscd on the introduction of the telcphonc and have argued

Chapman and Hall, 1992), pp. 13-36. Throughout 1 usc the terrn "communicationsn to refer specifically the eschange of letters. This study docs not look at the movement of "information" per se.

" T h u s the term "Canadian" is meant to denote their presence in a particular physical space rather than to suggcst that thcy idcntified thernselves as such.

. . . . . . . . " ' ~ h c r r ~ Turklc, -tthcty rn thç (New York: Simon and Schuster, . .

1995) is particularly inicrcsring. Tiic: rcadcr mighr alsu consult Paul Levinson, M d at onnccticut: J A I Pri=ss, 1988); IthicI de Sola Pool,

&, cd. Eli M. Noam (Massachusetts: Harvard University . . . *

Prcss, 1990); Ronaid J Diebert, Parchment, W O ~ Transformation (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997); and Herbert 1. Schiller, "The Erosion of NationaI Sovercignty by the World Business System," in -h&m~bof.the R e v d u h x S o u

e ed. Michael Traber (iondon: Sage Publications, 1986), pp. 21-45. The essays in Stanlcy D. Brunn and Thomas R Leinbach, ed., . . GconaDliic (London: Harper Collins, 1991) are particularly intcrcsting. A morc popular but Iess substantial discussion is Nicholas Negroponte, Beinn (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1995).

'.'s~c. for i~ls~ancc, Mary Vipond, Lisrcninr! D c c D c c a d c o f - 1 9 3 2 (Mo1 i trcal and Kingston: McGill-Quecri's University Prcss, 1992); Susan Douglas,

. .. r - -99-192 (Baltimorç: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987); Daniel S. Czitrom, k b b i w d to &Luhan (Chape1 Hill: University of Nonh Carolina Press, 1982); Paul

that it altercd the spatial organization of cities and prompted the development of

communities of interest as alternatives to communities of place.16 The development of

the tclcgraph has similarly attracted much attention: studies have shown that in Canada and

thc Unitcd States it lcd to the substantial rcurganization of commodity markets; the

creation of a national commcrcisi class; the decline of local particularisrns in language and

culture; an increasing divisivencss in politics; and the transformation of the role of the

newspaper.17 Moving much further back in tirne, a groundbreaking work has looked at

the myriad of changes brought about by the dcvclopmcnt of the printing press, including

thc cmergence of modern languagcs and the risc of protcstantisrn.18 As wcll, a substantial

litcrature has cmphasizcd thc ways in which thc transition from orality to the written word

affectcd not just hou. people communicated but how they thought.19

This litcraturc focuses abovc al1 on thosc big moments when the way in which

people communicated changed. This emphasis in the history of communications upon the

significancc of changes in the technologies of communications dcrivcs at least in part from

- . 1 -

. A Ruihcrii~rd, -11 wiis 1-u- . . + . 1952-1967 (Toronto: University of Toronto . . . , - , Prcss, 1990); L p n Spigel, M a k c . n o o m m ~ &Xlka

(Chicago: The Univcrsity of Chicago Press, 1092).

. . "Sec Robert F Latham, "Thc Telephone and Social Change," in in Canadian Societg,

ed. Benjamin D. Singer, 2nd rev. ed. (Vancouver: Copp Clark, 1973, pp. 19-39. See aiso Claude S. Fischer, of the to 194Q (Berklcy: University of California Press, 1992).

." (- Michelc Manin, % i l ~ C-L JJ of (Montreal: McGill-Queen's Univcrsity Press, 1991) does not discuss the broader impacl of the introduction of the tclcphone in thc Canadian context.

l i For Canada scc Pcicr G . Gohccri, "Thc Changing Bias of Inter-urban Communications in Nineteenth- . . . . .. Cclilury Chiada," luunidl 01 Geugu~.hy. Vol. 16 (1990), pp. 177-96 and also his

"Comriiuniçaiions and Urban Sysretiis in Mid-Ninetccnth Ccniury Canada," Review, Vol. 14 (1986), pp. =545. For a discussion of the Amcrican experience see Mcnahcm Blondheim, N-UE

T-QW of P 1833-1892 (Cambridge: Harvard Univcrsity Press, 1994); James G r e y "Tcchnology and Idcology: The Case of the Telcgraphn in

,is is; and Czitrom, Chaptcr Onc, 0.

18 . . Eii7~1bcth L. Eisenstein, as of

, 2 Vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Prcss, 1979).

LY M.T. Clanchy, F r o m M ç r n o r v to WriRccord:Ennl;uid-1307 (Cambridge Massachusetts: . . Harvard Univcrsiry Prcss, 1979). Scc also Brian Stock, of 13- : W-

ln the 1 3 . ' - (Princeton, N.J.: Princcton University Press. 1983).

the influence of Marshall McLuhan and Harold ~nnis." Regrettably, it has tended to

create the impression that communications the rest of the time were static?' Between the

major revolutions in communications heralded by the introduction of new technologies,

however, thcre have becn many other signifiant changes in how people c ~ m m u n i c a t e d . ~

Recently, both American and British historians have begun to look at the importance of

conmiunications in thc seventcenth and cighteenth centuries. A number of particulariy

intriguing studies have focused on the impact of changes in the pattern of the diffusion of

information in carly ~ m e r i c a . ~ One of the most influential of these is Ian Steele's l k

h Athtic. 1575 - 1740: A n t i m o n . . . Steele

traces the changing speed and frcquency with which information crossed the Atlantic

bcforc the Amcrican Rcvolution. He argues that improving communications--which were

in part the result of exprinding tradc and at thc same time a spur to further trade--

gradually transformcd thc cconomic, political, and social relations bctween the American

colonics and Britain, drawing them ever closer together in an increasingly integrated

3 - * . . A

Scc, fur csariiplc, H A Ii irus , 7, cd. David Godfrcy (Osford University - .

I'rcss, 1Y5O; rcprint cd. Victoria: Prcss Porcçpic, 1986j or T h e s of Communlcarlons (Toronto: University of Toronto Prcss, 1951) and Marshall McLuhan, Thr: Ci- (New York: Signet Books, 1969).

. . . . Z'Sce, h r cxample, David Crowley and Paul Heyer, c h . , Communication in w: T-

-, 2nd Edition (USA: Longnan, 1995). Sec also Dan Lacy, V . . Communications (ürbana: University of illinois, 1996) and George N. Gordon, & Rcv- A- of Mass III the Il-

. . (Ncw York: Communications Arts Books, 1977).

O Literary scholars, for examplc, have argued that the expansion of postal services in France in the cighrccnth ccntury contributcd to thc popularity of the episiolary novcl for which scc John W. Howland,

ad^^ (New York: Petcr Lang, 1991). See also, , . , I'airicia Aiderson, The of P u r of- 1790-1860 (Oxford:

Clarendon Press, 1991) who argues ihat a scrics of icchnological changes in printing made possible the rapid gowth of a popular publishing industry in England in thc rnid-ninetcenth ccntury. The emergence of popular pictorial magazines helpcd fucl the emergcncc of a new and cnlarged working class culture.

=Sec, for exarnplc, SheiIa McCaiI McIntyre,"'This Loving Corrcspondency': New England Ministerial Communications and Association, 1670-1730," (PhD Diss., Boston University. 1996); David Cressy, Chming Over: CIW w FgglanJ rn the S e v v (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1987); Richard Brown, K m is Pow- - .

1700-1865 (Ncw York: Oxford University Press, 1989.

British Atlantic world.'" Similarly, John Brewer has suggestcd that postal refoms in

mid-eighteenth century Britain spuned the growth of the provincial newspaper and thus

helped contribute to the emergence of a broader political nation? Others have

emphasized that they fuelled the development of a hlly-fledged market e c ~ n o m y . ~

Focusing on a slightly later period, historians of the early American republic have argued

that the growth of the American postal service at the beginning of the nineteenth century

playcd an important rolc in the cxpansion of the press and contributed significantly to the

growth of a much broader Arnerican political c u l t ~ r e . ~ Robert Pike and Bnan Osborne

havc suggested that similar consequences fiowed hom the development of a mass postal

scrvicc in Canada after 1851.~

Other historians havc stresscd the ways in which the speed and ease with which

lcttcrs and ncws circulatcd have shaped specific structures and practices. Imperia1

historians havc suggested that the length of time it took for Imperia1 authorities to convey

thcir instructions to govcrnors in distant colonies frequently gave the "man on the spot"

morc administrative authority than he would otherwise possess.29 Historians of merchant

- . . ''lan Stecle, me F- 1675 1740: An F3cplaratiPP of (New

York: Osford University Press, 1986). Throughout, Stcele emphasizes that this increased irnperial integration was also itself a spur to hproved communications.

. . LS~ohn Brcwer, (London; New York:

Carribridgr: Utiivcrsiry Press. 1970). p. 7 and pp. 150-60-

-ri Sec, for cxample, D. Harvey, Social City (London: 1973), quotcd in Derek Gregory,

"The Friction of Distance?: Information Circulation and the Mails in Early Nineteenth-Century England," e-, Vol. 13 (1987). p. 131, fn. 6.

"~ichard Kiclbowicz, News in -ost ~ ~ @ Q , , - (New York: Grcenwood Press, 1989); Richard R. John, -the P-

10 (Cambridge Massachusetts, Harvard University Press, 1995); Brown, Pu w u .

"Brian Osborne and Roberr Pikc, "Lowcring 'thc Walls of Oblivion'": Thc Rcvolution in Postal , . Corrirnunicarions ir i Ceri~ral Cariada, 1551-10 11," in in -, Vol- 4, ed. Donald H.

Akc~isun (Garianuquc, Oniario: Lringdalc Prcss, 1981), pp. 219-21. They emphasize, in particular, that the slightly later development of a m a s postal scrvicc in central Canada broke down the isolation of local communities; cncouraged the mobility of the population; prompted the enormous expansion of the daily and weckly press; and gave rise to many changes in retail business including the development of mail-order.

. . nRobcrt Huttenback, Chaptcr 5: "Imperialism and the Imperia1 Proconsul," in

Eqxxkxe (New York and London: Harpcr and Row, 1966) in which he crnphasiscs the role of the proconsul in promoting impcrial expansion. J.S. Galbraith, Thc "Turbulent Frontier" as a Factor in British

commerce havc cmphasizcd the impact that the nature of communications had on

dctermining business iorms and p r a c t i c ~ s . ~ For cxample, merchants in the seventeenth

and eighteenth centuries used supercargoes--men employed by merchants to travel with

their ships and to take responsibility for the sale of the merchants' goods--to trade on their

behalf because they lacked rcliable information of market conditions in distant p o d l

A number of historians of early Canada have incorporated an awareness of the

importance of communications into their analysis of the past, though none has explored the

subjcct fully. William Ecclcs makcs usc of the concept of the "man on the spot" in his

study of New France undcr b u i s XIV. He begins by noting that the principles of

absolutism dictatcd that officials in the colony would function as "Iittle more than

administrators," obligcd to rcfcr cvcn the smallest matter to France in long and detailed

reports. h c a l conditions, howevcr, produced a noticeable variation in the customary

pattcm. His description of the colony's circumstances is brief and to the point. H e

obscrvcs quitc simply that "the colony was cut off from al1 contact with Europe for six or

scvcn nionths in thc ycar, and dcspatchcs could not normally bc answcrcd within a

twcl~cmonth."~' As a dircct rcsult of both the specd of transatlantic communications and

its scasonal rhythm, local officials wcre allowcd "some dcgrce of discretion" which they

would not othcrwisc hatx posscsscd. in his study of Frontenac, Eccles gocs further and

discusscs thc ways in which colonial officiais exploitcd the limits o n communication to

thcir advantagc in thcir corrcspondcnce with the ~ r o w n . ) ~ In an unpublished PhD

. . . . . . . - . . - Espansion," -vr h t u & i n , Vol.2, (lanuary 1960), pp. 150-68 which attributes impcrial espansion in india, Malaya, and Souih Africa to the pull excncd by "turbulent frontiers" and "the wide powcr cxcrcised by Imperia1 viceroys in an era of primitive communications," p. 151.

30 * * See, for cxarnple, Charles Carrière, au XVXVI I I e (Marseille: Institut hisroriquc dc Provence, hnprimcric Robert, n-d.) Vol. 2, pp. 779-89.

3 '~ce , for cxamplc, John Boshcr, "A Québec Merchant's Trading Circles in France and Canada: Jean- . . A i d r t Lamalcrie bcforç 1763," m, Vol. 10 (1973, pp. 23-44; and also his a , . . . . . Cnndcid 13- lîa (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987) pp. 16-18. Sec also Jacques Mathieu, k

N ~ ~ ~ ~ - F ~ ~ ~ les &J&S (Qucbcc: Fidcs, t981), Chapitre iv, " L s procédés cririiriierciaus," pp. 13-50.

3 r ~ . ~ . Eccles, Canada 11-V- 1646-17U (T.oronio: McCIelland and Stewart, 1978), p. 28.

33 Eccles, Frontenac: Tht:oudcr G o v ! (Toronto: McCleIland and Stewart, 1959), for example, pp. 13830.

dissertation, Ken Banks also focuses on the concept of the "man on the spot" and suggests

the importance of being able to measurc precisely how restricted communications were.

Hc argues that thc particular spced and frequency of communications to Quebec, New

Orleans, and Martinique, and the degree of control imperial authorities exercised over that

process in each instance, had a vcry different impact on the strength of absolutist rule in

each colony." Similarly, in a particularly thoughtful piece on the nature of authority in

New France, Colin Coates has suggested that the delays and difficulties in communications

bctwcen Francc and Ncw Francc cncouraged serious squabbles over the relative power of

thc King's ministcrs in thc c o l ~ n ~ . ~ ~ Beyond thc work of these s c h o l a r ~ ~ ~ students of

merchrint commcrcc hwc unqucstionably paid thc greatcst attention to the impact of the

distinctive qualities of communications in the history of early Canada. For example, in his

study of the business of Robert Dugard of Rouen, Dale Miquelon emphasizes that the flow

of commercial information to the colony was subject to rigid seasonal limits, and he

sketches the impact thesc limits had on merchant behaviour and business foms."

Findly, focusing on the cconomic impact of communications, Luuise Dechêne argues that

"l'isolcmcnt absolu" of thc colong in urintcr had important implications for the management

of rhc colonial hanest and grain cxport. The last vessels gcncraily sailed for France

3J Kcnncth J. Banks, "Communications and impcrial Absolutism in Three Frcnch Colonial Ports, 1713- 1763" (PhD Diss., Queen's University, 1995). Banks argues that the French Crown possessed most autnority in Quebcc, lcss in Ncw Orleans, and the lcast in SI. Pierre, Martinique. Following the examplc of Carey, for which set: footnote 12, Banks dcfincs communications broadly to include the Crown's use of ntual and cereniony in ils efforts to communicate a sense of its authority.

" ~ o l i n Coaies, "Authorily and lllegitimacy in New France: The Burial of Bishop Saint-Vallier and . - . . iMridclcinc dc Vcrc1iL;rcs vs. rhr: Pricsr of Batiscan," H W S o c i a l e / S o L i d l , Vol. 32 (May 1989), pp. 69, YU.

V w o othcr scholars who show an awareness of the importance of the mails are Jacques Mathieu, La F- du du n o 1 XVlU

. . * * * - .. - siecle (France, Bélin; St-Foy, Québec: Presses de l'Université Laval, 1991); and Harold Innis, Select 1497-17a (Toronto: Univcrsity of Toronto Press, 1929), who includes a numbcr of documents relating to the early mails in his collection. Sec, for esample, pp. 181-87.

ale Miquelon, w d of Ru- to C F 1729-17711 (Montreal: McGill-Quecn's Prcss, 1978), pp. 69-73. Sec also Jacques Mathieu, Le la la - F m

V- (QuCbcc: Fidcs, 1981), pp. 13-50; and John Bosher, 1- (London: Clarcndori Press, Oxford. 1987). pp. 16-20. Kathryn Young, in hcr study "Kin, Coiiiriicrcc, and Coniniuniiy: Merchants in the P m of Quebec fium 1717-1745" (PhD diss., University of Manitoba, 1991), suggcsts rhar the scasonal rhythm of shipping and cornrnunications had a significant impact on ihc behaviour of the Quebec merchant but shc does not enter into the spccific naturc of this impact.

before the hl1 extent of the season's grain yiclds was known. Thus if the harvest was

poor, word could not bc sent to France in time for the sprhg vessels to bnng

supplementary grain. This rneant two things. First, a< the slightest sign of a shortfall in

rra in , officiais acted rapidly to supplant normal market mechanisms in order to avoid U

shonages. Second, expon levels were set conscrvatively in order to ensure the colony had

cnough grain in case of a poor h a r v e ~ t ? ~

With the exception of thesc studies, Canadian historians have been content to

dcscnbe the past virtually without reference to the distinctive qualities of communications.

Sumcy texts may mention thc introduction of the telegraph and the extension of the

railway, but they rarcly dcscribc how letters circulated. As William Eccles and others

have understood, howcvcr, it is crucial that wc incorporate an awareness of the essentiai

structures of communications into our analysis of the past. Yet to do so fully and

cffcctively wc requirc a sensitive and concrete appreciation of the experience of eady

colonists. Without this, any attcmpt to make conclusions about the impact of

communications on thc livcs of Canadians in the past would bc liable to serious error. Thc

statc of the existing historiography of communications in early Canada makes such a broad

and swecping analysis of the rolc of communications in scvcnteenth and cighteenth century

Canada prcmaturc. lt consists of a handful of studies by postal histonans and bnef

passages in works whosc main focus is elsewhere, and conveys an image of the early mails

that is simplistic and ahistorical. For this reason, the objective of the currcnt study is to

provide a concretc and nuanced understanding of thc actual processes and structures of

communications. It functions as a neccssary stcp toward a larger projcct whosc ultimate

purpose is to intcgratc an understanding of the distinctive qualities of transatlantic

communicrttions into the social, cconomic, political, and cultural life of carly Canada.

Thc image that thc cxisting litcraturc prcscnts of the early mails is simple and

strightforward. it emphasizcs that there was no colonial Post Office, nor a regularly

schcdulcd mail service across the Atlantic. Instead, correspondents depcndcd on

commercial shipping to carry thcir lettcrs across the occaii. Thc speed of communications

was dcpcndcnt on the spccd of the Atlantic crossing, with the result that letters could take

- . ..- . . - . MLouise DcchCne, au 1c r- . . (Quebcc: Les Editions du Borcal. I Y Y J ) , p. 54 and also pp. 105-107.

11

one and a half to three months to cross the ocean. The shipping itself, and

communications, conformed to a rigidly seasonal schcdule, the result of conditions in the

Saint Lawrence. At the same time, due to the dangers of shipping and the umeiiabiiity of

sornc of those to whom lctters were entrustcd, correspondence could be lost or go

astray .'9 The image these authors convey is of a process that was chaotic, awkward,

slow, and largely unchanging.' French regime correspondents have too casually been

portrayed as the helpless victims of conditions that seriously constrained their ability to

correspond cffectively across the occan. In an otherwise excellent article that discusses

pattcrns of cmigration to Ncw Francc, Peter Moogk suggests in passing that immigrants to

Ncw Francc, unlike their countcrparts in New England, did not write letters home

cncouraging cniigration in part bccause so few migrants were literate, but also because

"niail dclivcry in the French empire was informa1 and n ~ k y . " ~ ' Similarly, Roger . .

Magnuson in Education in New Fr- suggests that the popular culture of early Canada

was more oral than written becausc books could not be printed locally and their

importation was hampercd by "distancc, slowness of transportation, ... the lack of an

'''The wurks that discuss ihis pcriod i~iclude, most notably, Eugène Vaille, 6 - . .. -.- w, Vols. 3-6 (Paris: Prcsscs Universitaires de France, 1950-55); William Smith, The of the

Post O l h t in Bntish IV- - - * . . . . .

39-187Q (Cambridge: University Press, 1920), Chapter 3; Winthrop S. Boggs, 5 of andPosral (Chambers Publishing Company, 1935; repr. Lawrence Massachusetts: Quarterrnan Publications, 1973). pp. 1-2; Maurice Jamet, 150 * - -

a 1 W, published by Mme M. Jamet (Paris: - Imprimerie Financière, n.d.); Jacques Mathieu, P et .-

I[Ii:, pp. 175-50; J.J. Charron, "Postal History of Canada under the French RegUne, 1608-1760," e P h , ï h c M , Vol. 19 (1968), #2, pp. 91-95 and #3, p. 109-111; Susan M. McDonald, "The Posts in

Canada 10 1776," The in c c , ed., Aiex. L. ter Braake (PA. American Philatclic Rcscarch Library, 1975), Pan P.

%us. for cxamplc, Jacques Mathieu rcfcrs to the latc 1720s as "une époque ou les communications n'etaicrii ni faciles, ni rapidcs" although in point of fact, communications were likely faster and casier then than cvor bcforc. Jacques Mathieu, L e c e a e la - et les . . AiuUs, p. 133. See also Albert Duchène, -c c- - - . - . (Paris: Payot, 1838), pp. 89-90 quoted in Kcn Banks, "Communications and impcrial Absolutism in Three French Colonial Ports, 1713-1763," p. 3. According to Banks, Duchêne argues that comparatively little information reached Francc conccrning the colony because "communications même étaient longues, difficiles et rares," darnpcnirig enihusiasm for cmigraiion and official intcrcst in the colony.

"Poier Moogk, "Reluctant Exiles: Emigranis from France in Canada before 1760," fhxbxiy, (July 1989). pp. 166-67. Moogk's footnote is devotcd IO thc litcrature concerning rates of literacy, r w t tu substantiating his daim about the naturc of communications.

established postal system," and the "hazards of transatlantic shipping."" in b ~ t h

instances, communications are used as an explanatory factor without an adequate

understanding of them-43

This negative assessrnent of the mails in New France derives, in part, fkom a failure

to look beyond the superficial characteristics of early communications to the actual

cxperience of correspondents. But even more, it is the result of a popular tendency to

cquate the effectiveness of communications with the extent of forma1 postal

accommodation. Historias have commonly suggcsted that, in the absence of a modem

Post Office, transatlantic communications during the French regimc wcrc a mess. "Ce

scrvicc," one author comments, "s'effectuait dans le dés~rcire ."~ The root of the problem

lay in the dcpcndcncc of communications on the efforts of individual correspondents. The

author of the classic work on the French postal service, Eugène Vaillé, anributes the

prccariousness of the transatlantic mails to the fact that "Les échanges ... se font tant bien

quc mal par les vaisseaux marchands, chaque intéressé devant s'adresser lui-même aux

intcrmédiaircs susceptibles de faire suivre à leur destination ce qu'il leur confie."" He

cornmcnts of the despatch of transatlantic correspondence that "11 appartenait aux

particuliers de l'assurer par leur propres moyens." n i e image is one of casual linkages

nladc and rcmadc with cvery exchangc of lcttcrs; the clear implication is that these

arrangcmcnts wcrc noi vcry workablc*

- . '"Roger Magxiuson, Education in New F m (Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press, 1992), p. 108.

In attributing so much esplanatory power IO the poor nature of communications and the mails in particular, Magnuson is ignoring the complex range of factors that conuibute to the development of tha role of written culture in a community. He also seems IO see bis phenomcnon as something distindy Canadian, requiring a uniquely Canadian explanation. It is not. See, for example, Richard D. Brown, Kuswl&c is Poy~er on the relationstiip betwecn the oral and written in early America. Sec Atlan Grecr, ''The Pattern of Literacy in Quebcc," Histoire, Vol. 11 (1978). pp. 293-335 for a differcnt cxptanation of the rclativc Levcls of literacy in New England and New France.

" m i s tcndcncy to rreat thc nature of communications as an observable fact extends to other related issues. Historians have similady tcndcd IO take i s sus relating IO the measurcment of rime for granted. See, for cxamplc, a fascinaring recent article by Mark M. Smith, "Culture, Cammerce, and Calendar Reform in Colonial America," W- O-, (Octobcr 1998), pp. 557-84.

< O U . , Vol. 3, p. 355.

The story of the post-Conqucst mails has becn told in slightly different terms, but

it is rcmarkably similar. For most, the key fact about the change in regirne is that it

brought the establishment of a Post Office at Quebec. The subsequent history of how well

Canadians could keep in touch with family and friends overseas has tended to be told

almost cxclusivcly in terms of the number of Post Offices, the cost of the mails, and the

frcqucncy and speed of formal postal service. This approach has imparted a distinctly

whiggish tonc to the work of postal historians at least, ensuring a degree of recognition of

changc ovcr time that is absent from discussions of the French regime. Thus the classic

study of thc early British North Amencan Fost Office scn'cs prcdominantly as a chronicle

of Post Office openings, the extension of service over new routes, and improvements in the

specd and frcqucncy of the maik4' Dcspite this institutional progress, scholars

crnphclsize that--cornparcd to what would later be possible--the mails were

cxtraordinarily constraincd. Thus alongsidc a rccitation of the improvements that were

bcing madc in thc nurnbcr of routcs and frcquency of scrvicc, there is an aimost macabre

dctcrmination to repcat talcs of thc hardships, challenges, difficulties, and awkwardness of

con~munications. The mails are gcncrally dcscnbed as perilous and lctters as "fragile

links" with friends and family overseas." The broad historical literature continues to

prcscnt an overall imagc of communications bcfore the mid-ninetcenth century that is still

curiously static and also quite bleak. Our picturc of the Icttcr-wntcr rcmains that either of

thc pcrscvcring victirn or thc hcro who manages through cxtraordinary effort and good

fortune to triuniph ovcr advcrsity.

Thc most rcmarkablc fcaturc of this sparsc literaturc on the çarly mails is how

much it lcavcs out. Throughout the scventccnth and cightccnth ccnturics and into the carly

ninctccnth ccntury, most lctters circulated outsidc a formal postal scrvicc. Yct much of

what has bccn writtcn ignorcs this part of the story and focusçs instcad on the first signs of

47 . . Smith, of P a s t Offisc in Briiish, Chaptcrs 5-9, 11. See aIso Boggs, d Posial~isrory of Canada, pp. 3-13; Frank Campbell, -,

uripublished manuscripr, Public Archives of Ontario.

46 Joan Murray, 'The Pcrils of thc Post: Communications in Upper Canada," in 1837, Rebelliori . , I < at the 1837 -=çonfcrenc~ of the . . 78 Sçnfcmbcr to 3 Octaber 1987 Willowdale, Ontario: Ontario

Historical Society, 1988, p. 31.

thc erncrgcnce of a forma1 postai service: the appointment of the first mail couner, the

appcarancc of Iegislation govcrning the mails, and the emergence of proposais to cstablish

formal s e ~ i c c s . ~ ' This emphasis leaves the impression that "real" or effective

communications began when the Post Office assumed responsibility for communications.

Thc Post Office by definition represents coherence, order, predictability, ease and

simplicity. It providcs a "system" for communications of which the correspondent is the

consumer. The alternative is rarely considered.

This tcndcncy is not uniquely Canadian. Derek Gregory has shown that British

historians havc tcndcd to equate the ability of people in Britain to correspond *th the

naturc and cxtcnt of forma1 postal service, ignonng the illegal systcms of conveyance upon

which many correspondents depended.' This approach undoubtedly derives in part from

t hc p hilatclic prç-occupat ion with the forma1 and collectablc markings, handstamps, and

adhcsives which arc produccd by a "modern" Post Office.s1 But its roots are much

dccpcr and lic in thc oncc common tcndency of historians to privilege forma1 institutions

and lcgislation and to ignorc or minimize thc significance of prc-institutional structures.

In the history of cducation, for cxample, oldcr studies tcnded to focus upon the

cstablishmcnt and administration of public schools. But as a recent influential study of

cducation in Uppcr Canada has sought to remind us, "any history of education in a pre-

industrial socicty such as carly Uppcr Canada that focuscs only on formal instruction in

schools risks running vcry wide of the mark." The authors emphasizc the importance of

49 . - Scc, for esarnple, Vaille, Histoire G c n c . r a l e Po-, Vol. 1, p. 191 who emphasizes that part of his intcrcsi is to document iraccs of "[les] premigres manifestaiions postaies avec le Canadaw; Susan M. iMcDoxiald, "The Posts in Canada 10 1776," in m. ed., Alcx. L. ter Braakc, Part P; Boggs, T h e _ P o s t a n e ~ a n d H i s t o n t , pp. 1-3; Charron, "Postal . . History of Canada Under the French Regimc, 1608-1760,"; Smith, Nonh is alont: in acknuwlcdging the importance of private opponunities. Indeed, he acknowledges ai tinlcs that thc public showcd a marked prefcrence for unofficiai routes. Howevcr, his prïxnary purpose is 10 tracc the dcvclopment of oftïcial postal networks and su these private opportunitics never receive much niorr: than passitig mention. See, in particular, pp. 122-23. See also Maurice lamet, 150 q - -

C-. . -

S J ~ ~ r c k Gregory, "The Friction of Distance?: information Circulation and ihe Mails in Early Nineteenth- - . . Ccritury England," Gwgaphy, Vol. 13, (1987).

" ~ c x . L. ter Braakc, "Intrnduciion," in n, p. A- 4.

"traditional, informa1

of s~hool ing."~ ' The

15

patterns of education" as opposed to "more modem, structured kinds

samc nceds to be done for letters and letter-writing.

*

The simple characterization of the early mails as awkward and difficult is

unsatisfactory . First, it holds up the experience of the past to some much Later standard of

service and tclls us very littlc about what conditions actually meant for contemporaries.

Instcad, inspired in large part by the work of Ian steele,s3 this study is founded on the

bel icf that wc can on1 y uscfully cvaluate the cxpcrience of contemporary corrcspondents in

thc context of what they felt they could reasonably expect. Second, the cxisting portrayai

of the past is curiously flat: subsurning the often significant variation in conditions fiom

year to ycar, and the change which occurred more gradually over time, under a single

swecping characterization. This study will correct this by a thorough investigation of how

conditions and contemporary expcctations changcd over time. Finally, the existing

historiography, in its emphasis upon officia1 structures, tells only the smallest part of the

story. Informal systems wcrc crucial to thc circulation of the early mails, and this study,

in intcgrating the two, provides a richcr and more complete view of communications. In

place of the broad charactcrizations and swecping generalizations on which histonans have

traditionally relied, this study is based on the conviction that we must look carefully at

how communications actuall y functioned and at the cxpcricncc of correspondents

thcmsclvcs in ordcr to fully comprchcnd what communications in the past were like. To

thesc cnds, this study focuses upon thc nuances of the proccss of communications: upon

small changcs, annual variations, thc habits of individual corrcspondcnts, and the bchaviour

of membcrs of the community at largc. Only thcn can we accuratcly rccovcr the

cspcricncc of carly Canadian correspondcnts, and only in thc contcxt of what they wcre

uscd to can we meaningfully cvaluatc it.

To mcct thcsc objcctivcs, this study is bascd on two types of sources. The first,

which havc commonly prcdominatcd in studies of thc early mails, are the officia1 records

S 2 ~ u s a n E. Houston and Aiison Prenticc, Schooline and -ry . . Ontario Histc>rical Studics Series (Toronio: University of Toronto Press, 1988) pp. 6-8, 13. 19.

53~rcclc , -. Sec, in particular, his "Introduction" in which he argues that the spced, ircqucncy, and danger of curnmunicaiions was "bound up with legitimate expectations," p. 5.

of postal authorities, the Governor, and other colonial administrators. These important

records provide much crucial information concerning the regulation of the mails, the

establishment of officia1 courier services and other issues relating to the establishment and

management of an officia1 postal service. Inevitably, however, the story they tell is a

partial one, privilcging officia1 structures and legislation. Therefore, this study relies

primarily upon the letters of contemporaries. This correspondence serves as an ideal

supplemcnt to the official records of both the French and British colony. Letters both

dcscnbe how correspondcnts respondcd to official structures and reveal a world of

communications which rarcly leavcs a trace in officia1 records- Many of the letters in this

pcriod bcgin or end with a detailcd invcntory of mail sent and received, which often

includcs dctailed discussions of routes, costs, and the dangers of delay and miscarriage. In

the absence of a forma1 postal system, these refercnces are the inevitable record of

corrcspondents' efforts to despatch their letters. This working part of the letter performed

an important function in the correspondencc and providcs the material that allows us to

rccrcatc how communications functioncd. in particular, these sources reveal the practices

and conventions of correspondence which played a crucial role in ensuring the

cficctiveness of the mails, and provide the evidence we require of contemporary

cspcctations. Although our focus throughout is upon the experience of colonial

corrcspondents, communications involvcs both sender and recciver, and WC must therefore

look at both Canadian and Europcan sources in orûer to fully understand the colonial

mails.

Our Canadinn corrcspondcnts comprise a comparatively limitcd group--those who

wrotc lctters. Rates of Iitcracy during the French regime werc low. In the last decades of

the scvcntecnth century, perhaps one half of the population of European origin in the

pririshcs of Montrcal and Qucbcc could sign thcir namcs, whilc onc third of the rural

population could do l ikcwis~?~ Signature rates secm to have declincd through the

ci&tecnth ccntury. At the time of thc Conquest, as few as tcn percent of those marrying

in ccrtain rural parishes could sign their names though rates rcmaincd higher in Montreal

9 R. Roy, Yves iandry, H. Charbonneau, "Quclqucs componemcnts dcs canadiens au XVIIe siècle

d'aprL;s lcs registres paroissiaux," Revue de I ' V , Vol. 31, no. 1 (1977), p. 66.

and Q u c b e ~ . ~ ~ This group undoubtedly included some indentured servants, soldiers, and

habitants, but was dominated by mcrchants, men and women in religious orders, Crown

officiais, and a smattcring of others.

By the early nineteenth century an estimated sixty percent of the total population of

Lowcr Canadian towns were literate, while the rate of rural literacy was hventy percent.

Thcse levels would change comparatively little beforc mid-centuryS6 Upper Canadians

play a lirnitcd role in this study but it is useful to take passing note of what we know

about rates of litcracy thcrc. Unfortunately, Our information is limited for the decades

bcforc the niid-ninetccnth ccntury. The litcracy of carly settlers undoubtedly varied

according to factors such as national ongin, wealth, education, religious affiliation, and

occupation. We havc reason to suspect that the first generation of settlers in Upper

Canodian communitics may havc bcen more literate than their children: emigration tends to

bc litcracy sclective and thus the ratcs of literacy amongst first generation emigrants were

likcly cornparativcly hi@. Scholars have suggested that literacy rates likely declined in the

ncst gcncration as the strains of cstablishing farms made the education of children a lower

priority than it rnight othcnvise have bccn?' Bcyond thcsc vague gcncralizations,

howcvcr, WC have in truth very little scnse of how literate most early Upper Canadians

werc. It is likcly that almost al1 Uppcr Canadians who grew up aftcr 1830 were literate,

but this is alrcadg aftcr thc period discussed in this s t ~ d ~ . ~ ~

SsiUian Grecr, "The Pattern of Litcracy in Quebec, 1715-1899" m, Vol. 11 (1978). Scc a h Greer, "L'alphabétisation et son histoire au Québec: Etat de la question," in l J m p m ~ ~ - C

. . . . a - 2 0 e M, Institut Québécois de Recherce sur la Culture, 1983.

S 6 ~ l l a n Greer,"The Pattern of Literacy in Quebec, 1735-1899," Histoire S o c i a l e / S o c i a l , Vol. 11, No. 23 (1978) pp. 313, 315. Within thesc: aggregate figures there was considerable disnepancy in the rate of litcracy dependent on gender, language , and employment. Greer argues that the 1830s and 1850s rcprescntcd a watershed for lrvcls of litcracy in Quebec, with overall rates inaeasing substantially and the gap bcirwccn rural and urban ratcs narrowing considcrably.

S7Lco Johnson, of -15-1875 (Whitby Ontario: The Corporation of . . ihc County of Ontario, 1973), p. 63. Scç also Houston and Rentice, rn lYu%xah m, pp. 2-7, 81-85, 191.

sa . . Houston and Prentice, Schooline SSchoiars in C- p. 85; and R.D. Gidney,

"Elcrnentary Education in Uppcr Canada: A Reasscssment," in Ch- Paa, eds. Michacl B. Katz and Paul H. Mattingly (New York: New York University Press, 1975),

pp. 1-4-15. Both discussions arc bascd at least in part on the work of H.J. Graff. Graff who argues that by 1861 ratcs of literacy in Uppcr Canada wcrc hi&. In Canada West, 14 counties had a literacy rate of over

The figures we have are cxtremely imprecise and moreover generally measure a

pcrson's ability to writc his name as opposed to his ability to read or write a letter. 'Ihey

serve well enough, however, to give us an impression of the pool fiom which the bulk of

correspondcnts were d r a ~ n . ' ~ What we must recognize, though, is both that the literate

did not invariably write letters, and that al1 correspondents were not invariably literate.

Thc first point is a crucial qualifier. Whether because they fclt neither the need nor the

dcsirc to writc, or bewuse they lacked the opponunity or means to do so, many literate

Canadians likely never or seldom wrote lctters. Unlike colonial New England, the world

of New Francc was not one in which quite ordinary inhabitants oftcn sent volumes of

lctters homc on a regular baska At the samc time, the fact that illiterate correspondents

did participate in the world of correspondence is noteworthy. in other contexts WC know

that illitcratc correspondcnts tended to rely upon family members, a neighbour, traveller,

notriry, or a membcr of thc clcrgy to writc on their bchalf. Thcre are occasional examples

of this in the cxisting sourc~s.~ ' In particular, it is significant that a correspondent's

ability to writc did not ncccssarily corrclatc perfcctly with thc volume of his or her

corrcspondcncc. José Igrirtua cites the example of Dominique Godet, a successful

Montreril outfittcr, who was illitcratc and yct had of ncccssity to maintain a considerable

correspondencc with ovcrscas supplicrs. He spcculates that Godet's corrcspondence was

niaintained by his cousin René de Couagne who himself wrote large numbcrs of lcttcrs to

mct ropolitan mcrchants on his own b~half .~ '

95 pcrccnt and most werc: ovcr 90 percent. H.J. Graff, "Literacy and Social Structure in Elgin County, Canada West: 1861," M, Volume 6 (April 1973). pp. 4 5 4 .

59 For a discussion of the reprcscntativcncss and reliability of figures concerning literacy sce, Greer, "L'alphabCtisation et son histoire au Qulbcc: Etat dc la qucstion,"pp. 32-36. David Cressy,

udor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980). pp. 56-57 argues in dcfcnsc of the reliability of signature r a t a as a measure of literacy. See *O on ihis Kcnneth A. Lockridge, L m in C w New Endand: An . .

M o b W o r U (Ncw York: W.W. Norton and Co., 19741, p. 7.

%c contrast betwecn thc two socicties is striking. Peter Moogk draws attention to this in his aforcriicntioned aflicle, "Rcluctant Exilcs," pp. 466-67. The only flaw in his discussion arises from his cimviction that this difference was the product of the nature of communications in the French empire.

6 1 On the corrcspondcncc of illiteratcs sec, for cxample, David Cressy, Cominn Over, pp. 217-21.

62 José Edurirdo Igarruti, "The Mcrçhants and Ncnociants of Montrcal, 1750-1775: A Study in Socio- Eçonomic History," (PhD Diss., Michigan Statc, 1973), pp. 109-1 10.

Whcn we talk about the world of correspondents, WC thus are talking about a srnail

sroup. Our sources narrow our perspective evcn further. Here and there, fragments of the

transatlantic correspondence of relatively ordinary Canadians survive, but--often quite

limited at the beginning--1ittle of it remains. By and large, what has been preserved are

the lettcrs of the particularly prorninent. Thcse men and women oiten maintained a

voluminous correspondence. They were--1ike the bulk of contemporary corresp~ndents--

litcrate, generally wcll-to-do, powerful, well-connected, and European. They include

important and influcntial mcrchants, administrators, rcligious figures, lawyers, judges,

scipcurs, soldiers, and prominent mcmbcrs of their cornmunitics. Thus the world we arc

dcscribing is that of an elitc. Other correspondents undoubtcdly faced distinctive

constraints, opportunitics and difficulties when they sought to correspond. Many of them

would certainly have been cxcludcd from the circlcs in which Our correspondents operated.

At lcast in principle, howcvcr, the system of communications this study describes was

pcrrncable by the non-clitc corrcspondcnt. In particular, our growing appreciation of the

\ v i t d i t y of pre-institutional communications nctworks suggcsts that we need to be less

catcgorical in assuming that common correspondents were prevented fkom communicating

casily by the absence of an officia1 postal nctwork.

Thc nature of the availablc sourccs dictatcd, to a large extent, the approach this

study takes. Particularly in thc contcxt of the Frcnch rcgimc, the extant collections of

lcttcrs are compartaivcly fcw, oftcn fragrnantary, and rarely ovcrlap. Thcse qualitics

prcciudc a mcaningful quantitative analysis. Howcvcr, the limitations of the sources are

offsct by ccrtain strcngths: thc lettcrs arc nch in both thcir descriptions of correspondence

and in thc cstcnt to which thçy rcflect the Icttcr-writers' self-consciousness about the

proccss of communications. Thcy revcal not only a great deal about the situation and

conccrns of individual corrcspondcnts, but also about the the structures, pattcms, processes

and norms that charactcrized what many othcr clite Canadians would have encountered. A

qurtlitativc approach tradcs on thc strcngths of thcse sourccs. In thc intercsts of

consistcncy this approach was cxtcndcd into thc British colonial pcriod although the

changing naturc of the sources for the British regime would make it possible in the future

to add a quantitativc clemcnt to ccrtziin parts of this analysis to reinforce the conclusions

prcscntcd hcrc.

Thc temporal limits of this study conform broadly to the period before the

introduction of a m a s postal system in the mid-ninetccnth ccntury. Our starting date is in

the 1630s ncar the beginning of European settlcment on the Saint Lawrence: the richness

of the letters of Marie de L'Incarnation provides an obvious beginning. The two centuries

that follow form a clearly dc fincd unit. Throughout, govemment authorities provided

comparatively limited or no assistance to correspondents; the mails relied significantly

upon Atlantic shipping, with al1 that that entailed. The study concludes with the outbreak

of the War of 1812. In thc decadcs that followed it, the kind of world that this study

dcscribcs was rapidly disappearing as the Post Office flexed its muscles and extended its

scnicc cvcr more quickly and broridly throughout the colony. Henceforth the ways in

which lettcrs circulatcd and thc kinds of concerns correspondents brought to the process of

communications wcre changing. The world of communications was rapidly becoming

somcthing vcry different.

This study focuscs spccifically on thc tcrritory that originally constituted the French

colony of Canada and that now comprises thc southem portions of Ontario and Quebec.

Thc pcoplc of this tcmtory sharcd a nngc of circumstanccs and expcricnces that

distinguishcd thcm from the inhabitants of the Atlantic Coast and from their neighbours to

the South. Our cmphasis throughout is on the changing pacc and pattern of

communications bctwecn France or England and the Saint Lawrence--whether via the

river itself or through New England. For most of the 200 years covercd by this study,

Qucbcc and Montreal constitutcd thc focal points for the reccipt and despatch of the

trmsatlantic mails to Lowcr Canada and cven to a significant degrce to Upper Canada.

Corrcspondcnts throughout central Canada werc dcpendent upon routes and networks

ccntrcd in thcsc two comniunitics and thus thc pacc and pattcm of communications to and

from thcsc ccntrcs shaped in large part the expcrience of al1 Canadian corrcspondents. In

ccrtain respccts this rcprcscnts a rcsurrcction of the traditional conccpt of the "Empire of

the Saint Lnwrcncc." This study, indccd, scrvcs as a crucial remindcr that while the

conccpt owcs something to Crcighton's interprctative vision and has oitcn been cxaggerated

and abuscd, i t posscsscs a ccrtain rcal gcographic coherencc. Thc cxtent of the local mails

substantially affcctcd thc acccss corrcspondcnts in distant cornmunitics had to the

opportunities provided at Quebec and

includc a discussion of the distinctive

Montreal, and it is in this context

patterns and mechanisms of local *

21

that this study will

communications.

Early Canadian correspondents faced many challenges. They were forced to

assume a primary rolc in the management of their correspondence; the opporhmities on

which they depended to send their letters across the ocean could be limited and sometimes

unprcdictable; their letters were vulnerable to loss and delay; and al1 were forced to

confront the immutable fact that the Saint Lawrence was closed to navigation between

Novcmbcr and April or May, effectively ciosing the colony off from communications by

that route for half thc ycar. The condition of correspondents was, however, generally far

less awkward than it would at first appcar. The early mails worked remarkably effectively,

particularly whcn evaluatcd against contemporq standards, and improved substantially

through the scvcnteenth and eightccnth centuries. For literate colonists in carly Canada the

occan functioned far lcss as a canyon than as a bridge: by serving as a pathway for

corrcspondcncc, it connected the tiny European population of Canada to France rather than

sctting i t adrift. In pursuing this gencral conclusion, this study makes four distinct points.

First. prcinstitutional structures wcrc much morc effectivc than has cornmonly been

apprcciated. The absencc of a Post Office did not mean that communications werc

neccssarily a mcss. Rathcr, the proccss was considcrably more orderly, structured, and

prcdictable than it first appcars. Bchind the most obvious qualities of the world of

communications thcre lies a fascinating tale of the strategics Canadians used to get letters

frorn Quebec to Europe--moving Ictten along nctworks fomed amongst mcrchants and

othcr groups within thcir community--and of thc conventions and practices that helped to

minimizc rhc impact of many of the difficultics corrcspondents faced. Thcrc existcd a

systcrn of communications whosc structures and norms derived not fiom administrative

order but from habit and convention. For morc than 100 years these structures and norms

succcss full y providcd for the transmission of letters between France and Canada and they

continued to provide for a considerable portion of the mails for decadcs after the Conquest,

despite thc incrcasing cxtcnt of forma1 postal scrvicc. Thc fact that the systcm which

providcd for thc mails was informal did not mcan that it was incffective.

Second, we must be careful to recognize that the effectiveness of the early mails

can only usefully be evaluated in the context of contemporary expectations. TO Our eyes,

many fcaturcs of the early mails secm awkward and difficult. This study will argue that

contcmporaries gcncrally iound their situation l e s restrictive than we might expect.

Corrcspondents were uscd to assuming a degree of responsibility for the despatch and

rcccipt of their M e r s that we would find burdensome. They expected that

communications would entai1 a degree of risk and werc accustomed to the distinctive pace

and pattern of communications. They measured the risks, speed, and frequency of

communications in ans particular year against what they had come to believc they couid

rcasonnbly cxpcct. It was in this contcxt, rather than against some abstract constant, that

t hcy dist inguishcd "good" ycars from "bad. " For contemporary correspondents,

communications werc only poor, slow, or difficult when thcy failed to function as easily,

quickly, or ircqucntly as they gcncrally did. Thc complaints on which historians have

bascd thcir often ncgativc assessmcnt of the early mails wcre generally, if not invariably,

the product of those ycars in which the mails failed to meet contemporary expectations.

Thcy reflect the temporary breakdown of the system they had constructed, not the fact that

i t was unworkablc. In addition, correspondcnts, particularly during the French regime,

acccptcd thc scasonal rhythm of con~muniwtions as normal in a much more profound

scnsc. Thcy cxpcctcd that many iaccts of thcir livcs, and communications in particular,

would conform to a distinctivc scasonal rhythm, and it was in this contcxt that thcy made

scnsc of thc limits on transatlantic mails.

Third, as suggcstcd by the fact that thcre were times whcn correspondents

cornplaincd loudly about thc mails and othcrs whcn they did not, communications were not

static. Whcrcas historians have dcscribcd the conditions of communications as largely

constant, it is clcar that thcir naturc changcd substantially ovcr timc. in the first place,

during thc Frcnch rcgimc thc ability to corrcspond varied cnormously from year to year.

In onc ycar, corrcspondcnts rnight bc able to cxploit a numbcr of opportunitics wcll spaced

through a particularly long season, whilc in the ncxt they could confront drastically more

limited options. Second, superimposcd on thcsc ycarly variations, we can distinguish

pcriods during thc Frcnch rcgimc whcn communications wcrc bcttcr o r worse than at

othcrs. Third, whatcvcr thc broad fluctuations through the Frcnch rcgime, it is clear that in

good years correspondents found themselves in much bettcr circumstances by the end of

the French regimc than thcy had earlicr: increascd volumes of shipping during the 1730s

and thc 1750s brought substantially incrcased opportunities to correspond during the season

of navigation. The Conqucst brought a signifiant change in the pattern of transatlantic

communication which, significantly, owcd very little to the establishment of a Post Office

or to tcchnological change. Whereas during the French regime communications had k e n

largely if not entirely seasonal, correspondents could suddenly send and receive letters year

round bccausç they had acccss to the port of New York which was open twelve months of

the year.

Finally, it is clcar that thcre was considerable variation in the experience of

particular correspondents cvcn within the dite group on which this study focuses.

Corrcspondcnts rcspondcd very diffcrcntly to thc options availablc to them. We can

distinguish rimong communitics of concspondcnts who brought distinctive nceds, desires,

and rcsourccs to thc proccss of communications. Indccd, as we shall scc, evcn amongst

the clitc thçrc was no single uniform world of communications in which al1 those who

wished to send letters participated. Rather it seerns clear that there were a series of

worlds: comprising diffcrent nctworks, conncctions, practiccs, needs, and expectations.

This study is organizcd in two parts. Thc first covcrs the period of the French

reginie and is organizcd theniatically. Altliough part of the purpose of this discussion is to

highlight the variations that occurcd in conditions through the French regimc, these

variations wcrc cpisodic rathcr than lincar and conscqucntly a chronological approach does

not function as an effcctivc framcwork for discussion. A thematic approach, on the other

hand, is idcal bccause it highlights thc important continuities in the structures, practices,

and convcntions that wcrc cssential to thc effcctivencss of the process of communications.

Of thc fitvc thcniatic chaptcrs that comprise Part One of thc thcsis, the first discusses what

to niodcrn cycs is thc niost unfortunatc feature of the French rcgime mails: the seasonal

rhythm of communications. I t looks at the frustrations causcd by these limits and

cvaluates how contcmporarics may havc undcrstood thcir circumstances- Yct, within the

broad scasonal constraints on communications, the pattern of shipping varied considerably

from year to year. Chaptcr Two traces how many vesscls sailcd to the colony each year

and thc timing of their arrivals and dcparturcs. It focuscs spccifically on patterns of

contcmporary correspondencc with the goal of asscssing the impact of these fluctuations in

shipping. Chapter Three is about the nskiness of the early mails. It outlines the hazards

that plagued communications and evaluates how we can begin to assess their impact.

Throughout thcse first three chapters, cur emphasis is often upon the ways in whkh

individual corrcspondents assumed responsibility for their mails or worked to accommodate

thc distinctivc qualitics of this world of communications. The importance of the individual

correspondent is confirmed in Chapter Four, which focuses upon the process of

communications. But this chaptcr argues that what ultimately ensured the effectiveness of

the carly mails was the existence of informa1 structures and practices upon which the

individual could depend. Chapter Five ends the discussion of the French regime mails,

focusing upon thc ways in which contemporary correspondents occasionally were able to

suppiemcnt thc opportunities offercd by the regular shipping to Quebec, sometimes

cstcnding or cvcn ovcrcoming thc scasonal limits on communication to the colony.

Togcthcr, thcsc five chaptcrs hclp us to appreciatc the distinctivc challcngcs of French

rcgirnc communications, at the samc timc highlighting the factors that hclpcd to make the

mails far morc effective than we might assume.

The second part of the thcsis, which covers the penod from the Conquest of New

Francc to the beginning of the War of 1812, is organized chronoiogically. Ln this period,

thc structures, con\~cntions, and practices that had charactcrized the proccss of

conimunications during thc French regimc rcmained csscntial to correspondence; but the

important story in thcsc ?cars is the spccd with which conditions for corrcspondents were

changing. From the timc of thc Conquest, the range of services and opportunities available

to Canadian corrcspondents increascd rapidly, and it is this progression that provides the

kcy to understanding thc history of the mails in this period. As a conscquence, Chapter

Six covers the pcriod from 1759-60 to the end of the War of the Arnerican Revolution.

Thc Conqucst lcft thc csscntial structurcs upon which the mails depended largely intact,

but in providing Canadian corrcspondents with acccss to Ncw York it made it possible for

thcm ro correspond routincly throughout the winter months. Whilc the options available to

corrcspondents thcn wcrc much grcatcr than they had bccn before 1760, they would

incrcasc cvcn funhcr following the Amcrican Revolution. Chapter Seven looks at the

variety of routcs and opportunitics by which Canadians could kecp in touch with Europe

between 1784 and the end of Our pcriod, and it considers how the central Saint Lawrence

linkages were changed and stretched as they reached intand to correspondents living

beyond the Montreal-Quebec corridor. Its purpose is to explain how Canadians chose

among the options available to them and to describe what these choices meant for theû

corrcspondence. *

From the perspective of the early twenty-first century, what is in many ways most

striking about the expcricnce of Marie de l'Incarnation and Lawrence Ermatinger is simply

how differcnt their world was €rom ours. Invariably, what WC notice first are the

similaritics in their expcricnce, and how comparatively awkward, slow, and risky

communications were. If wc sct aside the assumptions of Our age of instant

communications, and allow ourselves to be transported back into the early modem world

of wood, wind, sail, quill, and ink, what emerges is the complexity and effectiveness of the

systcm of colonial corrcspondcnce. Focusing on the cxperience of letter-writers

thcmsclvcs, wc can scc how wcll Canadians in that pre-Post Office cra constructed the

mcchanisms for transatlantic communications to mcct thcir necds, and appreciate how

much thcir circumstanccs improvcd ovcr the space of a century and a half.

CHAPTER 1 "Adieu pour cette année: "

The seasonality of communications during the French regime

The fcaturc of the early mails that is most foreign to Our experience may be their

cssential seasonality. Communications wcrc dependent on Atlantic shipping, but for six

months of the ycar thc Saint Lawrcnce was closcd to navigation. As a consequence,

communications were confined to the summcr and fa11 whcn thc vessels from France could

rcach Quebec. Through the wintcr, the colony was cut off from direct contact with

Europc. This chapter explores the limits of the season of communications and what they

mcarit for contcmporaries. *

The scasonal rhythm of transatlantic communications at Quebec was, above all, a

function of the climatic limits on navigation in the Saint Lawrcnce. As Louis-Antoine de

Bougainville obscrvcd in 1757,

L'hivcr est toujours très rude cn Canada ... la navigation qui cesse d'être libre à la fin dc novembre ne recommence, pour l'ordinaire, que vers le 20 avril; une année memc la rivière était encore prise, vis-à-vis de Quebcc au 3 mai..."'

Quebcc, more than 1,500 kilometrcs upriver from the open sea, was as a consequence

inacccssiblc by boat from latc fa11 until latc spring. Atlantic vessels rarely spent the winter

in Qucbcc; rathcr, whcthcr thcy wcrc Frcnch or Canadian owned, they wintered in France

asid set sail in thc spring or carly summcr of cach year for Quebcc. The direct voyage

froni Francc to Canada gcnerally took from onc and a half to threc months. Vcssels that

sailcd particularly carly tcnded to bc faster, as thcy could takc advantagc of the north-east

winds that blcw in thc cnrly spring, although thcsc winds in their tum could bring squalls

a - 'Louis-~nroine de Bougainville, - - , cd. Roland Lanioniagnç (Qucbcc: Pdican, 1993). "M&noire sur L'ctat de la nouvelle-france (1757)," p. 91, sec also p. 72-

27

and fog. Latcr vessels--and these constituted the majority--had to contend with the

prcvailing westcrlies, which could stall a French vessel in port or just off the coast, and

slow its joumcy westward as it sailcd for the Grand Banks. The first leg of the joumey,

from the coast of France to the Grand Banks, was in many ways the easier one. The

distance from thcre up the Saint Lawrence to Quebec was shorter, but the trip could take

as long. The winds in the Saint Lawrence were often contrary and conditions foggy, and

the River itself was treacherous. During the first two-thirds of the seventeenth century,

many transoccanic vessels prcicrred to end their voyage at Tadoussac, where their cargoes

wcre unloadcd into various smaller ships to bc forwardcd upstrcam to Quebec. A s the

river was charted and bccame bcttcr known, most vessels picked up a pilot dowmiver and

continued on to ~ucbcc . '

Most ships anivcd bcforc Quebcc in the summer or early fall. Once a vessel

rcachcd its destination i t wouId rcmain a month and usually more in port. The ship needed

to bc clcancd, rcpaired and rcprovisioncd; the vcsscl's cargo had to be disposcd of, and a

rcturn cargo sccurcd. This job was gcncrally donc by the mcrchant himsclf, if he had

acconipanicd his cargo: by an agcnt who had travcllcd with thc ship; or by the vcssel's

captain scming as a supcrcargo. Occasionally thc task was cntmstcd to a local merchant,

whcthcr as a partncr in thc enicrprise or on othcr tems.' The ships gcnerally set sail

again in thc latc summcr or frill, hastened on their way as the days grew shortcr by the

incrcasing danger of icc and poor conditions in the Rivcr and thc thrcat of violent winter

'On thc le~igth of occan ~rossings sec James Pritchard, "Ships, Men, and Commerce," pp. 29-31. Pritchard bases his esrimatcs of sailing times on, amongst other sources, Louis-Armand de h m d'Arc Lahontan. New Y o y a g ~ ~ to N-, rçprintcd from the English edition of 1703 by R.G. Thwaites, ed. (Chicago, 1905). 1, p. 287. Two months was considcrcd a vcry good crossing while, according to Pritchard, thr: fastcst crossing wzis thai of rhrer: ships in 1687 which anived at Quebec on 31 May after a aossing of only 34 days. On conditions and navigaticin more generally, see pp. 8-37. Sec also his "French Charting of ihc East Coast of Canada," in Five Hundred - . 1 4 0 - 19ûQ , Proccedings of the 3rd Inreiiiaiional Reunion for the History of Nauticd Scicncc and Hydrography, cditor Dcrck Howse (Greenwich, London: National Marine Museum, 1981). Giiics Proulx, Betwcen New E- . .

a h@lups (ïoronto: Dundurn Press, 1981), pp. 51-59, 76-80 also disçusses these issues.

'Kathrp A. Young, "Kin, Conirnerçe, and Community: Mcrchants in the Port of Quebcc from 1717- 1735," (PhD diss., University of Manitoba, 1991), pp. 67-68 and Allana Rcid, "Gcncral Trade Bctween . . Uuchcc and Frarice Düring the French Regimc," Canadian Rcview, 1953, pp. 26-28. See also on ihis, Jariics Pritchard, "Thc Voyrigc of ific Fier: An Analysis of a Shipping and Trading Venture to New . - France, 1721-1728," Soc.ial S o u , Vol. 6 (April 1973). pp. 75-97.

storms in thc ~tlantic.' Vessels had to leave by the end of October or, at the very latest,

carly November. On the 23 Octobcr 1651, for example, Marie de l'incarnation wrote to

hcr nicce: "Nous n'osions plus attcndre les navires lors qu'ils sont arrivez et l'on craint

beaucoup leur rctour à cause qu'ils partent dans une saison avancée et en danger d'être

bnscz parmi les glaccs."s Similarly, in 1728, the King's Minister Maurepas explained to

colonial officiais that the King's ships were under orders to stay at Quebec only until 15 or

70 Octobcr at thc latest, in order to cnsure that the vessels avoided crossing to France

"dans la mauvaise s a i ~ o n . " ~

From Quebcc, most vcsscls in the seventccnth ccntury sailed home to France

dircct 1 y. Thc prcvai 1 ing winds and currcnts carricd vcssels quickly eastward, so thc retum

trip gencrally took betwccn thiny and forty days--much less than the outward journe~.'

Somc vcssels stoppcd cn route at Plaisancc or to fish and conscquently took somewhat

longer. Thc lcngth of the dircct voyage home docs not appcar to have changed over time,

but shipping pattcrns did. In the eightccnth ccntury, sorne ships stiI1 returncd to France

dircctly, but incrcasingly othcrs stopped off at Louisbourg or rctumcd to France via the

Antilles. In thc latter instance, in particular, this would have added considerably to the

Icngth of thcir journcy ."us the round-trip voyage, irom France to Quebcc and back

again, customariiy took bctwccn four and five months; much longcr if the ship in question

travciled via thc Wcst Indics. Thc combination of the lcngth of the round trip with the

'Scc Pritctiard, "Ships, Mcn, and Commerce," pp. 38-40; and Miquelon, -of-, p. 69.

5 - M a u d d J - ~'~atbn, Marie dc l'incarnation to her niece, 23 October 1651, p. 430. Note in this contcst, Maric dr: l'fncmation to Claude, 7 September 1648, p. 343 in which shc observed that although aii ihc vcsscls had yct ta amve, those which had were preparing to lcavc "parccqu'ils pensèrent périr l'année dcrriicrc, Ctant partis trop rard." Ii was unusual for contcmporaries to worry about conditions this early. For thc departurc of the Iast vcssels in spccific years, see for example, Docunienrs, cd. Reuben Gold Thwaitcs (ClevcIand: Burrows Brothcrs, 1896-1901). Vol. 28, p. 237; Vol. 28, p. 211; Vol. 30, p. 195.

6 ~ ~ ~ , MG 1, Archives des Colonies, C l 1 4 Correspondance Gcnerale, Canada, F-50, Maurepas to Versailles, 18 May 1723, pp. 506-5 10.

'Sec Pritchard, "Ships, Men, and Commerce," pp. 39-40. Sec also Proulx, &tw- New France, p. 57.

'On this iradc sec Jacques Mathieu, 9 au sit;clc. pp. 13-11. Scc also Pritchard, "Ships, Men, and Commcrcc," Table II, "Ship Movements between Vuct)cc and L;i Kochellc, 1612-1726."

29

seasonal limits on navigation meant that double crossings were impractical, as one attempt

nlade in lG6O dernon~tratcd.~

Therc werc cxceptions to this pattern. Occasionally, vessels spent the wicter at

Qucbec and then sailed castward in the spring. For instance, near the end of Apnl 1758,

Louis Antoine dc Bougainville wrote a letter to his brother, commenting, "Nous allons

enfin, mon cher frlre, reprendre notre commerce avec l'Europe. On sort à Québec un

bâtiment dcs glaces et on I'envoyc dircctcmcnt cn fiance pour porter des nouvelles du triste

ct misérable canada."" This was rarc, and generally happencd only when a vessel had

arx-i~wi in the

until the next

colony so late one season that it was forced to delay its return to France

ycar." *

The strict scasondity of shipping shapcd the rhythm of communications. French

corrcspondcnts wrotc thcir lettcrs dunng the spring or early summer, fowarding them to

the ports whencc the vcsscls sailcd for Canada. in thc last dccadcs of the scventccnth

ccntury most corrcspondcnts writing from Francc to membcrs of the Séminaire de Québec

d a r d thcir lctrcrs somctimc betwccn March or April and une." The same pattern

continucd through thc cightcenth ccntury. Occasionally, somc correspondents wrote letters

d Y leiricarnation, Maric de L'Incarnation ro her son, 25 June 1660, p. 619. The vessel in question arrivcd in the colony from Normandy in mid-June 1660 and sailed again very quickly on 7 July. That summcr, iroquois raiding partics had pcnctrdtcd into the vcry heart of thc colony, terrorizing the French and thrcatcning to Jisrupt agriculture. The colonial authorities fcared the harvest as a result would be inadequate and hoped to manage to securc assistance from France by the vessel's retum. Tlie vessel received authoriation to return to Qucbec carly in Scptember but by then it was too late in the year for the ship to reach thc colony bciorc the River frozc and it rcmaincd in port. See also Trudel, Hisroire de - Fr;lrirc, Pan 3: 3 . .. .. -. - ' , Volume 1: LgS-, pp. 361-62.

10 De Bougainville, E c r i t s r le Canada, Monireal, de Bougainville to his brother, 21 April 1758.

"For othcr csamples sec Archives du Séminaire de Québec [hereafter ASQ], Lettres Carton N, no. 96, Laval ro Denonville, 16 April 1691; and University of Monireal, Baby Collection, Partie 2, Série U, U 5117, Montrcal, P. Guy io M. [Hersant], Paris, 8 April 1747.

cc ASQ, Carton Séminaires, Fonds Verreau; and Lcnres M, N, O.

as latc as July or August, but as they generally recognized, in doing so they ran the nsk of

missing the last opportunity of the season."

Thc amval of the first ships in the colony marked the opening of the season of

communicatior~s at Quebcc. For the first time since the arriva1 of the last vesse1 from

France the ycar beforc, the residents of the colony received news directly from Europe.

Whilc the vesscls remaincd in port, colonial correspondenis wrote their own letters,

scnding thcm off as the ships set sail. The departure of the last ships brought the season

of corrcspondencc to a closc.14 Thcse letters, dcspatched from thc colony during the late

sunimer and fall, gencrally arrived in France between Septembcr and December or

January.15 Lcttcrs scnt on vcssels which returned to France less dircctly would have

takcn longer and Our corrcspondcnts as a rcsult may have avoided them.16 The lack of

double crossings mcant that Canadian correspondents never received replies to letters

during the same scason in which thcy were writtcn. Rather, thcy had to wait for a

rcsponsc to arrive on the next ycar's vcsscls." Similarly, the fact that vessels rarely spent

"Sc,, for instance, Archives Nationales du Québec [hcncefonh ANQ], P272, Correspondance Cabart de Villern~ont, R(ichefort, M. dc Machault Rougement to Caban de Villemont, Pans, 27 August 1684; and also Iiochcfon, M. Gaillard io de Vilierrnont, Paris, 31 July 1705. Cabart or Cabars (Esprit de), Seigneur de Villcrmont was Governor "dcs iles d'HyCrcs" and King's counciilor.

14 Lctrcrs Jarcd 15 0ctc)bcr 1657, 31 October 1669, and 9 Novembcr 1671, were al l written to go by the I ' - l a s ~ ships. &&-y for which sce p. 593, 867, and 916. See also "Lettres de Mère Marie-

Xr~drCc Duplessis dc Sainte-HElCnc, Superieur dcs Hospitalières dc L'Hôtel-Dieu de Quebec," Nova Francia, [hcreaftcr citcd as "Mèrc de Sainte-Hélène"], Vol. 3, Mère de Sainte-Hdhe to Mme Hecquet, 28 October 1729, pp. 37-48; Vol. 3, samc to same, 23 October 1730, p. 54; Vol. 4, Quebec, Mère de l'Enfant-Jésus to Feret, Dieppe, 29 October 17-1, pp. 33-16; Vol. 1, Mèrc de Sainte-Hélène to Mme Hecquet, 30 October 1751. pp. 33-33.

"SCC, for example, M- de I'I. ~.-?ion, Marie de L'incarnation to her son, 15 September 164, pp. 330-31; and a h , Quebcc, MCrc Marguerite de S. Athanase IO MErc CCcile de S. Joseph, Supencure des Ursulinss dc Mons, 27 Octobcr 1681, p. 1031. See also ASQ, Lettres Carton O, no. 20, Paris, M. Trcmblay

1 - to M. de Maizercts, Quebcc, 5-11 Mach 1698; and Lettres au a v c ç c (1748-1733) [hercaftcr cited as Letr rcsau] , edited by Nicole Deschampes (Montreal: Hunubise, 1972). 18 August 1752, pp. 299-300.

16 1 have found no explicit rcfcrences to lettcn having been sent on vesscls retuming to France via the Aniilles nor to corrcspondcnts avoiding such opponunitics.

" ~ o h n S. Galbraith, "The Turbulent Frontier"' notes that in india "Between two and two and a half years usually elapscd bcforc a Govzrnor Generai of the ninetcenth centuxy rcceived a reply to even his most urgent communications," p. 15 1.

thc winter in the colony meant that very few letters were çver sent from Canada to France

in the spring.

n i e correspondence of Mark de l'Incarnation provides a particularly ciear

illustration of how this seasonal pattern worked in practice. Amving in the colony in

1639, shc livcd therc until her death in 1672. Each year she received scores of letten

from corrcspondents in France including her son Claude--who had been a young man of

twcnty when she had lcft for Canada--family, friends, nuns of her order in Tours, and

mcmbcrs of other rcligious houscs. Customanly, she began writing as the first letters

arrivcd and continued through the months of August, Septernber and 0ctober.18 These

Lcttcrs werc dcspatched as the ships sailed: a few by the first vesse1 and the bulk by those

ships which sailed ncarer the end of the season. The departure of thc last ship brought the

scason of corrcspondcncc to a closc. Thus on 21 October 1669, she wrote to Claude:

Voici ma lcttrc d'adieu. Lc vaisseau uniquc qui est retenu par force à notre port doit lcvcr l'ancre Samedi prochain, ou Lundi au plus tard; autrement il seroit contraint d'hiverner ici: La terre cst d6jâ couverte de nège, et le froid fort aigu, et capablc de geler les cordag~s. '~

Evcry ycar, thc conccrn was thc samc: that vesscls might dclay too long and bc forced by

advancing wintcr conditions to rcmain in the colony, or that they might sail but then suffer

somc niishrip due to thc cold and icy conditions on board. The last ship gone,

corrcspondents in the colony would have to wait until thc following spring to hear oncc

again from France. Thus, on 9 Novembcr 1671, Marie de l'Incarnation wrote that hcr final

lcttcr of the scason would bc despatchcd by thc last vesscl, "après quoy nous ne verrons

plus que des glaces sur nostre mer douce jusques au mois d'april ou may."m The

poignancy of hcr situation is rcflcctcd in the oftcn repcatcd phrase with which shc closcs

many of hcr Ictters: "Adieu pour ccttc a ~ é e . " "

1 a It has bçen cstirnatcd that Marie de L'Incarnation wrote 13,000 letters over the ycars she Lived in Canada. Scc a, Vol 1, S.V. "Guyart, Marie"; Sce also Dom Guy 0-.y, "Introduction," Marie_dc III , pp. iu-.uxxvii.

19Marie dc I'lncamarion, Marie de l'Incarnation to her son, 21 Octobcr 1669, p. 867.

%id., Maric de L'Incarnation to MEre CCcile de S. Joseph, SupÇncure des Ursulines de Mons, 9 Novcmber 1671, pp. 946-47.

"Ibid., Maric de l'incarnation IO hcr son, 2 November 1660, p. 650.

32

This sarnc cssential pattern remained intact throughout the French regime. In 1733,

Mèrc dc Sainte-Hélène, a nun Hospitaller of the Hôtel-Dieu at Quebec, reminded her

fricnd Mmc Hccquet of Abbeville France, "que quand vous manquez a me faire l'honneur

dc nfccrire unc annec, il faut que je jcune deux ans du plaisir d'apprendre ce qui vous

regarde."" The same fate awaited most Canadian correspondents: if the person in France

with whom thcy were corresponding neglected to write in time for the departure of the

ships in a particular season, it would be another year before they had a chance again- In

such a

alniost

Francc

case, thc correspondent in Canada would receive no news from this person for

two ycars. *

Canadian correspondents found the seasonal constraints on communications with

difficult. In the first instance, the limits on shipping meant that they had to

compress a ycar's corrcspondcncc into a few months. For Marie de l'incarnation, the

sumrncr and fa11 months wcre cxhausting. As Superior of the Ursulines she was required

to maintain a vast officia1 correspondence which could number more than two hundred

lcttcrs cach scason.= Marie dc l'Incarnation oftcn complained that she was wom out by

"la prcssc dcs lettres et dcs vaisseaux qui vont prtir."" "Je suis," she commented in late

Octobcr 1649,

unc pauvre creature chargée d'affaires tant pour la France que pour cctte Maison. Trois mois durant ceux qui ont des cxpéditions à faire pour la Francc, n'ont point dc rcpos, ct commc jc suis chargéc dc tout le temporcl de cctte famille, qu'il me faut faire venir dc France toutcs nos niccssitez, qu'il mc faut faire le payement par billets, n'ayant pas d'argent en ce païs, qu'il me faut traitter avec des Mattelots pour retirer nos dcnrérs, ct enfin qu'il me faut prendre mille soins ct faire mille choses qu'il scroit inutile dc vous dire, il ne SC peut faire que tous les momens de mon temps ne soient rcmplis dc quelque occupation .... 3

""Mèrc dc Sainte-Hélènc." Vol. 3, Merc rf<: Sainte-Hélène to Mmc Hccquet, 18 Octobcr 1733, pp. 171- 73.

L)On rhc number of lcrters shc had to write sec Marir: de U - , Marie de L'Incarnation to la Révkcndc MCre Catherine-Agcs de S. Paul, Rcligieusc dc L'Abbaye du Pon Royal du S. Sacrement, 18 Scptcmbcr 1643, pp. 195-96; Maric de l'Incarnation to her son, 1631(?), p. 235; Marie dc I'incamation to her son, 15 Scprcmbcr 1631, pp. 21041.

2J~bid., Miîric dc l'Incarnation to hm son. 30 Scptcmbcr 1633, p. 199.

=ibid., Marie de l'incarnation to hcr son, 22 Octobcr 1649, pp. 377-78.

Hcr privatc lcttcrs to Claude and other family, friends and associates were often written at

night, in haste, and a fcw lines at a time." She rarely had the leisure time for writing

she wishcd she had, particularly in her corrcspondence with her son. Similady, Mère de

Sainte-Hélène complained that "l'automne en canada est une saison accablante, parce que

toutes lcs affaires se font, on reçoit les lettres de france, on y répond très promptement on

fait ses provisions, on payes ses dette^...,"^ "tout ce termine ici en un mois ou six

scrnaines, c'est un Chaos ou on ne se connoit pas."" Conespondents continually

cornplaincd that they werc left with littlc time for anything but the pressing business of the

scason. Thus, for instance, the author of a lctter to M. Lavaltrie, an infantry captain at

Niagara, wrirtcn 18 October 1744, bcgan by proffering the excuses of M. de Beaucours

who was "bien mortifié Monsicur dc ne pouvoir pas vous écrire par cette occations estant

très occupé les vcssaux aitant-prcstc a partir il a tres peu dc tant pour faire des lestre ille

vous fait bien ces ~ornplirn't."~~

Second, correspondents with family and friends in France also complained about

thc lack of ncws during the wintcr. Maric dc I'Incarnation particularly disliked the fact

that during the winter anything might happen to hcr or to her conespondents and neither of

thcnl would lcarn of it until thcy received thcir lctters the next scason. For exarnple, in a

last icttcr wnttcn to Mère Maric dc la Nativité, an Ursuline at Tours, she commented,

Si nous vivons cncorc l'annéc prochainc vous me direz dc vos nouvcllcs, et je vous dirai dcs micnncs. ... Ccpandant je scray en pcinc de vous jusqu'à l'année prochainc, la grandeur de votre maladie m'en rendant l'issue douteuse et S U S ~ C C ~ C . ~

'%id., Marie de l'Incarnation IO hcr son, 30 September 1643, p. 202; same to same, Surnrner 1647, p. 230; Marie dc I'lncarnation to one of hcr sisters, 13 Augusi 1650, pp. 392-93.

" " ~ è r c dc Sainte-Hdènc," Vol. 3, Mère de Sainte-Hélène to Mme Hccquet, 23 October 1730, p. 56.

"SIbiJ., Vol. 3, Mèrç dc Sainte-HÇlene io Mme Hccquet, 28 September 1742, pp. 289-90.

3 N ~ ~ , MG 2.1 U, Baby Callcction Transnipts [hcreafter referred to by there complete name to distinguish thcm [rom the originals at thc University of Montreal], Vol. 1, Ellony Celoron to M. de Lavaltrie, 18 Octobcr 1711, pp- 530-31.

wMaric dc IV-, Marie de l'Incarnation to Mère Mark dc la Nativité, Tours, 15 September 1668, p. 817.

Her habit of begiming letters with the announcement that she was still alive helps to

undcrscore hcr evcr prcscnt awareness of the fact that life marched on during the winter

without anyone overscas being any the ~ i s e r . ~ ' *

It is worthwhile, howcver, to probe beyond the obvious constraints that the seasonal

rhythm of communications imposcd upon Canadian correspondents, and to consider the

context in which contemporaries were operating. How would they havc made sense of

thcir circumstances? We would find the conditions of communications in thc French

regimc profoundiy strangc, but this section will suggest that contemporary conespondents

brought to thcir situation cxpcricnccs and a mindsct, that eascd their adjustment to the rigid

scasonality of communications. They found their circumstances frustrating, but arguably

thcy found them easicr to make scnse of than wc would.

Many of the corrcspondcnts on whom these chapters will focus came to the colony,

of course, originally from Francc. Therc, thcy would have bccn accustomcd to being able

to niaintain a comparativcly cvcn corrcspondcnce year-round. For thcm, conditions in the

colony would havc mcant an abrupt and dramatic change. An indication of how

ownvhclming sonic rcccnt Europcan arrivals could find the scasonal limits on

con~munications is providcd by thc correspondcnce of Louis-Antoine de Bougainville,

Montcalm's aidc-dc-camp. A bricf residcnt in the colony, he secms ncvcr to have becn

rcconcilcd to lcaving France, and cornplaincd continually of thc distance which scparatcd

hini from fricnds and family. In Novcmbcr 1757 he concludcd a lctter to his frequent

corrcspondcnt Mmc dc Scchellcs:

jc ni'cn rapporte à vous, ma chère maman, ct à votre amitié pour un enfant qui aime et vous aimera toutc sa vie. Qucllc pcrspcctivc s'offre maintenant!

3 1 Scc, for csample, ibid.. Maric dc l'Incarnation to MSre Renée de Saint-François, Ursuline, Tours, 2

Septcmbcr 1670, p. 879, in which shc announccd "[v]otrc letcc que j'ay reçue avec joyc m'a encore trouvée cn cc monde ...." Marie de l'uicamation did in fact die when communications were closed, on the 30 April 1672. The letrers informing Claude of her death were written that summer and would have anived in France in rhc Fiil or early winter. Sec, for esample, ibid., Quebec, le P. Jéromc Lalemani to Dom Claude Martin, surnmcr 1677, p. 1019. which he noted wris his first letter of the ycar for Francc. Mère de Sainte-Hélène similarly csprcssed concern over the fact thai anything could happen during the winter to Mme Hccquet or hcr husbarid and shc wouid know nothing of it. Sec, for example, "MCre de Sainte-Hélène," Vol. 3, Mère de Sainte-HelCnr: to Mme Hecquci, 17 October 1735, p. 177.

Sept mois sans donner ni recevoir de nouvelles! La Francc n'existe plus pour nous. Que deviendrons-nous, si l'on n'a pas pitié de nous.'*

For de Bougainvillc, the relative silence of winter was almost unbearable. His plaintive

dcmand for sympathy strikes a cord with the modem reader, who is convinced that anyone

would fccl as bcreft as de Bougainville scemcd to. De Bougainville's lament was rare,

howcvcr, in its strength. Most lettcr-writers, whether born in the colony or in France,

rcacted in a more composed manner to the distinctive limits on communications. TO a

certain extent, this can be explaincd as a simple accommodation to an unavoidable

condition. However, this accommcdation was arguably made easier by the perspective that

corrcspondents brought to bear on their circumstances.

Of the two factors that ma? have most infuenced the way contemporaries made

scnsc of thcir situation, thc first is thc fact that the seasonal limits on communications to

Qucbcc wcrc not unusual. Communications betwecn Europc and other communities on the

western sidç of the Atlantic, which did not sharc Canada's characteristic clhate, also con-

formcd to distinctive scasonal patterns. Most vessels to the Frcnch West indies, for

cxamplc, amved in the islands bctwccn November and lune, with thc largest number

clustercd in the spring. The pattcrn was thc product of a number of factors. Weather

playcd a rolc: thc \pcsscls wantcd to avoid the hurricancs of the late summer and autumn.

ComrncrciaI considcrations wcrc also important. The first vcssels to arrive in the fa11

could oftcn sccurc high priccs for thcir cargo of provisions. Thcy would, however, have to

wait to pick up a rctum cargo, as the sugar crop was not ready for cxport until January.

Othcr vcsscls sailed latcr from France, having waited to bnng new winc from or de aux.^^

In the Chesapeake, communications wcrc dominated by the season of a single

conmodity, tobacco. l m Stcclc distinguishcs an carly pattern which hcld from thc 1630s

to thc 1690s. Vcsscls arrivcd bcforc November to avoid thc winter wcsterlics; merchants

spent the wintcr asscmbling a cargo; and vcsscls lcft in the spring to avoid the perils of the

"Dc I3ougainvillc. Ecrits sur ic C d , dc Bougainville to Mme Hcrault de SCchcllcs, 9 November 1757, p. 414.

3 3 ~ e e Miquelon, -of, p. 91, note 4. tan Steele, TheEnelishAtlantic, pp. 25-40 observes, in conirast, that shipping to the English sugar isiands was not seasonai. Raihcr, the sugar route functioned as a ycar-round highway bctwccn England and English North America, providing high-voiumc, year-round tral'fic. Thc difirence in thc partcm emphasizcs the extent to which scasonai rhythms are far more than the mcre priduct of environrncntal factors.

surnmcr scason. Latcr, thc pattern of shipping, and hence communications, changed.

Auturnn amvals bccame l e s cornmon. Lnstead, most vessels arrived in spring and left in

latc summer, having spent far l e s time in the colony. The change was the result of a

number of factors, including the determination of thosc involved to decrease the length and

cspcnse of the layover. Whilc the specific pattern of shipping had changed, however, it

was still distinctly seasonal and short. Steele concludes that although the Chesapeake was

acccssiblc ycar round, "iherc was no provisions trade ... lunng English or colonial ships to

vcnturc in thc off-scason of the staplc trade." Thus the season for trans-oceanic

communications "coincided with the season for loading t o b a ~ c o . " ~

To a lesser cxtcnt, shipping--and hence communications--to the port of Boston

also posscsscd a ccrtain seasonal pattern. In this case, again according to Steele, shipping

was not dominatcd by the scasons of any onc commodity, but by the weather. Vessels left

thc port of Boston ycar-round, but westward passages across the Atlantic to the port werc

uncommon in thc wintcr."

Thc sccond and pcrhaps most important factor influencing thc way in which

Canadian corrcspondcnts madc scnse of the scasonal limits on communication was the fact

that lifc in thc cotony and thcir affairs in general were highly structured by the seasons.

As 3 first stcp in undcrstanding thc impact of thc seasonal patterns in colonial life, it is

hclpful to rcflcct upon what wc know about the way pcoplc understand time. At a prosaic

lcvcl, WC mark tinic in a linear fashion as a simple calcndriwl progression of days,

months, and ycars. Frcnch rcgimc corrcspondcnts showed an appreciation for the linear

niarking of the passagc of timc whcn they dated their Icttcrs; this was a signifiant

dcvclopment from thc fifteenth ccntury whcn correspondcnts rarely datcd lcttcrs at all, and

i f thcy did, datcd thcm in relation to saint's days or the years of a monarch's reign." It is

possible, howevcr, to distinguish the conventions that WC have dcvcloped for the

nicrisurcmcnt of timc, "le tcmps-mcsure" or thc time of the clock, from the way in which

W Stccle, TheEnelish pp. 31-51, 55.

=Ibid., p. 60.

MG.J. Whiirow, Timc: in *: Vicws of -mata (New York: Oxford Univcrsit y Press, 1989). pp. 83-84.

wc cxperiencc timc, "le temps vécu" or lived time? As E.P. Thompson has noted,

communities possess their own "inward notation" of time, which is formed from their

cxperience." Time, it is clear, possesses no intnnsic, constant meaning, but rathcr is

somcthing we ~ r e a t e . ~ ~

As any community, the French colonists along the Saint Lawrence possessed

distinctive notions of time, created by the complex interaction behveen environment,

experience, action, and expectation. There was Church time, marked by bells ringing the

Canonical hours of Matins, Primc, Ticrce, Nones, Vespers, and Cornpline. On a larger

scalc, the Church wlendar parcelled up the year into a series of Saints days, fasts, and

cc l cb ra t i~ns .~ Thcn thcrc was markct time, the tirne of the tides, and soldiers' tirne--

markcd by parades, drills, and inspections:' For many workers, the work day and work

week possesscd their own distinctive r h y t h m ~ . ~ ~ These and other activities and practices

crcatcd distinct patterns and rhythms which helped shape the livcs of people in the

prcindustrial cra, and influenced how thcy understood timc.

But in the contcxt of French regime Canada, perhaps the dominant pattern for

marking time was the passage of the scasons. At Quebec, for instance, the world of

"~ucicn Febvre, La de en XVle Siecle (Paris: 1947), p. 431 quoted in E.P. Thompson, 'Time, Work-Discipline and Industrial Capitalism," in Qmms in C,ommon (London: Merlin Press, 19911, note 1, p. 358.

'Thomspon, "Time, Wurk-Discipline and Industrial Capitalism," p. 351.

3'"'13 y vinue o i its impalpability, rirnc is p.cul iarly susceptible of cultural construction." Stuart Shennan, . . . - -60-1785 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,

1997), pp. ix-s. Sec, on ihis also Jacques Le Goff, "Au Moyen Age: Temps de I'Eglise et temps du Marchand." ihnLdSL , . , May-Junc 1960, pp. 317-33; Martin Bruegel, "Time that can be R e k d Upon: Thc: Evolution of Tirne Consciousness in the Mid-Hudson Valley, 1790-1860," (hicrican), Vol. 28, No. 3 (Spring 1995), pp. 547-64; Andre Gingrich, "Time, Ritual and Social Espcricnce," in n, ed. Kirsten Hastnip and Peter Hervik - q (London: Routledgc, 1994), pp. 166-79; Jean Piaget, -s of 'hx (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1969).

U)"Lc calendrier religicus a rhythmé la vie de L'ensemble de la population." Jacques Mathieu, la . - N o u v e i l c - F r a n c c : cn -Arne N d XVIe - XV- (Laval: Les presses de L'Université Lavai, 1991), p. 172. Whitrow, Tunr: in H-, pp. 108-10.

"Marhicu, I.a Nouvellc-Franïc, pp. 177-78; Ken Donovan, Hisiorian, Fortress buisbourg suggested the iniponanct: of thc parterns of the rniliiar). day ro structuring the affairs of soldicrs and others in the comrnunity.

"See, for cxample, Thornpson, "Time, Work-Discipline and Industrial Capitalism."

mcrchant commerce was shaped by the seasons. Dale Miquelon notes that "The Quebec

rncrchrintsf busy scason was framcd by the arriva1 and departure of ships from France,

Louisbourg, and the West ~ndies."~' The greatcr part of his business involved tmde

overscas and this was conductcd during thc season of navigation.' Vessels brought

cargocs, invoices, and mail to Quebec. Dunng the short period of the season of

navigation, lctters had to be read, goods sold, a retum cargo secured, and the details of

business discussed in a voluminous correspondence. The pace was ffanticYs

Comparativcly, the winter and spring wcrc a "slack season" for the Quebec merchant. He

still. h o w e v c r , had much to do. Local business correspondcnce was stiil largc in winter

and the mcrchant travclled within the colony making neccssary arrangements for the next

sca~on. '~

The affairs of mcrchants at Montreal also conformed to a seasonal pattern. b u i s e

Dechênc commcnts: "The scasonal movement of incoming and outgoing stocks rcflects the

hamonious rclationship bctwccn local commerce and the fur trade." Thus the substance

and limits of thc seasons for the Montrcal merchant diffcrcd slightly from that of the

mcrchant at Qucbcc. in the faIl and again in the carly spring, the merchant of Montreal

took rcccipt of goods irnportcd through Qucbec. Dunng thc winter, taking advantage of

rclativcly casy transponation, hc stockpiled foodstuffs and other local goods. In the spring

the mcrchant prcparcd to outfit the voyageurs who hcadcd Wcst in May. The summer was

spcnt rcceiving furs. Then in Septcmber, the mcrchant set out for Quebec, to sel1 furs,

scttlc accounts, and rcplenish stock^.^'

-54 De Bougainville, Enits sur lc C U , "Journal de i'c.xpédition dlAmerique commencée en l'année 1756, lc 15 mars:" 10-13 Novcmbcr 1756. p. 167. "Les négocians sont ici fort occupés à faire leurs derniers envois, des spéculations pour Lcs rctours qu'ils demandent. et à tout ce qui conccme leur commerce de corrcspondance. Tout I'hyvçr ils n'ont plus rien à faire car le commerce intérieur n'est pas capable de les occuper."

" ' ~ e e for csample, Allana Reid, "Gcnçral Tradc Bctwcen Qucbec and France During the French RegUne," CHR, and also Young, "Kin, Commerce, and Comniunity, pp. 67-68.

47 Louise Dcchfne, Habitants-, Translated by Liana Vardi, (Monrreal: McGill-Quccn's, 1992), p. 101.

The fur-trade itself was characterized by a variety of different patterns but each

posscssed a clear and prcdictable seasonal rhythm. For example, Louise Dechêne notes

that bctwecn 1708 and 171 7, many traders and voyageurs left Montrcal in the spring and

rcturned in the late summer having spent four months going to Michilimakinac or Detroit

and back. Othcrs left in October or early November, spent the winter in the upper country

and retumed the following August or September. Either way, the cames and their loads of

furs arrived in the Saint Lawrence in iate summer and autumn.*

Thcrc was a similarly pronounced seasonal rhythm to the agricultural calendar. in

thc spring, fields wcrc ploughcd, the kitchcn garden tilled, and crops planted. During the

summcr, thc rural family pursucd a range of activities including fencing. Hay was tut in

mid-summcr. The othcr crops grcw and npcned according to their own schedules with

oats and corn rcady last in late Scptcmbcr or early Octobcr. The fields were then

ploughcd, animals slaughtcred and other prcparations made for winter. in the winter, grain

was thrcshed and latcr transportcd, and firewood was cut."

In part as a result of the scasonal rhythm of agriculture, other faccts of the [ives of

the population also posscsscd a distinctive seasonal rhythm. In the countryside, at least,

wiiiter was a timc of comparative lcisure and, "accordingly, ... a season of festivitie~."~

Marriages and births also conformcd to a scasonal pattern. Most Canadians manied in the

autumn and, Icss oftcn, thc wintcr. Most chiIdren were conccivcd beiween April and

~ u l y . ' ~ Louise Dechênc feels that the link bctwccn the arriva1 of spring and conceptions

was so dircct that it was the fact that spring amves thrce weeks earlier at Montreal than at

"Ibid., pp. 117-19.

* . "Ibid., pp. 174-75; Allan Grecr, ~ord,_and Merchanr:e Ou- 1740 184Q - , (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985), pp. 28-33; Mathieu, -, p. 179, "Cc temps dc repos dc la nature est un temps dc prêparation active dcs travaux à venu."

5 1 . . . Hubcri Charbonneau et al., Naissance d'unewriolation.Wstau_cauada au WIIe siecle, -. coll. "Traveaus e1 documents," no. 118 (Paris/Montrcal: Institut national d'études d6mographiques/Presses de 1'UnivcrsitC dc Montreal, 1987), p. €44.

Quebec that explained the peak of conceptions at Montreal in May as opposed to June at

thc latter place."

The seasonal rhythm of so many facets of life in the colony would arguably have

made i t easicr for Canadian correspondents to accommodate the distinctive seasonal iimits

on communications. That this was the case for Canadian-bom correspondents and long-

time residents of the colony is comparatively easy to imagine. They had the experience of

colonial life that would have made thcm accustomcd to the dominance of seasonal patterns.

Even for more recent arrivals, howcver, the idea that so much of life could be shaped by

thc scasons was not a foreign concept. In France, after all, if communications were not

seasonally constrained, many othcr faccts of life conforrncd to a seasonal rhythm, and

thcsc lcttcr-writcrs would havc fairly rapidly corne to absorb the distinctive patterns of life

in the colony.

A third factor that may arguably havc helpcd to limit the h s t n t i o n that some

Frcnch regime correspondcnts felt ovcr the seasonal constraints on communication was

how they conceivcd of thcir relationship with France- Pcrry Millcr has argued that

"Isolation is not a matter of distance or of slowness of communications: it is what a

dispatch from distant quartcrs mcans to the rccipient." From this he has suggcsted that the

Icadcrs of rhc first gcncration of Amcrican Puritans werc not isolated colonials but rather

participants in thc world of international Protcstantism. Thcir focus was outward and the

issues and thoughts of that largcr univcrse sccmcd as important to them as their more

immcdiatc circumstanccs and as intelligible. As Richard Brown has added, isolation is

"both a rclativc condition and a statc of mind." But he givcs Miller's comment a slightly

diffcrcnt twist whcn he suggcsts that "It al1 dcpended on the location of one's cultural and

psychological ccntcr." Ncw England Puritans, hc suggcsts, "bclievcd the centcr moved

kvith thcm to the Amcrican shorc" and thus they did not fecl a scnsc of isolation in their

ncw homes. In contrast, Virginians dcfincd the centre as bcing in London and in

consequencc tended to perccive themselvcs as existing in colonial i~olation. '~

S2~cchéne, Habitants. pp. 56-57.

5 3 ~ was first drawn to this idca by a reference in Brown. Kuu&r&c is Powcr, p. 42. Because Brown shiiis Millcr's mcanirig somcwhai ii is important to Iook at Miller scparatcly, for which sec Pcrry Miller,

to Province (Bosion: Bcacon Press, 1961)- p. 6.

This issue of wherc colonists perceivcd the centre of their world to be may have

played a role in helping some French regime correspondents to feel l e s profoundly cast

adrift dunng the winter when communications were cut off with France. Marie de

l'Incarnation undoubtedly wished that she could hear from Claude and other correspondents

ycar round; not knowing how they fared in the course of winter was a source of frustration

for her. She commentcd on the distance that separated her fiom France, and the isolation

that winter brought to the colony. She clearly valued her connection with France. But at

the same time, there is a strong scnse in which her response to the silence of winter is

comparatively mattcr of fact. For Marie de l'Incarnation, what tmly mattered was the

world of God, a mattcr of both interna1 faith and external revelation. God's wiil was

cvcrywhcrc, and this was no less true living in the "New World" than it had been in the

c~ld. Lca\.ing Francc shc had not lcft God bchind; rather He was with hcr in Canada as

niuch as Hc had cvcr bccn. Thus, likc thc Puritan divines, shc conceived of the centre as

having comc with hcr. This may arguably have mitigatcd the scnse of isolation that she

fclt during thc winter when communications with France wcre cut off. *

Although French rcgime corrcspondents wcre accustomed to the fact tliat the

scasons pattcrncd so much of thc world in which they livcd, this did not mean, as we have

sccn, that thcrc was a single uniform pattern to which al1 thcir activities conformed. In

c t w y contcxt, thc limits of thc scasons and thc mcanings that attachcd to them were

diffcrcnt. At thc root of thc scasons wcrc variations in climatc, yet their spccific

boundarics and meanings wcrc dcfincd in relation to the actions and experience of people.

The seasons wcrc socially dcfined--human scasons--creatcd by the complex intcraction

bctwecn thc environment and thc pcoplc thcmselvcs. Thc world of communications allows

us to sec, in a spccific contcxt, how the scasons wcrc crcatcd and how Canadians con-

structcd thc nicaning of sprjng, summcr, fall, and wintcr. In doing this, thcy addcd another

laser to thcir undcrstanding of timc and madc scnse for themsclves of the scasonality of

conxnunications.

Thus WC sce that spring was a season whcn the thoughts of Canadian

corrcspondcnts tumcd to Francc. Thcre, lcttcrs were bcing written for friends, relatives

and associatcs living along thc Saint Lawrcncc. As Mmc BEgon wrote at Montreal on 8

March 1749, ''Voilà cher fils, tout ce que j c sais ct que j'cspère, si tu es en France, que tu

vas te préparer à me donner de tes nouvel l~s."~ It was a time of anticipation.

Correspondcnts made careful note of the winds, waiting for a favourable one to carry the

vcssels and their cargo of letters up the river. Thus in late April, 1749, Mme Bégon began

to anticipate the anival of vesscls at Quebec: "Il fait, cher fils, un nord-est magnifique,"

shc cornmentcd, hoping that thc vesscls would soon appear. From then through the month

of May she kept track of the winds and waited impatiently for the letters she anticipated

rccciving from France. Finally, on the 3 June 1749, she was able to writc, "Voilà un

commencement de nouvelles," when a vesse1 arrived at Quebec fiom the West Lndies with

ncws from Fran~e."~'

The arriva1 of the vessels possessed for many correspondents the qualities of an

awakcning. Maric dc l'Incarnation commented to hcr brother in 1640: "C'est avec un

cstrlmc contentcmcnt que j'ay reçu votre lettre cn ce bout du mondc où l'on est sauvage

toute I'annEc, sinon lorsquc les vaisseaux sont arrivez que nous reprenons notre langue

~ r a n ç o i s e . " ~ ~ Thc first ships oftcn brought ncws to the colony for which it had been

waiting impatiently. Thus, for cxample, in the late 1630s, the Relations noted that "We

had hcard thc ycar beforc that the Qucen was enceinte, and we hoped for a child whose

birth would bc at once a blcssing and a miracle." The first ship to amvc was a single

vcsscl which carried a note for thc Governor but no word of the Quccn's accouchement.

"Fi~ially," thc Rclat io~ rcjoiccd, "thc winds bccoming favourable to Our wishes, we lcamed

that llcavcn had givcn us a ~ a u ~ h i n . " ~ ~

Once bcgun, thc scason of correspondcnce posscsscd a distinctive quslity. It was a

pcriod of busincss, bustle, and prcoccupation with transatlantic affairs. "[Lle temps des

5 4 DCgon, LL.rrrcs au *, 8 March 1719, p. 4. "

S51~id., 28 April 1719, p. 119; 18 May 1749, p. 130; 20 May 1749, p. 131; 3 June 1749, pp. 137-38. Sec similarly, de Bougainville, Ecrits sur le Canada, "Journal de l'expédition d'Ameriquc commencée en l'année 1756, Lc 15 mars," 12-15 May 1756, p. 205.

56- dc i'r - , Marie dç L'incarnation to one of her brothers, 4 September 1640, pp. 102-103.

nThwaites, -, Vol. 15, 1638-39, p. 219.

vaisseaux," one obscmer commcnted in 1726, "est une espèce de foire à ~ u é b e c . " ~ ~

Some correspondents spent the months while the vessels were in port writing aimost

continually. "Il y a quatre mois que j'écris continuellement des lettres et des mémoires

pour nos affaires de France," Marie de L'Incarnation noted in a letter of 1667.~ Similady,

in 1750, Petcr Kalm commented that while the Governor sometimes spent the winter at

Montreal, "In summer he resides chiefly at Quebec on account of the king's ships which

arrive thcrc during that scason and bring him letters which he must answer, besides there is

much othcr business at that tirne."@ The pressures of the season of correspondence were

indced such that the authorities of the colony gcncrally proclaimed a brief halt to normal

activitics in the fa11 to allow Canadians time to cornplete their let ter^.^'

The winter, in contrat to the season of navigation, was a period of relative calm; a

timc when colonists focused less on France and more on their own affairs and thoughts.

"Thc ships weighed anchor irom beforc Kcbec the 7th of October of 1 s t year," noted the

Rclation of 1642-43. "Thcir departurc produces a wonderful silence here and directs each

man's attention to his own family, in dcep tranquillity."62 The pace of life in winter was

more measurcd and many corrcspondents had greater leisure. It was then, for example,

that Marie de l'tncarnation took the time to wnte the lettcrs which she had been unable to

wnte the prcvious season and thosc that requircd a particularly thoughtful answer. Thus,

whcn CIaudc askcd hcr penctrating questions on spiritual mattcrs, shc oftcn postponed a

rcsponsc until aiter communications closcd. Thcse letters thcmsclvcs, in their more

rcflectivc tonc, in thcir grcatcr cmphasis on things spiritual, perhaps in thcmsclves reflect

the distincti\*c qualitics of the wintcr for correspondents. Once complctcd, they would

56 CllA, Vol. 19, p. 191, "Observations sur i'ordonnance de poIice de Dupuy sur les cagarets", 22 Novembcr 1736, cited in John Hue, Marc Lafrancc, David-Thiery Ruddel, Histoire de la Ville de 0- (Montreal: BorkiUMusée canadien des civilizations, 1987), p. 23.

SY -, 1 ,. MarrL. Marie dc l'Incarnation to Claude, 29 July-19 Octobcr 1667, p. 791.

VLI-siaa of 177Q, rev. and ed. Adolph Benson (New 'i'urk: Duvcr Publicatiuris, LY64), p. 240.

6 1 - . . * . - Sce, for example, P.-G. Roy, Inveniairt: des iueemcnts du du- 1717 - 176Q, Vol. 3, 5 October 1733, p. 17, "Vacances jusqu'au départ des derniers vaisseaub pour donner le temps au n6gociants ct autres habitants dc cette colonie de faire leur affaires pour Pancienne France."

'?%waitcs, Vol. 23, 1 6 4 2 4 3 , p. 307.

await the arriva1 of thc ships the ncxt summer and be sent off by retum of these vesseis to

France. Thus Claude would not rcceive a response to a question posed in the spring of

one year until the fall of the following y e d 3

Marie de l'incarnation would also write letters before the correspondence season

began in order to lessen the volume she would have to wrïte once the vessels anived. [n

1671, she wrote to her son,

le vous écris ce peu de lignes avant que d'avoir r e p u de vos nouvelles, pour VOUS

assurer dc la sainte protection de Dieu sur vous, et sur moi en particulier qui suis cn assez bonne santf pour mon âge, grâces à la divine Bonté. Et pour prévenir l'embarras de la décharge des vaisseaux.'

Thc winter was not, of course, a pcriod of inactivity. Marie de l'hcarnation prepared

dictionarics of native languages, managed the affairs of her community, and oversaw the

tcaching of Aboriginal and French girls, amongst a broad range of activitics. Mère de

Saint-Hélène was also busy during the winter. Each, however, defined the winter season

in contrast to the seoson of navigation and corrcspondcnce: for them the calm and peace of

wir~tcr was a rclatic'e rncasurç their activitics wcre differcnt, not ended.

Thc seasonal rhythm of communications affectcd the way in which correspondents

marked the passage of time. Thus, François Dollicr de Casson dividcd his HistDirc de

Montréal, wnttcn in 1672 or 1673, into 32 chapters. Each chapter covercd a year, but the

ycar was defined as the time betwccn the dcparturc of vesscls from Quebec one year and

thc ncst. Thus his second chaptcr covcrs the period "Depuis le depart des vaisseaux du

Canadas pour la France dans l'autonnc de l'année 1641 jusques à leur départ du même lieu

pour la France dans l'autonnc 1647." This structurc was choscn, according to the author,

"parccs que ... tous Ics nouvcllcs dc cc pays sont contenucs chaque année en ce qui se fait

ici depuis le départ dcs navires d'une année à l'autre et en ce qu'on reçoit de France par les

vaisseaux qui cn viennent." Thc structure, he commented, followed "l'ordre naturel.""

03 1 .. . Scc for cxampk, Marie de I Incirrndtion, Marie dc l'Incarnation to hcr son, 2 October 1655, pp. 557-60.

@1bid., Mark de 1'Incarnarion io her son, Septcmber-Novcmber 1671, p. 939.

" ~ r a n ~ o i s Dollier dc Casson, du Nouvelle Mition critique par Marcel Tnidel et Marie Baboyant, Cahiers de Quebec (Quebec: Hunubise, 1992), p. 6.

Correspondents gcncrall y followed the same structure, marking the passage of t h e

from scason to scason and beginning the news they had to recount in their letters with

what had happened since the last vessels ~ a i l e d . ~ ~ Thus in a letter written in the spruig of

1650, Marie de l'incarnation told Claude "Je vous dirai donc, que depuis les lettres que je

vous écrivis au mois d'Octobre dernier tout a été en paix en ce païs."" indeed, when she

promised to provide him as she so often did with "un petit récit de ce qui s'est passé cette

année dans notre nouvelle France," she generally meant that she would tell him what had

happcned since the fa11.~' *

Bcyond the question of how awkward and h s t r a t i ng conternporarics may have

found the seasonal limits on communications, we need to considcr the impact these

constraints had on the ability of Canadians to maintain meaningful connections with

correspondents ovcrseas. The bcst way to evaluate the impact of contemporary conditions

on lctter-wriiing is to look at the comspondence itself. The fament found particularly in

Maric dc l'Incarnation's carly lcttcrs over hcr isolation from France ultimately stands in

noticcablc contrast with thc volume and nature of her correspondence. Each year she

rcccived scores of lettcrs from France and sent hundreds back--wnting thousands of

lcttcrs ovcr the thirty-two years she spent in the colony." The volume of her

corrcspondcncc was likcly much lcss than it would have bccn had she occupied a

comparable position in France, but was nonetheless remarkablc. Through the medium of

the wi t t cn word, Maric dc l'Incarnation was ablc to maintain a substantial and ultimately

astonishingly eficctivc link with France.

6 6 ~ e c , for example, "Correspondancc entre M. dc Vaudreuil et la Cour, " B m , Vaudreuil au Ministre, 1 October 17û9, p. 303. Sce ais0 de Bougainville, Enits le C d , Monireal, de Bougainville to his broiher, 21 April 1758.

I'Incarnation, Maric dc I'incamation to hcr son, 17 May 1650, p. 389.

aj Ibid., Maric de l'Incarnation to hcr son, 30 Scpiembrr 1633, p- 199.

0'4 On [hc riuriibcr oi lcrtcrs thrit sht. is cstimarcd to have writicn scc foornote 18 above. in wntrast, the New England divine Coiron Mathcr - rcnowned as one of most prolific ministcrial correspondents of his gcncration - is cstimatcd ro have sent some 5,000 lcrtcrs during his lifetimc, for which see McIntyre, "'This Loving Corrçspondency'," pp. 127-28. Hcr discussion is based on Kenneth Silverman,

@cw York, 1981), p. 199.

Somc 278 letters which Marie de L'Incarnation wrote home have survived. More

than half of (hem werc addressed to her son Claude, a young man of twenty when she set

sail for Canada. It is in tracing the evolution of their relationship over her years in the

colony that WC have a clcar cxarnplc of how workable communications were. The young

Marie Guyart had been married at seventeen to a s i h a k e r of her native Tours, and at his

death two years later Claude had been an infant of six months. Mother and son joined the

household of hcr brother-in-law, a successiul mcrchant wagoner, and Marie played a

prominent role in the family business. Shc was drawn at the same time to an increasingly

spirituid life. Her ever more fervent picty ied her to enter the Ursuline convent in Tours in

103 1 whcn Claudc was 1 I .'" Hc clearly found the separation extremely difficult--bath

would latcr tell stories of his distrcss. Her first surviving letter £rom Qucbec reflects the

tcnsion which cxisted between mother and son in this carIy period. It is bnef and terse.

Shc upbraids him f ~ r not having written to hcr: "Je ne veux pas agir avec vous comme

VOUS faitcs avcc moy," shc commented.

He quoy! avcz-vous cu le courage de laisser partir la flotte sans me donner un mot de consolation par une lettre de vostre part? D'autres l'ont fait, sans lesquels jc n'cussc point sçeu de vos nouvelles.

Shc cxpresscs dismay rhat hc had not yct found his path in life and tells him firmly that he

is old cnough to h o w what hc wants: "Tirez-vous donc de la pusillanimité, mon cher fils,

ct cstirncz que vous n'aurez rien en cc monde sans peine.""

As the ycars passcd, howevcr, mothcr and son gradualIy found a way to mend their

hurt and draw closer togcthcr. Undoubtedly, the process of reconciliation was eased by

Claudc's own cntry into religious lifc," but Maric's lettcrs played a key role."

Tirclcssly, shc dcvotcd pagc aftcr pagc to cxplaining her past conduct. Shc expressed

'OFor a general summary of her life sec DCB, Vol. 1, s-v. Guyart, Marie; and also Dom Guy Oury, "Introduction," Marie de lu-, pp. ix-xxxv. The clearest and most thorough discwsion of hcr spiritual qucst can bc found in Natalic Zcmon Davis, Women on the S c v w Lives (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Univcrsiiy Rcss. 1995), pp. 6-73 and more generally throughout Chapter 2.

71 - Maric, Marie de 1'Incarnation to her son, 10 Septcmber 1640, pp. 115-16.

Natelic Zcmon Davis also offcrs this as a possible explanation. Sce -, p. 103.

Ï 3 As Natalic Zemon Davis h a commcntcd, thc Ictters wçre meant to scrvc as an "act of forgiveness, Maric of hcrsclf and Claudc of his mother for her abandonment." Ibid., p. 103.

rcmorse over lcaving her son: "Sçachez donc encore une fois qu'en me séparant

actuellement de vous, je me suis fait mourir toute vive."" Their separation had been

God's will and she tried again and again to explain to him what that meant to her.

Gradually the lctters drew thcm closcr togcther. Their tone relaxed and the conespondence

was increasingiy one between equals: expansive, and cven intimate. Claude asked his

mother penetrating questions on the nature of faith and her sense of God, which she

answered at length. She offered him spiritual counsel and unburdened her souk to him.

Shc dcscnbcd hcr affairs and finally, as in so many of hcr letters, provided a more

ordinary chronicle of life in the colony and the progress of the Church amongst the native

population.75 Perhaps no clcarer testimony exists to the comparative effectiveness of the

carly transatlantic niails than this corrcspondcnce which provided the means for mother

and son to dcvclop and maintain an intimate and thoughtful communication over the space

of more than thirty years.

Through her lcttcrs, Marie de l'Incarnation continucd to play a role within her

family, offcring counscl and advicc; managcd the affairs of thc convent; and perhaps above

ail scmcd as a source of inspiration for countless faithful, ultimately playing a central role

in the Catholic countcr-Re formation of the sevcntecnth century dcspite the thousands of

milcs that scparated hcr froni Francc. Mark de l'incarnation's lettcrs wcre not simply the

occasional abstract musings of a woman set adnft in a world far away, but rather concrete,

substantial lcttcrs mcant to achicvc specific ends and to havc an impact in France. It is the

ability of lcttcrs to forge such links and maintain these persona1 connections over time and

thc cxpansc of the ocean that must be the mcasurc of the cffectivcncss of correspondence

in thc Frcnch rcgime.

To the modern obscrncr, thc scasonal rhythm of transatlantic communications to

Qucbcc secms cxtraordinary: we cannot imagine a correspondencc so narrowly constrained.

, Marie dc l'Incarnation IO her son, 30 July 1669, p. 836.

"On ihe nature of the rclationship and lctters betwccn mother and son sce Claire Goudreau's unpublkhed papcr, "Marie de f'lncarnation: Icttrcs à son fils." Communication prononcée lors du colloque Ecriture - .*- .

c ou veCncrioii<." 1c cas dr.s de lctirr;s, Centre universitaire de lecture sociopoétique de I'Cpistolairc ct des corresporiciances, I'Universiti dt: Montréal, déparicment des litteratures, 15 Avril 1994.

48

For contemporaries the seasonal limits on communications were hs t ra t ing , particularly in

the burden they imposed on correspondents to get al1 their business done during the bief

period the vessels were in port. A number of factors may have helped French regime

correspondents adjust to the seasonal limits on communications more easily than we

would. In thc first instance, although in France they had been used to wnting year-round,

thc scasonal rhythm of communications would not have appeared peculiarly Canadian

because shipping and hence the mails in other parts of the colonial world were also rigidly

scasonal, as many of Our corrcspondents undoubtedly knew. At the same tirnc, Our

corrcspondents lived in a world in which much of theu existence was seasonatly

structurcd, and this would have made it easicr for them to adapt to the seasonal constraints

on communications. Whatcver t hc mindset French regime correspondents brought to their

situation, thcir world was inescapab1 y shapcd by thc seasonal limits on communications in

thc Saint Lawrence. Thus for Canadian corrcspondcnts writing overseas, the spnng was a

period of anticipation, thc sumrncr was al1 bustlc, the autumn brought closure, and the

wintcr was a time of quict and reflcction. Without question, this rcality iimited the

corrcspondcncc of contemporarics. Communications were noncthcless remarkably

cffcctivc. Through the medium of the written word an Ursuline nun who lived for more

than thirty yçars in a tiny sctttemcnt on the banks of the Saint Lawrence was able to

dc \dop a rich rciationship with thc son shc had lcft behind and to becomc a figure of

significancc in thc religious lifc of a land far away.

CHAPTER 2: " J'espère vous écrire par tous les vaisseaux": Fluctuations in Shipping

and the Expectations of Contemporary Correspondents

Within the broad lirnits of the season of communications, described in the previous

chaptcr, there was much variation in the specific pattern of correspondence from year to

year. in certain ycars, correspondents received their first letters early and the rest over the

months following, and were able to respond at their leisure by a senes of oppominities

through the summer and fall; in others, they received their lettcrs late in the season and

wcrc forced to scnd off humed responscs bcfore the close of the shipping. Beginning with

an overview of the Atlantic shipping upon which communications depended, this chapter

traces the ups and downs of patterns of correspondence fiom year to year. As this chapter

will explain, when letters arrived and could bc sent off each season depended not only

upon how many ships had sailed to the colony, but also upon the pattern of vesse1 arrivals

and departurcs, and upon how Iettcr-writers managed their comspondence. These

fluctuations were cnormously important to contcmporaries, who distinguished clearly

bctwccn good and bad scasons. This chapter looks closely at the grounds on which they

did so. It focuses upon the distinctive patterns of lettcr-writing which contemporaries had

dcvelopcd in order to accommodate their circumstanccs and ai the expectations that they

brought to the process of communications. This chapter shows that thcir idcal was to be

able to rcccivc and to scnd a serics of lettcrs cach season by a numbcr of vessels sailing at

well-spaccd intewals dunng a shipping scason which extended from early spring to late

Ml. What corrcspondents complained of was the failurc of the system OZ communications

to function as it nomally did. Thcy did not judge the cffcctivcness of communications

against some abstract constant but against what thcy had lcamcd to cxpcct. *

Transatlantic shipping to thc colony consisted of hvo classes of vessel: commercial

and royal. Of these, the cornmcrcial vcssels engaged in the Canada trade were by far the

most numerous. These vesscls were fitted out by private owners and crossed the Atlantic

with cargoes intended for sale in the colony or elsewhere in the French Atlantic. in

addition, thcre were the King's ships--sometimes royal vessels but also private ships

ou tfitted on the King's account--that were despatched each year by the Crown to the

colony. They, howcver, rarely numbered more than one or two vessels each year, except

at the very end of thc French rcgirnc.' Both wtcgox-ies of ships carried lctters. As we

shall sec, official correspondcncc tcndcd to bc sent almost cxclusivcfy by the King's ships.

iMost private corrcspondencc, on thc other hand, went by the commercial vessels,

prcsumably largely as a result of their numerical supcriority. Private letters could also

evidcntly be sent by the King's ships when the opportunity offerede2 Indeed, many of Our

corrcspondcnts sccm not to havc distinguished beniveen the two opportunities, but rather

uscd them intcrchangcably.' For examplc, in a letter sent off in latc Iuly 1755, André

Dorcil, the Commissioncr of War in New Francc, promised to write to his correspondent

again the ncxt month "par l'une dcs frcgates la S i r c m ou La Fidelle ... ou par un Vaisseau

Mar~hand . "~

'On the rclationship bcrwccn cummercial vcsscls and the King's ships sec Proulx, Betw- New w, pp. 17-12. Scc also Prirchard, "Ships, Men, and Commerce."

'For esarnplc, M. Glandelet of the Seminaire de Quebec sent letters to France in 1697 by the King's ship, . . Lkughuk , and also by what appears to have been another royal vcssel, La, ASQ, Lettres Carton O,

no. 23, Tremblay to Giandelet, 3 May 1698. On the idcntity of ihese vessels sec "Correspondance echangée entre la cour dc Francc et le gouverneur de Frontenac," RAPQ, 1937-1923, Frontenac and Champigny au Ministre, 19 October 1697, p. 336.

3Vaill~, Hi& de la P ~ G s - , Vol. 6, p. 625 cornments in respect to the King's ships that, "U ne semble pas que les lettres des paniculiers aient été souvent acheminés par cette voie." Our evidence suggests othcwisc.

'"Lcs lettrcs tic Doreil," w, 1944-45, Doreil to M. Fumeron, haute fonctionnaire du ministre de la guerre, 29 Juiy 1755, p. 28. Sce, similarly, "Lettres du Père Aulneau," R-, 1926-1927, Sainte-Louis, Père Nau to Mme de la Touche Aulncau, 29 Octobçr 1734, p. 272; and ASQ, Lettres Carton N, no. 123, Tremblay to Laval, 19 June 1705. Sce also de Bougainville, Ecrits, de Bougainville to Mme de Séchelles, 20 February 1738, p. 322. The prcvious fall he had sent letters by la flûte la on 25 August; by "les vaisseaux du Roi . - . . It et Ic" which lefr 17 Scptcmber; and by thrcc merchani vcsseis which sailed 6 and 7 November LLS;iuvagc, IL;S De-, and l m .

51

Thesc ships sailcd according to thc nccds of commerce and the dictates of royal

policy, rathcr than in accordancc with an established schedule. That k i n g said, there was

significant consistency from one year to the next in whence these vessels sailed5 and when

thcy did so. Thus, for instance, during her earliest years in the colony, Marie de

l'Incarnation repeatedly reminded hcr correspondents that the first ships tended to sail from

Dieppe a month or more bcfore they sailed fiom La ~ochelle! Similady, more than a

ccntury later, André Dorcil, who was responsible for the care and maintenance of the

French regular troops in Canada, reminded a French correspondent that the first vessels

alwriys sailcd fiom Bordeaux in carly March with more leaving from there in April; as

many or more vessels sailed from la Rochellc slight1y latcr; while one or two left Bayonne,

and at lcast one k i t each of Marseille, Nantes, and Le Havre at prcdictable times.' These

longtemi pattcms of tradc and shipping bclic, to some cxtent, the appearance of

unpredictability which the abscncc of a regularly schedulcd mail servicc suggests.

The number of vessels which sailcd to the colony cacb year and the precise timing

of their amvals and dcpartures did, howcvcr, Vary considerably from year to year. Over

thc course of thc Frcnch rcgimc as a wholc, thc numbcr of vcsscls sailing to the colony

traccd a stecp upward curvc. Much of this increase, howcver, was confined to the last

dccadc and a half of the French rcgime. The rest of the tirne, thcre was no ciear trend in

'In the Tirsi: years of thc scventccnth crntury thcrc was tittle p t i c m IO colonial shipping: vessels sailed lroni a nunibcr of iionhtxn p m s . By the carly 16Ws Dieppe and La Rochellc had emcrged as the chief Cariadian ports. When Dieppe withdrew from the trade little more than fwo decadcs latcr, La Rochelle was lei1 llargely alonc. Bordeaux scni some ships to the colony during the last two decades of the scventeenth Century, but thcn withdrew trom the trade during the War of the Spanish Succession. After the peace, Bordeaux rc-cntcrcd thc tradc, and a number of sccondary ports began to send vcssels to Canada. La Rochcllç's share of the tradc fcU for the îïrst time but it did not lose its dominant position until the mid- 1730s. From thcn until the end of thc Frcnch rcgime, Bordeaux would serve as the colony's chief nicrropolitan link. The sccondary pons withdrew from the trade during the War of the Austrian Succession, but beçarnc involvcd again in thc closing years of thc French rcgime. Sce John Bosher, "La Rochelle's . . . Primacy in Triade with New France," m Rclieion of New FI-1600 - 1760: T- - Two Sr& . . (Toronto: Canadian Schoiars' Pr-, 1993) and James Pritchard, 'The Pattern of French Colonial Shipping rci Canada beforc 1760." &vue fraunised'histoirc dl-, 1976, pp. 189-210.

, Marie de 1'Incarnation to Mère Jeanne-Française Lc Vassor, Supérieure de la Visitation dc: Tours, 1 Sepiember 1640, p. 104.

'"Les lcttrcs de Dorcil," Dorcil to M. de Fumcron, 5 July 1755, p. 17.

vesse1 nu rnbc r~ .~ Rather, penods of comparativcly limited shipping altemated with others

of considerably gea te r rraffic, affectcd in particular by thc condition of the trade, royal

policy, and concems over the security of shipping in wartime. Precisely when vessels

sailcd each ycar was ultirnately far more important to the shape of the season of

communications than the simple number of vessels. The date of the arrival of the first

ships at Quebcc could vary by a matter of months. The departure of the last ships altered

rclativcly littlc, with the result that over the course of the French regime as a whole the

scason of communications could Vary from threc to six months.

The rcmainder of this chaptcr proceeds chronologicall y. It will trace the specifics

of the particular conditions for communications as they changed fiom year to year, in the

context of cvaluating the nccds and bchaviours of specific correspondents.

During Mark de l'Incarnation's lifetime, shipping to the colony was consistently

more lirnited and the scason of communications shorter than it would be through most of

thc rcst of thc history of thc colony. In thc 1640s and 1650s, rarely more than three or

four French vessels visitcd Quebcc an nu al^^.^ Of thesc, the first often did not reach

Qucbcc until August, cnsuring a scason that was commonly only three months long.

Subscqucnt vcssels sornetimcs did not arrive until midway through or near the close of the

scason, significantly limiting the length of time comspondcnts had to answer their

l c t t c r ~ . ' ~ Vcssels could somctirncs sail togcthcr, with the rcsult that lctters fiom France

%cc R. Colc Harris and CicoTfrey Matthcws, eds. and designers, of Canada, Vol. 1, From to 18QQ (Toronto: Univcrsify of Toronto Press, 1989, Plate 18, "European Shipping to

Québec, 1610-1789."

'On vcsscl numbcrs throughout this period see Pritchard, "Ships, Mcn, and Commcrce," Table no. 1: "Ship Traffic bctwecn Quebcc and France, 1645-1667." The greatest number was five vessels in 1645. At least as many arrivcd the next year. Pritchard, "The Pattern of French Colonial Shipping to Canada before 1760," p. 190 suggcsts that no vcssels amved in 1651 but this does not sccm to have bcen the case. On 18 Octobcr 1653, Mark de L'incarnation commented to her son "le vous ay écrit par tous les vaisseaux qui sont . ' parris." -, Marie de L'Incarnation to hcr son, Ciaudc, 18 October 1651, p. 519.

"In 1616 and 1619, the tirst vessels arrived in A u e s t with others following in September and October. Sec Pritchard, "Mcn, Ships, and Commcrce," Tablc no. 1: "Ship Traffic between Quebec and France, 1645- 1667." In contrast, Maric de i'lncarnation reported IO Claude on 1 Septcmbcr 1651, that "Un petit navire arrivi. en ces quartiers, nous a apporte dcs lettres de nos MEres de Tours [by which she leams his news] ii s'c11 rctoumc saris qu'aucun autre ait paru et cependant nous voila au trcziEme de Septembre." According to Dom Guy Ou~y, LI: Sainleu, Captain Boutin, amvcd at Qucbec 18 August and sailed 16 Septcmber, during which time thc arrival of no othcr vcssels was recorded. Mariç de Marie de L'incarnation to her

had to bc sent off at once. For instance, al1 five vessels which reached Quebec in 1645

amved togethcr in August. This limited the number of effective opportunities for

correspondencc that season. Conditions improved somewhat after the mid-1650s: the first

vcsscls oftcn arrived rnuch carlicr--in 1656, 2657 and 1664, for exarnple, they reached

Quebec in May although June or July arrivals were far more common." At the same

time, Louis XIV's decision to become more involved in colonial affairs caused vessel

numbers to as much as double after 1662." This lasted Iittle more than a decade:

somctimc around thc time of Maric de l'incarnation's death in 1672, with the outbreak of

war with Holland and the dcparturc of the intendant Talon, vessel numbers fell to levels

closcr to what had been the prcvious nom. Ships could still amve quitc late.13 Thus,

for instance, Marie de I'lncamation reported on 24 August 1671 that the vessels kom

France had yct to arrive.14 Sirnilarly, in November 1673, Governor Frontenac observed in

his dcspatch to the Crown that,

Lc long temps que nous avons été cctte année sans voir amver lcs vaisseaux et sans apprendre des nouvelles de France quelque diligence que j'eusse faite ... m'a bien fait juger que les Cspérances que nous avions dû concevoir de la conclusion

sori. 13 Scptcmbcr 1651, p. 431 and in. 1, p. 423. That yiiar Marie wrote to Claude and others via the fishcrics and New England.

11 In 1657 vesscls arrivcd in May, Junc, Iuiy and August. In 1665 ships arrived at Quebec Gom France in cach of five months fiom June to October. Sometimes the first ships still did not arrive until July. See Pritchard, "Mcn, Ships, and Commerce," Table no. 1: "Ship Trafic between Quebec and France, 1645- 1667." Pritchard provides no sratistics for 1656 but Marie de L'incarnation indicates that five vessels arrïved unusually eariy that year for which sec Maril. de l'Incarnation, Marie de l'lncamation to her son, 24 June 1656, p. 571.

"In 1662, bctween scvcn and elcvcn arriveci at Qucbec. The first numbcr is from Pritchard, "Ships, Men, and Commerce," Table no. 1: "Ship Traffic betwcen Qucbcc and France, 1635-1667." The second is firom Trudcl, Histoirt: d e - L Nou vclle-Fr- . . , Pan 3, Vol. 1: Lesevcncments. p. 266. Vesse1 numbers were lower in rhc ncxt IWO years when five and three vcssels amved respeciively and then rose subsequently. in 1665, onc vcsscl saiied from Dieppe for Qucbcc and eight from La Rochelle. Two years later the commentcd, "WC have this year seen elcvcn vesseis laden with aU sorts of wares, anchor in the roadstead of Qucbcc." Thwaitcs, Jcsuit_Relations, Vol. 50, p. 217.

'r?iroughout the t670s, betwcen three and six ships visited Quebec annually. Pritchard, "Ships, Men, and Commerce," Table no. 2: "Ship Movcments Betwccn Quebec and La Rochelle, 1642-1726," p. 488 gives thc numbcrs as follows 1670 - 4; 1671 - 6; 1672 - 4; 1673 - 6; 1673 - 2; 1675 - 6; 1676 - 3; 1677 - 3; 1678 - 6; 1679 - 6; 1680 - 6.

''Mririe, Marie de l'Incarnation to Mère Cécile de S. Josçph, Supérieure des Ursulines de Mons, 73 August 1671, p. 922- Shc had, howevcr, receivcd news from France by a letter fiom Pcre Ragucncau sent via the fishery.

de la paix ensuite des glorieuses conquêtes de Sa Majesté pendant la Compagne dcrnièrc était fausse ..."

It is djffjcult for u s to imagine Marie de l'Incarnation being anything but

percnnially fnistrated in the face of the conditions that characterized communications in

thesc carly years. Clearly, however, she was not. She distinguished between years when

communications were comparatively effective and others when they were not. She had

developed a clear set of expectations and it was against these expectations that she

rneasured her expericnce each ycar. For her, what mattered above al1 was that vessels

from France arrived as early as possible each ycar. After a long winter she was invariably

impaticnt to rcccive news from ~ u r 0 ~ e . l ~ But, more than that, she wanted to receive her

lcttcrs as quickly as possibly in ordcr to get an carly start on her correspondence. While

somc of her letters wcre writtcn in advance of the amval of the first ships--"pour prevenir

l'embarras dc la décharge des vaisscauxW--shc generally avoided this as it meant writing

bcforc shc had anything to respond to." Instead, she usually waited to begin writing

until thc first vcssels arrived with lettcrs from France. The early amval of the first

ships--by allowing her to bcgin writing particularly carly--afforded her the maximum

timc to rcad and prcparc rcsponscs to hcr lctters.18 Thus, shc repeatcdly urged Claude

and othcr important corrcspondcnts to send thcir letters off by the first vessels so that she

could takc her time in r ~ s ~ o n d i n ~ . ' ~ Shc docs not appcar to have set any store by

"ASQ, Fonds Vcrrcaux, 092, copy of Frontenac's despatch, 13 November 1673,

. r ' . '%cc for csample, IMariL, Marie de l'Incarnation tp MÇre Marie Ursuline à Tours, 13 Scptember 1668, pp. 816-17.

postscript, p. 207.

de la NativitE, Religieuse

17 Ibid., Marie dc l'Incarnation to hcr son, Sept-Nov 1671, pp. 9 3 9 4 5 . A measure of how comparatively unusual it was for hcr to writc in advancc of receiving letters is that she generally felt the need to explain hersclf. Sec Maric de l'Incarnation to MCre Marie dc Saint-Joseph, Supcricurc dcs Ursulines de Tours, 28 July 1667, pp. 778-79, in which she cxplained "Je n'ay pas la patience d'attendre les lettres de nos chères M k s Jc Tours pour leur rcndrc les tCmoignages ordinaires de mon affection. Un vaisseau qui va partir me donne une occasion trop favourable de la faire." The vessel, la N o u v e l l e , arrjved 2 July and sailed from Qucbçc on 3 August.

l a On hçr pleasurc at receiving lctters early sec, ibid., Marie de l'incarnation to her son, 26 August 1644, p. 218; Marie de 1'Incamarion to Mere Françoise de S Bcmard, Tours, 3 Octobcr 1645, p. 264; Marie de l'Incarnation to Sup6rieurc des Ursuline de Dijon, 9 August 1668, p. 805.

19Sce, in particular, ibid., Marie de l'Incarnation IO her son, 22 October 1619, pp. 377-78. See also Maric dc l'Incarnation to MCrc Jcannc-François Lc Vassor, 4 September 1640, p. 103.

rccciving letters later in the season. Histonans o&n stress the extent to which merchant

corrcspondcnts, at least, sought the "freshest ad vice^,"^ and we might expea Marie de

I'lncarnation to have appreciated receiving one or two letters by the 1s t ships to leave

France in ordcr to hear the very latest news. She, however, seems to have been

completely unmoved by this prospect. On the contrary, her ideal was to receive the

prcvious year's news as completely and promptly as possible. We can speculate that her

attitude was the product of her temperameni and preoccupations. It is hard to say at this

stage whether or not her view was charactenstic of that of some other colonists; as we

shall sce, it differed from that of the priests associated with the Séminaire de Québec.

That this divergence exists docs, however, nicely emphasize the degree to which

individuals rnanaged the process of correspondence and brought to it expectations that

could diverge rcmarkably not only from our own but fiom those of their contemporaries.

Thc latc amval of lctters was a source of disappointment and sometimes real

dissatisfaction. As shc recognized, this was sometimes unavoidable, the result of the

pattcrn of shipping; but lcttcrs could also be delayed by the failure of correspondents to

dcspatch thcm promptly by the first vcsscls. Thus, for instance, in 1640, she explained to

M h Jcannc-Françoisc lc Vasor, Supérieure de la Visitation de Tours, that she had

rcccivcd lcttcrs from Tours a month and a half aftcr thc amval of the first ships, "parce

qu'on ies a envoiées par Ia Rochelle, d'où l'on part plus tard que dc Dicppc: ce qui fait qu'à

pcinc avons-nous du loisir pour fairc nos réponses."21 Whichever the cause, the impact

W ~ S the samc. It meant, first, that shc was kept in suspense. Thus, for example, in August

of 1667, Marie de l'incarnation wrotc to Claude cxpressing her relief that she had at last

rcccirrcd his lettcrs. Almost two months earlier two vesscls had arrived bringing word of a

famine in France but no lctters for hcr from Claude or the Ursulinc nuns of Tours. As sbe

cxplaincd, "Ces bruits quc les passagers ont fait courir, m'ont fait penser que vous et nos

Mèrcs pouvicz Crrc cnvclopcz dans unc mortalité si univcrscllc." At last, however, thcir

acharles CarriCre, au XV- . * " , Voiume 2 (Institut historique dc provence, Marscillç: Lmprimcric Ruben, n.d.), pp. 779-80; scc. for cxamplc, lan K. Stcele, The pp. 213-11.

'1- - ? . . , Maric dc 1'Incarnaiion IO MCrc Jeanne-Francoisc Le Vasor, Superieure de la Visitation dc Tours, 4 Septembcr 1630, pp. 104-107.

letters had arrived "et m'ont appris que vous vivez encore et elles aussi."" Similariy, in

1667, she notcd her fnistration that four vessels had arrivcd and two more were coming

into port without her having receivcd a single letter £rom Claude. Luckily, in this instance

she observed, "J'ay pourtant apris de vos nouvelles par un autre moien, et je sçay que VOUS

êtes aprésent au Monastère de Bonne-nouvelle de Rouen." "Cette nouvelle qui m'est

vcnue par hazard, m'a ôtée de la peine où j'étois à votre égard."" Second, the late arrivai

of lcttcrs often meant that she was forced to begin wnting her letters before receiving the

bulk of her corrcspondcncc. Thus, for example, in a letter wntten 22 October 1649, Marie

dc l'incarnation rcportcd that she had rcccivcd Claude's letters so late that year--in early

Octobcr--that two vessels had alrcady left Quebec and those remaining werc prepanng to

lcave. "l'dois pourtant prête de vous ccrirc pour me consoler moy-même n'ayant reçu

aucune consolation dc votre part," she explaincd, whcn his letters anived. She was

rclicvcd, not simply to hear from him, but to have something to respond t ~ . ' ~ She wrote

an unusually long lctter that day and a second thc next day in what she referred to as "un

petit moment qui me r e ~ t c . " ~ Finally, and most importantly, the late arrival of vessels

shortcned an already bricf scason and magnificd its strains. Oftcn when letters arrived late

she was forccd to write in haste? Thus, for example, in a lettcr wntten 18 October 1663

shc wamcd Claude that "Lc retardement de votre lettrc qui nc vient quc de m'être rendue,

71

-1bid.. Marie de l'Incarnation to her son, 10 August 1663, pp. 677-80.

=1bid., Maric de I'incarnaiion to her son, 29 July-19 October 1667, pp. 790-93. Thcre were other ycars whcn she similarly cornplained thai she had been forced to wait too long for direct ncws of her corrcspondcni. Scc Marie tic lïncarnaiion ro hcr son, Septcmber 1661, p. 665 in which she reports that his ictrers did not arrive until late August or Septcmber. Sce also Marie de l'Incarnation to Mère Françoise de S. 13crriard. 3-3 Septcmber 1660, p. 636; Mark de l'incarnation to MEre Marie de SI. Catherine, Supérieure des UrsuIincs dc Saint-Denys, 11 Octobcr 1669, pp. 859-61; and Marie de l'Incarnation to Mère Cécile de S. Joseph, Supkieurt: dç Ursulines dc Mons, 21 Augusi 1671, pp. 922-25.

Z41bid., Maric de l'incarnation to her son, 22 October 1649, p. 371.

-SIbid., Marie de l'lncamarion to hcr son, 22 October 1619, pp. 371-80; and same IO same 23 October 1649, pp. 384-85. Shc cornplaincd similarly in 1646 of having been forccd by the late arrival of letters Io bcgin writing whcn she had nothing yet IO respond to, for which sec Marie de 1'Incamation to her son, 11 Octobcr 1636, pp. 294-97. That ycar the first ship amved 8 August but his Ietters did not arrive until 14 Octobcr.

%CC, f o r esarnple, ibid., Maric de l'Incarnation to one of her brothcrs, 4 Septcmber 1640, pp. 112-13; and Maric de l'Incarnation to Mkrc Ursule dc Ste Caihericne. 13 Sepiember 1640, pp. 117-120.

ne me permet pas de m'entretenir long-temps avec vous."n That year the letters had

bccn extraordinarily delayed and she similarly excused herself to the Ursulines at Mons [in

what is now Belgium] for that fact that she had been forced to rely on the help of a young

girl in order to reply at ail.% At other times, the delay of letters meant that there was

simply not enough time in which to respond to al1 who had written her. In 1651, for

example, the first vessel from France arrived in mid-August and leit in mid-September

bcfore any other ships had becn heard of. When the other ships finally arrived the season

was vcry advanced. Maric de l'Incarnation commented in a lctter to her niece written 23

October 1651,

Dans le peu de tcmps qu'ils restent ici il ne m'est pas possible d'écrire à tous ceux a qui jc suis obligke dc faire réponse, en sorte que je seray obligée d'en remettre, comme je croy, plus de six-vingts à l'année prochaine, à mon grand déplaisir?

In managing the dcspatch of her own correspondence, Marie de I'Incarnation's

central conccrn seems simply to have becn that she be able to get al1 her lettea written

bcforc thc last vessel sailcd. She rarely paid specific attention to when the bulk of her

lcttcrs were sent off, as long as it occurred somctime during the season. For example, on

16 Octobcr 1666, she closcd a letter to Claude explaining that she needed to rest "étant fort

fatiguCc du grand nombre dc lettres que j'ay écrites: Il ne m'en reste pas plus de quarante à

écrire, quc j'cspèrc cnvoier par le dcmier vaisscau."" Again and again she simply reports

how many lcttcrs shc has lcft to wnte rather than appearing to worry about what letters

wcrc dcspatchcd whcn. As a corollary to this, it is evidcnt that she often derivcd real

satisfaction from a dciay in thc dcparturc of thc last ship as it could provide her with a

chance to wntc a lctter shc otherwisc would not havc had thc timc for. Hcre again, there

"Ibid., Marie iic I'Incarriatiun tu her son, 18 Ocrobcr 1663, p. 714.

s~bid., Maric de llIncarr.ation ro Mère Marie-Alexis Boschet, Supericurc des Ursuiines de Mons, 20 Octobcr 1663, p. 718. Shc dcscribcs the girl as "une de nos jeunes professes, fille d'une des principales iariiilles dc se pays."

ZY~bid., Marie de I'Incarnation to her nicce, 23 October 1651, p. 430. The three vessels am'ved in Octobcr.

JOIbid., Marie de I'Incarnation to her son, 16 Octobcr 1666, p. 768.

is little scnse that she was cagcr to send the latest news--simply that she was happy to

have an extra momcnt in which to write one more 1etterm3l

Whik, in her general correspondence, she seems not to have cared precisely when

during the scason her lettcrs werc written, in writing to hcr most important

corrcspondents--Claude and the Ursulines of Tours--Marie de l'Incarnation seems to have

adoptcd a morc complcx set of expectations. In particular, she developed a distinctive

pattcm of corrcspondence which depcnded on the ability to write a series of letters spread

out ovcr the scason. Thus, in September 1641, she closed a first letter to Mère Ursule de

Stc-Catherine, Supérieure des Ursulines dc Tours, saying "Adieu, ma chere Mère, mais

sans adicu, car cctte lettre doit être suivie de quelques autres." Her heart, she commented,

could not k t pass opportunitics to show proof of its love "et se sentant obligé de vous faire

sçavoir ce qui se passcra ici jusqu'au départ des derniers v a i s s e a ~ x . " ~ ~ Similarly, she told

Claudc in 1641, "II ne m'est pas possible de laisser passer aucune occasion de vous escnre

que je nc me donne la satisfaction de le faire."13 gain in 1658 she explained, "Ce n'est

icy que ma prcmiPre réponse: j'csplrc vous écrire par tous les vaisseaux ...."Y In this

contcst shc sccms to havc valued both rccciving and being able to scnd off early news.

Thus in latc July 1665 she rcportcd enthusiastically on thc early arriva1 of a comparatively

larsc numbcr of vcssels at Qucbcc that ycar, commenting: "Comme il vient cette année un

srancl nonibx de vrtisseaux en Canada, qui doivent aussi s'cn retourner en France, nous

rtlwns Ic rnoicn dc vous donncr plus souvent ct plutôt dc nos nouvelles que les annécs

dcrniCrcs. ""

Each lcttcr pcrformcd a spccific purposc. Her first lettcr to Claudc was often quite

short: i t was mcant abovc d l to serve as proof that she was still alivc. It carried a first

grccting and simple cxprcssions of hcr affection for him. "Cc pctit mot n'est que pour

"Scc, ibid., Marie dc l'tncamation to an Ursuline de Tours, 2 1 October 1652, pp. 497-98.

"Ibid., Marie de l'incarnation to Mèrc Ursule de Ste-Catherine, Supérieure des Ursulines de Tours, 16 Scptcmber 1631, p. 111-

"lbid., Marie de L'Incarnation io hçr son, 15 September 1613 pp. 24041.

Y Ibid., Marie dc L'Incarnation to her son, 21 August 1658, p. 598.

"Ibid., Marie dc l'lnwmaiion io hcr son, -8 July 1665, p. 740.

vous donner par avance un peu de consolation, si tant est que nos lettres vous consolent"

she commcnted in a letter by the fint vesse1 to leave Quebec in September 1647."

Sirnilarly, in late July 1657, she wrote "Ce mot est seulement pour vous témoigner la

consolation que je reçois chaquc année lorsque j'apprens de vos nouvelles.. .. "" She

rarely touched on matters of substance in her fint letter. "Ce n'est icy qu'un mot par le

premier vaisseau," she commented in a letter to Claude written 2 August 1644, while

promising to wnte him more arnply later.3s Again, in July 1657, she explained that she

could not in this first lcttcr rcspond to what he had written, "cette première voye etant trop

prC~ipitCc."~~ But, as in 1617, she invariably promised: "Par mcs autres lettres je vous

donne toute la satisfaction que vous désirez dc moy .... 1140

Lctters writtcn in nid-season were generally more substantive. Often each focused

on one facct of what shc had to Say. Thus, for exarnple, a Ictter written 1 September 1669

provided "un pctit abbrégé des nouvelles de cette Eglise ..." but she commented, "Je vous

Ccrirai par unc autre voie les autres nouvelles du tn 1658 shc revcrsed the order,

providing ncws of the country first and speaking of thc state of the Church second. In a

lettcr writtcn 4 Octobcr 1658, shc noted "Dans celles que je vous ai Ccrites de ce qui s'est

passé. jc nc vous ai point parlé dc cette nouvellc lise....^' in early September 1652,

she noted that shc had alrcady writtcn him amply about the country and the affairs of her

community by 3 other Icttcrs. "Cette quatrième cst pour vous parler confidemment .... 043

"Ibid., Marie de l'incarnation to her son, 18 September 1637, pp. 314-15.

37 Ibid., Marie de l'Incarnation to hcr son, 27 July 1657, pp. 588-90.

33 Ibid., Marie de l'Incarnation IO hcr son, 2 A u p s t 1634, p. 206.

-Ibid., Maric de l'Incarnation to hcr son, 27 July 1657, p. 588.

JO Ibid., Marie de i'incamation to hcr son, 18 Septcmber 1647, pp. 314-15.

"~bid., Maric de L'incarnation to hcr son, 1 September 1669, pp. 83932.

"Ibid., Marie de l'Incarnation IO her son, 4 October 1658, pp. 602-607. See also Marie d e L'incarnation to hcr son, 13 Octobcr 1660, pp. 64132, in which shc spoke largely of spiritual matiers, c l o s h g with the ribscrvation, "Ma auires lctrrcs vous disent les nouvcllcs du pais."

"Ibid., Marie de l'Incarnation to hcr son, 9 Septcrnber 1652, pp. 482-89.

Her last letters were again generally brief and simple: they were meant as a

farcwcil. In Novcmber 1660, shc told Claude that while she had written to him by every

vesse1 she could not let the last ship sail without writùig once more, "vous disant adieu

pour cctte année."" Similarly, on 2 November 1666, she told him, "Je me suis donné la

consolation de vous écrire par la première voie: Je ne veux pas laisser partir celle-cy sans

vous donncr encore un témoignage de mon souvenir, et de la sincère affection de mon

coeur pour votre chère personne. Je vous assure par ce petit mot que ma santé est assez

bonne, grâccs à la divine bonté,"45 and again on 30 October 1667 she wrote: "le me suis

donné la consolation de vous Ccrire par plusieurs voycs. Celle-cy n'est que pour vous

reitércr la sincère amitié que je portc à votre personne qui m'est la plus chère du

r n o n d ~ . ~ ' ~ ~

Finally, in thc wintcr she somctimes wrote Claude other Lettcrs: long and thoughtful

answcrs to qucstions hc had poscd the previous spring and to which she had been unable

to rcspond amid the hectic pace of the season. For example, on 7 Scptember 1648 she

esplriincd that shc could not thcn provide al1 the information for which he had asked in his

lcttcrs that ycar. Thc vessels werc preparing to leave and shc would have to wait until

aftcr their dcparture." In the summer of 1654 she sent Claude "La Relation de sa Vie"

and cncouragcd him to ask her ans questions hc might have after reading it. She would

reccive thcse, shc rcmindcd him, in 1655 but he would have to wait for a response until

1656 bccausc of how busy she was when thc boats were in harbour." The same

happcncd in 1 6 5 9 . ~ ~ Thus hc would no< reccivc a responsc to a question posed in the

spring of onc ycar until the latc fa11 of the following year.

CI Ibid., Marie de 1'Incarnation IO her son, 2 November 1660, pp. 648-51.

"~bid., Maric dc l'Incarnation to her son, 2 Novcmbcr 1666, pp. 770-71.

44 Ibid., Maric dc l'Incarnation to hcr son, 30 October 1667, pp. 797-99.

"lbid., Marie dc I'Incarnaiion IO hcr son, 7 Sçptember 1638, pp. 34137.

"Ibid., Marie de I'Incamation to hcr son, 12 August 1654, p. 532.

J91bid., Marie dc l'incarnation to hcr sone, 11 October 1659, p. 610.

In all, Marie de l'Incarnation gcnerally wrotc four or five letters to Claude each

season and probably as many to the Ursulines at ours." in part, as we shall see in

Chapter Three, this practice was dctermincd by her concern for the security of the mails.

But it was more than simply a matter of sending enough letters in ordcr to ensure that one

would arrive. Clearly, Marie de L'Incarnation attributed some p a t e r importance to k i n g

able to writc a serics of lctters. WC customanly send out a single letter to which a

rcsponsc comcs back and thcn wc writc again. The written conversation proçeeds as an

exchangc. Thc lctters thcmselvcs open with a salutation, the body is devoted to more

substantive observations, and it closes with a farewell- Marie de l'incarnation, on the other

hand, had cvidently corne to conccivc of hcr correspondcnce rather differcntly: as a cycle.

Each ycar shc scnt out a scries of letters to her frequent correspondents and they responded

in rtnothcr scrics of Icttcrs. The conversation progressed in blocks rather than as a

dialoguc. But cach scason's lcttcrs wcre clcarly a conversation with a beginning, middle,

and an cndesl

Thus, for Mark dc l'Incarnation, a good ycar was one in which shc received a good

portion of hcr lcttcrs cornparativcly early and few particularly late; in which the lcngth of

thc scason allowcd hcr adcquate timc to rcspond to al1 hcr letters fully; and in which

vesse1 departurcs wcre wcll-spaccd throughout the season, allowing for a number of

distinct opportunitics by which to scnd word to hcr most important corrcspondents in

France. It was when conditions dcpartcd from this ideal--whcther through the spacing of

shipping or the wrclcssness of othcr correspondents--thai shc began to feel oppressed.

When asscsscd against this mcasurc, it is clcar that in man' ycars shc was comparatively

satisficd with thc naturc of communications.

%id., Maric dt: I'incarnaiiori IO her son, 30 Septcmbcr 1665, pp. 753-56 in which she commcnted, "Je rnc suis donnk la consolation de vous Cnirc plusieurs Leitres. Par ccllc-ci, qui est la quatrième, jc vous dirai..."; Maric de l'lncarnatiori io her son, 39 Octobcr 1665, pp. 758-61 which she explained would be the LXth lcttcr from hcr that season if al1 arrived safdy; Marie de l'Incarnation to her son, 15 September 1614, pp. 230-31 in which she rcfers io having wriiren four letters to him.

" ~ e e , for a latcr cxample of the same, the corrcspondenu: of François Perrault of Quebec with Antoine Paris at Louisbourg, both merchants, dcscribed in Jacques Mathieu, C -

Ics au XVIILç s i e k , pp. 133-33.

Conditions would rarcly ever again be as constrained as they had been in Marie de

l'Incarnation's lifctimc, although corrcspondents would face a number of isolated periods

whcn communications wcre particularly difficult. Throughout, they wouid assess their

circumstances very much as she had done, distinguishing clearly between good years and

bad on much the same basis. Iust as she had developed different expectations depending

upon whom she was writing to, the cxpectations of later correspondents vaned similarly

depcnding upon how they too assessed the particular requirements of the correspondence

they wcre rnaintaining. As wc shall sec, howcver, there wcre also differcnces amongst

corrcspondcnts both in what thcy wantcd and in how they conducted themselves. These

dcrivcd frorn thc distinctive conccrns and constraints corrcspondents brought to the process

of communications.

Communications during thc 1680s were particularly good. The number of ships

rose ro lcvcls highcr than they had evcr bcen bcfore or would bc again until the 1740~:~

In addition, thcse ships gcncrally sailcd at well-spaced intcrvals through a relativcly long

scason, providing corrcspondcnts in France with a scrics of opportunities by which to send

Icttcrs to Canada that extcndcd ovcr a numbcr of months. Thus, for instance, in 1681, Jean

Dudouyt, Procurator of the Séminaire dc Québec and its representative in Paris,s3 may

have sent as many as ninc lcttcrs to Bishop Laval at Quebec by no fewer than six separate

opponunitics; the first was wx-ittcn in Fcbruary or carly March and the last on 22 lune."

S'These averagc mcasurcs are takcn h m -as of w, Vol. l., Plate 38: "European Shipping to Quebcc, 1640-17S9." III 16S1 ai lcast 12 ships sailed to Qucbcc from France for which see Pritchard, "Ships, Mm, and Commerce," p. 157. Açcording to Pritchard, pcace and the Croun's "growing activiiy in New Francc" followulg the pcacc of Nymwcgan in 1678 prompicd rcnewed merchant intcrest in the colony, pp. 157-58. Eccles argues that the economic stagnation which began in the early 1670s endured untii 1682- Eccles, Canada XiV, pp. 52, 76, 99.

SEminaire de Qucbcc was eslablished in 1663 by Bishop Laval as a theological serninary responsiblc for thc rccruiimcni and iraining of a Canadian clcrgy. Until 1692 it served also as a religious cornrnunity for thc secular clcrgy of Nçw France and assumed an important role in the administration of parish aifairs. On this sec m, vol. 1, s.v. Laval, François de. Dudouyt had been one of the founding priests of the Scminary and a mcmber of the tightly-knit and loyai group who would serve Laval over the fcilluwing dccadcs. in 1676, Laval scnt him to France in order to have someone there to defend the interests of ihc Canadian Church. Sec DCB, Vol. 1, S.V. Dudouyt, Jan.

n ~ ~ ~ , h t t r c s Canon N, no 52, Dudouyt to Laval, 9 March 1681; and sarne to same, no. 53, 7 April 1681; no. 51, 11 ApriI 1681; no. 57, 10 May 1681; no. 60, 22 June 1681.

Dudouyt, likc Marie de l'Incarnation, maintaincd an cnormous correspondence each

ycar. In Pans, he was lcss constraincd by the pressures of the seasonal rhythm of

communications; he would have rcccived his letters £rom Canada in the late fa11 and early

winter, and had until as late as lune or July to prepare his responses. By and large, he

tcnded to scnd off the bulk of his letters in mid-season. These included a long letter in

common to thc priests of the Seminary and particular letters, addressed to many individual

corrcspondents, which he nozmally despatched as a single large "pacquet," sending off a

second packct by a seprirate route containing copies. Howcver, like Marie de l'Incarnation,

Dudouyt sct grcat store by being able to write a scrics of lcttcrs through the sçason to a

numbcr of particularly important corrcspondents. Like the Ursuline nun, Dudouyt was

particularly cagcr to send off an initial lctter to primary correspondents such as Bishop

Laval by the first vesse1 of the season." Thus, for example, in a letter writtcn to Laval

carly in the spnng of 1681, Dudouyt commented, "Javois pris toute la precaution qui ma

esté possible pour ne pas perdrc locwsion de vous escnre par le prernica> aui ire..."^^

Hc thcn gencrally wrotc a scrics of Ictters through the course of the ncxt few months

which dcalt with portions of thc busincss hc had to cover that year. And finally he did his

utmost to closc with a word by thc last ship. Whereas, however, Marie dc l'Incarnation's

last lcttcrs to Claude and thc Ursulines at Tours tcnded to bc simple ietters of farewell,

Dudouyt was vcry conccrncd to havc the opportunity to scnd the latest news. The

currency of what hc had to say mattcrcd to him. Thus on 26 May 1682 Dudouyt wrote

Laval a Icttcr and promiscd: "Je vous cscnray encore par dautres voycs cc que Japrendray

d i q r au dcpart des vaisseaux ..." Hc wrote a serics of lcttcrs in June, and on 3 July 1682

hc wrotc again commcnting "1c rctardcmcnt du dcpart des vaisseaux me donne lieu de vous

cscrirc cncorc ...."57 In mid-Junc 1683 hc rcported sending off "la dcrnicre caisse de

lcttrcs" but added "Je vous escriray encore par la poste Jusqucs au dcpart du dcmicr

5s Ibid., Lcttrcs Carturi N, no. 54, Dudouyt to Laval, 1 April 1681. Sçe aiso Lcttrcs Carton N, no. 77, Dudouyt to Laval, 11 March 1684.

S61bid., Lettres Canon N, no. 51, Dudouyt IO Laval, 21 April 1681.

57 Ibid., Lettres Carton N, no. 62, Dudouyt to Laval, 26 May 1682; and Lcttrcs Carton N, no. 67, same to same, 3 July 1682.

vaisseau pour vous donner avis de ce que la Cour aura fait touchant les affaires.''58 in

niid-June of the following ycar he wrote Laval again and similarly pledged, "Je VOUS

cscrivray au surplus par la poste ce qui se passera jusques au depart des va i~seaux . "~~

Dudouyt's correspondence underlines the extent to which the individual

correspondent had to assume responsibility for making the best possible use of the

opportunities available to him each season. Dudouyt kept careful track of the anticipated

schedule of vesse1 departures in order to ensure that he knew when and where to fonvard

his lettcrs. Thus, for instance, in the late wintcr of 1684 he forwardcd a letter to La

Rochcllc in thc cxpectation that the first ship for Canada would sail from there; but he sent

rinothcr lettcr to Bordeaux "cn cas <que ce[?]> nauire qui <on dire> partir en droiture pour

qucbcc amvast plustost."M Through the season, he knew when and from where vesseis

could be expectcd to sail and he continually monitorcd how many ships remained in

harbour in order to know how much longer the season of correspondence would k t .

Dunng the spring of 1681, for example, he prepared to despatch a letter by

commcnting, "je ne voy que celuy dc Mr d'ombourg [Jean Bourdon d'tiombourg] qui reste

jc seroit <pas> si1 ne cscn dispose> quelque autrcW6' Invariably, he linked observations

coiiccrning the lcttcrs hc still intcnded to write to references conceming what vessels had

still to sail. Finally, hc kcpt a closc eyc on the timing of the 1 s t ship's intended departure

in ordcr to cnsurc that his final lcttcrs of the season were sent off in timc.

Corrcspondcnts also had to monitor changes in the schedule of shipping

particularly carcfully lcst thcy miss an opportunity through thc alteration of the "normal"

pattern of shipping. Thus, for cxamplc, Bishop Laval reccivcd a lctter writtcn in haste by

his brothcr in A p d 1676, "pour Ic depart dcs vaisseaux que jc croyais devoir partir aussi

tard quc l'an passk, la precipitation m'y a pcust-cstrc <faict> faire bien des fauttes que

vous c x ~ u s c r c z . " ~ ~ Similarly, in 1689, Laval reccived a lctter from the Supcrior of the

SB Ibid., Lcnres Carton N, no. 72, Dudouyt to Laval, 10, 12 Junc 1683.

%Ibid., Lettres Canon N, no. 79, Dudouyt to Laval, 28 Mach and 11 June 1681.

"'lbitl., Lcirrcs Carron 1V, No. 77, Dudouyt to Mgr Laval, i 1 March 1683.

"'[hici-, Lettrcs Canon N, no. 53, Dudouyt ro Laval, 7 April 1681.

"~bid., Canon SCniinriirr 15, no. 15, à la croix, i'un des frkcs de Mgr Laval a Mgr Laval, 1 Apnl 1676.

Missions Etrangères in Paris, M. de Brisacier, who had also almost been caught off guard.

De Brisacier explained chat he had wntten to Laval and others that May and then left Paris

cxpccting that no more vessels would sail for Canada until June or early July. The

vcsscIs, howcver, had becn ordered to embark from La Rochelle almost immediately and

dc Brisacer had been forccd to return to Paris in order to prepare his letters for the ships'

departurc.@

WC can imagine that, for many correspondents, it was relatively easy to keep tmck

of when ships could be expccted to sail. Once the season began, the dctails of each year's

shipping would quite rapidly have bccomc common knowlcdge. The merchant

coniniuriitics in Atlantic ports such as Quebcc, La Rochelle, and Bordeaux were

conccntratcd within rclativcly smalI areas. Merchants lived near the harbour amidst the

bustle of shipping and they knew one another and one another's bus in es^.^ Word that a

vcsscl was bcing prepared for dcparture, and thc details of whom it was sailing for and

what it would carry, must have sprcad quickly amongst the merchants of a port town and

thcncc to the community at large. As a vessel's departurc approached, the most current

dctails of its plans would have circulatcd through the port. Correspondcnts often knew

prcciscly whcn a ship was cxpectcd to I c a ~ c . ~ ~ Thosc living distant from the ports relied

on othcrs, and in particular thcir agents, to pass on this information. Undoubtcdly, some

of thcsc corrcspondcnts found it difficult to kcep abrcast of the schcdulc of vesscl

dcparturcs. An cxamplc from a numbcr of dccades later illustrates this point: in 1750,

having rcccntly movcd from Canada to Rochefort, Mmc Bégon cornplaincd to a

corrcspondcnt, "qu'en m'floignant des ports, je m'éloigne du plaisir d'avoir de tes nouvelles

63~bid., Lettres Carton N, no. 93, M. de Brisacier to Mgr Laval, 20 May 1689 and 19 June 1689. Ironimlly, despite the fact that his lettcr reported chat the ship was supposed to sail in May, the departure of thesc vcsscls was ultimately delayed untii late July, for which sec the discvssion of the pattern of shipping that ycar below.

&l For a Jtscription of thr: worId of these ports sec Bosher, -, pp. 35-36.

*Sec. for instancc, BCgon. Lcirrcs au U, 72 June 1750, pp. 193-91, "Je crois que la qui part pour It: Canada, fcra voile demain. Je donnai hier au soir tous mes écrits à Longueuil [.....] qui y va ...."

aussi (tôt) qu'elles arrivent et de pouvoir t'écrire autant que je le souhaiterai^."^^ What,

howevcr, strikcs one about most of our correspondents is the simple confident knowledge

thcy manifest conceming when specific vessels could be expected to sail. This broke

down only whcn the nomal pattern of shipping was senously disnipied.

The experience of the ncxt two and a half decades underlines the extent to which

the rclatively easy communications of the 1680s had k e n dependent upon the strength of

the Canada trade and shipping patterns. Vesscl numbers remained rclatively high through

the 1690s but these did not translate into cqually good conditions for corrcspondents,

largcly duc to the timing of vesse1 amvals at Quebec. During the War of the Spanish

Succession (1 702- 131, a scverc deprcssion in thc Canada trade and the wartime disruption

of shi pping resu 1 tcd in cven more constrained communications.

The scason of 1689 dcmonstratcs particularly clcarly the danger of assuming that

thcrc was a direct corrélation bctwccn thc numbcr of vessels sailing to the colony in any

one season and the effcctivencss of communications. in Europe, France had once again

gonc to war during the fa11 of 1688. Merchant confidencc in the trade with Canada

rcmaincd high, however, and the next ycar, 1689, a record numbcr of vcssels--perhaps as

niariy as sixtccn--sailcd to Quebcc." Ln commercial terms thc story told of that year's

shippine is one of trcmcndous succcss." Howcvcr, the spacing of the departurcs of these

vcssels scrvcd correspondcnts lcss ~ ~ 1 1 . ~ ~ The season got off to a good start: in June

thrcc vcssçls had alrcady lowercd anchor bcforc Quebcc, providing a particularly early

opportunity by which Canadian correspondents could rcceive lctters from rance." These

%1bid., 5 July 1750, p. 195. Similarly, slightly aficr rhr: Conqucst, tlic merchant Pierre Guy wrote to his ~ni~ ihcr in Montrcal froni Bordeaux conimenting about family friends: "iI ne leurs Est pas facille d'ecrire il so~it a <....> o u il ric savcnt pas souvcrir dc nouvrllcs du depart des vaissaux." University of Montreal, Baby Coilcction, U 5124, Picrrc Guy to his nmhcr, 8 May 1762.

"~rirchard, "Ships, Mcn, and Commcrcc," p. 208.

Ibid., pp. 208-209.

69Thc narrative which follows is drawn iargely îiom Eccles, Canadas pp. 162-68.

"In Latc May or carly Junc 1689 M. de Brisacicr refcrred to having already written Mgr Laval "par les prcniicrs vaisseau." ASQ, Lcttrcs Carton N, no. 93, M. de Brisacicr to M. Laval, 20 May 1689 and 19 June 16SY.

ships, though they did not bnng despatches for colonial officiais from the Crown, brought

news of the War. Canadians had a chance to respond to their letters promptly: at l e s t one

ship, le St m, left Quebec early that summer, sailing on 3 JUIY.~' It was at this

point that the situation broke down. Not long after the vessels that reached the colony in

June had set sail, England had entered the lists against France. The French Crown had

appointcd Frontenac to rcplacc Denonvik as Governor of New France, and he had been

eivcn orders to sail in mid-June. However, the convoy's departurc was delayed until 23 C

July when the ships confronted strong head winds which slowcd them further.R in the

intcrim no othcr vesscls sailed to the colony. Thus, throughout the summer months,

Canadians were left in at lcast formal ignorance of England's entry into the war?

Mcanwhilc, according to William Eccles, the English and their iroquois allies had heard

runiours of war in thc spring7" and reccivcd formal notice of the outbreak of hostilities

not long thcrcafter. At dawn on the morning of 5 August, the Iroquois attacked the French

scttkmcnts at Lachine, taking thcm by surprise. The raids continued throughout the late

summcr and fall. Whcthcr or not the French werc as blissfully unawarc of the danger

which threatcned them as Eccles suggests," the fact remains that it was not until mid-

Octobcr that the ships from France finally amved in the colony with the news which was

"on 4 July 1689 Sicur Dclorme wrotc a letter ro his brother at La Rochelle which was carricd by an csprcss canoe to Malbaic to await the vcssel, Le SI Mathieu, which had leîï Quebec the previous day. ANQ, P1000-38-522, DcIorme, Sicur, Corrcspondcnce, "copie d'une lcttrc écrit a Quebcc le 4 juillet 1689 à Mr Delorme à la Rochelle par son fière." Thc Intendant &O sent a despatch to the Minister in Juiy for which sce Eccles, Frlîncc 1 ai&XIy, p. 163.

nCorrcspondcnts had not cxpcctcd any vessels IO sail until the end of June or wrly July and had hurried to meer the unespected opponunity of the vesscl which was to çany Frontenac io Canada in mid-June. See, or1 ihis. ASQ, Lcttrcs Carton N, no. 93, M. de Brisacirtr to Mgr Laval, 20 May, 19 June 1689.

%cy might wcll have guessed at the pssibility that England had cnrcrcd the war if, as scems Likely, the vcssck which had alrcady arrived had brought the colony word that William had corne to the British throne that March. His ascension madc war bctwcen Francç and Britain likely.

74 For a discussion of when and how news of that evcnt reached the British colonies in North America sec Steclc, -, chapter 6, pp. 91-110. Specifically, hc argues that prominent citizcns in Boston may have known of William's victory in March, and by April the ncws had become public.

75 Eccles argues that thc French had bccn lullcd into a false scnse of sccurity by the apparent d m of the spring and carly summcr. Canada, p- 164.

obvious by then to Canadians: France was at war with England and her co~onies.'~

Perhaps no bettcr examplc cxists of the crucial importance of the timing of the despatch

and receipt of news to effective communications.

The next year, communications were little better. Some ten or eleven ships began

prcparations to sail for the colony that spnng and summer but their departure was

sipificantl y dclayed by the difficulties shipowners experienced competing with the navy

for scamen to form thcir crews and the fact that, at the last minute, merchants had to load

flour in responsc to the arriva1 of a vessel with an urgent rcquest from Frontenac. The

mcrchant flect finally left L;i Rochelle on 5 August, but few vessels reached their

destination: storms off the Strait of Canso damaged one vessel and forced it to tum back;

two others amvcd so late that they wintered at Ile Percée. Of the total number of vessels

which had left Francc only threc arrived at Quebec and they did not arrive until mid-

Novcnibcr, having hiddcn in thc Saint Lawrence from the English fleet?

Communications wcrc, as a consequcncc, disrupted. In the spnng of 1691 Laval reported

having sent a lcttcr to Francc in carly Decembcr of the prcvious ycar." But most of his

letters were not sent off until that spnng when two vessels, which had been forced by their

latc amval the previous year to spcnd the wintcr at Quebec, provided Laval with an

unscasonably early opportunity to scnd letters to ~ r a n c c . ~

Throughout thc rcmaindçr of thc 1690s, the average numbcr of vcssels sailing to

Qucbcc was coniparati\dy In 1691, scvcnteen or cightcen vcssels reached

Qucbcc and in 1693 the main convoy of twclve mcrchantmen al1 arrivcd safely. Still, such

numbers did not neccssarily translate into a wcalth of opportunitics for correspondents.

Instcad, throughout this dccade corrcspondcnts wcre often scrambling to find opportunities

'bIbid., p. 166.

n Priichard, "Ships, Mçn, and Ciirnrnercc." pp. 309-210; EccIcs, Underx pp. 181-84.

'"SQ, Lcitrcs Cmon N, no, 96, Laval to DenonviUe, 16 April 1691.

791bid., Letfrcs Carton N, no. 96, Laval to Denonville, 16 April 1691.

of Canada, Vol. 1, Plate a: "Canadian North Atlantic Trade,"

by which to despatch thcir letters." This was likely largely the result of vessels' sailing

togcthcr in convoy as a security measure which effectively reduced the number of discrete

opportunities to rarely more than two.=

Conditions may have improved briefly following the Treaty of Ryswick, which

ended the War of the League of Augsburg, but then almost immediately they worsened

again. During the War of the Spanish Succession shipping was more constrained than in

any but isolateci years in memory. Vesse1 numbers fell below the levels of the previous

two dccadcs with only fivc to scvcn vcssçls sailing to Qucbec each year on average

throughout the ~ a r . " Perhaps even more significant for correspondents, shipping was

quitc disruptcd. A considerable numbcr of vcssels were lost, although more commonly due

to shipwrcck than through cnemy action. In addition, ships often seem to have left France

quite latc in the season, disrupting the "normal" pattern of communications."

The corrcspondencc of Dudouyt's successor as Procurator, Henri-Jean Tremblay,

suggcsr s how disruptivc wartimc conditions wcrc. Likc his predccessor in Pans, Tremblay

tcndcd to writc thc bulk of his lettcrs in mid-season,= but he similarly set sorne store by

scnding a scrics of lctters through tk; scason to panicularly important corre~pondents .~~

Hc ofien humed to send something by the first vessel"; indeed, when he did not begin

"ASQ, Lcttres Carton N, no. 106, Tremblay to Laval, 8 and 14 June 1696. See also Lettres Carton M, no. 33, Trcmblay tu [?], 3 Junc 1696.

"E'rirchard, "Sliips, Mcri, and Commerce," pp. 212-30, notes that the vessels destined for the western Atlantic gcncrally rravelled in convoy throughout the war.

6 3 ~ ~ I of Canada, Vol. 1, Plate a: "Canadian Nonh Atlantic Trade." This decline in shipping, according to Pritchard, was largely a function of economic conditions in New France rather than the war irsclf. "Ships, Men, and Cornmercc," pp. 252-60. French merchants werc rcluctant to send vcssels to Canada when they knew colonists lacked the means to pay for imports, and there was little they could foad as a rcrum cargo. As a result, Bordeaux Iargcly withdrew from the trade: in the decade after 1702 only thirteen vcssels sailcd from Bordeaux to Qucbcc of which some were owned at La Rochelle. in addition, the French navy sent few vesscls to cxuisc off the Nonh Arnerican Coast which may have discouraged merchant traffic.

"'Set: Pritchard, "Siiips. Mcn, and Cummcrce," Chaprer 6, "New Francc Abandoncd, 1702-1712."

u ~ e e , for esample, ASQ, Ltrrcs Carton N, no. 106, Tremblay to Laval, 8, 13 June 1696.

"Ibid., Lcttrcs Carton O. no. 38, Trcrnblay to M. de Maizeret, 7 June 1702.

sf Ibid., Lettres Carton M, no. 105, Tremblay to Laval, 6 April 1695; Lettres Canon N, no. 106, Tremblay to Lavai, 8, 13 Junc 1696.

writing until later in the season hc seems to have felt his behaviour required e ~ p l a i n i n g . ~

Similarly, he generally continucd to writc until thc last possible moment each year.

Through the War, howevcr, he was often simply unable to follow his customary pattern.

in mid-lune 1703, for example, Tremblay excused himself from responding in hiil to

cvcrything Father Glandelet of the Séminaire de Québec had said in his letters of the

prcvious fa11 "d'autant plus que cette année qu'on nous menace que nous naurons qu'un seul

vaisseau toutes mes lettres <pourot> aller ensemble..."" in fact, he may ultimately have

hccn able to dcspatch lcttcrs by two opportunitics: on 6 July hc wrote to Glandelet

rcfcrring to carlicr letters "qui sont parties il y a plus de trois semaines" though it is

unclcar whcthcr he mcant that they had left Francc or simply bccn sent from Pans. Even

so this was unusually limitcd? Again, near the start of the 1705 season Tremblay

expccicd to be able to send both early and laie letters. On 4 Apnl he wrote a scries of

lcttcrs to his Canadian correspondcnts which were to go by "le vaisseau de M. Jolliet," lg

Wcptunç. Howcver, in mid-June the vesse1 had not yet sct sail and when Tremblay wrote

ri sccond scrics of lcttcrs to his corrcspondcnts which hc announccd would go by "le

i-aisscau du Roi," hc obscmcd that he cxpccted it would sail with le ~ e ~ t u n e ? ' In 1708

shipping was again quitc constraincd. On 15 June that ycar Tremblay announccd "Vous ne

rcccvrcr ccttc annce dc mes Nouvelles quc par une seule voie ... car nous n'avons cctte

anncc qu'un Scul vaisseau qui va en Canada It is unclcar how many vessels saiied

to Qucbec that ycar, but clearly some ships did not arrive until ~ c t o b e r . ~ ~ Indeed,

throughout thcsc ycars at lcast a portion of the ships visiting the colony cach year seem

oftcn to havc arrivcd particularly Iatc in the season.

"Scc for cxample, ibid., Lettres Carton O, no. 3, Tremblay to M. Glandelet, 7 May 1700 in which he csplains hc has waited untiI the last moment IO write because he had nothing optimistic to Say.

69 Ibid., Lcttres Carton O, no. 40, Tremblay to M. Glandelet, 15 June 1703.

gO~bid., Lettres Carton O, no. 41, Tremblay to M. de Maizerets, 9 July 1703.

"ibid., Letrrcs Cariori N, nci. 123, TrrmbIay to Laval, 19 June 1705.

o.? Ibid., Lcttrcs Canon N, nu. 131, Trcmblay to Laval, 15 June 1701.

%x, for cxample, "Correspondancc entre M. dc Vaudreuil et la Cour," m, 1939-1930, Vaudreuil to the Ministcr, 3 October 1708, p. 425; and same to samc, 5 November 1708, p. 426.

While conditions were bad for Tremblay, they were--and had been for a while--

much worse for Royal officials. Time and again the Governor and Intendant complained

of thc lare amvol of thcir despatchcs in the colony and even that they had not amved at

a . It is ail too casy to sec this as evidence of a general disruption in the mails--of an

essential structural weakness in the process of communications--and it may be on the

basis of official correspondence that historians have generalized about the conditions of

communications in general. Instead, it is clear that the correspondence of colonial officials

was oftcn uniquely constraincd, the product largely of how officials in France managed

royal corrcspondcncc.

As o marrer of policy thc Crown secms to have prefened to send the bulk of its

despatchcs to the colony by the King's ships. Through the first dccade and a half of the

eightecnth century Govemor Vaudreuil routinely referred to receiving his letters from the

French court by "le Vaisscau du ROY."% This presumably was done in the interests of

sccunty, but it had an enormous impact upon the pattern of officia1 correspondence. The

King's ships wcre rarcly amongst the first vcsscls to leavc France for the colony. As a

rcsult, thc Govcrnor and Intcndant wcrc often in the position of receiving nothing £rom

France by thc amval of thc first ships of the scason at Quebcc while other colonial

corrcspondcnts routinely Thus, for cxamplc, on 12 July 1698, in a letter

dcspatchcd via Plaisance, thc intendant Champigny noted the arriva1 at Quebec on 29 June,

[d'] un pctit vaisseau vcnant de Bayonne, par lequel nous avons étk confirm<ea> dans les avis que nous avions eu l'hiver dernier de la part des Anglois d'orange, quc la paix genérallc avoit été faite en Europe, mais comme il n'a point aporté des lcttrcs sinon a quclqucs marchands pour des affaires> de commerce, nous sonimcs dans l'attcntc dcs autres vaisseaux qui doivent partir de France apres Ccluy ~ y . " ~ "

% 17 Corrcspondancc cntrc M. dc Vaudreuil ct la cour," MM. de Vaudreuil ct de Bcauhamois au Ministre, 15 October 1703. p. 21; MM. dc Vaudreuil et Bégon au Ministre, 20 Scptember 1714, p. 272.

9 S ~ c ~ , for csample, the case of 1689 above. Ken Banks, "Communications and Imperia1 Absolutisrn," p. 319 confirms thai "Mçrchant shipping to Quebcc provided a wide variety of news long before the royal ship carryirig cicspatchcs irorii Francç broughi the latwt ti~bits of news and c o n f m e d what the colony already kricw."

%Cl 1 4 Corrcspondance GCnCrale, F-16, pp. 97-101, Quebcc, 12 July 1698, Champigny.

Confirmation of the important ncws that the Treaty of Ryswick had brought an end to the

War of the League of Augsburg thus reached the Intendant, no< by a dcspatch from the

Crown, but by means of the letters that vanous merchants had received by a ship that had

brought royal officials nothing.

Ln fact, the King's ships ohen ümved particularly late in the colony with the result

that the Governor and Intendant were ofien left in the dark concerning royal policy for

months after the opcning of the communications season. To recall the example of 1689,

thc King's ship that had been expectcd to sail in mid-June was delayed until late July, and

did not finaliy bring despatchcs dated March and early May of that year to Quebec until

Octobcr." This problcm secms to havc been particularly acute during the War of the

Spanish Succession. Timc and again colonial officials complained that cxtraordinary

dclays in thc dcparturc of the King's ships from Francc had left thcm without timc to

rcspond cffectivcly to thcir despatchcs. For example, in 1703 Vaudreuil implored the

Court "D'ordonner quc le Vaisseau du Roy que vous destinés pour ce pays parte de france

dc bon hcurc," cxplaining that,

il est arrivé si tard cette année par des vents contraires ct forcés qui l'ont retenu a Tadoussac depuis Ic 21 septembre jusqu'au 13 octobre que nous n'avons presque pas cu lc temps dc finir les affaires dc ce pays par la mauvaise habitude ou l'on y est d'aitcndre pour agir quc Ics navires dc francc soient amvese9'

Siniilarly, in carly Octobcr 1708, Vaudrcuil notcd that hc had not yct rcccived his

dcspatchcs from Francc, and once again cornplaincd to the Minister:

L'arrivk tardive du vaisscau du Roi Nous met tous les ans dans unc perplexité terrible, nous n'en avons encore aucune nouvcllc. II est de la dcmiçre consequcnce Monseigneur, que Vous ayds la bonté de nous l'envoyer de meilleur h c û r ~ . ~ ~

Somctimcs thc Crown sccms to havc dclayed the dcparturc of the royal vcssels so

Iatc that thcy could not rcach Qucbcc bcforc thc close of thc navigation scason and were

'47 When the vtssels finally sei sail on B July they carricd dcspatchcs datcd 20 March and 1 May, according to Eccles, Cnnada ,UV, p. 163.

96"~orrespondence cntrc M. dc VaudrcuiI ct la Cour," MM. Vaudreuil et Beauharnois au Ministre, 15 Octobcr 1703, p. 31.

PLThr: dcspatchcs amvcd sometime in Octobcr by the royal warship, m, outfitted by Antoine Pascaud for which sec ibid., M. dt: Vaudrcuil au Ministre, 1 October 1708, pp. 43-26; and samc to same, 5 Novcniber 1708, p. 426.

iorced to turn back. Ln 1714 the Minister reported that the previous year the vesse1 Lg

-in which he had put his dcspatches "ait été obligé de relacher en France hors d'état

et continuer son voyage et dans une saison trop avancée pour pouvoir vous les faire passer

par une autre occasion ...."lm Thcse despatches were sent off the next year and Vaudreuil

wrotc to acknowledge their amival with those of 1714 on 20 July.'*'

Finally, in adopting thc policy of sending officia1 despatches only by royal vessels,

thc Crown scriously limitcd thc number of opportunities at its disposal. In most years, it

secms, only one, or pcrhaps two, royal ships sailcd to the colony. Whethcr because of

this, or bewuse they did not consistently send duplicates of al1 their correspondence, royal

officials wcrc particularly vulnerable to the loss of any particular despatch. Thus, for

cxample, on 17 Novcmber 1704, Vaudreuil and Beauharnois reported to the Minister that

thc King's ship Ja Scim had not amvcd nor bccn heard of and they had received ncither

thc King's nor his own ordcrs that ycar.lO'

It must bc emphasizcd that thc Crown's bchaviour was the rcsult of specific choices

that had bccn rnadc, not sorncthing forced on it by the conditions of communications. The

pattcrn of royal corrcspondence to the colony was not typical of communications as a

wholc; any dcscription of thc early mails bascd on what official papcrs describe would be

sigiiificantly distortcd. This cxarnplc cmphasizcs the dcgrce to which human agency was a

sipificant factor in shaping the expericnce of spccific groups of correspondents.

Furthcrniorc, it shows that a corrcspondcnt's bchaviour was not always designed to

maxiniize thc frcqucncy of communications. As the cxample of Frcnch royal officials

dernonstrates, there could at timcs be other factors which had priority over the timeliness

and frequency of communications. The Crown's conduct in managing its correspondence

sits oddly with its apparcnt dctcrmination to maintain the closcst possible supervision over

colonial affairs. According to Eccles, "Al1 major policy matters, and many seemingly

trivial oncs, had to bc rcfcrrcd to the Minister." Colonial officials were expected to keep

rhc ~Ministcr informcd of cvcrything that occurrcd in thc colony and to submit long and

lW1bid., Le Ministre à M. de Vaudreuil, 19 March 1714, p. 248.

101 Ibid., M.M. Vaudreuil et Bégon au Minisire, 20 September 1714, p. 272.

102 Ibid., MM. Vaudreuil et Beauharnois au Ministre, 17 November 1701, p. 50.

dctailed reports on local conditions every year. In response the Minister prepared very

spccific instructions. The King generally also prepared his own despatches which

custornarily surnmarized the key points of the Minister's more detailed document.'"

Together thesc were meant to guide the behaviour of royal officials in the colony, settle

disputes amongst them, and set the course of colonial development. Eccles and others

have observed that the seasonal constraints on communications made it necessary for the

Crown to allow colonial officials rathçr more autonomy than they might otherwise have

posscsscd bccause therc wcrc long periods each year whcn thcy simply could not

c ~ m r n u n i c a t c . ~ ~ We would cxpect that during the season the Crown would do its utmost

to cnsure the closest possible communications with the colony. Clearly however, the

Crown's management of its correspondence did little to enhance its a~ thor i ty . '~

In contrast to officials in France, the Governor and the intendant appear to have

bccn more flexible. They seem throughout the War to have been wiliing to write by

nicrchant \wscis, although Royal policy may then, as it did later, have dictated that they

wcrc to rcly almost cxclusivcly on the King's ships.lo6 The Governor and Intendant also

made a policy of writing early letters whenever they could by the first ships with the latest

ncws of the colony, and thereaftcr thcy tended to scnd off letters through the remainder of

'03W.J. Eccles, Canada 1 nuis XXV, p. 38-29. See also Eccles, "Quelques réflexions sur la . - correspondance cntre la Nouvelle-France et Ic ministcre de la Marine," la au XV- et s s

- .- - . - .ivatars. du au Cu e G l e n d o n , e Y& T o r ~ 9 avril-lcr 1993, cd. Gcorgts 13GrubS ct Marie-Francc Silvcr (Toronto: Editions du Gref,

Collecrions Dont actes no. 13, 1996), pp. 209-15. On the flow of information back and forth across the Arlariric set: Banks, "Communications and imperial Absolutism," chaptcr 5: "Authoritv's Fragmentcd Voice."

'OJ& Eccles points out, the seasonal limits on communications tended to ensure that local officials had more powcr aver colonial affairs than thcy might otherwise have. In his study of Frontcnac he shows in panicular how the Governor at timcs expIoited this long pause in communications to his own advantage. Ecclcs. Canada_under, pp. 23-29; Eccles, Governor (Toronto: McClelland and Stcwan Limi~cd, 1959), pp. 13841. On the discussion within Imperia1 history of the "man on thc spot" sec thc Introduction to this thesis.

''?bis is also thc psirion argucd by Banks, "Communications and Imperia1 Absolutism."

''bihc use of mcrchant vesscls was understood as the exccption rather than the rule. Thus in the spring of 1728, Maurepas cxplaincd to colonial officials that if they were unable to provide a repon of ail their affairs by the King's ships which were undcr ordcls to stay at Quebcc only until 15 or 20 October at the latcst, "vous y par la voye des Vaisseaux marchands.,."(my ernphasis). C 11 A, F-50, Maurepas to [?], May 1738. The sailing datc was in order to cnsure that the vesscls avoidcd reaching France "dans la mauvaise saison."

the scason much as our more ordinary correspondents did. This pattern of correspondence

simply would not have bccn possible had thcy relied exclusively on the King's ships.

Thcir behaviour and that of officiais in France serves to underline the extent to

which individual conespondents could make very different use of the same world of

communications. Correspondents brought distinctive needs and priorities to the process of

communications, which sometimes could be in conflict with behaviours that could make

the bcst usc of the opportunities available to them. Whercas Jean Dudouyt or Henri-Jean

Trcmblay invariably did thcir bcst to capitalize to the fullcst extent on the shipping each

scrison, royal officiais bchavcd cntirely differently. The distinction betwcen the hvo

underlines how important it is that we not assumc that a correspondent's behaviour was

invariably dictated by the conditions of communications. It is crucial that we distinguish

bctwcen thc possible and the actual pattcm of corrcspondencc in the experience of

contcmporarics. *

Vcsscl nunibcrs would ncver again faIl as low as they had during thc War of the

Spanish Succession with a singlc cxccption during the ncxt War. Betwccn 1714 and 1743,

shipping rcturned to the lcvcls which had bcen thc n o m through the 1680s and 1690s:

somc ten ships on average sailcd each year to ~ u e b e c . " ~ France was at peace, and

whilc natural hazards still ptagued shipping, vessels were safe from the threats of the

cncmy and could sail according to the demands of commcrcc rathcr than having to wait for

a convoy to cross thc Atlantic. The conjunction of thesc factors helpcd to makç

cornniunications casicr during this pcriod than thcy had cvcr been except perhaps dunng

the 1680s.

The correspondcnce of Mère de Sainte-Hélène hints at how comparatively rich the

options for correspondents wcrc in this pcriod. Every Octobcr, Mère de Sainte-Hélène

wrotc onc or two lctters to hcr "trSs chcre amic," Mme Hccquct dc la Cloche of Abbeville,

France. Thc corrcspondcnce bctwcen thcse girlhood fricnds Iikcly bcgan in 1702 when the

Jroung Marie-AndrEc, thcn fiftccn, left France for Quebcc to rejoin her parcnts who had

cmigratcd to the colony somc thirtccn ycars bcforc. Thc first extant lctter we have

107- Canada, Vol. 1, Plate 48: "European Shipping to Québec, 164-1789."

betwccn them dates from 1718 but it is clcarly part of an already established

correspondence which would continue over the next fony years.lCB

With thc exception of two letter fragnieiits wntten by Mme Hecquet, we have only

Mèrc de Sainte-Hélène's side of the c~rres~ondence . '~ These letters describe the

qualities of the French colonists, the characteristics and habits of the native population,

conditions in the colony and the spccifics of her own circumstances. Her tone is warm

and personal. She continually emphasizes how important their continued comection is to

hcr, dcscribing it as a source of sustenance and c ~ r n f o r t . ~ ~ ~ We can only guess at what

M n ~ c Hccquct's lcttcrs mas havc bccn likc. From the two fragments which we have and

from whüt is irnplied iii Mère dc Saint-Hé15ncfs responscs to her letters, it is evident that

iMrnc Hccquct discusscd her famiiy and showed interest in thc details of hcr

corrcspondent's life. in particular, she showed an enormous interest in the indigenous

pcoplcs of the colony. It is, howcver, hard to shake the lingering doubt that she was l e s

committcd to their hiendship than her correspondent. There were evidcntly things Mme

''%c corrcspondence betwccn the two women is published in "MCrc de Sainte-Hélène," Vols. 2, 3, 3. III additioli to the letters betwcen Mère de Sainte-Hélène and Mmc Hecquet the collection includes the corrcspondcncl: of MCre de Sainte-HélCne and hcr sistcr, Mère de l'Enfant-Jkus (also of the Hotel-Dieu) wirh ~ h e Dicppc apothecary Fcrçi and Feret's own correspondencc with the procurator of the lesuit missions, J.F.S. Charlcvoix. On the relationship bctween the nvo women sec, Vol. 2, Mère de Sainte-Hélène to Mme Hecquei, 7 Novembcr 1718, p. 71 whiçh rnakes it clear this earliest cxisting lctter is part of an establishcd correspondcncc. There is strong intcmal cvidence for the two having been fricnds in France. See in particular, Vol. 2, Mérc de Sainte-HCltnr: io Mme Hccquet, 21 Octobcr 1720, p. 75 in which she speaks ioritily of "ce tems la" whcn thcy wrre togcther and r e h x s on aii that has happened to them since. See also sanie to sanlc, Vol. 3, 13 Ociolicr 1731, p. Y 8 in which Mèrc dr: Saintc-Hélène recalls having met her iricnd's tàthcr, M. Homassçl. On the dctails of Mère de Sainte-Hélène's life see DCI3, Vol. 3, s.v. "Regnard Duplessis, Marie-Aidrée." Sec also Juliette Rémillard, "Mère Marie-Andréc Duplessis de Sainte-Hélène,"

1 - - &vue de 1 m e de 1' w, Vol. 16 (1962-63), pp. 4û1-3.

'%c surviving letrcrs which Mère dc Sainte-Hélène wrote to Mme Hccquet arc as follows: one from 1718; 2 lettcrs written in 1720; one each from 1723 and 1729; one writtcn each year from 1730 to 1756 inclusive; no lctter written 1757; and one final surviving lctter written 1758. It is unclear whcther Mère de Sainte-HélEnc wrotc in 1759; shc died in January 1760. The two lcttcr fragments writtcn by Mme Hecquet tu MCre de Saintc-Hélène arc Vol. 3, pp. 279-83 and pp. 359-61. If their placement in the published correspondencc retltxts wherc thcy acrually camc in thc rcal communications betwccn the two wornen, they wcrc writtcn in 1710 and 1751.

'1u"~13rc de Sainte-HClCne," Vol. 3, Mère de Sainte-Hélène IO Mme Hecquet, 17 October 1735, p. 177.

Hccquct did not speak to Mère de Sainte-Hélène about."' But what gives one greatest

pause are her frequent silences. Mère de Sainte-Hélène wrote one and sornetimes ~ W O

lctters cvcry year to Mrnc Hecquet, but Mme Hecquet wrote far less regularly, missing as

rnany as elcvcn years in thc course of the almost thiny years for which we have dense

rccorcis."'

Mme Hecquct's failure to writc every year upset Mère de Sainte-Hélène who, in

consequence, was left in ignorance of her correspondent's health and affairs. AS she

cornplaincd one year, "je supporte dificilcm[en]t la privation d'une des plus douces ~ 1 1 3 satisfactions quc j'aye quand je reçois dcs marques de la continuation de vôtre amitie.

Mme Hccquct was tcniptcd to blanie the gaps in her corrcspondence on the conditions of

transatlantic ~oniniunications."~ Mère de Sainte-Hélène, however, simply did not find

hcr cscusc crcdiblc. Shc told her friend firmly in 1737:

jc nc comprends pas comment vous pouvez trouver de la difficulté a me les faire tenir, rien n'est plus aisé, aujourd'huy que le Canada a des relations dans plusieurs ville dc france, comme à Rouen, a la Rochelle, a Bourdeaux, a Paris ou vous avez dcs connoissances, on peut les envoyer au Colege de Louis le Grand, au missions Ctrangèrcs au faubourg St. Germain rue du bac, ou chct Me. hersant marchand Drapicr mc St Dcnis a la croix dc fer ... n'ayez donc plus d'ernbaras sur cet article ma chèrc amic, et que jamais cela ne me prive de la consolation de recevoir de VOS nou\.cl~es."'

"'in DCB, Vol. 3, S.V. Regnard Duplcssis, Jean-Pierre Asselin no t a that Mme Hecquet was a strict Janscnist, with rcligious vicws which wcrc antitheticai to Mère de Sainte-Hélène's own, and suspects that she nevcr disçussed her vicws bccause thcre is no hint Mère de Sainte-Hélène was aware of her correspondent's bclicfs.

"'WC know liirlt: aboui t h : regulariiy of rheir corrcspondence before 1729. Thcrcafter we have a fairly coniplcic picrurt: uniil 1755. MCrc de Sainr-HdZne reccived letters from Mme Hccquct in 1729, 1731, 1732, 1731, 1738. 1740. 1743, 1743, 1744, 1736, 1717, 1750, 1751, 1753, and 1756. She did not receive letters in 1730. 1733, 1715, 1736, or 1719 tor which sec respcctively "Mère de Sainte-HeIlne," Volume 3, pp. 54, 171, 177, 336, 235. She also rcceived noihing in 1711, for which sce Volume 3, p. 286. N o lctrers arrîved in 1745 or 1738 but thcsc instances may have been attributable to wartime conditions for which see Vol. 3, pp- 296 and 303- Mrnc Hecquet does not a p p r to have writtcn in 1753, 1754, and 1755. She wrote two lcrters the next ycar and nothing in cithcr 1757 or 1758. Sec Vol. 4, pp. 53, 55, 110, 115.

'131bid., Vol. 3, Mlre de Sainte-Hélhe to Mme Hccquet, 23 October 1730, p. 54. See also Vol. 3, Mère dc Sainte-HCICne to Mme Hccquet, 17 Ocrobcr 1735, p. 177.

"'Ibid., Vol. 3, MCre dc Sainte-Hélèiir: to Mme Hecquet, 17 Octobcr 1737, p. 228.

While, however, she pointcd out to her friend how many different people she could rely

upon to send her lctters to Canada and how easy it was, she emphasized that the ultimate

responsibility for her letters rested firmly with Mme Hecquet. It was she who needed to

kccp track of rhc schedule of vesse1 departurcs and make sure that her letters were ready in

timc to be sent off; it was also shc who needed to do what she could to ensure that they

reached Quebec as early as possible. Thus in 1730 when she had receivcd nothing that

ycar from Mme Hecquet, Mike de Sainte-Hélène urged her "de mieux prendre vos

mcsurcs l'année "I l"

Save during exceptional moments when war seriously disrupted shipping to the

colony"', Mère de Sainte-Hélbne was certain that when she received nothing nom her

fricnd, the explanation was that Mme Hccquct simply had not writtcn, rather than that she

had not found an opportunity. She rcjectcd the idea that Mme Hecquet's failure to write

wrts duc to sonic difficulty dcspcitching her lcttcrs. Rathcr, shc was certain that in these

ycars thc cxcusc had to be personal bccausc of the comparative wealth of opportunities for

transatlantic communications.'18 Mère de Sainte-Hélène's own practice of writing a

single lettcr to Mme Hccquct latc cach fa11 rathcr than a scrics of ietters was a matter of

pcrsonal choicc rathcr than a function of the lack of opportunities to write.

The War of thc Austrian Succession brought this pcriod of comparativeiy easy

cornniunications to an cnd, undcrlining how cxtraordinarily vulncrable to disruption

116 Ibid., Vol. 3, Mère de Sainte-Hélène to Mrnc Hecquet, 23 October 1730, p. 54.

117 See bclow for discussion of communications ir' 1711-17423 and the late 1750s. She did not in these instances blame Mme Hecquet for lctters that did not arrive. See ibid., Vol. 1, Mère de Sainte-Hélène to Mrnc Hecquct, 20 Octobcr 1758, p. 115.

116 She wondcred occasionally whether Mmc Hccquet simply no longcr cared enough to write. In general, howcvcr, shc comfoned hcrsdf with sigm of hcr coniinued affection. ibid., Vol- 3, Mère de Sainte-Hélène ro Mnic Hecquer, 13 October 1731, p. 96; Vol. 3, samc io samc, 16 Octobcr 1734, p. 174. More often, she prcfcrrcd 111 bclicvc rhai Mnic Hccquci had becn, against her will, prevcnted from writing. Once when it secmcd sht: migh~ no1 receive a Ictier shc imagined, "quc vous fussiez malade ou si occupée qu'il ne vous fut pas possible de vous distraire dc vos affaires." Vol. 3, same to same, 13 Octobcr 1731, p. 96. On another occasion, shc spcculated that the frcquent and serious i h e s s of M. Hecquct had consumcd Mme Hecquet's encrgics and lcft her without the strength Io writc. Vol. 3, samc to same, 16 October 1734, p. 174. Later she notcd rhat Mrnc Hecquet had apparcntly been kept fram writing by a problem with her eyes. Vol. 4, same to samc, 35 Ocmbcr 1755, p. 55- Once, in 1758, shc noted simply that she understood that her correspondent liad no1 writtcn the prcvious ycar bccausc "vous ne le pouviez pas faire." Vol. 4, sarne to same, 20 October 1758, p. 115.

con~munications remaincd. The War had bcgun in Europe in 1740, but it was not until

1744 whcn both Britain and France had become involved that the War spread to the

colonies. That year, communications may have k e n somewhat d i ~ n t ~ t e d , " ~ but it was

the ncxt year, 1745, that the real trouble began. Many merchants, according to James

Pritchard, simply did not prcpare vessels for the colony that year and, he reports, many

others ncver left rance.'" On 12 October 1745, the merchant Pierre Guy of Montreal

wrotc to lean Vcyssière of La Rochelle on matters of business cornplainhg that as yet no

vcsscls, and thus no news, had arrivcd from i~ Rochcllc. "Cela denange

Estraordinaircmcnt nos affaircs," hc cornn~cntcd.'" On 30 October Mère de Sainte-

HCllnc referrcd to "la privation ou nous sommes des nouvelles dc fiance." She explaincd

that as yct no vessels had arrived that ycar "ce qui ne s'est jamais vû en Canada depuis son

~tablissernent."'" On 4 Novcmber, her sister, Mère de l'Enfant-Jésus commented in a

lcttcr to Ferct, "nô avons kt6 cntièrcrn't priué des secours de la fiance nayant reçu quun

seul vaisseau dc St ma10 ...." Thc rcsult was a shortage of goods and a lack of news.IB

Thc colonists thcmsclvcs, according to Pritchard, having heard nothing from Europe,

prcparcd and scnt off tcn to twclve ships during the last thrcc months of the fall to the

Caribbcan and France. It may have becn by thcse vesscls that our corrcspondents

dcspatched thcir lett~rs."~

In subscqucnt ycars thc nurnbcr of vesscls lcaving Francc for Quebec would be

highcr than thcy had bccn in any prcvious ycar that ccntury with an average of cighteen

"Ylliirtecn vcssels wcrc uuifittcd ihar ycar t o c Canada. Priichard, "Ships, Men and Commerce," pp. 391, 3%; and also his, 'The Pattern of French Colonial Shipping to Canada Before 1760," Table 4: "Annual Numbcr and Known Tonnagc of Ships Fittcd out for Quebcc, 174-1760." It is not pcrfectly clear how many ultimately amvcd at Quebec. Priichard notes that the fleet sailcd very late that year with the result that sevcral mcrchantmcn sailcd earlier, indcpcndcntly, IO Canada. Three vesscls fiom Bordeaux were captured cn route. By the second wcck of JuIy only one vcssel had amvcd.

'Vrirchard, "Ships, Mcn and Commerce," pp. 393, 397 attributcs this to high insurance rates, the Crown's failure to provide naval wcons to proteci shipping, and serious losses off the French Coast that year.

'"University of Monireal, Baby Collection, U 5107, Montreal, Pierre Guy to Jean Veyssière, La Rochelle, 12 Ociohcr 1715.

' " " ~ ~ r e de Sainte-HdCnc," Vol. 3, MCrc dc Sainte-Hélitne to Mme Hecquet, 30 Octobcr 1745. p. 296.

'"Ibid., Vol. 4, Mère de L'Enfant-J&us to Ferei, 4 Novcmber 1715, pp. 43-49.

12'pritchard, "Ships, Men and Commerce," p. 397.

vessels leaving France cach year for Quebcc during the rest of the ~ a r . ' ~ However,

whilc thc nurnber of ships sailing to Quebcc and their volumes may have becn good news

in cconomic and military terms, it is evident, even more in this case than during the War

of the League of Augsburg, that this did not translate into improved communications. lo

thc spring of 1746, many of the vessels destined for the colony appear to have sailed

unusually carly. in early April, P.F.X. Charlevoix, cxplained to one of Mère de Sainte-

Hélène's regular correspondents, the Dieppe apothecary Feret, that his letten for Canada

might already be too latc "par la raison que les navires destines pour cette colonie n'etant

point partis l'année dernicrc, on avancc cettc anncc lc tcms ordinaire de leur depart, et

toutcs Ics lcttrcs dc dcux années partiront ensemble au Certainly letters did

rcach the colony that scason: for cxample, on 15 October, Pierrc Guy acknowledged the

rcccipt of a lctter fiom Jean Veyssièrc written on 20 ~ a r c h . ' ~ However, conespondents

in France had apparently expcrienccd difficulty despatching their letters. The La Rochelle

mcrchant, Jcan Vcyssièrc, complained in a letter to Guy written in 1747: "Le Roy fit

cspcdicr L'annéc drc dcs vcisscaux pour chez vous Dc divers ports dont nous nurne pas

Connoissancc ou Cachoit rncsn~c que i~ drcssc fut a Quebcc Sans doutte il Enferat

dcmesmc Cctte annce Cc qui Empeche Devous donner Dcs nouvcllc sy souvant que je Le

souhait te roi^."'^ More seriously, the flect itself did not leave France until quite late in

"~ritchard argues thai thc "shortagcs of 1745, although rcal, have been cmphasized at the expcnse of the ovcrall incrcase in irans occanic rraffic during the war." The annual volume of ship traffic from Bordeaux duririg four ycars from 1744 - 1738 had bcen surpassed only oncc bcfore in cightcenth century, in 1743. Priichard, "Ships, Men and Commcrcc," p. 390.

l Z 6 " ~ 5 r e dc Sainte-HéICne," Vol. 6, Charlevoix to Fcret. 12 April 1746, p. 54. According to Pritchard, ibid., p. 100, two vcssels had sailed liom France for Qucbec even earlier than these, during the winter of 173536, onc in mid-Novcmber which spent the wintcr in the West indies arriving in June and another, a srnall brigantine, la Pc-, which sailed in lanuary and arrivcd at Quebec on 23 April after pcrhaps thc carlicst crossing on record.

"'Ibid., U 51 10, Montrçal, Pierre Guy to Jean VeyssiSre, La Rochelle, 15 October 1746. On the arriva1 of the vcssels ihcmselves, Pritchard repons that thcrc wcre 300 sailors from Francc in the colony by that July. citing Co!. Cl 1A. L,Y/YXVI, L 25 1, Chaussegros dc Léry to Maurcps, Qucbcc, 13 November 1746, "Ships, Mcn and Conimcrce," p. 401.

12"bid., U 13,256, La Rochelle, Jcan Vcyssiére to Pierrc Guy, Monrrcal, 25 January 1717 and 20 April 1737.

the season and the vcssels that sailed with it did not reach Quebec until the late fall.'"

Thus Pierre Guy noted in the letter of mid-October cited above that the Canadians were

still waiting for the arriva1 of the fleet,'" and it was only in another letter, dated 18

Novcmber 1746 to the merchant housc Pascaud Frères of La Rochelle, that Guy announced

the amval of the vesse1 J,'andromède carrying their letters of 30 June 1745 and 15 May

1746 €rom France .13'

Thosc vessels that had arrived at Quebec earlier in the season of 1746 evidently

sailcd back to Francc that Ml , providing a chance for Canadians to send letters to

corrcspondcnts therc. Howcvcr, thc vcsscls that had amved in early November were ~ O O

latc to makc the rcturn voyage and wcrc forced to spend the winter at Quebec. Thus many

of the lcttcrs that Guy wrote in the fa11 of 1716 never left Canada. Looking back to that

timc he told one business corrcspondcnt in April 1747: "J'ai Eu L'honneur de vous faire

rcponsc par Les derniers navires Contant quils Partiroient mais Comme Ils ne sont arrivez

a qucbcc quau d o u x de novcmbrc Ils ont Eté obligez dhivemer par Rapport aux mauvais

tems.""' It is possiblc also that thc lctter Mère de Sainte-Hé1i.n~ wrote to Mme

Hccquet that fa11 did not rcach Francc that winter."' Thc vcssels which spent the winter

t i t Qucbec set sail carly in the spring of thc ncw year for France. Pierre Guy wrote a

number of busincss lcttcrs on 8 April 1747--months in advance of when he normally

lZ9Many of rhc rncrchant vc';scls desrincd for Qucbcc waitcd to sail in convoy with the ships of the line heading for Nonh America that summer. This cnnvoy did not sail until 22 June and then made very slow Iicaciway auoss thc Ailanric. ln mid-July, nine vessçls sailing with the convoy abandoned it and set course fur the Saint Lriwrencc alone. These ships, according IO Pritchard in his study of the convoy, "paid a siiff prict: for rhc naval cscort away from the English privateers infesting the French coast." See James S. . . Pritchard, An- of &val Disaster: 1746 m a i F- to (Montreal: McGiH-Quecn's University Press, 1995). p. 101.

lmBaby Coiicction, U 5110, Montreal, Pierre Guy to J. Veyssière, La Rochelle, 15 October 1746.

13'Ibid., U 51 12, Monireal, Guy to Pascaud Frères, La Rochelle, 18 November 1746.

1321bid.. U 51 17, Montrcal, Guy to M. [Hersant], Paris, 8 April 1737,

"'"Mcrc dc Sai~itc-HClènc," Merc de Sainte-HClCne to Mme Hecquet, Vol. 3, 10 November 1746, p. 298.

wrote lettcrs to his correspondents in ~rancc.'" Al1 the same, Guy's rcsponse to the

lcttcr from Pascaud Frères, wntten by them in June 1745 and received by him sometime in

November 1746, Likcly did not arrive in La Rochelle until mid-1747 at the eariicst, some

two or two-and-a-half years after the mailing of the initial letter. For Guy, who was

aIways urging his commercial correspondents in France to send him the latest news and

gazettes, such delays would have becn extraordinarily fnistrating.

In France during the spnng of 1747, correspondents remained concemed that

conimunications with Canada would still be awkward. Jean VeyssiLire of La Rochelle

worried that ships would once again be sent off quietly for unknown destinations with the

rcsult that corrcspondcnts would not bc able to take ûdvantagc of t h ~ r n . ' ~ ~ in the end,

howcktr, perhaps fiftcen mcrchantmcn reached the colony, some of which had sailed

scparatcly from the c o n ~ o ~ . ' ~ ~ The next ycar, the end of the War brought a "relative

flood of shipping" to Qucbec. In 1748, twenty-two merchant ships sailed to the colony

that year fiom France, more than half of them arriving before the end of luly."'

Corrcspondcnts appcar to havc found conditions much morc favourable: the complaints of

thc prcvious thrcc ycars had largcly comc to an end. Still, shipping may not have been

cornplctely back to normal. On 36 Novembcr 1738, Elisabeth Bégon noted, "Voila une

nou\.cautE: des barqucs qui amvent à présent ct qui, je crois, ont couru dcs nsqucs par les

11 138 C-

On 5 Dcccmbcr, shc notcd that Canadians still awaitcd the arrivai of a vesse1

from ~ordcriux .'" *

'"Sec, for csamplc, Baby Collcçrion, U 5115. Montrcal, Guy to M. Pascaud frères, La Rochelle. 8 April 1717; U 5116, Monireal, Guy io Jean Vcyssilrç, La Rochdlc, 8 April 1746; U 5117, Monireal, Guy to M. [Hersant], S April 1717.

13'1bid.. U 17,256, Jean Veyssière to ?, 25 January 1747 and 20 April 1747.

'36~riichard, "Ships, Mcn, and Comrnercc," p. 403.

'371bid., pp. 309-310. Thiny-iivr: vesscis, including colonial vesscls, sailcd up the Saint Lawrence

138 Ufgon, Lcttrcs au r u , 26 November 1718, p. 38.

139 Ibid., 5 Dcccmber 1718, p. 12.

Communications would function far more effectively through the 1 s t remaining

dccade of the French regime than they had in the pervious one, even though France was

again at war in its final years. Vçssels set sail in higher numbers £rom France for the

colony during the 1750s than they ever had before.'" in France, Mme Begon recordcd

the arriva1 of an astonishing numbcr of vessels from Canada in the fa11 and eariy winter of

1752 bearing 1etters.l4' Between 1750 and 1754 an average of twenty-five ships sailed

each year, and this rose to forty in subsequent years.'" For much of the 1750s

correspondcnts can rarely have been wanting for an opportunity to despatch their lettcrs.

On 21 May 1753 l'abbé de L'Isle-Dieu commented to Mgr Pontbriand, Bishop of Quebec,

"l'a) l'honneur dc vous ecrire prcsqu'aussy souvent que si nous n'etions pas separés par des

espaces in~mcnccs"'~' and while this handily ignored the seasonal limits on transatiantic

communications it undoubtedly reflects the impact of the cnormous number of vessels

crossing the Atlantic. Even once the colony was at war, conespondents would still have

bcncfitcd from the numbcr of vessels sailing fiorn France, most of which rcached Quebec

safely dcspite the fact that they sailcd without a naval escort.'"

Still, oncc war broke out, communications were subject to the kind of disruption

thcy rarcly cxpcrienccd in pcacctime. In 1756 one correspondent refcmd to "les risques

cvidcnte que courent nos vaisseaux," commenting that "[ils] partent a la dcrobée comme

des voleurs." Evcn so, howcvcr, the numbcr of vcsscis allowed this particular

corrcspondcnt to scnd off four copies of his lett~r.'~' Vessels still tendcd to sail together

for niutüai protection and this too could affect communications. In May 1758, for

'"Sec Pritchard, "Ships, Men, and Commerce," Table XVII: "Ship Movemcnts bctwecn France and Uucbcc, 175-1760,'' which providcs ihe following shipping statistics: 1755 - 15 vessels, 1756 - 21, 1757 - 55. and 1758 - 56.

'"Sce, for cxample, Bégon, -, 8 Novcmbcr 1752, pp. 308-309.

, VoI. 1, Plate 38, "European Shipping to Quebcc, 1630-1789."

'J3"Leitrcs et mémoires dç L'abbk de L'Isle-Dicu," m, 1935-36, 1936-37, i'abbé de L'Isle-Dieu to Mgr Pontbriand, 21 May 1753, p. 401. Hc completcd his observation by saying, "mais c'est cela même qui me fait profitcr dc touics les occasions qui s'enprcsentent ..."

"%khard, "Ships, Mcn, and Cammcrcç," p. 131.

'"AsQ, Album Vcrrçau 3. no. 15, Paris, M. de Lacorne to [?], 18 April 1756.

csamplc, Pierre Meynardie, a merchant trader at Quebec, complained to Etieme Augé, a

fcllow mcrchant at Montreal, that he had rcceived only one letter as yet from his House in

Bordeaux dcspite the considerable number of vessels which had arrived from there. Al1

thc Bordeaux boais, Meynardie explained, had been rcady to leave at virtually the same

timc which, he judged, would have made it difficult to write by many of them? At the

sarne time, conternporaries clearly thought the risks of communications considerable.'"

Mère de Sainte-Hélène complained in 1758 that she had not received a letter from Mme

Hccquct the previous ycnr but had only heard news indirectly, and that this year she had

hcard nothing either way. Shc addcd, howevcr, "en sortc que je suis fort en pein de vous,

jc nc vous accuse pas cependant de ne m'avoir pas ecrit, car il y a eû tant de nos vaisseaux

pris que cela nous a pnvcr de beaucoup de secours qu'on attendoit de la France et des

lcttrcs de nos Thus, whereas in peacetime Mère de Sainte-Hélène had

gcncrally blamcd Mme Hecquet whcn no letters amvcd Eiom France, in the late 1750s she

was clcar that in this instance it was not her friend's failure to wnte but wartime conditions

that had intcmptcd their correspondcnce. 8

Historians have tcndcd to paint a picture of thc conditions of communications in

Ncw Francc as csscntially static and limited. Instead, as this chapter has shown, conditions

for communications fluctuatcd cnormously through thc Frcnch Regimc, and although

opportunitics for communications were limitcd and even scriously constrained in some

.cars, in many othcrs thcy werc more than adequatc to mcct the cxpectations of Canadian

corrcspondcnts.

How well shipping scrved letter-writers dcpcnded in part upon the number of ships

that travcllcd to thc colony but, cvcn more importantly, upon the timing and spacing of

vcsscl amvals and dcparturcs. For most corrcspondcnts, a good ycar was one in which

thcy rcccivcd somc of thcir lctters carly, and none late, and in which the season was as

''"13aby Collection, U 8506, Meynardie IO Augé, 27 May 1758.

'"As WC will see in Chapter 3, thruughour the war, correspondcnts sent not only duplicates, but also triplicates and quadruplicatcs of thcir lettcrs IO ensure their safeîy.

"'"'~ihe Je Sainte-Htilène," Vol. 3, Mère de Sainte-Hélène to Mme Hccquet, 20 October 1758, p. 115.

long as possible, giving them the maximum timc in which to preparc their responses.

Bcyond this, many correspondents also hoped that the shipping would be well spread out

making it possible for thcm both to receive and to send a series of letters through the

scason. Significantly, correspondents differed in how much emphasis they placed on king

able to scnd and to rcceive the latest nçws. At the same time, correspondents adopted

diffcrent patterns of correspondencc depending upon who they were writing to. While

many wcre often content to wnte some or al1 of thcir rccipients once a year, sorne

commonly wrote a scrics of lctters each season to particularly iinportant correspondents.

Thcsc lctters formed a distinctive pattcrn of corrcspondcncc in which a conversation

progrcsscd in blocks rathcr than as a simple back-and-forth exchange. Correspondents

could do much to make the bcst use of thc opportunities availablc to them and indeed

contcmporaries were clear that the ultimatc responsibility for how well the mails

functioncd rcstcd with the individual lettcr-writcr cxccpt in wartime. Not al1

corrcspondents, howcvcr, acted in ways that maximized either how carly or how often their

lcttcrs could bc scnt. In particular, WC have seen that royal officiais adopted policies and

bchaviours that limitcd the opportunities available to them. Thcir cxamplc underlines the

fact that wc cannot ncccssarily gcncralize from the expericnce of individual correspondents

or groups of correspondents whcn attcmpting to assess thc effectiveness of the mails.

How wcll conditions for communications met thc expectations of correspondents

varicd considcrably frorn ycar to ycar. Broadly spcaking, communications wcrc rnost

consistcntly limited from the 1640s through thc end of the 1670s; seriously dismpted at

timcs during the War of thc Lcaguc of Augsburg and the War of the Spanish Succession;

and perhaps the poorcst cvcr bctwcen 1745 and 1747. Howcvcr, even during Mark de

l'Incarnation's Iifctime in thc mid-scvcntcenth Ccntury, whcn the number of ships sailing

to Qucbcc was lowcst and thc scason was oficn particularly short, therc wcre still years

whcn she was able to correspond quite cffcctivcly. During the 1680s, fiom the 1720s to

mid-1740s, and again dunng the 1750s, communications worked very wcll when assessed

against the cxpcctations of contcmporaries. Lcttcr-writcrs complaincd loudly when

cornniunications wcrc poor, but significantly, thcy wcre silcnt at othcr timcs. It is

important that wc apprcciate thcir cornplaints for what thcy wcrc: expressions of real

86

dissatisfaction with specific conditions in a particular year and not general indictments of

the opportunities for transatlantic communications in general.

CHAPTER 3 " Ce qu'on confie à la mer est sujet au hasard: "

Confronting the Risks of Communications

Throughout the French rcgime one of the most senous problems facing

correspondcnts was the danger that thcir letters would be lost. Contemporary

correspondence contains numerous refcrences to lctters that had gone astray. The hazards

of ocean travel put the lcttcrs vcsscls carricd at risk. As Marie de l'incarnation observed

soon aher her amval at Quebcc, "Cc qu'on confie à la mer est sujet au hasard," "tous les

ans cc qu'on nous apporte et ce qui repasse en France court la même risque."' in

addition, sçparate from the dangers which beset the vessels themselves, letters were

vulnerable to bcing misplaced, lost, or misdelivered. The possibility that letters might be

lost was always a conccrn, heightencd at times when the dangers of Atlantic travel were

particularly grcat. In this sense, the riskincss of communications was one of the factors

that contributed to the distinction bctwccn "good" and "bad" seasons discussed in the

prc\pious chapter.

Thc vulncrability of the carly mails has clcarly capturcd the imagination of many

scholars, and is giwn a promincnt place in cvcn the most cursory descriptions of French

rcgimc communications. It is also cvidently an important factor contributing to the

common pcrccption of the wcakness of transatlantic c o m m u n i c a t i o n s . ~ i s chapter looks

closely at the dangers which lctters faccd and cvaluatcs their impact on correspondcncc.

Corrcspondcnts attemptcd to protect thcir lettcrs against loss; but although the careful

1- 'j Ilncdrnation, l . Marie de l'incarnation to her son, 30 September 1643, p. 199; and Marie de l'Incarnation to hcr son, 1 Septembcr 1613, p. 183.

1 - ' sec . for çsample, the passage in Franqoise Dtxoy-Pineau, 9 c de la Nouvelle-Fra= 1599-L622 (Paris: Editions Robcn Laifont, 1989), p. 67. See also Moogk,

"Rcluctant Exiles," pp. 466-67; and Magnuson, Education in New F- . . , p. 108.

management of their correspondence helped to limit the number of letters that went astray,

communications were still risky. This chapter argues, however, that the l o s of individual

Iettcrs, whilc an inconvcnicnce, was not as serious for contemporanes as we might expect.

Correspondcnts had adopted convent ions and practices of letter writing that helped to

protect them against the loss of a portion of their letters in any season. As long as some

of what they had written amved, the recipients of their correspondence would be

comparatively wsll scrved. Thus, the fact that communications werc nsky did not

seriously limit the ability of Our correspondents to communicate in most years. *

Contcmporary accounts of ocean travel often tell hanowing tales of tiny vessels and

their crews battling their way across an unkind sea, bcsct by unfavourable winds, tempests,

rocks and enemy vessels, only to arrive, as the teller of the tale would have it, by the grace

of God on thc other sidc of the ocean.' Ian Steele has suggested, in rcference to similar

accounts of crossings made by travellers to Colonial America, that such descriptions may

owc as much to thc conventions of this gcnrc of writing and the background and purpose

of thcir authors as they do to thc objective circumstances of ocean travel itself. He

challcngcs thc iniagc of the pcrilous ocean, arguing that conditions in the English Atlantic

wcrc less hazardous than these descriptions suggest, and that they gradually improvcd

rhrough the first half of thc cightecnth c ~ n t u r ~ . ~ We nced to exercisc similar caution in

respect to accounts of conditions in the French Atlantic. In particular, we must rccognize

that, cven in wartimc, niany ships crossed the ocean relatively uneventfully and that many

sailors, ships captains, nicrchants, and others made the joumey from Rance to Canada year

aftcr ycar. Conditions on board ship could bc extremely uncornfortable--particularly for

'For Maric dc YIncamation's description of ihe occan crossing see ibid., Marie de I'hcarnation to one of l x r broihcrs, 1 Scptcmbcr 1639, p. 88. Sce alsu, Thwaitcs, "Lcttcr from Father Jean Enjalran, Sillcry, Ocrobcr 13, 1676," Vol. 60, pp. 105-108; P k e Pierre-François-Xavicr Charlevoix,

u v c l l e , 3 Vols. (Paris: Giffart, 1744), Vol. 3, pp. 47-80.

'Sec Ian Siecle, m, pp. 11-16.

passengers--and journeys could be long, but this did not mean that every vesse1 was in

imminent peril during an Atlantic voyage.'

While we must be cautious in accepting the most extreme portrayals of the ocean

as a treacherous expansc which could consume anything set adrift on its surface, ocean

travel still involved rcal risks. Of these, natural hazards posed the greatest threat to

shipping throughout the French regime. indeed, James Pritchard has shown that even

during the Wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession, more vessels

wcrc lost duc to shipwrcck than to any other cause.6 In the Atlantic, vessels couid face

hi& winds and violcnt storms which became particularly ferocious as fa11 gave way to

wintcr.' Ships could bc lost at sca, or could run aground off the coast. In 1701, for

cxamplc, la Villemari_e was wreckcd whcn it struck a rock just off the Breton coast;

similarly, Ic Chameau, a ship which travelled ycariy between Rochefort and Quebec, was

lost in 1725 just off Ile Royale as a result of poor ~ e a t h e r . ~ Conditions in the Saint

Lawrcncc wcrc especially perilous. Thcre, vcsscls had to contcnd with unknown and

hiddcn rocks, shifting currcnts and shoals, and dcnse fog banks. Over the years many

\-csscls wcrc rcported lost in the river, especially near the scason's end when worsening

weathcr madc conditions particularly dangerous? In late October 1665, Marie de

'An important distinction must be made between unpicasant conditions and rcal p r i i when we talk of the risks of communications. For conditions on board see Pritchard, "Ships, Men and Commerce," p. 31; Gilles I'rouls, Ue~wccn . FTcincc ., , N ew F m , pp. 100-128. Proulx, p. 130, quota a French naval captain, AN, Marine, ?JJ, 11-6, log-book of thc François, 1716, as saying that the joumey to Canada was a particularly difiiculr one, bui suggests in an argument similar IO the one hcre that this did not stop contemporanes from makiriç the journey ofren. Sct: similarly, Miquelon, of Rouen, pp. 51-55.

6~ritchard, "Ships, Men, and Commcrcc," p. -58.

'';cc K. Banks, "Conununicarions and Impcrial Absolutism" p. 33, and in particular pp. 66-74 on the fate of a vcsscl, le, sent to Qucbec with ncws of thc Pcace of Utrccht in latc July 1713 from La Rochelle, which returned to Brest aimost two months latcr having bcen demasted. His reference is C11& Vol. 36, ff, 198-09, [Deposition ofj Sr. Faures Grivollière [sic], 1716.

"ce, for exaniple, ASQ, Lettres Canon O, no. 33, Tremblay to M. de Bernières, 28 May 1701, in which Trcmblay obscrvcd: "Je crois n'avoir receu de vous Monsieur qu'une petite icitrc par deux voies differentes de [rilis pagcs sculcmi jc ne scay si1 scn ut perdu dans la Villcmarie." For its fate and that of le see

. . . Hoshcr, and the , , under the name of -ch ship. On the loss of le, see also Pritchard, "Sliips, Men, and Commcrce," p. 30.

vOn conditions in thc Saint Lawrcncc see Pritchard, "Ships, Men, and Cornmcrce," pp. 32-37; Proulx, Dciw-~ . .. jrid . Ncw F rrincc, pp. 59-7 1 ; Banks, "Communications and Imperia1 Absolutisin," pp. 83-85. In 1757, Louis-Antoine dc Bougainville observed of the Saini Lawrence that "Lcs écueils dont ce fleuve est

IIIncamation wrote what she observed would be the fifth letter Claude would receive from

hcr that scason if a11 hcr lctters arrived safely, but obscrved, "je suis fort en doute que le

grand nombre que j'ay écrites cn diverses villes de France y soient arrivées, parce que le

Vice-Admiral de la flotte du Roy où étoient nos plus considérables réponses, et les papiers

de nos plus importantes affaires, a fait naufrage à deux cens lieues d ' i ~ i . " ' ~ Similarly, in

October 1729, Mère de Sainte-Hélène reported, "Le vaisseaux du Roy qui a peri cette

annCe a 8 ou 9 lieues de Québec m'a fait perdre plusieurs lettres qui mettoient cheres.""

Wc lack the data ncccssary to trace how the nsk of shipwreck may have changed

ovcr t imc It is possiblc that fcwcr ships pcrishcd in the Saint Lawrence as the French

rcginic progrcsscd. Work was donc to improve conditions in thc Saint Lawrence: the

French charted thc ~ V C T in thc latc scvcntccnth ccntury and into the ncxt; placcd markers

to hclp guide approaching vcsscls; and providcd pilots familiar with local conditions whom

wptains could take on board as thcy entered the Only a portion of the ships that

ran into trouble in the Saint Lawrcncc did so as a result of human crror, however, with the

rcsult that thcsc mcasures would have had only a limitcd impact on vessel los se^.'^

Through the end of cightccnth cçntury the Saint Lawrcncc remained a treacherous route.

So too did the Atlantic.

Thc othcr hazard that vcsscls faced was the danger of being attackcd by other

shipping. Marie dc l'incarnation worricd in 1643 that her letters would bc lost if the ship

rcnipli, sa navigation, la plus darigereusc: ci la plus difficile qu'il y ait, font le meilleur rempart de Québec." dc ihugainvillc, Ec.rirs . sur - IL Canada, "Journal dc IqespCdition d'Amcrique commcnc6e en I'année 1756, le 15 mars," 26 Seprember 1756, p. 261. On rhe limited siate of knowledge of the waters of the east Coast as a wholc scc Pritchard. "French Chaning of the East Coast uf Canada."

"M;u-ic: dc Marie dc l'Incarnation to her son, 29 Octobcr 1665, p. 758. Thc vessel had k e n smashcd on the rocks but al1 aboard save onc sailor tiad been savcd and much of the luggage had been salvagcd. "ce qui me laisse quelque cspérence que nos lettres et nos mémoires auront échappé du naufrage."

èr ère de Sainte-HélCnc," Vol. 3, Mèrc de Sainte-Hélène to Mme Hecquet, 28 Octobçr 1729, pp. 37- 48.

"On ihcse chringes set: Pritchard, "French Charting of the East Coast of Canada"; and Proulx, "Bctween Frarice and Ncw France," pp. 76-80.

13Proulx notcs that shipwrcçks in ihe çntrancc to ihe river tended to be caused by weather whiie those closcr to Qucbec city wcrt: caused by human crror. Bctween Fand, h. 22, p. 159.

carrying them was seized by pirates.14 Far more significant was the threat n o m enemy

~ ~ c ~ s e l s . ' ~ During the War of the Spanish Succcssion, for example, Henri-Jean Tremblay

reportcd the loss of much correspondence as a result of the capture of the vessels carrying

i t . l b This danger fluctuated considerably over the French regime. Contcmporary ietters

rcflect particularly grave risks during the War of the Austnan Succession, at the beginning

of thc War of the League of Augsburg, and again just before the Conquest when

correspondence seems to have been particularly disrupted.

Technically, when a ship was capturcd, any letters it carried were supposed to be

tumcd ovcr to thcir intcndcd recipicnts. Thus, for instance, in rcsponsc to cornplaints by

the English and Dutch over capturcd lettcrs, thc French King urged merchants to follow

"lcs bonnes lois dc la guerre" and to dclivcr any letters which had no bearing on the

vcsscl's capture to thcir dcstination.'' This was a rule that was cvidcntly not followed

closcly by cithcr sidc during many conflicts. Mcrchants rcpcatcdly sought assistance in

sccuring thc restitution of seized 1ctters.l8 Correspondents seem also to have held out

littlc hope whcn the vcsscl carrying their lcttcrs was capturcd that their lcttcrs would

cvcntually resurface.lg indced, pcrhaps thc bcst evidencc of how unlikely it was for

lcttcrs to bc dclivcrcd to their rightful destination is how many private French letters

sunwive today in thc British pnzc court records in the British Archives, filcd along with the

l'incarnation, Maric de l'Incarnation to her son, 30 Scptcmbcr 1633, pp. 199-203. On the csistcncc of pirates sec Gillcs Prouls, Bctwc-, p. 71.

15Sce Maric: de l'lncarnaiiuri, Marie de l'Incarnation to one of her brothers, 4 Sept 1630, pp. 112-13. See similarly, ASQ, Lettres Carton N, no. 101, Trembiay IO Laval, 10 May 1695.

I b Sce for csamplc, ASQ, ktt rcs Carton O, no. 12, Tremblay to M. GIandeIct, 4 April 1705.

17 Sec AD. Loire-Inferieur, C 649 (Chambrc de Commcrce de Nantes, carton, Liasse 6, Lettre de la marine aux négociants de La Rochelle, 11 January 1708, cité dans une Iettre des négoicants de La Rochelle de 1733), quoted in Vailié, m e G c . . , Vol. 5, p. 518. Vailié's discussion of the samc mattcr in Vol. 6, p. 625, fn. 1 is more confusing.

'%ce, for cxarnple, NAC, MG 6 817 fi, Chambrc de Commcrcc de Bayonnc, B5 Deliberations, F-860, 9 Sepicniber 1744. pp. 589-90.

"ASU, Lcttrcs Canon O, no. 7. Trcmblay to M. Glandclet. 21 May 1695.

records pertaining to the ownership and capture of the French vcssel that had camied

them? Other letters were simply thrown overboard to avoid their falling into enemy

hands when a vesse1 was captured. This happened in particular to official correspondence.

In Iatc A p d 1690, Governor Frontenac explained to the Minister that,

L'apprehcnsion que j'ai eue que ce bâtiment pût etre rencontré en mer par Les ennemis et qu'ils interceptassent les dépêches, m'a obligé d'en charger un officier aux ordres d'y attacher du plomb et de les jeter à la mer en cas qu'il fut pressé; s'il n'est pas assez heureux pour vous les remettre entre les mains, il pourra au moins vous informer de l'extriime besoin que nous avons de farines et autres munitions et vous rendre compte de l'état où il a laissé ici toutes choses."

Frontenac's fear that the despatches might not make the crossing safely were proven

rcasonablc. In a lettcr wntten 12 November 1690 enclosing a copy of the original

dcspatches, Frontenac observed that he believed "le Sr de Simonet" had k e n obliged that

summcr to dcliver a verbal description of conditions in Canada to the Court, the despatches

he had bccn carrying having becn thrown overboard." This was not a problem for

govemmcnt alone. Private letters could also be thrown overboard. In late June 1696,

Thierry Beschefer, a Jesuit in Paris, informcd Cabart de Villermont,

On me mande Monsieur quil est arrivé le 24e a la Rochelle une barque de Kebec qui ayant cestre> rencontrée a la hautteur de bclle-Isle par deux Capres a este pillé Cr puis rclacshéc. Celuy qui la cornmandoit se voiant sur le point destre pris, . i.

jetta a la nicr lcs depesches quil avoit pour la Cour et les lettres des particuliercs pour nc pas donner aux enncmys connaissance du mauvois estat ou est le canada."

Lctters faccd othcr risks indepcndcnt of the faie of the vcssel that canied them. At

Qucbcc, coloiiists complained that letters amving on vessels fiom overseas were often lost

through people going out to the ships as they entered the port and picking up not only

"Public Record Office, London England, High Coun of Admiralty, Prize Papers and intercepted Letters, HCX 30 and HCA 33.

21 88 Concspondance cchangée entre la cour de France et le gouverneur de Frontenac," Frontenac au Ministre, 30 April 1690, p. 31.

*~bid., Frontenac au Ministre, 12 Novcrnbcr 1690, p. 36. See sirnilarly, "Memoire du Roi à hih+¶.de Vaudreuil et Raudot," Marly, 10 May 1710, p. 371, which reportcd that iheir despatch to the King of the prcvious ycar had not arrived: "lc navire la ayant été pris par Ics ennemis, le capitaine a jetté tous Ics paquets à la mer ...."

"ANQ, P272, Caban de Villcmont, Correspondance, Paris, Thicrry Beschefer to M. de Villermont, 21 Junc [ 1 fi96:'], [my emphasis].

thcir own lettcrs but thosc addresscd to others. These, eithcr through forgetfulness or

malicious intent, were oftcn nevcr delivered. The intendant observed that this practice

caused much inconvenience and even harm to the af3airs of the intended recipients of the

letters, as "ce qui les interceptent et qui leurs en derobent la comaiss'ce profitent des avis

qui vcnoicnt aux particuliers pour en arranger leurs affaires."24 In France, letters

similarly wcnt astray. In 1737, for example, the Chamber of Commerce at Nantes noted

that it had received complaints from merchants about the secunty of their letters. in

rcsponsc, it rcrnindcd its agent, M. Sauvagot, who had been charged with tne responsibility

of distributing incorning letters, "de n'en délivrer aucune à qui que ce soit, que

premièrement il ne les ait toutes arrangées dans les boites qu'il a fait faire à cet effet, et

encore de ne les delivrer qu'en mains propres des personnes à qui elles sont adressées ou à

leur conmis. "'5

Corrcspondcnts werc also certain that some lettcrs were lost through the simple

carcIessness of thosc to whom thcy had bcen cntrusted. In particular, it is evident that

mcrchants could not always be dcpcnded upon to deliver lcttcrs reliably."

Correspondents distinguished clcarly betwecn d i a b l e opportunities and those that were not

as certain. On 14 August 1693, for example, Govcmor Frontenac commented "l'occasion

dc cc pctit vaisscau qui après avoir chargé quelque poisson qui se fait au bas de nostre

ri~.icrc, doit allcr en droiture cn France, me paraoist sy peu scur que j'ay balancé à me

scrvirc de cette voyc pour rnc donner l'honneur de vous cscrire."" In the end he did send

a lcttcr by this vcsscl.

"NAC, MG 8 A6, Docuaents relatifs a la NouveUc France et au Quebec, Ordinanccs des Intendants, Tra~iscriprions, Vol. II . M-3145, Dupuy, 21 Junc 1727, "Ordonnance au Sujet des Lettres et Missives ad1 esscr a la Colonie." Thc hct that anorhcr ordonnance clcarly addressed the sarne problem 5 years later suggcsrs rhai thc problem w u signiiïcant and enduring. Sec, d s o Vol. II, Reel C-13589, Hocquart, 20 July 1732, pp. 348-52, "Ordonnance au sujet des lettres qui vicnnent de France."

=La Chambre dr: commerce de Nanrcs dans son Assemblée du 12 avril 1737, quoted in Vaillé, Histoire . . - -, Vol. 5, p. 519-

"Sec, for exarnple, ASQ, Lettres Carton N, no. 90, Laval to M. de Brisacier, 1688.

27"Corrcspondance cchangéc cnire la cour de France et le gouverneur de Frontcnac," Frontenac au Ministre, 13 August 1693, p. 151.

Bcyond the nsk that their letters could be lost, letters confronted the danger that

they could be tampcred with. In 1688, Laval complained that M de Brisacier's ietters of

Junc and Iuly had been clearly opened and apparently read before king delivered." In

1695 the same was suspected again. Tremblay reported that Iaval's letters had been

delivered but that they "estoit couverte d'une envelope autre que de vre main, on ne la pas

reconnue estrc de vous." He sent the envelope so that Laval could judge whether or not it

was the original." 8

In the face of the rcal nsks of communications, corrcspondents did what they could

to cnsure the prompt and secure transmission of every letter. In doing so, they served as

active agents in the proccss of communications.

Abovc al], corrcspondents sought the most reliable opportunities for their letters.

Thus, for instance, Maric dc l'incarnation obscrved that shc prefemd to scnd hcr Ictters

"par Ifadmirale comme estant la voyc la plus score ..."" and in the same vein she

suggcstcd that her son Ctaudc scnd his own lcttcrs by "la voyc dc nos révérendes Mères de

Paris" as the surcst route.3' Ln particular, corrcspondcnts put their faith in strong vessels,

ships sailing in convoy, travclkrs of known reputation, trustworthy merchants, and agents

with a good track record. Thcy only scnt M e r s by an opportunity they considered risky

eithcr whcn they had no other opportunity or whcn the occasion provided a casual chance

to supplcrncnt the lcttcrs thcy had already scnt. For cxamplc, early in 1651 Mane de

l'Incarnation scnt Icttcrs both with le Père Druillcttes through Ncw England and by the

fishcry at Gaspf. Shc acknowlcdgcd, "J'estimc ces deux voycs incertaines, parce qu'il se

faut servirc dc quelques particulicrs, qui venant ici avec des canots détachez de leurs

grands navircs, sont obligez dc passcr par des pCrils évidcns, et avec eux les paquets dont

ils sont les p o r t ~ u r s . " ~ ~ Despite the unccrtainty which came from depcnding upon

' Ib id . , Lctrres Carruii N, nu. 105, Trcmblay to Laval, 6 April 1695.

33 - . 3 ' . Marit, Marie de l'Incarnation to her son, 2 August 1644, p. 206.

3'Ibid., Marie de L'Incarnation to her son, Summer 1647, pp. 316-22.

I'lncarnation, Marie de 1'Incamation to her son, 3 September 1651, p. 412.

95

individuai carriers who, with the lcttcrs thcy carried, werc cxposed to enormous risks, she

dcspatched her letters by these nvo opportunitics that year, lacking an alternative by the

more securc route by the shipping at Quebec.

Seasoned correspondents did what they could to structure their correspondence in

ways that would help ensure its safe delivery. Thus, for instance, Bishop Iaval

rccommended in 1688 that letters to him be addressed "Au pere superieur des missions de

la compagnie jesus a qucbcc," commcnting that "il ny a point de navire ny de marchands

qui nc lcur <Renldo fidellern~nt."~~ In addition, correspondcnts kept careful track of

how rcliablc particular routes wcre and adjusted their arrangements accordingly. Thus, for

cxample, in the carly 1660s Marie de l'incarnation began a correspondence with a group of

Ursulines at Mons, in what is now ~ e l ~ i u r n . ~ lnitially, they exchanged letters with the

hclp of a Belgian priest and his brother who was a Jcsuit at ~ u c b e c . ~ ' But this

arrangement did not always work tcrribly well, nor did othcrs that they tried. in 1670

Maric dc l'incarnation suggestcd that, in case thcy wished to wnte again, she had ananged

a sccurc route,

par lc moyen dc Monsieur Talon, intendant pour le roy en la Nouvelle-France. Il a cu de grande commissions en Flandre et au Qienois par sa Majesté; il a bien des intelligences en ces Pays-Bas. 11 m'a dit qu'il a esté en vostre maison et qu'il y a deux dcs filles d'un dc scs amis; il m'a promis dc vous faire tenir mcs lestres, ct dc vous envoyer une adresse pour les réponces?

Corrcspondents took sensible stcps to prcvcnt their letters being tampered with:

thcy simply stopped sending lcttcrs via thosc they found they couId not trust, and sought

out othcrs on whom thcy Mt thcy would bc ablc to depcnd. Aftcr the incident in 1688

whcn Laval suspcctcd the pcrson to whom his letters had bcen entrusted of opening them,

3 3 ~ ~ Q , Lettres Carton N, no. 90, Laval to M. dc Brisacier, 1688.

%sec , 1 , Marie de l'Incarnation to Mère Marie-Aiexis Boschet, Superieure Ursulines dc M m s 20 October 1663, pp. 718-20. This letter convcys the impression that this was iiriic rhcy had ccirrcsponded.

fS~bid.. Maric de I'Incaniarion to MCrc CCcile dc S. Joseph, Supiirieurc des Ursulincs de Mons, 1669, pp. 851-56.

des the first

1 October

"~bid., Mark de I'incarnaiiun io Mère Cecile de S. Joscph des Ursulines de Mons, 12 September 1670, p. 882. According to Dom Guy Oury, h. 2, p. 885, Le Qicnois is "Le Quesnoy, actuellement département du Nord, arrondissement de Liilc."

La\.al commentcd to de Brisacicr: "Je ne sais pas ce qui vous avoit obligé De Luy adresser

ce pacquet je vous prie de ne plus faire parce que cela a un mauvais effect tirant des

consequences qui tendent toutes a des fins qu'il se propose." He recommended instead that

his letters be addressed "aux peres jesuittes de quebec qui nous les Rendront

ponctuellement et avec soin."37

Correspondents also sought help to improve the security of their mails. The rcasoa

that we know that letters arriving at Quebec on ships fiom France were sometimes lost in

the chaos of colonists going out to the vesscls to retrieve their own correspondence is

because thc merchants ar Quebcc complained about it to the intendant. in response, he

passed ordinances in both 1727 and 1732 that forbade colonists from going out to the

vessels in the harbour below Quebec until the letters they camed had been disembarked?

Similarly, in France, merchants often worked together to improve the security of the mails

in wartimc. For example, in Septembcr 1744 the Chambcr of Commcrcc of Bayonne

noted in the dclibcrations of its proceedings that it had received a mcmoire from the

Chambcr of Cornmercc of La RocheIlc "au sujct des papicrs de I'Amerique qui SC trouve

sur les Vaisseaux pris par nos Enncmis pour en demander dc la restitution." The Chamber

noted that their Deputy had been chargcd to arrange for the greatcr sccurity of Navigation

and also "de faire Ics plus fortes instances pour la restitution des papiers qui seront trouvez

dans les vaisseaux kançois qui auront les malheurs de tomber cntrc les mains des anglois

voyez leur lettres a fo. 451 et 4 ~ 5 . " ~ ~

''ASQ, Lenrcs N, no. 90, Laval to M. dc Brisascier, 1688. The previous year he had commented "fa Caisse des Jesuircs est la voyr la plus scure." ASQ, krrrcs Carton O, no. 31, Dudouyt IO M. de Maizerets, 17 Apnl 1687. Sce, similarly ASQ, Lettres Carton N, no. 106, Tremblay to Laval, 8, 14 June 1696.

3s NAC, MG 8 A6, Documents relatifs a la Nouvelle France et au Qucbec, Ordonnances des Intendants, Transcriptions, Vol. II, M-8135, Dupuy, 21 June 1727, "Ordonnance au Sujet des Lettres et Missives adrcsscr à la Colonie;" and Vol. II, Rccl C-13,589, Hocquart, 20 July 1732, pp. 38-52, "Ordomancc au sujet dcs Icttrcs qui viennent dc France." The ordinance of 1732 explicitly refers to the cornplaints made by ~ncrchants. Thar of 1727 rcfcrs simply lo "les reprcsentations qui nous éié faites."

W N ~ ~ , MG 6 B17 fr. Chambre dc Comrncrce de Bayonne, B5 Delibrrations, F-860, 9 September 1744, pp. 589-90. Scç, for anorher esample, NAC. MG 1 S e n a FLIB, Comrncrce aux Colonies, F-1221, Dossier 1756 - Assuranccs, 24 June 1756, La Rochelle. This is a case in which La Rochelle complained about a dclay in the dclivery of letters from a vase l reccntly arrived from Louisbourg.

While contemporaries could limit the number of their letters that went astray,

nothing could perfectly ensure that their letters would arrive safely in a timeiy manner. It

was a simple fact of life that letiers were l o s t - Ln 1651 a great many of Marie de

l'Incarnation's letters for France were lost when one ship was taken by the English just off

the Coast of La Rochelle, and another disappeared en route. The next fa11 she reported the

loss with somc rcsignation, observing "Mais que faire à cela? Ce sont des coups ausquels

nous ne sçaurions parer que par notre acquiescement aux volentez divines. Cest-là le

rcmkdc à tous nos maux ... 1141

*

This being said, howcver, correspondcnts did not simply throw their letters upon the

Atlantic in the earnest hope some might arrive at their destination. As Mark de

l'Incarnation very quickly realizcd, though everything set adrift on the ocean was indeed

vulnerable, there wcre steps that individual correspondents could take to improve the

chancc that the bulk of their ncws would rerich its destination. Correspondents adopted

tactics which mitigatcd the impact of the uncertainty of communications. in particular,

thcy dcvcloped convcntions of corrcspondencc that decrcased their reliance on any one

Icttcr. Marie dc l'Incarnation's lcttcrs rcvcal hcr gradually formulating, or becoming

farniliar with, thcse rulcs and convcntions of communications and passing her insight on to

othcrs.

First, as Maric dc l'incarnation frequently rcminded hcr correspondents, it was best

to write more than one lettcr to cach corrcspondcnt every y ~ a r . ' ~ This was the habitua1

practicc of most of our corrcspondcnts: on 25 April 1752, for example, l'abbé de L'Isle-

Dieu bcgan o letter to Mgr Pontbriand of Qucbcc which, hc announccd, was, "la quatrième

1' . -, Marie de l'Incarnation ro Mère Marie-Giiierte Roland, Religieuse de la Visitation dc Tours, 10 Octobcr 1638, p. 352. For other instances whcn she reports the loss of letters see Marie de l'incarnation to hcr son, 30 Septembcr 1613, pp. 199-203; Marie de l'Incarnation to her son, 22 October 1649, p. 371.

, Mark dc L'Incarnation to her son, 1 Sepicmber 1652, p. 475.

. ' . 4.,t- "Scc, for csamplc, Mant: rit U lm, Marie de L'Incarnation tu her son, 21 June 1656, p. 571; and also Marie dc I'fncarnation to MZrc Ursule de Ste-Catherine, Sup6rieure des Ursulines de Tours, 16 Septcmbcr 1641, p. 143.

que jay l'honneur de vous écrire."" As we saw in Chapter Two, correspondents

sometimes addrcssed a scries of lettcrs to particularly important recipients, adopting a

distinctive pattern of letter-writing which came out of the limits on the frequency of

communication. This practicc also scwed to ensure that if one letter was lest, another

likcly would get through. For example, in 1689, although M. de Brisacier reported that

one of Laval's letters to him the previous year had been lost when the vessel canying it

had nin aground, the lettcr's duplicate had arrived? in some cases, correspondents

simply sent a number of letters, hoping that at lcast a portion of those sent would arrive.

Morc oftcn, corrcspondcnts scnt thc same information twice, repeating in one letter the

content of anothcr. Thus, for instance, on 18 Octobcr 1654 Marie dc l'Incarnation told

Claudc, "Je vous ay écrit par toüs lcs vaisseaux qui sont partis. Celle-cy n'est qu'un petit

abrégé dcs autres, afin que si ellcs sont perdues vous puissiez avoir de nos nouvelles par

cc dernier navire."'' Corrcspondcnts also sent copies of thcir letters, sometimes including

thc copy at the start of anothcr letter, and at other times sending it separately. Mme de la

Pcltric, patroness of the Ursuline convcnt at Quebcc, noted in a lcttcr of 4 October 1654

that shc had wnttcn hcr correspondent by the first vessel that season, sending certain

papcrs which hc had rcqucstcd. This second lcttcr was a copy: "En voilà encore semblable

afin quc si lcs prcmicrs naufrage vous puissiés rccepvoir les segons."~ Similarly,

in March of 1681, Dudouy t began a letter to Laval: "C'est ici la duplicata dc ma premicre

icttrc que je vous escntes par un pctit nauirc qui doit partir de bordeaux a la fin de mars

ou par Ic Sicur Gitton."" Most of the time, corrcspondents sent only a single copy.

Howcvcr, whcn conditions werc particularly dangerous, correspondcnts occasionally sent

i3"Lettres et mémoires de L'abbé de L'Isle-Dieu," L'abbé de L'Isle-Dieu to Mgr Pontbriand, 25 Aprif 1752, p. 339 and thc next day he wrote another, his fifrh, Same io same, 26 Apnl 1752, p. 341.

*ASQ, Lcttrcs Canon N, no. 93, M. de Brisacier ro Mgr Laval, 20 May and 19 lune 1689.

4s Ibid., Marie de l'Incarnation to her son, 18 Octobcr 1654, pp. 549-52.

'"~bid., Madame de la Peltrie to Nicolas Laudier, 1 Ociober 1651, p. 992.

"ASU. Lct~rts Canon N, no. 52, Dudouyt to Laval, Y March 1681. Sce similarly, Lenres Carton O, no. 33, Trzmblay to M dc BerniCres, 28 May 1701.

t riplicates and quadruplicates. "Tout cela multiplie les ecritures et occasionne des

redites," André Doreil commentcd of these tactics, but he concluded, "il me paroit

indispensablement necessairc d'en user ainsi pour plus de ~ u r e t é . " ~ ~ The invariable use of

thc sarnc stratcgies by most regular correspondents suggests that they concurred.

For any of thesc stratcgies to be effective, it was crucial that these multiple letters,

or letters and their copies, be sent by different opportunities. Marie de I'lncarnation

commented in 1640, "11 est de la prudence de ne pas mettre tout ce que l'on a dans une

même voiture, parcc que si le vaisseau vient à sc perdre, l'on perd tout à la fois tous ses

rafraichisscmcns, et l'espérance de rien recevoir que l'année s u i ~ a n t e . " ~ In a year when

shc clcarly had not donc this, Claude received nothing from her, and Marie de l'incarnation

wrotc:

j'ay pris la résolution de vous Ccrirc, tant que je vivray, par deux vaisseaux différcns; afin que si l'un SC perd ou est pris par les Pirates, l'autre vous porte de mes nouvelles. Faites le même de votre part, si l'obéissance vous le permet, car vous pouvez juger que nos contenternens seront en cela réciproques."

To writc by only one opportunity "me mettez au hasard de ne point sçavoir de vos

nouvelles," she pointcd out to Claudc in 1656:'

Thc practice of scnding ncws by a number of separate opportunitics was clearly

basic to how cxpcrienccd corrcspondcnts conducted themselves~' aithough some

corrcspondcnts managcd the proccss rathcr diffcrently from othcrs. For example, in 1705

Trcmblay rcported that the previous ycar hc had sent off two packets of letters:

'"aby ColIccrion, U 5120, Guy IO Mme Veuvc Charly de la Rochelle, 4 Nov 1747; U 12,255, Veyssière to [?], 30 M a y 1746; U 13,256, La Rochelle, Jean Veyssière to Pierre Guy, Montreal, 25 January 1747 and 30 April 1717; Ci 12 257, Jcan Veyssicrs ro P. Guy, 18 lune 1747.

. 1'. . ' . . ""'Les lcttrcs dc Dorcil," d~ dr* d~ Ici w e de O u , 1 9 4 4 5 , Dorcil Io Monscigisur, 35) July 1755, p. 28.

50 -, - Mark dc I'Incarnation to MErc Ursule de Ste-Catherine, Sufirieure des UrsuIincs de Tours, 13 Scptember 1630, pp. 117-20.

"Ibid., Mark de l'Incarnation to hcr son, 30 Scptember 1643, pp. 199-203.

=lbid., Marie de l'Incarnation to hcr son, 21 Junc 1656, p. 571.

S 3 S ~ ~ , for csamplc, "ML=re de Sainte-HCICnc," Vol. 5, Mère de Sainte-Hélene to Fcret, Dieppe, 30 Octutxr 1744, pp. 4133.

dans l'un desquels Javois mis les lettres pr Mgr Lancien pr vous [M Glandelet] et M Du Pr6 avec les comptes et facturcs pr le Sem're, pr le chapitre et pr nos Relig'cs dc lhotel Dieu et dans lautre la lettre pr M Des Maizerais avec ces memes comptes et factures, et je mettois dans la lettre de Mgr lancien et dans la votre tout ce qui estoit dans celle de M des Maizerais; et dans celle de M. des Maizerais tout ce qui estoit essentiel de savoir dans la votre et dans celle mesme dc Mgr lancien Ce que je fais cncorc de mesme cette année pr ne faire aucune dup[licata] qui me fatiguent trop."

Thus, Tremblay managed to include al1 the important information in both the packets,

although their exact contents wcre not precisely the sarne, ensuring that if one were lost

certain of his correspondcnts could pass on to the othen what everyone needed to know.

Trcmblay's own cxpericncc underlines precisely how important it was that letters be

dcspatchcd by diffcrent opportunities. In 1694, Tremblay had preparcd two packages of

lcttcrs, both of which hc gave to some Jcsuits who wcrc crossing to Canada, with the

intcntion that thcy should carry onc with them on board the vessel on which they were

taking passagc and put the duplicatcs on board anothcr vesscl dcstincd for Canada.

Howcvcr, as hc cxplained to his corrcspondcnts the next year, the men to whom he had

cntrusted his lcttcrs had put them al1 into the same vessel, le St. Joseph, which was

captured and thus al1 his corrcspondence was lost. He complaincd, "ce n'a pas esté pr.

moy une petitc mortification quc toutes mes dernieres lettres eussent esté mises dans le St

Joseph ct aycnt cstl pcrducs. Je crains mcsmc que ces lcttrcs ne reuier-nent ou en Europe

ou cn Canada. II faut abandonner lc tout a I'aymablc providencc de Dieu."SS Similarly,

in 1704, Trcmblay gave two packcts containing lcttcrs and accounts to a M. Bouteille who

planncd to sail to Canada from La Rochcllc. Boutçillc was supposed to carry one pacquet

with him on 1%\ Sciw and to dcspatch thc othcr by a diffcrcnt vcsscl. in thc end, however,

hc had kcpt both with him but thcn had fallcn il1 and not sailcd. Ai1 of Trernblay's lctters

reniaincd in ~ r a n c c . ~ ~ In both instances, Trcmblay made it clcar that thc men to whom

hc hrid cntrustcd his lcttcrs should have known bcttcr. It was a fundamental pnnciple of

transatlmtic communications that lcttcrs bc dcspatchcd by more than onc opportunity, as

5.i ASQ, Lci~rcs Carton O, no. 13, Trernblay io Glandelet, 20 June 1705.

"lbid., Lciircs Canon O, no. 7, Trcmblay to Glandelct, 21 May 1695.

56 Ibid., Lcrtrcs Carton N, no. 123. Tremblay to Laval, 19 June 1705.

anyone involved in this world should have known. Tremblay reported that Bouteuille "a

esté assez mortifié, Il n'a pas besoin d'estre grondé.""

Thus each year correspondents sent forth a complex series of letters and copies of

lcttcrs by a number of different routes and opportunities. Sometirnes a lettcr was lost;

ofien a lcttcr written earlier would arrive after others written later; occasionally a letter

could be dclayed for a season. To keep track of al1 of this--and also as a hirther strategy

to sccurc the correspondence itsclf--letter-writcrs invariably provided detailed inventories

of lcttcrs scnt and received in their correspondcncc. Thc inventory of letters sent was

often quite specific. Correspondents commonly listed, at the start of each letter, how many

lettcrs thcy had already wntten and when; to what port each had becn despatched; to

whom it had been cntrustcd; and by what vesscl each lctter rnight be expected to amve.

Thus, for example, Louis-Antoine de Bougainville noted in a letter to Mme de Séchelles

that hc had written hcr by "la Flûtc -" which had left Quebec 25 August; by "les . . vaisseaux du Roi 142 Bizarrç ct le C ç l c b ~ which sailcd 17 Scptcmbcr; and finally by thrce

mcrchant vcsscls which had sailcd on 6 and 7 November, namcd leSauvaee, 1-

Ft-Crçs, and Most corrcspondcnts followcd the same practice as de

Bougainvillc and includcd this matcrial in the opening or closing lincs of a letter.

Howcvcr, corrcspondcnts somctimcs preparcd a scparate lisf19 or even dcvoted a separate

lcttcr ro an invcntory of corrcspondcncc scnt." Thc invcntory of I e t t c ~ sent allowed the

rccipicnt to cstablish what portion of a scason's correspondcncc had bcen successfully

transrnitted and in certain instances to track down or determine thc fatc of missing letters.

Similarly, the invcntory of lcttcrs reccivcd told the original lcttcr-writer how many

lcttcrs had amvcd safcly. This providcd the original correspondent with crucial

information concerning how rcliablc specific opportunitics wcrc, and also ensured that he

51 De Bougainvillc, Ecrits le 20 February 1758, p. 122. See similarly Baby Collection, U 12 258, La Rochelle, Jcan VeyssiGrc: to Pierre Guy, Montreal, 2 May 1717 and U 12 262, same to same, 30 April 1748.

-MO, Lettres Carton M. no. 33A, Qucbcc. [?] to Tremblay, 28 April 1706.

6 0 ~ Lcttrcs CI mCmoircs cic I'abbÇ dc L'Islc-Dieu," l'abbd de L'Isle-Dicu IO Mgr Pontbriand, 3û April 1752, p. 344.

or she kncw whcthcr spccific pieccs of information had arrived? Sometimes these lists

were quite detailcd. In May 1698 TrcmbIay informed Glandelet:

J'ay receu ce me semble toutes les lettres q'e vous m'avez escrites et pr. en faire quelq'e detail J'ay recu l 'e une petite lettre du 26 aoust q'e m'avez escrite par plaisance et qui m'a fait plaisir en me donnant de vos nouvelles. 2'e J'ay re-u les trois gros pacquets di: lettres par L'amphitride, le paquet de lettres de Mgr Lancicn et les autres qui etoit pr. moy. J'ay receu en mcsme temps cette lettre de huit pages en 4'e q'c vous me recommander de vous marquer preceisem't si 4 e > l'ay rcccu. 3e. J'ay cnfin receu vos dernicrcs lcttrcs venues par la Gironde .... 162

At timcs thcy wcrc much lcss spccific: "J'ay receu de vous l'année passée quatre lettres par

diffcrentes ~ o y c s ; " ~ ~ or "Jc crois Monsieur avoir rcceu toutcs vos lettres qui m'ont esté

rendues cxactcms par les personnes a qui vous les aviez ~ o n f i c r . " ~

In a final stratcgy to hclp minimize the impact of lettcrs being lost, correspondents

oftcn urgcd the recipicnts of thcir Icttcrs to share the news they received. Tremblay, for

instance, clcarly assumcd that most of what he wrote to the pnests of the Seminary of

Qucbcc, unlcss spccifically wnttcn for his corrcspondents' cycs alone, would be shared?

Many othcr corrcspondcnts wrote lcttcrs which they cxplicitly asked be ~ i r c u l a t e d . ~ ~

Louis-Antoine de Bougainville notcd in a lettcr to his brothcr in early July 1757 that, as

hc had written lctters by various vessels which might bc captured, he had included in this

lcttcr a list of al1 thosc to whom hc had wrïttcn. If the lcttcr came to hand, he asked his

brothcr to tell al1 thosc on the list that he had wntten and to convey his The

practicc had thc additional bcncfit that it ailowcd dc Bougainville to communicate with

"Sec, for example, ASO, Lettres Canon O, no. 23, Trcmblay to Glandelet, 3 May 1698; no. 33, Trcmblay to BcrniCres, 28 May 1701; no. 37, Tremblay to M. de Maizercts, 10 May 1703; no. 28, Tremblay to di: Maizcrets, 7 May 1700.

6Z~bid., Lettres Canon O, no. 23, Tremblay to Glandelet, 3 May 1698. Sce also Lettres Carton M, no. 23, Tremblay to [?], 169[6?].

%ci., Letrrcs Carton O, no. 37, Trcrnblay to M. de Maizcrets, IO May 1702.

bl Ihid., Lctlrcs Carron O, no. 28, Trcniblay ro M. Glaridelct, 7 May 1700.

%ke, for example, ASQ, Lettres Canon O, no. 7, Trcmblay to M. Glandelet, 21 May 1695, (first page).

&sec for examplc, Marie de 111 ? t h , Marie de l'incarnation Io the Supcrieure d'un Couvent d'ursulines cn France, 16 Septembcr 1642, p. 156.

6 7 ~ ~ Bougainville, Ecrits, 3 July 1757, p. 406.

niore pcople than hc hiniself could directly. Thus, in mid-August, de Bougainville

complained that he was too busy to send his brother more than a summary of al1 that he

had done. "Communiquez-la, je vous prie," he asked his brother, "à nos parents, et amis, à

....[ long list of people]: en un mot, mon cher fière, faites-moi écrire partout.""

These conventions and strategies protected correspondents relatively well against

the full impact of thc loss of correspondence. If correspondents sometimes noted with

regret the loss of a letter, they commonly paired this announcement with a recitation of

what thcy hüd reccivcd. It is gcncrally only whcn corrcspondcnts cither could not or had

neglcctcd to follow thesc niles that thcy cornplaincd that thcir affairs had been seriously

inconvcnicnccd by the loss of letters. Thus, for example, in years when very few ships

sailcd to the colony, or a number of ships ran into serious difficulties, correspondents

could find themselves in thc situation whcrc a large portion of their correspondence was

lost, with scrious repcrcussions.69 Altematively, when a correspondent placed a

disproportionatc numbcr of important lctters on a single ship, that uessel's loss could be

disastrous. Thus, in Ausust 1755 Dorcil rcportcd in sornc irritation to a correspondent in

J'ay eu l'honneur, Monsieur, dc vous ccrire le 6 du mois dernier par un vaisseau Marchand, mais ce que nous avons apns depuis me donnc tout lieu de craindre quc ma lettre nc parvienne pas en France. J'en serois dautant plus faché que J'en ay ccrit plusieurs par la mEmc occasion pour donner de mes Nouvelles a ma famille, et que I'ai chargé lc wp'e de trois pacquets pour les Ministres de la guerre ct dc la ~ a r i n c . ~

Whcn corrcspondcnts wcrc able and took thc care to scnd multiple letters by a number of

diffcrcnt vcsscls, thcy rarcly found thcmsclvcs in such a predicarncnt. This helps to

undcrlinc the extent to which, though communications wcre risky and letters could be lost,

French rcgimc correspondencc was not normally significantly constraincd.

68 Ibid., dc Bougainville to his brother. 19 Au pst 1757, pp. 306407.

09 Sçc, for instance, the case of 1651. That year, according to Dom Guy Oury, the Jesuit Relations rcp~ineci ihai "la plus grandc: pariic du courrier fui perdue." W - J o s q h , Capi. Boucher, had been taken by thc English whcrl almosi ai la Rochçllr: and la V u , Capt. Boiicau disappçarcd cn route to France.

, p. 380, fn. 3. Maric de Iïncamaiion had reccivcd vcry fcw letters, for which see ibid., Maric de l'Incarnation to hcr son, 1 Septembcr 1652, pp. 475-81; sec aiso, Marie de l'Incarnation to her son, 39 October 1665, p. 758.

lcttrcs de Doreil," Dorcil to M. de Fumcron, 1 August 1755, p. 30.

Shipping during the French reeimc entailed rcal risks. Largely as a corollary,

communications wcrc risky also. Letters could bc lost when the ship carrying them sank

or was captured by an enemy vessel. While these may have constituted the main dangers

which bcset correspondence, letters could also go astray en route, be forgotten,

misdclivcred or even stolen. Contemporaries did what they could to improve the chance of

thcir letters amving safely at their destination, but their efforts could not perfectly protect

thcir correspondencc from the possibility of miscarriage. The loss of lctters was a normal

and incscapablc part of the proccss of transatlantic communications. As a rcsult, our

corrcspondents focuscd thc bulk of thcir cncrgics, not on the f d y fniitless task of trying

to cnsurc the sccurity of particular letters, but on adopting certain conventions and

practiccs of letter writing that mitigated the impact of the loss of letters. For

corrcspondcnts the real kcy to ensuring the effcctiveness of communications was to avoid

dcpcndcnce on any particular opportunity or on any onc lcttcr. This ensured that, although

individual lcttcrs might bc lost, corrcspondents could almost invariably assume that those

with whom thcy wishcd to communicate would ultimately receive their messagc. What

niattcrcd was the ability to corrcspond, and not the individual lctter itsclf. Correspondents

oftcn rcported the loss of one or a number of letters, but thcy very rarely reported the

failurc of thcir corrcspondcnce in any season.

As was thc casc in thc prcvious chaptcr, this discussion has undcrlined the extent to

which good communications dcpcndcd upon human agcncy. Lettcr-writers in the French

rcgimc rccognizcd that thcir ability to corrcspond effectivcly dependcd on their willingness

to Icarn and prcicticc ccrtain convcntions and strategies of communications. As a

community, thcir adhcrence to thcsc norms playcd a crucial rote in limiting the impact that

thc hazards of communications had on thcir corrcspondencc. The mails wcrc often

unccrtain, but the proccss of communications itsclf was rcmarkably effective.

CHAPTER 4 Depending On Others: The Mails of Custom and Convention

The easc with which Canadians in the French regime could correspond was

dependent upon the structures and practices that provided for the circulation of the early

mails. Descriptions of French regime communications commonly focus on the absence of

formal postal structures. This emphasis on what was missing tends to create the

impression that the transatlantic mails werc fomlcss, unpredictable, and awkward. These

works paint an image of early correspondents as lone figures stniggling valiantly to

arrange for the transmission of thcir letters.' As we have seen elsewhere, it is true that

one of the kcys to understanding how communications functioned during the French

rcgimc is the recognition of thc important role played in the process by the individual

corrcspondcnt. Chaptcr Two cmphasizcd lctter-writers' responsibility to kcep track of

opportunities for corrcspondcncc and to manage thc timing of thc despatch of their

lcttcrs--in ordcr to rnakc the bcst possible use of the opportunitics available to them;

whilc Chaptcr Thrcc argucd that correspondents managed their letters in ways that helped

to minimizc the risk of loss and to mitigatc thc consequences when it did occur. This

chaptcr focuscs on the functioning of the mcchanisms that providcd for the actual

circulation of thc mails. It both confirms and adds to our undcrstanding of thc important

rolc of the individual in thc proccss of transatlantic corrcspondcnce. It argues that

corrcspondcnts assumed ultimatc rcsponsibility for thc despatch and rcceipt of their letters.

Thcy sou& out agents, tra~vcllcrs, and others to help thcm, whilc in tum acting as agents

for othcr corrcspondcnts, al1 the whilc making decisions about how to despatch each letter.

Howevcr, the individual correspondent's ability to scnd and rcccive lettcrs was not cntirely

dcpendcnt upon his or hcr own cfforts. htrinsic to the proccss was dcpcndcnce on others.

'For a discussion of thc historiography of ihc mails to New France scc the "Introduction."

1 O5

Correspondcnts participated in a culture of correspondence that relied on webs of

acquaintance and reciprocal obligation. Merchants played a role in this but so too did

ecclesiastics, travellers, and other lctter-writcrs. Far from seeing the process of

communications as one in which the circulation of lctters was entirely dependent on the

cffons of individual correspondcnts, this chaptcr emphasizes, above ail, the existence of

informal systems, structures, and conventions which helped ensure the effectiveness of the

early mails. *

Unquestionably, what we notice first about the circumstanccs of Frcnch regime

corrcspondcnts is what was lacking. Thcre wcrc no official mail packets operating in the

Frcnch Atlantic, no regularly schcduled mails across the occan, and few laws goveming the

circulation of lettcrs. In Francc, although the Post Office would carry Letters to the Coast,

i t assumed no responsibility for conveying them ont0 vessels in French ports.2 Letters

arrïving in Frcnch ports on vessels from overseas were at least technically provided for.'

Howcvcr, at Quebec thcrc was no Post Office at al1 to oversec the receipt and distribution

of lctters amving from Francc or the despatch of outgoing mail. hstead, communications

werc dcpcndent on thc long-cstablishcd convention that ship owners and vesse1 captains

'Vaillé, - . , Vol- 6, p. 626. For a contemporary description of this

policy sce v, Pans, Laurent D'Houry, 1710. The postage charges to La Rochelle or any other port of ernbarkation were 7 sols for a single letter. These directions were repcated in many but not cvery issuc. Sec for cxamplc, the . . - for 1719, 1723, 1723, and 1729. The policy changed in 1759. Under the tcrms of ri dedaration issucd that ycar in the King's name the French Post Office would cany ovcrscas mails to port ;Lnd pu1 ihem aboard a depaning vcssel. Senders wcrc requued to specify which port their letiers werc to bc sent through and to pay 10 sous in addition to the regular postage to Pans, where ail . .- lerrcrs wcrc collecteci bcforc dupaich IO rhe pons. Sec Dcclararion du Rui. a Vcr,%î&s le huitieme - . . ~ i i r dc Ju&t 17-9- P- du T- de Lettres (Grenoble, France: imprimerie D'AridrC Giroud, Imprimeur-Librarie du Parlement, au Palais, 1759). NAC, Canadian Postal Archives, K 3243 A48 F71 1759, ex. 1 Rare. Section Cd= of this document entitled "Lettres pour les Colonies et Possessions de la France au-delà lcs mers, et lettres venues par la voie de la mer." It is not clear, however, whether any lettcrs wcre cvcr carricd to Canada under the provisions of this Declaraticin. The era of French rule in Canada was already virtually at an end-

T h e tcrms of the farm leasc of 1676 requircd ve.sscl captains IO put lettcrs into the Post Office at the vcsscl's tïrst p n of call, a measurc likcly introduccd in ordcr to maintain the Post Office's monopoly over the domcstic convcyancc of the mails. This practicc was confmed by a rcgulation of 3 February 1728 for

* which scc Vaillf, W i r ~ . G L . , Vol. 3, p. 388 and Vol. 6, p. 627.

would carry private letters on their vessels and deliver them at their destination? French

Regime correspondents were by no means unique in their reliance on the regular shipping

for thc carriage of their transatlantic mails. The practice was an old one and in the

seventecnth ccntury and through much of eighteenth century most European correspondents

writing to overseas destinations relied on the rcgular shipping to transport their letters."

Convcntional histories of the Atlantic mails commonly note that most

corrcspondents wanting to send their letters across the Atlantic dropped them into bags put

out for that purposc in public places by the merchants whosc vcsscls wcre preparing to

sail. Just bcfore a vessel's dcparturc, these ship's bags were collectcd and taken on board.

On the vcssel's arriva1 at its destination the sack was dcposited in a local tavern or

'I havc not bccn able to trace the origin of this convention. A sense of how routine it was for vessels ta carry I~rters is suggwtcd by the tact thal merchants and their crews had to be told nor to do it. See, for esaniplc, a çhancr issucd for a vcssel sailing from La Rochelle ro Tadoussac or Quebec in 1646 which csplici~ly dcnied the crew the right "de poncr des marchandises, lettres, ou passagers et de faire la troque ..." NAC, MG 6 B3, Archives Municipales de La Rochelle, 22 August 1646, manusc. 1835, fol. 164-65,

- àffrettcmçnt du Petit Saint fait pour la Campagnie de la Nouvelle France.

'Betwecn Britain and New England, the mails also traveUed aimost entirely by private shipping. The British Government occasionalIy sent particularly irnponant information to the colony by advice boat, but the bulk of [ifficial conespondencc was desparchcd by commercial vrssel. The Govcrnment did establish a packctboat servicc to the colony on a number of occasions in the eighteenth century, when Britain was at war, for rhc purposes of military intelligence, but these arrangements-in 1703, 1710, 1744, and 1755--were short-lived. Othcrwise, ihcrc was no rcgularly schedulcd mail servicc across rhe Engiish Atlantic before the end of the Seven Ycars War.

I n thc scvcnrcenth ccnrury, New England colonisrs dcpcndcd, as the Canadians did, on informal mcchanisrns for rhe dcspatch of their letters on thesr vessels. Thcir circumstances altered, however, in the 1690s with the ~tablishmcnt of a colonial Post Office. Now, vesscls amving in port from Britain were ai lcast technically supposcd to dclivcr any lctters they carricd into the colonial Post Office, much as was the case in Britain and France. At the same time, colonial correspondents could arrange for the despatch of their lettcrs through the Post Office as forma1 "ship letters." Under this arrangement, the Post Office undertook, on the payment of a small fcc, to put a correspondent's lettcr on board a named vesse1 bound for Britain. Dcspirc the existence of this formal scrvicc, analysts are clear that most mail continucd to be sent througb unofficial channeb until the cnd of Our pcriod, vcry much as was the case in the colony to the north.

Scc Stcele, B e F n & L U n k Chapters 7 and 9: Shcila McCali McIntyre, "'This Luving Corrcspondcncy,"' p. 1 3 3 6 ; and Alex. L. icr Braakc, E-"American Ship Letters," and F-"Trans-Atlantic Mail in Coionial and Rcvolutionary Days," in The in Lctter R e v ~ .

In rhc Frcnch Carihhcan, thcrc wcrr no formal postal arrangements, and correspondents were . .

likewise dependmi upon the rcgular shipping. See Carrière, Nsnociants au XV-, Vol 2, p. 782. In the Mediterranean, although communications relied on merchant shipping, the process had been

* formalizcd by the intervention of the Chamber of Commerce of Marseille. See Vaillé, Posrcs, Vo1.1, pp. 186-87; and Vol. 5, pp. 510-12; Vol. 6, p. 625.

The British Post Office did provide a formal service across the channel, to Ireland and to Lisbon in rhis pcriod. On rhs carlier Mrrchant Siranger's Post across the charnel and subsequenr official services see

. . - - . . Howard Robinson, T h L . ~ r i t i s h . A Hmmy (Princeton N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1948). pp. 5-7, Chaptcr 13.

clsewhcrc ncar the port wherc anyone hoping for a lettcr could cal1 to see whether one had

a r ~ i v e d . ~ Our sources do not rcfcr explicitly to the practice during the French regimc.

Thcre is, however, little reason to doubt that it was cornmonplace. It seems likely, indeed,

that whcn correspondcnts or their agents refer simply to having despatched a letter by a

namcd vessel it had been put into thc ship's bag. The variety of options available to

conteniporary correspondents went far beyond this, however.

Correspondcnts who livcd at or near a port, whcther in France or at Quebec, were

in thc position to hand their letters directly to the merchants or ship's captains who sailed

thc Atlantic. Thus, for cxamplc, in Septcmber of 1738, Mèrc dc l'Enfant-Jésus, a nun

Hospitaller at Qucbcc and the sister of Mère dc Sainte-Hélène, inforrned the Dieppe

apothecary Jacques Ferct that shc had sent lctters to him "par le Capitaine de l'heureux

Moine, Nauire qui appartient a Mr le Moine Commercant de Roüen Commandé par Mr

Gausselin qui ma assure vous faire surcment rcmcttrc Ic même bary dans lequel vô nô

avez envoyé vos Drougcs cette année." Thc vesscl was sailing to La Rochelle and she

iiotcd that the captain had promiscd to forward the barrcl--prcsumably with her letter--to

Dieppe "par des battos pcchcurs qui partent souvent de la ~ o c h e l l c . " ~ Similarly, in mid-

April 1750 Mme Bégon, a Canadian and widow of the forrncr governor of Trois-Rivières

who had rcccntly movcd to Rochefort, notcd that shc had writtcn al1 her lctters for Canada,

"et Ics ai donnkcs cc niatin à M. Garnier pilote d'un des vaisseaux du Roi qui part de

~ r c s t . ""

Corrcspondcnts who livcd distant from thc ports whcncc vcsscls sailcd somctimes

(rd\-clled thcrc with thcir Icttcrs. Thus, for cxamplc, in latc July 1705 onc Gaillard

rcportcd to Cabart dc Villcrmont, the King's Councillor in France, that hc had travclled to

La Rochcllc on thc 1Gth of that month in ordcr to amvc "avant que les Vaisseaux fussent

partis pour Canada, ou javois grand pcur dc navoir pas Ic tcmps dcscrire a mon Epouse,

6vaillc, -Gcncrrllt . - . . . p- , Vol. 6, p. 626. Sce also Stccle, -, p. 113 who riorcs, ''A shipmastcrfs mailbag ... rcprcsentcd thç postal facilitics of the English Atlantic in 1675."

'Sec "Mcrc de Sainie-HéIEnc," Vol. 4, Mèrc de 1'Enfant-Jésus to Fcrct, 18 Septcmber 1738, pp. 368-69. Scc also Vol. 4, same to same, 31 Octobcr 174û, pp. 379-80; Vol. 5, same to same, 31 October 1741, pp. 361-62 which wcnt by thc samc vessel: and Vol. 5, MEre de Sainte-Hélène to Fcrct, 30 October 1743, pp. 372-74, a Ictrcr sent by "cap'ne Helie, qui commande le mars."

sEB~gun. Leitres au dw3&, 17 April 1750, p. 163.

dans Cc pays la...."9 Far more oftcn, however, correspondents sent their letters--either

ihrough the Post Office in France or by private meansla--directly to merchants in the

Canada t n d e in the expectation cither that they would cary them to the mlony themselves

or that thcy would entrust them to someone else who would carry them on thcir bchdf.

Thus, for example, in June 1696, Henri-Jean Trcrnblay told Bishop Laval that a bundle of

letters sent off earlier from France had k e n "recommandér au Capit'ne du Vespere par M.

d'lbcwille qui est son m'trc [maitre]."" The best example of this practice cornes from the

papcrs of the promincnt Bordeaux merchant Abraham Gradis. His lettcrs from the months

of Febniary and March 1757 show that he was kept busy acknowledging the receipt of

lettcrs destined for Canada which hc undertook to despatch on his ships. Thus, for

cxamplc, on 19 Fcbruary 1757 he wrote to a Mme de la Crossière Drouilhet to

acknowlcdge a pacquct which she had sent him for M. Bigot, the Intendant, which he

promiscd to dcspatch "sur l'un dc nos deux navires, 1- ou l d k ~ ~ ~ , qui sont les deux

premiers que nous fcrons partir."'"n another lcttcr of 15 March hc spccifically noted

that hc had given his correspondent's letter "au capitaine de mon navire, le

bcrthon, puisquc j'ay unc grande opinion de luy, attendu la grand superiorité qu'il a pour sa

9ANQ, P 372, Correspondance de Cabart de Viiiermont, Rochefort, Gaillard to de Villemont, Pans, 31 July 1705.

'O~orres~ondents used both. Jcan Dudouyt scnr bis Icttcrs through the Post Officc to the port whenever time was of the essence--as whcn a vcsscl was on the verge of departurc for which sce ASQ, Lettres Carton N. no. 71, Dudouyt to Laval, 38 May 1683--or at the end of the season in order to send a final word, for which sec ASQ, Lettres Canon N, no. 73, Dudouyt to Laval, 10, 12 June 1683. See also no. 79, same to s*rnc, 25 March, 11 June 1681. Morc generally, his letters, as also the bulk of those sent by Tremblay, were forwardcd--possibly with goods and other items destined for the colony--outside the ps t to the poa. Mère dc Sainte-Hcléne and her sistcr often tried to avoid the use of the French p s t . Thus in 1741 Mère de l'Enfant-Jésus told Fcret, "Comme 1 s ports dc lettres sont chere et que jc nc voudrois pas vous etre a charge en ricn, je nc spi[ par ou ira celle cy." "Mère de Sainte-Hélène," Vol. 5, Mere de Enfant-Jésus to Feret, 30 October 1741. pp. 377-79.

"ASQ, Letrra Canon N, no. 106, Tremblay to Laval, 8, 14 June 1696. See similarly, ANQ, P 272, Correspondance dc Caban dc Villcrmont, L'Orient, France, Baubriand to Cabart de Villemont, 1 Mach 1697. Aithoufi Baubriand. a shipuwner, was not visiting the colony that year he gave de Villemont's letter to his brothcr who was, and who undcrtook both to delivcr it and to mny back a rcsponse. Sce also AD. iie ci Vilaine, 1 F 1897, no. 56, Magon Papcrs, Magon to Auger, 31 March 1758 quoted in Boshcr, b k u h n ~ ~ . p. 19. Magon was a prornincnt SI. Ma10 merchant. He lacked a direct intcrcst in the colonial tradc and rçlied upon associatcs who did tradc with the colony to carry his lcttcrs to his brothcr there.

'2"~rchivcs Gradis," RAPO, 1957-58 and 1958-59, Grodis to Mme de la Crossière Drouilhet, Pans, 19 February, 1757, p. 3.

marche."" It is possible that corrcspondents also gave letters into the carc of rnembers of

the ship's crew. We know in other contexts that sailors sometirnes took charge of

~ e t t e r s . ~ ~ Our corrcspondents do not refer to making use of sailon but it seems likely that

thcy sometimes did.

What we must remembcr in striving to understand how this worked, is that the

mcrchan ts and ships' captains to whom Our correspondents commonly entrusted their letters

wcre often well-known and familiar figures. In their letters, they kcquently refer to these

men and thcir vcsscls by name, mention speaking to them, and occasionally show a

knowledge of their business." This familiarity was the rcsult of a number of factors- In

the firsr instance, therc was a substantial degree of continuity in the personnel of the

Canada trade over time.l6 Thus, for example, from the 1660s until 1700 only six or

scven commercial houscs outfittcd vcssels to New France with any regularity." Jean

Grignon of La Rochelle, to whom Jean Dudouyt and Henri-Jean Trcmblay in Paris

frcqucntly sent thcir Icttcrs, was onc of thcse: hc ownçd thrce vcsscls which made twenty-

one voyagcs to Canada betwecn 1678 and 1697.18 In the decades to follow, the same

pattern continucd. For instance, the Pascaud family of La Rochelle, which had been

in\*olvcd in the Canada trade from the mid-2680s, sent a ship to Qucbec each year

13 Ibid., Gradis to M. di: la Rivière, at Court, 15 March 1757, p. 8.

"~asper Dankers and Pctcr Sluyter, ta New Yprk (Brooklyn, 1867), p. 154 quoted in Alcs. L. ter Braake, 'Trans-Atlantic Mail in Colonial and Rcvolutionary Days," in -d iethx, F-21. "Having closcd up Our lettcrs, wc had Robyn (a membcr of thc ship's crcw) at our house, and gave then to him in his own hands, as wt: had heard fiom the supercargo hirnself that he would run into Faimouth again for the purpose of paying ihc rlutics; wc gave Robyn moncy to psi our lcttcrs ovcr London .... together with sonictfiing for his trouble."

%ce, for cxample, ASQ, Lettres Carton M, no. 11, M. Glandelet to M. de Brisacier, 1691 in which hc reports "l'on s'est donné l'honneur de vous escrire assez amplement par la voye de M. Riverin" adding that the Quebcc merchant had lcft thrcc days earlicr "pour aller en pesche" and would thus likely not arrive in France until Novembçr.

161n addition to those who tradcd for years with the colony or whosc families did so, there were also scores of small mçrchanrs who dapatched a single vcsszl to Canada on a speculativc venture or sent a consignment of gnods on the vesscl of another at some time or other. On the importance of these men to the tradc sec Bosher, - . , p. 32.

. - " Priichard, "Ships, Men, and Commercc," pp. 85-90, 157-61.

betwcen 1713 and 1748.19 Jean Jung, whose family's comection with the colony

similarly dated from the scventeenth century. sent at least twelve vessels to Quebec

betwccn 1727 and 1763, and goods on many other ships," while Robert Dugard and

Company of Roucn sent vcssels to Canada most years during the 1730s and early

1740s." Few of the merchant familics who had tradcd with the colony earlier remained

in thc trade after the mid-1740s. Even then, although a new and more varied group of

mcrchants dominated the trade with the colony, there were still some who couid be

countcd upon to despatch vcssels to Quebec year after year. The Bordeaux merchant

Abraham Gradis was one of thcsc. Bctwccn 1733 and 1759, his own ships visited Quebec

thirty-six timcs and, during the boom in shipping to Canada in the 1750s, he outfitted 71

niany othcrs.-

Similady, the samc ships' captains sailcd to the colony year after ycar. In late July

L667, for instance, Mark dc l'Incarnation sent a letter to France on a vesse1 sailing for

Picrrc Graipeur. Its captain was André Chaviteau, a La Rochelle sea captain who sailed

or lcast clcven ships from La Rochclle to Canada betwecn 1664 and 1 6 8 3 . ~ M. Gosselin,

captain of 1'Hcurcu.u M o k , to whom Mkrç dc l'Enfant-Jésus had cntrusted letters in 1738,

carricd lcttcrs for hcr both in 1740 and 1741. The l'Heureux Mo& itsclf crossed the

Atlantic most ycars betwccn 1738 and 1754 and may well have carried her Içtters each

'9Scc ibid., pp. 328-29.

. * . %x Bosticr, "Thc Jung Family in the Canada Tradc," in Buslncss anll:n in of New

Studies (Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press, L993), pp. 173-202.

"Sec Dale Miquelon, New F m 1701 - 174: A S w to F m (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1987), p. 129.

"On Gradis sec Richard Menkis, "The Gradis Family of Eighteenth Century Bordeaux: A Social and Economic Study," PhD, Bradeis University, 1988, p. 180. On the changes in the trade in the last two . . . decadcs of French nilc sec Bosher, "Shipping IO Canada in Wanime 1713-1760," in

of New F m .

2.3 -, - L . - . Marie de l'Incarnation to MCrc Marie de Saint-Joseph, Supcrieurc des Ursulines dc Tours, 28 July 1667, pp. 778-79. The vesscl was Ja Nouv-France, which amved 2 July and departed . * 3 August. On the vesscl and irs captain sec Bosher. Men and -.

year." This regularity undoubtedly providcd a significant degree of stability and

prcdictabilit y to transatlantic correspondence.

Second, many of the mcn to whom our correspondents entmsted their letters had

decp roots on both sides of the Atlantic. As John Bosher's extensive research on

merchants in the Canada trade has demonstrated, it is hard to catcgorize them neatly as

cithcr French or Canadian. Somc had been bom in Canada and others in France; many

had h e d on both sides of the Atlantic; some had married women bom in France and

othcrs had marricd Canadian womcn; many had family on both sidcs of the ocean; and

niost cnjoycd close associations with other merchants in the ports to and £rom which they

sailcd. Each mcrchant in cffcct--particularly bcforc thc mid-1740s--forrncd part of a

broad transatlantic clan and as such would have been known in the ports of France and

~ u e b e c . ~ To this WC can add the fact that many of the merchants in the trade travelled

back and forth across the Atlantic rcpcatedly over the years. Othcrs, although rarely or

nevcr visiting thc colony thcmsclvcs, routincly sent an agent to art in thcir stead. This

agcnt would have bccomc wcll known in his own right.=

Finally, many of the mcrchants to whom our correspondents cntmsted thcir letters

also scrwd as their commercial agcnts. Indccd, a corrcspondcnt's rcliancc upon a

. . ""Mcrc de Sainte-HClCne," Vol. 4, MCrc de l'Enfant-Jésus to Ferct, Dieppe, 18 Septcmber 1738, pp.

368-69. Sec also Vol. 1, MCre dc Sainte-Hélène to Fcrct, Dieppe, 31 October 1710, pp. 379-80; Vol. 5, MCrc dc L'Enfant-Jkus to Fcret, Dieppe, 31 October 1741, pp. 361-62- On the vesscl, I')ieurcux sec Iloshcr, cand Similarly, in 1733, Mère de Sainte-Hélène wrote Feret by "le vaisscau de Rouen nomme la villc de Quebcc." This ship was owned by Dugard and Company who sent frcini onc to thrce vcsscls to Qucbcc most years betwcen 1730 and the mid-1730s. The captain of la VU& Ouébfc, Frant.uk Vangellikom Vandeiic. visited the colony on one or another of the Company's vessels rnost ycars and he was in crimniand of Ic. CCIW by which [en years Iatcr MCrc de Sainte-HÇlène announced ber intention ta scnd her last lcrters of the year to Fcret. See Vol. 4, Mère de Sainte-H6lène to Feret, 20 October 1723, pp. 31-33; and same 10 s m e , 30 Ocrober 1713, Vol. 5, pp. 372-74. On Vandciie and his work for Dugard and Co and their shipping rccord, sec Dale Miquelon, h g d of m, pp. 2-29 On thc conipany's vçsscls and their voyages sec Appcndix A "Profiles of Dugard's Fleet" and Appcndix B "The Ships and Thcir Voya~es."

%ce Bosher. Th- and, for a short summary of his argument, the "Introduction" to Uoshzr, Nc . - * w Fr-.

. . xOn whcn mcrchants or thcir agents rravellcd to Canada see Boshcr. Men m and also many O:' the derails of thc movemenrs of spcciik men in his TheCanada and bis general observations, p. 31. For an example of a mcrchant who never himsclf wcnt to Quebec but routinely sent an agent, sce François Perron, who sent a ship annuaiiy to Canada bctween 1655 and 1663. His agent, Jacques Massé, visiied Quçbcc rcpcatedly on Perron's behalf in the 1650s. Perron's intcrcsts were Iater represcnted by . . Antoine Grignon. Sec Bosher, Men m the -.

113

particular merchant or ship's captain can ofren besi be u n d e r s t d as a simple extension of

an cxisting busincss rclationship. For instance, Jean Dudouyt and Henri-Jean Tremblay in

Paris routinely entrusted thcir letters for the priests of the Qucbec Seminary to the same

rncrchants who shipped goods to thc colony every scason on thcir behalf. Thus, when one

of these, Jcan Grignon, reported to Tremblay about a cargo of g d s sent to the wiony, he

also refcrrcd to some lctten that had been despatched at the sarne time." Many

mcrchants such as Antoine Grignon, a prominent La Rochelle merchant in the mid-

scvcntccnth century who routinely supplied thc Ursulines at Qucbec with the goods they

nccdcd, did business with thc same clients year after year, and we a n imagine that they

would not oniy collcct and bnng lcttcrs to tbeir clients in the colony but would often cal1

thcmsclvcs or scnd their captain to pick up any letters ready to be scnt back to France

bcforc Icaving the colony. The same merchant who brought lcttcrs to the colony from a

particular correspondent oftcn carricd responses back. Thus, in the spring of 1691, l'abbé

dc Brisacicr scnt lcttcrs to Canada with the merchant Dcnis Rivcrin, and the priests at

Qucbcc scnt rheir rcsponscs back with him." Such a simple courtcsy to a business client

is thc stuff of which this process was made.

In thc British Atlantic, at lcast, it was customary for these mcrchants and ships'

captains to charge a small fcc when they carricd lctter~.'~ A rcccnt study has suggested

this was the n o m in thc French Atlantic a~so.~' While this sccms rcasonablc, it is far

froni ccrtain. Although our sourccs includc rcfcrcnccs to thc cost of transmitting letters

through thc Post Officc within France, they contain no rcfcrcnccs to correspondents having

1 7 ~ e e ASQ. Lettres Carton O, no. 16, Tremblay to Berniers, 16 April 1696; and no. 56, Tremblay to de Maizerets, i Junt: 1699.

%sQ, Letms Carton M, no. I I , [M. Glandelet?] IO M. de Brisacicr, 1691.

% k c , for cxarnple, A1c.u. L. ter Braake, E.-"Ship Lcitcrs," in The. See also McIntyre. "'This Loving Corrcspondericy'," pp. 24-46.

Y~ariks, "Communications and imperial Absolutisrn," comments in his note on sources that the daily accouni books maintained by merchants and ships captains are useful sources for the study of communications. Hc notes thai "Communicating cos1 money, and cven mundane announcements had to be paid for." Rcgretiably, hc dots not discuss what such costs wcre nor provide specific evidence of such charges.

to pay for the transmission of their lctters across the Atlantic." Furthermore, an

ordinance issued in 1676, which required ships' captains to hand letters over to the POS~

Office on their arriva1 in France, noted that they were expected to carry them for fkee?

We cannot bc certain whether this statement simply reiterated what was already common

practice, or whether it was mcant to remind the community of how they were supposed to

bchave. One thing is clear; if a fee was charged it must have been small, otherwise it

could not so easily have cscaped mention by our correspondents who routinely sent

summary lettcrs and multiple copics of their correspondencc.

Contcmporary sourccs tell us comparatively Little about what happened when the

vcsscls on which our corrcspondents lctters had been despatched reached the other side of

thc occan. On the wcshvard crossing, as a vcssçl made its way up the Saint Lawrence,

hcaded for Quebcc, letters werc sometimes disembarked and tumed over to a messenger

who could carry thcm to town in advancc of the vcssel's amival."' Conditions in the river

oficn slowcd the ascent of occan vcssc1s, and wc cm imagine that sorne ships' captains or

mcrchants fonvarded thc Iettcrs thcy carricd cn to Quebec by smaller and swifter vessels in

ordcr that thcir partncrs or agcnts rnight get ncws more quickly. h t t c r s from the Court

werc also somctimcs sent ahead." Rcgrettably, WC do not know who took charge of

thcm, what thc arrangcmcnts wcrc, or how oftçn this happencd.

WC do know that many vcsscls entercd the port at Qucbcc with at least the bulk of

thcir cargo of lctters still on board. Local inhabitants often went out to vessels which had

"SCC, for csample, ASQ, Let tres Carion N, no. 90, Laval to M. de Brisacicr, 1688 in which he rçcommends M. dc Lawon ai La Rochelle as an intcrmediary wiliing to despatch de Brisacier's letters to Canada but wams him hc may have to reimburse de Lauson for charges from Paris 10 La Rochelle. See also "MErc de Sainte-Hélène," Vol. 4, Charlevoix IO Feret, 12 April 1746, p. 51 and elsewhcre in their correspondence where he refers to the burdcn of paying local postage but makes no rcference to any transatlantic charçcs.

t -. . , . . "Jamçt, l.50 0 s C c ~ s à 1860 . - , p. 20. See also Vaillé, 6 * . , Vol. 6, p. 626.

"NAC, Collection Baby, fol. 618, Havy and Lefcbvre to P. Guy, 11 June 1718, quotcd in Dale Miquelon, nouen, p. 73.

34 I3E~on, LL.rlrcs au chcr, 3 lune 1739, pp. 137-38.

just arrivcd in scarch of lettcrs addrcssed to them or iheir fncnds and associates." At the

samc timc, the merchants and ships' captains to whom letters had been entrusted in France

sometimes delivered these letters directly to their intended recipient or to someone else

who would in tum hand them over. This, indeed, was what was supposed to happen under

the terms of an ordinance issued in 1727 and 1732 in an effort to improve the security of

the mails.36 The fact that the ordinance was issued twice does suggest, however, that the

practicc was not always followed.

In France, by law incoming letters were supposed to be handed over to the POS~

Officc at a vesscl's first pon of arriva1 and this was done.)' But it is clear that many

wcrc distributcd infomally, much as was done at Quebcc. Studies of the French Posts

have concludcd that the formai regulations "ne furent jamais complètement observées et ne

panPinrcnt pas à rompre l'cspacc de <çpossession d'etat>> qu'une longue tolérance avait

donnée au c~mmercc." '~ a

While somc of our corrcspondcnts were in the position to manage their

corrcspondencc dircctly, others wcre not. Many lived distant hom Quebec or the ports of

France whcnce vesscls sailcd; othcrs may have lackcd the connections which would allow

thcm to approach a prominent merchant dircctly; al1 faced the problem of how to distribute

thcir lettcrs on thc othcr side of the Atlantic. In thcse instances, thcy relied upon others to

scrvc as their agcnts, helping them to despatch their lettcrs and often also taking receipt of

incoming mail and fonvarding it to its destination.

3s MG 8 A6, Documenrs relarifs a la Nouvelle-France et au Quebec, Ordonnances des Intendants: Trar;sc~iptions, M-8135, Dupuy, 21 Ju~ic 1727 and TX, Vol. 11, C-13589, pp. 318-52, Hocquart, 20 July 1733. noth of thcse ordinancçs wcre issucd in rcsponsl: to cornplaints conccming the loss of lettcrs arising from rhis pracrice.

"SCC ibid.

" S ~ C ASQ, Lettres Canon O, no. a, M. Trcmblay to M. Glandclet, 15 June 1703, in which Trcmblay nolcd ihat hc had reçeived al1 his correspondent's letters the previous year including two sent "par la poste."

=M. Philippe Barrcy, "Les prcmiers paquebots postaux entre Le Havre, New York, et les colonies . S . ... . . franqaisc," Bullcrins dc L S o ~ r t &,s Trav-, section des Sciences économiques et sociales,

1906, p. 155 quored in Vaillé, 6 . . , Vol. 6, p. 627.

In the first instance, correspondents rclied upon merchants. For example, Etienne

Auge, a mcrchant at Montreal, scnt his lettcrs CO his frequent business associate Pierre

Meynardie of Qucbec who despatched them overseas on his behalf. Meynardie also took

rcceipt of incoming letters for Augé and fonvarded them to him at ~ o n t r e a l . ~ ' Simiiariy,

the Qucbec merchants Havy and Lefebvre acted as agents for the Montreal merchant Pierre

Guy--not only forwarding letters to and from him but also conducting much overseas

trade on his behalf." In each case, the Montrcal merchant was able to exploit the

physical prcscnce of h;s agent at the port and his connection to the Canada trade.

Mcynardic, for cxamplc, sen'ed as the Quebec agent for his family in France, taking

rcccipt cach ycar of goods scnt him by his older brother, Picrre-Claude Mcynardie at La

Rochelle, who in his turn scrvcd as the Frcnch agent for many of the family's Canadian

associates such as AU^^." Havy and Lefcvbre first came to Canada as the Quebec agents

of the promincnt Roucn mcrchant Robcrt Dugard but they enjoycd connections with many

other prominent men in the tradc as ~ ~ 1 1 . ~ Mcrchants at Quebcc took reccipt not only of

lctters dcstined for corrcspondents further inland but also for conespondcnts in the port

itsclf. For examplc, in 1696 Hcnn-Jean Tremblay noted that he had addrcssed a package

of lcttcrs for Qucbcc to thc merchant Hazcur of that port who would hand them over to the

pricsts of thc ~cminary."

On thc othcr sidc of thc Atlantic, corrcspondents again rclicd heavily on merchants.

Many lcttcrs arriving in France wcrc handed ovcr dircctly to rncrchants in the port towns.

In the carly 1750s, for cxanplc, MCrc de Saintc-Hélène sent hcr lctters under covcr to the

mcrchant Jean Vcyssi5rc of La Rochclle to bc fonvardcd onward to her corrcspondents

'%cc, for csample, &kqKdJwtinn, U 8501, Quebcc, Meynardic to Etienne Augé, 20 May 1758; U SS07, same io samc, 23 June 1758; and U 8508, same to same, Jufy 1758.

%x Miquelon, R u g u d of Rouen, pp. 73-80.

"This is clcar from the intcmai evidencc of k i r conespondencc. Thc rclationship between the two is . . also discusscd under the various cntrics for Meynardie in Bosher, anh~hir>s -.

" 3 ~ S Q , Lcrtrcs Carton N, no. 106, Tremblay to Laval, 8, 14 Junc 1696. See aiso "Mère dc Sainte- HClCnc," Vol. 4, Mçre de Sainte-HClfne IO Mmc Hccquet, 8 Novembcr 1751, p. 41 on hcr rcliance on the Uuebcc merchant Monier.

clscwhcrc in France? Similarly, in 1706, a priest at Quebec refened to having sent a

package of lctters which he wanted to have put into the Post Office to the "marchant de

qucbcc qui poste les pacquets de M. le gouvemcur."45 At the s m e time, correspondents

in Canada frcquently made arrangements with these same merchants to colleci Iettea for

them in Francc and to dcspatch them on vessels destined for thc colony. Thus, for

example, in Apnl 1735 the Jesuit missionary Fathcr Aulneau, on the point of leaving

Qucbcc for thc interior, advised his mother that she should send anything for him to Mr.

Dupan, a mcrchant at La ~ochel le? Similarly, in 1755, André Doreil, the financial

commissary of wars in New Francc who was rcsponsiblc for the care and maintenance of

the French rcgular troops in Canada, instructed his correspondcnts in France to send leHers

cithcr to the mcrchant Joseph Bérard of Bordeaux or to Pierre le Griel and Sons, rnerchants

at La ~ochel lc .~ ' Somc of thcse rncrchants, such as the aforementioncd Bérard who

owncd a half-sharc in the vesscl la Charmante Manon which sailed to Quebec in 1758,~~

may have bccn directIy involved in the Canada tnde and thus in a position either to

dcspatch lcttcrs with thcir own cargoes or to hand them over to fcllow merchants. Others

Iikcly wcrc lcss immcdiritely involved in the tradc but were able by thcir physical

proximity, or thcir other dcalings with rncrchants trading with thc colony, to arrange for

the dcspatch of thcir corrcspondents' l c t t ~ r s . ~ ~

Thc agcnts on whom Our corrcspondcnts--whc ther Canadian or French--relied in

Francc wcrc not always located in thc ports whçnce vcsscls sailed for Canada:

corrcspondcnts somctimcs relicd on rnerchants cstablishcd clsçwhcre who would undertake

to fonvard Icttcrs to thcir own agcnts in port towns. in 1737, for examplc, Mère de

Sainte-Héllinc of thc Hôtçl-Dieu of Qucbcc rccornrncndcd that hcr fricnd and regular

4.4 ti MCrc de Sainte-Hdène," Vol. 4, MCre de Saintc-Hélène to Mrnc Hecquet, 8 November 1751, p. 41.

"MQ, Lettres Canon M, no. 33a/b, [?] to Trernblay, 3 May 1706.

46 *l Lettres du p h Aulncau," Père Aulneau à sa Mère, 29 April 1735, p. 275.

""Lenres de Doreil," Doreil to M. de Fumeron, 5 July 1755, p. 17.

4s . . Sce cniries for Joseph Dérard and Picrre Penne in Bosher, Men m W.

47 1 Iirtvc ibund no refcrenccs 1 0 Dupan or Lc Greil as Canada merchants although thcy may have k e n riicrchlinrs.

correspondent Mme Hecquet send her letters to "M. Hersant marchand Drapier rue St.

Dcnis a la croix de fer." He was, she explaincd "un grand commissionaire d'une infinité

de personnes dc Canada qui même a la bonté de m'envoyer fort obligeament ce qu'on lui

porte pour moy ..."M Through the 1730s, Mère de Sainte-Hélène's extant lctters generaily

reachcd hcr through another Pans merchant, M. Demus, who acted as her business agent

therc, fulfilling commissions on bchalf of the nuns of the Hôtel-Dieu and despatching

goods for them? Demus evidently knew Mme Hecquet relatively well, and he was able,

not only to forward Mère de Sainte-Hélène's letters to her, but also to pass on news of

Mme Hccquct's health and affairs whcn shc had not writt~n.'~ When in 1740 he ceased

to scrve Mère de Sainte-Hélène she was left for a tirne without an agent in pansms3 This

apparcntly made it difficult for hcr to send Iarger packagcs to Mmc Hecquct and others,

but it did not impcdc hcr corrcspondenc~.~~ In the late 1740s, Mme Hecquet made her

own arrangcmcnts for the despatch of hcr lctters to Canada through her son-in-law M.

Bordcaux--also a Pans mcrchant who ultimatcly becamc Mlrc dc Sainte-Hélène's Paris

agcnt in Dcmus' place.ss His firm seems to have donc business quite routinely with a

M " ~ ~ r e de Saintc-Hdènc," Vol. 3, Mère de Sainte-Hélène IO Mrne Hecquet, 17 October 1737, p. 228. M. Hersant may have besn the samt: man with whom Pierre Guy did business in the mid-1740s for which scc Uaby Collection, U 51 17, Guy to M. Harsan [Hersant] à Paris, 8 April 1747.

" ~ e e , for esample, " M à c de Sainte-Hélène," Vol. 3, Mère de Sainte-Hélène IO Mrne Hecquet, 23 Octobcr 1730, p. 54; Vol. 3, samc io sanx, 13 0ctobc.r 1731, p. 96; Vol. 3, same to sarne, 19 October 1732, p. 105; Vol. 3, sarne ro samc, [early 17401, pp. 279-83.

S '~emus cvidently began to serve as her agcnt sometime around 1729. Mère de Sainte-Hélène thanked Mnic Hccquet for making him known to her: "Je suis très contentc de tout ce qu'il nous achette temoignez luy je vous prie que vous luy scavez gE de la peine qu'il prend pour nous," "Mère dc Sainte-Hélène," Vol. 3, Mhe de Sainte-HClènc to Mme Hecquet, 25 Octobcr 1729, p. 51; and Vol. 3, Mère de Sainte-Hélène to Mmc Hccquct, 18 Octobcr 1733, p. 171.

M. Hccquct rnay havc bccn a merchant, himsclf. MErc de Sainte-Hélène refers to "l'embaras de VOUC conimçrce" since "vous csics cn mcnage," Vol. 3, MCrr dc Sainte-HélCne to Mme Hecquet, 17 October 1736. T h c Hccquct family clerirly rnovcd in commercial circles as the mamage of thcir daughtçr to M. Bordcaux testifies. Pçrhaps Demus was a business associatc.

s31n 1730 M. Dcmus announced that he was too old and too busy to continue to f u s 1 Mère de Sainte- HélCnc's commissions. Sec ibid., Vol. 3, MGre de Sainte-Hélène to Mme Hccquct, 25 October 1740, p. 284.

"sec ibid., Vol. 3, Mère de Sainte-Hélènc io Mme Hecquet, 13 Oaober 1743, pp. 292-93.

S S ~ c m u s had rccommcnded the Messieurs Bordeaux in 1740, for which see ibid., Vol. 3, Mère de Sainte- HClCnc t o Mme Hecquer, 25 October 17M, pp. 24-85. Mère de Saintc-Hélène began to refcr to relying on rhc Mcssicurs Bordcaux in thc mid-1740s for which sce Vol. 3, same IO same, 10 November 1746, p. 298.

merchant, M. Monier, at ~ u c b e t ? ~ and they dcspatched Mme Hecquct's lctters to Canada

each season with the goods they sent him. Indced, her lcttcrs were often actually packed

in amongst his goods rather than travelling separately. in late October 1754, Mère de

Sainte-Hélène commenteci that shc did not yet know whether Mme Hecquet had sent her a

letter that year "car le commerce est si dérangé icy .... que Mr. Monier pourroit bien n'avoir

pas dcbalé sa caissc dc Paris par ou me revicnt ordinairerncnt vos lettres, peut etre me

l'envoyera t-il cet l ~ ~ v e r . " ~ ~ The comcction that cxisted between Monier and the

Mcssicurs Bordcaux sometimcs also meant that Monier was able to p a s on information to

Mère dc Sainte-Hélène concerning Mme Hequet fiom his own corrcspondcncc with her

s o n s - i n - l a ~ . ~ ~

Finally, in Francc during the first half of thc eightecnth century the Chambers of

Cornniercc of certain ports began appointing agents to take charge of incoming letters, dry

them, put thosc dcstincd for thc intcrior into the Post Office, and distributc the rcst--often

apparently frcc of chargc--"aux personnes de la ville et des e n ~ i r o n s . ' ' ~ ~ In 1748, for

csaniplc, thc Bordcaux Chambcr of Commcrcc crcated "chez un Sr. Duforcst, courtier

d1assuranccs, un bureau de distribution des lcttrcs venant des ~ o l o n i e s . ' ' ~ The same was

56 Pcrhaps ihis was Jcan-Mathieu Mouriicr who for much of the time betwccn 1736 and 1758 was in partncrship with Jean-Baptiste Veyssikre, the La Rochelle mcrchant to whom Mère dc Sainte-Hélène

. . dirccicd hcr lettcrs for France. Sec the entry for Mounier in Bosher, and -.

S i Sçc ibid., Vol. 4, MCrc di: Sainte-HClitnt: IO Mme Hecquçt, 6 Novcmber 1751, p. 51; and Vol. 4, same to same, 8 Novcmbcr 1751, p. 44.

"~bid., Vol. 4, samc to samc, 8 Novcmbcr 1751, p. 13. Although she docs not record that hc brought her lettcrs from France, Mèrc dc Sainte-Hélène also hcard news of Mrnc Hccquet through, M. Jaquelin whom shc idcntified as "un négociant de ce pais," who did business with the Messieurs Bordeaux. In the latc faii of 1754 MÇrç de Sainte-Hélène wrote to Mme Hecquet regretting that her fiiend had not written to her that ycar. Insiead, shc noicd, shc had had to be contcnt to hear of her through Mr JaqueIin "Qui est revenu de irri~icc cette annCc çt ma assuri. avoir din6 avçc vous Madame chez Monsieur Bourdcaux." Somewhat later hc Ici hcr sec a Icttcr which hç had just rcccivcd ïrom M. Bourdcaux, "qui lc chargcoit de me dire que vous dvicz nial aus ycus Madamc que vous nc n'Ccrivicz point ...." Ibid,, Vol. 1, samc IO same, 2S October 1755, p. 55.

'mis refcrcncr: was 10 thc practice in Lri Rochelle, Emile Camault, "Conununications sur la Poste . . . . . . maritimc au XVIIIc siCclc," Bullçrin du C c ct . . -s çt îaciales, 1897, pp. 155-56, quoted in Vaiiié, k - . Eun$aka, Vol. 6, p. 627. 1 have not becn able to locate this article.

a ~ . ~ . Gironde, C4255, citcd in ibid., Vol. 6, p. 628.

donc at Nantes carly in 1758.~~ There is a possibility that the merchants at Quebec may

similarly have appointed one of their number to serve as an agent for the mails at Quebec.

The Intendant Hocquart's 1732 ordinance, dcsigned to stop the loss of letters off vessels

which had just arrived in port, requircd that anyone carrying lctters should deliver them

directly to whomever they were addressed or, as an alternative, that the merchants at

Quebec could appoint one of their number to take receipt of al1 incoming letters and

assumc responsibility for their distribution." Regrettably, it is unclear whether or not

thcy did this.

Thc willingness of mcrchants to takc on this kind of responsibility is not surprising.

Merchants, of al1 comspondents, wcrc most likely to be concerned with the speed and

dependability of the mails. Letters were the cement that helped maintain relations between

them and the foundation of their operations. Merchants wrotc to each other describing

spccific shiprnents, announcing the sale of goods, detailing new orders, discussing business

and trade stratcgies, as wcll as convcying more general information about prices, harvests,

markets, war, and pcace. And as study after study of early modem commerce has

suggested, the "prompt and privatc" receipt of this information was crucial to business

succ~ss .~ ' At the same time, mcrchants brought to this issue a tradition of combining in

s 1 A D . Loirc-Infcricur, C 649, Chrinibrcs de Conimrrce, canon 9, cote 6, cited in ibid., Vol. 6, p. 628.

6 2 ~ ~ 8 A6, Documcnis relarifs a la Nouvcle-France ct au Quebcc, Ordinances des Intendants: Transc~ipiions, TI(, Vol. 11, C-13589, pp. 348-52, Hocquart, 20 July 1732.

. . ''Sec Iari Stccle, -, p. 213. Sec also Charles Carrière, - . XVIIIe, Instirut Hisioriquc de provcncc (Marseille: Imprimerie Roben, n.d.) vol. 2, p. 779 who argues

that wc musr recognizc "le rele majeur de la correspondance dans leur travail et la nécessité qu'elle fut transmise rapidement-"

pursuit of common ob jcc t ive~ .~ In the Mediterranean specifically, French merchants had

a long history of serving as forma1 intermediaries for the despatch and receipt of mail?

Correspondents did not rely exclusively upon merchants to assist them. They

established connections with other residenîs of port towns who would undertake to deliver

thcir lettcrs to merchants in the trade or directly to the ships themselves. Thus in late

August 1684, Cabart de Villermont sent two letters by the pst to a M. de Machault

Rougement of Rochefort. Rougcment himself does not appear to have any direct

coiincction with the colonial tradc but he was clcarly willing to serve as de Villemont's

agent and to dclivcr his lcttcrs to mcn who could manage their dcspatch. in

acknowlcdging thc rcccipt of dc Villcrniont's correspondcncc hc wrotc:

Les navires du Canada estoisent hiers en la grand rade de la Rochelle pour mcstre à la voille, sur Ic soir; mais, comme le vent a changé cette nuit et que je ne le trouve pas fog bon, j'envoy ce matin vostre lestre a Mr de la Clocheterie qui commandc I'Emcrillon en la place de Mr de Rochefort qui est fort mal.'

Siniilarly, in 1688 Mgr Laval suggcsted that M. dc Brisacicr in Paris send his letters to M.

dc Lauzon at La Rochcllc who could forward thcm on vesscls for Canada. The man in

question was likcly Charles de Lauson de Charny, son of a former governor of New

France and a rcIigious who had, for more than a decade, scrved Laval at Quebec. In 1671

he had retumcd to France and now lived at La Rochelle in the Iesuit college there. Laval

promised to make the nccessary arrangements, waming dc Brisacier that he might need to

bi The ri~srchants of Marscillc had organized as carly as 1599 and through the scventcenth century various othcr rnerchant cornmunities tormed chambcrs of commerce. The establishment of these merchant urganizritions in rhr: chief pons of France was givcn official sanction early in the eighteenth century. See . , . - . . John C i . Clark, La ~ h e U r E c - d u n n e t h e w (Baltimore: Johns . . Hopkins Univcrsity Press, 1981), pp. 10-1 1; Jacques Del&cuse, Lcs_Consuls de R o u c n : e de la

m e CI . dt , Rouen (Rouen: Editions du Ptit Normand, 1985), pp. 55-59; and France et Philippc Bouchardeau, Hiçtoire de Chambre de deValence, Vol. 1: LUmmhdu . .-

au A- (Université des sciences sociales de Grenoble: Chambre de Commerce et d'Industrie dc Valence et dc la Dromc, 1981), pp. 8-12.

mcrchants of Marseille servcd as intermediaries for the dcspatch of mail in the Mcditerranean throughout thc cightccnth çcntury. Sec, for examplc, "Hadgi-Ussain, Capitain-Pacha, remercie la Chambre du co~iiri~tlrcc dc Marsciilc dc l u i avoir fair parvenir le courrier d'Alger ..." Constantinople, 3 1 Decembcr 1700, L-i Ctiambrc , d~ . Commtrc . y dc Marseillc-s , . Ar&iyes: XVIIe ct XV- * ,'Marseille, 1976), p. . - 77. According to Vaille, . . , Vol, 5, pp. 511-12, who refers to the ilriginal of thc dot-umcnt citcd hcrc, the practicc was by thcn at least a dccade old.

6 S ~ N Q , P373, Corrcspondancc Caban dc Villcrmont, de Villemont to M. de Machault Rougcment, Rochefort, 27 August 1683.

rcimbune de Lauson for charges from Paris to La Rochelle.6' in the samc vein, the

Jesuit rnissionary Father Aulneau relied upon a fellow priest at Quebec to forward letters

to him in thc interior.@

Many French correspondents dcpcnded upon ecclesiastics in Paris. Marie

l'Incarnation, for example, observed in 1647 that the surest conveyance for letters fiom

France was by "la voye de nos révérendes Mères de Pans."69 The Procurator of the

Séminaire de Québec also regularly took rcceipt of letters for prominent religious in

Canada which he undcrtook to forward to the colony: in 1705, for instance, Henri-Jean

Trcmblay forwarded lettcrs for Bishop Laval and the Ursulincs in a lettcr to M. Glandelet

at Qu~bcc . '~ Similarly, in the 1730s, in a letter detailing the variety of people to whom

hcr fricnd Mme Hecquct could cntmst her lcttcrs for Canada, Mèrc dc Saintc-Hélène

includcd the Jesuits in Paris and in 1751 she urged Mme Hccquet evcn more strongiy to

scnd hcr lcttcrs "au College dc Louis lc Grand, au missions étrangèrcs au faubourg St

Germain me du bac," addressing them "au père procureur des Missions de anad da.""

It is unclcar whcthcr Mmc Hccquct cvcr sent her lcttcrs to thc Jcsuits in Paris, but

mother of Mère dc Sainte-HElCnc's rcgular corrcspondents, the Dieppe apothecary Feret,

did. The let tcrs bctwccn Fcret and P.F.X. Charlevoix"--procurator of the Icsuit

Missions and thc Ursuiinc convcrit in New France--which are pnnted in hcr published

corrcspondcnce providc u s with an unrivallcd glimpsc of an agcnt's role. Ferct may

6 7 X S ~ , Lcttrc.. Carion N, no. 90, Lava1 to M. de Brisacier, 1688.

b'"L~iircs du PCrc Auirit.au," Uuebcc, PErc Aulneau to his Mother, 29 April 1735, p. 276. His letters wcrc [LI bc addrcsscci: "pour Ir: F i h Doispincau L'ayne à Quebcç pour faire tenir au Père Aulneau, rnissionnairc au fort St. Charles, sur le lac des Bois en Canada."

, Marie dc l'Incarnation IO her son, Sumrner 1637 pp. 316-23.

"SCC, for example, ASQ, Lettres Carton O, no. 32, Tremblay to M. Glandclet, 3 April 1705 which includcd lettcrs for both.

"SCC "MEre de Saintc-Hélène," Vol. 3, Mere de Sainte-Hélène to Mme Hccquet, 17 October 1737, p. 225 and subscquently, Vol. 4, samc to same, 8 November 1751, p. 41.

7L~har levo i s was a Jcsuii priest who Iiad livcd in the colony and taught in the Jesuit College there hciwecn 1705 arid 17W, and subsrqucntly Icd a voyage of exploration inro the inierior of North America.

. . His obscrvaiions fonned ihe basis of his of Ncw F- (1744), considered ihc tïrst gcneraI hisrory of rhc French setiicments in N m h Amcrica. DCB, S.V. Vol. 3, Charlevoix, Pierre- Francois-Xavier de.

initially have contacted Charlevoix at the suggestion of Mère de Sainte-Hélène's sister,

MCre dc l'Enfant-Jesus of the Hotel-Dieu in Quebec, who had urged him in 1741 to send

his lcttcrs through Pans "en l'adressant de bon hcure au pcre procureur des Missions de

Canada au College de Louis le rand..."^^ Whether or not he did so then, by the spnng

of 1745 they were in contact with one another. Feret sent letters to Charlcvoix that year

but, having failed to heed the warning of Mère de l'Enfant-Jésus, they arrived laie in the

season. In acknowledging the receipt of Ferct's lettea, Charlevoix noted that his

custornary practicc was to dcspatch the letters sent to him in his "boctcs," or ballots, for

Qucbcc to La Rochclle sometime in April and occasionally carlier. However, Feret's

lcttcrs had arrivcd long alter Charlevoix's boxcs had becn closed and sent off and he

cxplaincd that in such instances "jc n'ai plus que la poste pour faire tenir à la Rochelle

ccllcs, quc l'on m'addrcssc." He said that he did not mind doing this for Feret whom he

considcrcd onc of "nos bons amis," but "avec d'autres je suis obligé d'y regarder, parce que

si je recevois dc toute main je ncn serois pas quitte pour deux pistoles ..."74 Feret

apparcntly took offense, thinking Charlevoix resented paying the cost of postage on his

Ictters; the ncxt ycar, in acknowledging those the apothccary had sent him, Charlevoix

rcitcratcd, "quand Ics lcttrcs qu'on nous adresse pour les envoyer a quebec, ne font pas de

gros pacqucts, jc ne fais aucune difficulté d'en paycr Ic port, quoique par leur multitude C

cllcs nc laisscnt pas d'aller asscz loin." Hc cxplained to Fcrct that he feared that he might

have givcn him thc wrong impression the prcvious ycar cithcr out of distraction, "ou dans

un moment où jc mc serai trouvé surchargé de port de lcttrcs, qui n'estoicnt ni pour des ir 75 jcsuitcs, ni pour dcs amis, mais pour des inconnus ... His comment is intcresting not

orily for what i t tells us about how Charlcvoix opcratcd but also bccausc it suggests that

Chrirlcvoix rcgularly took charge of lcttcrs not only from and for pcople known to him but

also from and for veritablc strangcrs.

WC gct a furthcr glimpse of Charlcvoix's practice from a last cxchangc betwecn

Fcrct and thc Procurator. In carly April 1748, Fcret's lcttcrs wcrc again not rcady until

73 ** Mcrt: dc Saintc-HCii'ne," Vol. 3, MCrc de L'Enfant-Jésus to Fcrct, 30 October 1741, pp. 377-79.

"lbid., Vol. 4, Charlevoix tu Feret, 1 July 1715, p. 13.

75 Ibid., Vol. 1, samc: to same, 13 April 1746, p. 51.

aftcr Charlevoix had already despatched his ba~lots.'~ This time, however, Charlevoix

refused to take charge of them: whether because Feret had a box of goods to send as well;

or bccause Charlevoix had simply lost patience with Feret and no longer considered him

onc of "nos bons amis" for whom he was willing to go to extra effort--there is a faint hint

of tension t hroughout t hc correspondence. In rc turning the letters to Feret, Charlevoix

pointed out, howevcr, that al1 was not lost. He recommended that Feret address "votre

B a d a M. Ranjard Negociant a la Rochelle, en lui donnant avis du depart, et vous y

pourrks joindre vos Icttrcs, si vous n'aimés mieux les adrcsscr par la poste au Même

Negociant, en lui donnant avis dc votre ~ n v o y . " ~ It seems likcly that the same E t i e ~ e

Ranjard was the mcrchant to whon~ Charlcvoix sent his own boxes and directed thc lctters

which hc forwardcd for others by post to La Rochcllc. Ranjard, according to John Bosher,

"had strong conncctions with thc clcrgy in Canada for whom he did much business."" It

would have bccn a logical extension of his rolc for Ranjard to have also fowarded lctters

and goods dirccted to thcm by onc of their chief officers.

In addition to thcir rcliancc on rncrchants, thc inhabitants of port towns, and

ecclcsiastics, correspondcnts also dcpendcd upon one anothcr. Thus, for instance, in their

annual lcttcrs to Dudouyt and Trcmblay thc pricsts of thc Quebec scminary invariably

includcd lcttcrs dcstincd for frirnily, fricnds, and associatcs in France which they asked

thcir corrcspondcnt to forward ta thcir dcstinations. In a lcttcr apparently writtcn to Laval

in 1698, Trcmblay notcd "J'ay reccu Monscigncur dc gros pacquets de Lettres de vous par

dcus diffcrcns vaisscau qui nc m'ont csté rendus q'e fort tard j'ay trouvée dans chacun deux

des lcttrcs po'r plus'rs particulier ct po'r v'rc famillc."79 Similarly, I'abbC de L'Isle-Dieu,

Vicar Gcncral of Ncw France, routincly forwardcd lcttcrs to and from Bishop Pontbriand

%id., Vol. 1, sarnc tu sarnc, 5 April 1738, p. 53. He obscrved rhat hc had sent his ballots off eight days zarly duc to wartinic conditions and he cornmentcd thai the April dcadlinc was appropriate in tirnc of peace only .

. . "Sec entry for Ranjard in Boshcr, Men the the-, p. 108.

7 9 ~ S Q , Lcttrcs Canon N, no. 108, Trcmblay to [Laval], 1698. Sce also Lcttrcs Carton O, no 21, Trcriiblay io M. dc BerniCres, 4 May 1698; Lettres Canon O, no. 29, Trernblay to M. dc Bcrnièrcs, 20 May 1700: Lcttrcs Carton O. no. 37, Trcniblay tu M. de Maizcrcts, 10 May 1702(?]; Lcttrcs Carton O, no. 39, Treriiblay io M. dc Maizerets, 15 Junc 1703.

of Qucbec. Writing to him 15 May 1754, for example, he commented simply: "C'est pour

la seconde fois que jay l'honneur de vous ecxire; mais cette lettre sera fort courte,

puisqu'elle na pour but que de vous adresser quelques lettres particulieres qui m'ont été

remises pour vous, et qui sont dans un seul paquet."" One of the biggest advantages of

this practicc was that it allowcd other lcss well-connected correspondents to take

advantagc of the connections prominent figures as Dudouyt and Tremblay enjoyed with

mcrchants in the Canada trade and with others. At the same time, Canadians relied on

correspondents in France to scrvc as thcir agents in order to bypass the Post Office. Mère

de Sainte-Hélène and her sistcr at Quebec, for example, routinely sent lettcrs for others

under cover to Ferct at Dicppe in order to avoid incurring the cost of postage in France

which thcy fclt was too cxpensivc.sl As André Doreil acknowledged in a note to one of

his regular correspondcnts in August 1755, the role of fonvarding agcnt could be a

burdcnsomc onc- Enclosing a serics of lcttcrs under covcr to his associatc, he wrote:

"Peut-etre vais jc cncorc vous fatiguer, en Mettant sous votre Envelope plusieurs lettres

pour Ics faire passer a leurs destinations rcspcctives, on est bien a charge a ses amis quand

on est Expatrie Si 10in."~ This apology was, one suspects, largcly rhetorical. Well-

conncctcd recipicnts of lettcrs from overseas sccm to have acccpted unwavenngly the

rcsponsibility of forwarding lctters to and from thcir corrcspondents in the colony. They

nc\.er dcniurrcd. Thc culturc of transsttlantic corrcspondcnce clearlg assumed that this was

part of the corrcspondcnt's rolc.

Finally, correspondcnts could bypass dealing with agcnts and other intermediaries

and hand thcir lcttcrs ovcr dircctly to travcllers who would undcrtakc to carry thcm across

*"Lcttrcs et mémoircs dc l'abbé de L'Isle-Dieu," I'abbé de L'Isle-Dieu to Mgr Pontbriand, Quebcc, 15 May 1753, p. 369. Sce dso NAC. MG 18, K 3, C-2882, La Gdissoniiire to M. de Lothbinière, 2û Scpicnlber 1752, p. 332, in wliich La Galissonicrt: notcd hr: was forwarding lettcrs fiom Canada which hc had takcri froni die Post.

81 V l Nous pcnsuns quc no nc pouvons pas micux adresscr l a lettres dc la cherc mere St Laurent qua vous Monsieur p6 les luy faire tenir surcm't nous aimons beaucoup cette Damc ct nô vô prions de luy envoyer ce pacquct avec prccaution sans qui1 luy Couic si cela se peut ...." "MCrc de Sainte-Hilènc," Vol. 5, Mère de l'Enfant-Jésus to Feret, 29 October 1731, pp. 359-61. Thc sisters both tried whenevcr possible to avoid paying postagc. In 1711 Mèrc dc I'Enfant-Jésus commentcd in a iettcr io Fercr: "Comme les ports de lettres sont chercs et que jc nc voudrois pas vous etrc a charge en rien, je ne scait par ou ira celle cy," Vol. 5, Mère dc l'Enfant-J&us to Ferct, 30 Octobcr 1741, pp. 377-79.

62"LCs lemes dc Doreil," Dorcil to M. de Fumeron, 30 A u p s t 1755. p. 71.

the ocean and deliver thcm on thcir amval. Marie de L'Incarnation often received letters

by favouP3 and made use of such opportunities herself whenever she could." For

example, in September 1644 Marie de l'Incarnation sent a letter to Claude by "un très

honeste gentil-homme, lieutenant de M. le Gouverneur de la Nouvelle France [Pierre Le

Gardeur, sieur de Repentigny], un de nos meilleurs amys." She explained that his house

was ncar that of the Ursulines at Quebec and that two of his daughters were their

pcnsioncrs. "Il m'a promis dc vous voir, car il tasche dc m'obliger en tout ce qu'il peut ... fl

passe en France pour Ics affaires du pays ct de la colonie française."" We can imagine

this was not thc oniy time hc carricd hcr lettcrs: Pierre Legardeur de Repentigny was the

director of the Communauté dcs Habitants and travelled continually between France and

Canada, loading vessels in France with supplies and picking up furs at ~uebcc." Our

othcr correspondents also frcquently sent their letters by favour."

Thc practice of sending lettcrs "par faveur" was wcll established as the convention

of niarking thcm with this phrase suggcsts. What evidently underlay it was the assumption

of al1 conccrned that it was a travcllcr's responsibility to carry lettcrs. It was even, to

" ~ e e Marie dc -, Marie dc l'lncarnation to her niece, 6 October 1671, pp. 926-27 in which shc rcferrcd to a lcttcr "que j'ay reCue des mains propres de celuy à qui vous l'aviez confiée."

S: Sec, for csample, ibid., Marie dc I'Incarnation to hcr son, 30 October 1650, pp. 106-7. She noted that Claude would have received four of her lcttcrs already bu[ she could not lct the last vesse1 l a v e "sans me donncr cncurc la satistaciiori dc vous dire cc pctit mot, que le Rgvérend F r e Brcssani m'a promis de vous donner." Thrce of t h s e carlier lcttcrs had bccn sent by favour. That of 30 August was given to P. Daran, scc h. 1 p. 107; ihat of 17 Szptember to P. de Lyonne for which sec p. 303; and that of 19 September to P. Bonnin, sec p. 305. See also, Marie dc L'Incarnation IO one of her sisters-in-law, 2û August 1642, pp. 149- 50; de l'Incarnation to her son, 24 June 1656, pp. 571-73; Marie de l'lncarnation to her son, 17 Scptember 1660, p. 631; Marie de l'Incarnation to ber son, October 1668, p. 833.

i'-, Marie de l'Incarnation to hcr son, 15 September 1613, pp. 3.1041.

S6DCB, Vol. 1, S.V. Repentigny, Pierre Legardeur de. See also "La famille Ic Gardeur de Rcpentigny," . . . - . . -, Vol. 53, June 1917, no. 6, pp. 168-70.

"Sec NAC, MG 24 L 3, Uaby Collcciion, P. Sauvagct to M. de Lavaltrie, 1 July 1680, p. 361; ASQ, Lctrrcs Carton N, no. 52, Dudouyt to Laval, Y March 1681; Lenrcs Canon N, no. 57, same to same, 10 May 1681; Lettres Carton N, no. 62, Dudouyt to Laval, 26 May 1682; Lettres Carton N, no. 83, Dudouyt to Laval, 2 May 1683; Lcttrcs Carton O, no. 7, Tremblay IO M. Glandelet, 21 May 1695; Lettres Carton O, no- 28, Trcmblay to Glandelet, 7 May 1700; Lettres Carton O, no. 41, Tremblay to de Maizcrcts, 9 July 1703; Lcttrcs Canon N, no. 123, Tremblay to Laval, 19 June 1705; Lettrcs Canon O, no. 44, Tremblay to M. de Maizercts, 3 July 1705. Sec also, "Mere de Sainte-Hélène," Vol. 6, Mère de L'Enfant-Jésus to Feret, 20 August 1752, p. 119; and University of Montreal, Baby ColIcction, U 3181, Rochefort, D'Aiileboust to his mother Mme D'Argenteuil, Montreal, 20 May 1746.

somc extcnt, a pnvilegc that travcllcrs sought. Thus, for cxample, in October 1668 Marie

dc I'lncarnation sent a lctter to Claude by the Quebec-bom ship's captain and mcrchant

Jcan Bourdon dlHombourg who was accompanying his mother to France noting "Ils n'ont

pas voulu partir sans vous porter un mot de ma part, afin d'avoir la consolation de VOUS

voir et de vous parler....88" Correspondents clearly were reluctant to miss such

opportunities. Marie dc l'Incarnation noted regrctfully in late October of 1649 that if her

earIicr Ictters had not alrcady left she would havc sent them by "un honête jeune homme

qui s'en va cn France et qui est Wrc d'un dc nos domcstiqucs ..."89 Others sometimes

wrotc in haste in order to take advantage of a traveller on the verge of departure?

Indced, some corrcspondents may havc considcred it a lapse of civility not to take

advantagc of the opportunity offcrcd by a traveller known to one's rcgular correspondents.

The abbE de L'Isle-Dicu commcntcd in a lctter to Mgr Pontbriand written in 1753: "Il ne

mc paroit pas naturel dc laisser partir unc missionnaire de cette maison sans vous

Ccrirc ... 1191

Pan of the attraction of scnding lcttcrs by favour may havc been the simplicity of

thc process. Corrcspondcnts could hand thcir lcttcrs over dircctly to travellers and trust

them to dclivcr thcm right into the hand of thcir intended recipicnt on the other side of the

Atlantic. Thcrc werc no intermcdiaries involwd. Undoubtedly, one of the even more

important advantages of thc practicc was thc sccurity it offcrcd. Correspondcnts often

stress rhc honesty of the travcllcrs whom thcy intcnd to usc with the implied suggestion

thrtt thcsc opportunitics wcrc more sccurc than the alternative. Certainly, they rarely rcpon

that lcttcrs sent by favour failcd to amve. But the attraction of scnding lettcrs with

travcllcrs clearl y went bc yond ci thcr of thcsc considcrations. Marie de l'Incarnation, in

particular, clcarly apprcciatcd abovc al1 the physical link that a tnvellcr could crcate

RE - . ' -, Mark de l'Incarnation to her son, Oaober 1668, pp. 832-35. For a discussion of ihc connecrions betwecn Bourdon D'Hambourg and the Ursulines sec Boshcr, "The Jung Family of . . - ~osdcaus," in ln tihc & rif New F m , p. 183.

bV Ibid., Marie de i'lncarnaiiuri ro hcr son, 23 Octobcr 1619, pp. 34-86.

ce, for cxarnple, "Mère dc Sainte-HCiICne," Vol. 6, Mfre de L'Enfant-Jésus to Feret, 20 August 1752, p. 199 who wrote a hurried note, "Pour profiter de [occasion de Mr fouré qui vô connoif."

91"~ettres et mémoires de L'abbE de L'Isle-Dieu," L'abbé dc L'Isle-Dieu to Mgr Pontbriand, 21 May 1753, p. 401.

bctwccn the lettcr-writcr and rccipicnt. She sometimes felt that there were things one

siniplg could not say in a lcttcr and it is evidcnt that she thought that a traveller couid fiil

part of this gap. An examplc of this cornes from October of 1649. Claude apparently had

complained that in the tcn years since her departurc fiom France he had seen no one who

had spoken to her. Thus that fall, having written a letter to him which the brother of one

of their domestics was to carry to him, she also spoke to and lifted her veil before this

"honnètc jeune homme" who now could say not only that he had spoken to her but that he

had scen h ~ r . ~ ' Similarly, on 28 August 1612, Marie de l'Incarnation acknowledged ~ W O

lctters from one of her sisters-in-law "par les mains du R.P. Ic Jeune qui m'a assurée vous

avoir rendu visite, ce qui m'a bcaucoup consolée d'apprendre de vive voix des nouvelles de

ceux que je chCris le plus."93 nie role of the travcller was thus not simply that of a

facelcss courier. The traveller was expected to add to and bnng to life the stuff of the

Ict t~r .~* *

The csscntial structure of the systcrn of communications was provided by the

structures of the mcrchant world itsclf. Historians havc cmphasizcd the cxtent to which

the Atlantic mcrchant is bcst understood as a membcr of a trading circlc which extended

far bcyond the limits of thc particular community in which hc rcsidcd, and which linked

him to mcrchants and othcrs in cornmunitics throughout the Atlantic trading world. These

linkagcs wcre based on multiplc and overlapping ties of family, faith, trust, commercial

intcrcst, honour, and mutual obligation. They allowed him to operatc cffccrivcly in a

world in which hc invariably sent cargoes off to distant places of which hc had little

immediatc knowicdgc. In placc of bcing able to predict himsclf what the conditions

somcwhcrc clsc might bc, the carly modem merchant rclied on othcrs--on a complex

"Ibid., Marie de l'Incarnation to her son, 23 October 1649, pp. 381-86.

Y 3 Ibid., Marie dc l'Incarnation ro one of hcr sistcrs-in-law, 28 Augusr 1632, pp. 149-50. On her view of thc i~iadcquacy of thc lettcr form itself see Marie de L'Incarnation to MEre Marie-GiUettc Roland, Religieuse dc la Visitation, Tours, 10 Ocruber 1618, p. 352; and also Marie de l'Incarnation to Claude, 11 October 1646, p. 294.

W Richard Brown discusscs this in iCnowle&c is Powu. Sce, for cxample, pp. 31-32 whcre he explains that, in the contcxr of scvcntcenth century Boston, messengers carrying public information were expected to know the contents of thc Icitcrs they carried and to "bç equipped to cxpand on thcm in rcsponse to the recipicnt's questions."

ne twork of partners, agents, associates and correspondents scattercd amongst the ports and

towns of the Atlantic world--to provide him with information and advice and to oversee

his intercsts. ln particularly important markets, the merchant sought to protect his interests

by establishing family members thcre who would manage his affairs or by entenng into

partnership agreements with local merchants with whom he had created a bond of tnist. In

marc minor towns and ports, the merchant established agents or conespondents w h o s roie

it was to provide advice and information. Elsewhere, lacking such formai arrangements,

the mcrchant could makc use of somconc who scrved as the agent of a family membcr,

fricnd, business partner, or CO-religionist. What ensured thc cffectiveness of these

networks was thc willingncss of mcrchants "to do favours for each other, thus building up

funds of good will for themsclves and claims on others in time of n~ed ."~ '

The role that merchants playcd in the transmission of the early mails was a simple

cxtcnsion of the traditional rolc of the merchant as agent. As we have seen, howcver,

merchants did not simply put lctters on board vessels; letters tcnded to bc transmitted

alone the lincs that connected one merchant to another. Signifiwntly, these webs of

acquaintancc and reciprocal obligation cxtendcd far bcyond thc mcrchant community itself

to includc bankcrs, financiers, ccclcsiastics, and a host of others. Just as corrcspondents

wcrc able to exploit thc position, knowlcdge, resourccs, and connections of mcrchants

when they sought to correspond, thcy made use of thc position and rcsources of thcse other

people as wcll.

This description is potcntially mislcading, howevcr, in that it can al1 too easily

coiivey a false scnsc of solidity and transparcncy. It is crucial to bcar in mind that each

corrcspondcnt traccd ci diffcrcnt pat h through the mazc of possible connections bctween

nicrchants, ships, and agents dcpcnding upon who they wcre and whom they knew. The

"s~~stern" of communications upon which al1 corrcspondcnts depcnded was not a monolith

but rathcr composed of a myriad of differcnt strands. At thc same time, what scems in

"John Boshçr, "A Qucbcç Merchant's Trading Circlcs in France and Canada: Jean-André Lamaletie b c h r e 1763," H*e Soc-, Vol. X, (no. 19) May 1977, p. 25. More gencrally sce John h s l i c r , T h c Cariaria Muc&am; Miquelon, mofRoucn; John G. Clark, the Abnlic

cnrun. (i3alrimorc: Tht: John Hopkins University Press, 1981); Richard Mcnkis. "The Gradis Family ol' cighiceri~h cçntury Bordeaux: A Social and Econoxnic Study," (PhD Diss., Urandeis Univcrsity, 1988); Krithryn A. Young, Kin,. Jacqucs Mathieu, L

e ct les & au XV-, chapter 4: "Les procédés commerciale."

rctrospect an obvious set of steps to get a letter from sender to recipient was not

necessarily so obvious from the outset. Would-be correspondents often initially had no

idca how to send a lettcr. The proccss was a learned one in which established

corrcspondents informcd ncwcomers about the varicty of agents and others on whom they

themselves relied. In this learning process, it seems often to have bcen Canadian

corrcspondents who iaught their French counterparts what to domg6 Time and again,

Canadian correspondcnts reminded those with whom they wanted to keep in touch when

vcsscls could bc cxpectcd to sail and to whom they should send thcir letters."

The casc with which individual corrcspondents may have been able to makc use of

this systcm must havc varicd cnomously from person to pcrson. Whom one knew, and

whom thcsc pcoplc in thcir turn wcrc connectcd to, was absolutely crucial to the

prospcctivc corrcspondcnt's ability to access the networks upon which communications

dcpcnded. Our sources, of course, reflect the cxpcrience of those who managed to send

lcttcrs, and not of thcir unsucccssful fellows. Morcover, as was noted earlier, Our

corrcspondcnts constitutcd an clitc evcn amongst thosc who may have wnttcn letters in this

pcriod. Not surprisingly, nonc of thcm secrn to have faccd the slightesi difficulty

arranging for the dcspatch of thcir corrcspondcncc. Thcir business, personal, and

profcssional connections gave thcm rcady acccss to scores of pcople who were willing to

s c n c and assist thcm. More ordinxy correspondcnts likcly did not have as easy access to

the samc nctworks. But thcy may havc bccn ablc to make use of somc of them, and we

can spcculatc that thcrc wcre othcr nctworks that may havc served them spccifically.

Would it not, for cxamplc, havc bccn possible for someonc of comparativcly lowly status

livin_r in thc hinterland of Li Rochcllc to approach a sailor on a vcsscl dcstined for Canada

with a lcttcr for rt family mcmbcr thcrc? Thcy might frcqucnt thc samc taverns or share

somc conncction that would give our would-bc correspondent a claim on the travcller. *

"Sec, for example, "Mère dc Sainte-HE18ne," Vol. 3, Mère de Sainte-Hélène to Mme Hecquet, 17 Octubcr 1737, p. 228; and Vol. 5, Mkre dc I'Enfant-JÇsus to Fcret, 30 October 1741, pp. 377-79.

Y7 . de 1' .. , Scc, for cxarnple, Marie InLdrndrion, Marie di: l'incarnation IO Mère Cécile dc S. Joseph des Ursulirics dc Mciris, 12 Scpicriitxr 1670, p. 881. S w also "Lcttrcs du pCrc Aulneau," Pcrc Auineau to his Moihcr, 21) April 1735, p. 275; "Lcttrcs de Dorcil," Dorcil to M. de Fumeron, 5 July 1755, p. 17.

Thus far this chapter has focused on the process by which the transatlantic mails

rnanaged to circulate between France and Quebec. This final section will look at how this

system altered or stretched as letters moved inland. The pattern, rhythm, and ease of

transatlantic con~munications dcpended significantly on one's geographic location. In what

follows, we will distinguish clearly bctween two categories of correspondents: those living

along thc Saint Lawrence who sharcd broadly in the circumstanccs of the inhabitants of

Qucbcc; and those living in the interior of the colony who had to grapple with a much

more complex sct of conditions.

Throughout the seventeenth century and well into the eighteenth, there were no real

roads along thc Saint Lawrcncc. Transportation was prirnady by water during the season

of navigation, although thcrc wcrc undoubtedly trails which knowlcdgeablc travellers could

follow. By thc 1730s a road had bcen built along the north shore of the Saint Lawrence

bctwcen Montrcal and Qucbcc that was 24 fcct wide, equippcd with bridges over the

narrowcr rivcrs it crosscd, and with rafts or fcrrics whcrc thc rivcrs wcrc widcr. Soon

aftcr its completion, the chicf road officcr reported that the journcy from Qucbcc to

Montrcal took "four days by thc samc h o r ~ c . " ~ ~ At the samc timc, the growth of the

colony's population and the expansion of its cconomy would have Icd to an increase in the

volurnc of local shipping. providing cvcr more opportunitics for communications along the

Saint Lawrcncc as long as thc navigation was opcn. In wintcr, whethcr ovcr thc icc or

through the woods by sleigh or on horseback, travel was, if anything, casier than in the

summçr.

Corrcspondcnts are oftcn rcgrcttably vague about how lcttcrs wcrc carried within

thc colony itself, rcfcning simply to an "occasion" or "opportunity." In carly Octobcr

1735, for cxamplc, Pèrc Aulncau's close fricnd Fathcr François Nau at Sault St. Louis

'b&chives natiunales, Paris: Fonds des Colonies, siric CllA, vol. 60, fol. 379-379v, Lanouiller de Boisçlcrc, Québec, 17 Octubçr 1733, citçd in André Vachon, ---anadafrom-l7fjQ (Ottawa: Public Arçhivcs of Canada, 1985). A Pust Housc system was cstablished along the road's length for the corivcnicncc of iravcllers some time later. The road was divided into stages and Postmasters were appointed ai cach tu provide traveuers with hurscs or vehicles.

In Britain and France. thc pst roads wcre an integral part of an official nctwork for thc delivery of rhc mails. Couriers travclled these roads, changing horscs at the Post Houses en route. Sec, for example, Eugenc Vaillc, Hisroire # . . G v . Tome 5 L a c et le

* . - - - Ug9 1 - 173&j (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1951), Deuxième Partie, Chapitre 2. Steele, The -, pp. 114-19- In Canada thc p s t road scrvcd travcllcrs only and did not fuIfil a formai role in thc rransmission of thc mails until aftcr the Conquest.

[Caughnawaga] near Montreal wrote in a postscript to his letter to Mme Aulneau in

France: "Je vous prie de m'excuser auprès de Madame Aulneau, religieuse de la foy,

Fontenay [hcr daughter]. L'occasion qui doit porter mes lettres à Quebec me presse trop

pour pouvoir luy écrire."9g It is, however, possible to piece together a sense of some of

thc options availablc to contcmporary corrcspondents.

To bcgin, official corrcspondcnce and despatchcs werc commonly sent between the

towns and posts along the Saint Lawrence by soldiers throughout the French regime. On

23 Dcccmbcr 1665, for example, the Governor at Qucbec, dc Courcelle, wrote an

important Iettcr to Pierrc Boucher, Govcrnor of Trois-Rivières, concerning wheat

shortages. He cncloscd othcr lcttcrs which hc asked Boucher to dcspatch with al1 possible

spced to Montrcal, Chambly, and Richelieu by pairs of soldiers who he suggested should

be outfittcd with "souliers sauvags ct des raquettes."1m Officials and other

corrcsporidcnts also rclicd hcavily on nativc couricrs, whether thcy werc sent explicitly for

the purposc or cntrusted with lcttcrs to dcliver as thcy travelled en route somewhere.

Thus, for instance, whcn Marie Morin was acccpted as a hospitallcr sister at the Hotel-

Dieu of Montreal the ncws was carricd therc from Qucbcc "par un Sauvage, Loup de

Nation, qui fut for lonstamps par le chemin." 'O1 Ordinary correspondents

commonly relied on travcllcrs--a tcrm which likely applicd cxclusively to Europeans. In

Octobcr 1739, for cxamplc, Father Nau told Mme Aulneau that hc had rcceived her letter

the prc\.ious fa11 only riftcr his own lcttcr to hcr had becn writtcn and sent.

Lc PCrc dc la Brctonnièrc cn fut cause. II etoit descendu à Qukbcc pour faire les provisions de notre mission: il retira tout ce qui m'étoit vcnu de France pour me l'apporter luy mémc, afin quc tout me fût rendu plus sûrement: mais il ne revient au Sault St. Louis qulaprEs Ic dcpart dcs vaisseaux. Il auroit dû au moins

"'"Lctrrcs du I ' k Aul~icau," PCrc Nau ro Mmc Aulricau, 3 Oçtober 1735, p. 288.

100 NAC, MG 21 18, Viger, Jacqucs, Rccl M-6, Vol. Ml, "Petits manuscrits," Doc. #6, Lettre de Gouvcncur Gcncral de Courçcllc a M. Prc Bouchcr Gouvcncur particulier de Trois-RiviSres," 22 December 1665, pp. 11-12.

1 - - 'OIThis citarion is from Marie Morin, Histoire cet vcritable: dc 1- M~u~d.359-1795, Ghislaine Legendre, cd. (Montreal: 1979), pp. 129-30 councsy of Lynn Berry, Histury, Univcrsiiy of Toronro.

m'cnvoyer par avancc lcs lettrcs qui m'etoient écrites, afin que j'y puisse faire réponse. '"

WC can also expect that, particularly as the colony grew and river traffic increased, many

correspondents entrusted their letters to the captains of local vessels. For instance, in his

description of his travels in North Amenca, the Swedish naturalist Peter Kalm reportcd that

his Party, travelling en route to Montreal in mid-September 1749 by the Governor's boat,

had stopped at Trois-Rivières, "Where we stayed no longer than was necessary to deliver

thc lcttcrs which wc had brought with us fiom ~ u e b e c . " ' ~ ~

In addition, from at least the late seventeenth century both government officiais and

privatc corrcspondents could send letters by the King's messenger between Quebec and

Montreal. The carlicst cxtant reference to the employment of a government courier dates

from 10 July 1693 and records that the sum of one livre was paid to a man identified

siniply as "[lc j Portugais, pour lc port d'un pacquet de lettres de Montréal à Q u é b e ~ . " ' ~

This couricr was undoubtcdly Pierre [Pedro] Dasilva dit le Portugais to whom the

lntciidant Raudot issucd a commission as the King's messenger in late December 1705.

The appointment was made, according to the tcxt of the commission, because it was

necessary "pour le service du roy et le bien public d'établir en cette colonie un messager

pour portcr Ics ordres en tous les licux de ce pais ou besoin sera." The terrns of his

commission requircd Dasilva "[de] porter les lettres de M. le gouvcmeur GénCral et de M.

1'Intcndant dans toutc I'ktcnduc dc la colonic" but also allowed him "de se charger de celles

dcs particuliers pour Ics rendre à lcur adrcsse, ct cn raporier les réponses." For the latter

hc was authorizcd to chargc 10 sols bctwecn Qucbcc and Villc Maric, 5 sols between

Qucbcc and Trois-Rivières, "ct au reste, à proportion, sclon les lieues où il les rendra."

Hc was cnjoincd to fulfil his tasks promptly, dclivering the letters hc carried to thcir proper

102ii Lcttrcs du pCrc Aulneau," Father Nau to Mmc Aulncau, 12 August 1739, p. 306.

1 U 3 ~ ~ r c r Kalni, Pctcr K ; i l m ' s v e l s in N h x . of Vçrsion77Q , rçvised and edited

b}. Xdolph 13. Bcnson, Vol. 3 (New York; Dover Publications, 196l), p. 512.

'OJ"[U]n document judiciairc," "archivcs de Montreal," ciied in E.-Z. Massicotte, "Les premiers messagers . * dc la Nouvelle France," W t i n des, VoI. 27, 1921, p. 211. 1 have not k e n able Io locatc this document but have seen a photocopy of the original in a number of sources and thus believe that it docs cxist. Nonc of the sources, however, provides a refereccc.

address. Others, regardless of rank, werc forbidden to interfere with him, and the King's

officcrs werc u r p d to offcr him whatcvcr assistance they could.105

It is unclear how long Dasilva servcd as "messager du roi."lM He died in 1717

and his son-in-law, Jean Moran secms to have assumed the role sometime around then.

A commission issued to Moran in 1727 to serve as the King's messenger noted that he had

alrcady bcen carrying letters between Quebec and Montreal for ;en years.lm in 1733 and

1734 Moran was still bcing styled "Messager du Roi" but thereafter is generally referred to

simply as a carter. Records reveal thc namcs of a number of others who served as couriers

or Iiinp's mcssengcrs, in latcr years.'"

Privatc correspondcnts did makc use of the scrviccs of these men. In Dccember

1748, for examplc, Elisabeth Bégon recorded, "Pour faire quelques compliments du ler de

l'an, on m'a dit qu'il partait un C O U ~ C ~ ces fétes ...," and on January 2 she noted having just

rcccixd "un tas dc lcttres ..., toutes complicmts, sans doute," by a courier from

Q u c b ~ c . ' ~ At that timc of year, thc courier would have becn carrying only local mails.

At othcr timcs, hc sencd more cxplicitly as a direct link to thc transatlantic mails. in the

spriiig of 17-48, for instance, Mmc BCgon lamcnted "Voilà le dernier de mai et point de

"'Sec NAC, MG 8 A6, Vol.1, C-13587. pp. 53-55, "Commission de Messager au nommé Ie Portugais." Dasilva is usually styled the t h t Canadian courier by phiiatelists who celebrate his appointment as courier as a milestone in the emergcnce of a forma1 postal service in Canada. Sce for exampie, J.J. Charron, "Postai History of Canada under the French Régime, 1608-1760," The, Vol. 19, #2, 1968, pp. 91-92;

* . "Lcs prcmiers messagers de la Nouvelle-France," m, Vol. 27, 1921, pp. 31 1-13; Campbcll, "Canada Postal History"; Thomas A. Hillrnan, "Records of the Post Office Department," Gcncral inventory Series, Fedcrd Archivcs Division (Ottawa: Public Archives of Canada, 1985), p. 1. See . . . . also Smith, -~isionl Posr Offxr: rn -, pp. 31-33.

lu0 Dasilva was born in Lisbon, Ponugal in thc laie 1610s. Hc came to Canada sometime before 1677 whcri hc marricd Jeanne Grcslon of Qucbec, for which see P.-G. Roy, inventaire des contrats de marriage du rcgimc franqais conserves aux Archivcs Judiciaires de Quebec (Quebec: 1933, Vol. 3, Vachan, 16 May 1677. Moogk identifies him as a fanner but in contemporary records he is normaUy referred to as the King's mcssengcr. Xccording ta Petcr Maogk he was fairly poor; two of his sons became master masans "but their brothers in Quebec did not rise above the lcvcl of carters and day-labourers." DCB, Vol. 3, s.v. "Dasilva, dit Portugais, Nicolas."

loi NAC, MC; 8 C6, Nouvcllc-France: Arrcts, édits, rnanden~cnis, ordonnances et règiements concernant MonrrCal, Vol. 6, 173-53, 29 January, 1727 "Commission dc mcssagcr à Jean Moran," Claude Thomas Dupuy.

lu6 Scc for csamplc NAC, MC; 8 A6, Vol. 12, "Commission de Messager par eau à Jean Carrier," pp. 72-73.

'Og~6gon, Lettrcs, 25 December 1748, p. 56 and 2 January 1719, p. 60.

courier, car M. le Marquis [le marquis de La Galissonnière, Governor of New France] nous

cn a promis un à I'amvée du premier va i~seau."~ '~ Similarly, in October 1746, Pierre

Guy of Montreal wrote to the French merchant trader Jean Veyssière of La Rochelle, "le

ric Conipte point dcscndre a quebec vu qu au jourd huy huitieme doctobre nous navons

encore que vos lettrs du 70 de mars. Les Deux Couriers qui Sont arrivez il y a quelque

jours, ils ne nous ont aportés aucune lettre. Nous attendons la flotte avec impatience.""'

As the examples above suggest, in the 1740s at least, the couriers do not appear to

have operatcd according to a set schcdule but rathcr travellcd intermittently. The

opportunitics thcy providcd may not have been well advertised. On 27 December 1743,

for cxamplc, thc mcrchants Havy and Lefevbrc of Quebec o b s e ~ e d in a letter to Pierre

G u y at Montrcal that "le nomme lachambrc messagers du Roy a parti cn dernier lieu sand

quc nous l'ayons scu, nous esperons que son retour que nous aurons de vos

nouvelles ....""' indeed, it is clcar from the correspondcncc between these merchants

through the mid-1740s that, in wintcr at least, opportunitics for communications between

thc two towns could bc irifrequcnt. In the faIl of 1744, for instance, Guy had apparently

writtcn to the Qucbcc traders accusing them of not paying sufficient attention to his

intcrcsts in somc spccific regard and on 7 Octobcr they rcsponded. They could not, they

cxplained, do bcttcr than to keep him informcd of what was happening though they

admittcd "II cst vray que nos lcttres ony pu retarder faute d'occasions .... t~ 113 mat

Novcrnbcr Guy wrote to Havy and Lefcbvre on the 6th, Eth , 14th, and 26th. Havy and

Lcfcvbrc did not rcspond until 16 Dcccmbcr, "faute docasions fréquentes." They explained

"Nous navons pu lc fairc jusqua cc jour, depuis la reception des premieres 11 ny a eu

qu'une sculc occasion quc nous avons manquec."114 Similarly, on 29 January 1746,

"Otbid., 31 May 1739, p. 136.

" ' ~ a b y Collcction, U 5110, Montreal, P. Guy to M. Vcyssière, La Rochelle, 15 October 1746.

' 1 2 N ~ c , MG 23 Baby Collection Transcripts, Quebec, Havy and Lefebvre to Guy, Montreal, 27 Deccmber 1713, p. 503.

"'Ibid., samr: to same, 7 Octobcr 1711, p. 526.

1'4ibid., same ro samc, 16 Dscrmbçr 1713, p. 536.

Havy and Lefebvre wrote to Guy in response to his letter "par Mr Charets du 16 courant."

This lettcr was not, however, despatched until the 31st, once again "faute d o ~ c a s i o n " ~ ' ~

In the 1750s, corrcspondents at Qucbec and Montreal rcferred quite frequently to

sending letters by couricr between the two towns. in 1755, Jacques Perrault, a merchant of

Montreal, reccived a lcttcr from his brother-in-law at Quebec informing him that

Perrault's wife "doit avoir rcccue par le Courier une lettre de moy ou je vous fait le detaille

dc toutes les nouvelles de ce qui ccst passé ...."116 Similarly, Pierre Meynardie began a

lettcr to Etiennc Auge of Montreal on 14 September 1757: "J'aprcnd dans le moment qu'il

va parti un Courier je n'ai que lc tems de vous accusse la rcccption de .... <...>[apparently

a sum of moncy] que vous mavé envoyé ."Il7 Thc couricr's departure still secms to have

becn fairly unpredictablc and corrcspondcnts ohen report having missed the opportunity.

Thus, for instance, on 30 July 1755 Choiscul Gnslain at Quebcc commentcd in a letter to

Michel Eustache Gaspard Charticr de Lothbinière "Je rccus avant-hicr, Monsieur, la lettre

quc vous m'avez fait l'honneur de m'écrire et si j'avais été instruit du départ du courrier qui

fût cnvoyC hicr à Montréal il eut été certainement le porteur de ma réponse." Having

misscd thc couricr, he dctcrmincd to seize the first opportunity to rcspond to his lctter

which happily camc the ncxt day [the 30thj. Hc cxplained : "C'est M. de Meloise qui la

fournit ct Mdc dc Léry qui mc la procure." Lothbinière appcars to have written Graslain

on a mattcr of sornc sccrccy and the lattcr did not want othcrs to know that thcy wcre in

corrcspondcncc. Thus, hc cxplaincd, "Sans que lc porteur de cette lcttrc en soit instruit

clle [Mdc dc Lcry] vcut bicn la mcttrc dans la sicnnc pour Cviter Ics tcntations que la

curiosité pourrait cxcitcr si ccrtaincs gens mc savaient cn correspondancc avec vous."118

Indirect cvidcncc suggcsts that by the latc 1750s thcrc may have becn a regularly

schcdulcd opportunity bctwccn Qucbcc and Montrcal. A scrics of twcnty-cight letters

"%id-, sanie to sanie, 29 January 1716, p. 776. A pstscript, p. 778, n o t a that thc letter, as a cmsequcncc, remaincd ai Quebec until 31 January.

'"%nivcrsity of Montreal, Baby Coilcction, U 1978, Boucher de Boucherville to J. Perrault, 23 Septembcr 1755.

'"~bid., U 8399, P. Mçynardic to E. Auge, 13 September 1757. See ais0 U 8512-1, same to samc, 26 August 1758, "Le couricr va partir Je nai pas Ic tcms dc vous cn dire davantage."

'18Qucbcc, Choisel Graslain to Michel Eustache Gaspard Charticr dc LothbiniCrc, 30 July 1755, quoted in . . "Au sujcr de la Famille dc Lothbinierc," Bulletin_des, Vol. 33, 1927, pp. 392-94.

writtcn by Picrrc Meynardie of Quebec to Etienne Augé of Montreal bctween late May

1757 and December 1758 reveal a number of interesting patterns. First, Meynardie wrote

to Augé or his wife as often as six times a month. Second, he was writing at reguiar

intenals; of the twcnty -eight lettcrs almost one third were written on a Monday, and a full

twcnt y -four of the twcnt y-eight between Friday and Monday.'I9 The frcquency with

which Mcynardie wrote to Augé and, more significantly, the regularity of the pattern of

correspondence, suggcsts that sometimc early each week he had access to a reguiar

opportunity to Montreal. In England, we know that merchants could make use of

individuals who establishcd themselves as pnvate couriers scrving regular correspondents

and it would not be surprising if some person or persons had done the same as a business

venture in the c01ony.l~

Particularly during the last decades of the French regirne, but in fact throughout

most of Our period, thc comparative case of communications along the Saint Lawrence

corridor would have pro~idcd correspondents with fairly rcady access to Quebec. This

acccss allowed them to takc direct advantage of the system of transatlantic

con~munications. Communications to the interior of the colony was not so straightfonvard

and i t su bstant iall y constraincd thc cfforts of Canadians living beyond Montreal to

maintain a "normal" correspondence.

Thc casc of Saint-Charlcs Garnier--a Jesuit missionary in the Huron country in the

1640s and a contcmporary of Marie dc l'Incarnation--givcs u s a first glance at the

distinct ivc constraints on communications to and from the Uppcr Country. Garnier had

amvcd in Canada in 1636 at thc age of about thirty and rcmained in the colony until his

dcath at the hands of thc Iroquois in 1649. For much of the timc, hc lived near the shores

of Lake Huron in what was csscntially a war zone, as the Hurons and Iroquois battlcd for

suprcmacy. From thcrc hc wrotc lctters each year to his brother in rance."' The very

'"riaby Collection, U 8186 io U 8515 çwcring dates 30 May 1757 rhrough 3 Deccmber 1758. 01 these lcrtcrs, founscn wsrc wriiizn tiorn Julie io Srpianber 1757, and clevcn from latc April 1758 to latc August 1758.

'ZOScc on thc establishment of privaie courier services, Derck Gregory, "The Friction of Distance?."

"'For his concspondcncc sec "kttrcs de Saint-Charles Garnier, " m, 1929-30. Sce also DCB. Vol. 1, s.v. "Garnier, Charles."

fact that such correspondence occurrcd is testimony to the resilience of the system we are

describing. The most obvious feature of this correspondence is the seasonal rhythm of

communications in Huronia, which diffcred fiom that at Quebec. Correspondcnts at

Quebec generally received letters fiom France in the summer and responded to them in the

fall, and then waited until the following spring or summer for another letter from France.

Gamicr, on the other hand, customarily wrote his letters in Apnl or May and then

despatchcd them with a party of Hurons who--oftcn accompanied by one or NO

missionarics--wcre making the jouincy from the intenor to Quebec as soon as the ice

mcltcd. His lcttcrs would, if ali wcnt well, amvc in the colony in time for the departure of

the ships for France. At Qucbcc, thc party would collect al1 lctters that had amved that

summer and thcn carry them back to the missionary who would receive them that fa11 or

winter. As a rcsult, corrcspondents in the intcrior had to wait a full year and a half before

thcy rcccivcd an answer to a lettcr. As onc of Garnier's contcmporaries explained in his

own lcttcr to France carly in the spring. of 1639, "1 shall not havc answers to thosc of last

ycar until aftcr 1 havc scnt this ne."'^ At the same time, Garnier's corrcspondcncc suggests that communications to and

from the interior were particularly vulncrable. Lettcrs headed for Qucbec could sometimes

take so long cn route that they missed the vessels at Quebec. In 1641 Garnier complained,

Cc me fut unc affliction envoyée du Cicl quand j'appris l'an passé au mois de scptembrc que la lettre que je vo. avois ecri pendant I'Cté étoit amvée a quebec avec plusieurs autres apres lc départ des vaisseaux po. retourner en francc. Mais il me fut d'autant plus facil dc me resigncr a la volont6 dc Dicu que j'etois assur6 que je n'avois peu faire mes lettres ny les Envoyer plus tost.13

The letter in which he recordcd the previous year's problem was written late in May and

would, he hoped, join that of the previous ycar at Quebec to be despatched by the vessels

in the Ml. Other letters werc lost. in lune 1641, Gamicr referred to his brother not

having rcccivcd lcttcrs writtcn two ycars p r e v i o u s ~ ~ . ' ~ ~

. , '2'~hwaitcs, w, Vol. 15, "Letter of Father François du Perm of the Socicty of Jesus, to Faihzr Joscph Imbert du Perm, his brothcr," 27 April 1639, pp. 119-51.

13, ' Lettres dr: Saint-Chrirlcs Garnier," Teanaustayae, Garnier to his broiher, lc père Hcnri de Saint- Joscph, 22 May 1631, pp. 21-25.

"%id., samc IO same, 23 Junc 1641, p. 22-

Lcttea travelling in the opposite direction could suffer similar fates. in 1643,

Gamicr notcd that most of the lctters sent him the last year fiom France had been captured

by the ~ r o ~ u o i s . ' ~ In 1618, he commentcd that neither he nor any of his cornpanions

had reccived lctters thc previous year,

parceque aucun Huron ne remonta L'été Dernier de là bas icy haut a cause du danger des Ennemis qui est sur larivicrc. J'espère que cet eté nous receuvrons cclles de L'année passée et celles de cette année, car un bon nombre de Hurons est bien rksolu d'aller là bas cet eté et d'en revenir, a tout hazard.lX

Thc distinctive seasonal limits on communications to and from the interior

rcmained intact more than a century tater.'" Ln April 1735, as he prepared to set out for

Fort Saint Charlcs near b k e of the Woods, Fathcr Aulneau warncd his mother that the

Icttcrs he wrotc for France the ncxt spring might not arrive at Quebec before the vessels

sailcd for France and that she should thus not bc aIarmed if shc received nothing from

him. Instcad, he had askcd his close friend Père Nau, "qui est fixé à une mission iroquoise

à 64 licucs de Qucbcck," to wnte to her cvery year.'" Fathcr Aulneau left Qucbec that

Junc 1735 with La VÊrcndrye and spcnt thc winter at Fort Saint-Charles on the western

shorc of Lake of the Woods. Hc wrotc from thcre in late April ta a pnest in France "par

nos Jcmicrs canots" comrncnting that he did not expect anothcr opportunity that year.'29

Givcn they livcd far in the interior of the colony, perhaps the most remarkable

fcature of the cspcricnce of these priests is that they wcrc able to kcep in touch with

corrcspondents ovcrscas at dl. WC should not, indeed, let the solidity of the Jesu&

Relations causc u s to lose Our scnsc of wondcr ovcr thc fact of communications from the

l31bid., samc to same, 23 May 1633, p. 28.

"%id., samc to samc, 25 April 1638, p. 37.

12'For csamplc, in latc May 1731, Fathcr du Jaunay at Michilirnakinac reparted that he had received a letter which kad lcft Franct: the previous March in the fa11 "et le retour du printemps me donnant le moyen d'y rcpondrc, je lc fais dc tout mon cocur." "Lcttrcs du Perc Aulneau," PCrc du Jaunay to Mme Aulneau, 25 May 1711, p. 318.

''"bid., Aulncau io his nwthrr, 39 April 1735, p. 275.

"'Ibid., sanie to same, 30 April 1736, p. 292. This was one of the 1 s t lctters he w o d d write as he was killcd in carly June by a band of Sioux whilc en route Crom Fort Saint Charles to Michilimackinac at the top of Lrikcs Huron arid Michigan. Sec DCB, s.v. Vol. 3, "Aulneau (de La Touche), Jean-Pierre."

Uppcr Country. Thc priests' experiencc testifies to the resilicnce of the system of

communications. Thc distance t hat scparated these men fiom Quebec meant that patterns

of comrnunications in the Uppcr Country were an extreme version of those at Quebec.

Howcvcr, the cssential qualities of thc transatlantic mails were not fundamentally different,

mcrcly strctchcd. Significantly, just as at Quebec, thcre was still a "system" of

communications in the Upper Country on which correspondents could depend. As at

Qucbcc, although communications dcpcndcd on the activc participation of the letter-writer,

corrcspondcnts dcpcndcd upon othcrs--particularly First Nations pcople--to make the

proccss funcrion.

Thc process of communications rclicd significantly on the willingness of individual

corrcspondcnts to takc rcsponsibility for thcir lcttcrs and to play an active role in the

managcmcnt of thcir dcspatch. It is, howcvcr, crucial that we do not cxaggerate the

importancc of individual agcncy. Thc key to understanding the ability of Canadians to

communicatc cffcctivcly lics ultimatcly in thc rcalization that thcy wcre not alone. French

rcgimc corrcspondcnts rclicd hcavily on othcrs for thc dcspatch, rcccipt, and distribution of

thcir mails. Those on whom they could dcpcnd includcd ecclesiastics, travellers, and other

corrcspondcnts, but thc most significant group in this regard wcrc merchants. Merchants

acceptcd lcttcrs for transport on board thcir ships, taking responsibility for their distribution

o n thc othcr sidc of thc Atlantic. At thc samc timc, merchants scnxd correspondcnts as

agcnts, forwarding lcttcrs on thcir behalf. The linkagcs bctwccn merchants formed a

structure through which lcttcrs could flow and thc ability of othcrs to tap into these

connections cstcndcd thc rcach of thc nctwork far bcyond thc merchants thcmselves.

Historians havc tcndcd to assume that in thc abscncc of a formal postal service

thcrc was no "systcm" for communications. Clearly, howcvcr, thc carly mails wcre far

rnorc structurcd and prcdictablc than thcy havc habitually bccn dcscnbed. Although bascd

on a sct of practiccs and conventions which had thcir root in thc nccds of merchant

conimcrcc, thc proccss of communications during the French regimc can bcst be

undcrstood as a "systcm." It was bascd not on administrative dccrcc but on custom and

habit.

141

Corrcspondents existed within a culture of conespondence in which travellers,

nicrchants, and others readily accepted responsibility for letters given to them. Letters

wcrc succcssfully convcycd across the Atlantic because the community at large feit a

pcrvasive sensc of obligation to gct the mails through. Opportunities to correspond were

bascd on conventions of behaviour and business that made each merchant a forwarding

agent, evcry traveller a letter-carrier, and al1 vessels and their crews an opportunity to

brcach the distance of the ocean.

CHAPTER 5 Beyond the Image of a Closed World:

Alternative Opportunities for the Mails

The previous four chapters have described a system of communications dependent

upon and shaped by the distinctive rhythm and patterns of Atlantic shipping to the Saint

Lawrcncc. in its esscntial components this was the world of transatlantic communications

in which Frcnch regimc corrcspondcnts participatcd. Communications were never,

however, as neatly or cornplctely limited to this world as Our discussion thus far has

suggested. Correspondents were not entirely dependent upon the shipping to and from

Qucbcc; thc limits on thc season of communication were not absolutely set by the timing

of vesse1 amvals and departurcs in the Saint Lawrence; and the winter did not always

bnng a perfcct silence. As this chapter will demonstrate, somc corrcspondents were able

at timcs to exploit alternative opportunities through Gaspé, Plaisance, Acadia, Louisbourg,

and Ncw England to correspond wi th Francc. Thcse addi t ional opportunities supplemented

thosc providcd by the regular shipping, and scrvcd to extend and even sometimes to

overcornc the scasonal limits on communications through thc Saint Lawrence. These

altcrnatc opportunitics wcrc ncvcr used cnough to form an integral part of the systcm we

have dcscribcd; nor did thcy brcak down the esscntial scasonality of tnnsatlantic

communications to and from thc colony on thc Saint Lawrcncc. Whcn communications

wcrc particularly limitcd, howevcr, thcse routcs could bc a godscnd. They also provided

certain corrcspondcnts thc occasional opportunity to brcak through the scasonal limits on

con~munications, cnsuring that thc colony during the Frcnch rcginic was ncver as

completcly cut off from thc outsidc world through the wintcr as Louise Dechêne's

rcfcrence to "l'isolcrncnt absolu" of Canada in thc wintcr suggcsts.'

143

In al1 of this, we are making a distinction betwcen the specific act of

corrcspondencc, which formcd a direct physical link between distinct individuals, and the

morc gcneral flow of information. The altemate routes which brought the colony letters

from ovcrseas also scrved morc gcncrally as a conduit for important North Amencan and

European ncws. Thc latter undoubtcdly reached the colony far more easily than the

former, and in this scnse, the colony was even less cut off from Europe than this chapter

will suggcst. The flow of information to and from New France is a project worthy of

study in its own riglit. It is, howevcr, distinct from oor purpose which is to study the

extcnt to which concretc linkagcs could be maintaincd bctween individuais on cither side

of the Atlantic. Thus, whilc this chaptcr will sometimcs rcfcr to the news which rcachcd

thc colony ovcr a specific route, it is invariably to cstablish the existence of a particular

physical conncction and not out of a conccrn to trace thc flow of information itself- *

Early in the colony's history, Canadians appear to havc bccn able to depend upon

Frcrich fishing vcsscls at GaspC as an alt~rnati \~c to thc shipping to and from Qucbcc. In

thc mid-scvcntccnth ccntury, as many as 400 ships carrying somc 10,000 men left France

cach scason for the wcstcm ~tlantic.' Of thcsc, pcrhaps one-third engaged in the green

fishcr\l on thc Grrind Banks. But although thcsc ships wcrc amongst the first to leave

France for thc north-wcst cach ).car,' the' do not appcar to have played an obvious role

as a sourcc of carly ncws or lcttcrs for the colonists. This was undoubtedly because there

was rclativcly littlc contact bctwecn thc fishcry on the Banks and the colony itself? The

rcmaindcr of thc fishing flcct sailcd cach spring for the Atlantic Coast of North Amcrica,

whcrc the fishcmicn cstabiishcd bascs on shorc from which they opcratcd the migratory

dry fishcry. Thcse sites wcrc conccntrated on thc north arm and the

Ncwfoundland, as wcll as in thc Gulf of thc Saint Lawrcncc. Gaspé

'w f C&, Vol. 1, Platc =: "Thc 17th Ccnrury Fishery."

south shore of

was thc centre of the latter.

3Thc cod rcmaincd ycar round on ihc Grand Banks but winter siorms and içcbergs made fishing hazardous ihen; consequcnrly. the shipping customarily avoided these months. Vesseis panicipating in the G r a d Uanks llshcry numially sailed irom the northem ports of Hontlcur and ic Havre in Fcbruary or MarcIl. Jcan-Francpis BriErç, La en en au XV- (Montreal: Fidcs, 19c)O), p. 20.

The ships destined for the Gaspé left Francc each spring no later than April in order

to catch the north-east winds that are common in that season. Fcw delayed longer: by

April the icc was gone from the shores of the Gaspé and the first arrivals were able to

claim the best beaches. Thus, although thcse ships left France later than those destined for

thc Grand Banks, they still routincly sailcd before the ships of the Canada trade. The CO^

amved in the Gulf in lune, and the French fished throughout the summer, drying their

catch on the bcaches of the Gaspé peninsula and on the nearby islands of Percé and

Miscou. By Septernbcr the cod wcre leaving thc area, and, fully loaded, the vessels set

sail for the ports of the Mcditerranean, where their catch would be sold. This

coniparativclg carly dcpanure from the east Coast of North Amcrica mcant that the vessels

rctuming from the Gaspé wcre arnongst the first wsscls to return to France each ycar.'

The traffic bctwccn the Gaspé and Qucbcc was limited, particularly in the early

scvcntcenth ccntury. In 1635, for cxample, the Jcsuit missionaries at Miscou asked that

lcttcrs for thcm not bc scnt to Qucbcc bccausc thcy would be delaycd a year in dclivery;

this suggcsts that any traffic that thcrc was to Gaspé in this period lcft Quebec before the

vcsscls from Francc amvcd in ana da.^ In the mid-sevcntcenth ccntury a number of

Crinadians tricd to estriblish scigncurics at GaspS and a rcsidcnt fishery, but their efforts

lrrrgciy failcd. Indccd, fcw Canadians cvcn vcnturcd down to thc Gulf to fish in this

pcriod; the colony obtaincd most of its cod from Francc.' Al1 the samc, the Gaspé was

rclativclg closc and for anyonc wanting to contact thc flcct thcrc thc journey was not a

long onc."n his study of thc Frcnch in GaspC, David Lcc argucs that fishing vessels

oftcn canied passengcrs to Gaspé who thcn continucd to Quebec by chaloupe. He

m i s description is largcly rakcn irom David Lcc, 'The French in Gaspé, 1534-1760," Canadian Historic Sircs, Occasional Papers in Archacology and History, No. 3 (Ottawa: National Historic Sites Service, 1970).

6- . - *-, 1635, P. Paul lc Jcunc, "RcIriticin dc ce qui s'est passé cn la Nouvelle France, en annéc 1633," p. 3.

'Lec, "The Frcnch in Gaspe," p. 39. It was only aftcr the Peace of 1713 that Canadians became involved in thc lishzry io any signiîimni dcgrcc.

'Sec, for cxamplc, Thwaitcs, Jesuir, Vol. 34, "Journal de PP. Jesuites, 1649," p. 57 in which it was rcponcd thar M. Bourdon wcnt down in July 1649 to Gaspé in a "barque" with twclve or fifiecn inhabitants "to pick up commoditics," rctuming with salt and codfish in eariy August.

cornments that, "Thc practicc involvcd the transport of mail and even supplies as well as

pcoplc, and, of course, includcd tnvcl fiom New France to Europe t ~ o . " ~

Although the traffic bctween the two temtories was light, the Gaspé seems often in

the mid-scvcntecnth ccntury to have semed as a conduit bnnging the first news and letters

to the colony on the Saint Lawrcnce. In 1642-43, for example, the jesuit R e M b n s

reported that the first news had reached Quebec on St John's day, 24 lune, carried by a

Miscou vcsscl which had iravellcd as far as Tadoussac, while "the other ships of the fleet

[i-c. those sailing directly to Quebcc] werc later than ever this year."1° in many other

ycars the R A . similarly report that the first news reached Quebec via the Gulf

fishcry." Frcnch correspondcnts clcarly also scnt lcttcrs for Quebec by thcse ships. In

Scptcmbcr 1661, ~Maric de I'Incamation acknowledged a letter from Claude which had

reccntly amvcd but comrncnted, "J'avois dqà appris de vos nouvelles par un navirc

pêcheur, sans cela j'aurois Cté cn pcinc dc vous."" Similarly, on 24 August 1671, she

told the SupOricurc of thc Ursulincs at Mons, in what is now Bclgiurn:

Quoy que nous n'ayons cncorc ny navirc, ny nouvellcs dc France qui nous puissent informer dc nos affaires et des dispositions de nos amis, néamoins, par une Providcncc particulière, Ic Rd Père Ragucneau ayant hasardé un paquet de lcstrcs par la voye dc la pcschcrie, il est venu jusqu'à nous. J'y ay treuvé celle qu'il vous a plcu m'cscnrc avec celle dc ma Rde Merc Philipe de Sainte- Ursulc ...."

A mcasure of the rcliability with which the first ncws from France tended to reach Gaspé

bciorc anywhcrc clsc in thc Frcnch Wcstern Atlantic is cvident from the cxpcriencc of the

9Lcc, "Thc Frcnch in Gaspb," p. 38.

. . 'OThwaitcs, Jc.suit, Vol. 23, "Relation of 1612-1613," p. 237.

"ln July 1649 the Rclatioris rcponcd the amval ïrom Tadoussac "by way of the savagesn of news of "the iroublcs iri France, ctc.; and of the uncertainty as to the vcssels" which only amved at Quebec 23 August. . , Thwaitcs, -, Vol. 34, "Journal de PP. Jesuites, 1649," p. 57. Similarly, in 163[6 or 71 the . - iLl&ms rcponcd that M. dc k s a r had amvcd at Qucbec on 21 May from Tadoussac bringing the first ncws frorii France, "lcarncd Srom Captairi lc Fevre, who had anived at Isle Percée," while thc first vesse1 for Qucbcc arrivcd ai Tadoussac that year on the 20 June. News of its &val reached Quebec on St. John's eve, the =rd. Thwaitcs, Jesuit, Vol. 30, "Journal des PP. Jesuites, 16.16-47," p. 181.

"Mriric, Mark de I'Incamation 10 hcr son, Scpiember 1661, pp. 665-70.

13 Ihid., Marit: de l'Incarnation IO MCrc Cécile de S. Joseph, Supkicure des Ursulincs de Mons, 24 August 1671, p. 922.

Jcsuit Gabrielle Druillcttcs, who was scnt to N c w England in the summer of 1650 as

ambassador for the Govcrnor of Qucbec to discuss the possibility of free trade between the

two colonies and to conclude a treaty with the English colonists against the ~roquois.*~ In

January 1651 he sent a letter from Boston by an English ship to Father le Jeune in Pans

which he evidently felt required the carliest possible response.15 Druillettes urged le

Jcune to scnd an answer both to Boston and "to Monsieur our govemor, by the fishexmen

of gaspey." l6

In addition to bcing able to rcccive ncws and lettcrs early through Gasp8, it is

evidcnt that the same fishing vessels could provide early opportunitics to scnd Lcttcrs home

to France. In 1650 Marie dc l'Incarnation wrotc a particularly early letter to Claude: "La

rencontre dc la frégate de Quebec qui va à la pecherie de 1'Islc perde, où il se trouve des

\.aisscaux pêcheurs, qui sont plutôt dc retour en France quc ceux d'ici ne sont prêts de

partir, nic doiinc sujet dc vous Ccrirc ce petit mot."17 In the spring of the next year she

scnt off two more lettcrs for France bcforc the vcssels had arrived at Quebec. One of

thcsc was scnt "par lcs pcschcurs": Gaspé fishcrmen who lcft Qucbcc 2 May, according to

the cditor of hcr corrcspondcnce, Dom Guy Oury.ls

Evidcntly, Canadians continucd to look to the fishcry at the Gaspé for the earticst

ncws from France into the mid-1670s.~~ Thercafter, our correspondence contains few

'"For a description of his embassy scc John G. Reid, Acadia. New Scotland;Marginal (Toronto: University of Toronto Press and Huronia Historical Parks,

1981), pp. 99-100.

"Fu: Jeunc, who had bcen superior of the Jcsuits of Quebec fÏom 1632 to 1639, served in Canada as a simple missionary from 1639 to 1619, and then rcturncd io France and was appointcd Procurator of the mission in Paris. He scrvcd in that position until 1662. m, Voi. 1, S.V. "Le Jcune, Paul."

. * 'Tiwaiics, Jesuit, Vol. 36, "Druiilettcs' New England Tour, 1650-51," p. 93.

17- dc JJ "un, Marie de l'Incarnation to hcr son, 17 May 1650, p. 389. According to Dom G u y Our)., Qucbcc posscssed "une barquc" which in fine wcatber plicd thc Gulf ensuring communications and

I V sccuring cod from GaspC, Capc Drcton and Awdia. Scc Marit de 1 I - , p. 391, h. 2 in which he r . * .- cltcs, lournlil, p. 1%.

'"bid., Marie de i'lncamation to un PCre de Ia Compagnie de Jkus, 1 September 1651, pp. 408-11 refers to tiicsc carlier lettcrs. Dom Guy Oury, p. 111, fn. 2 observes that thcy were sent off by the fishemcn on 2

1 May, citing thc Journal, p. 151.

"MO, Fonds Vcrrcaux 092, despatch Gom Frontenac, 13 Novembcr 1673, p. 207.

rcferences to lettcrs and news rcaching the colony through Gaspé. Undoubtedly, the

fishery thcre continued to channcl some information to the colony. in the eighteenth

ccntury, Canadians did go down to the Gulf £tom time to time to fish, and would have

gathered news from the French fishcrmen there. But, according to Lee, "The fisheries of

Awdia were considercd too distant to supply Canada," and so the linkages remained

~ c o k . ~ In the late 1750s it was leh to Louis Antoine de Bougainville to lament that the

French had nevcr capitalized on the potential of the Gaspé. in lieu of building Louisbourg,

hc argued that they should have established a fortified port at Gaspé for the protection of

thc Saint Lawrence, and as ri staging point for traffic to and from Qucbec. The particular

advantagc of Gasp6 was its proximity to Europe, which allowed ships to make two trips to

Europe each scason. "[Clette facilité," he pointed out, "en doublant le tcmps de

communication du Canada avec l'Europe doublcrait presque lc commerce de cette

colooic."" It might also have doubled the frequency with which it received news and

lcttcrs. *

Beginning in thc 1690s, thc most significant altcmativc route for transatlantic

corrcspondcnce to and from Canada was that via Plaisancc. This tiny French colony on

thc south shore of Ncwfoundland had first bccn establishcd in lGGO in order to bolster the

Frcnch position in thc Ncwfoundland fishery. Standing, as John Humphrcys has so aptly

phrascd i t , "likc a scntincl on the flank of Cabot Strait, the main avcnuc of sea-borne

communication bctwcen France and her North Amcrican mainland c ~ l o n i c s , " ~ the colony

\vas intcndcd to block English expansion whiic at the same time providing a sheltercd base

for the conduct of thc dry fishery. Thc bulk of the colony's population consisted of the

fishcrmcn of the prcdominantly Basque flect: thcse men amvcd in mid-May cach year,

cstablishcd thcmsclvcs on thc bcaches of Plaisance whcrc thcy caught, saltcd and dncd

%ec, ThL' Fr-, pp. 39. For a discussion of the Gap6 in this period sce pp. 47, 52.

Z'Louis-~ntoine de Bougainville, Exïkisu le Ca&, "Quel établisement assurerait a la France le Flcuvc Saint-Laurcnt et la Libre entrer: dr: ce lleuvc," p. 47.

, - q o h n Humphrcys, of at Newfoundland Outwsf of New France. - 169Q, National Museum of Man, Publications in History (Ottawa: National Muscums of Canada, 1970),

p. 5.

cod, and lcft rigain in Septembcr. There was also a small residcnt population--some 256

pcoplc in 1687."

What aliowed Plaisance to scrve as a point of exchangc for transatlantic mails was

the intersection there of two routes: one linking the tiny fishing centre and France, and the

otncr connccting it to the colony on the Saint Lawrence. Plaisance had never managed to

cstablish a satisfactory agricultural base, nor to develop an artisanal class which could

producc thc snlall manufactures it rcquired. Rathcr, circumstances had forced the colonists

inro an almost cxclusivc focus on the fishcry. As a result, Plaisance dcpendcd upon

impons to supply it with basic foodstuffs, clothing, tools, and other manufactured goods.

Each ycar a srnall numbcr of mcrchant vcssels accompanied the French fishing fleet to

Plaisance with many of thc items thc colony required. In addition, from the 1690s on, a

portion of thc colony's nceds wcrc supplied fiom Canada, whencc small coastal vessels

could makc two trips a ycar loaded with goods such as wood, iirnc, and flour. Although

this tradc -.vas ncithcr vcry rcliablc nor cnormously signifiant in economic terms, it did

pro\.ide a conncction to the colony and thence on to rance? According to Jamcs Pritchard, Frcnch mcrchants occasionally cxploited the links

bctwccn Plaisancc and Quebcc, scnding goods dcstincd for thc Saint Lawrcnce to Plaisance

carly in thc spring whcrc they would bc forwardcd onward by coastal vcssels, which had

spcnt thc winter at Plaisance, as soon as the Saint Lawrence was ice-frcc. The first

bcncfit of this arrangement was that the carly departurc of the vcsscls for Plaisancc

allowcd thcm to takc advantagc of p o d spring sailing whilc avoiding thc squally

conditions charactcristic of the Atlantic in Junc which thc shipping to Quebec gcncrally

cncountcrcd. Morc sigiiificantly, it providcd mcrchants with an opportunity to get thcir

eoods to Qucbcc bcforc thc arriva1 of the regular shipping to that port and consequently to C-

charge highcr prices than they could latcr in the s ~ a s o n . ~ The practice was also engaged

Tri Ibid., p. 7. Therc wçrc fimy rcsidcrit tami1ies in 1698, Historical of rani&, Vol. 1, Plate 23: "Thc 17th Cçniur)' Fishcry."

24 For a description of this iradc sec Pritchard, "Ships, Men, and Conimercc," pp. 177-79; Humphreys, -, pp. 7-9, 13-16.

-S~ritchard çommçnis that, "several mcrchants trading to Qucbec made voyages in this marmer." A.C.M., Minutc Teulcron, 26 January 1679 and also B, 5685, nos. 138 and 141 cargo list and crcw roll, 15 May 1687; Col., CIIA, XII, ff. 163-7v. "Mémoirc touchant Ic commerce dc M. de Brouillon ... fait et veut faire

in by French mcrchants and ships captains who simply wanted, according to Pritchard, to

i i~vid "dangcrous and unprofitablc sailing time in the Saint ~ a w r e n c e . " ~ Our

corrcspondcnts seem to have madc quite regular use of the route via Plaisance in the

~ 6 9 0 s . ~ ~ Lndccd, i t has bccn suggested that pan of the colonial govemment's motivation

in scnding the ships to Plaisance during the War of the League of Augsburg may have

bccn the Governor's dcsire to scnd despatches to versailles? From the Canadian

perspective, one of the attractions of thc route seems to have been that it provided a

particularly carly opportunity back to France. Thus, for instance, in early August 1695 the

Intendant, Jcan Bochart de Clianipigny, dcspatched a lcttçr destined for France by a ship

scnt to Plaisancc by one of thc colony's mcrchants, commcnting, "Et comme il y a

plusieurs vaisseaux qu i font la pcsche vers Plaisance, je suis bien aisc Monseigncur de me

scwir dc cette occasion pour vous informer par av- des affaires de cette C ~ l o n i e . " ~

Similarly, in March 1696, Henri-Jean Trcmblay in Paris noted that he had received letters

from Canada latc the prcvious Novcmbcr via thc son of M. de la Chcsnaye "qui cstoist

\-cnu a ~ l a i s a n c c . " ~ Thcsc wcrc, hc notcd, the first lctters he received that fall; othcr

vcsscls arrivcd back in France bcrwccn 11 and 72 ~ccember." The samc advantage of

crirly arri\ds also hcld truc, of course, in thc othcr direction.

au lieu à I'esclusion des habitans de Ia colonie et dcs marchands qui envoycnt des vaisseaux," Nantes, 12 Fcbmary 1692; CllA, XIV, ff. 250-3v, iberviiie to Pontchartrain, Placentia, 21 Septernber 1696, quoted in Pritchard, "Ships, Men, and Commcrcc," pp. 176-77.

the rcturri of Canadian vesscis from Placentia with Euopean cargoes that had been unloaded rhere scc it~id.. p. 279. Hc ciics Col. CIlA, ,XYII, ff. 203-4 Vaudreuil and Raudot to Pontchartrain, Qucbec, 28 Octoi)cr, 1705 and Ibid., ,XXVLI, f. 89, "compte que rend à la cie. de la colonie," 1706.

"The priests of ihc SFminairc de QuEbcc often scnt something via Plaisance each season. For example, Hcriri-Jean Trcniblay acknow1cJgcJ Icirtxs honi M. Glandclct of rhc prcvious year, one of which had travclled via Plaisance. ASQ, Lcttrcs Canun O, no. 23. Tremblay to M. Gtandelct, 3 May 1698. It needs to bc notcd that some ships sailing io Francc Gom Canada stopped off at Plaisance, and in contemporary crirrcspondencc it is not always easy to distinguish these opprtunities from thosc discusscd here.

zPritchard, "Ships, Mcri, and Commcrcc," p. 179.

- Y C l l ~ , F-13, Montrcal, M. de Champigiy. I l August 1695, pp. 337-38 [The italics are mine]. He apparcrirly scni iwo Icttcrs d a r d 11 and 17 August by this opportunity for which see, M. de Champigny au . - Miriisirc, h Novcnibcr 1695, Collcriion dc manuscritsconrcnant Vol. 2, p. 189.

U ~ S U . Lctrrcs Canon M, no. 21, Trcmblay to [?], 29 March 1696.

"ASQ. Lctrrcs Canon M, no. 23, Trcmblay IO SEminairc dc QuCbec, no date.

150

Colonial correspondcnts continued to rely upon the route via Plaisance during the

War of the Spanish Succcssion, evcn though the traffic between France and the colony on

the south shorc had dccrcascd ~ i ~ n i f i c a n t l ~ . ' ~ On 3 May 1706, for example, one of the

pncsts of the Quebcc scminary wrote two lettcrs which he announccd he would despatch

with Robert [Gaulin] and "son beau frerc" in their "barque" to Plaisance. There the letters

would bc put aboard "deux diifcrcns vaisseaux qui partiront pour anc ce."" Plaisance

rnay, during this period when the shipping direct to Quebec from France was constrained,

havc providcd a particularly important option for Canadian corrcspondents. Governor

Vaudreuil sccn~s to havc scnt lcttcrs to France via Plaisance every year throughaut the

War. In carIy Novcmbcr 1706, for cxamplc, Vaudreuil informcd the Minister that he had

writtcn to France that spring by laisa an ce.^ On 24 July 1707, he informed the rninister

hc had writtcn him cight days earlicr "par un petit brigantin venu dc plaissance et quy sy

cn est rctourn~L"~'

Thus for at lcast two dewdcs Plaisance provided a channel through which letters

could pass bctwecn Francc and Canada, supplcmcnting the rcgular opportunities through

Qucbcc. Thc route rnay havc providcd colonists a chance to reccive particularly early

ncws and lcttcrs from Europc and it sccms to havc allowcd thcm the chance to send early

ncws home. Thcsç opportunitics wcrc likcly cspccially important during thcsc years

bccausc of thc unusuai limitations on shipping during thc War of the Lcague of Augsburg

and War of thc Spanish Succession. But the rolc that this fishing community

shorc of Ncwfoundland playcd as a transmission point for news and lcttcrs to

on the south

and from

"011 chariging ircnds iii rradc and shipping, scc Pritchard, "Ships, Men, and Commerce," - atid Mic~uclon, New Fr-. 1701 1711: A S- to m, pp. 71-73.

pp. 278-80;

"ASQ, h u r e s Carton M, no. #33a/b, Qucbcc, [?] IO Trcmblay, 3 May 1706.

Y n Correspondance cntrc M. de Vaudrcuil et la Cour," Vaudreuil au Ministre, 3 Novembcr 1706, p. 177. Sce also Vaudreuil au Ministre, 1 October 1709, p. 403 in which hc obscrved that hc had sent four letters already that season, three by Plaisance and one by Sr de Courtemanchc in Labrador; and similarly, same to same, 25 October 1711, p. 327, in which he reported that he had writtcn "depuis ce printcms par plusieurs voycs differcntes, trois fois par plaisance et deux fois par labrador..."; and same to same, 27 June 1712, p. 150; 23 July 1712, p. 158; 8 Scptember 1713, p. 228; and 14 Novembcr 1713, p. 230 in which last he observcd, "je me sois donne i'honncur autant qui1 ma esté possible par touttes les occasions quy sont parties de ce pays pour plaisance ...."

35 Ibid., Vaudrcuil CI Raudot au Minisrre," 31 July 1707, p. 380. The next year hc wrote twice for which sec, Vaudrcuil au Ministre. 1 October 1708, p. 325.

15 1

Canada came to an abrupt end in 1713 when the colony was abandoned under the tcrms of

the Treaty of Utrecht.

At the samc timc as lcttcrs and news wcre travelling between Quebec and France

through thc Gaspé and Plaisance, local news and correspondence and the occasional letter

from ovcrseas reached Quebcc via an ovcrland route from Acadia. From as early as the

1670s, the Govcrnors of Canada and Acadia had made an effort to keep in touch with one

another.16 The King's ministcr, Colbcrt, was particularly eager to promote year-round

communications between the two French colonies, not only for thcir mutual benefit but

also bccause he hoped by the means of an ovcrland route to receive news fiom Quebec

twicc each In an attcmpt to dcvclop a diable all-scason route through the woods

t~ctwccn Qucbcc and thc Bay of Fundy, a suncy was undertaken in 1671 of both the

Kcnncbcc and Saint John ~ivers." The Intendant at Quebcc, Talon, also tried to

cstablish s ~ i p ~ ~ r ï c s and encourage scttlcmcnt along the Saint John Rivcr which would

havc aided communications. Ncithcr projcct was succcssful.3g A11 the same, over the

10 Ocrobcr 1670, ihc intendant Talon notcd that he had received lettcrs from the Chevallier de Grand Fontaine, carried by two Frcnchmcn and two Indians. "Correspondence echangée entre la cour de Fraricc ci I'inrendari~ Talon," "MEmoirc sur le Canada," p. 131.

37~n the spring of 1671, Colben dcspaichcd Talon's former secretary, le Sieur Patoulet, to study relations txtwcen the iwo colonies with a particular inicrcst in ihc cstablishmeni of a land route bctween them. in a MCmoirc addrcsscd to PatouIct, Colbert notcd, "il n'y a rien de si grand conséquence, dans ce voyage, que de s'appliquer à rcconnoistre les licux par lesquels le chemin doit estre conduit et cc qui se peut pratiquer pour . . Ic rendre plus court et plus aysé à tcnir dans toutes les saison dc l'année." et Memoires dc Co-, par Pierre Clément (Paris: Imprimerie impériale, M DCCC WCV), Vol. 3, no. 43, "Mémoire pour le Sieur Patoulet," Pans, 30 March 1671, p. 520, and more generally pp. 520-22.

3s Colbert's ciirrespondcnçr: sccms to suggcst that thc idea originated wiih him. Rcné Baudry suggests that i r wris al1 Talon's plan, tor which sec DCB, Vol. 1, S.V. "Hccior d 'hdigné dc Grandfontaine." Yves Cazaux,

(Paris: Nbin Michel, c. 1992). pp. 161-63 sees Talori as thc primary tigurc bchind the survey.

39 On Talon's c f i ~ r t s sec, John G. Ried. -ew S c C . . -.,,. .. -. (Toronio: University of Toronto Press and Huronia Hisiorical Parks, 1981) pp. 158-59.

On relaiions bctween Acadians and Quebec or New England sec, Jean Daiglc, "Nos Amis Ics ennemis: relations commcrciales de l'Acadie avec le Massachusetts, 1670-1711" (PhD Diss., University of Maine, 1975), pp. 11-51; Andrcw Hill Clark, Acadia: of F& Nova S& to 176Q (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Prcss, 1968). pp. 179-85; and also "Mémoires Generaux 1686. Beaubassin or Chipccto and Bay Verte," a dcscnption likely writtcn by the Cartographer, Frankquelier, who accompanied ihc Inicndant dc Mculces to Acadia in the autumn of 1685, in William R. Bird, M v to QldBcadia (Toronto: Ryerson Prcss, 1938). pp. 19-33. For a discussion of why al1 these cfforis failcd sec Yves Cazaux,

152

ycars to comc the routc up the Saint John River to the Madawaska ovcr the Temiscouata

portage and on to thc Saint Lawrcncc was used fairly consistently.

In large part, the overland routc betwccn the two French colonies c-ed local news

and information, but it also brought Canada news and letters from both New England and

Europe." Most notably, the Frcnch govemment seems to have occasionally sent

dcspritches during the season of navigation to Acadia to bc carried overland to Canada,

although it is not clear why thcy did this instead of using the direct ~hipping.~' The route

mas alsa ha\*c allowed Canadians to rcceivc ncws from Francc outside thc nonnal

thc scason at ~ u c b c c ? Somc of this may have gonc overland but there are also

limits of

*For examplr, in Novembcr 1673 Frontenac note3 that hc had rcceived lcttcrs of 3 September from M. lc Chcvalicr dc Grand Fontaine by Indians with news of the seizure of New York by the Dutch. ASQ, Fonds Vcrrcau, 003, "Dc2pCche de Fr~mtcnac," 13 Novcmber 1673, p. 383. See aiso John Clarence Webster,

Documcnis. Monographie Series No. 1 (Saint John, N.B.: The New Brunswick iMuseum, 1931), "Journal of Evenu in Acadia From Scptember 15, 1693 to Scptember 3, 1691," 15 January 1691, p. 51; and "Journal of Events in Acadia, Oct., 1696 to Oct. 1, 1697," 10 Dccember 1696, p. 99 and August 1697, p. 106.

The communications advantage did not invariably lie with Acadia. Vessels may sometimes have sailed later from Quebec to France than from Acadia, providing an opponunity to dcspatch later news. 1x1 the fa11 of 1696, the Acadian Governor, de Villebon sent his despatches overland to Quebec in thc hope they could bc forwarded to Francc Gom there by the faIl ships. However, his plan failcd: the letters arrïved on 28 Octoher--a rncrc four days after the dcpanure of the 1 s t ships, as Frontenac informed de Villebon in a letter wrirtc~i 31 Octcibcr which rcachcd Acadia on 11 March by "an Indian." Webster, Acadia at the of h

c-. "Journal oi whar has takcn placc in Acadia since October, 1697," Viliebon to Pontcharirain, March 11, p. 110.

"sec, for instance, "Correspondance cchangée entre la cour de France et le Gouverneur de Frontenac," Lcrtrc du Ministre au gouverneur dc Frontenac, 16 April 1695, p. 237. In the text of the letter the Minister obscrvcd: "Je profitte de L'occasion du vaisseaux 1'Envieu.u que le Roy envoyc présentement à l'Acadie sous le commandement du Sr de Bonnaventurc ....." This lctter sccms to have been scnt overland by M. de Bonnaventure, the ship's commander, from Pentagouet "par de Sauvages." They arrived at Montreal on the 21 July, for which sce ibid., Frontenac au Ministre, 4 November 1695, p. 271. The intendant, Champigny, wrotc to acknowledge the rcccipt of the lettcr of 16 Apri1 in a dcspatch of August, for which see, C l 1 4 F- 13, 11 August 1695, Champigny. Similarly, on the 10 October 1698, Frontenac acknowledged the receipt of a Lctisr iiom France wriitcri 12 March "dont Ir Sr de Bonnavcnture Ctait char@" handed him at Montreal by ihosc scnt with it from Acadia in lasi days of July. "Conspondencc cchangée entre la cour de France et le gouvcrricur dc: Frontenac," 10 Ociobcr 1608, Frontenac to the Minister, p. 364.

"In the faIl of 1708, Vaudreuil reponcd to the Minisicr that he had reccived "cette année par l'accadie les letircs dc Sa MajcstE ct les vurrcs d a 24c aoust, 7e septembre, 19ç octobre et novembre 1707." Rcgrettably he docs not mention when he received them, but the unusual dates of these letters makes one wondcr if they had becn sent off during the faIl of 1707 to reach Quebcc in the winter. See, "Correspondcncc de M. de Vaudrcuil et la Cour," M. dc Vaudreuil au Ministre, 5 Novernber 1708, p. 426.

instances whcrc the Acadian Governor was able to forward European news very early in

thc scason to Quebec by local shipping. For cxample, in the spring of 1698, the Acadian

Govcrnor, de Villcbon, reccivcd a packet of lettcrs by "a special boat" fiom the Governor

of Boston announcing that peace had been made between Britain and France, and asking

that the news be fonvarded to Quebcc. Dc Villebon delayed a few weeks to despatch the

Icttcr until the ice was out of the River, eventually sending it off on 6 May by came to

Qucbcc. Dc Villcbon warncd the Ncw Englanders that "inasmuch as it requires tirne to

makc thc journey to Canada, it is possible some hdian war-partics are now on their way

into your tcrntory from Qucbcc; you should thcrcfore, givc ordcrs to those under your

authority to continue on thcir guard until Count Frontenac has inforrned them that pcace

has bccn concludcd bctwccn thc Crowns." Although the ncws would take some wccks to

rcach Quebcc, howcvcr, it would almost ccrtainly have reached the colony bcfore the first

vcsscls from France with thc samc int~lligencc!~ *

Following thc cstablishmcnt of Louisbourg in 1713, the Temiscouata route

continucd to channcl ncws bctwccn the Saint Liwrence and the Atlantic C o a ~ t . ~ D.C.

Harvey commcnts that thc "Govcrnors of Canada and Ite Royale used to scnd couricrs

' 3 ~ ~ ~ Webster, &&i at the of the Sev- C w , "Journal of what has taken place since October 1697," De Villebon to Pontchartrain, 21 April to 6 May 1698, pp. 111-13.

M Under the rems of the Trcaty of Utrecht, Plaisance was abandoned and the garrison and resident pc~pulation of the colony wcrc rclocaied to Baie des Andais [English Bay] ai the Southern end of the East Coasr of Ilc Royak, rhr: site O C the ncw town of Louisbourg. See A.J.B. Johnston, "From paB de e t o

: Thc Evoluiiciri of Urban huisbourg, 1713-1758." in of 1- Cr;nuirv Fr-v . - rn N-a P B to ~ . r n m c m o f , ~ 775th . .

f bLudingof-, cds. Eric Krause, Carol Corbin and William O'Shea (Cape Breton: University Collegc of Cape Breton Press, 1995), pp- 3-5. For a surnmary of the impctus to the cstablishmcnt of the town sce Clark, m, pp. 268-69.

The ncw colony comprised Ue du Cap Breton [now renamed Uc Royale as was the colony itsell] and Ile Saint Jean. Thc former was sccn as the hean of the coiony and the latter was intended to serve as the colony's breadbaskct. Scc Miquelon, to F-, p. 117. The Island had at the time no real Europcan scttlcment. Scc Clark, a, pp. 267-68 and Vachon, -, p. 94.

Acadia bccarnc ihc English colony of Nova Scotia. ln thc following years there would be a dispute o v c ~ piccisely whar lands had bccn transicrrçd to Britain. The trcaty refcrred to the "anciennes limites" of Acadia whiçh the Frcnch would argue did not include prcsent day New Brunswick but only peninsular Nova Scoria. Thc Brirish laid formal claim t i ~ the cntire tcrritory but, in practicc, largcly ignored the former. See Clark, Acadia, pp. 71-73, 187, 330-33. Although the French lost their ri@ to occupy the southern shore of Ncwfoundland, French tishemcn sccurcd ihe right to fish and dry thcir catch on the island's north Coast. For a summary of thcsc arrangements and a map of the posi Utrecht French fishcry sce Miquelon, New France:

- 1712, pp. 113-14.

oncc during evcry winter (generally at the end of March) to inform each other of such

niattcrs of inrcrcst as had takcn placc in thcir tcrritorics aftcr the closc of navigation.""

The routc itsclf followcd much thc sanie path it traditionally had over the high point of

land bctwecn the Saint bwrencc Rivcr and the Bay of Fundy. From the Saint John River,

howcver, thc route now continued overland to Shepody at the top of the Bay of Fundy and

thcn to Chignccto whcre it crossed the isthmus between modcm day New Brunswick and

Nova Scotia to Baie Venc and thence dong the coast to Ile ~ o ~ a l e . ~ A measure of the

official importance of the ovcrland routc is suggcsted by the instructions issued in lune

1749 by the Intendant at Qucbcc to one Sicur Bldard who was "chargé dc SC rcndre au lac

Ternisquata afin d'y placer et distribuer lcs vivres néccssaircs pour la subsistance des

courriers qui iront et vendront dc I'awdie à Q~cbec."~' It is cvidcnt that there was

considerablc traffic ovcr this route in this pcriod beyond that provided simply by the

official couriers." J. Fcrnicnt, at Fort Bcauscjour, was able in the winter of 1752-53 to

scnd lcttcrs quitc frequcntly to Qucbcc by soldiers and othcrs travelling therc through the

W O O ~ S on foot.jg

Once the navigation in thc Saint Lawrcncc opencd, most correspondence bctwcen

Qucbcc and Louisbour_r was carricd by local shipping. This conncction may have

4 S ~ . ~ . Harvey, in in (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1926). Appndix D "Account of a Joumey in Winter on Icc from Chédaique (Shediac) to Quebec." p. 213.

46 For the s t o l of a couricr's joumcy ovcr this routc in the winter of 1756 sce, ibid., pp. 23336. The latrcr portion of the route wüs onc which the Acadians in this period travelled frcqucntly in their trade with Ilr: Koyalc. Clark, M, pp. 110, 30-58, 331.

, Vol. 3, p. 1-70? "Memoire d'instructions pour le Sieur UCJard," 8 Junc 1749.

-36 . . Sec for instance Anonymous, ~istorvof Nova m a : C m an Account of & - . - .

(London: Paul Valliant, 1719), p. 21, and also p. 32 in which the author reports that the Acadians "have continually, as occasion scrv'd, made use of this place [Acadia] as a Postcrn Door io carry on a sccrct concspondence with their Countryrnen at Canada, and the Island of Cape 13rcion, and in order to facilitatc a Communication, which is so nccessary and useful to them, a Road is opcncd tiim hcnçc 1Xty Mile Cross thç Country to Telamagouche, on thc Eastern Coast." M y thanks to Jeff M c N a i ~ n for providing m e witl~ this refcrcnce. Sec dso, NAC, Baby Collection, Qucbcc, Havy and Lefebvre I C I 1'. Guy, 22 January 1716, p. 776, "nous voyons que le Montrcal ncst mieux fourni de nouvelle que quebec. Ccpcridar~i il csi arrive hicr avec d e Sauvages vcnant de lacadie qui r a p n c des lettres des Missionnr et un Journal dc Mr Roma qui est a lislc Si Jean ...."

IYANQ, Correspondence Picrrc Lmacque, P1000/64- 1269.

provided Canadian correspondents with an altemate route by which they could send their

lctters to France during thc regular scason of communications. Originally conceived of as

a rcplaccment for the former French colony at laisa an ce,^^ Louisbourg rapidly emerged

not only as a centre for thc Frcnch rcsidcntial and migratory fisherJ1 but also as an

iniportant commercial ~ntrcpot.~ ' As early as 1717, thirty -two vessels wcre recorded

unloading cargocs at Louisbourg and this had nscn to one hundred in 1723.5) Louisbourg

soon became one of the busiest pons in Noah America. French vessels came in

impressive numbers each year to the port to exchange manufactures, cloth, and foodstuffs

for cod and Wcst Indian sugar products. Bctwecn 1734 and 1743 some forty to fifty of

the vessels in thc harbour at Louisbourg wcrc Frcnch merchant ships; for comparison,

during thc samc period pcrhaps only a dozcn vcsscls visitcd Quebec each y ~ a r . ' ~ At the

Mile Royale had long bccn considercd an important strategic site, ideally suited to defend France's interests in the Gulf of the Saint Lawrence. 11s purpose was multiple: to offcr protection to the French fishing fleet; to contain English expansion; to serve as a base for French naval ships and privatecrs in tirne of war; and to defend acccss to Canada through the Gulf. Sce on this Miquelon, S u p p h ~ W t o ~ , pp. 110-12; B.A. Balcom, "The Cod Fishery of Isle Royale, 1713-58," in A~JSCIS of J n u i s b o u r n : ~ b

in No-a P u b h k d to C- of I.o-, cd. Eric Krausc, Carol Corbin and William O'Shea (Cape

Urcroii: Univcrsity Collcgc of Cape Urcrori Prcss, 19Y5), pp. 169-70. AJ.B. Johnstun, "From p a ~ de to .Y The Evolurioii i)f Urban Louisbourg, 1713-1758;" Bruce W. Fry, "'An Appearance of

Sircligrh:' Thç Foniticarions oi Lrwisbourg," AsDçcis oi' 1- on t k l h l m y of an E- n N o r t h d ~ublishedo C m e 375- of h

-, cd. Eric Krause, Carol Corbin and William O'Shea (Capc Breton: University Callcgc of Cape Breton Press, 1995). pp. 20-21.

. . S 1 ~ ~ ~ Clark, Acadia, pp. 303-15; B.A. Balcom, The of k k k q & , 1713-FR; and Wistoncal

of C d , Vol. 1, Plale 24: "The fishcry 1731."

S'Dale Micjuçlon disringuisha niccly between the various trade funciions of Louisbourg in &w Francc: - 744, pp. 116-17. Scc also Christopher Moore, "Cape Breton and the North Atlantic World in the

Eiglitccritli Ccritux-).," in l&.ddd~slancl: Ncw Pcrspecfivcs on C a D c B r e i o n s 171 1 - 3-199Q, ed. Kenneth Doriovan (New Brunswick: Acadiensis Prcss, 1990) pp. 31-48 which prcsents the case for the strength and vitaliry of the Ilc Royale econoniy bcfort: 1758 and also Moore, "Tiie Other Louisbourg: Trade and Merchant Entçrprise in Ile Royale, 1713-1758" fl, Vol. 12, No. 23 (1979) pp. 79-96.

. . aigle, "L'Acadie, 1601-1763, SynthEse historique," in h -, sous la direction de Jean Daide (Moncton: Cenrre d'etudes Acadicnncs, 1980), p. 40.

%. Moorc, "Capc Brcron and the North Atlantic World in the Eighteenth Century," p. 32. From 1733-13, an average of 154 vessels pcr year, excluding purely local traffic, visited the pons of Ue Royale, of which thc gcatest portion wcnt to Louisbourg. J.S. McLennan, 10 k h L 1717-175& (S ydricy Nova Scotirt: Fonress Press, 1969), "Shipping of Isle Royale," p. 222; "Fishing and T s d c ÏOI- thc ycar 1731" AN., Paris: Fonds dcs Coloriics, sk ie Cl IB, Vol. 17, fol. 13 in I&&&x& pp. 2 2 - 2 3 ; Moorc. "Merchant Tracle in Louisbourg. Ile Royaie," MA Diss., University of Ottawa, 1977, Table

same timc, there was substantial traffic between Quebec and Louisbourg. In the mid-

1720s between ten and fiftccn Qucbec vessels visited there each year and this number rose

to about twenty-four between 1717 and 1736. Although this number declined

considerably during the 175Os, vessels still travelled each season to Louisbourg. They

camc to exchange Canadian wheat, biscuit, vegetables, and lumber for local cod, French

manufactures, and sugar from thc ~nt i l les . '~ In addition, there were other Canadian

vcsscls destincd for thc Frcnch West Indies which stopped at Louisbourg en route to enrich

their cargoes but did not give Louisbourg as their destination on leaving Q~ebec . '~

The intersection at Louisbourg of shipping from both France and Quebec likely

allowed Louisbourg to function as a clcaringhousc for corrcspondcnce between Canada and

~rancc." Letters sent by coastal shipping to Louisbourg could have been transferred onto

Frcnch vcsscls in thc pon and carried on to France, providing a supplement to the

oppvrtunitics by thc rcgular shipping at Qucbcc. Certainly, many of thc merchants at

Qucbcc in conducting their trade with Lnuisbourg would havc had commercial agents at

that port who would have been ablc to help them to forward their lctters onward. Beyond

simply offering an additional opportunity during the regular season of navigation in the

Saint Lawrcncc, it is possiblc that the distinctive pattcm of shipping to Louisbourg allowed

I .4 ''Cargo Ships and tonnagcs at Ile Royale, 17 lY-L752," p. 18. Lauisbourg was under British control from 1715-48 but once the town revcrtzd to the Frcnch, traffic sccms to havc continued at thc same or even higher lcvcls until Louisbour& final surrender to the British in 1758. See Clark, Acadia, pp. 323-29.

"~rorn the 1720s through rhc 1730s Quebec supplied Louisbourg with most of its flour, biscuit, and vegctabics. See Moorc, "Cape Brcton and the North Atlantic World," p. 43. In the 1750s, Canada no longer produced an cxponablc surplus and the provisioning of Louisbourg was Iargely accomplished by New England merchants. See Pritchard, "Ships, Men, and Comrncrce," Table #I3: "Ship Movcmcnts kom Quebec r i b Louisbourg, 1724-1743," p. 499 and also Moore, "Merchant Tradc in Louisbourg," Table 1.1: "Cargo ships and tonnages at Ile Rilyale, 1719-1752" p. 20.

Sh Mathicu, "LC commerce cntrc la Nouvcllc-France et les Antilles," pp. 87-90. The numbers Mathieu gives ior vcsscls dcstincd for rtw Antilles from Qucbcc, pp. 152-53, include French ships which were involved in a triangular tradc bur it is clcar that rhe number of coastal vessels was still fairly large. Mathieu norcs that 200 ships were buiit around Qucbec City in the two dccadcs after 1720 a d most of them were intznded for intercolonial commerce, p. 218.

S7Frcnch mcrchants certainly used Louisbourg at times as a transhipment point in their tradc with Quebec: they disembarked cargoes therc to be carricd on to Quebec by the barques and chaloupes which sailed up and down thc coast, thus saving thcmsclvcs thc necessity of making the long and potentially hazardous voyage up rhc Saint Lawrcncc. Scc Bakorn, C o d of --58, p. 7. and also Mathieu, Lg

, p. 76.

Canadian correspondcnts to cxtend the limits of the scason. The pon of Louisbourg was,

at lcast in theory, open ycar round. In fact, the presencc of drift ice off Ile Royale in

February and March, and poor conditions in the Atlantic during the winter, ensured that the

rnajority of vessels entered or left the port between May and November. Unlike at

Quebcc, howcver, the port saw both early spring departures for France and late arrivais

from the mother country in the fa11.58

The only cvidencc WC havc of lctrcrs travelling between Quebec and France via

Louisbourg, cither durhg the scason of navigation or over the Temiscouath route, is during

the 1750s. In that decade, it is cvidcnt that some Canadian correspondents werc abie to

usc thcsc routes routincly to keep in touch with France, both on the edges of the season

and during the winter. The financial commissary of war, André Doreil, sent letters to

Louisbourg early in the spring in ordcr to take advantage of the carly departures from there

for Francc. For instance, on the 6 July 1755, hc referrcd to letters which he had written in

May and givcn to "M. dc St Vcran mon ami Lieutenant de Vaisseau embarqué sur ls

Bizarre avec pricre dc le faire partir pour France par la premiere occasion qui pouroit se

trouver à l'Isle Royalc sinon de Ic portcr lui meme et dc mcttrc à la poste au premier port

de franc^."'^ Similarly, on the 5 May 1757, Dorcil asked his correspondent in France to

excuse the haste in which hc wrotc, cxplaining: "J'apprends dans ce moment de l'ouverture

dcla navigation, quc l'on cxpcdie un batiment pour 1'Acadic d'ou un officier doit passer 5

Louisbourg. je nc veux pas laisser cchaper ccttc occasion sans avoir l'honneur de vous

donner signe de vie.""' In cach instance, Dorcil's Ictter would havc rcached France far in

advance of any lcttcr hc could have sent dircctly from Qucbcc whcre the vesscls from

a, p. 270; Moore, "Merchant Trade in Louisbourg," pp. 15-16. As early as the 8 May 1756, M. dc la Varenne, a corrcsporidcnr at Louisbourg cauld note in a lctter to a ti-iend at La Rochelle that hc tiad "in my lasi [letter] e.uhriustcd al1 that wa.. nccdful IO say on our private business." This lettcr was writ~en only bçcaust: "1 could not sse ihis ship preparing for Francc espccially with Our friend Moreau on t~oarcl withwr givirig yuu mark of how ardcritly I wish ihr: cuntinucnce of our corrcspandcnce." Kenneth . - Dorii)vari. "A Lcricr irom Louisbwrg," luzuknu. Vol X, no. 1 Auiumn 1980, pp. 113-30. The lcttcr itseif was from M. de la Varennc to a fricnd ar La Rochelle, 8 May 1756, originally publishcd in

C u c NOW D W d f Ciqx lhuu (London, prinied for S. Hooper and k Morely, 1758).

s 9 " ~ e s Icttrcs dc Dorcil," 30 April 1758, p. 123.

60 Ibid., 5 May 1757, p. 99.

Francc would not yct havc arriveci. At the same time, correspondents in France took

advantagc of the later dcparturcs of vessels for Louisbourg to send letters to Canada after

the last ships had left for the Saint Lawrence. Thus, for instance, on 9 July 1753, l'abbé

de L'Isle-Dieu in Pans wrote a letter for Bishop Pontbriand of Quebec which hc

announced he would try "de vous faire passer par M. de Villejoint officier de l'Isle Royalle

qui m'a assuré qui1 vous la fera rernettres au plus tard sur la fin de 9bre [Novembre] par ie

baye Similarly, two years later on 30 May 1755, he closed another letter to

Pontbriand with the obscr~~ation that as hc doubtcd thcrc would be other vcssels sailing for

Qucbcc that summcr from Rochefort hc wondcrcd whether "jc ne scray pas obligé dc VOUS

Ic fairc passer par ~ouisbourg."~'

Whilc in thesc instanccs the opportunities available to correspondents through

Louisbourg allowed them to extend the limits of the season, the overland route through

Luuisbourg also scrved as a wintcr connection. Thus, for instance, on 19 Apnl 1757 Louis

h t o i n c de Bougainvillc notcd "cc soir on a CU par la voie de Louisbourg des nouvelles de

Francc cn date du 28 Xbrc. Le batimcnt Ctait parti de la Rochclle le 6 9bre et amvé à

l'islc Royale ie 30 janvier. le coumer de Louisbourg en avait été dépêché le 3 f é ~ r i e r . " ~

The next winter in early Fcbruary he sirnilarly reported the amval of "Nouvelles de

Louisbourg cn date du 6 9brc qui nous donne d'Europe du 24 7brc."" The overland

route in this pcriod clearly brought lettcrs as wcll as news to the colony. In November

1757 dc Bougainvillc askcd his frcquent correspondent Mrnc de Séchelles to write him that

wintcr "par la Luic dc Louisbourg" if she had t i r n ~ . ~ Similarly, Picrre Mcynardie, a

mcrchrint r i t Qucbcc. notcd in larc May 1758 that his brothcr in ta Rochclle had wnttcn

6 1 " ~ t t r c s ct mEmoircs de L'abbE dc L'Isle-Dieu," l'abbé de L'Isle-Dieu to Mgr Pontbriand, 9 July 1753, p. 333. Internai evidence suggcsts that the Crown had sent very important papers to the colony, but that I'abbi de L'Isle-Dieu had been informed too late to be able to write by the sarne ship. As this vesse1 was apparcntly thc last to sail that scason, i'abbé de L'Isle-Dieu was left with no alternative than to write via huisbourg, something hc regciteci bccause his lettcr would take longer.

"Ibid., sanx to same, 30 May 1755, p. 413.

a3 DL' Uougainville. Ec?-iia . . . sux le C '&, "Journal dc I'espédition d ' h e r i q u e commencée en l'année 1756, Ic 15 mars," p. 195.

@Ibid., "Journal de L'expédition d ' h e r i q u e commcncéc en I'annéc 1756, le 15 mars," p. 272.

bSlbid., Qucbcc, Lfc Bougainville à Mmc de SSchellcs, 8 Novcmber 1757. p. 109.

hi, a couple of lines on 7 Febniary by ~ o u i s b o u r ~ . ~ ~ Letters also travelled in the other

dircction. In a lctrcr writtcn in Fcbruary 1756, André Doreil of Quebec infomed his

French correspondent that he had resolved to wnte to him, "Quoique l'occasion qui se

presente pour escrire en France par la voye de Louisbourg ou l'on envoye un Exprez par

terre soit fort peu seure ... pour avoir l'honneur de vous envoyer l'Estai de la situation

actuelle de nos ~ataillons."~' Two years latcr, hc again wrote to France in eariy

February, taking advantagc of the retum to Acadia of a Courier who had recently arrived

at Quebec with despatches from rance." Thc particular advantagc of this route was that

i t dlowcd Canadians to scnd lcttcrs to Francc in timc that thcir correspondents couid

rcspond the following spring or summcr. Thus, for instance, Eticnnc Auge, a Montreal

merchant, wrotc to his agcnt Pierrc Meynardie at La Rochellc in January and February

1756. Thcsc lctters lcft Louisbourg on a vcsscl in late April and Meynardie was able to

rcspond to thcm carly that une.^^

Thc conjunction of this rangc of options in thc 1750s sccms to havc mcant that

sonic of Our correspondents, at lcast, had thc opportunity to scnd lcttcrs virtually year

rouiid. Through the mid-1750s, for cnamplc, Andrk Doreil wrotc to France in the summer

and fa11 by the rcgular shipping from Quebcc; in the winter by the overland route through

Louisbourg; and carly in the spring by the shipping to that port. It is likely that the route

by thc coastal shipping to Louisbourg and on to France had bccn accessible to Canadian

corrcspondcnts such as Dorcil for many ycars. As was suggested above, the kind of

connections that would havc madc it possible for Our corrcspondcnts to exploit the route

cxistcd throughout much of thc history of the port. On the othcr hand, it scems likely that

rhc opporrunicics which Dorcil and othcrs uscd to send lcttcrs ovcrland in wintcr werc

lrirgcly a product of thc circumstanccs of thc 1750s. Francc was at war, and officials at

Qucbcc and Louisbourg mas wcll havc fclt a particular impcrativc to kccp communications

open dunng thc wintcr. As Our cvidcnce suggests, the couricrs who travelled this route

- -

&Baby Collecrion, U 8505, Qucbcc, Mcynardic to Augé, Montreal, 22 May 1758.

"'"Les Icit~cs dc Dorcil,'* Uorcil rci Le!], 12 Fcbruary 1756, p. 74.

&1bid., Uucbcc, Doreil tu [?], 26 February 1758, p. 120.

69 Baby Collection, U 8381, La Rochelle, P. Meynardie to Etienne Augé, 6 lune 1756.

were not simply accessible to govcrnmcnt officiais, as we know that colonial merchants

and others uscd them as well. Our correspondents were, however, likely part of a very

small group that was able to make use of these opportunities. The couriers carried only

srnall quantities of mail. in Febmary 1758, Louis-Antoine de Bougainville explained to

Mme de Séchelles that, of al1 his correspondents, he would only write to her that winter as

the courier who would cary his letters to Acadia was "un phantassin qui s'en va par les

bois de l'Acadie, puis à Louisbourg, il ne sauroit porter qu'un petit nombre de ~ e t t r e s . " ~

Thus, whatcver the importance of these winter opportunities to those who were able to

make use of them, their broader significance was limited both by lack of accessibility and

thcir vcry short duration. *

in addition to the various routes by which news and letters could reach Canada

through other French territories, Canadians were sometimes able to keep in touch with

correspondcnts ovcrscas through New England. The route overland from Canada to the

New England Coast was important because it could--1ike the route through

Louisbourg-carry news and letters in winter when the navigation in the Saint Lawrence

was closed. News of particularly important events would often reach New England long

bcfore they did Canada, and it is cvidcnt that Canadians often reccived the first inkling of

thcm through Ncw ~ngland." But, as Our discussion will reveal, the route through New

"De Bougainville, -. de dcougainvillc to Mme de SSchelles, 20 February 1758, p. 422.

'lFor instance, ncws that peace had been made in Europe often rcached the colony first through New England. See, for instance, Cl14 F-16, Charnpigny to [?], 12 July 1698, in which it was rcported that a dclegation from Albany had amvcd ai Montreal that February, "par lequel nous rcçûmes les prcmiers avis de la paix qui est faite en Europe, mais assez Confusement. Le principal sujet de leur voyage étant de venir voir leur parens qui étoient prisonniers parmy nous." News of the end of the War of the Spanish Succession also reachcd thc Canadians first through New England. Sce "Correspondence entre M. de Vaudreuil et la Cour," Quebec, M. de Vaudreuil au Ministre. 15 May, 1713, p. 204. On the failure of New Englanders to inform the French when war had broken out, see the example of the War of the League of Augsburg dcscribed in Eccles, Canada, pp. 162-68. In I7 17 the French engincer Chaussegros dc Lcry puinred oui how vulnçrablc: this made the colony. In a mémoire which argued for the need to improve the dcfcnses of Montrcal he wrote "er comme dans ce pays on est tous Ics jours à la vieille d'avoir la guerre avec les Anglois et ies Sauvages er qu'on ne peut sçavoir le declaration de la Guerre d'Europe qu'après les Anglois ils pouroicnt enterrer cette ville très aisement dans t'état ou d i e est présentement." Chaussegros de Léry. lnvcntairc de Iérv conservés aux de la v, edited by Pierre- Gcorgcs Roy (QuCbec: Archives de la province dc Québec, 193930) Vol. 1.. 10 August 1717, "Mémoire et Etat ci<: la Villc de Montreal," pp. 38-29.

England also sewed as a direct channcl for lettcrs to and from France. This route was

ncvcr accessible enough to bccome an established option for Canadian correspondents

although there is evidence that at times in the eighteenth century it may have camïed a

surprising volume of letters.

The kcy to New England's role lay in its extended shipping season. The harbour at

Boston, the premier New England port through most of Our period,lz was open year

round. Although ice occasionally formed in the river, it never lasted long even during the

coldcst months." Vcsscls sailed from Boston rhroughout the year, simply delaying their

dcparturc bricfly whcn wintcr conditions rcquired it. Far fewer vessels entered the harbour

in wintcr. Although somc ships did make wintcr crossings when required by particularly

important circumstances, most vcssels arrived at Boston from Europe between March or

April and Novcmber or ~ccernber . '~ Thus, though still subject to scasonal limits, the

rhythm of Atlantic shipping to and from Boston was significantly less constraincd than that

at Qucbcc, offcring dcparturcs for Europe year round and a much longer season of amvals

froni oxwseas.

Canadians had tricd to takc advantage of the extended seoson in New England £rom

carly in the scventcenth ccntury. The Lesuit-, for instance, reported that in mid-

July 1649,

In rhr: late 1750s thc first ncws of rhc M l of Louisbourg also reached Canada through New England. Scc dc Bougainville, Enira l t

- - C d , "Journal de I'zxpedition d ' h e r i q u e commencée en L'année 1756, le 15 mars," 2, 3, and 4 Sepieniber 1758, pp. 332-33, and 1-10 Octobcr 1758, p- 343.

"Boston was "the premier port of Massachusetts and of North American before 1740, according to Ian Stcele, -, p. 59, whether measured in t e m of population, shipowning or occan traffic. Ncws-bcaring passages from England were ten days Içss than sirnilar nossings to New York, and fourteen days quickcr than to Philadelphia, ibid., p. 60. In this period, "direct shipping between Britain and New York was very limited," ibid., p. 67.

"River ice formed only "in shon, discontinuous and variable periods" during thc season. US. Navy, Hydrographie Office, !ce Arlas of the Nonhem Hemisphere, rec. ed., Washington D.C., 1955 cited in ibid., p. 59.

74"Thc Atlantic traffic bciwcen England and New England was noi dominated by the scasons of any commodity, but winter was an important factor," Stcelc, m, p. 60. Shipping patterns varied ovcr time: in late 1680s amvals were conccntrated in the summer and by 1718-19 anivals were conccntratcd in spring and fa11 as more vcssels made two round trips each ycar. Sec Table 4.3: "Calendar of Boston's shipping with Great Britain and Ireland, 1687-1738," pp. 60-61.

the Abnakiois arrived, to the number of 30; they are notified that they are not to comc again .... They brought letters from the English. There was one from Madcmoyselle de rcpcntigny to her husband dated 31st of July, 1648, with news of the death of Monsieur ~hastelets.~'

Pierre Legardeur de Repentigny and Noel Juchereau des Chatelets were associates who had

both been in France during the spring of 1648. De Repentigny had set sail for Canada in

May leaving his wife behind. Des Chatelets had remained in France and died at Orleans

somewhat later after the last vessels had left for Canada. The letter to which the Relations

rcferrcd was apparently sent off by Mme de Repentigny in the hope that it would bring

word of des Chatclets' death to her husband before thc vessels arrived from France the

following spring. In point of fact, the letter did not rcach the colony until mid-summer

when a letter sent through more conventional charnels might already have a n i ~ e d . ' ~ The

episode is significant, however, bccausc it suggcsts that some correspondents had access to

a route through New England and thought of using it. News and letters also went the

othcr way. In the early summer of 1651, Marie de l'Incarnation despatched a letter for her

son Claude with Pèrc Dniillcttcs who lcft Quebcc on June 23 en route for New

E n g l a n ~ i . ~ ~

Much of Our evidcnce for the existence of the New England route cornes from

officia1 ccirrcspondcnce--perhaps because govcrnment officiais had the necessary resources

to scnd couricrs ovcrland, but also bccause thcir use of the route may have left more traces

in contcmporary rccords since thcy would gcncrally have had to scck pcrrnission for the

passage of a couricr through forcign tcmtory. in mid-Fcbruary 1674, Governor Frontenac

dcspatchcd lcttcrs for France through Ncw England with some indians who, having just

rirrivcd at Qucbcc from Acadia with ncws from the Acadian Governor, had offered to cany

letters for him to Boston. As hc obscrvcd in one of the Icttcrs hc wrote by this

75Thwaitcs, Jcsuit, Vol. 34, "Journal des PP. lesuites, 1649," p. 57.

76Not only did rhc lerrcr arrive aftcr the iïrst ships had rcached Quebcc but its intcnded rccipient had himsclf never reached the colony thc prcvious summer. The vcssel under Pierre Legardeur's cornmand saiied irorti La Rrichcllc un rhc 27 May. Shortly ihcreaftcr an epidemic brokc out on board which kiiied him. . . RCB, Vol. 1. SV. "Rcpcntigny, Pierre Legardeur de." fidcs Vol. 32 (1926). pp. 45-46; Vol. 7 (1902), pp. 86-89.

77 . . ' . m, Marie de l'incarnation to un Père de la Compagnie dc Jésus, 1 September 1651, pp. 405-11. For a discussion of Dniillcttc's trip IO New England see above in the section on the route through the GaspE.

opportunity, he had acceptzd their offer, thinking "que je ne devois voust negliger cette

occasion pour vous rendrc Compte succinctement de ce qui sest passe de plus considerable

en cc pais depuis le dcpan des vaisseaux et vous donner par la le moyen de m'evoyer VOS

ordres sur ce que vous suggères le plus necessaire par les derniers qui partiront de France

pour venir lcy."" Frontenac sent his own courier to New England in winter on at lest

one other occasion with letters for Europe." Other Crown officiais did the same."

Pcrhaps, most notably, during the early winter of 1713, even though France was stiil at

war with Britain, Govemor Vaudreuil wrotc to the court "par trois Endroits differends de la

nouvclle Angleterre" to inform them of a fire which had largely destroyed the Intendant's

Similady, in carly May 1776 thc Intendant, M. BCgon, acknowlcdged the

"MG 1 C11A F-3, Québec, Frontenac to [?], 16 Febmary 1673, pp. 49-53.

79 . . Sec Pcter R. Christoph and Fiorence A. Chrisioph, The of Filese . - Ncw York D v 1674 -16EdmundQ (New York: Syracuse

University Press, 1990, 1991), A d o s P- 1677 - 1678 , 26: 152, Frontenac, Quebec 8 January 167[?] to Gavernor Andros of New York, p. 163. This correspondence concerns Frontenac's arrangements for Sergeant Champagne of the Quebec ganison and two soidiers to travel to New York. Champagne camed a number of packcts and lettcrs inçluding a packet addrcsscd to Monsicur CarboneIl, "Bankier" at London, which cimtainçd wcniy lçtiers. ËcclG suggsts the b n d o n Ietiçrs concerned Frontenac's private business affaus, sec Ecclcs, > C u i c r G o v c w , p. 98. The original plan had bcen for Champagne to travel to New York, but at Albany he was redirected IO Boston. As Commander Brockholes of New York cxplained to Frontenac in a letter written in late February, this made the most scnse as "they wiii probably find passage more quickly [at Boston] than from here, whcre there is no ship leaving for six weeks or two monihs fiom now." -, 27:37 Commander Brockholes to Governor Frontenac, New York, 28 February 166718, p. 365.

!a Sec, for csarnplc, Ecclcs, Canada, pp. 2 3 0 3 1 , who provides an example of ihe use of tht: New England rourc following Frontenac's dearh in the late fa11 of 1698. Frontenac had died on 28 Novcriiber, nui long aftrr the 1 s t vcssels had sailed for France. In the co!ony, two competing parties hoping to bc ablc to intlucnce the Minisrcr in thc choice of a replacement made use of the route through New Erigland in ari c f h n to prcscnt thcir own position to thc coun as soon as possible. Ecclcs tclls us that the Guvcrnor of Munircal, Chcvalicr Louis-Hector dc CalIitrcs, hopeful of sccuring Frontcnac's position for hirnsclf, scnt an envoy on 9 December by way of Albany IO France with letters for the Minister and others whom hc hopcd would further his suit. Whcn thcy realizcd what Callières had done, Chevalier Vaudreuil, cornmandcr of the regular troops in the colony, and Intendant Champigny similarly sent their own envoy on 26 Dcccrnber via New England with the funds to hire a ship for France.

s'"~orrespondance entre M. de Vaudreuil et la Cour," 15 May 1713, p. 202. The ncw Intendant, Michel BSgon de la Picardière, had arrivcd at Qucbcc just that fail. Thc fire that January resulted in the death of thrcc servants, his sccrctary and the Ioss of property valued at 40,000 Livres. m, Vol. 3, S.V. "Bégon de la PicardiCrc." That same winter rhc French coun had apparently anempted to send lctters of theu own through Ncw Ençland. Datcd the 2 January, thcy had becn sent off immediately but ultimately did not mach Vaudreuil uniil the 27 Fcbruary 1714, more than a year later and long after the vcsscls which had sailed from Fraricc in the spring of 1713 had becn and gonc from Qucbec with their cargo of lctters! Vaudreuil wrote back immediatcIy rhraugh Nçw England thai spring in order to ensurc that his correspondents in France

rcceipt of a lettcr wnttcn the 6 Novembcr from the president of the Conseil de la Marine

in Francc via New England and Montreal. This lctter had apparently been written in

responsc to the news that the Frcnch vessel le Chamcauad been shipwrecked off [le

Royale in Octobcr 1725 en routc to Quebec and seems to have included a detailed account

of the goods sent on the vessel and a passenger list, as well as other items. Evidentiy,

while the Canadians had heard of the vessel's l o s they had not till then known for sure

who was on the boat: Bégon noted in his response that "madame Duviver a appris avec

une très grand joie que son mari ne s'etait point embarqué sur le hameau."^ Other very promincnt figures also secm to have bcen able to arrange fairly easiiy

for their lctteïs to be sent through New England. For example, astronomers at the

Academy of Science in Paris realized in the faIl of 1752 that the ships had already sailed

for Qucbcc, and that consequently they had left it too late to send someone to New France

to observe thc passage of Mercury across the Sun the following May. instead, they wouid

havc to rely upon somconc alrcady in the colony and send him the necessary instructions.

Joseph-Pierre de Bonnfcamps, who taught hydrography at Qucbec, was chosen, and that

October thc notcd French astronomcr Joseph-Pierre Deslisle prepared a memorial for

Bonnechamps dctailing what hc was to do. Thc memorial was despatched through New

England: it appcars first to have been scnt to thc Governor of New York and then carried

"by Exprcss over Land to Q ~ e b e c k . " ~ ~

receivcd a reply to their lcttcrs beforc the departure of the last ships for Canada that season for which see ibid., M de Vaudreuil au Ministre, 14 A p d 1711 p. 252 and 1 July 1713, p. 262. "- de de .a, VoI. 1, pp. 11032. On the l o s of le see Pritchard, "French Chaning of the East Coast of Canada," in Five of Naurical 11400 - 1 9 0 , cd. Derek Howsc, Greenwich London, National Maritime Museum, 1981, p. 122. Sce also John Bosher, &LULS@ . , -, p. 138 who ideniikïcs le as a king's tlute which sailed Rochefort-Quebec- Rochefort each ycar betwecn 1719-25 and was wrccked off Isle-Royale 27 August 1725. It is possible that Mme Duvivcr hcard word of hcr husband, not by the lettcr of November which came via New England, but via UL@lau which arrived early in the spring of 1726 with replacements for some of the goods lost on k Chameau. The lettcr is imprecise.

63 For a discussion of ihis incident sce Kcnneth Donovan, "The Marquis de Chabert and the Louisbourg

observatory in the 1750s, The Ne-, Vol. 11, no. 3, Summcr 1981, p. 196. A transiation of the lcttcr iniendcd for Bonnecamps was scnt to Benjamin Franklin who published 50 copies of the instructions in a four-page Icaflct, cxens from which wcre also printcd in the Bosion Ncw-, 28 March 1753 and

- - . Pcnnsvlv;inia 5 April 1753 according to Donovan. The quotation cired herc concerning the route ovcr which the letrcr for RonnCcamps was sent is trom a Ictter by Franklin to James Bowdoin, Phiiadelphia, 28 Fcbruary 1753 in Leonard W. Labaree, cd. The of . . , IV (New Haven: Yale

Thc use of this route was not restncted to government officiais and particularly

wcll-connected public figures. Private ncws and letters also occasionally travelled

ovcrland in winter through New England. The concrete evidence we have of this is

limitcd, but when we look closely at the channels used in the examples we possess, it is

clcar that the New England route would have been accessible to other equally well-placed

privatc correspondents. Our first two examples date kom around the turn of the century.

Of these, the first case is that of one Peiré--apparently a merchant at La Rochelle--who

wrote to the French Hugucnot merchant Gabriel Bcmon of Boston on the 2 January

1 6 9 9 . ~ ~ He explaincd thnt he anticipated sailing to Quebcc in the spring but wished

certain information to prcccdc him. He asked Bcrnon "to scnd two Indians at whatever

pricc thcy charge, one to Montrcal and the othcr to Qucbcc, so that rny letters may be

dclivcrcd bcforc thc arri\.al of Our vessels." The purposc was to ensurc that "the person 1

am writing to persuades those 1 have been uscd to serve to await my arrivai." He

rcqucstcd the utmost secrecy and suggestcd the tndians prctend to be huntingeas Peiré

sccrns to have known Bcmon fairly wcll, promising somewhat obscurely "to write to tell

sou what therc is to do," prcsuniably in tradc, once he reachcd Canada. The second case,

froni around the samc timc, involves the Qucbcc merchant Jcan-Jacques Catignon and a

lcttcr hc wrotc 22 Octobcr 1711 to his business associatc, André Estourncl of La Rochelle.

Catignon, who was born at Quebec in 1G81, had recently marricd at La Rochcllc and

although he had returned to Canada, his wife, Marie-Anne Busquct, was apparently still in

France. Catignon askcd Estourncl to "hclp my wife to let mc know thc ncws through

Boston." Hc directcd him to addrcss his lcttcrs to Andre Fancuil at Boston who, like

University Press, 1961), p. 116 citcd Donuvan, p. 196.

s Gabriel Bcmon himsclf was a Huguenot nierchant with a wide range of trading relations on both sides of ihe Atlantic. Originally cstablished at La Rochelle, hc had been active in the Canada [rade between the larc l6GOs and the carly 1680s. ln 1685, in the wake of the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, he had left La Rochelle for New EngIand. From thcre he traded with merchants in EngIand and HoUand as well as pursuing irircrests in Acadia and also possibly Canada. Sec John Bosher, "Huguenot Merchants and the Protestant Inicma~ional in the Sevcntcenth Ccntury," WilIiam O-, 3rd serics, Vol. 52, No. 1, January 1905, pp. 91-97.

a ~ h o d e Island Hisrurical Society, Providence Rhode Island, MSS 291, Bernon Papers, La Rochelle, Peiré 10 G . 13crriori. 2 Jariuary l G W . 1 1ïrst found this rcl'crencc in Boshcr, "Hugucnot Merchants and the Protestant Intcrnarional in the Scvcntccnth Ccntury," p. 92.

Bsmon, was a French Huguenot merchant active in the Atlantic trade," and explained

that Faneuil would "have them passed to Monsieur Maindre at Orange [Albany]. He is a

man with whom my associate does bus in es^."'^ in what follows we will consider the

nctworks and connections upon which Peiré and Catignon hoped to rely for the

transmission of their letters.

In the first instance, both Peiré and Catignon ananged to have their letters sent

from France to French Huguenot merchants in New England. This is far from

coincidcntal. During thc late scventeenth ccntury a group of French Huguenots had fled

mounting rcligious pcrsccution in France to cstablish themselves in Protestant communities

throughout thc North Atlantic, including the ports of New England. Many of these

mcrchants retaincd closc tics to family and business associates in France, often maintainine

an cstensive corrcspondcncc with them and sometimes entering into business arrangements

togcthcr that saw thcm trading in London, Amsterdam, and other Atlantic ports. Lsçtters

could have passed through any of these connections between Francc and New ~ngland?

In addition, somc of the French merchants in such ports as Boston and New York had also

helped to establish a direct commerce in French goods with New ~ n ~ l a n d . ~ ~ The vessels

t i n t sailcd in support of this trade would have providcd an cvcn more accessible

opportunity for our corrcspondents, particularly as some of thc French mcrchants who

tradcd with Canada also cnjoycd personal or business connections with merchants in the

Ncw England trade, as did Peiré and Catignon with Bernon and ~aneuii ."

860n Fancuii see Boshcr, "Hugucnot Merchants and the Protestant International," pp. 90-92.

57 Catignon to Estroumcl, October 23, 1711, ADCM, B 4202, cited in Boshcr, "Huguenot Merchants and the Proicstant International'' p. 93. On the relationship bc~wcen Estoumel and Catignon, see Kathryn Young, "Sauf les perils ci hnuncs de la mer: Mcrchant Wornen in Ncw France and the French Transatlantic Trade, 1713-16," Canadian Re . .

vicw, Vol. 77, No. 3 (Scptcmber 1996), p. 393.

Boshcr, "Hugucnot Mcrchants and the Protestant Intemaiional." On the prcscnce of French Hugucnois in New York scç Joyce D. Gooditiend, C- in C O U Ncw Yurk Ciiy. 1664-177Q (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1992), pp. 47-52.

69 Bernard Bailyn, DE Ncw FJieland in &e 17th C m (Cambridge Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1955), pp. 90, 133-47.

%c Ncw England irade was centred in La Rochelle, a Huguenot stronghold and a community in which many Ncw England Hugucnot mcrchants had extensive connections. Thc Canada merchants would have had panicularly casy acccss to the shipping berween France and New England because it, as the Canada trade, was ccnircd in La Rochclle.

Thc transmission of lettcrs betwecn France and Canada through New England

required not only a conncction across the Atlantic but one overland between the French

and English colonies themsclves. It is al1 too easy for us to envisage the boundary

bctwccn the two colonies as an insurmountable barrier. New England and Canada were,

aftcr all, often at war and separatcd by a considcrable expanse of unsettled temtory. Our

habit of conceiving of the history of these colonies as part of two distinct national histories

tends to crnphasize their scparateness. in fact, the temtory between these two coionies

was quite permcablc. Studics that focus upon the experience and perspective of the people

who inhabitcd this area show that in many respects this was an area of openness and

cxchan_ec through which First Nations people, French, Dutch and English moved, hunted,

visited, and int~rmarried.~' In particular, the native people of the area moved back and

fonh bctwccn the two colonics and through the bordcrlands scparating thcm, belonging to

ncithcr and trading and hunting in accordance with their own agenda, with little reference

to the boundarics cstablishcd by European States. When Pciré askcd Bemon to send two

"Indians" to Canada with his lcttcrs, they wcre to prctend to be hunting, and this in the

cycs of contcmporarics would have becn uncxccptional.

Much of the traffic through this space had to do with the illegal trade in Canadian

furs betwccn Montrcal and ~lbany." The furs, which originatcd in the interior, were

collcctcd by French rncrchants at Montreal and then transportcd down the Richelieu River

to Albany by nativc portcrs, primanly Mohawks from the Jcsuit mission at Caughnawaga,

who thcn rcturned to Canada with British tradc goods. The tradc bcgan as carly as the

1670s, and although it stoppcd almost entircly during the War of the Lcaguc of Augsburg

[King William's War] it prospcrcd with thc coming of peace. in 1699 an iroquois

. . "Sec, ior csaniplc, Richard 1. Mclvoin, New FsSliuiJ 0- War (Ncw York: W.W. Norton, 19S9), p. 151. See also John Demos, The Captive: A From (New York: Aifred A. Knopf, 1994); Evan Haeleli and Kevin Sweeney, "Revisiting V i e Rcdccrncd Captive:' Ncw Pcrspcctivu on thc 1701 Attack on Dcerfield," O-, Vol. 52 (January 1995), pp. 3-36.

=On the trade sec Thomas Eiiiot Norton, New Y~&l686-1726 ([Madison]: University of Wisconsin Press, [1971]; Jcan Lunn, "The Illegai Fur Trade Out o f New France," Canadian Historical Association, 1939, pp. 61-76; Marc Guévin, "Le commerce Montreal-Albany sous Le rSginlc français: histoire d'un phcnomènc cornmcrciaI," MA Diss., University of Montreal, January 1995; David M h u r Amour, "The Merchants of Albany New York, 1686-1760," PhD Diss., Northwcstern Univcrsity, 1965.

commcnted "thcre is an open road from this place to Canada of late, yea, a beeten path

knec dcep, soe bare you have trod it of lateaW9' The traffic over this route included

mcrchants from the south who visited Canada, establishing trade connections there. By

1700, for example, the Albany mcrchant David Schuyler had "developed a close biendship

with a Montrcal merchant named B ~ n d o u r . " ~ indeed Dutch traders at Albany in the

scvcnteenth ccntury arguably saw the area to the north of them, bounded by Albany, Iake

Ontario, Montreal, Quebec, and Lakc Champlain, as a single space: a natural part of their

trading area. A reccnt study has suggcsted that Montreal, with its trade and native

markets, was a community which in many ways rcscmblcd their own and they may have

becn cornfortable therc to a degrcc which our focus on political divisions tends to

ignore." The trade continued largely undiminished through the War of the Spanish

Succession [Qucen Anne's War]. Maindre, to whom Catignon expected Faneuil to send his

lctters, was likely an Albany fur trader dealing in smuggled Canadian furs: it is hard to

imagine what other business hc might havc had with Catignon's associate, a Quebec

nlcrchant who John Bosher idcntifies as Paul ~ u i l l c t . ~ ~

The connection bctwcen thcsc bordcrlands and the coast was a well developed one.

The Albany traders and merchants dcpcndcd upon merchants at Boston and particularly

New York to providc thcm with lincs of crcdit and to supply thcm with trade goods.97

Andre Faneuil's brothcr Benjamin, for examplc, was one of the chief traders at New York

dcaling in smugglcd Canadian fursgg and WC can imagine that he may havc provided the

Y3 Indian Conkrencc, Junc 13, 1699. in NYCD, 3, 569, ciied in Noniin, -tu in New Llark, p. 126.

W Ibid., p. 123.

95 Donna Mcrwick, > - (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), pp. 131-32, 377-79.

% On ihe idcntiiy of Guillct sec Boshcr, 0, . . undcr the entry for Caiignon, Jean-Jacques; on his fur [rade connections sec m, Vol. 3, s.v. "Fleury de la Gorgendièrc, Joseph de."

"NCW York Ciiy was made the cotony's exclusive port in the 1680s. for which see Norton, I k E u Ncw York, p. 81.

v"Goodtiierid, BcforL . . M- , p. 19; Norion, 3ne Fur - Trade New Y&. p. 86. On the link bctween André and Benjamin Faneuil see Boshcr, "Merchants and the Protestant International," p. 91.

mcans for Ictters scnt to his brothcr at Boston to reach the interior. Mme Catignon's letter,

dcspatched to Faneuil at Boston, would thus leapfrog fiom Boston, possibly on to New

York, to Albany, and thence to Canada, passing from one man to the next, exploiting the

connections that existed between them, tracing the pattern of their trade.

Thc routc through New England was likcly not commonly known: after ail, the

tradc was clandestine and thcre wcrc rcasons for discretion. Significantly, Estournel, a

mcrchant with a long connection to the Canada trade, had to be told to send Madame

Catignon's lctters by this route, which suggcsts that merchants in the Canada trade did not

exploit thcsc opportunitics routincly enough for them to havc become common knowledge.

Clcarly, howevcr, neither Pciré nor Catignon was uniquely positioned to find opportunities

to send lcttcrs through Ncw England, They cxploited networks and structures that were

wcll cstablishcd and could have bccn used by othcr correspondcnts for the transmission of

lcttcrs. It is notable that each sccmcd to feel that what he was doing was comparatively

ordinary. Pciré assumcd that Bcrnon would have little problem forwarding a few letters,

and whilc his requcst is clearly not an cvcryday affair, his tone does not suggest that

Bernon would find it cxccptional. Indccd, Pciré warned Bcrnon in a postscript that other

French mcrchants rnight also try to scnd lcttcrs to Canada in advance of the season, and he

bcggcd Bcrnon to ensurc that the couricrs carrying his lctters should not carry those

written by othcrs. Similarly, Catignon was mattcr of fact in proposing his wife's letters be

scnt by Ncw England, suggcsting that the linkagcs bctwccn Fancuil and Maindre, as

bctwccn Maindrc and Guiilct, wcrc wcll cstablishcd.

If anything, thcsc linkagcs may havc bccome cvcn morc effective as timc passed.

Thc tradc betwecn Albany and Montrcal was substantially largcr in the eightcenth ccntury

than it had bcen prcviously. In thc 1730s, according to John Dcmos, travcl and trade were

"flourishing as never bcforc."" The path from Albany to Montreal was wide open, and

nativcs and Europerins visitcd back and forth along the routc through the woods that

scparated thc two colonies. During the War of the Austrian Succession in the 1740s, this

traffic largcly ccascd, but it rcsumcd in latc 1748 and continucd through much of the

1750s.'~ John Dernos' account of the captivity of Eunice Williams following the 1704

raid on Deerfield Massachussetts makes it clear that the couriers, traders, merchants, and

interprcters who travelled back and forth along what he t e m s thc "Albany channel" carried

ncws and letters between the two colonies.101 Eunice's family was able, by cultivating a

conncction with figures at Albany associated with the Canada trade, to receive the

occasional lcttcr from people who had seen her, until long after the fa11 of New

rance."' In addition to local news and lctters, it is clear that this route also channelled

European ncws througb New England to the colony to the north. In 1755, the author of an

account of British Nonh Arncrica observed that "In Canada from the setting of the kost

until summcr, no ncws [rcaches thcm] from France and other foreign parts, excepting what

is convcycd to thcm by way of ~ l b a n ~ . " ' ~ ' A concrete example of this is providcd by

the corrcspondcnce of Robcrt Saundcrs in thc 1750s. Saundcrs, an Albany merchant

dcscribed 3s one of thc two largest Canada traders at the timc, maintained a substantial

corrcspondcncc with French mcrchants at Montrcal largcly through the means of the

Mohawks involved in thc t n d d W These lctters--1argcly addressed to merchants whose

rcal namcs wcre concealcd in thc intercsts of secrccy105--wcre wnttcn to acknowledge

thc rcceipt of furs and announcc what was bcing sent in r ~ t u r n . ' ~ In addition to

'M)Ibid., pp. 205, 219.

'"SCC ibid., p. 43, 46, 167, 177, 186.

- . . - '"William Douglas, g . N-, Vol. 1 (Boston, New England,

pririted London, rc-printed for R. Baldwin, 1755). My thanks to Jcff McNaim for this reference.

'mus, for example, on the 19 Ocrober 1752 Robert Saunders acknowledgcd a letter and h r s from Monicr of Montreal sent 19 Septembcr by "le poncur de la present Gaingantc Sauvage Du Saut." New York Historical Society, New York City, Robert Saundcrs Lctter Book, Microfilm, Saunders to M. "PMP ou Monicr," 19 October 1752.

1 0 5 ~ enerally a roman numerai and sometimes a syrnbol such as a chickcn or smoking pipe. indeed it is evident that he himscif was not always aware of who his business panncrs realiy were.

''&The leticrs have long bccn acknowledgcd as one of the rnost revcaling saurces on the detaik of the tradc. Sce, for exampic, Jcan Lunn, "The Illcgal Fur Trade Out of New Francc, 1713-60,"

k p u t , 1939, pp. 62-63. See also Norton, The New Y&, pp. 121-35- Saunders gcnerally identifies the courier uscd by narnc, ofien comrnenting on his or her reliability, and someiimes discusses rhe prices of goods.

discussing mattcrs having to do directly with the trade, Saunders also generally made a

point of informing his comspondcnts of the latest European news, particularly in the

winter. In January 1753 Saunders provided his correspondent Monsieur XII with London

commercial news which he had recently receivcd fiom Rhode Island. Later that year, in

carly May, hc reported to anothcr correspondent "Mes dernier Lettres de Londre sont daté

le 28 de Janvier point de ~ouvel le ."~" Saunders also ocwsionally fonvarded

ncwspapers. In early Scptember 1753 he noted in a letter to one correspondent, "La

Dcrnicre Gazette q u on a cn Viellc Jc vous ay Dcjay Envoyc par Tiogainra .... "'OB It is

likcly that if WC lookcd closely at when Canadians first heard of cvents beyond their

bordcrs in winter, we wouId discovcr that much news rcached thcm through connections

with Ncw Englandcrs, such as Saundcrs. Hcre again, howevcr, what really matters to us is

that Saunders evidcntly servcd not simply as a conduit for gcncral news and information

but also as a dircct link bctwccn Canadians and thcir corrcspondcnts overseas. Saunden

quitc often took rcceipt of lettcrs from France and forwardcd them ovcrland to the c010ny

through his normal trading routc. What is particularly intcrcsting is that he clearly was

scrving not only his normal trading partncrs but othcr mcrchants in the colony as well.

Thus, for cxamplc, on 5 May 1753 hc noted to one Montrcal merchant, "Je n'ay pas rem

dc Lcttrcs pour vous dc francc Encorc mais pour un Monsicur a Qucbec Jay receu deux

que JIEnvoyc par le portcur."'Og Again on 9 October 1754 hc despatched a letter to a

corrcspondcnt at MontrcaI and notcd, "Inclos vous avez unc lcttre receu sous mon Couvre

pour mcssicurs Dclanncur ct gauticr ncgotians a qucbcc quc je vous pris de leur en faire

t ~ n i r . " " ~

Thcrc are hints that thc Ncw England routc may havc bcen uscd rathcr more

frcqucntiy than our lirnitcd cxamples dcrnonstratc. In the latc fa11 of 1748, Joseph-Piene

dc Bonnecamp, thc pcrson who would later bc cnlisted to obscwe thc passage of Mercury,

'''Robci-~ Saunders Lcttcr Dook, Saundcrs io Monsr "PMP," 5 May 1753.

''"bid., Saundcrs to "XII," 10 Scptcmber 1753.

'OY1bid., Saundcrs to Monsr "PMP," 5 May 1753.

"'Ibid., Saundcrs IO "DND," 9 Ociobcr 1754. The mcrchants in quesiion were presumably Pierre Dclanncs, a merchant of Montauban and Qucbcc, and his associatc, Jacques Gauthier, for whom sce Bosher,

, pp. 57 and 70.

rctumcd from an expedition to the Ohio River. He did not send home to France an

account of his joumey until the following ycar, excusing himself for not having witten

carlier on the grounds that "al1 the vesscls had left Quebec when 1 reached it." He added,

"1 could, it is true have wntten you by way of New England" but explained that "1 had

many things to say to you which prudence would not allow me to send through the han&

of thc Engli~h.""~ His offhand comment is tantalizing. It, even more than the examples

WC have, suggcsts that this routc was comparatively accessible, at Least for some at certain

tinies.

*

The significancc of thc altcrnatc routes dcscribed in this chapter is clearest when

thcy arc placcd within the context of what we have leamcd thus far about French regime

communications. Thc world of transat lantic communications upon which Canadians during

thc French regimc dcpcndcd was onc ccntrcd on the Saint Lawrence. The vessels which

sailcd from France to thc colony--whcther in pursuit of tradc or in cornpliance with the

nceds of thc Crown--brought with thcm letters for the colonists and the return of these

ships to Francc pro~~ided Canadians with the opportunity to despatch their rcsponses.

Thcse ships sailcd according to a distinctive scasonal rhythm dctcrmincd by the seasonal

limits on navigation to Qucbcc. Lctters wcrc dcspatched from France in the spring and

carly summcr, amving anywhcrc bctwccn May and Octobcr, and rcsponses were sent off

bctwccn Junc and Novcmbcr. Dunng the wintcr, the Saint hwrcnce was closed and

communications via this routc ceascd. From ycar to ycar, thc particular pattern of shipping

dctcrmincd the numbcr and spacing of opportunitics through the scason of

communications. Vcsscl numbcrs gcncrally rangcd from thrcc to twcnty, and vcry

occasionally far morc; while thc lcngth of the scason varicd from thrce to seven months.

Vcssels. and conscqucntly the lcttcrs thcy carricd, werc pronc to loss; lcttcrs in their own

ri@ faccd additional dangcrs. Finally, thc whole proccss functioncd without benefit of

Iriws, rcgulations, or formai structurcs.

"'Thwaitçs, Jesuit, Vol. 69, "Account of the voyage on the bcautiful river made in 1749, under rhe dircciion of Monsieur de Celeron, by fathcr Bonncchamps," p. 151. DCB, Vol. 3, SV. "Bonnécamps, Joseph-Picrre de."

This study has emphûsized that this world of transatlantic communications worked

rcrnarkabl y wcll . Correspondents were able gcncrall y, although not always, to

communicate cffectively with iricnds, iamily, and associatcs overseas. While in some

ycars communications were very limited, in many others conditions were much better and

provided correspondents with a series of well-spaced opportunities through a particularly

long scason for the reccipt and dcspatch of their letters. As we have seen, individual

corrcspondents could do much to make the best of their circumstances: keeping track of

thc opportunities available to thcm, and making surc that they despatched their letters

prornptly. The samc personal involvement allowed correspondcnts to protect their letters

from somc of thc dangcrs that bcsct correspondcnce; at the same time they structured their

corrcspondcncc and managcd its dcspatch in ways that minimized the impact of the loss of

individual lcttcrs. In this way, corrcspondcnts werc able to limit thc effect that the dangers

facing lctters had on the proccss of communications itself. Throughout, it has becn

emphasizcd that wc must rccognizc that the cxpcctations contemporarics brought to the

proccss of communications dilfercd considcrably from Our own. Correspondcnts found it

considcrably lcss strangc than WC would when confrontcd with thc scasonal Iimits on

communications. Furthcrmorc, thcy had dcvclopcd distinctivc patterns of lctter-writing

which accornrnodatcd thcir circumstances and it was in the contcxt of how well conditions

in 3ny onc scason allowcd them to maintain this pattern that thcy judged the effectiveness

of communicritions in any particular ycar. Finally, corrcspondcnts wcrc far more

accustomcd than WC to bcaring an important rcsponsibility for thc reccipt and despatch of

thcir lcttcrs. That bcing said, they did not opcratc in a void. Corrcspondents werc able to

rcly upon a much broadcr comrnunity for the transmission of thcir lcttcrs in a proccss

which posscsscd considcrablc structure and prcdicability . Whilc thcrc may havc becn few

laws govcming thc early mails, therc wcre wcll-cstablishcd habits and convcntions which

hclpcd providc for thcir circulation, and commercial structures and practices that formed

thc nuclcus around which the systcm had bccn constructcd.

This was, howcvcr, a world with rcal limits. At timcs, communications could be

cstraordinarily constraincd and difficult. Thc scason of correspondcnce was occasionally

particularly short; sometinics vcry fcw vcsscls wcrc prcparcd to sail to the colony, or al1

thc ships sailcd simultancously with the rcsult that lcttcrs had to bc rcady at the same time;

and cvery November or Dccember, as the temperature fell, the Saint Lawrence inevitably

frozc hard with ice, making Qucbcc inaccessible to the shipping from France.

The alternative routes discussed in this chapter were important because they

providcd ccrtain corrcspondcnts with the possibility of escaping these limits, at particuiar

times during the French regime. During Marie de l'incarnation's lifetime, for exampie,

opportunitics through Gaspé played a particularly important role in bnnging her news and

lettcrs frorn France when the shipping to Quebec was extraordinarily delayed. Somcwhat

latcr, during the War of the League of Augsburg and the War of the Spanish Succession,

thc route through Plaisance providcd a more signifiant group of Canadians with additional

opportunities by which to scnd and rcccive corrcspondence when communications through

Qucbcc werc particularly constraincd. At the samc time, it may have allowed them to start

thc scason of corrcspondence earlier than might otherwise have been possible and to send

off particularly carly rcsponscs. In the mid-cighteenth century, it is possible that

Louisbourg pcrformcd the samc rok. Finally, opportunities through New England

particularly in thc cightccnth century and through buisbourg in the 1750s made it possible

for sornc corrcspondents to scnd and rcccitvc lettcrs in the wintcr when communications

would othcwisc havc bccn closcd.

It is, howcver, crucial to rcalize that although thcsc altcrnative routes may have

bccn important to particular corrcspondcnts at ccrtain times, they did not fundarncntally

transform thc naturc of thc process of transatlantic communications ta New France.

Ncithcr the prirnacy of thc Qucbcc route, nor the cssential seasonality of communications

to the colony, altcrcd. This can bc cxplaincd by a numbcr of factors. Most of these

opportunitics wcrc comparativcly short-livcd; thcy tcndcd to be hardcr to access; they

wcrc gcncrally Iirnitcd in numbcr; and many requircd particular rcsourccs o r connections.

It is important also that WC bc careful in assuming that corrcspondcnts always wantcd to

use them: in particular, wc can question whethcr corrcspondcnts necessanly felt the same

inipctus wc would to try to correspond in wintcr. Many wcll-connectcd Canadians clearly

ncvcr made usc of thcsc wintcr opportunitics, dcspitc thcir impaticncc at the seasonai

constraints on cornmunicat ions through the Saint ~ a w r c n c c . ~ ~ ' When correspondents

'"Scs, h r instance, thc concspondcnce of Mme Begon, Lcirrer au cfier; and also "Mère de Sainte- HClL;nc", Vol 3 (1936-27), Vol. 3 (1927-SS), Vol. 3 (1928-39). Vol. 5 (1929-30). and Vol. 6 (1930-31).

described thc options available for sending letters, they almost ncver includcd winter

routes. These cxisted outsidc the "normal" range of opportunities available to them."'

For much of the histor)' of the colony, correspondents appear to have had little choice but

to function within the limits of the season. For instance, on 27 August 1684, a

corrcspondent in Rochefort wrote to Caban de Villemont having received letters £rom him

that hc wished to have sent to Canada. This gentleman in Rochefort promised to fonvard

dc Villcrmont's Iettcrs to La Rochelle, but explaincd that the season was late and if the

ships had lcft hc would rcturn dc Villemont's letters to Paris to wait for the next

spring.l14 Thcre are many other cxamples of correspondents wrîting too late in the

scason, conscqucntly missing thc dcparturc of the 1s t ships for Canada, and being forced

to kccp their lcttcrs in hand until the ncxt year when the shipping re-opencd."' While

somc correspondents did write in wintcr, contemporaries invariably describe their

circumstances in strictly seasonal t ~ r m s . " ~

Bcyond the specific importance of the alternative routes to particular

corrcspondcnts, thcy hclp us in many ways to appreciate somc of thc broadcr qualities of

this world of communications at large. In the first instance, this discussion highlights the

pernlcability of bordcr rcgions which Our focus on national histories has somctimes

obscurcd. Thcrc was far more movement bctwccn Canada and Ncw England than we have

always acknowlcdgcd, and it wcnt bcyond thc straightforward commercial transactions

which studics of thc illcgal fur-tradc have tended to cmphasize. French regime Canada

was not, this discussion suggcsts, ncarly as "closcd" a society as Our approach to its history

has so oftcn suggcstcd. At thc same time, this chaptcr reinforces what wc alrcady know

about thc rcsourccfuhcss of individual corrcspondcnts in hclping to creatc and takc

advantagc of opportunitics for communications. Particularly in thc case of thcse alternative

routes, corrcspondcnts' ability to scnd off lcttcrs was dcpcndcnt upon their ability to forge

"'Sec, for instance, Doreil's description of the options availablc to his French corrcspondent in "Les Lettres de Dorcil," Dorcil to M. de Fumeron, 5 July 1755, p. 17.

"'ANQ, P272, Correspondance Caban de Viiiermont, Rochefort, de Machault Rougerncnt à M de Villcrnionr, Paris, 37 August 1683.

'"ASQ, Lttres Carton M, no. 30, Paris, Tremblay IO [?], 12 March 1701.

""M~t=re de Sainte-HClènc," Vol. 3, MSre dc Sainte-Hblènc to Mme Hecquet, 18 October 1733, p. 171.

connections with those able to provide them with access to available opportunities, and

thcir attentivencss to the possibility that such opportunities might exist. Finally, this

chapter underlines the resilicnce of the system of communications. Ai ternat ive

opportunities dcpcnded upon the same willingness of vesse1 captains, merchants, business

associates, and friends to do favours for those who wished to write, as did the main routes

via the Saint Lawrence. Similarly, they rclicd upon the cxistcnce of commercial networks

that provided thc essential structures upon which the system of communications was built.

Prcciscly as was the case with the system of communications that linkcd the Saint

hwrencc and Europe, thesc aitcmativc routes wcre not the crcation an administrative body

but grcw out of the livcs of the people themsclvcs. This chaptcr demonstrates the

cstcnsion of the samc coni*cntions and forms upon which communications to Quebec

rclicd, and in doing so brings home their strcngth and effcctiveness.

CHAPTER 6: The Conquest: Persistent Structures and New Options

Did this world of communications survive the Conquest? Focusing on other issues,

the question of whether o r not the Conquest serves as a turning point has long been

debated by scholars. Quebec's nationalist and neo-nationalist historians have viewed

1739-63 as a tragic period which pcrmancntly dcrailed a once dynamic and economically

vital pcoplc. From a differcnt perspective, English-speaking historians often described the

British victory at Quebcc as a fortuitous event which brought the British constitution and

Protestant commercial dynamism to an economically backward colony stifled by the

political absolutism of the French empire.' Today, the importance of thc Conquest is

downplaycd; focusing on economic structures and the conditions of everyday life, scholars

commonty çmphasize the continuities through the change in regime, and jdentify other

moments as points of transition in thcir stories.' While thcsc scholars acknowledge that

thc Conqucst lcft bchind military dcstruction, brought a dcgrec of political chaos, caused

gcncral unccrtainty, and affected thc fortunes of spccific groups such as the merchants of C

'Michcl Brunet, Maurice Seguin, and Guy FrEgault are amongst the bcst known members of this first group. The second goup--those who saw the Conquest as a positive event--include the American scholar Francis Parkman and English-Canadian historian Donald Gcighton. For a summary of their views see Dale . . Miquelon, 1700-1 8FQ (Vancouver: Copp Clarke, 1977).

. . . * 'Harris and Matthcws, The of of&, Vol. 1: 1 . . , and R. Louis

Gcritillcore and Geoffrey J. Matthews cds., The of of-, Vol. 2, LS00-1891 (Toronro: University of Toronto Press, 1993) take 1800 as the dividing line betwcen the two voiuriics. Scc: also John A. Dickinsun and Brian Young, =OHistorv.of, 2nd ed. ooronio: Copp Clark Pitrnan. 1993). in which these authors self-consciously construct ihcir periodization around economic tuniirig poinrs. The two csplicitly dcicnd thcir rejcction of institutional and political periodization and dcmand a morc sclf-conscious approach ro such matatiers in "Periodizarion in Quebec History: A rccvaluarion." YUcbcc S u , Vol. 12 (Spring/Summcr 1991), pp. 1-10. The different choices scholars have made arc discussed in a rccent articlc by Jocelyn Utoumeau, "Le temps du lieu raconté- Essai sue quelque chronologies récentes relatives a L'histoire du Québec," Uumhnd JO-, Vol. 15 (Spring 1997), pp. 153-65.

thc former French colony, thcy do not see it as a tuming point. instcad they emphasize

that to a largc cxtent many of the esscntial structures and practiccs of life in the colony

continued unchanged."

Ln the world of communications, the Conquest brought a number of visible new

fcatures. In thc first instance, the transition fiom French to British d e brought a sudden

re-orientation in trade, and correspondingly in the networks of communications. Abruptly,

colonists could no longer writc directly to France; rather the colony's transatlantic mails

would hcnccforth bc ccntrcd on Britain. Second, the British established a Post Office at

Quebcc, giving corrcspondcnts an institutional alternative to the networks that had

traditionally provided for the circulation of the mails. Finally, the British victory at

Quebec provided Canadians with routine access ovcrland to the port of New York, and the

opportunitics for year-round communications available there.

What wos the effcct of thcse changes? In thc first place, despite the re-orientation

of communications and the introduction of an institutional prcsencc, the proccss of

comn~unications continucd to dcpcnd largcly upon the kinds of structures and conventions

that it traditionally had. Thc rolc of the agent, of rncrchant vcsscls, travellers, and the

active vigilance of the correspondents themsclvcs, remained central to the process of

communications well beyond the Conqucst. Thcre is, however, an important respect in

which thcsc changcs mark a break in the history of thc carly mails. Access to the port of

New York providcd Canadian correspondcnts with an opportunity to scnd and reccivc

lcttcrs whilc thc navigation in the Saint Lawrcnce was closed. The Conquest had brought

an cnd to the strict scasonal limits on corrcspondcnce--one of the fundamental parametcrs

of communications in the Frcnch rcgimc--and in this respect it had dramatically altered

the world of communications. *

The English victory at Qucbcc scvcred the direct shipping tics bctween France and

its formcr colony which had traditionally providcd the channcl for mails bctween French

and Canadian corrcspondcnts. Thc last Frcnch vcsscls to visit Qucbcc amvcd in May

'SCC Dickinson and Young, A of of*, p. 50 who argue that the impact of the Conquest was "no1 dramatic" in socio-cconornic terms. For a similar pcrspcctivc, sec Bruce G. Wilson,

(Ottawa; National Archives of Canada, 1988), p. 36; and Allan Grcer, "Epiloguc," of New France (Toronto: University of Toronto Prcss, 1997).

1759, just ahead of the British b~ockade.~ Qucbec fell to the British army early in

Septernber and the next ycar the fatc of the French forces in Canada was sealed when the

first vcsscls to arrive in the Saint Lawrence were British warships. The small Frcnch force

that had departed Bordeaux in April 1760 would nevcr amve? The French formdly

capitulated at Montreal in Septembcr and the British forces of occupation ntablished an

intcrim rnilitary government ovcr the colony .

The end of hostilities in the Saint Lawrcnce provided one 1 s t opportunity to

correspond dircctly with France for at least somc Canadian ~or res~onden t s .~ On 12

Dcccmbcr 1760, Michcl Perrault of La Rochcllc wrotc to his brothcr at Quebec,

comrncnting "Nous avons depuis quclqucs jours 1 arriver icy de tous les différents

paquebots vcnu dc Canada ce qui fait que j ay bien recu Ics Iettrcs que mes freres et vous

m avcz fait 1 amitié de m ccrire."' The vcsscls that had carricd these lettcrs from Canada

to France wcrc the British ships on which the colony's leaders, French troops and the few

othcrs who wishcd to accompany them wcrc transported home to France following the

British victory at Montrcal. Thc first of thc threc ships to makc thc joumey was n e TWQ

Paançrs, which arrivcd at St. Ma10 13 ~ovembcr.'

'Pritchard suggests that pcrhaps as many as twenty-thrce French vcsscls amved at Quebec before the British blockcd the cntrancc tu the river, "Ships, Men, and Commerce," pp. 368-69. José Iganua, 'The Merchants and Negociants of Montrcal," p. 33, cita Fregault, War of theConauest, p. 210, and suggests îhat a convoy of cighteen vcssels left Bordeaux in seaecy in the s p r h g and made Qucbec before the blockade. It is Iior clcar whethcr any of rhcsc ships leit Qucbec bciorc ihc British blocked the River.

Fur an csrirnplc of correspondcncr brou@ ro the colony by these ships sec Jacques Mathieu, "Inveniaire h a l y r i q u e de la Currcspondancc de Jacqucs Pcrrault l'ain6,"in "Un Négociant de Québec à I'Epoque de la ConquCtc, Jacques Pcrrault. lgain&," M P O , 1970. La Rochelle, M. Perrault to his brother, 20 February 1759; Rocheion, Fabre dc Saint-CIEmcnr to 3. Perrault, 14 March 1759; La Rochelle, Mllc Perrault to J. Perrault, 15 March 1759; Bordcaus, Lanialetic ct L a t u i l l i k 11) J. Pcrraulr, 16 March 1759, pp. 59-61.

'~ritchard, "Ships, Men, and Commerce," pp. 370-72. The forcc of fivc merchantmen accompanicd by a naval frigatc sailcd for Quebec on 10 April. According to Pritchard, the Frcnch were hard pressed to mount evcn so small a fiect at the lime. The forcc reached Gaspé but, for reasons hc does not specify, turned into Restigouche Bay whcre it was destroycd by the encmy.

"sisting sccondary sources mmakc it vcry difficult to rcconstruct thc comings and goings of vessels during lhcsc ).cars.

'Mrithicu, "Invcntairc Analyticlue dc la Corrcspondancc de Jacqucs Pcrrauit I'ainé," La Rochelle, M. Perrault to 3. Pcrrault, Trois-RiviCrcs, 2 Dcccmbcr 1760, pp. 72-73.

the arriva1 of thesc ships in Françc see Jacques Lacoursièrc, Hisroire du 0- , Vol 1: a L7Y_1 (Quebcc: Septentrion, 1995), p. 343. In his lettcrs, Pcrrault makcs it clcar that these are

the ships by which his brother's lcttcrs rcached him for hc expresses reget that his brother was not amongst

Subscquently. the British Navigation Acts limited maritime trade with British

colonial possessions to Bntish and British colonial ships. French ships were left in

Bordeaux and La Rochclle loaded with cargoes for Canada. Dcspite the efforts of the

Canada merchants to convince the British to relax their restrictions and allow the French

merchants to ship the merchandise they had purchascd M o r e the War's end to Canada,

these vessels would never saiL9 For French correspondents, the end of shipping meant the

end of the opportunity for dircct communications. Thus on 16 September 1760 Fatber

I.-B. Curratcau, a Sulpician px-iest at Montrcal, commentcd in a letter to his brother at

Nantes that he attributcd his brother's rcccnt silence not to negligence, "Majs aux tristes

circonstances d'unc gucrrc qui nous Empcchc tout Commcrcc avec La france et qui nous a

Enfin rcduits sous la puissance des a n g l ~ i s . " ~ ~

As quickly, however, as thc tradc and shipping betwcen France and Canada ceased,

a ncw set of commercial and shipping linkages dcvelopcd to take their place. English-

spcriking merchants had comc to Canada in the vcry wakc of the British forccs of

occupation. Thcsc tradcrs or "sutlcrs" customarily followcd thc army hoping to secure

supply controcts or morc simply to sel1 goods and provisions to the offices and men.*'

Soon aftcr--drawn by thc rclatiwly ccrtain gains of military supply contracts but also by

thc possibilitics of the civilian market and thc promise of thc fur tradc--a number of

British mcrchant firms sent agents to Qucbcc. Two mcn who will figure prominentiy in

this and thc next chaptcr wcrc amongst thosc who amvcd beforc thc peacc: George

Allsopp came frorn Bristol in 1761 as thc agcnt for thc finn of Jcnkins, Tryc and Co. of

London; and Lawrcncc Emlatingcr cstablishcd himsclf in tradc at Montrcal in the same

thosc who had decidcd to takc advantagc of rhis opponuniiy to retum to France.

9 0 n this sce Igartua, "The Merchants and Ncgociants of Montreal," p. 91. Igartua notes that the French merchant, Rcnii dc Couagne, had purchascd goods for the Canada tradc in 1757 and 1758 which were kept in La Rochelle warehouses after the Conqucst and disposed of only in 1766 at a l o s because there was no market tix thcm in France.

'%AC. MG 6 a-, Archivcs dcpartmcntalçs de ta Loire-Atlantique, v a n t e ) , Seric E, Dossier de la faniillc Curratcau, [hencetonh Cunatcau Family Paprs], Recl C-7203, Vol. 774, Montreal, J.B. Curratcau to his broihcr, Nantes, 16 Septcnibcr 1760, pp. 36-37. In façt, his brother's silence was more likely attributable ro his simply not having writtcn. In thc years to comc thcrc would bc many similar periods of silence. Ixm, Vol. 4, SV. "Currarcau, Jcan-Baptiste."

l'm, Vol. 4, s.v. "Hart, Aaron" and "Jacobs, Samucl."

pcriod, and operated in partnership with the London merchant James ~ r y e . ' ~ British

conimcrcial vcsscls beran visiting Qucbcc immediately following the British victory. In

1759, Scottish vessels engaged in the fishery in Newfoundland took detours to the Saint

Lawrence with supplies that they hoped to sel1 to the British. Between 1759 and 1762 at

lcast twenty-three vcsscls left the Glasgow port of Grcenock to engage in this irade."

This reonentation of trade and shipping brought a complete reoricntation in the

networks of communications. Letters that had formerly travelled directly between France

and Canada now had to travcl through Britain, and London in particular. The Jesuit Father

Bernard Wcils nicely capturcd this transition in a note to a correspondent in Pans written

in 1759. "You are doubtlcss Awarc," hc said, "that WC havc rcccivcd Nothing [that is no

lcttcrsj by Thc frcnch frigates; and that, as Quebcc has bccn surrcndcrcd To The cnglish,

WC can look for nothing morco exccpt Through cngland."" Similarly, at the end of

October 1759, having just hcard word of the Frcnch dcfeat on the Plains of Abraham, the

St. Ma10 merchant Luc Magon [sicur de la Blinaye] decided that a lcttcr for his brother the

Abbe dc Tcrlayc at Montrcal should bc forwardcd via London nther than by his customary

rigentut ~o rdcou ' r . ' ~ By 1760 virtually al1 Our corrcspondcnts refer to getting news and

lcttcrs through ri tain.'^

l Z ~ , Vol. 3, S.V. "Ermatingcr, Lawrcncc" and Vol. 5, S.V. "Ailsopp, George." Other mcrchants wcre Scotsmcn who had strong larnily and business Links with merchants in Glasgow in particular. See, for esample, William Grant who first visited Quebec in 1759, U, Vol. 5, S.V. "Grant, Alexander;" John Purss, m, Vol. 5, SV., "Purss, Johnw; Hugh Finlay amvcd at Quebec in 1763, DCB, Vol. 5, SV., "Finlay, Hugh." On thcse men in general sce Igartua, "The Mcrchanis and Negociants of Montreal," pp. 239-50.

"David S. MacMillan, "Thc 'New Man' in Action: Scottish Mercantile and Shipping Operations in the Nonh Amcrican C'olonics, 1760-1S25," in Macmillan, cd.,

971 (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1972), pp. 34-103.

'"Thwaites, Jesuit, Vol. 71, "Lciter of Father Bernard Wclls to Father Alain de Launay at Paris," p. 25.

1s A D . [le ct Vilaine, 1 F 1897, no. 56, Magon Papcrs, Magon IO Cottin & Co., 31 Oaober 1759, quoted in Boshcr, The, pp. 39-50. This lcticr was writtcn in Octobcr which had been rare during the French régime. it would bc fascinating io know whcn this letter reachcd Canada and whether it was sent rhrough New York during that winter or waitcd for thc spring shipping.

l b ~ i n ~ o r i Jaugc «ï Bordcrius wrotc: to Franqois Baby at Quebcc via England in Fcbmary 1760-before the ii~ial Ilritisti victory ai Montreri1 for which sce m, Vol. 5, s-v. "Baby, François." See also Mathieu, "I~ivcniaire ha ly t iquc dc la Correspondance dc Jacques Perrault l'ainé," La Rochelle, M. Perrault to J Pcil-ault, 39 February 1760; samc to same, 12 Dcccmbcr 1760; same to same, 35 Deccmber 1760; and same to samc, 15 Fcbruary 1761, pp. 60-61, 72-73.

Magon sent his lettcr to the London mcrchants Josiah Cottin and Co. His family,

he explained to thesc men, was concerncd that his brother might have become embroiled in

thc battlc ovcr Quebcc and, eagcr to know that he was safc, he wrote: "we take the liberty

of scnding a lcttcr for him attachcd hercwith." His tonc throughout was familiar and

mattcr-of-fact, suggcsting that he knew the merchants well and perhaps had donc business

with them beforc. This is quite likely: Magon was a member of an old and prominent

commercial family with extensive tradc conncctioils in ~ u r 0 p e . l ~

Magon's dependence on a merchant agcnt in London was typical of French regime

corrcspondcnts following the Conquest. Far more than evcr bcfore, their ability to send

Icttcrs cicross the Atlantic was dcpcndcnt on access to a merchant agcnt in London.

Lettcr-writcrs had fcw othcr options. In comparison with the situation during the French

reginic, thc range of pcoplc on whom our Frcnch corrcspondents could dcpend for help in

forwarding thcir lcttcrs had narrowcd. In London, thcrc wcrc no Catholic religious orders

that could takc chargc of a corrcspondcnt's lcttcrs, no govcmment officiais nor port officers

to whom thcy could forward thcir mail for dcspatch, nor could they normally count on a

nctwork of fricnds and family living in closc proximity to the ports who could make the

ncccssary arrangements for thc dcspatch of thcir letters on thcir bchalf.

Many mcrchants involvcd in the Canada tradc first cstablishcd a connection with

London mcrchants as thc War in North Anicrica drcw to a closc.18 In the years

immcdiatcly following thc dcfcat of the French in the Saint Lawrence, the colony's fatc

was still unclcar: no one kncw whether Canada would revcrt to Francc or becomc part of

thc British Empirc. French mcrchants on either sidc of thc Atlantic playcd a waiting

gamc, hoping that thcy would cvcntually bc able to rcsumc thcir tradc with onc another. V

In thc intcrini, howctPcr, thcy had of ncccssity to find London mcrchants to serve as their

supplicrs and commercial agcnts. It was thus that thcy acquircd agcnts in London who

could scrvc thcm in al1 t hcir affairs. Thc cxamplc of François Baby scrvcs as a case in

"~oshcr , pp. 49-50. On the Magon family sec Bosher, "Financing the French . - . - . Navy in 1759," in of New Fr-, p. 365 and the cntry for the family in

. . his --m. "The coririccrion t r i wmr: Cariada mcrchanis with mcrchants in London prcdated thc Conquest. On the

Mzynardic family's connection with London prior to 1760 sec Bosher, -, pp. 170-71.

point. A merchant at Montreal bcfore the Conquest, Baby had left Canada for France in

1760-apparently with the intention of remaining there in the event that the colony was

givcn over permanently to ri tain.'^ Before his departure, he had made enquines about

reliable London agents and one of his correspondents, the merchant Simon Jauge of

Bordeaux , had rccomrncndcd his own London agent, the merchants Messieurs Thomas and

Thomas. Baby left thcir address with his family as the best channel through which they

might contact him when he lcft ~ontreal." Once in France, Baby dealt with the firm on

mattcrs of businessY2' and hc also relied upon them to forward letters to his family in

canada? Baby's fnend and busincss associatc, thc Montrcal merchant Pierre Guy, who

was also in La Rochelle in the early 1760s, relied on other b n d o n mcrchants to serve as

his agents. In 1762 he suggestcd that his mothcr send letters for him to the care of

"Monsieur J.B. Durand i Londres." Subsequently, in May 1763, he wrote to her via

Danicl Vialars, a London merchant and banker who was also his commercial agent?

Whcn Guy returned to Montrcal, Vialars continued to scrvc him in both capacities.

Vialars and his son Antoinc provide a good cxamplc of how such arrangements

wcrc cstablished. Likc many of the Londoncrs who came to scmc the merchants of the

fomcr Frcnch colony in this transitional period, they werc Frcnchmen--in this case

Hugucnots--who formcd part of a significant Frcnch enclave in London; they were related

%CC Baby Collections, U 491, La Rochelle, François Baby to his brother Duperon Baby, [Montreal], 18 March 1762.

"For cxample, Jauge arrangcd for Thomas and Thomas to scnd candles to Canada on Baby's account in 1761. Sec Miquelon, "The Baby Family in the Trade of Canada, 1750-1820," M.A. Diss., Carleton University, 1966, pp. 18-19.

7 7

-Sec, ior csaniplr, Baby Collçcrion, U 11,927, London, Thomas and Thomas io F. Baby, La Rochelle, 16 July 1762 in which rhcse gcnrlcrncn assurcd Baby ihat "ioutes vos leitrcs pour le Canada ont été achcminc?; par diifercnts navires cr nous avons pris tourtes les precaufions possible, pour leur [sic] faire parvcnir a lcur addresse." Scc also U 389, La Rochcllc, [F. Babyj io [?], 95 Fcbmary 1762, and U 491, La Rochellc, F. Baby to Duperon Baby, [Montreal], 18 March 1762. After his retum to Canada his principal supplier in London was Joseph and Henry Guinaud, London, DCB, Vol. 5, s-v. "Baby, François."

'%aby Collcciion, U 5121, Bordeaux, P. Guy to fhis mother] Vcuve Guy, 8 May 1762, and U 5125, London, P. Guy fo Veuve Guy, 22 March 1763. Sec also DCB, Vol. 3, S.V. "Guy, Picrrc [sr.]" and Vol. 5, S.V. "Guy, Pierre br.]." Guy's moiher managed the family's trading business aftcr Guy Sr.'s death in 1748. Guy Jr. was sent to La Rochelle aftcr the Conquest primarily to scttle his mother's affairs with merchants thcrc.

to mcrchants who had participated in the former Canada trade; and they were generaliy

known to membcrs of thc community they came to Near the end of the War, the

Vialars brothers had bcen approached by relatives in La Rochelle--the Canada merchants

Thouron frères--to act as intemediaries in thcir tradc with the colony. Rapidly, they had

corne to serve as the agents for a number of other merchants at La Rochelle and werc

rccommendcd by these men to s e n e their correspondents in the c01ony.~ They became

major suppliers to merchants in Canada, purchasing goods on behalf of their commercial

corrcspondcnts and arranging for their shipment to the colony, sclling the hin and other

goods sent to thcm, and clcaring bills of exchange. At the same time as they performed

thesc busincss functions, they also kcpt their correspondents abreast of the latest news and

fonvardcd lctters on thcir b ~ h a l f . ~ In the long tcrm, some of thesc new connections may

not have worked out vcry well." In the short term, howevcr, what is significant is the

case with which corrcspondents wcre able to cstablish connections with thcse men in

London, and to adjust so rapidly and smoothlg to the re-orientation of communications.

This is not ultimately surprising: thc process of finding a London agcnt was much the

"Other such n:t.rchants ir i London wcrc Isidore Lynch, Joseph and Henry Guinaud, and Robert Hankey.

3 T ~ i ~ s , h r esamplc, Dcriis tiougct, a prominent merciiani at La Rochelle who had for a time lived at Qucbcc, rccommended Vialars Sr. ro Pierre Guy as a man who "will fil1 any orders you give him to your sarislacrion, as hc passzs herz for a mosr honcsr man ..." adding as a mcasurc of his reliability that Vialars "is in touch with scvcral of our merchants and more intimatcly with messieurs Thouron frères, being a relative of theirs." Baby Collcction, U 1662, La Rochcllc, Gouget to Guy, Monireal, 12 April 1763 quoted in Bosher, TheCanada p. 170. See also m, Vol. 1, s.v. "Gouguet, Denis." The same Gouget ais0 rccommcndcd the Vialars to ihe mcrchant Etienne Augé of Montreal. Baby Collcction, U 311, Monircal, Eiienne Auge to Antoine Vialars, London, 6 October 1768. Sce also, DCB, Vol. 4, SV. "Augé, Etienne."

Z6~ath ieu , "Inventaire Analytique de la Correspondance de Jacques Perrault l'ainé," La Rochelle, Gouget to Perrault, Quebec, [1761], pp. 73-75; London, Daniel Vialars to I. Perrault, 31 March 1762, p. 61.

"On the gencral diificuitics French rcgimc mcrchanis had adjusiing tr) ihcir new circumstances sec I~artua, "The Mcrchanrs and Neeociants of Montrcal." On the specifiç probIem French regime merchants cricr>unicrcd rrying io csrabiish lasiirig ancf rcliablc corincctions with London mcrchants sce Michcl Brunet, "La Conqucte Anglaise et la Dechéance dc la Bourgcoisic Canadienne, (1760-1793)," Pr- . . - , , (Montrcal: Bcauchemin, 1964), pp. 63-72. Brunet argues that Vialars, in particular, tumed

out 10 be uniwtworthy and ihat the French mcrchants in London, a s a goup, were men of minor stature and thus of no grcat help to thc Canada merchants. Eticnnc Augé of Montreal had cornplaints against Vialars, for which sce Baby Collcction, U 311, Montrcal, [Eticnne Augé] to Antoine Vialars, London, 6 October 1768. Dcspirc AugZs grievances, he persisted in the conneaion and prospered, DCB, Vol. 4, S.V. "Augé, Etienne."

same as that rcquircd in making connections in any number of ports in the Atlantic world,

such as Rotterdam and CadizB

The smoothncss with which many merchants accommodatcd the re-orientation of

communications is well dcmonstrated by the case of the Montreal merchant François

Perrault. He receivcd letters from France written in the early spring of 1759 by the last

Frcnch ships to visit Quebec. Then, without an apparent break, he received more letters in

1760 and 1761, this timc through England. This transition appears--at least £rom the

cvidcncc of his cxtant correspondcncc--to have taken place wit hout incident; certainly it

elicitcd no comnicnt." Indeed, whcn commercial correspondents cornplain of difficulties

kecping in touch, thcsc seem largcly to havc bcen the product of wartime conditions and

not of the rcorientation in the direction of communications pcr se. Significantly, when in

1761 thc La Rochellc rnçrchant Gougct noted that none of the lettcrs he had sent the

prcvious ycar to Jacques Perrault had arrivcd safely, hc did not attnbutc the problem to

strains associatcd with thc rcoricntation of nctworks of communications. He was clear that

the lcttcrs had reachcd London and that his agcnt thcrc was diab le . When he talked

about what could bc donc to avoid the samc happcning again hc spokc of the traditional

prccautions: getting his agcnt to preparc and send dupliwte copies of his letters, and doing

cvcrything possible to find the surcst opportunities."

If many mcrchants made thc transition comparativcly casily, howcvcr, non-

nicrcantilc corrcspondcnts may oftcn have found the adjustment more difficult. In the

aftcrmath of the Conqucst, thcrc is cvidcncc that somc corrcspondcnts were not

inimcdicitcly ccrtain how to rnokc thc ncccssary arrangements. Thus, for instance, although

in 1759 Fathcr Wclls had bccn ablc to cxplain to his correspondent in Paris that any letters

=On ihe rrtablishmsnt of cornrncrcial connections in non-French pons, sec for example Miquelon.

W.

"Sec Mathieu, "Invcntairc Analytique dc la Corrcspondancc de Jacqucs Perrault l'ainé."

%id.. D. Gougei io Pcnauli. Quebcc, s.d.[ 17611, pp. 73-75. Similarly, François Baby complained in 1763 ihat nonc of thc lcttcrs hc had scni home thc prcvious year had arrived, "de Sorte qu'au mois De 8bre clcr~iicr un avait Eu aucurie Nouvellt: dc rnoy que par lcs Lcttrcs que J'Enivis avant mon Départ de Londre." Ltcr , he spccuiarcd that his letters had gonc astray whcn the British vcsscl carrying thcm had been capturcd by Frcnch warships. He first rcported this loss in Baby Collection, U 189, La Rochelle, Baby to [?], 25 February 1762. For what hc spcculaics happcncd to his lcttcrs sec U 491, La Rochelle, F. Baby to Duperon Baby, Montreal, 18 March 1762.

for him should be sent through London, he had had to confess that he did not know how

the ncccssary arrmgemcnts wcrc to be made. Instead, he sirnply expressed the h o p "that

thc Revcrcnd Father procurator for Scotland (who was presumably in Paris] will inform

you of Some means Of convcying thither Your Letters, and of sending Them to us by The

Latest ~hips."~' Similarly, while Father Currateau, the Sulpician pnest at Montreal, seems

to have been able to find opportunities to send his own letters to France fairly easily?

for a number of years hc was able to do little more than suggest that his brothers in Nantes

try to find some way "Soit par quclque negociant hirlandois De la fosse [an Irish

merchant?], soit par quelqu'autre voye" by which to scnd him their n e ~ s . ' ~ It was not

until 1764 that Father Curratcau lcarnccl about thc routc through London. That January, he

rcccivcd a lctter from his brothcr which had bcen fowardcd to Canada by the London

merchant Isidore Lynch. Lynch sent a note to Curntcau with the lettcr offering his

scwiccs, and for the first time Curratcau enthusiastically acclaimed thc route as the most

sccurc. At thc same time hc reportçd that his supcrior, M. Montgolfier, had just

rccommcndcd Antoine Vialars of London to him as the surest route by which letters £rom

Francc would rcach Canada: "Adrcssc luy mcs Lcttrcs ct affranchit le port jusqu'a cette

villc ct je ics rcccvray surement," hc adviscd his brother s t N a n t ~ s . ~ Vialars, in tum,

wotc to Curratcau's brothcr to say that he would be happy to forward any letters to

Canada that he carcd to send to London, explaining that "jc fais les petites affaires du dit

Scrninairc [that is the Sulpician scminary at ~ontreal]."" Currateau's tone in writing to

his brothcr about Vialars was onc of discovery and plcasurc, confirming that he had likely

3'Thwaitcs, . . -, Vol. 71, "Lerier of Fathcr Bcrnard Wells ro Father Alain de Launay, at Paris," p. 25.

3 2 ~ ~ ~ Curratcau Family Papcrs, sec his lcticrs for thc years 1760-65, pp. 36-16. Frustratingiy, he is ncvcr spccific about how his letiers are to bc sent, refcrring simply IO "un occasion favourable," Montreal, J.B. Currateau to René Curratcau, Nantes. 28 January 1764, p. 30,

33 Ibid., Montrçal, J.B. Curratcau to Rcné Currateau, Nantes, 28 January 17M. p. 40. His family seems to tiavc writrcn him lcrtcrs in 1754 and 1760 that did no; rcach Quebec uniil March of 1764, but it is unclear whothcr rhis was due ro somc misadventure or to thc lack of a depcndablc opportunity by which to scnd tlicrn.

YIl~id., Moriircal, Currrtrcau tu his broihcr, 6 Scptsnibcr 1764, pp. 11-33.

3s Ibid., London, Danicl Vialars IO Rcné Curratcau, [Nantes], 4 5 ? > April 1765, p. 15.

not known how to use the London route until this? His example suggcsts that many

non-merchants may have had trouble discovenng how to send letters across the Atlantic,

and that their ability to ovcrcome this was dependent upon the establishment of

conncctions with merchants in the trade. This reinforces Our sense that, following the

Conquest, merchants had emergcd as the linchpin in the process of communications, and

that it was difficult for those wanting to maintain a communication between France and

Canada to find anyone else to rely upon.

What is particularl y intnguing about the correspondencc that passed between France

and Canada immcdiately following the Conqucst is the fact that letters wcre able to pass so

apparcntly smoothly bctwccn Francc to London. Although hostilities had corne to an end

in North Arncrica in the faIl of 1760, Francc and Britain were still at war in Europe. This

mcant that rcgular commerce and thc mail packcts that had traditionally camed letters

across the English Channel had bccn suspendcd. Evidcntly, howcver, there was still a

considerablc, if illegal, commercial intercourse between France and England which likely

providcd the channel through which lcttcrs wcre transmitted." François Baby apparently

g a v e his lcttcrs to mcrchants at Bordeaux or La Rochelle to bc sent on to his London

agcnts. Hc once askcd a ~ommerciat correspondent in Francc to scnd him the address of

Mcssicurs Thonias and Thomas "ct dc mc marqucr comment ct par qucllc Voye vous leur

faittes pawcnir Vos ~cttres."" Unfortunatcly, the rcsponsc is missing. Otherwise, Our

sourccs do not discuss thcse arrangements. Thc silence of corrcspondcnts over how their

lcttcrs circulated and thc volumc of lcttcrs that passcd through Britain to and from France,

howcver, do suggest that the paths lcttcrs tnccd wcrc routine and workable. After the

conclusion of thc Trcaty of Pans, the passage of lcttcrs bctwecn Francc and London

bccanic casier. Peacc brought thc rcsumption of the officia! packct service across the

361bid., Montreal, Currateau to his brother, 6 September 1764, pp. 11-14.

3 7 ~ i l d a Neatby notes: "thanks to arrangcmcnts berwcen bankers and authoritics of La Rochele and Bordeaux, and French mcrchants scttled in London, the principai that thcrc couid be no trade with the enemy in wartime was takcn lighily." QL&KC and 176û-17% (Toronto: McClelland and Stewan, 1966). pp. 23-23.

3"Baby Collçciion, U 389, La Rochelle, Baby ta [?], 25 February 1762. See also U 490, La Rochelle, 13ab). to P. Guy, Bcirdzrius, 1 1 Mrirch 1763 iri which fie askcd Guy to givc a lctter destined for Canada to M. Sinioii Jauyc, "En lt: priant Jc ma part dc la faire partire Sur le Champ par la Voye la plus prompte."

channel." At the same time, the rctum to regular commercial intercourse between the

two countrics would have made the use of private opportunities easier. Letters appear to

have circulated quite rapidly through London: a letter written 20 September 1765 ai

Montreal rcachcd Nantes on 23 November 1765, only eight days after leaving bndon.*

However rapidly and easily letters could travel between France and Britain--or

bctwccn London and Qucbcc, lor that mattcr--the existcd no formal arrangements for

the passage of lctters betwcen thesc two routes." Throughout the decades following the

Conqucst, unless corrcspondents were sending their letters by favour of someone travelling

via London bctwccn France and canada:' they had need of the services of an agent in

London who could scrvc as an intcrmcdiary, undcrtaking to redirect letters through

London. Clearly, cven a wcll-connccted correspondent could have problems sending

lcttcrs through London if he had no onc therc to serve him. Sometime in the spring of

1773, Jcan-Baptiste-Nicolas-Roch de Ramezay, the French colonial officçr who had

surrcndcred Qucbec to the English in 1759, scnt a lcttcr €rom Blaye in France to his

regular corrcspondents, thc merchants Thourons Frères of La Rochclle to be fonvarded to

Canada. Thcy, as was notcd abovc, customarily scnt lettcrs on to their relatives, the

Vialars of London. Howevcr, in acknowledging dc Ramezay's lettcr, the Messieurs

Thourons cxprcsscd doubts that thcy would bc able to help hirn on this occasion: Antoine

Virilars had just lcft London for Canada and his father was in France, apparcntly leaving

thcm at a loss what to do. instcad, thcy adviscd him to scnd his Icttcrs to Mr Latuillère of

. . %oward Robinson, - e . (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University

Press, 1938), p. 161, is frustratingly vague about when this occurrcd. On 20 Scptcmber 1765 Father Ccrrarcau informcd his brother that "vos Lettres me seront surement Remis a [sic] les adrasant a Mr Daniel Vialars ncg't ri Londres Et En affranchissant le pon jusqu a Calais [from where the packct sailed to London]." Cun-atcau Family Papcrs, Curratcau to his brothtr, Nantes, 20 Septembcr 1765, pp. 1637.

'UCunatcau Family Papers. Curraieau to his brothcr, Nantes, 20 Septcmbcr 1765, p. 47.

"In a rioticc dard 18 Novcmbcr 1783, the GPO, London, explaincd that "al1 pcrsons upon the continent of Europe and Nonh Arncrica corrwponding with each other by thcse Packet-boats are to takc particular notice, that they arc to put their letters under cover to thcir friends in hndon," -, 25 March 1783. Sec similarly a notice of 1786 that, "Letters directed for places on the continent of Europe, must be scnt under covcr to a fiiend in London, by him to be forwarded, as aii Packet postage is now payable in England," Ouebec Gazcne, 7 Deccmbcr 1786.

"SCC, for cxample, Baby Collection, U 391, La Rochcllc, François Baby IO Dupcron Baby, Montreai, 18 Marçh 1762.

Bordcaux "ct Le prier de faire passer vos Lettres a Son correspondant de Londres, nous ne

faisc..>er pas de Doute qui1 ne vous rende ce Service." If Latuillère was unable to serve

dc Ramezay, Thouron et fières recommended that he send the letters back to them and

they would do cverything they could to try to find a way to send them to London and then

on to Canada." The incident undcrlincs the extent to which the route between France

and London and that between London and Qucbec were separate and the degree to which

corrcspondcnts wcrc dependcnt upon an agent in London--generally a merchant--to serve

as an intermcdiary. At the samc timc, it draws attention to thc fact that correspondents

thcmselws did not always assumc persona1 responsibility for arranging for the passage of

thcir lcttcrs through London. Ofien, as in de Ramezay's case, they relied upon their agent

to makc the neccssary arrangements on their behalf. Thus, for instance, in March of 1776,

a M. Carcyon cornplaincd to his uncle, M. d'Ailleboust d'Argenteuil at Montreal, of the

disruption of their corrcspondcnce bccause of thc outbreak of thc American Revolution but

noted, "Mx- de La cchrtuvigncrio qu i cst a Paris mapromy dc fairc ses cfforts pour vous

fairc parvenir ccllc cy.""

While the route through London functioncd as thc primary channcl for letters

bctwccn thc colony and France, correspondents did occasionally rcfer to sending their

lcttcrs by altematc routes.4s For cxample, correspondents somctimes wrote by the

opponunity of British vcsscls travelling dircctly bctween France and canada? On 15

February 1767 Guillaume-Michel Pcrrault of La Rochelle excused himself for writing

hristiIy to his brothcr at Qucbcc, csplaining that hc wished to put his lcttcr with one îkom

J 3 N ~ C , Ramczay Family Papers, MG 18 H51, Vol. 1, Thouron et frCrcs to [Jean-Baptiste-Nicolas-Roch de Ramczay], Blaye, 18 April 1769, pp. 296-98.

LI Baby Collection, U 2305, France, Caréyon to his uncle MT d'AiUeboust d'Argenteuil, Montreal. 28 March 1776. Scc also "Livre de Raison dc Mlle Briand," 26 March 1781, R-, 19.1647, p. 67. These agents wcrc ohcn mcrchants. Sce, for example, Curratcau Family Papcrs, Curratcau to his brother, 7 Dcccmbzr 1771, p. 66 in which he suggcst that his brother could send letters ro "M. Lechelle Negociant La Rticticllc cic qui J'cn Rqois ruus les ans ctant En Correspondance avec ce Monsicur avec qui j'ay été En Cirririoissancc pendant qui1 Dcrncuroit En Canada."

' ' ~ h a e arc difficult to idcntify. For cxample, what precisely was François Baby talking about when he wrotc, "Je rcqois pour la Seconde fois par le Pacquebot arrivé En dernier Lieu à St. Malo. des Lettres du Canada ...," Baby Collection, U 489, La Rochelle, François Baby to [?], France, 25 February 1762.

-1 6 On the existence of a coniraband trade in French goods conducted by cnglish vessels to Canada sce Brunct, "La Conquete Anglaise et la Déchéance de la Bourgeoisie Canadienne," pp. 65-66.

Dcnis Gougct "que nous c n \ y o n s a bord de lcscadre angloisse [sic] qu i est dans nos

rades ...."47 Similarly, in 1769 the Thourons brothers of La Rochelle reported to their

French correspondent M. de Ramezay, that in addition t o the letters fonvarded for him to

Canada via the ViaIars in London, others "ont été envoyés à 1'Ile de Ré o ù un navire d e

Londres, la venis, y prend son chargement de Sel pour aller directement à ~ u e b e c . " ~

Father Currateau may for a time have made use of a more clandestine opportunity. In

2773, he obscwed to his brother at Nantes: "Pour L'occasion plus sure pour mecrire, je

crois que ccst En adressant vos Lcttrcs au grand Seminairt dc St Sulpice De Pans ou a Mr

Lcchclie Negotiant a La rochelle qui pouroit me les faire tenir par Les illes ~ i q u e l o n . " ~ ~

The French islands in the Gulf of the Saint Lawrence may sometimes have been used to

smuggle French goods into the former French c o l o n p and this was likely the connection

that Currateau dcpended upon. We know for certain only that he used the route at l e s t

o n c ~ . ~ ' Despite having argued that it was better than the route through London, he

nonnally relicd on the latter. In addition, during the years immediately following the

Conqucst, sonx corrcspondcnts müy have sent lcttcrs to France via New ~ork . '*

"Mathieu, "Inventaire Analytique dc la Correspondance de Jacques Perrault I'ainé," La Rochelle, Perrault to his brother, Qucbcc, 15 Febmary 1762, pp. 76-77.

'"c Ramezay Family Papcrs, La Rochelle, Thouron et frères to de Ramczay, (Blaye), 18 April 1769, p. 20 6.

49 Currateau Family Papers, Montrcal, Cunatcau to his brothcr, Nantes, 11 August 1772, pp. 68-69.

$1 Dalc Miquelon, ''The h b y Faniily in the Trade of Canada, 1750-1820," p. 29 notes that Simon Jauge suggcsted to Fransois Baby that hc smuggie French goods into the colony from these islands in the Gulf of the Saint Lawrence. Baby did not, but such connections may have provided an oppnuni ty to some corrcspondcnts.

S1~urrateau Family Papcrs, Montrcal, Currateau to his brother, (Nantes), 23 April 1773, pp. 75-78.

S'~nitially such correspondencc via New York would have rclied on the rcylar commercial shipping. A rcgular packct service was established bctween New York and L'Orient France in 1783 for which see Marc W. Martin, "The French Transatlantic Packct Service," in The in L e t t c r i n Revo- m, Ales 1. ier Braake, cd., Pan G; sec also, M. Ph. Barrey, "Les premiers paquebots postaux entre le

. . . . Havrc, New-Yi~rk ci tes coloiiics iranqliiscs, 1786-1788," in Dullctin du C c e, CongrCs des sociftés savantes, 1906, pp. 154-70.

Duririg ihc French Revolution, the route bctween N e w York and France would serve as thc only route by which lctters could pass betwccn France and Canada, for which see NAC, Allsopp Papcrs, George ALIsopp httcrbook, Quebec, G. Ailsopp IO Carleton Allsopp, New Orleans, 25 May 1793, pp. 18-20. See also same to same, 25 October 1793, pp. 25-27; and Quebec, Mrs Allsopp to her brother J. Bondfield, Bordeaux, 2 3 Octobcr 1793, p. 23.

The situation of those French colonists who wanted to maintain a conespondence

with France was not unusual. Through the cighteenth century and well into the nineteenth,

anyone writing overseas was largely dependent upon patterns of trade. Letters muid only

be sent where commercial ships sailed, unless an official packet service had been

established there. This constrained communications to many destinations other than

France. For example, early in 1800, John Birnie of Dublin wrote a letter to his new

brother-in-law, Arthur Davidson of Montreal, noting that he was forced to rely on the

opportunity of "a friend who carries this and other letters to London to be forwarded by

the Spring f lc~t . "~ ' Davidson wrote back, happy at the prospect of being able to begin a

corrcspondencc. He rcgcttcd, however, not having been able to respond as promptly as he

would have Iikcd, and csplaincd, "But though I perccivc with much satisfaction that a

tradc bcgins to be opened betwcen ireland and this country, the opportunities for writing

by any of the vessels are yet but iew ..."Y

The experience of Frcnch regime corrcspondcnts thus demonstrates one of the

csscnt ial featurcs of prc-institutional communications: the dcpendcnce of the mails upon

pattcrns and nctworks of tradc. It was the abrupt re-orientation of these trade networks

that distinguishcd the cxpcricncc of Canadian correspondcnts at the time of the Conquest.

For thc mcrchants of the colony in particular. thc adjustmcnt to their ncw circumstances

was rcIativcIy casy, but for somc correspondents it was more difficult to find an agent in

London who could scrvc as thcir intcrmediary, forwarding letters betwecn the two routes

that connectcd Canada to London and London to France. Beyond thc necd to establish

ncw connections in London, howcvcr, what stands out in thc cxpcricncc of these

correspondcnts is thc csscntial continuity of the structures and practices upon which they

dcpcndcd-a thcmc that thc ncst section of this chaptcr will elaboratc. *

53 McCord Museum, McCord Family Papcrs, M21311, Arthur Davidson Corrcspondcncc, foldcr 1353, #1, Dublin, John Birnie to A. Davidson, Montreal, 15 February 1800.

n Ibid., foldcr 1153, #2, Montreal, A Davidson to John Birnie, Dublin, [n-d.]. Similarly, George Alkopp

was forced io rcly largely un the packets and shipping to London in his correspondence with his son Carleton who was employcd by an English trading house in Cadiz during the mid-1790s. Between London and Spain the letters could travcl through ihr: British Post Office. But Ailsopp commonly asked his son John, who lived in London, to s c ~ d ihcm "by somc Ship [that is privarcly], ihc cxpense of Postagc is hi& over land to Cadiz." Sce Allsopp Leiterbook, London, G. Allsopp to his son John in London, 7 November 1795.

While many French regime colonists continued to maintain a correspondence with

Francc, more and more of the colony's ovcrscas mails would circulate between Canada and

Britain. This change in the direction of lettcr-wnting was the product, in part, of the

amval of a small but influcntial group of English-speaking merchants, land-owners, and

administratorsSs--many of whom had persona1 ties to Britain--and of the fact that the

colony's administrative affairs werc now centrcd on Bntain. It was also the result of the

rcorientation of the colony's commercial linkages. As the colony's rnerchants increasingiy

did business with British rnerchants, it was to Bntain that thcy directed much of their

correspondence. This was truc not only of thosc merchants who had arrivcd in the colony

aftcr 1759, but also of thosc French rcgimç mcrchants who had remained in the colony

following the Conqucst. Once thc Trcaty of Pans was signed--confirming Bntain's

sotVcrcignty ovcr the former French colony--many of thosc who had retained hopes of

rcsuming thcir tradc with Francc cut thcir comrncrcial ties and transfcrrcd their trading

accounts to the hands of London firms. Thc aforcmentioncd François Baby did so,

ultimatcly deciding not to rcmain in Francc, and instead sclling off his family's interests

thcrc and rcturning to Canada. Henceforth, the grcat bulk of his transatlantic

corrcspondcncc would bc conductcd with thc British merchants with whom he was now

associatcd in trade.

Following thc Conqucst, corrcspondcnts scnding lcttcrs across thc ocean continued,

as during thc French rcgimc, to rcly almost cntircly upon thc rcgular commercial shipping.

Although the British establishcd a monthly mail packet service to New York in 1760, they

did not do the same to Qucbec. Thcrc would bc no regutarly scheduled mail service

bctwcen Britain and thc Saint Lawrence until wcll into the nineteenth century." As had

"00 I ~ C vcry lirnitcd size of this British emigration sec John Harc, Marc Lafrancc and David-Thiery Rudclcl, Himirc . d l . la Viiic . . d~ QuCbec._1608 . . - 1871 , MusEcs nationaux du Canada (Quebec: Boréal, 1987), p. 113.

'% 1853 the Canadian S t m Navigation Company operated a shon-lived packet service between Montreal and Liverpool for scvcn months of the year, and bctween Portland, Maine and Liverpool in thc winter. Following the Crimcan War the Allan Line's Montreal Occan Steam Company opcrated a fortnightly sumrncr scrvice betwcen Livcrpooi and Montrcal. Dcgun in April 1856, this scrvice becamc a wcekly one in 1859. In winter the mails went by rail between Montreal and Ponland. J.C. Arneii,

s to US.IL, British North America Philatelic Society, Transatlantic Mail Study Group, Handbook Number Four ([Hamilton, Ontario]: J.C. Arne& c. 1996). p. -?; . . and Robinson, Ov~vcrseaz, pp. 136-47. By thcn the Atlantic crossing was less than two

bccn thc case during the French rcgime, the pattern of communications depcnded upon the

numbcr of ships sailing to Quebec and the timing of vesse1 amvais and departures. Zn the

dccadcs beforc the Amcrican Rcvolution, vcsscl numbers ranged beniveen thirty and forty-

fivc each year. This was similar to conditions in the 1740s and early 1 7 5 0 ~ ~ and

consequcntly grcater than lcvcls during much of the French regime? The timing of

vcsscl amvals and departures at Quebcc was somewhat changed." In the first place, the

first arrivals at Quebec may have bcen slightly earlier than had generally been the case

bcfore 1760. Canadians, such as the Murray Bay seigneur John Nairnc, seem to have

started looking for thc first ncws through Qucbec in mid- to late Apnl or early May,

whcrcas corrcspondents in the French regime had not expectcd to sec Atlantic vcssels untit

latc May at the vcry carlicst, and far more commonly June or J u ~ y . ~ ~ The difference had

nothing to do with climatc--the icc in the Saint Lawrcnce continued to break up in April

or iMay--and nothing to do with the specd of thc Atlantic crossing, which also seems to

have rcmaincd much thc samc. Rathcr, the cause of the earlicr amvals seems to have been

that thc first vcssels commonly sailcd carlicr from England than thcy had from France--in

carly to mid-March nthcr than April or MayaM Second, and far more significantly,

wecks in ei~hcr Jircction.

57 On the numbcr of vcsscls sailing to the colony sec Histontal of Canada, Vol. 1, Plate 38: . . "Europcan Shipping io Uuebcc, 1640-1759"; Bruce G. Wilson, Colonial 176û - 118E (Ottawa: Narional Archives d Canada, 1988) p. 130. The following annual figures for shipping are frorn the "Calcndar of the Haldimand Paprs," b o n of rbe Puhliç Ar&vcs -, 1888, Vol. 3, BM 21,861, "Siatisiics of ihz Trade of Quçbec,": 1768-1783[3],": 1768 - 15; 1769 - 27; 1770 - 20; 1771 - 29; 1772 - 36; 1773 - 13; 1774 - 55; 1775 - a; 1776 - 27, 1777 - 13; 1778 - 35; 1779 - 11; 1780 - 27; 1781 - 52; 1782 - 61; 1783 - 39.

58 Rcgrettably, Iittle has been written about this shipping and, as a consequence, it is difficult to speak auihorita~ively about changing patterns of shipping.

S Y T h ~ s . for instance, on 18 April 1783, John Nairne, wriiing from Isle aux Noix at the nonhern end of Lake Champlain to his daughter Madic [Magdalen] at Qucbcc, asked "if there are any Vessels anived yet at Qucbcc and if you know any News." Hc cnded with rhc pstscript: 'Thc first you sce Mr. Sn[Sirnon] Fraser rcll him thai 1 bcg hc will bc so çood as io writc: to n x whcnever thz tirst Vesse1 amves from England with [tir: News." NAC, MG 23 G II1 37. John Naime Papcrs, Vol. 1, 18 April 1783, John Nairne to Madie, pp. 56-58. Mme BCgon, as notcd in Chapicr Onc, had also so~nçiimcs bcgun to anticipate ihe arriva1 of ihe first ships in Aprif but in doing so shc had been inncdibly optimistic.

* * '%CC, for example, Harold Innis, ed., Select Docu- in C a n a d i a n c g 9 7 - 1783

(Toronto: University of Toronto Prcss, 1929), Lawrence Ermatinger to Messrs Davis Stratchen and Co., London, 17 Oçtobcr 1776, p. 513; sanie to same, 19 Octobcr 1777, p. 513; and Canadian Archives, Q, XVIII, 14-15, "The Memorial of the mcrchants of London trading to the province of Qucbec," writtcn 1781, p. 514,

vcsscls occasionaily saited from the colony to Britain in the spnng or early summer.

Thcsc vcsscls had presumably eithcr wintercd at Quebec or had arrived there early in the

spnng fiom New England, and were ready to sail to Britain long M o r e other vessels were

ready to lcavc Quebec. For instance, on 23 May 1765 the Ouebec G w advertised the

dcparturc of a "new ship," the Neptune, for Londod' Such early departures for Europe

sccm, howcver, to still have becn relatively rare; most departures from Quebec were not

advertiscd until June or later. As cver, the last vcssels sailed in November as the weather

grcw coider and wintcr closcd in on thc colony. Vers much as they had in the French

rcginx, corrcspondents still humcd to meet the iast opportunity. In late November 1776,

for cxamplc, the Moritreal merchant Lawrence Ermatinger scnt a lctter to Mr. William

Lindsay of Qucbec to be forwardcd to London, commenting:

Should a11 the Vcsscls bc gonc from your Place and sou think an Express wouId ovcr take thcm at [ide aux1 Coudre, Pray scnd them, and any expls[expense] you arc at [ I l will rcpay you with thanks."

For corrcspondcnts, keeping track of what vcsscls wcre in port at Quebec, and when they

could bc cxpcctcd to sail was casier than it traditionaliy had been; the newly established

Ouçbcc Gazçttc rcgularly advertised the arrivals and expected dcpartures of vessels in the

p 0 d 3

The normal patterns of shipping wcrc, as cver, vulncrable to disruption in wartime.

During the Arncrican Rcvolution, many of the vcsscls dcstined for the colony appear to

havc sailcd togcthcr as a convoy in the spring in the intercsts of mutual protection,

rctuming as a group in the autumn. This would have constrained communications by

dccrcasing the numbcr of scparatc opportunitics by which correspandcnts could wnte, and

al1 of which cmphasize the importance of early amvals. In this context, it is important to recall that vesseis duririg the French rcgimc could have arrivcd much carlicr in the season than they commonly did. Indeed, conditions in thc Atlantic favoured carlicr depanures It was conditions in France that commonly delayed the dcparturc of ships for Canada, for which see numerous examples in Pritchard, "Ships, Men, and Commerce."

6ZErmatinger Letterbook, Montrcai, Ermatingcr to William Lindsay, Quebec, <28> Novernber 1776, p. 3 15.

O ~ e c for example -cc Gazci&, 23 May 1765, 30 May 1765, 6 Junc 1765.

limiting their distribution over time. At the same tirne, thcre secm to have been

considcrable delays in the delivery of many Ictters arriving at Qucbec from ovcrseas."

In amnging for the transmission of their letters across the Atlantic aftcr the

Conqucst, Canadian correspondents could, for the first time, rely upon a Post Office to

assist thcm. Following the formal recognition of British sovereignty ove? the colony, the

colonial authorities appointed a Postmaster at Quebec whose role it was "to receive and

dclivcr Letters that mas corne there [to Quebec] by Expresses or by Sea and to foward

such as arc sent abroad."" The British Post Officc, as the French, possesscd a monopoiy

in law over al1 incoming mail, which meant that letters arriving on privatcly-owned

vesscls from ovcrseas wcrc supposcd to be dclivercd to the Post Office at the vessel's port

of cntry, in rcturn for which the ship's captain was given Id for every letter handed

over.* At the samc timc, unlikc in the French case, British Post Office law provided for

the dcspatch of lcttcrs by privatc vcssct through the rncdium of the Post Office. These

Icttcrs, formally rcfcrrcd to as "ship lcttcrs," would, on the payment of a fee to the Post

a I3y order of ihc Govcrnor, incoming correspundcncc was supposcd ro bc delivered to his office ihroughout ihc war rarhcr ihan into ihc Posr Officc, in the interests of security. The original order was issued by Govemor Carleton in 1776, for which sce MG 21, Transcripts fiom Papcrs in the British Museum, Add. Mss. 3166 1-3 1892, Frcdcrick Haldimand Papcrs, BM 21,860, Quebec Post Officc, Hugh Finlay to Haldimand, 31 Iuly 1778, pp. 8-12. It is not clear wheiher this rcgulation meant that letters carried by private arrangement wcrc also delivcred to the Govemor or only those that were sent formally as "ship lciters-" Haldimand dcfcndcd the practice sirongly to Postmaster, Hu@ Finlay. Whether mcrchant concems or his own self-intcrcst motivated Finlay's opposition is unckar. The practicc deprived the Post Office of the incume from incoming "ship lciters," sçr: Haldimand Papers, BM 21,860, Finlay to Haldimand, 9 September 1778, pp. 20-21; and BM 21,860, Mernorial of Canadian Merchants in London England relative to the Canadian Posts io George Germaine, 16 Dccembcr 1778. Sec aiso NAC, MG 44, British Post Office Papers, Serics C, Gcncral Post Office, Post 1 (rccl A-lZ8), Vol. 11, fol. 14-17, GPO, Le Despencer, H.F. Carteret io ihc Right Honi~urablc The Lords Cornmissioners of His Majesty's Treasury, 17 March 1779.

. . dSThiç description of thc Posrmastcrfs intcnded role is tiom The of Bcniamrn Franklin. Edited by Lconard W. Labarcc (Nçw Havcn and London: Yalç University Press, 1966), Vol. 10, Philadelphia, Benjamin Franklin to Anthony Todd, 13 April 1763, pp. 252-53.

%is provisiim for "ship lettcrs" was first formalized in the mid-scventcenth ccntury and was given kgal siatus by rhc Aci of Uuecn Anne [9 Aine, c. 10 püssed in June 17111 Undcr the lems of the Post Oificc Acr of 1765, rhc "ship lcitcr" ratc was incrcased by a penny, with the rcsult that Id wcnt to the ship's captain and thc cstra pcnny r i ) iht: Post Office in exchangc for its scrvicc. On the provision for "ship letters,"

. . scc also Robinson, - . OVL- a.%I , pp. 3.1, 3 9 3 0 , 112-16. See also the very clear discussion of rhc distinction bçtwccn tomal "ship Içitcrs" and those lctters simply carried by ships in R.M. Willci)cks, w ' s Po io 1810 wi- on S c W , Wales (Scotland: Published by thc author, printcd by Woods of Penh, 1975), pp. 14042.

Officc, be put on board any outgoing vesse1 specified by the correspondent." AS a

conscquencc, by 1763, any corrcspondcnt--whethcr in Bntain or Quebec--could rely

upon thc Post Office on either sidc of the Atlantic to help manage the despatch and receipt

of his or her lettcrs. Thus for cxamplc, in the fa11 of 1781, Arthur Davidson wrotc to his

London tailor and agent John Chalmers suggesting that some of his letters rhe next spring

bc sent by the Commodore of thc Fleet, and noted that "This could be done by marking on

a corner of the packet To be forwarded byfie C-e Oucbec fleet h m

Ponsmouth and paying thc postage to that place." His letter to Chalmers was itself sent to

his Qucbcc agent, thc mcrchant Mr Lily ai Quebcc, "to bc put into the Post Office at

Qucbcc and fonvardcd bg the Commodorc of the f l ~ c t . " ~

Thc British Post Officc suggested that most correspondcnts, and merchants in

particular, would be cagcr to use the officia1 mails. In a notice published in the Qucbec

Gazcttc of 1764, the Secrctary of the British Post Office argucd that, in the absencc of a

Post Office to which incoming lcttcrs could be delivered, "many Letters directed to

Mcrchants and othcrs, havc bccn opcncd, imbculed, or long detaincd, to the great injury

of Correspondence," depriving Icttcr-writcrs of "that Specdy Advice and Intelligence

which thcy might have had, if the same had bccn forthwith dispatched by the settled

Posts."" Convcntional postal historics have becn inclincd to agrec that the officiai mails

wcrc supcrior to privatc opportunitics, and have scen thc cstablishmcnt of a Post Office at

Qucbcc as a wclcomc and cpochal change? The crcation of an officia1 postal network

47 Unlike the provision covcring incoming kiters, however, the Post Oflïce did not in law possess a nimopoly ovcr the handling of outgoing corrcspondencc. This provision is cxplained in Aiex. L. ter Braake, " h e r i c a n Ship Letters," in 3hc: P-d I eUi;r in Colonial Rev-, E-6-7. See also J-C. Arncll, [the N c ~ t l a n r i c ~ t - . of f

(Canada: Unitradc Press, 19861, p.18 and Arneii, i N o m , pp. 17-25.

fin Davidson Corrçspondencc, folder 1332, #2, Montreai, Davidson to John Chalrners, London, 12 October

1781, Draf~.

"SCC noiice publishcd undcr the name of Anthony Todd, Scactary, Gencral Post Office, London. 20 April, 176% Qucbec Ga-/-, 6 Scptcmber 1764. See sirnilarly, MG 34 C, Post 1 (reel A-1237), Vol. 9, 28 January 1761, fol. 95-105, "Memorandum rclating to somc hprovemcnts suggcsted to be made in the management of the Post Office in North Amcrica."

70 Scc, for cxamplc, MacDonald, "The Posts in Crinada io 1776," in 3bc P d 1 c w in Bogg-% Thç of cinada-

was certainly significant, in that it marked the first timc that the state had played an active

role in thc proccss of transatlantic communications to Canada. However, while some

letters traced their path fiom correspondent to recipient entirely under the auspices of the

Post Office, many others passed through the Post Office only at one end or the other of

thcir trajectory, and many more nevcr saw the inside of a Post Office at ail. This pattern

scems to have been as true for merchant lettcrs as it was for others. For years to corne,

the officia1 mails would rcmain only one of a number of options available to

corrcspondcnts, and by no means nccessarily the most imp~rtant .~ '

Thc practices, fomls, and conrcntions that had tnditionally providcd for the

con\-cyancc of the transatlantic niails to and from Quebcc continued to be central to

cffcctivc communications. In the first place, whcther or not corrcspondents were making

usc of the scrviccs of the Post Office, they continued to rely heavily upon agents to assist

them. The Montreal lawycr Arthur Davidson commonly sent his letters to James Tod and

John Lilly--both merchants at Quebec--eithcr to be put into thc Post Office for despatch

as "ship lcttcrs," or for them to ssnd off by privatc arrangement on commercial vessels

sailing to Britain; and also relicd on them to takc rcccipt of incoming corrcspondence in

tum. Whcncver eithcr travcllcd to England, they would carry his letters there

thcmsclvcs." In London, Davidson relicd upon his tailor, John Chalmers, to serve as his

71hicll, -Trrinsatlantic

. . , p. 5, notcs that a considerablc portion of lcttcrs amving in Britain, at least, found their way inro the Post Office as the law required. However, far l e s outgoing corrcspondcnce appcars to have navcllcd through the Post Ot'fice, perhaps largely because corrcspondcnts wcre unwilling to pay ihe Post Officc to put their lettcrs on board a vesse1 that they . . ihcxnsclves could acccss. Arnell, p. 18 and Robinson, T k & U u U W

. .. Oi'ficu, p. 161; Hcrbcrt Joyçc, The H&~Q of ilie its its Down IO 1836 (London: Richard Ucntlcy & Son, 1893). p. 339. 11 is difkïcult IO dctermine whcther the same pattern held m e at Quchec.

"Drrvidson Corrcspondcncc, fuldçr 1312, #2, Montreal, A Davidson io John Chalrners, London, 12 October 1781, drati; and folder 1442, #1, Qucbcc, A. Davidsun to John Chalmcrs, London, October 1778, Drait. Tod and Lilly both travclled back and tonh bctwcen London and Qucbec quite frequently in the Iate 1770s and during the 1780s. Sce m, Vol. 5, S.V. "Tod, James."

François Baby al Quçbcc forwardcd lctters to and from his business associates Pierre Guy and Eticnnc Auge of Montreal by the vcssels at Qucbcc. Sec Baby Collection, U 5133, Guy to Baby, 28 October 1765; U 5149, samc to samc, 13 Octobcr 1770; U 5172, same to same, 10 Novembcr 1777; U 5173. same to same, 13 Novcmber 1777; U 5177, same ro same, 17 August 1778; U 5183, samç to same, October 1779. Sec also U 331, Augé to Baby, 21 November 1766. Guy ai Montreal look rcceipt of letters forwarded to him by Baby which hc in tum forwarded onward to their destination, for which see, U 5156 Guy to Baby, 19 Septembcr 1772. Lawrence Ematingcr habitually rclied on Messieurs Allsopp and Welles of Quebec to scrvc as his agents thcrc. Sec, for cxample, Ematingcr Lcttcrbook, Ematingcr to Allsopp and Welles, 13

agcnt thcrc, filling numcrous smallcr commissions for him and fonvarding leitzrs to and

from Davidson's family in Scotland on his behalf. Their connection lasted for perhaps as

long as two decadcs or more, and on Chalmers death his widow took his place." When

Davidson's Qucbcc agents were in London, Davidson was at some pains to put Chatmers

in touch with them, so that they could carry letters back to Canada. Thus in October 1781

he cxplained to the tailor:

1 don't know yet whcthcr Mr Tod will bc in London nçxt winter or not; but 1 have a friend one Mr John Lilly a merchant from this place who will be, and wiii probably return in some stout armcd running ship carly in the spnng. Mr Lilly will bc found at thc [Qucbec] coffce house and if Mr Tod should not be in London, sou can scnd any Lettcrs that may bc for me inclosed by him."

Some of Davidson's corrcspondents evidently knew to contact Tod directly when he was in

town."

Second, instcad of using the services of the Post Office, many correspondents

continucd to deal dircctly with the vessel captains and merchants involvcd in the Atlantic

tradc. John Chalmers sent off goods and letters to Davidson ai Montrcal by a Captain

Gibson, whose vessel the lnteentv sailcd early cach spnng from London to ~uebec ."

Augusi 1770, p. 14.

'j1t is unclear whcn Davidson's conncçtion to Chalmcrs began. The tïrst letter bctween then is from Oci obcr 1778, Davidson Corrcspondence, folder 1442, #1, Davidson to John Chalmers, October 1778, in which Davidson signs "Your sincere ïriend," rnaking it çlear that thc corinccrion was already well established. John Chalmcrs dicd 16 Fcbruary 1795, for which sce folder 1312, #13, London. Nelly Chalmers to k Davidson, 21 July 1795. The connectian bctwecn Chalrners' widow and Davidson continued for at least the next ïcw ycars.

741bid., folder 1.112, #2, Monircal, A. Davidson to Chalmcrs, London, 12 Octobcr 1781, draft.

'%us, for cxamplc, Davidson's brothcr in Scoiland scnt a lçttcr IO Tod in London directly in 1779. See ibid., hldcr 1436, #1, Bracksoun Aberdecnshire, Jmcs Davidson io [his brothcr] Arthur Davidson, 1779. Thc lctter was addrtssed to Davidson and markcd "Quebcc to the care of Mr Tod ar Mrs Paterson in Cloystcrs London." Scç also, ihough slightly later, thc case in 1787 whcn Tods vcssel en route to Canada was lost in the ice on rhc banks of NewfoundIand. Tud and oiher passengcrs got off but thc cargo and Tod's papcrs wcrt: l m . Chalmcrs çontacted Davidson's "fricnds" in Britain to sec who might have given letters to Tod ro cany. Sce foldcr 1.112, #4, London, Chalmcrs io A. Davidson, Montreal, 6 February 1788. Sce also foldcr 1333, #15, Davidson to his sistcr Elizabeth Davidson, 6 August 1787, draft.

7 b ~ c c , for esamplc, ibid., folder 1442, #2, Davidson io Chalmcrs, 12 October 1781; #5, Davidson to John Chaliiicrs, London, 21 October 1789, "Scnt by the Intcgrity, Capt Gibson ....". Davidson continued to rely on Gibson uritil the fa11 of 1790 whcn Gibson dicd, for which sec folder 1442, #7, Montreal, A. Davidson to John Chalmcrs, London, 21 Octobcr 1790, draîi.

Gibson, in tum, carricd letters back from ~ a v i d s o n . ~ Chalmers also made use of a host

of othcr ship's captains." Colonial mcrchants similarly relied heavily on pnvate

arrangements wit h ship's captains for the transmission of their letters. The Montreal

mcrchant Lawrence Ermatinger sent letters to London by a Captain Woder, who was in his

ernpioy whenever Wodcr sailed to England, and always rcceivcd letters from London by

his r ~ t u r n . ' ~ In addition, he also made usc of other vessels and their captains through the

1 7 7 0 ~ . ~

Altcrnatively, rather than deal directly with merchants and vesse1 captains in the

Canada trade, correspondcnts or their agents could still put letters into the ship's bags that

wcrc put out in public places for the receipt of letters. John Chalmen often went himself

or scnt a scwant with lcttcrs for Davidson to the Quebec Coffee ous se'' in London to be

put into the ship's bags that wcrc routinely left thcre. On 12 April 1785 hc informed

- "Sec, for csamplc. ibid., foldcr 1442, #5, Quebec, A. Davidson to John Chaimers, London, 21 October

17S9, drait, "Scni by thc Intcgiiy, Capt. Gibson ...."

;a Sec, for csamplc, ibid., foldcr 1412, #3, London, Chalmers IO Davidson, Montreal, 12 April 1785.

19 Ermatinger Letterbook, Monireal, Ermatinger to Thomas Wodcr, London, 13 Octobcr 1770, p. 27; same r r i Messrs Price and Morland, London, 13 Suly 1772, pp. 14637 ; and sarne to Thomas Bridge, London, 26 Novcmbcr 1773, pp. 191-92, in which he observcd, "1 have wrotte You By Cap'tn Woder as also By Fcatonby and Dy a Sloop which left Quebcc a fcw days ago."

80 Ibid., Monireal, Ermatingcr ta Price, London, 15 Septernbcr 1770, p. 17, in which he acknowledgcd reccipt of a Icttcr "By the Elizabeth Capt Judge, who arrivcd about 8 days ago at Quebcc ...." See similarly, Erniatingcr to Messrs Price and Morland, I I July 1772, pp. 116-47 in which he refcrred to sending Ietters "Ry Cap'n Finglass who sails for Falmouth ncxt Wcck."

"'In thc eightcçnth century, Coffce Houses served as informal clubs whcre people with similar intcrests mct to discuss ihcir affairs, exchangc ncws, and do business togcther. Thcrc werc hundrcds in London alone. According to Donald Crcighton, London merchanis involvcd in the Canada trade met rcgularly at the New York Coffcc Housc in ihc years immediatcly aftcr the Conquest. "The group was smaii, but it was active and iairly wcll organizcd, and a s carly as 1765 an exccutive cornmittee had bccn created. Brook Watson, Robert Huntcr. Henry Guinand, Isidore Lynch, Robert Grant, and John Sireitle wcrc some of the most assiduous in promuting Canadian affairs in thc period bcfore thc Quebcc Act. Every mail which left Canada carried a shcaf of letiers for the English mcrchants ...." Donald Crcighton, The of the (Toronto: Macmillan. 1956), p. 43. The Qucbcc Coffee House may have attractcd merchants from Quebec itself. On thc pliznomerion of Cot'fct: Houscs sec also Mary Cathcart Borcr, of London (iondon: Corisiablc, 1977). pp. 201 -1 7.

Davidson that hc would forward this and another letter "this aiternoon" to the Quebec

Coffcc Housc, having bcen informed that the bags were still thereg

Finally, although mcrchants sccm now to have rarcly sent their letters by

favour--pcrhaps bccause this could entai1 delays--many other correspondents continued to

do so. To contemporary eyes it was clcarly still a gentIcmanls responsibility to carry

lcttcrs whcncver he travclled. In 1780, Arthur Davidson wrote his brother Jack a Long

lcttcr discussing the possibility that Jack might corne to Canada, and amongst a torrent of

advicc hc wamcd him:

If you have not a proper Lettcr-camer, you should wrap up any letters you rnay be cntrustcd with or that belong to yourself in a piece of tough whitish paper, making them up in a ncat parccl with a string tied round them and kccp them in a corner of your box or tmnk without shcwing thcm to anybody. It is not the thing to carry any lctters in your pockct but when you have immediate occasion for thcm, bccausc thcy arc no< only liablc to gct chafed, but to be l o ~ t . ~ ~

His instructions capture what for the historian is al1 too oftcn regrettably left unsaid: the

dcgrcc to which thc community cxpcctcd that travellcrs would automatically be entrusted

with lcttcrs whcncvcr thcy werc going overseas. This convention is further reflected in an

announccmcnt of the dcath of a numbcr of passcngers off a London vcsscl en route to

Qucbcc in thc Oucbcc Gazette, 29 May 1766. Thc notice focuscd particularly on the death

of a lawycr--Mr. Conyngham--cxplaining that as he "had carricd LRtters to England from

many Pcrsons hcrc, i t was cxpccted that hc had Rcturns to thcrn in his Box of Papers, but

i t sccms nonc wcrc found thcrc, but onc for His Exccllcncy, and another for Mrs.

Haniilton, of this Placc, from a Relation at ond don."" Though a colonial resident for a

short timc--Conyngham had only amved at Quebcc a ycar bcforc--the article emphasizcd

how rapidlp hc had scttlcd in, making friends and bccoming involvcd in the affairs of a

numbcr of wcll-conncctcd citizens. A mcasure of his respcctability was the number of

lcttcrs hc was said to have carricd.

"~avidson Corrcspondcnçc, f d d w 1112, #3, London, John Chalmers to k Davidson, Montreal, 12 April 1785. This rcfcrence and othcrs in the Davidson papers are thc only explicit rcferenccs in any period that I have found to thc use of the ship's bag, although this rnay well have bcen the way much contemporary corrcspondc.nw was dcspatçhcd.

lis Ibid., ïolcicr 1138, # 1, Montreal, k Davidson IO Jack (John) Davidson, 18 October 1780, draft.

Travellcrs, it is clcar, not only carricd lettcrs written by and to individuals who

wcrc wcll known to them, but also to and from comparative strangers. Thus, for example,

Eliza Davidson of Aberdeen scnt a lctter to her brother Arthur Davidson of Montreal in the

late wintcr of 1783 by favour of "A Mr. Hay who left Montrcal (as 1 am told) iast Novr

and rcturns with the fleet 1 have not seen him but a lady of my aquaintance who saw him

and cnquired after you told me he would be willing to take the trouble of any Letter for

you from any of his friend~."~' Again in April 1793, Eliza sent a letter to her brother

Arthur Davidson of Montreal by Mr Garden "a young man of this town but by no means

an acquaintancc of mine, I only took the opportunity of writing by him as 1 heard he was

coing to Montrcal to a Mr <...> a mcrchant in that place."E6 - As c \ w , rclying upon somcone of known qualitics to carry one's lettcrs carried

distinct advantages for the corrcspondent . First amongst thesc was greater security. For

csarnplc, on 8 Novembcr 1790 Arthur Davidson infomcd John Chalmers in London that

hc had scnt his last lcttcr "by Mr Wm Murray mcrchant of this place, and A Client of

mine, who wcnt passcngcr in thc Ewcretta, Capt Featonby, and whom I rcquested to

dclivcr it to you, and bcing so sure a hand, I trust I nccd not rcpcat anything 1 therein

said-1187 Scnding Icttcrs by favour also avoided cxpense, which for the Davidson family

w3s a considcrablc prcoccupation.

A s our sourccs rcmind us, however, thcrc continued to bc disadvantages to sending

lcttcrs by favour. In particular, somc travcllcrs adoptcd a casual attitude to the delivery of

thc lcttcrs cntrustcd to thcm. For instance, in thc latc 1780s Arthur Davidson and his sister

Elizabeth scnt lcttcrs back and forth across the Atlantic by favour of one George Leith,

whom Arthur dcscribcd as "a vcry fine young man" who was hcading to Aberdeen in the

u~avicison Corrcspondrncç, folder 1333, #7, Aberdeen, Eliza Davidson to A. Davidson, Montrcal, 18 Fcbrurir). 1783.

"It~irl . , foldcr 1433, #21, Abcrdecri, Eliza Davidson to Arthur Davidson, Montreal, 20 April 1793. Gardcri appears IO have bccn an acquaintancc of hcr husband's brother.

"Ibid., ioldcr 1432, #8, Monrreal, Davidson to John Chalmers, London, 8 November 1790; sce also #IO, Monrrcal, Davidson IO John Chalmers, London, 21 October 1791, "by our friend Mr Murray who is now agairi t o visil Loridm."

faIl of 1787.'' He must have rctumed the next spnng to Canada, for in October 1788

Arthur wrote Elizabeth excusing himself for not having responded before then to her letters

of 21 Octobcr 1787 and 12 April 1788: "But at the departure of the first vesse1 in lune, 1

had not secn Mr George Leith who, tho' arrived at Quebec had not corne up the country to

this place."89 Leith rctumed to Aberdeen fairly dircctly after this, for in Apnl 1789

Elizabeth cornplaincd that Leith had bcen in Aberdeen but that it had been "some wceks

beforc he wlled to dcliver your letter."" Thus the family's dependencc on this young

man scerncd in evcry instance to have meant delays and fnistrations. They put up with

thcm, onc suspccts, largcly out of thcir dcsire ro Save money--as did many other families,

as the ncxt chaptcr will suggest.

Thcrc is one crucial respect in which the world of communications was

fundamentally transformcd by the Conquest: almost immediatcly aftcr the British victory in

thc Saint Lriwrence, Canadian corrcspondents had routinc access to news and letters from

Europe year-round through the port of New York. For those who made use of the route,

this meant the cnd of the scasonal limits on communications that had traditionally

characterizcd corrcspondcncc in thc colony.

During the first winter following the British victory at Qucbcc--that of 1759-

60--the British forces of occupation in the Saint Lawrcncc kcpt open a regular

communication with Ncw York by mcans of soldicrs sent overland to the coast?' Their

purposc, abovc d l , was to carry rcports from Gcncral Murray to Sir Jcffery Amherst, the

commandcr-in chicf rit Ncw York, who cxpcctcd his officers in the newly captured colony

wIbid., iotdcr 1433, #17, Montrcal, Davidson to [his sistcr] Eliza Davidson, Aberdeen, 2 November 1787.

"Ibid., foIdcr 1333, #18, Montrcal, Davidson to his sister ELiza Davidson, Aberdeen, 18 Octobcr 1788. This was no1 the eniire causc of his delay, he also noted rhat he had bccn very busy.

YOIbid., foldcr 1333, #19, Aberdeen, Eliza Davidson to A. Davidson, Montreal, 18 April 1789. This was Xrthur's Icticr of the 18 Octobcr 1788 rsîcrred to above.

" ~ e e Gcncral Gage to Sir Jçffcry Amherst, 2 November 1761 in which he refers to the Rangers "by whosc means the Communication was prcscrved last Winter," quoted in Boggs,

of C W , p. 3.

to kccp him informed of thcir c i rcum~tances .~ The next wintcr, as soon as the Saint

Lawrence and Lake Champlain had frozen in latc December, General Gage, Governor of

Montreal, hircd a local inhabitant to a r r y letters fortnightly to Crown Point [formerly Fort

Saint-Frédéric] at the bottom of Lake Champlain, accompanied by a British soldier. From

there the plan was to pass the bags between military posts along the Hudson River to

Albany, whence they would be sent to New York. In setting up the arrangement, Gage

cspcctcd that hc would keep it working until mid-March of that wintcr, 1760-61. It also

opcrated the n e ~ t . ~ ' At thc samc tirne, General Amherst appcars in his own nght to have

scnt a regular monthly military express to Quebec during the winter. in Apnl of 1763 the

Dcputy Post Mastcr Gcncral of British North Amcria, Benjamin Franklin, commented that

Amhcrst "continues to scnd Expresses with the Officcrs Lettcrs whencver a Packet [from

Britain] a m ~ c s . " ~ ~ Thus tlicsc winter expresses not only linkcd Quebec and New York,

but thc Saint Lawrcncc to Britain.

Mcrchants sent lcttcrs in wintcr ovcr this route from the vcry bcginning. In latc

Dcccmbcr of 1760, for cxamplc, two Frcnch merchanis, Guillaume-Michel Perrault and

Dcnis Gougct, sent lcttcrs to the Quebcc mcrchant Jacques Perrault by New ~ng land .~ '

Similarly, ertrly in January 1763, Danicl Vialars of London wrotc to Perrault "via New

York, sous couvert cic Mcss Laurcn Read dc la d< ... > N o u ~ ~ l l c ~ o r k . " ~ ~ Whcther these

Y.? AL. Burt notes that Murray and the other Govemors sent regular rcpons to Amherst but stresses that Xnilierst inrcrfcrcd little in what they did. Burt, The QW P r o v k c of Oucbec, Vol. 1: 1760 - 1778 , Carleton Libraq edilion (Torcintu: McClelland and Stcwan, I968), p. 23.

wMo~itrcal, Gagc to Sir Jcfiry Anihcrst, New York, 2 November 1761 and same to same, December 29, 1761 both quoicd in Boggs, of C d , pp. 2-3. Gage complained the scrvicc ru Crowri Poirir was poor: "it's a tcdious Joumcy, gcnerally taking cight or nine Days." Sec Gage ro Amherst, 17 Fcbruary, 1762 quotcd in ibid., p. 3.

- . 3 . -, Vol. 10, Philadelphia, Benjamin Franklin to Anthony Todd, 14 April

1763, pp. 32-53.

'S17ie lctters likely wcre srni from France to England and thence to New England, from where they would have bccn scnt on to Canada. Jacqucs Mathieu, "Invcntairc Analytique dc la Correspondance dc Jacques Pcrrault, L'aine, 1755-1773," La Rochcllc, M. Perrault to his brother, 25 December 1760, p. 61; and samc io same, 12 Dcccrnbcr 1760, p. 72 in whiçh Perrault notes ihat his lettcr wodd go with the La Rochelle merçhant Gougct by "un Paqebcaux qui s'en retourne a philadelphy."

%ANQ, P 204, Correspondancc dc Pcrrault, L'aine, London, Daniel Vialars to Perrault l'ainé, 31 Mar 1762, Markcd "par Navire."

particular Iettcrs went by the Govemors' military expresses or by some informai

opponunity is not clcar. WC do know, howevcr, that the military couriers carried merchant

Ictter~.~'

Not long after the military couriers were ntablished, therc was pressure to extend

the scrvicc. In 1762, "the British mcrchants" of Quebec, with the support of General

Murray, petitioned the General Post Office in London to establish a regular courier service

bctwccn Ncw York and Canada.98 It is not clear whether the "French merchants"

similarly prcsscd the authoritics to act, or signcd the pctition to London; their use of the

opportunity from thc first moment of thc Conquest suggests, howcver, that they differed

littlc from their English-speaking counterparts in their enthusiasm for the opportunities it

offcrcd th~rn.~ ' This cornmcrcial pressure was apparently quitc effective. Anthony Todd,

thc Sccrctary of thc Gcncral Post Officc in London, supported the mcrchants' suggestion on

the grounds that "therc appears ... to bc aiready a Number of His Majesty's Subjects settled

in Trodc and Business at Q u e b ~ c . " ' ~ Benjamin Franklin agrced, obscrving that it was

"Advisablc to cstablish a Post, tho' the Expcnce should for somc time cxceed the Produce

of thc Lcttcrs; as thc Facility and Rcgularity of Correspondcnce incrcascs Commerce, and

of coursc incrcascs Corrcspondcncc and mu1 tiplics the numbcr of Lctters ." He expressed

thc vicw, howcvcr, that the mattcr was not prcssing as long as the military expresses

continucd to scmc the nccds of thc merchants. And so for a timc the matter was ~cft. '~'

97 . . The, Vol. 10, Philadçlphia, Benjamin Franklin 1763, p. 253 in which Franklin obscrvcd thar h h e r s i had consistcntly permittcd cany rhc mcrchants' letrcrs. "

"Sec ibid., p. 252; and also, ibid., GPO, London, Anthony Todd to Benjamin p. 233.

to Anthony Todd, 14 Apnl ihe military expresses "to

Franklin. 12 March 1763,

W Scholars have iended to attribute improvcments in communications 10 the efforts of the British nicrchants donc, for whiçh sec Susan M. McDonald, "Thç Posts in Canada to 1776," in P-d 1-

CV

of 13- . . . . , Vol. 10 , GPO, London, Anthony Todd to Benjamin Franklin and J d i n Foscrdr. 12 March 1763. p. 223.

'O'Ibid., Vol. IO, Philadelphia, Franklin IO Anthony Todd, 14 April 1763, p. 253.

205

Thc mcrchants wcrc ultimatcly succcssful. In the summcr or fa11 of 1763 a reguIar

postal couricr was cstablishcd bctween Quebec, Montreal, and New york.Im On 28

January 1764 Anthony Todd reported in a memorandum on the state of the Post Office in

British North America that a "regular Post ... has becn undertaken about once a month, on

the Arriva1 of each Packct Boat at New York, except for a part of the Winter s e a ~ o n . " ' ~ ~

In fact, the service overland operated twice a month in the summer and once a month in

wintcr starting in 1764.'" By the late faIl of 1771 the mail fiom Canada was reaching

Ncw York wcekly by the c ~ u r i e r . ' ~ ~ Thus, to a significant dcgrce, the cstablishmcnt of a

rcgulrir, acccssiblc wintcr communications link dcpcndcd upon the rolc of the state. The

niilitrirj., initially, and latcr the Post Office, providcd the mcans by which letters coutd

travcl back and forth rcgularly bctwcen Canada and New York. The impetus in the first

instancc was strategic, but ultimatcly a routine couner service was cstablished over the

route as a rcsponse to commercial pressures.

This is not, howcver, thc complctc story: corrcspondcnts wcre not exclusively

dcpcndcnt upon officia1 opportunitics ovcr this route. Thcy also appcar to havc bccn able

to nmkc usc of privatc opportunitics bctwecn the Saint Lawrcnce and Ncw York, and it is

likcl>r that thc dcvclopmcnt of traffic bctwecn the two colonics also contributed

significantly to thc cxpansion of wintcr communications. Certainly, the Governors of the

colony wcrc clcar that private opportunities cxistcd. According to a Mcmorandum

prcparcd by thc British Postmastcrs for the Lords of the Trcasury in 1764, Governors Gage

'"'Ibid., Vol. 10, Franklin and Foxcroft to [Anthony Todd?], 10 June 1763, p. 279 in which they announccd ihat ihcy wcre cn route to Ncw York whcrr: thcy would "usc our best Endcavours to Establish a Rcçular Post bctwcen that place [New York] and Canada which we hope may be effectcd during 8 Months of the k'car if no1 for the wholc."

'031bid., Vol. 11, The Postmastcrs Gcnerd IO the Lords of the Trcasury, "Memorandum on the American Postai Service," 38 January 17f3, p. 31.

lWSce NAC, Hardwickc Papcrs, 35914, 9, written about 1766, in Innis, U c t Do- -, p. 486. The a i ç b c r Ci-, 2 August 1764, advcniscd ihat the pst for New York would set out on the first and ihird Monday of cvery month.

"'Sce rhc -cc Cr-. 30 January 1772 and also WC Gazette, 29 Dccember 1774. Thc trip, . . accordirig tu William Sniiih, tuok nirie to tcn days. Smith, of the_ A m u i a . p. 81.

and Murray had pressed Post Office officiais to lower the rates of postage in America,

warning that

the lcgal Postage bcing so high on account of the Distance, that in Canada, which is rcprcsented to bc in a manner destitute of Cash, & in al1 places where Money is cqually scarce, the people will forbear to correspond until they find Occasions, by Friends, Travellers, & the like to send their LztterdM

The ratc of postage was subsequcntly decreased. Even so, philatelic evidence indicates

that correspondents still sent their letters by favour.lo7

It is rcmarkably difficult to detcrminc the traffic that may have passed over this

routc in this carly pcriod. Rcgrcttably, Little has been written that allows us to trace the

extcnt to which colonists travcllcd back and forth between Canada and the colonies to the

south foIlowing the Conyucst. Historians have invariably confined their focus narrowly

within thc bordcrç of eithcr Quebcc or the Ncw England colonies, and have largely ignored

thosc issues that might rcvcal the cxtcnt to which the boundary bctwecn these disparate

parts of a new British North America was permeable. We know that pnor to 1759, the

routc from Montrcal to New York was a natural thoroughfare. The Conqucst removed the

political barriers to travcl and comrnuniccttions betwcen the two tcrritories. Peace and the

cnd of native raids would have madc thc lands bctwccn Canada and its ncighbours far

morc acccssiblc to Europcans than cvcr beforc. Although the route betwcen Montrcal and

Ncw York continued to p a s through arcas of comparatively wild country for years to

comc, scttlcmcnt would cxpand considcrably in Ncw York Statc following the end of the

Scvcn Ycars War. In thc 1760s and 1770s thc fiontier of Amcrican sçttlcmcnt moved

10ti Scc i w rhc dcscripiion of the Govcmors position v, Vol. 11, the Postmasters General

ihr: Lords of the Trcasury, "Mcrnorandum on the Amcrican Postal Scrvicc," 28 January 1764, p. 11. This alsi) MG 44 C , Posr 1 (Rccl A-lZ7), Vol. 9, fo. 95-105. As the editor of Franklin's correspondence notes, Vol. 11, in. 7 p. 41, the Posial Act of 1765 (5 Gco. III, c.25 scct ii) was a rcspnse IO these remonstranccs and i t "substantially rcduced most of thc postal r a t a in America from thase set in the Act of 1710." 'The cos1 of a Icttcrs irum N.Y. to Monireal was thercby reduced from 2.5. to ls., and fiorn N.Y. to Qucbec fiom 3 S. ro 1s." Thcsc r a t a arc contlrmcd by Boggs, @ of and-, pp. 3-4. Lctrcrs destined for England had IO be pst paid to Ncw York, for which see WC u, 20 December 17M.

'07S~c, for csamplc, a lettcr datcd Ncw York, 2 August 1769 from Isaac h w to Madame De Bcllefeuilie carried by favour in which l x offercd to forward lettrrs on hcr behalf, in David P. Evan, "Lower Canada, 1697-1Y67: Sclcciims from thc Early Postal History of the Provincc of Qucbcc," Unpublished manuscript, 1982, Canadian Postal Archives, Ottawa. (CPA HE 6185 a5C51 E93 19831, page labcllcd "New York to Tîirce River."

north to the edges of Lakcs Champlain and George.'OB At the same tirne, significant

numbcrs of Arnerican mcrchants with connections in the colonies to the south carne to

Canada following the British victory in 1759-60. Commercial ties between the NO

territories also developcd. John Porteous of Montreal, for cxample, opcrated in partnership

with the merchant firm of Phyn, Ellice and Co. of Schenectedy, New York, doing business

at Detroit, Albany, New York, Montreal, London and Bristol in the late 1760s and into the

next decadc.'* Similarly, the Quebec mcrchant Samuel Jacob's closest business ties in

the 1770s wcrc with two New York merchants, Hyam Mcycrs and Elcazar ~evy."O The

increasing case of travcl ovcr the temtory behvecn the two colonics, and, in particular, the

growing traffic that resulted from burgconing commcrcial links, would have made it ever

casicr for correspondcnts to find privatc opportunitics by which to scnd their letters

o~~crland betwccn Canada and the New England Coast.

New York itsclf was, at this timc, one of the busicst ports in North America--a

hub of colonial tradc with rhc West Indies, Britain, and Southcm Europe."' It offered

Canadian corrcspondcnts two options. In the first place, thcy could scnd their lettcrs by

the monthly mail packet scrvice to Falmouth. This service, cstablished by the Post Office

during the Scven Ycars War and placcd on a permanent footing thereafter, provided a

rcgularl y schcdulcd opportunit y across the Atlantic by a vesse1 that was zontracted

'OgScc Janicc Potter-MacKinnon, *m in FW.C.IXA Ontario (Montrez1 and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1993), p- 4 for a description of some of thc tcrritory through which the Loyalists had to p a s whcn they flcd the Thinccn Colonies during the late 1770s. [t is important to note, howevcr, that Potter-Mackinnon's subjects wcre on the mn and likely rrrivcllirig the 1cas1 wcll-won1 pathways. Their cspcrience in travçlling ovcr this area would not have been rhat of the commcrcial travcllcr. For the devcIopmcnt of this territory sec p. 31.

'OYD.C.B., Vol. 1, S.". '*Ellice, Robert."

l'OScc DCB, Vol. 1, "Sacobs, Samucl." Thc Sacobs Papers are in the Ermatinger Papers, NAC, MG 19, X, Scr 3, 1-2-16.

"'Its main rivals were Boston and Phiiadclphia of which by this time the former was falling slightly bchind and rhc latter was probably the more substantial. New York would not ovcrtake either dcfinitively until somctimt: afwr 1820. For a bricf summary of the history of the port sec Robert G. Aibion, NCW 1 Q& Po-- - 186QI (Connecticut: Archon Books, 1961), Chapter 1: "Two Centuries and a Decade." . . . . Scc ais« Cathy Matson. 1n Tndineinl New Y& (Baltimore and London: Johns Hupkiris Univcrsiry Prcss, 1998). p. 3.

cxclusivcly by the Post Office for thc camage of mails. Altcrnatively, letters could be

wrried by the regular commercial shipping to the

Canadian correspondents could access the opportunities at New York in a number

of ways. Most simply, on payment of the inland postage to New York from either

Montrcal or Quebec, a corrcspondcnt could put his or her lctters into the Post Office there,

whcncc it would be carricd to Ncw York, and thcnce put on board the first packet for

Falmouth by the Post Officc's New York agcnt. The lettcr's recipient paid the packet

chargc and any inland British postage whcn thc lctter arx-i~cd."~ Alternatively,

corrcspondcnts could send lctters cithcr through thc Post Officc or privately to their own

agent at Ncw York, to bc put on board eithcr the packct or a commercial vessel in the

harbour. Lawrencc Ermatingcr rclicd hcavily on his New York agents, the merchants

Rcadc and Yatcs. His notes to thcm frcqucntly express his gratitude "for the Care You

hwc takcn in fonvarding my Lcttcrs, as also for your kind intclligcncc which You'll please

to Coniinuc." In rcturn, hc plcdgcd to rcndcr thcm any scrvice thcy requircd, underlining

thc rcciprocal naturc of such r c l a t i~nsh ips .~~~ The use of an agent allowcd the

corrcspondcnt grcatcr flcxibility in thc choicc of the route his lettcr would take across the

Atlantic. At Ncw York, Ermatingcr seems to have uscd the packct and rcgular shipping

intcrchangcably. Thus, carly in Dcccrnber 1771, he dcspatchcd a lctter for b n d o n to his

agcnts in Ncw York which hc askcd thcm "to forward By thc first Opportunity or Pakctt if

no opportunitg Should ~ f f c r . " " ~ In this, as in many othcr instances, the factor that

dctcrmincd which vcsscl would bc uscd was thc timing of its departurc. Thus in

Novcmbcr 1771 hc adtpiscd Rcadc and Ycats to forward a lcttcr "By the first vessel for any

"-=The packet was first wtablishcd dunng the Scven Ycars War in order to carry "frcquent and certain intelligcncc" of colonial affairs to Britain and was placed on a permanent footing in 1763. Aiex. L. ter Uraakc, "F: Transatlantic Mail in Colonial and Rcvolutionary Days," in The in C-

'V Rt, p. F-30, F-33. Thc packct scrvice was intcndcd primariiy to carry despatches, but public noricc w u giveri ro mcrchants 3n both sides of the Atlantic. Sec espccially figure F-21, in ter Braake. Athoug l i schcdulcd to sail morithly, ii sailcd irrcgulariy in its first years for which sec Robinson,

"'Sce the Oucbcc _Gazette, 20 Dcccmbcr 1764.

114 Ermatinger Lettcrbuok, Ematinger to Reade and Yaks, New York, 16 May 1772, p. 137; samc to

samc, 22 December 1771, p. 106; and same to same, 21 March 1772, pp. 120-21.

"'~bid., Lawrencc Ermatingcr tu Mcss'rs Reades and Yatcs, Ncw York, 7 Dcccrnber 1771, p. 102.

pan of England.""' Whcn hc did specify how a letter was to be despatched, it was

gcncrally to ensure that lcttcrs did not cross the ocean on the same ship. This had

traditionally bccn donc in the intercsts of safety, and it is hard to imagine what other

objcctive would have motivated the practice. Thus on 22 December 1771, Ermatinger

wrotc two lcttcrs to Benjamin Price of London, of which he noted that the first would be

sent by thc Packet whilc he intended to send the second to New York to be forwarded by

privatc ship."'

Local correspondcncc trrivcllcd over the routc to Ncw York year round, but lctters

destincd for ovcrscas conimonly only went this way in the wintcr, whcn the navigation in

thc Saint Lawrcncc was closcd. Although the occasional transatlantic letter was sent over

the route in s ~ r n m c r , ' ~ ~ it is hard to know why; communications via New York seem to

have bccn slower than those by Quebec. Thus, in a letter 4 June 1767 written at Paris to

Mgr Briand at Qucbcc, l'abbé dc L'Isle-Dicu rcgrctted that this, his third letter of the

scason, had not bccn rcady earlicr, "par la crainte où je suis que cette lettre n'arrive pas

assés tot à Londrc pour vous pawcnir directement ct qu'on nc soit obligé de vous la faire

passer par la Nouvcllc York cc q u i en rctardcra la rcc~pt ion ." '~~

Thc cstablishmcnt of the Ncw York route madc possible a substantially different

pattern of corrcspondencc than Canadians had cvcr bcen able to maintain dunng the French

rcgime. For thc first timc, Canadians were able to count on kecping in touch with

corrcspondcnts ovcrscas routincly in wintcr. Thus, for instance, during the winter of 1773,

whcn thc Qucbcc mcrchant François Baby was in London on business, hc and his friend

and associatc Picrrc Guy at Montreril plcdgcd to write to cach other at lcast monthly. As

G u y wrotc his fricnd that Novcmber: "Si tes occupations Sont trop grande tu prendra Sur

la nuit pour obliger ton amie, nc pargne [n'cpargne] pas la poste, Ecrirc moi par tous les

116 Ibid., Montreal. Lawrcnce Ermatingcr to Mcss'rs Rcadc and Yates, New York, 16 November 1771, p. 9s; samc to samc, 31 March 1772, pp. 119-20; samc to same, 11 January 1772, pp. 108-9; and same to sariic, 1S Dcccniber 1773. p. 196.

11: ibid., Lawrcnce Ermaringer ro Bçry'n Pricç, 22 Deccmber 1771, IWO scpratc lettcrs p. 105 and p. 106.

11s Scc, for tsamplc, ibici., Ermatinger Io R. Meredith. London, 26 July 1770, pp. 3-5 in which he refend

ro a letter of 2.5 Junc seni via New York.

l lq"~t trcs ct mçmoires de i'abbe dc L'Isle-Dieu," i'abbe de L'Isle-Dicu to Mgr Jcan-Olivier Briand, 4 June 1767, p. 229.

paqucts."l" The corrcspondcncc of Lawrence Ermatinger provides a concrete example

of how t hcse ncw circumst anccs affect ed t hc concspondcncc of contemporaries. Unlike

Canadians in the Frcnch rcgimc, Ermatingçr kept in touch with his commercial

corrcspondcnts overscas ycar round. Between June and early to mid-November,

Ematinger's letters werc sent almost exclusively by the shipping through Quebec, as were

thosc of most of his conternporarie~.'~' Commencing in late November, he sent letters,

at least monthly, through New York to London, until May. In retum, his agents in London

wrotc to him with thc sanic frcqucncy. The lctters thernselves tcnded to take between ~ W O

and a haif to thrcc months to pass from Montrcal to London, which was not out of line

with what had been the case during the French regime. What distinguishes Ermatinger's

situation fiom that of corrcspondcnts p ior to the Conquest was the fact that, as a

conscquence of the ficquency with which he was able to write, and the ability of his

Icttcrs' rccipicnts to rcspond to a lctter as soon as it was received, Ermatinger was able to

maintain a continual 80w of lcttcrs back and forth across the Atlantic, rarely waiting morc

than sis months to rcccivc a rcsponsc to any lcttcr.

This change in thc pattern of corrcspondcnce was accompanied by a change in the

structure of lctter-writing itself. During the Frcnch rcgimc, corrcspondcnts on either side

of thc Atlantic had writtcn and dcspatchcd a scries of lcttcrs cach scason to which they

thcn anticipatcd a scrics of lettcrs in rcsponse. The correspondence progressed as a series

""Baby Colleciion, U 5158, Montreai, P. Guy to F. Baby, London, 27 Novernber 1773. See also U 523, Uucbcc, F. i3riby io P. Guy, Montreai, 30 Seprember 1773.

"'Erniatiriger Lcrrcrbook. Similarly, Francois Baby invariably despatchcd his ktters to correspondents in London by the ships sailing there from Qucbçc. At the sarne time, hc forwarded letters to and from his busincss associarcs Picrrc Guy and Eticnnc Augé of Montreal by the samç opportunities. Sec Baby Collection, U 5133, Montreal, P. Guy to Baby, Qucbcc, XI October 1765; U 5139, same to same, 14 October 1770; U 5172, same to sarne, 10 Novcmber 1777; U 5177, same to same, 17 August 1778; U 5183, sarne to samc, Octobcr 1779.

The continued importance of the shipping to Qucbec has largcly bccn ignored in the historiography of thc mails which instcad focuses upon the establishment of a Post Office at Quebec and the development of thc Ncw York route. This emphasis is a function primarily of the preoccupation of these studies with official . . posrd rouies and structures. Sec, for insrancc, Smith, I ~ H ~ Q I Y of ihe in Aux&, p. 76 who raiscs rhç subjeci of thc Quçbeç route only in the contcm of the Amcrican Revolution. otwxving rhai thc dosure of the Ncw York route, "made it neccssary to provide otherwise for the niaintcnance of t h conncction wifh Grcat Britain." Even here, howevcr, his emphasis is on the government's ctforts IO csiablish a r«ute ihrough Halifax. Sec similarly, McDonald, "Thc Posts in Canada to 1776," in Ihe

in C o l o n i a I , . Rev- A ~ ~ G I . ; and Boggs, Canl?da, pp. 3-9.

of monologues in which each lettcr despatched during a season performed a specific roie.

The first lettcr functioncd as a simplc greeting, and was followed by a senes of substantive

lcttcrs in the middle of the season, and a final short note of farewell. The letters' recipient

tcndcd to respond to a season's lctters as a wholc, rathcr than individually. In contrast,

Ermatinger and others Iike him had the option of maintaining what to us would appear a

rnuch more "normal" correspondence, in which, through the year, a number of letters

passcd back and forth following a more "convenational" pattern. Each letter functioned

donc as a discrctc objcct rather than forming part of a larger wholc. Whereas, however,

tlic n~odcrn corrcspondcnr tcnds to send a single letter and await a response bcfore writing

again, Em~atingcr, by virtuc of the time it took lctters to rcach Britain and a rcsponsc to

rcturn to thc colony, commonly dcspatched fivc or six lcttcrs bcfore recciving a response

to the first.

The ability of correspondcnts to wnte year-round made it possible for them to

conduct thcir busincss affairs vcry differently than had merchants during the French

regimc. Bcfore the Conqucst, mcrchants in thc colony scnt orders for the next year's

~ o o d s to thcir partncrs and agcnts o\.crseas in the fa11 as the vcsscls sailcd from Quebec. C

Thcrcaftcr, although local conditions might change, thcy had no way to adjust their orders

oncc thc shipping was closcd. Thcir suppliers shippcd goods to thc colony in the spring

and carly summer, in ignorance of locai conditions bcyond what they had been told the

previous summcr and fall, and they would rcmain largely ignorant of colonial affairs until

the rctum of the flcct that fa11 or wintcr. In contrast, Ermatingcr possessed much greater

flcsibility. Hc scnt off lcttcrs through the scason acknowlcdging thc recçipt of goods hom

his agents ovcrscas, and in the faIl hc dcspatchcd ordcrs for thc next year. Dunng the late

faIl and wintcr, howcvcr, hc was able to both add to and rcvisc thcsc orders once the

estcint of thc harvcst was known, and in rcsponse to latc ncws of Europcan priccs and

markcts. Em~atingcr was ncver rcally out of touch with his business associatcs. A case in

point is providcd by his corrcspondcnce in 1773-74 with his agent, Thomas Woder. In the

carly fa11 of 1773, Captain Wodcr had sct sail for London armcd with dctailed instructions

from Ermatingcr conccrning thc goods that hc carricd on thc mcrchant's bchalf, and a

substantial shcaf of lcttcrs dcstincd for Ermatingcr's busincss corrcspondcnts in London.

Having sailcd from Qucbcc, howcvcr, Wodcr was not out of Ermatingcr's rcach. Not long

aftcr he sailed, Ermatingcr despatched a lctter to Woder by the last opportunity through

Qucbec; and thcn, about a month later, he wrote again, this time by New York, noting that

"Our winter has Sctt in vcry EarI y this Year and We already are Surrounded with Snow

and Ice." In rctum, Ermatinger encouraged Woder to write to him often through the

winter via Ncw York, kecping him informed of the price of furs and other colonial goods,

and telling him as soon as it was possible whether or not he wanted Ermatinger to

purchasc wheat on his bchal f.'" Other merchants provide similar examples. During the

wintcr of 1773-74, François Baby, then in London, expected his associatc Pierre Guy of

Montrcal to let him know of the changing pnce of wheat, pcas, and oats in the colony

through thc wiiitcr, and himsclf wrotc homc with ncws of the European prices for fur and

winc. and spcculation ovcr what goods wcrc iikely to be shipped to Canada in the

spring.''-' This information allowcd both mcrchants to function with a much clearer

scnsc of conditions on thc othcr sidc of the Atlantic than thcy would have had without the

opportunity of wintcr communications, and woutd havc dccrcased the riskiness of their

cornmcrcial vcnturcs.

Bcyond thc spccific impact on thc conduct of commerce notcd above, the changing

patterns of comnicrcial corrcspondcncc undoubtcdly had broadcr implications for how

business was conductcd in the colony. In thc contcxt of colonial A m c r i a , Ian Steele has

shown thai thc incrcrising spccd and frcquency of communications in thc English Atlantic

bcforc 1740 had a profound impact on business forms and practices, resulting in thc

dcvclopmcnt of the commission systcm and changes in cvcrything from thc management of

bills of cxchangc and the collection of accounts to the calculation of maritime insurance

'"Ermaiingçr Lciierbouk, Monireal, Ermatingcr to Captain Woder, Qucbcc, 26 September 1773, pp. 174-75; same to samc, London, 26 Novcrnbcr 1773, p. 195. For a rcfercncc to a lcttcr sent with Woder see, Monireal. Ermatingcr io Thomas Bridge, London, 26 November 1773, pp. 191-92. Similarly, in his correspondence with Benjamin Price, Ermatingcr was able to writc in the latc faii or early winter, once the harvcst was in, to tell hirn the local price for whcat. and could cxpect to hear back from him in timc IO know whcther to makr: a purchasc on his account. Sec, for cxarnplc, Ermaiingcr to Benjamin Price, London, 22 Dcceniher 1771, pp. 105 and 106.

''313aby Collcciion, U 523, Qucbcc, Franpis Baby io P. Guy, Montreal, 30 Scptember 1773. See also U 526, London, F. Baby to P. Guy, 20 March 1774.

rates.lz4 It is likely that the changes described here had implications of similar

magnitude on the structures of comrncrcc in thc Saint Lawrence, but without further study

it is impossible to specify precisely what they may have been.

The changing patterns of communication also very likely affected the way the

colony was administcred, beyond what was simply the result of the change in regime. in

particular, the opcning of year-round communications would have made it much easier for

mctropolitan officials to more closely monitor and guide colonial affairs under the British

rcgimc than it had during the French colonial period. An example of this is the

comparative fiequcncy with which the ncw Postrnaster at Qucbcc, Hugh Finlay, was

cxpcctcd to kccp in touch with his supcriors in the Gcneral Post Office, London. Finlay

dcspatchcd s numbcr of lcttcrs and rcports throughout the ycar, to which he reccived

frcquent and spccific responscs. The continua1 and ongoing quality of the General POS~

Office's management of Canadian Post Officc affairs stands in contrast to the more

cpisodic quality of tmpcnal leadership during the French regime.lu

Bcyond thc way in which the changing pattern of communications may have

affcctcd commerce and impcrial administration, it seems likely that it had a psychological

cffcct as wcll. The ability of corrcspondcnts such as Ermatingcr to keep in touch with

Europc ycar-round ma' wcll havc made thcm fccl closer to Europc than they would

othcnvisc havc donc. Thc continual cxchangc of information and ideas, and the real

irnmcdiacy of thc conversation thcy maintaincd in lctter form, provided a concrete link

bctwccn corrcspondcnts on cithcr side of the occan that had simply not been possible

during the French rcgimc. Thcn, Marie de l'Incarnation had characterizcd the amval of the

first ships in the spring as an awakcning, a pcriod in which colonists took up their

conncction with thc world bcyond thcir o ~ n . " ~ Following the Conquest, Canadians

oftcii still coniplaincd in winter thnt thcy had no ncws, but a fcw days or weeks would

ecncrally bring thcm word of thc statc of Europcan affairs. In January of 1771, Lawrence C

ch ce Ian Steclc, -, Chapier 11, "Commerce and Communicaiions" and in panicular pp. 218-38.

125 Sec, for esample, thc concspondence wiih thc G.P.O., London in thc Haldimand Papers, BM 21,860,

pr. 1. "Corrcspondcncc wiih Hugii Finlay."

I2<'* . Ci 1' .. - . Incctrndtion. Mriric de i'lncarnarion to onc of hcr brothcrs, 1 Scptembcr 16W, pp. 102-3.

Ermatinger complaincd, "We have no News here at Prcsente." But in the next sentence he

underlined how far the colonists had corne. He was impatient, waiting not for spnng but

for the amval of the November packct which hc hoped would bring the colony word "of a

Warc with Spain ~roclaimed."'"

The impatience of Canadian corrcspmdents in winter to receive news from Europe

hclps undcrline the fact that, although the opening of the New York route had made it

possiblc for correspondcnts to wnte year-round, winter communications would for a long

timc rcmain much sparscr than that in summcr. In one of their earlicst numbers, the

cditors of the Qucbcc Gazçtte wamcd their rcaders:

The rigour of winter prcventing thc amval of Ships fiom Europe, and in great mcasure intempting the ordinary course with the southem provinces, during that scason, it will be neccssary, in a paper designcd for general perusal and publick utility, to providc some things of gcncral cntertainmcnt, indcpcndent of foreign intclligence.lB

While the constraints of which the paper's editors complaincd would ease slightly over

time, wintcr communications would rcmain distinct fiom those during thc season of

navigation in the Saint Lawrence.

The shift from summcr to winter news and letters brought a change, not only in the

frcqucncy with which ncws arrivcd, but also in the direction from which it entered the

colony. Dunng thc scason of navigation, news arrïved via the shipping to Quebec, but in

wintcr it was channellcd through Montrcal. Thus, on 1 April 1771 Lawrence Ermatinger

wrotc from Montrcal to a corrcspondcnt at Qucbcc, "By the Last Packct we had very littie

ncws [at Montrcal], only the failurc of 2 or 3 Houscs, in London ... You will soon have ail

thc Ncws Your ~ a y . " ' ~ ~ Whercas in summer the merchants at Qucbec rcccived ncws

first, in wintcr the merchants of Montrcal had that advantage. The impact of this is hard

to gaugc, but it is possiblc to imaginc that thc rcceipt of ncws of European prices and

c\.cnts days bcforc thcir colleagucs at Qucbec would havc allowed merchants at Montrcal

l2'Ematingcr Lttcrbook, Ematingcr to Mr Thomas Wodcr, London, 19 January 1771, p. 52.

12Ri,_ucbccGazctte, 21 Junc 1764.

'*%matingcr Lcttcrbook, Ermatingcr to Mr. Henry Taylor, 1 April 1771. pp. 59-60.

to buy or scll goods at morc advantagcous pnccs than would be the case when the news

thqr had hcard bccame more gcneral knowlcdgc.

In thinking about the impact the opening of the New York route would have had on

the colony, howevcr, we need to remember hvo things. In the first place, the people who

uscd this route wcre not ncccssarily the same people who during the French regime had

bccn subjcct to thc strict scasonal constraints on communications. While some

corrcspondcnts, such as François Baby, had livcd in the colony prior to the Conquest,

niany othcrs, such as Lawrence Ermatinger, had come from elscwhere after the French

d ~ f c a t . " ~ Thc Conquest brought a changc in sovcrcignty over the colony and, in its

wake, ncw administrators and a small but influential group of merchants who had never

known Iife in the old Frcnch cofony. They carne with expcctations and cxpcriences which

werc vcry diffcrcnt 60m thosc of the formcr French colonists. Thus, when we are talking

about thc impact of thc changc that occurrcd in the pattern of transatlantic communications

to and from the Saint Lawrcncc, wc are spcaking as much of the structures of life in the

colony ris wc arc of thc cspcricncc of individual corrcspondcnts pcr se.

Second, although some corrcspondents rclied heavily upon the Ncw York route, it

is important that we rccognize that not cvcryonc in thc colony used it, or cvcn was

ncccssanly awarc of it. Whcn Fathcr Curratcau, a Sulpician pncst in Montreal, wrotc to

his brothcr in Scptcmbcr 1764, thc routc through Ncw York had bccn opcn for a number

o f ?cars yct Curratcau sccnicd unsurc of its existence. "[Jjc pence," he began rathcr

hcsitantly in ri lcttcr cncourriging his brothcr to scnd lcttcrs by cvcry opportunity, "que

nous En rcccvrons d'curopc En tout temps par la nouvcllc York attendu que Les glaces

n'crnpcchc point Dans ccttc contrCc La navigation ct que tous Les mois Lon Recoit par

tcrrc Dcs Lcttrcs dc cc pays ct quc tous lcs mois il y vicnt un paquebot Dc Londres."

Although hc appcarcd to bc suggcsting that his brother rnight scnd lettcrs via New York,

Curratcau hinisclf continucd to rcly cxclusivcly upon thc opportunitics that offered dunng

I N I~idecd, i r can bc suggcswcl tiirit onç facct of thc "changing climaten that Igartua rcfcrs ta that may have aifccicd thc rclarivc fortuncs of rhc Frcnch and English merchants in the colony was the changed pattern of communications. British mcrchanis came Gorn cornmunities where thcy werc accustomed to conducting business year round, whilst Frcnch merchants would have had to adjust to thcir ncw clrcumstanccs. See, José Eduxdo Iganua, "A Change in Climate: The Conquest and the Marchands of Mantreal," Canadian Historical Association, -,(1971), pp. 115-33.

the scnson of navigation through Quebec. For him, the close of the navigation season

brought the cnd of thc season of communications, at l e s t in tcrms of his own

corrcspondcnce. Thus he closcd his letter of early September with the hope that his

brother would hear irom him again that year but only, "Si je trouve devant Uiyver une

occasion favorable pour tecrire."I3' Dunng the course of their somewhat desultory

corrcspondcncc, neither brother seems ever to have sent letters during the winter through

New York. Indeed, Currateau, at l e s t , seems to have understood thc constraints on

communications vers much in traditional terms. Thus in September 1772, echoing the

rcmindcrs many French rcgimc correspondcnts had issucd to others, Currateau urged his

brother to writc to him carlier each year "c'est a Dire dans Mars ou avril ou Même

fcuvrier," noting that "cc sera Le Moyen que je recoivc tes Lettres dans Le cours Dc Leté

ou Dc Lautomne; En ecnvant Lautomne jc suis un an sans En recevoir Car ta Demiere

Datté De 7brc, Ic nc Lay recu que Depuis huit jour^."'^'

Curratcau was not unique. As time passed, the knowledge that letters could

circulate in wintcr undoubtcdly bccamc much bcttcr known, rit lcast in the colony. As we

shall discuss at some length in the next chapter, howcver, many corrcspondents continued,

nt lcast through the eightcenth century, to maintain a strictly seasonal transatlantic

comniunication, whcthcr bewuse thcy lacked the rcsourccs, the desire, or the need to make

usc of the wintcr mails. The expericnce of thcse Canadians underlines the extcnt to which,

although thc structurcs of communications may alter, the practicc of correspondents does

not ncccssarily follow sui t . *

Perhaps thc bcst indication of how much the mcrchant community depended on the

Ncw York route in the ycars following the Conquest, was the hstration wused by the

collapsc of thcse opportunities during the Amcrican Revolution. The outbrcak of war, in

1775, led to the immcdiate suspension of thc regular Post Office courier service between

'31Cu~atcau &rnily Papers, Curratcau to his brother, Nantes, 6 Septembcr 1764, p. 43.

'321bid., samc to same, 17 Scptcmbcr 1772. p. 73.

the Saint Lawrence and New ~ o r k . " ~ A group of New York merchants may

subscquently have proposed that they maintain a courier service to Canada, but nothing

secms to have corne of thcir suggestion.'" Thus, with the exception of a bnef period

whcn the Amcricans occupied Montreal and the town's residents were able to send letters

through thc American Post Office to New york,13* Canadians were forced to depend

upon occasional privatc opportunitics to correspond. The colonists themselva appear to

have bccn ablc to sccurc ncws of thc War, and likcly also Ictters, through the American

colonics throughout the Rcvolution, with surprising case.136 Howcver, these routes

clcrrrly did not sene as effective channels for transatlantic mails.

Thc colonial officiais managcd to maintain some communication with the British

forces in New York. Native runncrs and other messengcrs wcre employed both at New

York and in Canada to carry dcspatches through the woods during the war.lZ7 Officiais

also hid lcttcrs in secret locations on the boundarics of the two tcmtories where

messcngcrs could rctricvc thcm as thc opportunity arosc. For cxample, in 1780 the

Canadian Govcrnor, Sir Frcdcric Haldimand, informcd Clinton that a Mr Mcyers would

trrivcl with ri prirty of thrcc rncn into Ncw York in order to "fis upon a certain Tree or

133 . . Sec Smith, --ost in -, pp. 65, 74. He is vague about lhe prccisc timing.

'%x ibid., p. 65 who observes that the provincial congess of New York sent a letter to the merchants of Montrcal and g i v a as his rcfcrcnce, Amer. Arch. founh series, II, 1293.

135 For csamplcs of lcttcrs sent in wintcr through the h e r i c a n postal service fiom Montreal while that ciiy was ciccupicd by ihe hicr ican iorccs bctwçcn thc late faIl 1775 and June of the next year, see Allan

- . . (y . . . - , - , - * a . - , S ~ a r I L &1 P u s r d l - m t ~ d C o v v Collection, [nd], Iziicr datcd Abany, New York, to Jacob Jordan, Monireal, 27 Dcccmber 1775. See &O

Susan Macdonald, "The Posis in Canada," in f l a, P-23.

l3%eatby, Qugbec the Rcv- &, p. 175 notes that Haldimand was often less well informed than ihc population at large. "His official news travelled unccnainly from New York IO London and across the occan again to Qucbcc, perhaps by way of Halifax. For the rest, he must rely on rebel newspapers. His fcllow citizcns go1 their ncws straight from the centre of the action by innumerable channels which he scarclicd ior but çould scldom finci." Scc, in confirmation of this, Haldimand Papcrs, BM 21,808, B148, [A-7411, HaIdimand to Goncral Robcnson, 5 March 1782, p. 9.

'3'Haldiriia~id Papçrs, DM 21,818. New York, Major Gray ro Carlcron, 24 March 1777, p. 16; BM ?l,8lY. samc ru Fox, 37 April 1777, p. 28; and BM 21,797, Ricdcscl io Haldimand. 23 Octobcr 1782, p. 306 in wtiicti hc rcporicd that he had advanccd rnunçy io IWO rncn canying dcspatches fiom New York so that thcy could reach Quebec.

Spot whcrein the Lctters are to be deposited in a Srnall Tin Case to preserve them from

the Weother ..."" "owc\.er, colonial officials had real difficulties kceping in touch with

New ~ o r k . " ~ Early in March 1782, for example, Govemor Haldimand wrote a letter to

Clinton in New York complaining ihat six months had passed since he had heard nom

Clinton, Halifax, "or any other Quarters of Moment and that my only Channel of

Intclligence during the time has been Rebel Ncwspapcrs very Irregularly reccived and

procured with infinitc Pains." He explaincd that he had spared no trouble in his efforts to

kccp in touch: "1 have wnttcn many lcttcrs to bc handed from one friend to another at

York and have heard of thcir passing Albany in safety and 1 have sent messengers quite

th ro to thnt placc ..." but rissurncd thar thcy had a11 miswrried.'"

Faced with the unrcliability of thc Ncw York route as a channel for

communications with Britain dunng the winter, Haldimand resolved as early as summer of

1778 to find an alternative. From then on, he focused considerable cncrgy on developing a

communications route through Halifax."' Starting that winter, Haldimand and officials

in Nova Scotia cmploycd couricrs each winter, and ocwsionally at othcr times of the year,

to cnrry lcttcrs and dcspatchcs from London over the historic route from Halifax to St.

John, up thc Madewaskri and ovcr thc Tcmiscouata portage to the Saint Lawrence.

The colony's mcrchants--now deprivcd of signifiant acccss to New York--were

cvidently despcratc to bc able to take advantage of this altcmatc route. They appcaled for

official assistance; in mid-Dccembcr 1779, Haldimand instructcd the Postmaster at

13%id., BM 21,807, Haldimand tu Clinton, 28 February 1780, p. 117. Thc same stratagem was used to sccurc infomiation frum informants within cnemy territory. Sec BM 21, 818, Sir John Johnson to Haldimand, 16 April 1781, [A-7461, fo 339. whu wroie that he intended io identify a place near Johnstown and arioificr ii) ihc wcsi or' Fort Edward whcrc Icticrs and papcrs could bc: lcft in iin b o x a in order to protect ihcni h m moisturc and tampering.

13'0n the difficultics of corrcsponding with New York sec ibid., BM 21,807 (B147) Quebec, Haldimand to Sir Hcnry Clinton, 31 January 1780; and BM 21,808, Haldimand to Gcneral Robertson, 5 March 1782, p. 9.

'"Ibid., BM 21,808, Haldirnand to Clinton, 5 March 1782, p. 556.

"'Ibid., BM 21,711, Haldimand ru Lord George Germaine, 25 July 1778, fo. 291 [I could not Iocate the original of this and so rckr orily to the cntry in the pAC m, 1885, "Calcndar of the Haldimand Papers," p. 3221. Scç also UM 21,723, [A-6631, Haldiniand ta the Governor of Nova Scotia, 31 July 1778, fo 13; BM 71810 [A-7431, Haldiniand io Ikigadicr Maçlcan 10 Novcmbcr 1778, 1o. 1; BM 21,809, Hughris to Haldimrind, 17 Oçiober 1779; HM 21,810 [A-7421, Haldimand to Major Skinncr, August 10 1782, p. 156.

Qucbec, Hugh Finlay, "You will please to acquaint the Gentlemen at Montreal Whose

Lctter of the 9th instant you Sent me, that I have a Messenger here who is to Set out for

Halifax in a few days when the Wcather settlcs and Shall take charge of their Commercial

Lcttcrs; provided the Burthen is not too great."'" Over the next few years, merchant

lcttcrs werc consistcntly sent by thc Govcmor's couriers to Halifax, whence they

presumably took their chance to Britain. The merchants did not find these occasional

opportunitics sufficient to meet their necds, and they pressed Haldimand for the

cstablishrncnt of a regular servicc. He rcfused this on thc grounds "that a fkequency of

mcsscngcrs upon that Routc, would expose some of thcm to be interceptcd, and occasion

pcrhaps discovcrics, that rnight bc attendcd with disagrecable conscqucnccs to the

~tatc,""' but he was willing to allow the mcrchants to cmploy occasional pnvate

couricrs themsclvcs. In 1779 Haldimand askcd Finlay to tell the merchants that "Should

thcy in the Course of the Wintcr have Occasion to forward more Lettcrs to their

Corrcspondcnts, the Pcrsons to bc Charged thcrewith, bcing of known Character and

Rcputntion, Shall bc fumishcd with my Support for that ~urpose."'" This is particularly

intcrcsting bccausc it suggcsts thrit--at least at this point--Haldimand was willing to

support thc colony's mcrchants. Dunng the winter and spnng of 1780, the merchants did

scnd thcir own courier, on at lcast onc occasion employing "Mcrcurc," an Acadian guide

who rourinciy carricd thc Gorcrnor's d e ~ ~ a t c h c s . ~ ~ ~ By the foilowing summer,

Haldimand was no longcr so supportive; instcad he worricd that thc frequency of traffic

ovcr thc route impcrilcd thc sccurity of the officia1 mails. In mid-August 1780 hc

'421bid., BM 21,860, Haldimand ro Firilay, 13 Dccernbcr 1779. Regrctrably, our sourccs do not indicate whcthcr thcsc mcn wcre al1 British and Amcrican or whether some were Frcnch merchants. One might cspcct the formcr, more uscd to winter çommunications beforc coming ro the colony in 1760, were in the forcircint «f pressing for win~cr opportunirics. If the Frcnch merchants, aticr only a decade and a halfs cspc~ic~icc wx-iting in tiic wiritçr, wcrc also irivolvcd, rhis would say a great dcaI about changing cxpectations. Wc do know, howcver, thai many French rcgime merchants had adapicd casily to the winter opportunities ihat rhc New York route had provided them.

'"Ibid-, BM 21,860, Haldimand IO Finlay, 30 Decembcr 1779- Sec also BM 21,810, Haldimand to Licuicriant Govcmor Hughes, 30 January 1780, fo. 59-60.

'UIbid-, BM 21,860, Haldimand to Finiay, 13 Deccmbcr 1779; B M 21,810 BlSO, Gcncral Haldimand to Lieut Ciov Hughes, 30 January 1780, p. 59.

1.15 Ibid., BM 21,810, [A-7421, Haldirnand IO Sir Richard Hughes, 17 August 1780, fo. 97 refers to "When Michacl [Mcrcurc] was lasi hcrc for the Mcrchanrs."

cxprcssed conccrn about the impropriety "in these Times of the Merchants to send their

own couriers. The ncxt winter hc refused to authorize further merchant expresses but

continued to allow thcm to send lettcrs by his own courier."' Yet some merchants

continucd to scnd thcir own mails: hc noted in June 1781 that he had prevented the

rncrchants from sending private couriers "with some Success, tho' not So much as 1 could

wish" and continucd to cornplain of "the ill-timcd solicitude of the merchants in the

provincc to scnd letters by that route and to makc a communication public which as a

private one has bccn .... vcry useful to His Majcsty's s en ri ce."'" By Scptcmber 1781 he

was out of ail paticncc with thc mcrchants' continua1 pursuit of a chance to scnd letters to

Halifax, and wris no longer willing to allow evcn govcrnmcnt couriers to carry mercantile

Icttcrs. Hc wrirncd Captain Hartcup at Pcnobscot not to Ict anyone know when he was

scnding a courier, nor to allow thc courier to carry privatc letters, commcnting that

Much inconvcnicncc has ririscn from this Practicc in communicating with Halifax--a Partial corrcspondcncc betwcen thc Mcrchants gives them advantage of each othcr, it sets thcm al1 a writing, and mcsscngers upon the King's Scrvice which should be quitc sccrct, bccome a Public channcl for corrcspondencc and of course an Objcct of the Enemy's a t t~nt i0n . I~~

Thc local mcrchants werc not thc only oncs to pressurc Haldimand for the opportunity to

communicatc ovcr this route. In Aprïl 1781, Robcrt Huntcr informed Haldimand that

The mcrchants herc [ix. in London] would bc much obliged to Your Excellency for assisting thcir Enderivours with Govcrnmcnt in cnabling a Packct from your Pro\-incc \-ia Halifax in Wintcr o r by a srnall arrncd vcsscl carly in thc Summcr towards thc cxpcnsc of which thcy would willingly contributc it would be of great senicc to thcm! and might also bc useful to the ~ u b l i c . ~ ~ ~

14hIbid.. BM 31,510, Haldimanrl to Sir Richard HuGcs, 17 Augusi 1780, fo. 97.

'"~bid., BM 21,810, Haldimand tu Lieutcnani-Govcrnor Huj$cs, 31 January 1781, fo. 53.

'"'Ibid., BM 21,715, No. 83. Haldirnand io Gemainc, June 10 l 7 8 t .

'"~bid., BM 21,810, [A-7421, Haldimand to Capt Hartcup, Penobscot, 19 Septcmber 1781, €o. 131.

'"Ibid., BM 21,734, [A-6681, London, Robert Huntcr to Haldimand, 9 April 1781, fo. 93-94.

Dcspite t his pressure, Haldimand's opposition to allowing mcrchants to send letters

ovcrland in wintcr would continue to the cnd of the War. So too, evidently, would their

determination to wr i t~ . ' ~ '

Thc frequency with which the merchants sought to send letters via Halifax, and

thcir tenacity in pursuing the use of this route, suggest how important the merchants felt

wintcr communications wcrc. Thc ongoing debate betwcen the mcrchants and the

Govemor also highlights two elements that would remain constant in Haldimand's attitude

towards communications throughout thc War. In thc first instance, Haldimand was

pcrcnnially conccmed about sccunty and the danger of cspionage hom the fiee interchange

of Icttcrs. Sccond, at least from mid-1780, he showed little understanding of or sympatby

for the mcrchants' dctcrmination to maintain as fast and fkequent a corrcspondencc as

possible, ycar round. Both tcndcncics would be evidcnt in Haldimand's initial response to

dcmands to opcn con~munications through New York at thc end of the War.

Thc ciid of the War did not bring an irnmcdiate solution to the isolation of the

colony in wintcr and thc mcrchants' conscqucnt frustration. The monthly packet service

bctwccn Ncw York and Britain was rc-cstablished in thc latc faIl of 1783: a notice

appcarcd in thc Ouebcc Gaxt te on 18 Novembcr announcing that the first vesse1 would

sail from Falmouth in early ~ c c c r n b c r . ' ~ ~ Howcver, the Canadian Post Office did not

rc-cstriblish thc couricr scwicc that had prcviously providcd thc link bctwccn Qucbcc and

the packet at Ncw York. Whcn thc Qucbcc Postmastcr, Hugh Finlay, suggcsted they do so

in Nwlcmbcr, Govcrnor Haldimand rcfuscd on thc grounds that it would bc improper for

hinl to rc-cstablish a conncction with New York until hc had becn "rcgularly informed of

pcacc bcing confinricd and that He shall reccivc instructions for that ~ u r ~ o s e . " ' ~ ~

Finlay instcad sought to providc colonists with a lcss formal connection to New

York. In latc Novcmbcr, he informcd Haldimand that hc wishcd to scnd a privatc courier

to Ncw York on Post Officc business and intcnded to advcrtisc that the courier would

lS1~ec , for instance, ibid., BM 31,810 (BlSO), Haldimand to Officcr Commanding at Penobscot, 30 January 1782, p. 138.

- C~auztti;, 18 Novembcr 1783.

'S3Haldirnand Papers, BM 21,860-2, [A-7721, Haldimand to Finlay, 21 November 1783.

carry privatc lctters. He strcssed that this would not be a "formal mail" but a casual

xivcrtiscment of an opportunity such as might offcr by any travcller.'" Haldimand

provided Finlay with a pass for his couricr, but he refused to allow him to advertise the

~ ~ ~ o r t u n i t y . ' ~ ~ Finlay wrote regretting Haldimand's decision. "1 thought," he explained,

"it might be agreeable to many people to wnte to their friends in that quarter which led me

to proposc making it public that an apport- would soon offcr for New York (not a

Courier) but no notice shall now be given."lS6

Finlay was bcing polite. It is clear that the mcrchants felt much more strongly

about the nirittcr than his words suggcstcd. Throughout thc wintcr of 1783-84 the

mcrchants of Montrcal lobbicd forccfully for thc rcsumption of a regular courier service

bctwccn Canada and Ncw York. Thcy argucd that the Post, in forwarding lctters to and

from Europc with "grcatcr cxpcdit ion and regularity," had brought grcat "Commercial

advnntagcs" to the province. Its suspension during the War had "plainly evinced the utility

of such a r ~ ~ u l a t i o n . " ' ~ ~ Finlay appcars to have bcen convinccd that they were "fixed in

thcir rcsolution to c a r y on thcir corrcspondcncc with Europc by way of Albany and New

York." Hc obscwcd in a lcttcr to thc Secrctary of thc Gencral Post Office, London, that if

the Post Officc did not rccstablish its couricr scrvice to Albany, thc mcrchants had made it

abundantly clcar thcy would "scnd thcir own Mcssçngcr" to Albany every wcek to pick up

thcir European lctters, thus dcpriving the Post Office of the packct postage.'s8 It is

unclcar whcthcr thcy in fact did so. Finlay himsclf, howcvcr, wcnt to somc lengths that

urintcr to try to crcatc othcr opportunitics by which corrcspondcnts might write, applying ?O

Hrildimand rcpcritcdly for permission to scnd couricrs and oftcn bcing rcfuscd on the

lS~aldimand Papcrs, BM 21,860-2 [A-7721, Finlay to Major Matthews, 22 November 1783, p. 321.

'"Ibid., BM 21,860-2, [A-7721, Matthcws to Finlay, 24 Novernbcr 1783.

IS61bid., BM 21,860, [A-7721, Finlay to Major Matthcws, 24 Novcmbcr 1783.

157 Ibid., BM 21,860-2 [A-7721, Mernorial of a group of Merchants in Montreal to Hugh Finîay, 2 Fcbruary 1784, [A-7733, pp. 337-3s. In this instance, thc names of thc pctitioners are available. Forty- cigtit riierchanrs s i ~ n c d the p e r i i i m including Lawrence Ermatingrr. Of thcse al1 appear to be English- spcriking savc for iwo--onc i3ouiiiilliçr and Jamcs Foulis--whosc sumamcs suggcst they might have bcen Frcnch-spcaking mcrchants.

' S " ~ , MG 23 G II 9, Hu& Finlay Papcrs, "Draft report to Lord Dorcesicr 30 A u y s t 1787," extract h m a lcttcr Finlay IO k Todd, 1 December 1783, p. 69 and of Finlay to [?], 12 February 1784, p. 70.

grounds of sccurity. His tcnacity in pursuing the idea of a courier to New York is likely

csplaincd by the fact that he himsclf was a merchant, and thus closcly connected to the

mcn whosc intcrcsts hc was promoting.lsg It seems likcly that correspondents were able

that winter of 1783-81 to find occasional private opportunities to New York, though WC

can imagine that the volume of trafic between the two territories would still have been

limitcd. In refusing Finlay permission to advertise a mail to New York in April 1784,

Haldimand cxpressed his conviction that such opportunities existed, and argued that letters

to and from thc colony would havc to depcnd upon them.IM Lettcrs may also have corne

to the colony that wintcr from Ncw York by thc mail to ~1bnny. l~ ' In April,

Haldimand's secrctary wrotc to somconc narncd Sherwood asking that he ionvard an

cncloscd lcttcr to Albany "by some activc and carcful Pcrson on whom you can depend"

and at the samc time that he instruct that person "to ask for any letters that may be lying

in the Post Office a t Albany for this Provincc, which on his rctum you will forward to the

Post Office at Montrcal &: thosc for his Exccllcncy to this Placc." We can imagine that

thcsc lcttcrs might have includcd privatc as wcll as public lettcrs.'"

Private corrcspondcnts werc also ablc to take advantagc of at least one opportunity

through Halifax. Ncar thc cnd of Dcccmbcr 1783, Hugh Finlay rcported to Haldimand that

a rumour had bccn circulating that Sir John Johnson intcndcd to travel to Halifax via

Qucbcc in a mattcr of days, and "many peoplc havc ask'd me if 1 make up a mail for

Enghnd to go by that opportunity." Hc askcd to bc ablc to do so, obscrving that the

nunibcr of lcttcrs invol\.cd would not bc largc--no more, indccd, than onc man could

1S<i Haldimand Papers, BM 21,560-2, [A-7731, Finlay to Haldimand, 2 Apni 1783 in which he observed "IL tiic wird MAIL conveys a mcaning iriappropriate to bc express'd at this Juncture--1 wili only Say in my notitication--thai such pcrsons as wish to write to England, may have their lettcrs forwarded by an opponuniry which offers for Ncw York, fiom whence they will bc sent in a British Packet Boat." The Governor scems to have refuscd Finlay permission to advertise the opportunity but was willing that the couricr should carry letters as a private arrangement, BM 21,723 [A6641 Matthews to Finlay, 3 Aprïl 1784. See also BM 21.723 [A-6641, Matihcws to Finlay, May 4 17W; and 6-10 May 1783, Matthews to David Gordon, in which hc was refuscd permissiun to send anoiher messenger on the grounds that a number of i3rirish soldicrs had bceri attaçkcd pising through the United Statcs and the route was no longer secure.

160 Ibid., BM 31,723, Maithcw to Finlay, 2 April 1784.

lbllbid., I3M 21.723, Haldiriiand tu Major-General Campbell by Mercure, 1 March 1784, f.30.

16'1bid., BM 21,713 Matthcws to Sherwood, 12 A p d 1783.

cornfortably wny--and rhus insufficicnt to cover the cost of a spccial courier.'" Finlay

was given permission to advertisc the mail,'" but then Johnson's plans changed and he

did not make the trip. Finlay argued, however, that having advertised the mail he could

not now sirnply cancel it, and so hc hircd one Pierre Durand to make the trip in Johnson's

stcad. Durand Ieft Quebec with two guides on 11 January and reached Halifax some seven

wecks latcr on 29 ~ e b r u a x y . ' ~ ~

Despite the occasional opportunitics that correspondents may have found, the winter

of 1783-81 was stiil clcarly a frustrating one for mcrchants. Their continucd efforts to

arrangc opportunitics to exchangc corrcspondencc cithcr through Ncw York o r Halifax

rcniind u s of prcciscly how important thc wintcr mails wcrc to thcm. This was explicitly

rccognizcd thc ncxt wintcr of 1784-85 by thc Post Officc in its announcement that the

wintcr courier scwicc to Ncw York had bccn resumcd. The notice publishcd in the

Qucbcc Gazcttc in January 1785 rcminded the public of the sailing dates of the monthly

British mail packct bctwcen FaImouth and Ncw York, and announced that in order that

"thc trade of this provincc rnay profit by that rcgular convcyancc" a courier would travel

nlonthIy in wintcr from Qucbcc and Montrcal to Ncw York. This announccment marked

thc forma1 rcopcning of ri routc that had transformcd the csscntial rhythms of

conimunications to thc colony on thc Saint Lawrcncc, and would continue in the future to

provide the chief means by which Canadians could correspond with Britain in thc

wintcr.la

*

In a crucial scnsc, thc history of thc Canadian mails following thc Conqucst is one

of fundanicntal continuitics. Dcspitc a rc-oricntation in thc nctworks of communications,

and thc cstablishmcnt of a Post Officc at Qucbcc, thc unofficial nctworks and social

conventions on which the mails had traditionally dcpcndcd rernaincd central to the process

i03 Ibid., I3M 21,860-2, Finlay IO Haldimand, 23 December 1783, p. 333; and same to same, 7 January 17S4, p. 335.

'"*lllcrc dues not appcar to havc bccn a notice in rhe -bec G u . ,-. '"~aldimarid Papcrs. HM 21.860-3. Finlay io Maithcws, 17 May 1781, p. 367.

, 5 January 1785.

of transatlantic communications. As the letters of conespondents reflected, the world of

communications rcmaincd onc in which a pervasive sense of obligation, and not

administrative arrangements, scrved as the keystonc of effective communications. The

pcrsistcncc of the traditions of the prc-institutional community of correspondcnts, analyzed

in Chapters One through Fivc, in thc dccades aftcr the introduction of the Post Office, lies

at the heart of the structurc of this study, which defines the real watershed in the history of

thc cariy mails as the decadcs following the War of 1812, when the expansion of a

burcaucratic Postal Systcm gradually supcrscdcd thc kinds of informal networks and

structures on which thc mails had for so long dcpcndcd.

Our recognition of the important continuitics in thc means and structures of

con~munications following thc Conqucst should not, howcvcr, blind us to the cxtent to

which the Conqucst had brought rcal change to thc traditional scasonal limits on

communications. Almost from thc first moment the British establishcd effective control

over thc former Frcnch colony in 1759-60, correspondcnts possessed, through the port of

Ncw York, a rcgular, predictablc, rclativcly acccssiblc, and workablc alternative to the

scrisonally rcstrictcd mails at Qucbcc. Thc routc, which once had scen limited and largely

clandcstinc European tra\.cl, soon rcgularly channclled lctters back and forth from the

Atlantic whcn thc navigation at Qucbcc was closcd. The rcal scasonal limits on

comniunications which hrtd pcrsistcd sincc the foundation of the Frcnch coIony wcre

profoundly altcred. Corrcspondcncc during thc wintcr--which oncc had bccn

cxccptional--bccamc routine and uncxtraordinary, somcthing built into the fabric of

contcmporary cxpectations, at Icast for a signifiant group of colonial merchants if not for

the coniniunity of corrcspondcnts at large. Thc Conqucst transformed this aspect of

transat lantic cornmunicrit ions.

Thc story of thc post Conqucst mails docs not fit ncatly into eithcr of the existing

analytical frrimcworks. It can bc told neithcr as a simple drama of rcvolutionary change

nor as a straightforward talc of fundamcntal continuity. Rathcr, the story is one in which

the ncw and thc familiar intcrminglc. This chapter makcs a claim for thc crcation of a

middlc ground in our historiography of thc Conqucst, a position from which we are

capriblc of rccognizing thc continuitics in colonial lifc, but which at the same time allows

u s to cnconlprtss thc rcal and substantial change to which this evcnt gave rise. Canadian

corrcspondcnts following the Conquest lived in a world in which they had more options

than e \ w bcfore. By the cnd of the ccntury thcy would have cven more.

CHAPTER 7: The Many Different Worlds of Communications

at the Turn of the Century

In cornparison with evcn the immediate post-Conquest period, what is stnking

about thc mails after the Amcrican Revolution is the divcrsity of paths they traced between

the Saint Lawrence and Britain, and thc flexibility this rangc of options gave

corrcspondcnts in the timing of thcir letters. This chapter looks at the range of these

options in thc dccades that spanned the tum of the ccntury; at the distinctive qualities of

thcsc opportuniries; and at the kinds of decisions letter-writers made about the despatch of

thcir letters in the years up to the War of 1812. It will emphasize the extent to which the

cxperiencc of corrcspondents diffcrcd, dcpcnding upon thc distinctive necds, resources, and

espcctations they brought to the proccss of communications.

The corrcspondcncc of individuals living far from the MontrcaI-Quebcc corridor

was shapcd by an additional factor. The cxtcnt to which thcsc corrcspondents could take

advantagc of the opportunitics for transatlantic communications depcndcd upon the state of

intcrnal communications as wcll as upon thcir rcsourccs and necds. This chaptcr will

concludc by looking at the situation of corrcspondcnts downrivcr from Quebcc at Murray

Bay; at Mississquoi Bay in thc Eastern Townships; and up country at York, Detroit, and

Michilimakinac. The divcrsc cxpcricncc of thcsc Canadians cxtends Our apprcciation of

the range of pattcrns of communications in placc at thc tum of thc ccntury. *

In thc dccridcs following the Amcrican Revolution, thc Qucbcc route continucd to

function LVcry niuch as it had always donc. Thc commercial vcssels sailing in and out of

the port still providcd the chicf mechtrnism by which lettcrs wcrc carricd across the

Atlantic. In arranging for thc dcspatch of thcir lcttcrs, corrcspondcnts also still had the

option of scnding thcir lcttcrs cithcr as "ship Icttcrs" through thc Post Office, or of

dcspatching them by pnvate arrangement--whether by favour of a traveller or by handing

thcm over directly to a ship's captain or with the hclp of an agent.' It is difficult, based

on thc availablc evidencc, to say what portion of letters wcnt by which opportunity. There

was clcarly a considerablc demand for the Post Office's services. In August 1805, the

Deputy Postmaster General, George Henot, informed a correspondent in Britain: "In the

accommodation of the public Dcpartments, and of the mercantile people hem, 1 have

gcncrally made up mails at the Officc and have got them conveyed on board the vessels

soiling from this port." From soon aftcr the Revolution thcsc opportunitics for England

werc routincly advertiscd in the Ouchec Gazette and also, according to Heriot, by piacing

notcs on the door of thc Qucbcc Post ~ f f icc . ' Many corrcspondents, such as Arthur

Davidson, relicd heavily on thc Post Office to manage the dcspatch of their correspondence

at Qucbcc3 At the samc time, howcvcr, correspondents continucd to makc extensive use

of thc unofficial networks that had traditionally providcd for the transmission of the

mails.' Thc rcsult was a patchwork of formal and informal arrangements.

What did chaiige was the frcqucncy of conimunications through Quebec. S10wly at

first, and thcn quitc draniatically aftcr the tum of the ccntury, the numbcr of vessels sailing

in and out of thc port rose. Most availablc statistics includc al1 vessels--local, coastal and

occüii vcsscls--chring thc port of Quebcc, but thcy noncthclcss indicates general trends

in which the expansion of Atlantic shipping played a significant role. Thus whereas in the

1760s 64 vcsscls on avcragc sailcd from Qucbcc annually, in the 1790s the numbcr had

riscn to 100 ships cach scnson. In 1800, 150 ships sct sail from Qucbec; tcn years later a

'The Post Officc did nor posscss a lcgal monopoly over the dcspatch of outgoing corrcspondencc. On the chariging Icgislation govcrninç "ship Içttcrs," sce Arncll, Steam, pp. 16-18.

'Sec NAC, MG 11, Colonial Oftlcc Records, B-75, (C.O. 12, Vol. 129) Q-99, Qucbec, Heriot to Canidcn, 3 August 1805, p. 231. An example of such a notice can be found in the Ouebec, 13 August 1785.

3Sçs Davidson Corrcsponderiçc througtiout.

'Scc MG U, Scrics il, Transc~ipts, RccI C-12858, Vol. 2, London, W.B. Fclton to Francis Freeling, Sccrciaiy GPO, Y Ocrober 1826 on the vciluinc of Irtters bcing put direcrly into the ships' bags. Fur an csari~plc of Icttçrs scnr by favour sec George Allsopp who scnr Ictters by favour whcnever thc opportunity oifcred, ?Jlsopp Lctrcrbook, Quebec, Alsopp 10 his son John. iondon, 6 Novcmber 1793, p. 28; same to sams. 32 N~vcmher 1791, pp. 44-46. Sec also Davidson Corrupondcncc, folder 1332, #8, Draft, Montreal, A. 1)avidson ro John Chalmcrs, London, 8 Novcmber 1790; folder 1442, #IO, drafr, k Davidson to John Chalmcrs, London, 21 Oçtobcr 1791: and falder 1457, #2, A Davidson to John Watts, London, 23 July 1796.

record number of 661 vessels sailed from the The increase in shipping was

prirnarily due to thc rapid growth in the Canadian timber trade caused by the Napoleonic

War and, to a lesscr extcnt, the result of a small boom in the trade in Canadian wheat.6

For corrcspondents, the impact of this expanded shipping was clear. As Anne Powell

notcd approvingly from York in Upper Canada in May 1808, "the numbcr of vessels for

ga in and othcr producc [at Qucbec] will afford irequent opportunities [to write to

England]. "7

Thc pattern of shipping in thcsc dccadcs largcly continucd trcnds bcgun slightly

earlicr. A s had hccn thc casc bcforc the Rcvolution, the shipping sçason commonly began

bctwccn latc April and mid-May. Most vcsscls at that timc of ycar werc cntering the port,

but, morc oftcn than formcrly, a fcw ships appcar to have sailcd from Quebec for Britain

in thc spring. Thus, for cxarnple, on 29 May 1792, Elizabeth Simcoe noted, "We walked

twicc this day to Cape Diamond. In thc Morning wc saw a Mcrchant Vesscl sail for

England, the Recovcry, in which I sent lettcrs by Mrs. Toozy to you & other fr iend~."~

Through thc scason of communications, vessels from Britain appear to havc cntcred and

lcft thc pan at Quebec at quite rcgular in t~n-a ls .~ But whereas dunng the French regimc

thc Iast vesseis from Europe had commonly sailcd in Junc or July, they now left Britain as

latc as August or Scptcmber.lo A variety of factors may explain this change, but part of

the rcason may havc bccn that somc vcsscls wcrc likcly spcnding the wintcr at Qucbcc.

'Wilson, Colonial, p. 130. Bciwccn 1791 and 1807, the numbcr of ships at Qucbec tripled. Dufour, "Esquisse de I'cvolution physique du port de Québec des origines ii 1960," p. 52, see also Appendix A.

bFor a sunirnary discussiori of the faciors betiind rhis gowrh in irade sce Ruddcll, Ducbec City, pp. 11-1-15.

'MTPL, Baldwin Room, L16, W.D. Powell Papcrs, L16, Anne Powell Correspondence, Senes A93, [hcrcaitzr rcier-r-cd to as ttic A11ie Pvwcll Corrcspondencc], York, U.C., Anne Powell to her brother G.W. Murray. N.Y., 2 May 1808, pp. 169-72.

'Mary QuayIc Innis, cd., -CS @

. (Toronto: Macmillan of Canada, 1965), çntry fo: Sunday 29

May 1792, Qucbcc, p. 59. Scc also Baby Collection, U 1109, Montreal, Charlotte Berczy to Wiiiiam Berczy, London, 23 M a y 1800 in which shc obsçrvcd "sous peu il [y] aura dcs Vaisseaux qui partirons dc Qucbec."

'Sec the lisis of vcssel eritrics published in successive numbers of the aie- in the spring.

10 Sec for esamplc, MG 11, B-53 (CO. 32, Vol. 88) Q-57-1, London, Lymburncr to Dundas, 10 August 1791. p. 79 in which thc author obscrvcd that "The 1 s t ships for Qucbcc this Season Sail on Saturday and Sunday."

Not having to allow tinic to tum around bcfore winter, such vessels could arrive later in

thc faIl than was othcrwisc thc casc. That vcsscls now sailcd from Canada to Britain and

back is suggcsted by announccrnents such as that in the Ouebec Gw- in late M a y 1787

that thc Carlcton would leave Qucbcc on or beforc the 15 June, and was expected "to

rcturn in the faIl from London to this port."11 Latc departures from Europe for the Saint

Lawrcncc could still, however, bc risky. in mid-May 1787 the OuEhec reported

thc amval of the k d D* which had left London the previous August but, arriving too

latc in the scason to niake the journey up thc Saint Lawrence, had bccn forced to winter at

~a1ifa.u." Through al1 of this, the spccd of ocean travel may have improved slightly.

Thc Ducbcc Gazcttc occasionally rcported wcstward crossings of as littlc as six weeks,

although cight to tcn wccks sccms to have rcmaincd the n o m . In the early nineteenth

ccntury, the spccd of crossings mas have improvcd slightly more.l3

For corrcspondcnts at Qucbcc the pattcrn of shipping rncant that thcy could rcceive

iicws from England at rcgular intervals over more than six months, and that thcy

thcrnsclvcs could scnd off lcttcrs for England ovcr a similar pcriod. Thc numbcr of vesse1

arrii*als and dcparturcs and rhcir comparativcly cvcn spacing ovcr time mcant, furthennore,

that corrcspondcnts wcrc ablc to scnd off Icttcrs much as thcy wishcd rather than having to

w i t for an opportunity to offcr. Indccd, pcrhaps the most striking fcarure of thcse years is

how quickly Canadians could rcspond to lcttcrs. As a casc in point, a notice in the Ouebeç

Gazçttc in mid-August 1785 inforrncd rcadcrs that "a mailw--that is, a bag of "ship

Icttcrs" dcspatchcd on a spccific vcsscl--sent from Britain in carly August was expected to

arrive at Quchcc somctimc around 20 Scptcmbcr, and that corrcspondcnts would have the

chaiicc to writc back to Britain cight to tcn days latcr.I4 This kind of tumaround time

; ' h b c ~ ' u, 17 May 1787.

"SCC for esample, noticcs in LLuçbcc . Ga- .-, , 7 Junç 1787; 31 M a y 1787; and 6 June 1799. Robinson, . . dl 15 Ovcrsc.as, p. 94 riuics, that in the dccadi: and a half bcfore 1815, gadual

iniprovcmcnrs in sailing vesscls had rcsulicd in shonencd Atlantic crossings, but hç is not spccific. Gracme Wynri, "On ihc Margins of Empire, 1760-1840," in - . ~llustratcdf , p. 224, nom that bcforc 1535 passages from Britain to Qucbcc could laît clcvcn to twcivc wccks, and rarely took Iess than thirry Jays. This was stiii an impruverncnt from thc French regime.

had sirnply not been somcthing correspondents had been able to rely upon in the years

following the Conqucst, and it ccrtainly had not bccn a feature of communications in the

Frcnch regime savc by somc lucky coincidcncc of shipping schedules.

Thc end of thc ycar, as always, gave rise to a sense of bustle as the last ships

prcparcd to lcavc and corrcspondents mshed to scnd thcir letters by this final opportunity.

In thesc decades, captains may occasionally have pushed the limits of the season further

than had oncc becn the custom: correspondents rcport a number of particularly late

dcpanurcs for Europc. Two cxamples hclp to highlight the continued danger of such

dclays and also to rcmind us of the rangc of alternatives on which corrcspondents could

now rely. The first cxamplc is that of Malcolm Fraser, a Scotsman at Quebec who wrote a

lctter to Jamcs Kcr in Scotland on 10 Dcccmbcr 1805, "by a vcssel which sails this day for

London (the latest 1 cvcr kncw from this place)..."'s Thc vesscl was, however, stranded

about 35 leagues bclow Qucbcc. Fraser's lcttcr of Deccmbcr was caught in the ice, but on

15 January 1806, hc wrotc Ker again, enclosing a duplicatc of the lettcr of December. It is

not clcar whcthcr this lcttcr went by Ncw York or Halifax. Howevcr, whcn thc lost letter

itsclf was rccovcrcd, i t was "fonvardcd by post [ovcrland] to Halifax in Nova Scotia to be

fonwrdcd from thcncc to Europe and 1 hopc it may corne to hand in duc c ~ u r s e . " ' ~

Similarly, whcn rhc vcsscl Thc B r i d s was lost on thc Saint Lwrence and apparently with

i t a parccl of lcttcrs writtcn 72 Novcmbcr 1791, the mcrchant George Allsopp of Quebec

scnt "duplicates by Packet," probably through Halifax, undcr covcr of a letter writtcn 31

Dcccrnbcr 1703 to his son Carleton in England. Whcn thc originals sent by The R u

wcrc rcturncd to Allsopp, hc scnt thcm on via Ncw York by favour of a Quebcc

ironrnonger, Mr. Hunt, who was travelling to €ngland.17 Thus via New York or

Halifax--by the official mails, or through informal channcls--correspondents now had a

rangc of altcrnativcs to thc mails through Qucbcc.

1s Nairnc Papers, Vol. 1, Qucbcc, Fraser to Ker, Edinburgh, 10 Dccember 1805, p. 373.

1 h I W - ; and sanie ro samc. 10 January 1806, p. 374.

1 : Xlsopp Lcttcrbiiok, Vurbcc, George: AiIsopp io his son Carleton, London, 31 January 1793, p. 59; and sarile io sanic, 1 January 1795, p. 63.

Thc more established of the two routes that served as an alternative to the shipping

at Qucbcc was that through New York. Closed throughout the Revolutionary War, the

Canadian Post Office's officia1 wintcr courier service to New York was re-opened in the

wintcr of 1784-85. Canadian officials encountcred some difficulties in making the

neccssary arrangements. The temtory to the south of the colony was, following the

Rcvolution, part of the newly indepcndent Arnerican republic, and whereas previously New

York and Canada had becn unitcd under a common British North American postai

administration, making it a comparatively casy matter to arrange for a courier from Quebec

to New York, now thc Canadian Post Office had to deal with a forcign ser~ice.'~ . . . .

According to William Smith in his v no^

Anlcrica, Deputy Postmastcr Gencral Hugh Finlay found his Amcrican countcrpart

rcluctant and uncoopcrativc. Instead of bcing able, as he had intended, to send a couner to

Albany with thc Canadian mails and thcn to pay the Amcrican postagc on to New York,

he was forced to arrange for a courier to tnvcl the entire distance, paying a hefty charge

for the privilcge.'9 The difficulties Finlay encountcrcd, or thc historiographie account of

thcni, have caused one üuthor to suggcst that thc route was not in fact rcopened, and

anothcr to conclude that scnticc ovcr it was short livcd."

In fact, thc routc did function throughout thcsc ycars, with the courier making

nionthly trips to New York and back to mcet thc mails from ri tain." Although the

'%ce Anicll, Atlanric pp. 23-29.

15 . .- . -. . . Smith. o i b c Post W a c in_ Britisti No-, pp. 80-81. Smith statcs that Finlay

p i c i 3 shillings sterling F r uuxice of mail including the bag in waylcavc for the privilcge of sending his own couricr to New York. This added, according to Ameu, & d c A a h . p. 29, "at least a shilling in postage to cach Ictter, cvcri bcforc thc cost of thc couricr was includcd."

Lcc, "The Canadiari Postal Sysicm: Origins, Ckowih a d Deçay of the State Postal Function, 1765- 1981," (PhD Diss., Carleton University, Ottawa, 1989), pp. 53-51 sccms to bclievc that the route was not in facr rcopcned. Arthur Hccht "Uniicd Statçs-Canadian Postal Relations of the 18th Ccntury" New Y d HEWQL, Vol. 38, no. 3, (July 1957). pp. 245-46 suggests that thcse difficultics Icd to the discontinuation of servicc ovcr the route. Smith himself, aftcr descnbing Finlay's strugde, focuses on the hpe tus he feels Amcrican intransigcncc gavc to Canadian intercst in the dcvelopmcnt of an alternative routc through Halifax. Iic largcly ignores the operation of thc New York route and, in doing so, Ieaves the impression ihat the Posimast~.r had rievcr managcd io c~~ablish anything very effective.

"Sce thc advcrtiscrnenrs for the wintcr mails via New York throughout this pcriod in the I)iicbec, as for esample the issu~s of 3 April 1788, 13 Novcmber 1788, 18 Dcccmber 1788, 2 April 1789, 3 December 1789, 39 January 1790, 17 Novcmbcr 1791, and 22 Deccmber 1791.

packets sailcd to Ncw York monthl y ycar-round, the courier service operatcd only between

Novcmbcr or Dcccmbcr and March or April, whcn the navigation in the Saint Lawrence

was closcd." Merchant needs clearly rcmained the pnmary impetus behind the Post

Office's wintcr scrvicc. In a lctter to his wife in New York scnt by the winter courier from

Quebec in Novcmber 1786, the ncwly appointed chief justice of the colony, William

Smith, explained that the mail was being "dispatched on Purpose to give the Commerce the

Opportunity of the Ianuary Mail [to ~alrnouth] ."~ As Governor Dorchester recognized in

1787, unt il the route through Halifax--which had just bccn opened--was better developed,

"part of the mercantile corrcspondcnce will continue to be carried on by New York; for

which rcason it wil! bc advisablc for thc prescnt to kccp up that comrnunicati~n."~~ The

cost of scnding Icttcrs to New York, and the difficulties Amcrican authontics sometimes

madc ovcr the passage of Canadian lctters through their territory, weighed heavily on at

lcast somc. in a lcttcr to his wife at New York in 1786, William Smith complained of the

"cxtortionatc postage thro' your States" and "othcr Absurdities" which he observed would

soon "drive the Falmouth Packcts to a more hospitable port."s

Thc conclusion of a formal postal convcntion with thc United States in 1792 helped

to rcsolvc many of thc tcnsions that had plagucd postal relations with the Amcricans

through the Intc 1780s.'"n placc of the prcvious, expcnsivc service, that required Finlay

to scnd his own couricr cil1 the way to Ncw York, thc Canadian packet mails had now only

22 In gcncral, ihc firsi mail advertised w a for Decçmber to meet the January packet to Falmouth. See the OLI~~XLGUXE, 7 Dcccmbcr 1786 and also 13 Novcmber 1788. The 1 s t mail could be advertised for March, for which sce thc -bec G w , 2 March 1786 or April, for which sec the Q&xc Gazerte, 24 March 1785. Sce also the QUebcc . Gd~cfte ,-. , 3 Apnl 1788, which describes thc packet schcdule following the opening of thc packet scrvicc IO Halifax.

- - - - . 01 C l u c U u x c W i l l i a m , Vol. 2: er 6 1785 -

. . -, ceditcd by L.F.S. Upton (Toronto: Thc Champlain Society, 1965). Quebec, William Smith to his wifc Jrinct, N.Y., Novcmbcr 1786, pp. 200-201.

2 4 ~ ~ 11, B-39 (C.O. 32, Vol. 51)- Q-38, no. 37, Quebcc, Lord Dorchester IO Lord Sydney, 3 October 1787, p. 153.

. . llllam, Vol. 2, Quebec, Smith IO his wife, Novcmbcr 1786, p. 200. Sec alsu same io samc, 16 Novembcr 1786, p. 200.

%IC convention of 1792 expired in 1791. Communications continucd without cxplicit agreement for many ycrirs undçr ihc samc plan. Scr MG 44, Scrics B, Vol. 1, GPO, P.M.G. Jos. Haversham to [Hcriot?], 27 Ocrober 1800, p. 35.

to bc carried to Albany, whence they would pass in a closed bag through the American

Post Officc and bc assesscd the rcgular Amcrican postage for their passage through

Amcrican territory. These letters--the North Amencan postage prepaid at Montrcal or

Qucbec--would be delivered to thc British packct agent at New York, whose

responsibility it was to place them directly onto the next packet boat for Britain? The

Canadian packet mails, howevcr, onIy passed through New York dunng the winter months.

The rcst of the year, as we shall see, they went through ~alifax."

Thc convention also gave Canadian correspondcnts routine access to the American

postal systcni ycar-round. In 1792, a rcgular mail was establishcd on a fortnightly basis

from Quebcc and Montrcal to Burlington, Vermont, the ncarest Amcrican Post Office.

Aftcr 1797 this courier opcrated on a wcckly basis.19 This scrvice allowed Canadians to

send local lcttcrs to thc Unitcd States, but thcy could also use it for transatlantic

corrcspondcncc by dirccting thcir lcttcrs to the care of an agcnt at New York, who could

thcn fonvard them eithcr by the packet boat or by the regular shipping to Britain. This

had the particular advantage ovcr the Canadian packct mails that it allowed correspondents

to write far morc frcqucntly, since thc commercial shipping at Ncw York provided weekly

, 28 Novcrnber 1793. Sec also MG 11, B-57 ( C O . 42, Vol. 92) Q-61-2, New York, Thomas Mackancss to S. Bernard, Whitehall, January 10 1792, p. 158 for a description of thesc arr;tngc~ncnts. Mackancss was rhc British pckc t agent at New York. The convention is also desaibed in

- - . . . . Smith, The of fhç Pos-~ftict m nrilrsh No-, p. 90.

2Fl Sec k h c c a, lS01. ï h e packct still sailcd to New York the rcst of the year; it just did not carry the Canadian packet mails. Lettcrs could stiii be sent by the packet io New York, but thencc they had to bc carried privately or through the Amcrican Post Office to Canada.

It is unclcar whether the Canadian packet mails stiil came ihrough New York during the mid-1790s whcn the packet stopped ai Halifax in thc winter. Arncll, Transatlantic Md, p. 32, suggests that, ùcginning in 1806, thc New York bound winier packets stopped at Bermuda and that the Halifax and Canadian mails were oitcn disçmbarkzd thcrc and forwardcd to Halifax where the Canadian mails were carried overland; or altcmativcly both thcsc mails wcrc scimetirncs carried on IO Ncw York and thcn up to HaLifax whence the Canadian mails again came ovcriand. Nçither thc Oucbcc nor the Ouebec Ga- suggest that this was thc praçtiçc for thc Canadian mail as a whole, which in winter was still adveniscd as going through New York. A. wç shall scc bclow, howcvrr, the oftïcial mails and despatches for Quebec were always sent ovcrlanci through Yalifax and ncver ovcrla~id from New York.

2 9 ~ u e b c c Gazcrtc. 20 Deccmber 1792. See also Ouebçc, 1796, p. 107, and OucbecAlmanac, 1797, p. 105. Thc transition from a fortnightly to a wcekiy servicc is rcflected in the O u e b m , 1799, p. 41.

opportunitics to ri tain." In addition, letters despatched by private shipping could be

sent as "ship letters" for far less cost than the rcgular packct mails, or even more cheaply

by handing them over directly for inclusion in the ship's bag.)' For mcrchants, in

particular, thc use of thc rcgular shipping rnay have been particularly attractive;'*

ccrtainly many of Our correspondcnts dependcd routinely on New York agents to manage

thc rcccipt and despatch of transatlantic correspondence. Theophylact Bache, a merchant

at Ncw York, scrved as thc Montrcal merchant Pierre Guy's agent in this p e r i ~ d . ~ ~ He

also actcd as an agent for many othcr concspondents on both sidcs of the Atlantic. In

April 1797, George Bcckwith of London told Jonathan Sewell at Qucbcc, "any letters sent

to Mr Thcop'le Bachc at Ncw York will find thcir way to me."" The Rcv. Charles

Cotton, who livcd ncar the bottom of Lakc Champlain, also rcceived lctters by mcrchant

vcsscls to New York which had been put into the Amcrican mails by "Thos. & Andrew

Bachc" of Ncw York, likcly the samc merchant firm."

Thc Post Officc wris clcarly instrumental in providing Canadians with routine

acccss to the British packcts and the rcgular shipping at Ncw York in this pcriod. The

Dcputy Postmastcr Gcncrril, Hu& Finlay, obscwcd in 1779 that "nothing contributes so

much to thc bcncfit of Commcrcc as spccdy and wcll rcgulated intercourse by P ~ s t . " ~ ~ in

lobbying thc Post Officc for improvcmcnts in thc frcqucncy and spccd of thc mail service,

thc mcrchants and othcrs in thc colony indicatcd that thcy agrecd that thc Post Office's role

%C -, 1S01, p. 131 notcd ihar this would givc Canadian correspondcnts access to wcckly opporrunirics at New York for England.

3 1 ~ ~ c , for csaniple, NAC, MG 24 J17, Rcv. C.C. Cotion and Farnily Papers [hercafier the Cotton Papers], Dunham L.C., CC. Coiton to tiis sistcr Anna, 32 Fcbruary 1812, pp. 160-61.

3 2 ~ e l I , TransarIanric Mail, p. 33 argucs that most commercial letiers went by private shipping.

33 Scc, for csample, Baby Collcction, U 918, Ncw York, T. Bache to P. Guy, Monireal. 12 July 1792.

Y S ~ w ~ I I Papers, Vol. 3, London, Gcorgc Bcckwith IO J. Sewell, Quebec, 11 April 1797, pp. 1094-97. Sec also Baby Cullection, U 921, New York, T. Bache to Messrs Grant Campion and Co., Montreal, 9 July 1793 which açknowlcdgcd rcccipr of thcirs of the 22 May and the 4, 3, and 22 fune which had been ïc)rwarded on ihc ship EuDhrasi;i IO Bristol.

3s Cotton Papcrs, Mississquoi Bay, Lowcr Canada, C.C. Cotton to his Father, 31 March 1807, pp. 122-24.

36~aldimand Papas, BM 21,860, Qucbec, Finlay to [?], 2 Scpiember 1779.

was an important one.)' Dcspitc this, however, it is evident that many colonial

corrcspondents avoided using the Post Officc's scrvice in sending their letters between the

Saint Lawrcncc and New ~ o r k . " Indccd, in 1801, the new Deputy Postmaster Generai

for British North Amcrica, Gcorgc Heriot, obsçwcd that "by far the greater number of

Lcttcrs from Canada for New York, are conveyed by w, and there put into the

Post Office io be fonvarded to England."39 Thus, for example, the Quebec merchant

Gcorgc Allsopp invariably sought out private opportunities by which to send letters both to

and through Ncw York, largcly in ordcr to avoid the cost of postage." Indeed, on one

notcworthy occasion ALlsopp cntrustcd his lcttcrs to the Dcputy Postmastcr himself, who

was thus dcpriving his own office of rcvcnuc. In January 1794, George Allsopp explained

to his sons, "An uncxpcctcd opportunity offcring for England by Our fricnd Mr. Finlay, 1

addrcss you jointly in an open Lctter, which hc will scal, a prccaution I take to obviate the

difficulty aris'g from his having thc direction of the post offic~."~' Even letters that

corrcspondcnts wantcd to have travcl rctatively quickly could bc sent by what appear to bc

circuitous pnvatc routcs. Thus in Fcbmary 1808 Stcphcn Scwcll at Montrcal dcspatched

somc lcttcrs on bchdf of his brothcr Jonathan Scwcll at Qucbec with a mcrchant travelling

to Troy. Ncw York. Thcrc, hc informcd Jonathan, the lctters wcre to bc sent by post to

3 '~ce, for csample, MG 11, i3-12.5 ( C O . 12, Vol. 144), U-115, Whitehall, W. Fawkener 10 Peel, 23 April 1811, p. 112 which encloses a copy of a mernorial from certain British merchants respecting the intcrior cornmunicarions of British North Amcrica, dated 26 January 1810, pp. 121-25, and G. Heriot's report thcrcon of 8 October 1810, pp. 113-30 with othcr relatcd correspondcnce. Sce also MG 11, B-124 (CO. 42, Vol. 112), Q-113, no. 31, Quebcç, Craig to Liverpool, London, 19 November 1810, p. 90.

3 7 h e corrcspondcnçc bctwecn Chicf Jusricc William Smith at Quebec and his wife, Janct, in New York st)iin aiicr ihc Rcvolution rcvcals somcthing about thc availability of opporiuniiics bctwcen rhc two territories. Smith--a lawycr and prominçni politician in colonial New York who had fled to Britain in 1783 when the 13ritisli forces had evacuated ihr: colony's chicf port--haci just arrivcd at Qucbcc in the fall of 1786 and hopcd rhat his wife and family whom he had lcft brhind somc years bcfore would join him in the spring. Mcanwhile, he urgcd hcr: " k t me hcar from you ofrcn; as suon as the Lakes are fiozen the intercourse will br: incessant, and therc may bc chancc Opponuniiies thro' Vcrmont bcsidcs."

, Vol. 2, Qucbec, William Smith to Janet, 28 October 1786, p. 195.

-MG tl, Series B, Vol. 1, Qucbcc, Hcriot to [?], [London?], 1 January 1801, p. 37 [the emphasis is niincl.

4 J Ailsopp Liierbook, Uucbcc, Gcorgc Allsopp tu his son John, England, 25 May 1793, p. 13; same to his son Carlztcin, England, 35 Ociobcr 1793, pp. 25-27; and sami: to his son John, London, 16 April 1796, pp. 148-51.

4 : Ibid.. Ouetxc, Allsopp to his son, 31 January 1794, pp. 33-35.

Scwell's father-in-law at Albany, who had been instructed to send thcm to Boston or New

York and on to England without delay."

Throughout much of this pcriod, ncws and lettcrs sent through New York seem to

havc reachcd the colony in as little as two months, which was noticeably faster than had

becn the case prior to thc Arncrican r e ~ o l u t i o n . ~ ~ The spccd of communications was

cvidently a concem for many. Whcn, for example, thc January packet mails arrived a

wcck late at Qucbec, the merchants and others in the colony complained vociferously to

the local a u t h o r i t i ~ s . ~ By 1810, incrcasing mcrchant complaints about the speed of

communications promptcd cxtcnsivc dcbatc among Post Office officiais."

The Halifax routc, as thc prcvious chaptcr describcd, had been used throughout the

Anicrican Revolution to carry the winter mails from Canada to thc Atlantic. As we have

sccn, thc scwicc ovcr this routc was intermittent, slow, and costly, but, with the Ncw York

route closcd, crucial. At the War's end colonial mcrchants had argucd strongly in favour

of rc-establishing the Ncw York mails, but Govemor Haldimand had begun to think

scriously about putting thc Halifax routc on a permanent footing. His motive had largely

to do with sccurity. It was, he argucd, highly undcsirablc for Canadians to be dcpendent

upon a coniniunications routc that passcd ovcr foreign tcmtory as the route from New

York now did. Canadian mails--particularly officiai dcspatchcs--could al1 too casily be

tampcrcd with and would bc liablc to disruption if war broke out again. Instcad,

Haldimand argucd for the "grcat Utility of opcning a commodious Route from this

J'Sewell Papers, Vol. 4, Montrcal, S. Sewell to J. Scwell at Qucbcç, 29 Fcbruary 1808, pp. 1826-29.

"SCC, for csample, S 2 u L . k ~ G a , 18 Dccembcr 1788, 16 May 1798, which noied the arrival of news oi spccific dates h m London via New York.

UScc, MG 11, (C.O. 32, Vol. E l ) , Q-9, Qucbcc, Milncs to Hobart, London, 30 March 1803, p. 117 cnclosing a copy uf a lcttcr Ncw York, Moore to Hcriot, 23 Fcbniary 1803, p. 133 both of which had to do with the late arrival of the pricker mails through New York that January which Milncs observed "had caused somc dissatisfaction in the Mcrchants of this province."

JSSce, for cxampk, MG 11, B-125 ( C O . 12, Vol. l*), Q-115, WhitehaU, W. Fawkcner to Peel, 23 April 18 11, p. 112 which cncloscs a copy of a mcrnorial f ~ o m certain British mcrchants respcciing the iniçrior communications of Brirish Nonh Amcrica, datcd 26 January 1810, pp. 121-25 and other related corrcsp~mdencc. pp. 113-30. Sec also MG 11, B-121 (C.O. 12, Vol. 112), Q-132, no. 31, Quebec, Craig to Liverpool, Loridon, 19 Novcmber 1810, p. 90.

238

Provincc to Halifax in ordcr to sccurc a certain and speedy Communication bctween the

two Provinces in al1 seasons with thc Mother Country, indepcndent of that by New

York."46 His proposal met with considerable official enthusiasm, and work began on

improving the traditional routc from the Saint Lawrence over the Temiscouata portage to

the Madcwaska Rivcr and down past Grand Falls to Fredericton, whence letters would be

forwardcd to Halifax4'

In the interim, the authorities at Qucbec announced thcir intention of relying on

occasional couricrs to carry lcttcrs ovcrland bctwccn Quebec and Halifax while the

navigation was closcd, as thcy had donc throughout the Rcvolution;" on at least one

occasion the courier was advcrtiscd for thc bcncfit of thc public in the Ouebcc G a z e t d g

During this pcriod, howevcr, whcn privatc correspondents werc able to send letters

routincly through Ncw York, coIonial officiais sccm at timcs, by virtue of their mistrust of

the New York routc, to havc bcen left without an effective opportunity for winter

communications. In a lcttcr for London writtcn at Qucbcc 10 February 1786, Henry Hope,

thc Licutenant-Govcrnor of Lowcr Canada, apologizcd for not having writtcn to the

Sccrctary of Statc, Lord Sydney, sincc 14 Novcmbcr 1785, cxplaining that he had been

kcpt from doing so sincc thc closc of navigation bccausc hc did not consider the

'"In addirion ro conccrns ovcr sçcurity, hç argued that the establishment of a regular courier to Halifax would rcpraent a swing bccause it would iree the govemment fiom thc enormous expense of dependence upon Acadian couriers. See, in panicular, Haldimand Papcrs, BM 21,810, Bl50, General Haldimand to Govcrnor Parr, 22 J U ~ C 1783, pp. 270-21. Set: aiso BM 21,810, B150, Governor Haldimand to Govcrnor Parr, 26 Novcmber 1783, p. 593; BM 21,810, sarne to same, 27 Novcrnbcr 1783, p. 592; and BM 21,7U, Rccl A-664, fo. 29, samc to samc, 1 March 1781. Haldimand's successor, Lord Dorchester [formerly Sir Guy Carleton] similarly strcsscd ihat communications through Ncw York wcrc "not reckoned quite sccure." MG 11, B-39 ( C O . 32, Vol. SI), Q-28, 13 June 1787, Quebec, Lord Dorchester to Lord Sydney (no. 25). p. 35.

"0ri official suppin for thc plan scc Haldimand Papers, BM 21723, Reel A-664, f.29, Haldimand to Govcmor Parr by Mercure, 1 March 1753. Work began during the summcr of 1783 on improving the route. Scc Haidimanci Paprs, BM 21,885-2, B 225-2, (Rccl A-779), fo- 223-25, report of Jean Renaud, a road survcyor. Finlay travcllcd ihc roule in rhc summrr of 1787 and preparcd a report on the work that had been donc, t'or which sce Finlay Paprs, "Drait Rcpon to Lord Dorchcstçr, 30 Aues t 1787," and copies of related cor-rcsporidcncc, pp. 6 1-72.

"SCC Haldimand Papcrs, BM 21,810, BlSO, (Rcel A-732), Haldirnand tu Govcmor Parr, 26 Novcmber 1783, pp. =1-32, in which hc commentcd that until the road w u ready, "We musi submit to the Inçonvcnicnce of cmploying Such mcsscngers as wc have hitherto done."

"V, 13 January 1785.

convcyance of public letters by New York io be safe. Hopc only wrote on this occasion

bccausc hc was able to scnd his lcttcr by favour of "a person of confidence going to New

York who has cngagcd to delivcr my Letters on board the March Packet for England or to

the British ~ o n s u l . " ~ ~ Evidently the same constraint was felt by his British counterparts.

Early in April, Sydney wrote to Hope via the shipping to Quebec, explaining, "The Season

of the Ycar not having admitted to a direct communication with Quebec since you were

invcstcd with the office of Lieut Gov'r of that province but through channels which were at

bcst prccarious--1 have deferr'd till this moment acknowledging the receipt of your Letters

from 1 to 10.""

Thc ovcrland routc to Halifax was opencd in 1787. The Post Office cstablished an

officia1 couricr service bctwccn Quebec and Halifax, which operatcd every two weeks in

the summcr and monthly in wintcr." The next year, in the spring of 1788, it was

announccd that the Ncw York packet would stop at Halifax monthly between March and

No\-cmbcr with thc packct mails for Canada, which the couricr would bring overland to

~ u c b c c . ~ ' Bccausc the Admiralty considcred Halifxx inacccssiblc in wintcr, thc packet

did not go to Haiifax during thc wintcr months but rather continued to sail to New York;

thc Canadian packct mails wcrc carricd thencc ovcrland to Montreal as noted above."

ZO MG 11, B-35 ( C O . 32, Vol. 19), (2-26-1, no. 11, Qucbcc, Hopc to Sydney, Whitchail, 10 Febmary 1786, p. 92.

51Scc MC; 1 1, l3-3s (C.O. 42, Vol. 49)- Q-26-1, Whitchaii, Sydnçy to Hope, Quebec, 6 April 1786, p. 7'.

S '~ce MG 11, U-39, ( C O . 12, Vol. 51), Q-28, no. 75, Quebec, Lord Dorchester to Lord Sydney, London, 13 Junc 1787, p. 3. Scc also Finlay Papcrs, "Draft Report to Lord Dorchester, 30 A u p s t 1787," pp. 61-72.

S30ucbcc Ga=, 30 April 1788. See also MG 11, B-57 (CO. 42, Vol. 92) Q-61-2, New York, Thomas Mackancss tu S. Bernard, Whitehaii, 10 Ianuary 1792 p. 158. On the timing of al1 of this see Smith, . . . .

of thc Pest ~fficc uiLNorth, pp. 85-86. Sce also Arnell, &hkM&iMails, pp. 34 -35.

*on thc adniiralty's poirii of visw scc Finlay Papcrs, "Draft Report to Lord Dorchester, 30 August 1787," an csiraci from a lcitcr of 13 February 1781. Scc funhcr, ihc opinion of the agent at Falmouth on conditions at Halifax in winrrr, MG 44, Scrics B, Vol. 1, GPO, London, (Frceling?] IO the Postmasters General, 16 Octobcr 1813, p. 161, wliich is pari of a correspondencc: promptcd by Gçorge Prcvost's suggestion that the packcts sail to Halilàs ycar ruund during ihc War of 1812. Part of his concspondcnce is in MG 3.1, Series C, I'ost 44, A-1356, Vol. 3: "instructions to Postmasrers," Downing SI., Henry Goulbum IO Francis Freeling, 15 Ocrober 1813. in wintcr, whcn the Packct sailed dircctly to New York, the Halifax mails were left there IV bt. carried by coastal vesse1 up to Halifax. For a tirnc the merchants of Halifax provided their own ship

Thc rcsult was thc crcation of a seasonal schedule that saw the Canadian packet mails

dçspatchcd through Halifax for sevcn or eight months of the year and New York for the

rcmaining four or five months."

Mails cvidently wcrc, howcver, also scnt through Halifax to England in the

~ i n t c r . ~ ~ Frequently in the 1790s and early 1800s, the Duebec G-e advertised mails

for England via Halifax. On 1 November 1798, for example, the Post Office placed a

notice informing the public that "The winter mails for Europe by the way of Halifax will

hc closed on thc following days, at 4 o'clock, P. M." on 14 Novcmbcr 1798, 12 Dcccmber,

9 Jmuary 1709, 6 Fcbrunry, 6 March, 3 April, and 1 ~ a y . " in a rather different

csaniplc. thc Oucbcc Garcttc of 7 January 1794 contained a notice that "a mail" for

England would closc on the 4th "to be fonvarded from Halifax in the Packet-boat that

H J ~ I I sail from thertce for Falmouth on Wcdnesday the 5th of ~ e b r u a r y . " ~ ~ It is dificult to

specify prcciscly what the nature of thesc arrangements may have bcen bccausc

contemporary records arc vaguc; but it c m bc suggcsted how thcse opportunities may have

functioncd. 111 the first instrincc, for a bricf pcriod following thc outbrcak of war with

Frrincc in 1793, Britain sccms to havc allowcd thc packcts to sail to Halifax in winter,

providing an opportunity for correspondents to write by the packet mails cither to New

York or to Halifaxlg At other timcs, it is likcly that thc mails dcscnbed as going to

England through Halifax in wintcr wcrc scnt to Halifax ovcrland, and thcnce forwarded,

for ihc purposc. For a discussion of thcse arrangements, scc Arncll, Atlantic, pp. 23-25.

" ~ h i s rcrnairicd thc siandard pattern for which sçc the Que.br;E,;ilmanar;, 1801, p. 131.

S%ce, for csamplc, Nairne Papcrs, Vol. 1, Qucbec, Fraser to Kerr, Edinburgh, 10 December 1805 and 10 Juiuary 1806, p. 771. Sce also Allsopp Lcticrbook, Quebcç, George Allsopp to his son John, England, 1 January 1795, p. 63.

n m b e c CF-, 12 Novcrnbcr 1795. Sec similarly notices in the issues of 5 Novcmber 1789, 2 Fcbruary 1792, 1 Novembcr 1798, 18 Novcmbcr 1802, and 16 February 1804.

a=, 2 January 1794 [the emphasis is mine].

"MG 21, Serics 13, Vol. 1, Lngstori U.C., Sir Gcorge Prcvost IO thc Earl of Bathurst, 12 August 1813, pp. 162-63. Thc correspondencc filcd hcrc includcs a note confirming the accuracy of his assertion, GPO, Loriclon, [Frcclinge!] thc Postmasicrs Gcneral, [16?] Ociobcr 1813, p. 161; and a lettcr from Downing Street, I-icriry Goulbum io Frçeling, 15 October 1813, p. 160, approving the decision to scnd the packcts directly to Halifax that wintcr. Corrcspondciits in thcsc: years appear to have bccn ablc to chose bctwecn the Halifax and New York routcs for which sce, Alsopp Letterbook bctween 1791 and 1796.

along with the mails from Halifax, cither to New York or Bermuda, for the British packet

thcrc. This was certainly the practice followed throughout these dccades for the

con\.cyancc of official mails to Britain, and it is likely that the route advertiscd allowed

privatc corrcspondcnts to wntc by this or a similar o p p ~ n u n i t y . ~ Canadian

corrcspondcnts clcarly also sent lcttcrs by private shipping through Halifax. Phiiatelic

evidence provides the examplc of a lctter of 16 November 1798 sent by the winter courier

to Halifax and then by private ship to England where it arrived 15 April 1799.~' Such

opportunitics cxistcd ycar round dcspite thc Adrniralty's belicf that HaIifax was

inaccessible in wintcr, but access to them would prcsumably have required the use of an

agent. According to Smith, oncc thc packct boats bcgan sailing to Halifax, the Post Officc

thcrc was rcluctant to scnd Icttcrs by commercial vcssels as "ship letters."" Overland

bctwccn Quebcc and Halifax, nlost of Our corrcspondcnts used the Post Office semice, but

it is cvidcnt that local lcttcrs, at lcast, could bc sent by privatc opportunities, and

transatlantic letters may occasionally have bcen sent by the same mcans."

Thus Canadians had, throughout rnuch of this pcriod, thrcc routcs by which they

could dcspatch or reccivc Europcan corrcspondcnce. Thc first through Quebec was opcn

bctwccn April and Novcmbcr. Eithcr pnvatcly or through the Post Office as a "ship letter"

dcspatchcd on a comrncrcial vcsscl, Canadians could scnd off lcttcrs from late spnng to

600n the arrangement made for the Govcrnment's despatches see MG 44, Series B, Vol. 1, GPO, London, Frccling to [The Postmasters Gcneral], 26 May 1801, pp. 50-51; and Frceling to [?], 3 June 1801, p. 53. . . For a somcwhat vague description of these arrangements see Robinson, British_Mail-, p. 91. For a latcr discussion of thc usc of Bçrmuda scc MG 11, 8-151 ( C O . 32, Vol. 196), Q-166-1-2-3, (no. 139)' Qucbcc, Dalhousie to Wilmoi, 3 Junc 1823, p- 371.

O 1 - . . . Scc Stcinhart, I l h u ~ ~ d Clinadi;ui PusraLLiisluqr, "a cover daied Novembcr 16, 1798 from Quebec to Loridon. England." Sec also an csamplc of an Atlantic covcr written in London England on 8 October 1784 and scnr to Quebcc by private ship and thencc through the Post Officc from Halifax to Qucbec in

rv So-, Vol. 78 (June 1993), p. 117.

6 2 H ~ cites the cornplaint of the admirai of the Leander that the Postrnaster refuscd to send mail by his ship. Rccord Office, Admiralty-Secretary, In Lctters, Bundle M73, quotcd in Smith,

. . -, pp. 86-87.

a %c currespondçncc of ihç Sewell family serves 3.5 a case in point. Sec, fur example, Sewell Papers,

Vol. 2, Si. John, Scwcll Sr. to J. Szwell. Uucbcc, 3 Novcmber 1789, pp. 566-69; Vol. 3, St. John, J. Sewell's ~iioihcr io Scwcll, Uucbcc, 32 March 1790, pp. 621-21.

latc fa11 and rcccive letters sent off fiom England bctwecn February or March and

Septembcr. While thc scason was open they could altematively send their letters by the

Post Office courier to Halifax for the monthly packet, privately to therc or New York, or,

aftcr 1792, through thc Post Officc to New York. Once the shipping to Quebec closed,

corrcspondcnts posscssed fcwcr but still a range of options. They could write via the

Canadian packct mails for New York despatched by the Canadian Post Office, privately for

the samc port, or--at least somc of thc time--through the Post Office for Halifax and

thcncc to England.

a

Contcmporary corrcspondcnts did not rcspond equally to the routes and

opportunities availablc to thcm for thc dcspatch of their lcttcrs. Whilc thcir letters reveal

an alniost infinitc rangc of individual patterns of communications, it is possible to discem

thrcc broad catcgorics of corrcspondcnts. Thc first group compriscs those Canadians who

wrotc almost cxclusivciy by the shipping at Qucbcc, and as a rcsult confined their

corrcspondcncc largely to the scason of navigation, writing rarcly, if at all, in winter. The

second group prcferrcd to use the shipping at Quebec and wrote the bulk of their letters

during the navigation scason, but madc occasional usc of alternate routcs in winter. The

1ast group niaintaincd an active corrcspondcncc ycar-round; they made rcgular use of the

shippins to Qucbcc in scason, but aIso rclicd hcavily upon thc altcrnatc routcs, oftcn

scnding lettcrs via Ncw York or Halifax cvcn in the summcr. Thc diffcrcnccs in the

bchaviour of corrcspondcnts in thcsc thrcc groups are most obviously attributable to

diffcrcnccs in thcir nceds and mcans; but bcyond this, it can bc suggested, correspondents

brought widcly diffcrcnt cxpcctations to the proccss of communications in this pcriod

which shapcd thcir vcry diffcrcnt usc of the opportunitics bcfore thcm. The common

clcnicnt amongst this divcrsc conimunity was thc importance to al1 corrcspondents of the

shipping to Qucbcc during the scason of navigation in the Saint Lawrcncc. Abovc alI, the

scasonal rhythm of cornniunications to Qucbcc continucd to shape the corrcspondcnce of

al1 Canadians. So too, as WC shall sec, did thcir awarcncss of the pcrsistcnt dangers that

bcsct Atlantic corrcspondcncc.

Thc first group of corrcspondcnts is bcst cxcmplificd by the Nairne family of

Murray Bay and thcir rciativcs and agent in Scotland. Thcy rclicd almost cxclusively on

thc rcgular shipping to and from Qucbcc, and made use only in extraordinary

circumstanccs of thc New York or Halifax routes in ~ i n t c r . ~ As a rcsult, the family's

corrcspondencc was strongly seasonal. Thus, for example, John Nairne on a visit to

Scotland in 1795 wrotc a letter to his wife Christy at home in Murray Bay, in which he

noted that he had already written "a long letter" to her and their daughter Madie two weeks

prcviously by London, and would scnd this by a vesse1 which was to leave Leith in a few

days. Hc obscncd,

You may bc scnsiblc, my Dcar, that I have donc my Duty in respcct to wnting to sou, having also not ncglectcd so to do, last fa11 [by the last vcssels], which 1 hopc you rcccived. Madic's lctters of last fall, camc safc to my hands, which was very satisfactory and wctl wrote, and 1 expcct to have the same satisfaction this fai 1 .65

During thesc years most of John Nairne's childrcn spent some time at school in Scotland,

and thcy similarly wrotc to thcir parents and siblings only during the shipping season.

T h u s whcn Jack was too busy to writc to his parents in March 1790, his sister Christina

told thcir oldcr sistcr Madie, who was at home at Murray Bay: "he will write to you next

springVw " Whcrc possible, the family and thcir friends tcndcd to scnd lctters by the direct

shipping bctwecn Scotland and ~ u e b e c , ~ ' but they also sent lctten through Liverpool and

London whcn thcrc wcrc no local opportunitics. For cxample, on 26 April 1796, John

Yairnc's sistcr ,Madie wrotc a Icttcr from Edinburgh to hcr brothcr at Murray Bay to inform

hini of thc dcath of his daughtcr Annic, agcd 12, of tubcrculosis whilc shc was staying

with his faniily in Scotland. The lcttcr was scnt to Glasgow, but misscd the boats for

w Family friends occasionally scnt lcttcrs by othcr ruutcs. For a lertcr by the packet sec Naime Papers, Vol. 1, L~ndon, Malcolm Frascr to Madic Naimc, 16 Fcbruary 1796, pp. 191-92.

bS It~id., Vol. 1, Ediriburgii, John Nainic to his wifc. Murray Bay, 25 April 1795, pp. 156-59. See si~ililarl>~ Vol. 1, Muxra). Bay, Nainic tu Madic at Qucbcc, 20 Octobcr 1800, pp- 21336; Edinburgh, John N ~ I I I ~ L ' , 11) C'hrisly m J Madic Nairnc. Murray lhy, 30 March 1788, pp. 93-96; same io samc, 5 Apnl 1795, pp. 113-15; and also Scotland, Jrimcs Kcr to Nairnc, Murray Bay, 20 July 1797, p. 223.

661bid., Vol. 1, Ediriburgh, Christina Nairnc io Madic Naime at Murray Bay, 13 March 1790, pp. 103-6.

"ibid., Vol. 1, Edinburgh, Nairne to his wik, Murray Bay, 25 Apnl 1795, pp. 156-59; Edinburgh, James Kcr to John Naimc, Murray Bay, 20 March 1801, pp. îS9-62; Edinburgh, James Kcr to Malcolm Fraser, [lS?j March 1803, pp. 302-5; Edinburgh, James Kcr to Malcolm Fraser, Murray Bay, 21 Apnl 1813, pp. 673-75: and Vol. 2, Edinburgh, J a m s Ker to Mrs Nairne, Murray Bay, 26 July 1815, pp. 826-27.

Qucbcc and was rcturncd to Edinburgh. Madic then addcd a postscript on 7 May and sent

the lctter off agnin, this timc to London whcre it was put on board a vesse1 for Quebeca

It was generally only in the case of an ernergency that the family made use of

eithcr the Halifax or New York route.69 in thc spnng of 1802, John Nairne had written a

numbcr of lettcrs to Scotland complaining of il1 health. "Part of my inward machinery ... arc now so wore out and must soon finish thcir functions," he told his sister in a letter sent

"by thc first ship in casc 1 should not be able to write later." The lettcr was reflective in

toile, cvidcntiy mcant to senc as a farcwell." He scerns to have wntten in much the

samc vein to his friend and agent James Ker in Edinburgh latcr that month. Ker received

that lcttcr datcd 20 April, and another of 3 Iunc on 1 August, and was so alarmcd that he

immcdiatcly sought the advicc of a prominent Scottish physician on Nairne's behalf. Three

days later, Ker wrotc a lcttcr to Naimc cnclosing the Doctor's diagnosis and a prescription.

Custornarily, Kcr would havc simply scnt a responsc by the shipping to Quebec, whether

from Scotland or London. But hc was impaticnt and the scason was latc. Thus, while he

dcspatchcd a first copy "W Port Glasgow with ordcrs to put it aboard a Ship for Quebec if

an. still rcmain for this scason," hc cxplaincd that if no vesscl werc still at Glasgow for

Qucbcc, hc intcnded to dcspatch it by a merchant vcsscl "for New York whcre it will bc

fonvardcd pcr Post and I hopc will rcach you bcfore Wintcr scts in." He made a copy at

thc samc tirnc which hc announccd hc would scnd "by thc North American monthly

~ackct."" Nairnc in fact had dicd in Iatc July and dunng that wintcr Kcr fclt obligcd to

writc again by Halifax on rnattcrs conccrning his fricnd's affairs, but thcrcaftcr his

66 Ihid., Vol. 1, Edinburgh, Madie Nairnc to John Nairne, care of John McCord, merchant, Quebec, 26 Xpril 1796, pp. 301-1; Scoilririd, John Nairnt: to his wifc Chrisry at Murray Bay, 25 A p d 1795, pp. 156-59.

O'9 Sec t o r csamplc ibid., Vol. 1. Edinburgh, Mridic Nairnc ro Nairne's wifc Christine, 23 May [1796], pp.

197-300. This lzttrr, as thai of 26 April 1796 scnt through London citcd above, announced the death of hcr daugliicr Annio.

'OIbiJ., Vol. 1, Murray Bay, Juhn Naime tu his sistcr Madie in Scoiland, 20 April 1802. pp. 277-80.

"lhid., Vol. 1, Edinburgh, kmes Kcr to John Naime, Murray Bay, 4 Auyst 1802, pp. 285-88.

correspondencc reverted to type and most of his letters were despatched in the spring by

the shipping fiom Leith and Gre~nock?~

The Montrcal lawyer Arthur Davidson, also originally from Scotland, was more

inclincd to usc thc wintcr mails but still relied almost entirely upon the shipping to and

from Quebec in his correspondence with his sisters and his agent overseas. The letters he

rcceived wcre wntten largely in the spring, and those he sent were written in the summcr

and fall. He only occasionally received letters despatched by other routes, and himself

scnt lctters outside thc scason cvcn more rarely. When he did so, he evidently continued

to conccivc of communications as a naturally seasonal phenornenon and to view his own

usc of 3 wintcr routc as cxccptional bchaviour. Thus in late Fcbruary 1796 Davidson

acknowledgcd a lctter from his sistcr Elizabeth of 13 July 1794 and apologized for not

having rcspondcd to it bcforc, cxplaining, "The fact was, when I received it ... by the

Packct to Halifax, the opportunity of writing by the Shipping from this country was over

for that season." Thc ncxt season, however, he had becn too busy to write and it is clear

that at last hc fclt hc had lcft it too long and so wrotc in the middle of winter and scnt his

lcttcr to Ncw ~ o r k . ~ '

Davidson did, for a timc. rcccivc a London ncwspaper regularly by the packet

throush the auspiccs of thc Post Office, but hc canccllcd the arrangement on the grounds

that it was vcry costly and thc papcr did not arrive as rcgularly as hc would have liked.

Thcrcaftcr, hc had his London agent, John Chalmcrs, arrange to have it sent to him by the

shipping to Quebec, expressing thc hopc that,

by giving thc waitcr of the Qucbec Coffcc Housc somc small gratuity he may forward it from timc to time by putting it into thc scveral ships bags thcre during thc course of thc Navigation to Qucbcc, directed, as 1 have bcforc mcntioned to Mr James Tod mcrchant thcrc, ris opportunitics by the Shipping may offer; and so

n ~ c e for cxample, ibid., Vol. 1, Edinburgh, Ker to Col. Malcolm Fraser, Mount Murray, 3 April 1811, pp. 490-93. A rare exception is Qucbcc, Malcolm Fraser to Jamcs Kcr, Scotland, 9 February 1811, pp. 373-74.

nDavidson Corrcspondcncc, folder 1333, ü22, Monireal. A. Davidson IO Elizabeth Innes, Aberdeen, 29 Fcbruary 1796. Othcr cxamplcs of lcttcrs sent in wintcr arc, folder 1133, # I l , Draft, Montreal, A Davidson to [his sisrcr] Elizahcih Davidson, Abcrdecn, 16 Novcmber 1785, which was to bc carried to New York; hlclcr 1442, #J, London, John Chalmcrs to A. Davidson, Montrcal, 6 Fcbruary 1788; folder 1442, #I l , draft, Monilcal, A. Davidson io John Uialmers. Loiidon, 7 Deccmber 1791, scnt by the New York packet; and also tiddcr 1112, #15, draft, Monireal, A Davidson to Nelly Chalrncrs, Lundon, 8 Decembcr 1797.

to cxcmpt you, at the same time, from as much trouble as possible, which 1 am anxiously desirous

A number of factors help to explain Davidson and Nairne's pattern of

correspondcnce. Davidson, in particular, made it clear that he considered the COS^ of

writing in wintcr to bc the chief disinccntive to year-round communications. In July of

1793, Davidson acknowlcdged a lctter from his brother William dated 15 May 17W. The

lctter had not arrivcd until 9 Novcmbcr, which Davidson noted "was too late for the retum

of any of the ships last season fiom this country; and to have written to you in the winter

by way of Ncw York, would have unavoidably put you to too much cxpense, as the

postage of lctters so scnt cornes very high."" The samc consideration may have

influenccd the Nairnc farnily, which sccms to have always becn conscious of money. At

t hc samc timc, personal factors may have hclpcd to shapc thc pattern of thcir

correspondcncc. John Nairnc was disinclincd to maintain any but thc most perfunctory

conncction with çither his wifc or childrcn whcn thcy wcre apart, and this undoubtedty

hclpcd to shapc the family's culture of corrcspondence. Davidson, in tum, seems to have

bccn willing to usc the excuse that the shipping season was ovcr, to delay writing to his

siblings. Bcyond thcsc two factors, what hclps to distinguish Naime and Davidson from

thc corrcspondcnts in eithcr of the othcr two groups is their apparent complacence in the

facc of thc scasonal limits on communications- Although cach had corne to the colony

froni a community whcrc ycar-round conlmunications wcrc possible, ncithcr convcys the

inlprcssion that hc felt a scnsc of loss or irritation ovcr not being able to write in winter.

Indccd, both thcsc men sccm to have adaptcd thcir cxpcctations to accommodate the limits

of thc scason of communications at Qucbcc.

Thc sccond group of corrcspondcnts madc occasional use of the Ncw York or

Halifris routes in wintcr, but gcncrally lcft the bulk of thcir correspondencc to the season

of iirivigation whcn thcy could correspond more chcaply through Qucbec. Charles Cotton

cmigratcd to thc Unircd Statcs from England in the latc 1790s, cvcntually cstablishing

74 Ibid., foldcr 1442, #5, draft, Montrcal, A. Davidson to John Chalmcrs, London, 21 October 1789. Davidson, of course, would only rcceivc thc papcr during the season of navigation in the Saint Lawrence as long as i t was forwardcd to him by thc shipping to Quekc and not through New York.

"lhid.. foldcr 1135, #1, Monircal. draft, A. Davidson to [his brothcr] WiIliam Davidson, 3 July 1792.

himsclf in 1804 as an Anglican priest and farmcr at Mississquoi Bay ncar the bonom of

Lake ~ h a r n ~ l a i n . ' ~ Living so closc to the Amencan border, hc had particularly easy

acccss to the New York rouie. Indeed, during the winter, he often sent one o r two ietters

to his family by way of New ~ o r k , ~ ~ and al, rcceived letters through there. At the end

of March 1807, for examplc, he acknowledgcd letters wntten 26 December 1806 and 2

January 1807 which had reached New York on 16 February and were forwarded by the

"Northern Mail" on 14 March to amvc on 26 ~ a r c h . " Whik he used these alternate

routcs, he gencrally scnt the bulk of his lcttcrs by Qucbcc during the scason of

na~igation. '~ For Cotton, the primary attraction of the Quebcc route was clearly its iower

cost. On 22 Fcbruary 1812 he scnt a letter to his sister Anna through New York,

cxplaining that this was his only option as long as the Saint Lawrcnce was closed.

However, as hc cxplained, hc wrote only a single lettcr--that is a letter comprising a

single shcct--which hc scnt as a "ship letter." He did not include "the usual enclosures"

bccausc the cost of postage would havc bcen far too high. Rather, hc promised, "After the

rivcr has opcncd & thc Ships bcgin to leaw this country for England, 1 intcnd wnting to

scvcral of the family undcr the usual enclosurcs."" Evcn through Qucbcc, Cotton found

the burdcn of postage oncrous, and he ncver wrote as fully or as happily as he did when

able to scnd his lcttcrs postage-frce or at the vcry lcast frec of inland postage.81

- - ' "DU, Vol. 7, s.v."Cotton, Charlcs Calçb."

77 III one o i his ïirsr lcucrs froni Mississquoi Bay ro his sister in England hr: cornrnented that he had no othcr mcans of scnding his Iciiers than io "Jepend on somc of my friends ~[florwarding it a s a Ship Letter from ihe Coffce House at Philadclphia," Cotton Papcrs, Mississquai Bay, C.C. Cotton to his sister, 31 Dcccmbcr ISM, pp. 118-19.

7a Ibid., Mississquoi Bay, C.C. Cotton to his fathcr, 31 March 1807, pp. 12-24 ; and Mississquoi Bay, C C . Cotion to his father, 13 Septcmber 1809, pp. 14738 in which hc acknowledgcd lettcrs written in Dcccmbçr and January.

74 Ibid., Dunham L.C., C.C. Coiron IO his fathcr, 31 January 1810, pp. 148-51.

"it~id., Duriham L.C., C C . Cotiori io his sistcr Anna, 22 Fcbruary 1812, pp. 160-61. See aIso Dunham L.C., CC. Li)tiuri io his sisicr Aina, 36 July 181 1, pp. 155-56; and Mississquoi Bay, C.C. Cotton to his Fathcr, 22 March 1808. pp. 127-28.

S 1 Ibid., Dunham L.C., C C Cotton to his sistcr, L.A. Cotton, 21 July 1807, pp. 119-21; and C.C. Cotton ru his farhçr, 22 March 1808, pp. 127-28. Sec also C.C. Cotton IO his fathcr, 26 August 1808, pp. 13830, in which hc announced an arrangement by which hc hopcd to be able to avoid the cost of inland postage and pss ib ly also ihc cos1 of postage IO Britain; C.C. Cotton IO his fathcr, 31 January 1810, pp. 148-51; and C.C.

Charlotte Berczy wrote to hcr husband William, the Montreal painter and

rninirtturist, via the New York packets during the winter of 1799-1800 when he was in

~ n ~ l a n d . " However, whcn the navigation was open she gencrally wrote instead by

Qucbec, and anticipated lcttcrs from him by this route.83 On 22 May 1800 she noted

with pleasurc, "sous pcu il aura des Vaisscaux qui partirons de Quebec." In this letter sent

through Ncw York she noted the cost of postage and observed that their son could wait to

writc to his fathcr by the vessels at Qucbec, which would be cheaper." in contrast to the

Nairncs or Davidson, she was unwilling to rcstrict hcrself to a purcly scasonal

corrcspondcncc. lndçcd, shc wris upset whcn thrit winter she had barely heard fiom her

husband. "[Mlon tendre ami, jc nc puis comprcndrc pourquoi tu me prive de tes chcres

nouvelles," she complaincd, "Tu n'ygnore quc tes prccieuscs Lcttrcs sont l'unique <baumes

à mes p e i n c ~ . " ~ ~

Mrs. Simcoe, whcn at Qucbcc in the winter of 1791-92, also wrote regularly to

England by thc mcrchant vcsscls sailing from thcrc, and only lookcd to the New York

route to bring her lcttcrs during the wintcrag6 In an intriguing passage she givcs us a

scnsc of thc estent to which the Qucbcc routc still functioncd as thc premier connection

with thc colony. Writing in Fcbruary 1792, Mrs Simcoc rcgrcttcd not having heard from

hcr corrcspondcnt, Mrs Hunt, by the Novcmbcr mail, but commcntcd, "1 doubt not that you

thought (as 1 did whcn in England) that thcrc was no communication with Quebec but in

the s u r n r n ~ r . ' ' ~ ~

C'citton t o his S~SICC, Mar), J . Coiron, 27 July 1807, pp. 130-31, in which hc hoped to take advantage of a govcrnmcnt job his fathcr had just taken in order to rcceive letters postage ficc from his family.

s2Baby Collection, U 1308, Montrcal, Charlotte Bcrczy to William, London, 5 Dccember 1799; sec &O

U 13W, samc to samc, 22 May 1800, sent via New York.

=Ibid., U 1337, Montreal, Charlotte Berczy to William, 28 June 1799 and 10, 23 Suly 1799. An csccpticin was a lcttcr scnt by a privatc opponunity to New York, U 1107, samc to same, 26 Octobcr 1799.

"~bid., U l W Y , Charlotte Bsrczy to William, 22 May 1800.

Db x . Innis cd., . e - , 13 Novcmbcr 1791, p. 39; 39 May 1792, p. 59.

67 Ibid., Uucbcc, E. Simcoc to Mrs Hunt, Wolford, 13 Febniary 1792, p. 48.

Thcsc corrcspondcnts, thcn, unlike those of the first group, felt the impcrative of

kccping in touch with friends and family ycar round. Thcy wcre not willing to be cut off

during the wintcr scason, and unlike Nairne and Davidson feit a significant degrec of

irritation whcn thcy wcrc. Al1 thc samc, nonc of them was willing or able to pay the

ncccssary sums for the satisfaction of sending and receiving frequent lctters in the winter,

and each limited the amount that they wrote as long as the navigation was closed.

The third and final group comprises those correspondents who wrote year-round,

reguiarly scnding thcir lcttcrs through New York or Halifax as wcll as through Quebec.

Thc nierchant Gcorgc Allsopp was onc of thcsc. When his sons were overseas pursuing

thcir own and the faniily's commercial intcrcsts, hc wrotc thcm routincly during the scason

of navigation and madc a policy of kccping in touch with thcm during thc wintcr. Late in

May 1793 Allsopp acknowlcdgcd a lettcr from his son John in England, "by way of

Halifax and Ncw ~ r u n s w i c k , " ~ ~ and almost two years latcr on 1 January 1795 he pledged

to writc him, "by the Packct via Halifax which goes hcnce the day after t o m o r r o ~ . " ~ ~

Indccd, AIlsopp comrncntcd to John in Fcbruary 1796, "1 trust you will not omit any

Halifas ~ a c k c t s . " ~ In contrast to the sccond group, what distinguishcs the third is the

routinc quality of thcir wintcr comniunications, as Allsopp's rcquest to his son suggcsts.

Within this third group, thcrc was much individual variation. In thc first instance,

although thcsc corrcspondcnts wcrc unitcd by thcir dcsirc to wntc rcgularly through the

wintcr, thcy diffcrcd from one anothcr in how frcqucntly they wrotc. At onc cxtrcmc,

somc corrcspondcnts rclicd cxclusivcly on thc monthly packct mails--whethcr bccause of

thcir rcgularity or easc of acccss--rcsulting in a distinctive monthly rhythm of

communications, particularl y in wintcr?' William Cruisc, the London fricnd of the

E.8 Allsopp Lcttcrbook, Uucbec, Allsopp to his son John, London, 25 May 1793, p. 13.

&Y Ibid., Quebec, AlIsopp to his son John, England, 1 January 1795, p. 63.

wIbid., Qucbcc, Allsopp io his son John, England, 20 Fcbniary 1796, pp. 130-31; sec also, same to same, 30 JUIIC 1796, pp. 144-45.

v 1 G c r q c Alsopp and his sons tcnded to wri~c monthly by the packcts for which sec, ibid., G. Allsopp to his son John, 25 Octobcr 1793, pp. 3-27; G- AlLsopp to his son Carleton, 25 October 1793, pp. 25-27; G. Ailsopp ro his son John, 22 Novembcr 1791, pp. 11-16; G. Allsopp to bis son John, 27 May 1795, pp. S 3 4 6 : Ci. Allsopp ILI his son John, 3s Ocrobcr 1795, p. 105-6. Scc: also, "Quclqucs Prêtres François cn exil cn Canada," Wfl, 1966, Qucbec, Pienr: G u c l et P.J.L. Desjardins à M. de Varicourt, France, 4 March

Attorney-General of Lowcr Canada, William Osgoode, maintained a ngid monthly

correspondence. Thus, for example, in February 1796 he told Osgoode that he had written

hinl a long lcttcr by the Octobcr packct; cnclosed several others and a fcw lines by the

Dcccmbcr packet; and that he had meant to have wnttcn by the January packet but went

away for the holidays "whcrc they kcpt me until after the Packet ~ a y . " " The importance

of thc monthly packet to many corrcspondents is similarly reflected in their common habit

of prefacing the announcement to their friends of some piece of news with the observation

that thc packct had arrivcd. Thus, for instance, on 25 January 1796, Jacques Baby of

Montreal informed his uncle François: "Nous avons reçu la Malle de Novembre hier au

soir, par la voic dc la Nouvcllc York," which had brought ncws of the War in ~ u r o ~ c . ~ ~

At thc othcr cnd of the spectrum, somc corrcspondcnts were unwilling to limit

rhcmsclvcs to a nlonthly opponunity and sought to writc more oftcn. Thc (auebeç

m a n a ç addrcsscd itself to this group when, after 1800, it annually rcmindcd Canadian

corrcspondcnts that, in addition to thc monthly packet mails to Ncw York, they could, by

writing through thc Amcrican Post Office through Burlington--or as wc arc awarc, by

scnding thcir lcttcrs privatcly to thcir Ncw York agent--acccss thc shipping at Ncw York

by which thcrc wcrc wcckly opportunitics to ~ n ~ l a n d . "

Sccond. while thc corrcspondcnts in this g o u p were distinguishcd by thcir

willingncss to rcly hcavily on alternative opportunitics to supplcment the shipping through

Qucbcc, thcy varicd sipificantly in whcthcr they prcfcrred to usc the Ncw York or Halifax

routc. In part, of coursc, which routc a correspondent uscd was dcpendcnt upon what was

availablc: in ccrtain wintcr New York was the only accessible option?' Also, thosc who

1707, p. 114, in whiçh Faihcr Picnr: Gazcl obscrved ihai he was forccd to write in haste because ihere would rio1 hc d11olhc1 qqxmunity lu: ;L niorith.

"'NAC, MG 23 H 1 10, William Osgoode Papcrs, tilc #2, Lundon, William Cruise to Osgoode, Quebec, 3 Fcbruary 1796, pp. 185-93.

v3 Baby Collection, U 686, Jacques Baby to his unclc, François Baby, Quebec, 25 January 1796.

W Scc -, 1501, p. 131 and ihe vcry simifar notice in following editions cach ycar rhcrcaftcr.

<iS Sec. for irisiancc, Allsopp Lcttcrbook, Quebcc, G. Alsopp ro his son John, England, 25 May 1793, p. 13 iri which hc rl-iarlc ii clear thai ihr only upponunity ihat wintcr had been through New York-

chose to rely upon the Canadian packet mails had the decision made for them; their letters

followcd the schedule set for the service and were camed for four months in winter

ovcrland through New York and during the rest of the year overland through ~al i fax ."

Othcrwise, corrcspondents could choose by which route they wished their letters to go.

Thcir choicc was a conscious one, and revealed much about their pnorities and resources.

Of thc two routcs, that through Ncw York was consistcntly faster, bringing news to

Montreal and Quebcc significantly earlier than the route through ~ a l i f a x . ~ ' Over the

lattcr, as Hugh Finlay obscrvcd in 1784, conditions werc so rudirncntary that the mails for

a long tinlc "must bc drag'd on hand sleighs by men on snow shoes, a painid & slow

modc of lourncying in W i n t ~ r . " ~ ~ Dcspitc efforts to encourage scttlemcnt on the

Tcmiscouata portage and clsewhcre, and work donc to transfomi the path into a road, the

tcrritory through which the Qucbcc-Halifax route passcd would continue for a long time to

be harsh and sparsely s~ t t l cd . ' ~ In Novcmbcr 1791, George Allsopp told his son John

that hc had bccn unablc to find subscribers for British ncwspapcrs on behalf of the

Sccrctar), of thc British Post Officc, Mr. Frccling, bccausc colonial rcadcrs complained that

thcg did not arrive rcgularly, "bcing dctaincd on the road from Halifax hither by the weight

bcing too grcat for thc Couricrs who go part of the way on f ~ o t . " ' ~ Mails sent through

Halifax consistcntly arrivcd at Qucbcc later than thosc sent through New York, as the

Go\-crnor pointcd out in 1803 when hc rcccivcd his dcspatchcs via Halifax some

considcrablc tinic aftcr thc ncws thcy containcd had alrcady rcachcd thc colony via Ietters

mis pattern is paniçularly cicar in the Allsopp Letterbook.

Y? Sce, for csamplc, MG I I . B-39 (C.O. 42, Vol. 51), Q-28, no.37, Quebec, Dorchester to Sydney, 3 Ociobcr 1787, p. 152.

Y6 On conditions over rhc routc sec Finlay Papcrs, "Draft Rcpon to Lord Dorchester, 30 August 1787," prcprircd by Finlay ''on his rctum frorn cxamining thc Post route from Qucbcc to Halifax," p. 61-68. The ~ U O I L ' is Ïroni an estract of a lcttrr of 5 January 1781 writicn by Finlay included in his report, p. 69.

w On the efforts to improve this route sec for instance NAC, RG 8, British Military and Naval Records, Scrics C, Vol. 235, Red C-2863, fol. 168-69, G. Herioi to Noah Freer, 13 December 1811. In the mid- 1820s and carly 1830s efforts wcre made to improve the route benvccn Halifax and Quebec and in the course of discussions of the mattcr, carlicr efforts to dcvelop thc routc wcre discussed. Scc, for cxample, RG 8, Scrics C, Vd. 285, Reel C-2863, fol. 167, Quebcc, DPMG Daniel Suthcrland to Lt Col. Couper, 29 Octobcr 1838; fol. 171-72, sarne to same, 22 Septcmber 1828.

IUO Alsopp Lcrtcrbook, Quebec, G. Allsopp ro his son, John, 22 Novembcr 1791, pp- 44-46.

from New ~ork . ' " Whilc the specd ovcr both routes would improve, the dixrepancy

rcmained. In Novcmber of 1810, Gouemor James Craig informed Lord Liverpool that the

mails customarily took fifieen to sixteen days by courier from New York whereas they

gcnerally wcre a month en routc overland from Halifax. Craig told the story of a Mr

Pcrcival who had travclled from England on the August packet, "staid at Halifax 5 days,

was ninc on his Passage from thcnce to Ncw York, where he also remained 4, or 5' days,

and ihcn travcllcd by land from New York hcre, and announccd the arriva1 of the Packet 3

days bcforc wc got Our Lctters [which had becn lcft by thc Packet at Halifax and carried

~\~cr land to Quebec]."'"

Thc spccd of communiwtions over thc New York route cvidcntly made it the

favourcd channcl for commercial correspondcncc. Hugh Finlay observed in 1784 that the

colony's mcrcliants rcmaincd "fixcd in their rcsolution" to correspond with Europe through

Ncw York becausc thcy could obtain ncws from Europe "sooner by months" than was

possiblc via ~alifax."' Contcmporaries clcarly acccpted it as the routc by which

mcrchants would scnd thcir Icttcrs, and discussions of scrvicc over it gencrally focuscd on

mcrchant c o n c ~ m s . ' ~ But whilc merchants may have bcen the prirnary group in whose

intcrcst the routc to Ncw York was maintaincd, other corrcspondents also took advantage

of it.los

Othcr corrcspondcnts rclicd consistcntly upon thc Halifax routc, despite its

cornparativc slowncss. In thc first instance, thc public mails and despatchcs secm, as a

'OISce MG 11, B-71 (C.O. 33, Vol. 121). Q-91, Qucbec, MiInes to Hobart, 30 March 1803, p. 117.

102 MG 11, B-123 ( C O . 42, Vol. 142), Q-113, no. 31, Qucbcc, Craig to Liverpool, 19 November 1810, pp. 91-92. Thc purposc of his lcttcr was to arguc that times over both routes could be improvcd but he was clcarly ccrtain that New York would rctain its comparative advantage for many ycars. Craig argucd that a travcllcr çould make the trip from New York to Montrcal in seven days and with "proper arrangement" the distaricc frorn Halifax could bc covcred in sixtecn or scvcntcen days.

103 Sce Hugh Finlay Papcrs, "Draft Rcpon to Lord Dorchester, 30 August 1787," extract from a Ictter ~vrirtcri hy Hugh Finlay io ('!]. 12 February 1781, p. 69; cstract from a leticr "from thc Mercantile body at Moritscsil" to Finlay, 26 May 1783, p. 70; and an cxiract irum a lctter Finlay to Mr. Todd, 11 December 1786, p. 71.

lMSec, for instance, MG 44, Serics B, Vol. 1, Qucbcc, Hcriot to [?], Britain, 1 January 1801, p. 47; and London, Frccling IO [?], 3 Junc 1801, p. 53.

'OSscc the cxamplc of William Cruise, a lawyer, in his correspondcnce with William Osgoode in the Osguude Papcrs.

mattcr of policy, to have becn carricd consistcntly through Halifax whcn the shipping to

Qucbcc was closcd. In 1801, thc Sccretary of thc Gencral Post Office, London, Francis

Frceling, explained that, even when the packet sailed directly to New York, the despatches

and lcttcrs for the govemcnt in Canada were forwarded, "as opportunity offers," to

Halifax and thcnce overland to Qucbec, despite the fact that the route was "tedious,

irrcgular, and most unccrtain" in that season. From time to time, it was suggested that

public lctters should bc rcgularly conveyed overland from New York in winter on the

grounds that thc govcrnmcnt would rcceivc ncws much more rapidly, but officiais in

Britain were clcar that, whilc it might bc acccptablc for pnvatc and commercial letters to

go through thc United States, it was no more acccptablc for official papers to do so then

than it had bcen whcn Haldimand had originally promoted the idca of developing the

Halifax routc. Thc safety of officia1 despatchcs required that they bc carricd ovcr British

tcrritory.'" This mcant, of course, that colonial merchants and other private

corrcspondcnts rcccivcd thcir lcttcrs bcforc thc govcnuncnt's officia1 dcspatchcs rcached

thc colony which had thc potcntial of giving colonists an information advantap.lm At

timcs, this was mitigatcd by the fact that particularly important dcspatchcs wcre

occasionally scnt by spccial mcsscngcr bctwecn Quebcc and New York; howevcr this was

costly and thus not possiblc to do al1 the tirne."

Sccond, rilthough the Postmastcr, Hugh Finlay, had obscned in 1784 that: "The

Public sccms so prcjudiccd against thc Nova Scotia routc, that no one but in case of

ncccssity will writc to Europe by Halifax, convinccd that the old way will be thc best and

spcedicsr convcyancc, until thc projcctcd road is complctcd and thoroughly s c t t l ~ d , " ' ~ ~

' 0 6 ~ ~ 31, Scries D, Vol. 1, G.P.O., London, Frccling to [?], 26 May 1801, p. 50. On the same arrangements and similar dcbatc somewhat latcr sec a long series of letters in the early 1820s in RG 8, Senes C, Vol. 385, Reel C-3862, New York, Packct agent Moore io Lt. Col. Darling, 9 Apnl 1822, fol. 63-65; samc to same, 8 Fcbruary 1823, fol. 75-77; [Bermuda?], Wiiliarn Smith to Rcar Admiral Fahic, 11 April 1527, fol. 90.

'"%cc for csample MG 1 1 , I3-151 ( C O . 42, Vo1.196), Q-166-1-2-3, no. 129, Dalhousie to Wilmot, 2 Junc Ig3, p. 37 1; and l3-15 1 (CO. 42, Vol. 1971, U-167-1-2, GPO London, Freeling to Horton, 14 August 1523, p. 330.

109 Scc Finlay Papcrs, "Draft Repon to Lord Dorchcstcr, 30 August 1787," extract from a letter of 5 January 1783, p. 69.

many private corrcspondents, including some colonial merchants, relied heavily on the

Halifax m u tc. "O Mcrchant intcrcsts wcrc, indecd, Hugh Finlay's chief preoccupation

whcn he had to rnake adjustmcnts to the Halifax mail schedule in 1799."' The primary

appeal of the Halifac route was undoubtedly its lower cost. Letters carried overland fiom

Qucbec to Halifax and then on by packet to Britain went entirely over British temtory,

with the rcsult that the postage was considerably lcss than if the same letters were sent to

New York by thc Amcrican Post Office and on to Britain from therc. George Allsopp, as

WC ha\re alrcady seen, wos pcrennially conccrncd to limit the cost of his postage. Through

thc 1790s. hc rcpcatcdly counsellcd his sons to write by the Halifax packets instead of via

New York bcwusc they cost lcss. Thus, whcn hc wrote to his son John in London in

April 1796, hc acknowlcdgcd lcttcrs of Novçmbcr and Dccembcr sent through Ncw York

but notcd the cost of the Amcrican postage and concludcd, "unless material business write

via Halifax which passcs only over English ground.""' For Allsopp the route had the

additional advantagc that hc could somctimcs managc to scnd lcttcrs postagc-frce by

scndinz thcm undcr covcr of London corrcspondcnts posscssing thc pnvitcgc of franking

thcm."' This was son~cthing many wcll-conncctcd corrcspondcnts tried to arrangc, and

as the frank applicd only to Icttcrs carricd through British tcmtory, it privileged this

routc.ll4 In the vcry carly 1790s. when thcrc was no packct mail through Halifax in the

"*Sec. for csanipIc, Naimc Papcrs, Qucbcc, Thomas Nairne to his sister Chrisiine, Murray Bay, 12 Novc~iibcr 1Si 1, pp. 537-40. Thc Qucbcc incrchani Gcorgc AIlsopp rclicd almosi exclusively on the Halifax ruuic. Sce for insiancc, Alsopp Lcrtcrbook, Qucbcc, G. Alsopp [O his son John, London, 1 January 1795, p. 63 in which hc plcdgcd ro wrirc to his son "by the Packct via Halifax- which goes hcnce the day aher tomorrow"; and samc to samc, 30 February 1796, pp. 130-31.

'llRG 8, Serics C, Vol. 233, Red C-2362, fol. 10, 30 April 1799, GPO, Qucbec. Finlay to Major Green, Hcad Quartcrs.

112 Allsopp Lttcrbook, Quebcc, G. Allsopp to his son John, London, 16 Aprïl 1796, pp. 132-33.

''?'le privilcgc of franking was an ancient onc which allowed those possessing it--which included pustriiaslcrs, various govcrnmcnt oilïccrs, r i r d somc oihcrs-IO scnd lcttcrs through the Post Officc postagc- trec.

11.1 Sec, h r insrance, Allsopp Lcrlerbook, Qucbcc, G. Ailsopp ro his son John, London, 20 February 17%, pp. 130-31; sec rilso, samc tu srimc, 3 Jrinuary 1795, p. 64.

dcpths of wintcr, Allsopp was inclined not to write rather than to pay the cost of postage

through thc United S t a t c ~ . " ~

The final respect in which corrcspondents in this group diffcred is in how they

managcd thcir corrcspondcnce in summer. Some corrcspondents wrote year-round by

Ncw York or Halifax, simply wnting also by Quebec once the navigation season was open.

Georgc Allsopp, for example, commonly acknowlcdged letters fiom his sons by the

packets while the navigation was open as well as during the winter.'16 It is hard to know

why corrcspondcnts continucd to usc these routcs: contemporaries dwell primarily on the

advantages of thc Qucbcc route and Say littlc about thc appcal of these alternatives. The

packct, howcvcr, whcthcr through Ncw York or Halifax, had the advantage of reguiarity

and predictability. It was ccrtainly the sirnpler option: correspondcnts did not nced to

know anything about the intricacics of commercial shipping schcdules. Finally, the New

York and Halifax routes may havc offcred important supplcmcntary opportunities by which

to dcspatch lcttcrs on thc cdgcs of thc season at Qucbcc whcn shipping in one or the other

direction across thc Atlantic was limitcd. Ncithcr, howcvcr, sccms to have had the

advantagc of spccd. During the scason of navigation in the Saint Lawrence, news and

lcttcrs sccm to have tro\vAlcd most quickly via Quebcc.lL7 Othcr corrcspondents uscd

ncithcr the Ncw York nor the Halifax route oncc thc navigation in the Saint Lawrence was

opcn, but instead wrotc cxclusivcly by the shipping to Qucbcc as long as i t was

~ a i l i n g . " ~ This group includcd not only privatc corrcspondcnts but public officiais too.

In 1792, for cxamplc, Sir R. Hughcs commcntcd, "1s not no. 2, May 2, for Qucbec gone

i l 5 Sec, t'or insrance, ibid., Ci. Nlsopp to his son John, 3 January 1795, p. 64; same to same, 27 M a y 1795, pp. 83-86.

116 Ibid., Uuebcc, George Allsopp IO Carleton Allsopp, London, 25 Ociober 1793, pp. 25-27. See, sirnilarly, Scwcll Papcrs, tondon, Mcssrs Watson and Co. IO Scwell, Qucbcc, 28 July 1798, pp. 1186-88; sariic ro samc, 22 January 1800, pp. 1351-53; and sarne to same, 15 July 1801, pp. 154û-41.

"'0ncc thc shipping opcncd at Qucbcc rhe -bec Ga- appcars to have commonly received the most recerit n c w by vcsscls sailing dircçtly to the port rathcr than through Burfington. See, for exampfe, the

c Gazcric, 16 May 1799 and also thar of 19 Junc 1799.

11s Scc, for csample, Scwcll Papcrs, Vol. 5. Qucbec, Edward Bowen to J. Scwell, London, lune 1815, pp. 2382-85; and same tu same, 21 Septcmber 1815, pp. 3541-41.

by a pnvate Ship? It is of conscquence that al1 Letters for Quebec dunng the Summer

should go by privatc Ships directly to ~ u e b e c . " " ~

Thc diffcrenccs amongst correspondents in this third group can secm large enough

to cast doubt on the appropriatcncss of combining these letter-writers in a single category.

What distinguishcs thesc correspondents as a group, however, boom those in the previous

two categorics is thc crucial fact that they accepted, more or less, the imperative of winter

communications, and that they had the necessary resources to maintain a reguiar

corrcspondencc with Europe in winter.

A common thrcad that runs through the cxpcriencc of correspondents in al1 three

catcgorics is the continucd importance of the shipping to Qucbcc during the season of

navigation in thc Saint Lawrcncc. Qucbcc rernained through this penod the best and

prefcrrcd route for conimunications during thc season of navigation and thc route by which

thc grcat bulk of letters continucd to pass in and out of the colony. Its supenority was

both clear and cnduring: in 1830 thc Halifair Postmaster obscrved that his Quebec

countcrpart had assurcd him that the advantages of the Quebcc route wcre such that

"During Sç-;n Months of thc ycar thcrcforc, no possible could arise to the Canadas,

if thcrc was no con\.c>mcç by Packcts, cithcr from Halifax or Ncw Y ~ r k . " ' ~

Thc contiiiucd iniportancc of the shipping at Quebec resultcd in the pcrsistcncc of a

distinctive scason of communications boundcd by the opcning and closing of navigation in

the Saint hwrcncc. Timc and again correspondents in England bcgin their Ictters with the

announccrncnt that thc dcparturc of the "spring ships" for Canada has prompted them to

wxitc."' In Canada, the spring continucd in many instanccs to bc a time of anticipation

11'4 MG 44, Scrics I3, Vol. 1 , "Kcporis from P.M.G.," 26 May 1793, Sir R. Hughes, p. 231.

"OSce MG 44, Seri- I3, Vol. 2, Halifax, John Howc IO the Earl of Dalhousie, 5 March 1820, p. 330. Scc siriiilarly MG 1 1 , B-172 (C.O. 42. Vol. Zl), Q-196-1-2-3, 29 March 1830, Stewart to Hay, Treasury, pp. 85-113, enclosure no. 2, a notc written by the DPMG at Qucbec, Stayner, 17 Novcmbcr 1829, in which Iic obscrvcd, "al1 rhc Mcrcanrile corrcspondcncc in Winter ... [gocsj via New York and in Summer by the Rivcr." Sec also MG 11, B-159, ( C O . 12, Vol. 211) Q-178-1-2, GPO, Freeling to Horton, 26 Octobcr 1536, pp. 218-40.

12iseC, for csamplc, Sçwcll Papcrs, London, Brook Watson and Co. to J. Scwcll, Quebec, 22 January 1800, pp. 1351 -33, in which thcy promised: "Wc shall wrire you morc fully in al1 Our Concems by the Spri~ig Ships."

whcn corrcspondents waitcd cagcrly for the arriva1 of the first vessels in the Saint

Lawrence. in late May 1800, for example, Charlotte Berczy commented "On attend

incessamment l'arrivée de quelques Vaisseaux dc Londres et je dirigerai ma conduite en

consequcnce des nouvelles qu'il doivent immancablement apporter...."'" Dunng the

months that the shipping rcmained open many correspondents, whether or not they

continucd to writc through the year, wrote and despatchcd the bulk of their Ietters. Thus

in the fa11 of 1786 William Smith at Quebec complained to his wife at New York that he

had hundrcds of lettcrs to writc to his English friends but fcarcd he would have to neglect

somc from his inability to write to al1 beforc the last vcssel s a i l ~ d . ' ~ In the colony, the

rtpproaching end of thc scason of navigation invariably prompted corrcspondents to

rcnicmbcr to writc a last word--if onlg a last word by the ships. Thus on 30 October

1815 Edward Bowcn commcntcd to his fricnd Jonathan Scwcll, who was then in England,

"Thc scvcrc frost and hcwy fa11 of snow which WC have just cxpcricnccd, naturally remind

onc of thc propricty in losing no timc in addrcssing those kind Fricnds in whom we feel an

intcrcst on the othcr sidc of the Grcat Lakes." He hurricd to do so that year as he had the

prcvious fa11 cvcn though his common practicc was to follow this "last letter" of the season

with othcrs writtcn through the winter.""

Thc othcr quality that tinkcd al1 corrcspondcnts in the colony was thcir continued

rtwarcncss of thc vulncrability of thcir lcttcrs. Vcsscls continucd to run the risk of

shipwrcck or, throughout thc 1790s whcn Britain and France werc at war, of encmy

capturc.'" In Ausust 1798, for cxarnplc, Herrnan W. Ryland wrote from London to

ILUaby Collcctiun, U IlW-J, Monircal, Charlotre Bcr~zzy ro William Bcrczy, London, 22 May 1800. This was h c t . t h n VCSSC~S co111nio111y arrivcd.

. . iIliamSmirh, Vol. 3, Quebec, William Smith to wife Janct, New York. 2s Octobcr 1756, p. 196; and samc ro samc, 11 Novcmbcr 1786, p. 197.

'ziScwcll Papcrs, Vol. 5, Qucbcc, Edward Bowcn ro Jonathan Scwcll, London, 30 Octobcr 1815, pp. 3545-18. For his bchaviour the previous year sec his "lasr Icttcr" by the ships, same to same, 20 November 1811, pp. 2119-52; samc to samc, 15 January 1815, pp. 3153-56; same IO samc, 30 January 1815, pp. 2157-60; and samc IO samc, S8 Fcbmary 1815, pp. 2469-72.

"SCC, fur cxample, Davidsoii Correspondence, foldcr 1333, #15, Montreal, A. Davidson to Elizabeth Davidscin, Abcrdesn, 6 Augusr 1787; and folder 1157, #2, Monircal, A. Davidson to John Watts, bndon, 24 Ocrobcr [17(16?]. Sce also, Allsopp Lettcrbook, Qucbcc, Allsopp to Bundficld, Bordeaux, France, 17 January 1795, pp. 70-73.

Osgoodc cxprcssing rcgrct that the lettcrs Osgoode had cntrusted him to carry to England

had bccn lost. "You will have hcard," he said, "that the Lively was taken and retaken."

Hc was safe, hç announced happily, but his papers were

almost al1 lost ... 1 had barcly time to put weights on rny Box and to throw it, and al1 its contents out of the Cabin Window bcforc the Boat [an enemy privateer] came on board. With infinitc mortification I have to add, that every LRtter from you sharcd the same fate.lS

In addition to the hazards of shipping, lctters remained vulnerable to being lost or mislaid

by the people who wrricd them. Contemporary lettcrs are as full in the late cighteenth

ccntury as thcy had bccn much carlier with cornplaints of travellers who had simply never

rirrivcd with thc lcttcrs they had bccn cntrustcd with.'" Correspondents continued, in

wartimc at Icast, to writc and scnd multiple copics of thcir most important lctters; but it is

noticcablc that thc practicc was rarcr than it once had bcen." Perhaps this was a

function of thc changcd circumstanccs in which thcse correspondcnts operatcd. The

incrcriscd spccd and frcqucncy of communications, comparcd to that of the French regime

rit Icast, mcrint that, whcn a lcttcr miscarricd, corrcspondcnts could write immediately

rcqucsting that the ncws it containcd bc rcpeatcd. Thus in writing to Osgoode in the late

summcr of 1798, Ryland in London rclaycd a message €rom a mutual acquaintance, Mr.

King, who was "monificd" at thc l o s of Osgoodc's lcttcrs and "begs you will repcat what

was said in thcm." Osgoodc would likely havc rcccivcd this lcttcr in Octobcr or

Novcnibcr, and, providcd hc rcspondcd promptly, King might have rcccivcd his rcsponse

carly in thc wintcr of 1799. If corrcspondcnts lcss oitcn scnt multiplc copics of thcir

lcttcrs, thcy still consistcntly bcgan or cnded thcir Icttcrs with an invcntory of

corrcspondcncc sent and rcccivcd. Whcn in the first half of 1795 Osgoodc failcd to do so,

his fricnd William Cruisc in London wrotc to rcprimand him. Cruisc informcd Osgoode in

12bOssociJc Papers, 1llc #Y, London, Herman W. Ryland io Osgoodç, Qucbec, 3 August [1798?], pp. 1137-40. Sce si~nilarly, fric #1, Usbridge, Hilliard to Osgoodc, 17 January 1798, pp. 191-94 in which HilIiard cspresscd ihc fear thai one of his lcircrs "has been a prey to Fish or an Entertainment to the Enemy."

'"Sce for csample RG 5, A l , Vol. 11 (Reei C-3506). Dovcr Miils, Woodhouse (London District], Robert Nichol io [ihc Licuicnai~t-Govçmor], 27 Junç 1810, p. 1921. Many thanks to Julia H. Roberts for this rcfcrçncc.

"%spgoodc Papers, tile #4, Usbridgc, Hiiiiard io Osgoodc, 5 Jmuary 1791, p. 379; same 10 same, 20 April 1797, pp. 173-75.

May of that ycar that he had written him long letters by thc January and March packets,

"and 1 wish to hcar that you have rcccivcd them for notwithstanding a sensible lecture

which 1 gave you on Letter wnting in which 1 pointed out the truc mode of beginning an

cpistlc Viz 1 rcceived yours of etc containing etc & yours of etc etc etc you [have] not

The Post Office had always maintained that one of the particular advantagcs of the

official postal service was that it could offer correspondents much grcater security of

communications than informal opportunitics. Successive Postmasters Gcncral argued that

whcrcas lcrtcrs scnt by privatc opportunitics werc oftcn Iost cn route or left abandoned in

some public house or coffee shop, prey to roving hands, lcttcrs scnt through the Post

Officc would bc dclivcrcd rcliably. Thcre may have bccn some tmth in this: whcn

pressing for thc extension of postal scwice, Canadians sometimes mcntioned their concem

for the greater S C C U ~ ~ Y of the mails.'" Howevcr, lctters scnt through the Post Office

wcrc still vulncrablc. Wholc mails could be iost; for example, in 1807 the February and

iMrirch mails scnt from Britain for Canada via Halifax wcrc Iost whcn the came in which

thcy wcrc bcing carricd upsct in thc St. John ~ i v c r . ' ~ ~ Cornplaints abound of letters put

into thc Post Office that ncvcr amved; oftcn paired with instructions to send letters in

prcfcrencc by prit'atc nicrins. Al1 of this lcavcs the historian at a Ioss to dccide which

option wris uitimately niorc dcpcxidablc.

The patterns of contcrnporary corrcspondcncc dcscribcd in the prcvious section are

furthcr complicatcd by the fact that not al1 Canadian corrcspondcnts had equal access to

'29~sgoodc Papcrs, t?lc #2, Lincoln's Inn, William Cruisc to Osgoodc, Quebçc, 6 May 1795, pp. 170-77.

IMScc, in particular, MG 11, B-125 (C.O. 12, Vol. IJ3), Q-115, Whitehall, W. Fawkener to Peel, 23 April 1811, which covers "a copy of thc mcmorial of thc British merchants trading with British North Amcrica, 26 January 1810," pp- 121-25. Sce also McCord Museum, M18672, Hart Family, folder 25, New \'ork, Ephraini Han to Ezckicl Han, Thrcr: Rivcrs, 27 August 1799. Officiais certainly argued that the official mails wcrc safer for private corrcspondcnce; sec for rxamplc The ~orres~ondcncef

of 1 J- Govm-, Vol. 1: 1796-1797, Editcd by E . k Cruikshank

(Toionro: Oniario Hisrorical Society, 1932), Petcr Ruscl l to Robert Prcsçort, 6 Scprcmber 1797, p. 272. See similarly, R t i 8, Scrics C, Vol. 284, Rccl C-2862, fol. 15, U.C., Hunier to Heriot, Qucbec, 24 October 1800.

"'MG 11, B-121 (C.O. 12, Vol. 133, Q-102, Qucbcc, Isaac Brcick to Lord Castlereagh, 27 May 1807, p. 276; 13-12? ( C O . 42, Vol. 135), Q-106-2, London, Frceling to Cook, 21 July 1807, pp. 36264.

thc ûpportunitics for transatlantic communications. Whether we are talking a tout the

shipping at Qucbec, the packet to Ncw York or Halifax, or the private opportunities to

cithcr pon, thc structures that providcd for transatlantic communications in this p e n d were

largcly centrcd in Montrcal and Quebec. It was through these two towns that almost al1

corrcspondcnce passed coming in or out of the colony. Thus, how readily individual

corrcspondcnts could get their lettcrs to cithcr port was a final factor shaping patterns of

corrcspondcncc. This last section will focus on the opportunities and structures that

conncctcd corrcspondcnts in a varicty of cornmunitics to Montrcal and Quebec, and the

cffcct that this had on thcir ability to kccp in touch with fricnds and family overseas.

Thc corrcspondcnts who had the fullest and most immediate physical access to the

transatlantic mails, and thus who had the grcatcst frcedom of choice in the management of

thcir corrcspondcncc, wcrc thosc living in thc Montreal-Quebcc corridor. Following the

Conqucst, the Post Officc had cstablishcd a wcckly couricr service between Montreal and

Qucbcc which also providcd scwicc to corrcspondcnts cn route at communities such as

~rois-~iviércs. '" At least as carly as 1780, thc courier opcrated twicc wcckly.x33

Many of Our corrcspondents wrotc routincly in thcse ycars by the post bctween the two

towns.'" On a Sunday in 1809, for example, William Bcrczy wrote fiom Quebec to his

wifc, Charlottc, in Montrcal saying that hc would not bc scnding hcr two miniatures with

his lettcr: "I vamishcd thcrn today and if I wcrc not afraid thcy would be darnagcd by

bcing packcd too soon, wc would have scnt thcm to you with tomorrow's couricr; but they

\\*il1 Icnïc for certain ncxt ~hursday.""' Bcrczy and his wifc were oftcn separated in

this pcriod and hc commonly tricd to writc to hcr by cvcry mail.'36 The frcqucncy and

, 3 August 17a. On rhc opcning of a Posr Officc at Berthier bctwcen Montreal and Qucbcc sec the m b c c Gazette, 30 January 1772, which cxplained rhar, where therc was no Post Office, leitcrs had to be prepaid and would be droppcd off at the Post House "nearcst the Places of their Direction." - - . . . Sec also Smith,Thc Hi= of t h c e m v, pp. 12-43.

1 34 Sec, 1Or cxample, Scwcll Papcrs, Vol. 4, Montreal, Stephcn Sçwcll IO Jonathan Scwell, Quebec, 27 January 1803, pp. 1613-11.

' 3 5 ~ a b y Collccrion, U 1394, Qucbcc, William Berczy to his wifc Charlotte, Montreai, 19 March 1809. 13cr~q's son William was with him at the time, hence thc usc of ihe plural.

136 Scc, for esample, ibid., U 1165, same IO same, 18 August 1808.

case of thcir corrcspondcnce hclp illustratc the case of access corrcspondents along this

corridor had to the opportunitics at either port. indced, around 1812 it was commonly

agrccd that scrvicc over this route was as "regular and expcditious as can be expected" and

subjcct to littlc cornplaint."'

At thc same tinic, the volume of traffic behveen Montreâl and Quebcc meant that

thcrc wcre numcrous informal opportunities by travellcrs along this route. When Jonathan

ScwcIl was away from his Quebcc home he commonly supplcmented the frcquent letters

he scnt to his wife, Hamct, by thc Post with more sent by favour. On 27 Fcbniary 1798

hc wrotc to hcr from Montrcai, commcnting, "by the Solicitor Gcneral who left this to day,

you will reccivc a lcttcr which 1 wrotc this rnorning. This you will receive from <Mr.

Dri~.idson[?]> who scts off early tomorrow." Only days later, in carly March, he scnt off

two more lettcrs by two othcr t r a v c l l ~ r s . ~ ~ ~ The combination of informal and official

opportunitics bctwccn Montrcal and Qucbcc mcant that corrcspondents along this route

cou Id acccss the opportunitics through cither tawn easily and quickly . Comspondents

could scnd thcir lcttcrs in ri mattcr of days to cithcr Qucbcc or Montreal for the packet

mails to Ncw York, to Qucbcc for thc couricr to Halifax, or to an agent at Qucbcc who

would cithcr put thcm dircctly on board a ship in the port or arrange for their dcspatch as

a "ship lcttcr" through the Post Officc. Whatcvcr option thcy chosc, they had full and casy (.

acccss to thc transatlantic mails.

Thc Nairnc family at Murray Bay, a scigncury on thc north shore of the Saint

Lriwrcncc bclow Qucbcc, wcrc not quitc so wcll providcd for. Well into thc ninctcenth

ccntury thcrc was no rcgular postal scrvicc linking corrcspondcnts so far downnver to

Qucbcc.'" Through much of the ycar, thc family relicd on thc casual opportunitics

pror.idcd by travcllcrs, most of whom wcrc known to thcm but somc of whom may have

137 MG 1 1 , 13-125 ( C O . 12, Vol. 136), 0-117-1, no. 30, Quebec, Prevost to Liverpool, Inndon, 16 March 1812, p. SS; MG 1 1 . 13-124 (C.O. 12, Vol. 132), Q-113, no- 31, Qucbcc, Craig to Liverpool, London, 19 Novcnibcr 1810, p. 89.

138 Scwcll I'apcrs, V d . 3, Mrintrcal, J . Scwcll tu his wife, Harriet, 27 February 1798, pp. 1136-39; and sanie to sanlc. 3 March 179s. pp. 1 l?Y+Y.

" m e r c was no postal route to Murray Bay bcfore 1830. Sec MG 11, Q-209-1 to 209-2, "Report of the Spccial Cornmiricc of thc Housc of Asscmbly," 1831-32, p. 371 in which the ihen Deputy Postmaster Gcneral, Mr. Stayner, ubservcd ihat prcparations hüd been madc to open a rouie io Murray Bay.

bccn strangcrs, and upon thc local shipping.lq While the weather was fine and the

navigation was open, the Naimc family and their correspondents commonly had no

cornplaint with thcsc arrangements, savc for when the person cxpccted to carry the letters

forgot to call for them. Thus, in Novcmbcr 1813, John Nairne's daughter, Christina,

rcccivcd a lctter from hcr friend, Edie Bowcn, in Quebec, which noted:

You would naturally have cxpccted a letter fiom either Eliza or myself per Col. Fraser, it was both our Intentions to have wnttcn to you by him, he promised he would call before he left town and not having heard any thing of him for a few days wc callcd at Mr McCords & much to our astonishment found he had left town thc day beforc--having forgotten to d l , he wiI1 probably Say it was Our business to have scnt Our Lettcrs too him 8: not give him the Trouble to -11, vcry truc, but still wc rclicd on his calling & not knowing whcn hc would leave town defcrrcd writing in thc hopcs of giving you the latcst news.141

In wintcr, their circurnstances wcre more constrained: thc local shipping was closcd and

thcrc appear to have becn fcwer travcllers in the region. In Fcbruav 1797, Malcolm

Frascr cornplaincd to John Nainic from Saint Picrrc RiviErc du Sud, "1 wrote you a long

Lcttcr from this placc abovc six wccks ago but am told there was no opportunity of

forwarding it from Qucbcc 'till about a fonnight ûgo."14' In response, the famiiy appcars

from timc ro timc to havc sent a spccial couricr or cxprcss to Quebec in wintcr.14' The

constraints on wintcr comn~unications would havc madc it morc difficult for the Nairne

family to nnkc usc of thc wintcr mails to Britain, than it was for corrcspondcnts living

ncarcr to Qucbcc and Montrcal. As thc pattern of thcir local wintcr corrcspondcnce attests,

140 Nainic Papers, Vol. 1. Uucbcc, Tho. Naimc to his mother, Murray Bay, 9 January 1811, pp. 458-61; same to sanie, 24 and 25 Scprcmber 1811, pp. 517-30; Quebcc, samc to same, 3 November 1811, pp. 533-36; samc to samc, 2 Fcbruary 1812, pp. 54-47; samc to same, 9 April 1812, pp. 518-51; Qucbec, Malcolm Frascr to "Miss Nairne," 21 July 1812, pp. 591-96; Qucbec, Mr. Hale to "Miss Nairnc," 18 Dcccmbcr 1812, pp. 631-31; Qucbec, Edie Bowen to "Miss Nairnc," Novcmbcr 1813, pp. 697-700.

l'l~bid., Ouebcc, Edic Bowcn to "Miss Naime," Novcmbcr 1813, pp. 697-700.

142 Ibid-, Sr. Pierre Rivicrc du sud, Malcolm Frascr to John Nairne, Murray Bay, 12 Fcbruary 1797, pp. 205-8.

1'3Sc~ ibid., Qucbcc, Thomas Nairne to his sistcr Chrisiinc, Murray Bay, 6 Fcbruary 1811, pp. 369-72 in wliicli tic conimandd "[if] no opportu~iiiy offcrs of writing mc in the coursc of a fortnight, you must send an csprzss on puipsc." Sce aiso Vol. 2, Uucbcc, John Frascr to Mrs McNicol [née Madie Naime], Murray h y , 15 January 1826, p. 1019 ir i wfiich hc ciimplairied. "1 havc not had the plcasurc of receiving a letter irom you for this sonic timc--it sccms to nie thai the Nabobs of Murray Bay arc gctting rather stingy as they iormcrly scnt up ri couricr two or thrce timcs rir thcir expense, in thc coursc of a winter and now we hardly scc orle unless i t is somc poor devil who is obliged to corne up tu the Lawycrs."

howcver, they could have sent Ietters to Quebcc for thc winter packet had they wished to

do so, providcd thcy allowcd thcmselvcs enough timc.

South of the Saint Lawrence at Mississquoi Bay near the tip of Lake Champlain,

and Iatcr at nearby Dunham, the Rev. Charlcs Cotton dcpended during the season of

navigation upon a succession of merchants and others in Montreal to manage his

corrcspondcncc for him.lu ixtters arriving at Qucbec off the ships fiom Britain were

commonly sent to Montrcal through the Post Office, although Cotton rcscnted having to

pay thc inland postage and tncd from time to time to find an alternative. In 1808, for

csample, hc arrangcd with the Rev. Mr. Stuart of St. Armand to havc his ietters dclivercd

to Stuart's agents at Qucbcc and thcn "forwardcd by thcir means fiec to Montreal

addrcssed to Mr. Stuart's agent at that placc," whcncc hc would receive them "through his

h a n d ~ . " ' ~ ~ Frorn Montreal south, Cotton's lettcrs wcrc commonly carricd by travellers, or

hc pickcd thcm up whcn going thcrc himself on business. This often mcant that letters

rcachcd him aftcr a short dclay and, similarly, that hc had to wait for a chance to send

lcttcrs up to Montrcal; but, cvcn rit timcs of ycar whcn conditions wcrc poor, the trip

sccms to havc bccn a rclativcly casy one and dclays were never so great as to seriously

concern hirn.'" The most scrious problcm he cncountcred was when corrcspondents in

Britain scnt M e r s to him by the shipping to Qucbcc without noting how they were to be

fonvardcd. Not living at Qucbcc, hc rclicd upon othcrs to tcll hirn that thcre were lettcrs

at thc Post Officc for him, and had to make arrangcnxnts for them to bc sent on. Thus,

for csamplc, hc cornmcntcd to his sistcr in England in Dcccmbcr 1804:

1 must not omit to tcll you that 1 havc just rcccivcd intclligcncc that two letters (from England no doubt) wcrc lying in the Post Officc at Qucbcc last November,

1 4 4 Sce Cotion Papcrs, Dunham L.C., C.C. Cotton io his Fathcr, England, 26 August 1808, pp. 138-40; and similarly, sanie io sarnc, 26 July 1811, pp. 155-56.

'"lbid., Dunham, L.C., C.C. Cation io his Faiher, 26 August 1808, pp. 13830. On his resentment of the cusi of inland posragr: scc, sanie to samc, l H April 1808, pp. 133-34; and, similarly, Mississquoi Bay, Cotton ro his sister, LA. Cotton, England, 24 July 1807, pp. 119-21.

ld61bid., Dunham, L.C., 26 July 1811, C.C. Cotton to his Sistcr Anna, pp. 155-56 in which he closed "Having an opportunity vcry shonly of taking this to Mississquoi Bay from which 1 can easily get it sent to Mr. Woohich ai Montrcal, for Qucbcc ..." Sce ais0 Dunham, LC., C.C. Cotton to his Sister Fanny, 24 Scptcmbcr 1811, pp. 159-60; and Mississquoi Bay, L.C., C.C. Cotton to his Fathcr, 31 March 1807, pp. 12-33 in whiçh hc commcnis, "1 muît go to Montreai in May or bcg. of June & wiii then forward more letiers."

addrcsscd to me. 1 shall wnte this day to my friend at that place and request thcm to bc forwardcd by Post to Montrcal from whcnce 1 can soon procure t hem .'j7

Cotton's proximity to the Unitcd Statcs gave him direct access to the New

264

York

route, bypassing Montrcal and Quebec. Thus, for instance, in the summer of 1808 he

rcportcd his agrecable surprise that spring in "finding at the Post Office Huntsburg,

Vcrmont, (whither 1 had gonc on foot for the purpose) a large packet said on the outside to

contain 42 ncwspapcrs, & cnclosing your lcttcr of 29 Jany. & Fanny's of 29th Decr.

OB."'" Most of the lcttcrs he rcceived this way wcre forwardcd to him by his New York

agents, Thos. & Andrew Bachc, through the Post Office, which he repeatedly obscrved was

the only channel by which lcttcrs could reach him.'4g He did not use the route ofien, as

was norcd carIicr, but this was bccausc of its cost rathcr than as a rcsult of inaccessibility.

Elscwhcrc in Lowcr Canada, as it was callcd after 1791, conditions varied. In

somc communitics, the Post Officc provided a rcgular connection to Montrcal or

~ u c b c c ; ' ~ ~ in othcrs local mcrchants may have establishcd privatc couricr services;"'

and c\*crywhcrc corrcspondents dcpcndcd upon travcllcrs. In summcr, thcse connections

sen-cd Lowcr Canadians wcll, linking thcm comparativcly casily to thc opportunities at

Montrcal or Qucbcc. Easc of acccss to the wintcr mails dependcd upon the regularity of

traffic in wintcr and diffcrcd considcrably from community to community.

Wcst bcyond thc scttIcd communitics of thc Saint Lawrcncc basin lay what after

1791 constitutcd the ncw colony of Uppcr Canada. In talking about thc cxpcrience of

Uppcr Canadian corrcspondcnts, wc must distinguish bctwccn two distinct pockets of

'"Ibid., Mississquoi Bay, L.C., CC. Cotton to his Sistcr, Erigland, 31 Decembrr 1801, pp. 118-19.

14"bid., C C . Cotton to his Fathcr, 14 Septcmber 1809, pp- 117-48. Cotton was particularly pleased because his Sathcr had maxirigcd, by prctcriding thc pwkagc consisrcd of newspapcrs only, to send the wholc at the much rcduccd newspapcr raie--an aci which, while cornmon, was illegal.

"l91bid-, Mississquoi Bay, L-C., 31 barch 1807, C.C. Cotton to his Father, pp. 122-23; Dunham L.C., C C . Cotton 10 tiis hthcr , 31 January 1810, pp. 118-51.

'"Scr: for csarnplr: a notice in thç W b ç c A h a n x , 1791, p. 65 thai "on achemine des Malles pour les Erablisscmens dc Gaspe, La Baic des Chaleurs, etc. sclon le besoin et l'occasion."

lS'Evidencc of one sucli artcmpt--which raised the irc of the Post Office and thus may not have endured long-4s in Allan L. Stcinhan, "A Canadian Private Post in 1809," Posial Soc& of C-, Vol. 81, p. 31-45.

scttlcment. The first, in the cîstcrn half of the province, included what was already a

relar ive1 y denscly sct t lcd arca stretching from above Montreal along the Saint Lawrence to

the Bay of Quinte, West of the increasingly thriving community of Kingston. The

population d o n g this corridor was such that, soon after 1789, the Deputy Postmaster

Gcncral cstablished a monthly couricr service from Montreal to Kingston to serve the

"New Scttlements" in this temtory ycar round.15' This service, combined with the

relative continuity of sctticment, high volume of river traffic, and proximity to Montreal,

provided corrcspondents with a range of options for the despatch of their letters and also

cnsurcd a routine and rcgular conncction with Montreal both in summer and in w i n t ~ r . " ~

As cvcr, corrcspondcnts both made usc of thc Post Officc's c o ~ r i c r ' ~ ~ and corresponded

without it. In Septembcr 1790, Joel Stone of Cornwall informed a friend that, "Owing to

somc ncglcct in thc Post Office 1 did not rcccivc your favor datcd 2nd April 1790 until

this day. And in order to prevent dclay in thc futurc Bcg you will dircct my lctters to the

carc of Jamcs <Lang?> Merchant in Montrcal." Hc then appears to have wnttcn to the

agent himsclf, asking him to forward a lctter. Hc requcstcd that "in ordcr to prevcnt delay

in futurc [ I l bcg you will bc kind enough to Cal1 at the Post Office occasionally and take

up al1 Lcttcrs Dircctcd to nie and forward them also--Charging thc cxpcnse to me from

t i n x to t i r n ~ . " ' ~ ~ Stonc would continue to arrange for the bulk of his letters to be sent to

Jrinics Lang of Montrcal bctwccn 1791 and 1795. Thc comparativc casc of acccss to

Montrcal from cornmunitics a lmg this route meant that thcy would have bcen able to

makc virtually unrcstrictcd usc of opportunitics for transatlantic communications at

Montrcal throughout the ycar, as long as thcy had an agcnt in thc town to assist thcm. It

'%cc noricçs advcrtising this service in the -, 28 May 1789, 21 Dccember 1789, and 21 January 1790. Scc also thc m e c ;Uman;ir, 1791, p. 65.

. . ' 5 5 e ç Smith, of thc Post QUILO: in British, p. 89.

'?5ce, for csarnplc, NAC, MG 23 H II 1, McDonald-Stone Fapers, Vol. 1, Litchtield, Leman Stone to his brothcr Juei, Cornwall, 11 lune 1789, pp. 415-17. On the covcr of the lettcr Leman wrote: "I f thcrc is rio Sure corivcyaricc ro Cornwall ihc: Eiearcr is Jesircd tu h w a r d thçse directly to the Post Office al Montreal whcre thc mastçr will fonvrird with dcspatch," and hc noted on the cover, "The Posrmaster is humbty 1-ecpcstcd IO forward I] as suon as possible."

15'Ihid., Cornwall, drait lctrcr, J . Sionc to [?], [IS?] Scptembçr 1790, pp. 431-32.

also meant that Kingston, at thc western end of this comdor, served as a staging point for

cornniunications to and from points West.

The othcr chicf arca of settlement in Upper Canada at this time was concentrated

around Niagara and the western peninsula of the province.1" The connection behueen

cornmunitics such as Newark, York, and Detroit and Montreal or Quebec, was

comparatively casy in surnmcr. In the 1790s, correspondents in the western half o f the

province commonly relicd upon the Grcat Lakes shipping to carry their letters."' Sent

cithcr to Kingston and thcn on to Montrcal o r to Montreal directly, these lcttcrs wcre

invariably directed to the correspondent's Montreal agent who was responsible for

arranging for thcm to bc sent on f ~ r t h e r . " ~ Thus, for example, the Detroit fur trader

and mcrchrint, John Askin, rcccivcd a lcttcr writtcn in London o n 26 March 1792 threc

months Iatcr on 7 July by the spring vcsscls through his agents Todd and McGill of

~ o n t r c a l . ' ~ ~ Thcse opponunities by thc shipping were supplcmented, in time-honourcd

tradition, by rcliancc upon tnvcllcrs. Such opportunities, according to Elizabeth Russcll,

at Niagara, offcrcd grcater sccunty than thc regular shipping. Shc cxplaincd: "[Ifj we have

150 011 scttlenicnt pat terns in Uppcr Canada SCI: Hisrorical of Canada, Vol. 2, pp. 21-22; Douglas

, "' "' . - McCalla, P h i a g t h ~ Pro u u J ' h c F c e of I Jpper Canada, 1784 - 187Q , Ontario Historical

Stuciies Scrics (Tororiro: University of Toronto Prcss, 1Y93), pp. 13-42; and Bruce Wilson, ro U r , - On riiriu (Toronto: Dundum Prcss, 1981), chapfers 3-5. For a

description of thc circurnstanccs of thc fur traders and merchanis living in the western posts of Detroit, Sault Saint Marie and Michiliniakinac in the 1760s and 1770s sçr: Jane E. Harrison, Until Ye- -

40-183Q (Canada: Wilfrid Laurier Press and the Canadian Museum of Civilization, 1997), pp. 1 19-23.

l S 7 ~ T L , Baldwin Room, Elizabeth Russell Papers, L21 cupl7, Vol. 1, (hencefonh E. Russell Papcrs), "DraLl ' r~rcrs ," E. Russell to Elizabeth Kicman, 27 Novcmbcr 1793; same to same, 25 April 1793; and sarne IO samc, 27 hpril 1796. Thcrc wcrc no roads connecring York with older communities in the province until work bcgan in 1799 on ihc constructi«n of the Danfmh road, for which see Edith Firth cd., Thç Town pf

1793-1815: A C- a . of Do-nts . , of F&v Tor- (Toronto: Champlain Socicty, 1962), p. Lx.

IS6E. Russell Papcrs, "Draii Lcttcrs," E. Russell to E. Kicman, 18 January 1793; and Folder #6, E. Kcrnan ro E. Russcll, 3 Fcbruary 1808. Vinually al1 rhc çorrcspondençe John Askin received Gom Britain during the 1790s was sent carc of his busincss pannrrs Todd and McGill at Montrcal. Sec for cxample, Milo Quaiffc, cd., -, Vol. 1: 1737-1795 (Detroit: Detroit Library Commission, 1928). Woolwich, David Meredith to John Askin, Dctroit, 20 March 1792, pp, 304-7.

IS9 . -, Vol. 1, Woolwich, England, David Meredith to John Askin, Detroit, 26 March 1792, pp. 407-10; Vol. 2, Qucenston. Robert Hamilton to John Askin, Dctroit, 3 May 1800, pp. 289-90. Similarly, J a c q u c d a b y wrorc irom Detroit to his uncle François at Qucbcc by "une occasion que je crois süre et Le vaisseaus parr a I'insiant." Baby Collection, U 6û1, Dctroit, Jacqucs Baby to François Baby, Quebec, 16 Scprenibcr 1792.

not a safe hand to send our lettcrs down the Country they are apt to be 10st." '~ Those

who could not find ways of thcir own to dcspatch their lettcrs oftcn made use of a local

agcnt. John Askin of Detroit often actcd as an agcnt for the Reverend Gottlieb Senseman

at River Thames, the Moravian scttlemcnt up river from prescrit-day Chatham. On 10

Dcccmbcr 1798, he commcntcd, "1 am glad the Letters for you, thro' my care have always

got so Safc, aiiy you may have to Send 1 will take charge of, and tho therc is no regular

Post yet thcrc is frequent opportunitics ..."16'

Corrcspondcnce in wintcr was considcrably more limitcd. Each fall, as the days

shortened, correspondcnts commonly sent off their final lettcrs of the communications

sea~on. '~ ' During the wintcr thcy could count on only one ccrtain opponunity: the

wintcr cxprcss despatchcd by thc Post Officc oncc cach wintcr from Montreal West to

Dctroit and back again.lb' Thus on 7 Novcmbcr 1792, David Smith of Niagara wrote to

John Askin of Dctroit by what hc cxpcctcd would bc "the 1 s t Opportunity 1 shall have of

writing to you bcforc thc Wintcr E s p r c ~ s . " ~ ~ The express wrried letters from Lower

Canada and places en r o u t ~ ' ~ ~ but it also brought lettcrs from ovcrseas. On 73 Fcbruary

1794, Elizabcth Russcll rcccivcd a lcttcr from hcr fticnd Elizabeth Kiernan in England

writtcn on 27 Scptcmbcr with othcr lcttcrs "by the winter Express wh[ich] came by land

froni Montrcrtl ..." On 23 Fcbruriv, shc w o t c a rcsponsc to Kicrnan by the express

'%. Russcil Papcrs, "Draft Leiters," E. Russell to E. Kicrnan, 10 Novcmbcr 1793; sce also, same to same, 18 January 1793.

16'Askin P-, Vol. 2, Detroit. J. Askin to the Rcv. G. Senseman, Kivcr Thamcs, 10 Deccmber 1798, p. 161.

'"E. RusseII Papcrs, "Drai~ Lcrrcrs," E. Russell ro E, fierniin, 27 Novembcr 1793.

' " m e wintcr cspress comxnonly k i t Montreal in late January for which sec thc m e c Gazette, 21 January 179U and siniilarly thai of 37 Dcçcmbor 1792. Scr: also RG 8, Scrics C, Vol. 383, Reel C-2862, fol. 5 , GPO, Uucbcc, Finlay to Major Green, Hcad Uuaners, 29 Deccmbcr 1798.

164 -, . - Vol. 1, Niagara, David Smith to John Askin, Detroit, 7 Novcmber 1792, pp. 43536.

16'Sec, for esample, Osgoodc Corrcspondcnce, filc #9, Quebec, James McGill to Osgoode, Niagara, 20 January 1793, pp. 1009-17 in which hc commcntcd, "1 rcccived your csieemcd favour of thc 3rd of Novembtx ai Montreal but toi) latc to acknowledge it whilst thc navigation continucd apcn. The opportunity which now oftérs is that oi ihc wintcr c x p r c . ~ ..."

"wh[ich] goes tomorrow or the ncxt day."'& in this period the express commonly

brought lctters from Britain datcd in Octobcr or Novembcr to wcstcm Uppcr Canada. But

corrcspondents in Britain could not always ecsure that their letters would be amongst those

delivered. in November 1793, for example, one of John Askin's children, Archange

Meredith, scnt hcr parents "un grand paquet" fiom her homc in Woolwich England.

Writins in latc March 1794, shc imaginçd "que vous etes tous presentment inquiet pour

l'arritpé de l'csprcs ..." and anticipatcd thcir plcasurc at receiving her package. Apparently,

howcvcr, thc packct did not rirrivc at Dctroit with the exprcss, and the plcasure of opcning

it had to bc postponed until it arrivcd with the opening of navigation.'" Similarly, a

lcttcr writtcn 1 Novcmbcr 1796 from Woolwich with the intention that it would amve by

the wintcr express, appcars to have amvcd at Detroit only on 1 lune."

Corrcspondcnts somctimcs found opportunities to supplcmcnt the winter express.

In 1793 and 1799 Elizabcth Russcll scnt Icttcrs to England by favour of travcllers taking

thc routc south of Lakc Ontario from Niagara to New York as wcll as by the

Thcrc is a hint that thcrc may also have bccn a more rcgular opportunity through thc

Unitcd States at this timc, but, if so, ncithcr Russcll, Askin, nor any othcr of Our

corrcspondcnts sccm to have known about it or uscd it? indced, bcyond the winter

csprcss itsclf, corrcspondents could ncvcr be certain whethcr thcy would have another

chance to writc. Elizabcth Russcll, in closing hcr lcttcr by the exprcss of February 1794 to

Elizabcth Kicrnan in England, could only promise to writc again whcn communications by

Idri E. Russcll Papcrs, "Draft Icttcrs", E. Russcll to Elizabeth Kicrnan, 23 February 1791. Sec also Innis ed., M r s s 1 - , Navy Hall, Niagara, E. Simcoc to Mrs Dcvonshire, Fcbruary 1793, p. 86.

1794 and 23 February Hunt, Woiford Lodge,

167 -, - Vol. 1, Woolwich, Archange Meredith to hcr mother, Mrs. Askin, Detroit, 27 Mach 1794, pp. 494-97; and samc to same, 2 Scptcmber 1794, pp. 510-14.

'"~bid., Vol. 2, Woolwich, Archange ~Mcrcdith IO hcr moiher, Mrs. Askin, 1 Novcmbcr 1796, pp. 71-73.

16'4s cc, Ior esample, E. Russçll Papcrs, "Draft Leitcrs," Niagara, E. Russcii to E. Kiernan, England, 18

January 1793; York, samc to same, 36 January 1799. For oppununities through the United States in the summcr scc Niagara, E. Russcll to E. Kicrnan, 16 Junc 1791; samç [o same, 10 November 1793.

l7'~ec NAC, MG 23 H 1 3, Jarvis Family, Vol. 2, Niagara, Hannah Jarvis to hcr father, Rev Samucl Pctcrs, London, 5 Dcccmbcr 1792, pp. 26-29, cndorsed "rec'd Fcb 23 '93," in which Hannah Jarvis reminded her iàther "Do not forge1 thai we can hear cvery Forinight through the Gcncse Country via New York."

wntcr bctwccn Niagara and Montreal ~ ~ c n e d . ' ' ~ Similarly, the merchant James McGill

of Montrcal wrotc to John Askin at Dcfroit in January 1793 acknowledging a lettcr from

him written November 2, and commentcd, "as there will probably be no other opportunity

of addressing you than this express until the Spring 1 cannot let it pass without dropping

you a fcw lines in rctum."lR The significant constraints on winter communications

cnsurcd t hat corrcspondents looked fonvard eagerl y to the resumption of regular

corrcspondcncc with the opcning of navigation. On 27 A p d 1796, Elizabeth Russell at

Niagara told Elizabcth Kicmtin: "The first ship has arrivcd hcre since thc communication

bctwccn u s and Kingston has bccn opcncd bcing on its rcturn to that place 1 take thc

opportunity ... to wntc a fcw lines to let you know that wc arc wcll."'"

Summcr communications to wcstern Upper Canada in the ycars between thc tum of

the ccntury and the outbrcak of the War of 1812 changcd littlc. With the development of

the colony, thc numbcr of opportunitics by which correspondcnts could send their letters

may havc incrcascd, but qualitativcly the mails continued to function as they always had.

Thc Post Office, as Lord Sclkirk notcd in his diary in 1803, continucd to provide scrvicc

only in wintcr bccausc in summcr "so many battocs etc. arc constantly going it is rcckoned

that a rcgular Post would not The nature of wintcr communications, on the

othcr hand, altcrcd substantially. The scasonal rhythm of corrcspondcncc which had

pcrsistcd in modifkd form ovcr the previous dccadc bcgan to diminish. For thc first time,

corrcspondcnts in communities such as Detroit, Niagara, and York, could count on a senes

171 E. Russcll I'apcrs, "ilraft Letiers." Niagara, E. Russcli to E. Gcrnan, England, 23 Fcbruary 1794.

172 Admhpxs, Vol. 1, Monrrcal, James McGifl to John Askin, Detroit, 20 January 1793, pp. 459-60. Sec similarly, NAC, MG 23 H 1 5, John White Papcrs, Vol. 2, Qucbcç, Wm Osgoode to Samucl Shcphard, Lindon, England, 12 May 1800, pp. 160-61.

173 E. Russcll Papas. "Drafi Lerters," Niagara, E. Russcll to E. Kiernan, 27 April 1796.

"%AC. Selkirk Papcrs, printed in m s e s D U O - 3-18W, cd. PCT White, pp. 143-69, entry i w Suriday 30 [Nov.l803]. in Edith Firth, The Tom of York.93-18 fi, H24, p. 253. See similarly RG 8, Scrics C, Vol. 283, Rcel C-2862, h l . 76-77, Montrcal, Issac W Clarke to Major Green, Head Quaners, UC, 31 M a y 1803, in which he n o t a 'That the Post io U. Canada is discontinucd--and that ai i kners will be forwardcd by the Battcau as usual." On the continuation of this practicc sce MG 11, 8-125 (C.O. 42, Vol. 141), Q-115, Whitchall, W. Fawkcncr to Pccl, 23 April 181 1, p. 113, cnclosing a Report writtcn by George Hcriot ro F. Frçcling, 8 Octobcr 1810, p. 117, still arguing that, T h c watcr communication is so fiequent during thc summcr Scason, a s 11) rcndcr a Post unnccessary in the prcsent statc of the Province."

of rcgular wintcr opportunitics by which lcttcrs could be sent to and from Montreal. To a

considcrable cxtcnt the change was the rcsult of a Post Office initiative. At the urging of

Gcncral Huntcr, who had argucd that the establishrncnt of a rcgular couner service would

bc of rcal utility to thc public service and bring "beneficial conscquences" to commerce,

the Post Office's single winter express had been replaced in 1800 by a monthly service

operating four timcs each winter, and fortnightly at the very end of Our period.'"

Thc cffcct of the change is clearly reflcctcd in the winter correspondence of

William Bcrczy and his wife, Charlottc, in the early 1800s. Whcreas correspondents in the

17YOs had only bcen ablc to count on receiving lettcrs by a single opportunity each winter,

Bcrczy, who was living at York in thcsc ycars, clcarlp cxpectcd that he and his wife at

iMontrcal would bc able to rnaintain a rcgular correspondcncc betwccn November and

April. William wrotc to Charlotte from York in February 1803,

Jc suis un peu surpris d'apprendre par ta Lettre du 25 Dccembrc quc le Courier ne t'en a pas porté de ma pan. Depuis le premier Courier d'hiver qui est parti d'ici je n'ay jamais laissé echapper une occassion dc t'ecnrc. Quand Ic przmicr expres partit j'ay donné une lcttrc quc William à rcmis a l'office dc Mr. Maclaine maitre dc poste dc York--ct le sccond Courier je rcmis moi mcme ma Lettre entre les mains de maitrc dc Postc à son office avcc une autre Lettre pour hndre.'"

Acccss to the monthly cxprcss cxtcndcd to the Detroit arca. John Askin, now living in

Sandwich, commcntcd to Todd and McGill of Montreal on 25 March 1807, "1 have wrote

onc or both of sou almost evcry post." '7-1

Corrcspondcnts would continue to look to thc Post Office to takc a lcad in

impro~ring sen-icc to Uppcr Canada. For esanlplc, William Hands, the Postmaster of

Sandwich, near Detroit, warncd Dcputy Postmastcr Gcncral Gcorgc Heriot in a letter of 3

Octobcr 1807: "It is a gcncral cornplaint anlong thc Comrncrcial Pcople of this place, and

bcc Gazcite, 20 Novcmber 1800, "Notice of a p s t to be carricd on monthly during the winter bctwecn U p p r and Lower Canada." Sec also the OuebcF_Almanac, 1801, p. 131. On Hunter's pressure to have this change made, sçr: RG 8, Scrics C, Vol. 284, Recl C-2862, fol. 15, Hunter to Heriot, 24 October ISOO in which he pledgcd IO make up any financial shonfaIl from the service, removing the chief obstacle to the cstcnsion of Posi Office service. Sec also RG 8, Series C, Vol. 3 3 , Rcel C-2362, fol. 58-59, Quebec, Hcriclr 1 0 iMajoi Thornton, Militar). Sccrctary [io Sir Jamcs Craig], 15 Novembcr 1807. For the first notice of ihc ~ i c w iori~iightly servicc sec thc &bec Almanai;, 1810, p. 139.

"%aby Collection, U 1453, York, William Bcray to his wift: Charlotte Berczy, Montrcal, 9 Februaq 1803.

177 -, - Vol. 2, Sandwich, J. Askin to Todd and McGili, Montreal, 25 Mach 1807, pp. 545-47.

othcrs, that our Post docs [not] run the whole year, they say, and 1 think wiih a great deal

of rccison. that if our Neighbours thc Arneriwns, can afford to have a Post to go weckly,

that surcly the British Govcrnmcnt, who arc the first commercial Nation in the World

should do the samc.""' Corrcspondcnts were not, however, by any means dependent

upon the ability or willingncss of the Post Officc to act. To the Post Office's considerable

irritation, corrcspondents made heavy use of informal routes. A mcmonal submitted in

1810 by the British merchants conceming British North Amencan postal service

cornplaincd of thc "Inconvenicnces and Injuries which must arise to the Inhabitants of

thcsc provinces from thc prcscnt slow and unequal Distribution of Intelligence," arguing

"that in the prcscnt statc of thc Post Office any person rcceiving Intelligence can out-travel

thc Mail and thus dcrive the n ~ o s t important and unfair advantages in cvery branch of

Tradc." As a result, the rncmorial stated, "It is wcll known that the North American

Mcrchants, particularly in the interior of the country, do not forward one-tenth of their

Letters thro' the Post Offices, prcfcrring to take the chancc of private and Casual

Opportunitics owing to the grcat dclay of the mails."'" As cvcr, these pnvate or casual

opportunitics includcd travellcrs and local shipping in scason. In addition--herc as in

Lowcr Canada--nicrchants and othcrs appcar to have banded togcthcr to establish private

couricr s c n * i ~ c s . ' ~ ~ The Sandwich Postmastcr, William Hands, for instance, warncd

Hcriot that if postal scrvicc did not inlprove,

that in thc course of a numbcr of ycars vcry fcw Ictters will go by the rcgular Post. Last summcr the Mcrchants of this place set a subscription on foot to have [a] couricr go wcckly to Niagara [to mcct up with the Amcrican mails] which was

' 7 S P ~ ~ , MU 7106, #7, Sandwich Post Officc, Draft letter, Wiliiam Han& to George Hcriot, 3 Octobcr 1807. Sec also The of m e Pcrer Vol. 1, Peter Russcll to Roben Prescoit, 6 Scptcmber 1797, p. 272.

' 7 9 ~ ~ 11, il-125 (C.O. 42, Vol. IG), Q-115, Whitchall, W. Fawkencr to Pccl, 23 April 1811, p. 112, which covcrs a copy of the mcmorial prcpared by British merchants on the subject of postal service, particularly 10 Uppcr Canada.

'"OIidcrcnccs to the opcraiion of suçh scrvices are vcry rire but sec the Niaeara of August 33, 1799, quo~cd in Edwin C. Guillct, WC in Uppcr C d . - . (Taronto: The Ontario Publishing Co., 1933). p. 60 1.

on thc point of taking place, it has often bcen talked of, and will, 1 expect next Summcr takc cffcct should therc bc no alteration in Our ~ o s t . " ~

Govcrnment officials thcmsclves did not always send thcir lctters by the Post Office

couricr to montrea al. In thc wintcr of 1803, the Deputy Postmaster General, George Heriot,

wrotc to Gencral Hunter in Uppcr Canada, complaining that considerable public

corrcspondcncc was travelling outside of the Post Office. He was correct. Prior to 1800,

Upper Canadian officials had routinely scnt their own winter express through the colony to

Montreal, and the practice continued, large1 y, it would appear, because the official service

was not sufficicntly frcqucnt. Hcriot objcctcd to the practice not only because he regretted

thc lost rc~~cnuc, but also bccausc hc fcarcd the government's actions would encourage

private corrcspondents to similarly avoid the Post--a sign of how prccarious he felt their

dcpcndcncc on thc mails was.'=

While dissatisfaction with thc levcl of postai scrvicc causcd many correspondents,

both pnvatc and public, to scnd their lettcrs outside thc Post ~ffice, '" certain

corrcspondcnts wcrc motivatcd by a dcsirc to avoid thc cost of postage. John Askin often

scnt lcttcrs by the wintcr cxprcss but whcn thc chance offcrcd he was happy to send his

lcttcrs ro Montrcal by privatc occasions. In January 181 1, for exarnplc, Askin commcnted

to his son Charlcs at Quccnston, "1 am sorry that Cap't Ruff passcd without calling as 1

wrintcd vcry much to scnd undcr covcr to you a Packctt for Mr McGill which would be

too cxpcnsivc to scnd by ~ o s t ...."lg4

Thc limitations and dclays of scrvicc throua Montrcal at any scason seem to have

also cncouragcd corrcspondcnts to avoid that routc altogcthcr and instcad to scnd thcir

lcttcrs south of thc lakcs dircctly to Ncw York, making usc not only of pnvatc

L b ' P ~ ~ , MU 7106, #7, Sandwich Posr Oitlce, Drait lertcr, WiUiam Hands to George Hcriot, Sandwich, 3 Octdxr 1807.

'"RG 8, Series C, Vol. 233, Reel C-2862, fol 130-31, Quebcc, Hcriot to His Excellency, Genl Hunter, UC, 20 Fcbruary 1803; and similarly fol. 132-33, samc to samc, 21 Fcbruary 1803. Sec also fol. 196-97, Downing Street, Lord Camden to Gencral Huntcr, 2 August 1801, and variously elscwhere in this volumc.

'"Sec, for esample, Baby Collection, U 1353, York, William Berczy io his wife Charlotte, 9 February 1S03.

1s. -, . Vol. 3, Srrabaiic, John Askin to his son Charles Askin, [Uueenston], 10 January 1811, pp. 671-73.

opportunitics but also, by this pcriod, of the Amencan Post Officc service to Niagara

which had been cstablished at somc point in the latc 1 7 9 0 s . ~ ~ In July 1799, for

instance, John White at York complained in a letter to his brother-in-law Samuel

Shcphard, in England, that vcry few of Shcphard's lette- had amved. Instead of sending

them through Canada, he advised Shcphard henceforth "to scnd thcm under cover to

Mcssrs Forsyth & Co. Niagara dirccted to the care of Mr. Constable, Merchant, New York.

There is now a post from Ncw York and Albany every fortnight to Niagara and I havc

latcly optcd for that route for scveral kttcrs to you."'S6 Alexander Wood of York alu,

prcfcrrcd to usc the New York route. In 1803 hc wrotc to his London agents Ogilvy,

Mylne & Co. asking that lcttcrs from his rclativcs in Scotland bc sent to him via New

York rathcr than Halifax on thc grounds that hc would rcccivc thcm much earlier. Letters

scnt by thc packct to Uppcr Canada, hc cxplaincd, wcnt to Halifax whcnce they were

fonvardcd only oncc a month to Montrcal--oftcn as a conscquencc taking alniost six

months en route--whereas lctters scnt to Ncw York wcrc scnt onward by the weekly

inland post and gcnerally rcachcd Niagara within thrce months. Thc timc lag, he noted

with rcstraint, "makcs a material differcncc."'"

Bctwccn Niagara and York lcttcrs travcllcd, for much of this pcriod at least, by

privare c h a n n c l ~ . ' ~ ~ From York, Anne Powell wrote to hcr brother at Ncw York

routiiiclg by the Amcrican Post Officc from Niagara. During the scason of navigation her

lcttcrs wçrc carricd bctwen York and Niagara by any vesscl travelling bctween the two.

'"A hrtnightly scrvice may havc bccn cstablished in 1797, for which sec a notice in the U p p c x . . Gazeire, 31 Oçtobcr 1797, citcd in Guillet, E d y I ~ f e in -, p. 600.

186 John Whitc Papcrs. Vol. 3, York, White to his brothcr-in-law Samuel Shcphard, London, England, July 13, 1799, pp. 119-33. Scc similarly, Jarvis FamiIy Papers, Vol. 2, York U.C., Wm. B. Jarvis to Rev, Sarnucl Peiei-s, 5 Junc 1S01, pp. 286-SV.

'"Toronto Public Library, Alexander Wood Letter Books, York, Aiexander Wood to Ogilvy, Mylne & Co. London, 13 Octobcr 1803, citcd in Edith Finh, Town of Y d , E-15, p. 152.

'"1n 1799, the editor of the complained that the lack of a rcgular postal scrvice linking York and Niagara compromiscd his ability IO rcceivç news, v, 21 Dec 1799, citcd in Edith Firth, , E-9, p. 1.18- At thc same timc, Edwin C. Guillct, Early

cr C m , p- 601 notes that Stcphcn B a t s operated a "privatc mail scwice" to points in the Unitcd States during the winicr of 1799-1800. in his advertisemcnt hc promised that hc would "commence as suon as slcighing will admit, and run cvcry two wccks. Passengcrs will bc takcn in on reasonablc tcrms." His rct'crcnct: is, Niagara, Cari;idian C m , 14 Deccmber 1799.

She commented in a letter of October 1806, "1 look with anxious expectation for the first

vesse1 that appcars after post day."lg9 She ofien prefencd to send her letters to Niagara

by me T o r a , a vesse1 operated by the civil a~ thor i t i es . '~ When it was unavailable,

she dependcd "upon the common trader^."'^' In winter Powell sent and reccived letters

by the winter express scnice from Niagara. In mid-December 1806, Anne Powell told her

brothcr. "the wintcr arrangements commence this weck and an indian Courier will fiom

this pcriod regularly bring the Post Letters evcry fortnight and I should not be surpriscd if

wc are indulgcd with it cvery wcck."19' Powcll rcfcrrcd quite frcquently to this "indian

csprcss" which opcratcd during the winter months. Occasionally, she notcd its delay. in

Deccmber 1806, for cxample, Powell commcntcd that hcr letter would have to wait for the

next Post because "the heavy snows have detained the Indians and I fear will delay this. "193

Whilc corrcspondents at York wcrc, by the carly 1800s, able--whatever their

frustrations-to takc advantage of rclativcly frcquent opportunitics for wintcr

communications bcyond the confincs of the province, the opcning up of wintcr

communications camc considcrably later in morc isolatcd communities. John Askin's son

and namcsakc, John Askin Ir., for cxample, who Iivcd at St Joseph's Island at the top of

Lake Huron at the turn of the ccntury, still Iivcd in a morc traditional world of limitcd

wintcr upportunities. Askin Jr. wrotc to his father on 8 January 1808: "This gocs by our

Esprcss to York & [ l j hopc it will rcach you some timc in [the] ncxt month, As this

Couricr rcturns imrncdiatcly to this It will bc irnpossiblc for mc to hcar from you before

169 A. Powcll Correspondence, Amr: Powell t o her brother, G.W. Murray, Merchant, New York, 27 Octobcr 1806. pp. 47-50.

1'0s cc, ibid., York, Powcll [ O Muiray, N.Y., S Seprcmbcr 1806, pp. 13-46; samç to same, 25 November 1806, pp. 55-33. The Tor- was a yacht çonstnictçd in 1799 by ordcr of Pcter Russell for the use of the civil govcninicrit.

191 Ibid., York, Powell IO Murray, N.Y., 8 Septcmbcr 1806, pp. 43-36.

1921bid., York, Powell t o Murray, N.Y., 13 Decembcr 1806, pp. 59-62.

'931bid., York, Powell to Murray, N.Y., 13 Dccembcr 1806, posiscript 15 December, pp. 59-62.

thc opcning of navigation."'" Indced, it was only on 3 June that year that he received

lcttcrs writtcn by his family on 13 November, 5 February, and 71 ~ p r i l . ' ~ ' Four years

latcr, on 8 January 1811, John Jr wrotc his brother, Charlcs, a Qucenston merchant,

Unless you have had the precaution of wnting & send'g yo< ... s [tom] Mess'rs Camcron or Selby at York 1 shall not rcceive any [from] you by this Courier, for he leaves this the 14th Jan'ry yearly [and is] at York on the 2d Feb'y leaves that 6 days after for this place.'"

Askin Ira's cxperience reinforces the central fact that the nature of winier

cornmunicarions bcyond the most local correspondence, both in Upper and Lower Canada,

dcpcndcd upon local traffic, dcnsity of scttlement, and the ability of communities to

convincc thc Post Officc to cstablish a winter cxpress scrvice. When and how

corrcspondents gaincd acccss to thc opportunitics for transatlantic communiwtions through

Qucbcc and Montreal varied grcatly dcpending upon the circumstances of the communities

whcrc thcy lived. *

Communications in Canada following thc Amcrican Rcvolution werc qualitatively

diffcrcnt from what thcy had bccn bcforc thc War. Corrcspondcnts posscssed a number

and rangc of options that far excccdcd thosc to which thcy had hithcrto had access. Both

as a function of the expansion of earlicr opportunitics and of thc crcation of new routcs,

corrcspondcnts could writc and despatch several letters each month year round. The

expansion of official postal services, developmcnt of roads, expansion of tradc, and

incrcasc in traffic ovcr both inland routes and across the occan, had madc it possible for

nmrc lcttcrs to travcl cvcr morc oftcn. In wintcr in particular, communications were much

fastcr and, in thc casc of thc officia1 mails, incrcasingly prccisely s c h ~ d u l e d . ' ~ ~

19-1 -, - Vol. 2, St. Joseph's, J. Askin Jr. to his fathcr J. Askin , Sandwich, 8 January 1808, pp. 590-94,

ibS Ibid., Vol. 2, Si. Josçph's, J . hskir i Jr. to his farher J. Askin, 17 Junc 1808, pp. 601-7.

"%id., Vol. 2, St. loscph's, J . Askin Jr. iu his brothcr Charles Askin. Queension, 8 January 1811, pp- 668-7 1.

197Sçç, in this respect, the natices in the a u f b ~ betwecn 1801 and 1812, which at first avoid saying prcciscly when the packet mails through New York will amvc itt Quebec, but latcr offcr prccise dates.

At the same timc as WC chronicle the changing structures of communications, we

niust rccognizc that thcsc played only a part in shaping the experience of contemporary

correspondcnts. How individual Canadians rcsponded to the opportunities before them

varied enormously. While somc correspondents prcssed for and rushed to take advantage

of new opportunities--ecstatic in being relcased fkom the constraints which had previously

hampered thcm--others could or did not. The range of contemporary responses was in

part duc to individual necds, resources, and the nature of intemal communications links;

but it was also affectcd by personality, as wcll, arguably, as being shaped by divergent

conceptions of timc.

In thc contcxt of the Saint Lawrcncc valley, transatlantic corrcspondents fell into

thrce broad catcgories. Thc first included those corrcspondcnts who remained largely

comfortable with an csscntially xasonal rhythm of communications, and limited their

corrcspondcnce almost cntircly to the scason of navigation and the opportunities through

t hc port of Qucbcc. The sccond group was lcss happy with this scasonal constraint on

con~munications. but Iackcd thc rcsourccs to writc routincly ycar round. Thcy maintained

o liniitcd wintcr corrcspondcncc, sending the bulk of their letters through Quebec during

thc season of navigation. Thc third goup, which most notably includcd many of the

mcrchants of thc colony but othcrs as wcll, was impatient with the traditional seasonal

limits on communications, and dctcrmincd to writc ycar round. This was the group most

substantially affcctcd by the extension and irnprovcmcnt of opportunitics for

communications at the end of the cightccnth ccntury, and thc group which hclps to

forcshadow thc substantial changes in thc cxpcctations Canadians would bring to

cornmunicotions in thc ncxt ccntury. Within this last group, thosc who most valued spced

ovcr cconomy rclicd consistcntly on rhc New York route, whilc those a littlc less pressed

for timc and hoping to savc money uscd the chcapcr Halifax route. The conjunction for al1

thcsc corrcspondcnts of thc frcqucncy of the mails and thc incrcascd spccd of wintcr

conimunications made it possible for thcm to maintain a corrcspondcnce with a much

shortcr lag timc. In the coursc of a single ycar, a correspondent such as William Osgoode

was able to scnd a lcttcr to London, rcccivc a rcsponsc, and writc again as many as three

or four t imcs. Corrcspondcnts living bcyond t hc Montrcal-Quebcc corridor werc

somctimcs prcvcntcd €rom writing as oftcn or casily as othcrs by the state of intcrnal

277

communications. Their ability to convey their lcttcrs to Montreal or Quebec was an

additional factor in shaping their cxperiencc.

The way the mails functioncd by thc end of the century had changed. The Post

Office was niuch more active and visible. It was instrumental, in particular, in providing

access to a regular monthly mail in winter which formed the essential underpiming of

many Canadians' wintcr communication. At the same time, however, the transatlantic

mails continucd to rely substantially on the traditional nehvorks and structures that had

alwriys providcd for thc circulation of the mails. The conventions and practices that had

uiidcrpinncd thcse remaincd strong and esscntial to the effectiveness of transatlantic

comniunications. Individual corrcspondcnts continued to assumc the burdcn of

rcsponsibility for thcir Icttcrs: kecping track of available opportunitics, dcciding arnong

thcsc options, establishing connections with agents in distant ports, and keeping records of

thcir corrcspondencc to guard against loss and miscarriagc. The dccisions that they made

about the conduct of their corrcspondcncc werc forgcd, this chaptcr has shown, from the

widcly diffcring circumstanccs and cxpcctations of Canadian corrcspondcnts. As we enter

the carly ninctccnth ccntury, wc are dcaling not with a single world of communications,

but nlany worlds, cach inhabitcd by Canadians with distinctive experiences.

CONCLUSION: " Des fruiets du Paradis terrestre "

in 1633 thc Jesuit pnest Père le Jeune wrote a letter home to France from the

newly-establishcd French colony of Canada, observing: "Les lettres qu'on envoie en cc

pais cy, sont comme des fruiets bien rares et bicn noucaux [noueux?]: on les reçoit avec

contcntcnxnt, on lcs regarde avcc plaisir: on lcs savoure comme des h i e t s du Paradis

tcrrcstrc."' This passage captures in lyrical terms the importance of letters to literate

Europcans in the colony. Thc lettcrs colonial correspondents wrote and received

constituted the chicf link to family, friends and others overseas. They were the mechanism

through which pcoplc did business, managcd their affairs, maintaincd emotional ties, heard

ncws, and cxchangcd idcas. Dcspite the central role of lctters in shaping the circumstances

of Lifc in thc colony, howcvcr, thcir movcment to and fiom the colony on the Saint

Lawrcncc has not bcen studied by historians. This study has analyzcd how the mails

fu~ictioncd and how thc situririon of corrcspondcnts changcd ovcr t h e , and it has sought to

rccw-er thc cxpcctations that contcmporarics brought to thcir cxpcricnce. It has

dcmonstratcd that corrcspondcnts writing to Europc, whcthcr in thc scvcntccnth or the

cightecnth ccnturies, faccd significant constraints; but, in scrutinizing thc vcry real

limitations on communications, it has revcalcd a proccss that is complcx, rich, dynamic,

and oftcn rcmarkably cffcctivc whcn asscsscd in its own tcrms.

During the French rcgimc, corrcspondcnts writing to Europc wcrc dependent upon

thc rcgular shipping to Qucbcc and constraincd by the scasonal limits of navigation in the

Saint Lawrcncc. Togcthcr thcsc factors rcsultcd in a distinctive rhythm of communications

by which corrcspondcnts rcccivcd lcttcrs from ovcrscas in the spring and summcr, and

1 -. . . . Relationsdts Vol. 1, "Relation de 1633," p. 2.

278

despatchcd rcsponses in thc fall. As this study has shown, within these broad limits there

was considerable variation in the conditions of communications over the French regime as

a wholç. Thc number of vcssels arriving annually ranged from hvo or three a season to

twenty, and occasionally far more. Sometimes ships sailcd togcther as a convoy,

eifectively lirniting the numbcr of opportunities by which correspondents could write,

whilc at othcr times thcy sailcd apart, providing a series of well-spaced opportunities. The

scasor! of communications could bc as short as thrcc months or as long as six or seven

nionths, dcpending upon when the first ships arrived in the colony. In the face of the

continucd scasonal limitations on communications, thcse ycarly variations can appear

sccondary. Howcvcr, thcy wcrc cnorrnously significant to contcrnporarics, who

distinguishcd clcarly bctwccn good years, whcn a nurnbcr of vesscls amved ai well spaced

in tcnds ovcr the longcst possiblc season, and bad ycars, whcn fcw vesscls sailed to the

colony and niost or al1 amvcd late, making it hard for correspondents to respond to al1

thcir lettcrs. Whcn c\.riluatcd against contcrnporary cxpcctations, communications were

only poor in spccific instances whcn thc normal pattcms of shipping to the colony were

disruptcd.

Comn~unications wcrc risky in times of both peacc and war. Lcttcrs could be lost

whcn the vesscl carrying thcm was shipwrcckcd or capturcd by thc enemy, through the

simplc carcfcssncss of thosc to whom thcy had bccn cntrustcd, or by the active dcccit of

nicmbcrs of the community. Corrcspondcnts did what thcy could to limit the risk of thcir

lcttcrs bcing lost, but most iniportantly thcy adoptcd convcntions and practices of Iettcr-

writing that allowcd thcir corrcspondcncc to function cvcn whcn individual letters wcnt

astray. As long as dangcrs staycd within normal bounds, and they obscrvcd thcsc niles,

thcir corrcspondcncc could hnction rclativcly cffcctivcly. It was only in specific instances

whcn thc shipping was scriously disruptcd that thc risks of communications weighcd

heavily on contcmporriry rwrcspondcnts.

Thcrc was, durine the French rcgimc, littlc Icgislation govcming communications,

and rio official structures pro~.iding for thc circulation of lcttcrs. To a considerable cxtcnt,

comnrunications dcpcndcd upon thc willingncss of individual Icttçr-writers to assume

rcsponsi bil ity for thcir corrcspondcncc. Thcy prcparcd multiple copics of thcir lcttcrs, kept

trock of opportunitics to correspond, dcspatched and took rcceipt of thcir mails, sought out

agcnts, travcllcrs, and othcrs to hclp thcm, while themselves acting as agents for others.

Throughout al1 of this, thcy not only actcd to nlinimizc the impact of the loss of their

Icttcrs, but also managed their corrcspondence in ways that allowcd them to maximize the

length of the season of communications. Correspondents did not, howevcr, function alone.

As this study has stressed, thc ability of the individual correspondent to communicate

dcpcndcd upon convcntions that provided for the circulation of the mails. Conespondents

opcratcd within a culture of communications that linked clitc correspondents and members

of thc broader community togcthcr in a complicatcd wcb of mutual obligation and

rtssistancc. Lcttcrs wcrc guided along thcir way from corrçspondent to recipient by

mcrchants, ccclcsiastics, travcllcrs, and others who transfcrrcd thcm from Post to boat,

forwardcd thcm via fricnds and associates, and passed thcm frorn hand to hand. It was the

existence of thcse informa1 structurcs and practiccs that allowcd the mails to function.

As a final point conccrning the French regirne, this study has revealcd that

Canadians wcre not as complctcly dcpcndent on thc rcgular shipping to Qucbcc as it might

rtt first rippcar. At tinics. thcy wcrc riblc to scnd and rcccivc lcttcrs through Gaspé,

Placcntia, Louisbourg, and Ncw England. Thcsc routes allowcd thcm to supplcment the

opportunities by thc shipping to Quebcc, and somctimcs to cxtcnd and occasionally evçn to

ovcrcomc thc Iimits on communications through the Saint Lawrence- To an extent that we

rnay not yct fully rcalizc, Canada during the Frcnch regimc was not a closed world.

Without doubt, howevcr, fcw corrcspondcnts wcrc able to acccss these opportunities. The

scrisoriril rhythm of navigation in thc Saint Lawrcncc continucd to cstablish the essential

linli ts of trrtnsatlrintic conin~unications to the colony through thc 1750s.

The transition from Frcnch to British colonial rulc lcft many of thc central fcatures

of this world intact- Whcrcas histonans have commonly uscd the Conquçst to mark the

bcginning or cnd of thcir pcriod of analysis, this study crosscs o\*cr it on the grounds that,

until thc carly 1800s, thcrc was an csscntial continuity in thc fùndamcntal proccsscs and

structurcs upon which communications dcpcndcd. Thc transatlantic mails, to a significant

dcgrcc, continucd to dcpcnd on thc informal nctworks that had traditionally provided for

thc circulrition of thc mails. Corrcspondcnts continucd to takc substantial rcsponsibility for

the nianagcmcnt of thcir correspondcncc; lcttcrs still wcnt routincly by favour; the role of

the agcnt rcmaincd crucial; and thc convcyancc of many lcttcrs across the occan still

dcpcndcd upon thc willingncss of ships' captains and merchants to cary them by pnvate

arrangemcnt. Thc conventions by which the community as a whole took responsibility for

thc circulation of the nlails rcmaincd csscntial to the effective functioning of

comrnunicat ions. And cven the newly established Post Officc relied upon these comection

in order to feed letters into its systcm. Finally, the great bulk of correspondence continued

to depcnd upon the cornmcrcial vessels that sailed in and out of the port of Quebec, and,

as a consequence, there remaincd a distinctive quality to the season of communications

dcfincd by thc opcning and closing of navigation in thc Saint Lawrence.

Thc Conqucst and its aftcrmath ncvcrthclcss brought changes. Unlike the

idios>mcrritic ~xr ia t ions thrit charrictcrizcd the Frcnch rcgimc, thcsc new features

rcprcscntcd pcrmancnt altcrations to the circumstanccs in which corrcspondcnts found

thcmsclvcs. Most significantly, correspondcnts wcre suddcnly ablc to write routinely and

rcliably during the wintcr. Almost immcdiaicly following thc Conqucst, Canadians with

sufficicnt rcsources had acccss ovcrland to thc port of Ncw York and the opportunitics for

wintcr conimunications froni thcrc by the shipping and thc monthly mail packets. Over the

ycars, this route bccamc cvcr bcttcr cstablishcd and more acccssiblc. The eventual

dc~.clopmcnt of thc Halifax routc addcd to the opportunitics available for winter

communicririons. Sccond, the dcvclopmcnt of trade to thc Saint Lawrence, as wcll as the

opcning of the Ncw York and Halifax routes, rcsultcd in a gradua1 increasc in the nurnbcr

and rangc of opportunitics availablc to Canadian correspondcnts. This mcant that

corrcspondcnts' opportunitics to dcspatch thcir lcttcrs wcrc far lcss constrained than they

had bccn during thc Frcnch rcgimc. Indccd, cvcn by thc shipping from Quebcc alone,

corrcspoiidcnts wcrc ablc by thc 1790s to dcspatch lcttcrs from rclatively early in the

spring until thc late h l l . This, combincd wirh Iatc dcparturcs from Britain for Canada,

looscncd thc constraints on the scason of communications through that port. Third, the

ycars of British rulc brought an cvcr largcr officia1 prcscncc to thc proccss of transatlantic

communications. Thc cstablishmcnt of a Post Officc at Qucbcc and colonial access to the

official packct mails through Ncw York and Halifax, as wcll as the burgconing officia1

local mail scmice, providcd institutional options for rcsidcnts of the colony for thc first

timc.

Beyond the dctailcd description of the seventeenth and eighteenth century mails

sunimarizcd abovc, this study makcs a number of broadcr contributions to our

undcrstanding of the past and the history of communications at large. In the first instance,

i t argucs strongly for an apprcciation of the dynamic quality of the carly mails. The

cmphasis of communiwtions scholars on changing technologies of communications, and

the preoccupation of Canadian histonans with the emergcnce of a m a s postal system in

the 1840s, havc resulted in an image of the early mails that is largely static. This study

has demonstratçd that thc circumstanccs of scvcntccnth and eightcenth ccntury

corrcspondents changed substantially over timç. Although Icttcr-writers continued to rely

on thc wnttcn lcttcr and a communications systcm that dcpcndcd upon pre-institutional

structurcs and convcntions of bchriviour, thcrc wcrc signifiant differenccs in how often,

how casily, whcn, and ovcr what route Canadians could scnd lcttcrs ovcrseas. As a

conscqucncc, historia1 cxplanations that use communications as a factor in thcir analysis

of past cvcnts must be carcful to avoid gencralizations that swccpingly characterize lctter

cornniunications in thc p s t as slow, difficult and awkward, and instead must look closely

at thc concrctc circurnstanccs in which individual corrcspondcnts found themselves at

spccific timcs.

On a rclritcd point. this study has isolatcd an important transition in the lettcr fonn

in carly Canada. in rcsponsc to thc rigid limitations on communications throughout the

Frcnch rcgimc, colonists adoptcd a distinctivc form of lcttcr-writing. Each scason, they

comrnonly scnt a scrics of lcttcrs to a rccipicnt in which thc lctters togcthcr formed a

wholc with a distinct bcginning, niiddlc, and cnd. Thc corrcspondcncc procecdcd as a

scrics of monologues sprcad ovcr many scasons of communications. Thc cnd of thc

scasonal limits on communications and thc expansion of opportunitics for the mails

following thc Conqucst brought about the cnd of this distinctivc style. Hcnceforth, thosc

who wishcd to maintain such an cxtcnsivc corrcspondcncc did so by writing year-round.

Thcy customady wrotc individual lettcrs to which thcy cspcctcd spccdy rcsponscs. As a

rcsult of thc timc rcquircd for thc transmission of corrcspondcncc, thcy would often write

sccoiid Icttcrs bcforc rccciving rcsponscs to the first, but noncthclcss the corrcspondcncc

procccdcd nwrc as a diriloguc than as thc distinctivc convcrsation blocks so common

during thc Frcnch rcgimc. This changc rcminds us that what a lcttcr is, and its function, is

ncithcr obvious nor constant, but partially constructed by the circumstances in which

corrcspondcnts found themsclvcs.

Third, this study has demonstrated the importance and effectiveness of pre-

institutional structures. Histories of the mails have traditionally privileged formai postal

routcs and scniccs, largcly ignoring those traditional structures that provided for the

circulation of the mails. As this study has dcmonstrated, the history of the mails is far

morc than a chronology of the expansion of postal service. We are accustomed to thinking

of communications as a tcchnology that we consume, but tnnsatlantic communications

bcforc the War of 1812 are more accurately undcrstood as a proccss in which

corrcspondcnts and thc broadcr community wcrc activc participants. Corrcspondents were

not csternal to thc mcchanisms of communications, but rathcr cssential to their functioning;

Icttcr-writcrs assunicd cnonnous rcsponsibility for thc transmission of thcir lettcrs. At the

srimc tirnc thcy rclicd heavily upon others. The community at large, and merchants in

particular, through thcir willingncss to acccpt lettcrs and forward thcm onward to their

destinations, providcd thc cssential mcchanisms by which lcttcrs circulatcd. Lctters

Icapfroggcd along, travelling through thc networks that linked thc clite inhabitants of the

North Atlantic to onc anothcr. Thcrc was no charge, no question of demur: cach played

thc rolc hc cspcctcd othcrs in turn to play for him. Whcn wc stop looking for the traces

o f an carljv Post Officc aiid focus upon the dctails of how communications actually

workcd, WC sec not the chaotic, unprcdictrrblc collection of haphazard opportunities wc

niight cxpcct, but a systcm posscsscd of a surprising dcgrcc of structure. Its rulcs wcre

tricit rather than cxplicit, and its process the product of convention rather than legislation.

But for al1 that it was rcal and workable. For morc than one hundrcd ycars, thesc

structures providcd cxclusivcly for the transmission of lettcrs bctwccn France and Canada.

A nlcrisurc of how wcll thcy functioncd is found in thc cstcnt to which correspondcnts

continucd to rcly upon thcni in place of thc Post Office aftcr thc Conqucst.

Fourth, this study has dcmonstratcd thc ccntral rolc that mcrchants playcd in

providing many of thc structures that undcrpinncd thc carly transatlantic mails. Thcy were

agents par cxccllcncc--thc mcn whosc ships providcd thc crucial mcans by which lctters

wcrc carricd across thc occan, and thc community who prcsscd govcrnment, both during

t11c Frcnch rcginic and aftcr thc Conqucst, for laws and scrviccs that would improve the

circumstanccs of al1 corrcspondcnts. The commercial networks of the Atlantic world

formed the cssential basis of thc early mail system to the end of Our period. Letters

travclled along the connections that existcd amongst merchants and through the temtory

dcfincd by thcir tradc.

Finally, this study has cmphasized the diversity in the experiencc of individual

corrcspondents. It is crucial, whcn we consider the nature of communications, that WC do

not simply look at the structures that provided the opportunities for correspondence.

Pattcms of lcttcr-writing wcrc thc product of a complex interaction between the resources

availablc to Canadians and the use they madc of thcm. Corrcspondcnts did not rcspond

cquüll y to opportunitics for communications. WC have sccn, for example, that throughout

both ihc Frcnch and British periods, government officiais consistently maintained a more

rcstrictcd corrcspondcncc than was tcchnically possible. As a rcsult of the consistent

Frcnch policy of scnding official dcspatchcs by thc King's ships, and the determination of

British govcrnors to writc through Halifax in wintcr, thcy oftcn rcceivcd news aftcr many

private citizcns did. Similarly, corrcspondcnts during the Frcnch rcgimc had variable

acccss to opportunitics othcr than thosc by the shipping to Qucbcc. During the eighteenth

ccntury, for example, spccific mcrchants connected to the Albany fur trade may have had

particularly casy acccss in wintcr to ncws and lettcrs from Europc through New England,

whilc most Canadians continucd to be constraincd by the scasonal limits on

communications. Likcwisc, in the mid-1750s. only ccrtain correspondcnts wcrc able to

scnd lcttcrs routincly to France through Louisbourg. The samc divcrsity of cxperiencç is

cLVidcnt following the Conqucst, particularly whcn WC considcr the impact of the

dc\.cloprncnt of t hc Ncw York and Halifax routcs. Dcpcnding upon whcrc correspondcnts

l i ~ w i , whom thcy kncw, whom thcy wcre writing to, what thcir busincss was, the time of

ycar. thcir rcsourccs, and how urgent thcy fclt thcir corrcspondencc to bc, colonial

corrcspondcnts sclcctcd spccific routcs and opportunitics for thcir letters.

Whilc divcrsc, thc corrcspondcnts on whom this study has focused formed a

rclativcly hornogcncous group whcn cornparcd to thc colonial population at large. This

study has clcarly conccmcd itsclf with thc cxpcricncc of an clitc. Thcsc pcople werc in

gcncral wcll-conncctcd, wcll-to-do, and promincnt mcmbcrs of thcir community. What

distinguishcs many of thcm, in particular, is thc shccr volume of thcir correspondcncc. By

definition, thcir ability to maintain that kind of correspondence is a sign of how well the

proccss of communications workcd for thcm; thcir cxpcncncc conscqucntly tells US Little

about thosc who had problcms accessing this system. But throughout this study ihere are

hints of the difiicultics corrcspondçnts could face. Some of Our less well-connected

correspondcnts, particularly thosc who were Icss closely associated with merchants and the

colonial trade, showçd irom timc to time confusion about how M e r s were to be sent, and

rcquired advicc from thosc more in the know. The ability to send lettcrs across the ocean

dcpcndcd in the first instancc upon one's acccss to mcrchants in the colonial trade or to

others connccted to thcse men. In the second place, it dcpcndcd upon one's proximity to

the ports or centres whcncc the lctters wcre despatched; living hirîhcr away, the ability to

convcy one's lctters to thcsc towns was a factor. Third, in the British colonial period at

lcas t, moncy was also an issue. Correspondents able to pay the cost of inland postage and

the packct fcc wcrc in a position to circumvcnt the rcgular shipping and the associated

problcms of acccss.

WC can assume that thcsc critcria cacludcd many colonists. In particular, thosc

would-bc corrcspondents who wcrc newly arrivcd in the colony, who wcre obscure, or

who livcd in isolatcd circumstanccs, may have iound it particularly difficult to make the

arnngcmcnts upon which the trmsatlantic mails dcpended. In 1812, for cxample, a group

of niilitary officcrs of thc Right Division stationcd at Stoney Crcck in Uppcr Canada

appcalcd for help in arranging for thc convcyancc of thcir Icttcrs. As they complained in a

mcmorial to the Lieutenant Gencral, Sir George Prevost, it was vcry difficult for them to

scnd lcttcrs home to England, "having ncithcr agents or acquaintanccs at Montreal or

Quebcc who would pay thc Postage to Halifax and no Post Office in this part of the

Country to rcceivc Lcttcrs-and if Lcttcrs <arc> sent to Montreal and the inland postage

not paid they rcmain thcrc and arc <ncver> forwarded, and conscquently Your

Mcmorialists friends will not know whcthcr thcy are dcad or alive." lnstead they askcd

hini "to ordcr a Bag to bc madc up Monthly at the Adjutant Gcncral's office as Lord

Wcllinrton docs in Portugal from whcncc thc Lcttcrs go frcc of cxpcnce to the Horse

Guards from which placc they arc sent to the General post O f f i ~ e . " ~ Their exampie

illustrates the kinds of connections and linkagcs that the contemporary mails depended

upon, and the predicamcnt of would-be correspondents who lacked access t o them.

Undoubtedly from time CO time a would-be concspondent, such as one of the

military officen abovc, would mn into a tmveller headed to his home town, or a sailor in a

tavern headcd across thc Atlantic who would undertake to carry his Ictter to its destination.

Through rnany such chancc meetings and quirks of fate, individual letters made their ofien

tonured way from writer to rccipient. These lettcr-writcrs made use of the kinds of

nctworks and conventions that forrned an intcgral part of the systcm of communications

that this study h a dcscribcd, but they existcd on the edgcs of a world in which others

routinely participatcd.

In light of thesc findings, this study opens furthcr lines of enquiry. First, we need

to look at how thc distinctive qualitics of communications in early Canada, and the ways

that thcy changcd ovcr tin-ic, affccted a myriad of groups and their affairs. What was the

impact upon thc church and rcligious ordcrs, upon mcrchant commcrcc, and upon the

coiiduct of war? Somc work has bccn donc on the impact of thc pattcms and rhythm of

comn~unications on govcrnmcnt in the latc Frcnch regime, but how did the changing nature

of communications affcct thc dcvclopmcnt and implcmcntation of colonial policy

throughout this pcriod?'

Sccond, wc n~ight profitably look at thc flow of information and news to Canada.

Whcn and how did thc first word of particular cvcnts rcach thc Saint Lawrence? Were

spccific p u p s able to cscrt control ovcr thc flow of information into the colony, and

could thcy exploit this powcr to thcir advantage?

Third, this study has touchcd on thc idca of colonial isolation. It has rcmarked on

thc scnsc of distancc that colonists somctimcs fclt, living as Mark dc I'Incamation put it

'RG 8, Scrics C, Vol. 284, Rcei C-3862, fol. 114, ~Stoncy Crcck>, Mcmorial of the Officers of the Righi Division o i flic Amy of Uppcr Cariada to Licutcnani Gcncral Sir George Prcvost, Govcrnor and Coriin~andcr in Chid of His Majcsty's Fiirccs in Upper and h w e r Canada, 3 Dcccmbcr 1813.

'Sec Banks, "Cornniunications and Irnpcrial Absolutism." Banks' study docs not focus significantly on changc ovcr fimc.

"en cc bout du mondc." But at the same time it has suggested that correspondents may not

havc fclt as profoundly opprcssed by the seasonal rhythm of communications as we would;

it hôs emphasizcd the ways in which they accommodated their corrcspondence to suit the

distinctive constraints on communications; and it has descnbed the extent to which

correspondents such as Marie de l'incarnation wcre able through the written word to

establish meaningful relationships with correspondents overseas. Further research might

effcctivcly focus on how colonists pcrceived the distance that separated them from the

mothcr country. What impact did thc distinctive constraints on communications have on

immigration patterns and thc family? To what cxtcnt did thc silcncc that so oftcn endured

bctwccn the colony and France hclp to promotc a sensc of colonial distinctivcness, and

possibly frce colonists from a scnsc of irnperial intnssivcness?

Fourth, anothcr study might focus on the naturc of time-consciousncss in carly

Canada and how it cvolvcd into the nineteenth century. Scholars such as E.P. Thompson

ha\-c conimonly argucd that changing patterns of production and work in early ninctcenth

ccnrury Europe Icd to the cnicrgcncc of a hcightcncd awarcncss of tirne. Increasingly, he

suggcsts, Europcans bccanic conscious of timc as a rcsourcc that could bc saved or wasted;

thcir livcs werc cvcr morc strictly govemcd by thc clock.' Thc samc tcndcncy has been

dcscribed in ninctccnth ccntury Amcrica, whcrc by thc 1860s evcn the rcsidents of some

rural cornmunitics had adoptcd ncw mcasures of productivity and intcrnaiizcd ncw attitudes

toward timc? This study has touchcd bricfly on thc idca that French rcgime

corrcspondcnts posscsscd a distinctive undcrstanding of time that hclpcd them adjust to the

scasonal constraints on conimunications in the Saint Lawrcncc. It would bc intcresting to

pursue furthcr thc qucstion of how timc-consciousncss altercd as WC move through the

cicphtccrith and into thc carly ninctccnth ccnturics. Do wc scc thc samc kinds of

dcidopmcnts occurring in this pcriod that scholars havc identificd çlscwhcre, and with

Thompsoti, "Tinie, Work-Discipline, arid indusrrial Capitalism." See also the discussion of this in Gerhard Dohm-van Rossum, H b of the h u r : Clocks andModcrn Teniwralrans. Thomas Ilulap (Chicago: Univcrsiiy of Chicago Prcss, 1996), pp. 323-50.

artin in Druegel, "'Tirne That Can Be Rçlied Upon.' Thc Evohtion of Time Consciousness in the Mid- Hudson Vallcy, 1790-1860," Journal o1 Soc-- - . -

O* (American), Vol. 38, No. 3 (Spring 1995). pp. 547-64.

what kind of lag timcs? What factors other than communications were crucial to time-

consciousncss?

Finally, it would bc profitable to focus upon the progression from the world of

communications that wc have dcscribcd, in which most conespondents were significantiy

dcpcndcnt upon the informal practices and conventions that had traditionally provided for

the transn~ission of the mails, to a world in which the circulation of the mails depended

prirnarily on the service provided by the Post Office. By the 1840s, scholars commonly

agrcc, the Post Office was thc dominant force in the world of communications in Canada,

providing virtually universal acccss to the rnaik6 Thc way communications functioned

had changcd significantly, and pcrhaps the best evidcncc of this is thc disappearance of the

kinds of source matcrial on which this study has been so heavily bascd. Through the

1820s and 1830s it is increasingly difficult to find thc lcngthy descriptions of what letters

had bcen sent by which route that traditionally charactcrized lcttcrs from an earlicr period.

Corrcspondcnts still wrote about the timing of the mails, but now it was a matter of

infomiation rathcr than bcing an intcgral part of the activc managcmcnt of their

corrcspondcncc. Thc proccss of con~rnunications had bccomc in largc part bureaucratized,

and the impact of this is visible in the lcttcrs thcms~lves.~ This study has touched upon

somc of thc pressures that cncouragcd the dcvclopmcnt of officia1 postal scrvicc in the

cightccnth ccntury, and at thc same time upon thc limitations that contemporarics pcrceived

in the servicc thc Post Officc providcd. How might this undcrstanding of the early history

of official nctworks rccast Our undcrstanding of thc latcr pcriod? What wcre the factors

that contributcd to thc growing burcaucratization of postal senricc? Why wcre thcsc

institutions thought to bc crucial, whcn, and by whom? In al1 of this we rnight ask

whcthcr thc gowth of LI burcaucratizcd postal scnicc was incvitablc as the colony grew;

6Even ihcn access was no1 univcrsal. Wcndy Camcron in "Till thcy gct tidings from those who are gorie...:' Thomas Sockett and Lcrters from Pctwonh Emigrants, 1832-1837," Ontario., Vol. 85 (March 1993). p. 9 noies tliat the Icttci-s cmigraxirs wrote home cncouraging family and fiicnds to cmigrate were often scnt back to England through thcir land scttlcment Company bccausc the emigrants could not afford the cost of posiagc. This example is ironic in that, in the contcst of the French regime, it has bcçn argued that it was ihc abscncc of an officia1 Post Oftlcc that irnpedcd rcccnt immigrants writing home to family and friends si~iiilarl y cricouragirig crnigration tu the Frcnch colony.

'Esantplcs of rhis cm be found in many privatc corrcspundçnçc collections. A panicularly nice case is a lcitcr wriitcri by Adani H o p in Hamilton to his Fither Robcrt Hope, Fenton Barns by Haddington, Scotland, I O Augusi 1533, h o m thc privaiz collection of Tom Crçrar, London, Ontario who kindly scnt me a transaipt.

pcrhaps the kind of informal networks that for so long had held sway were only effective

in smd i closc-knit cornmunities.

Today, of course, the mass postal service that was crcated in the 1840s, and held

sway through the 1970s and 1980s, is no longer the dominant institution it once was. At

thc bcginning of the twenty-first century, when correspondents set out to send a letter they

can choosc to send it by cmail, as a fax, by private courier, or through the postal service.

Ironically, thc world WC now inhabit rccalls that describcd in this study--though more

institutionalizcd. Corrcspondcnts today, as was the case for those in the much more distant

past, c m choose from a variety of options; in selecting amongst them, they must weigh

thcir cost, spccd. sccurity, and reliability. At thc samc timc, as with the lettcr-writer of

long ago, corrcspondcnts today often find thcmsclvcs sending multiplc copies of a letter by

diffcrent routcs to cnsurc that it actually amves at its destination: a fax is commonly

followcd by a hard copy scnt through the mail; a letter scnt by couricr or fax is commonly

followcd by an email mcssagc warning thc intcndcd rccipicnt to check for its amval.

Thus, as in thc scvcntecnth and cightccnth ccnturics, corrcspondcnts today play an active

rolc in thc proccss of communications t hrough thc managcmcnt of t heir corrcspondcncc.

Our situation diffcrs from thcirs, howevcr, in how thc proccss of communications

functions. Our ability to correspond is dcpcndent upon thc capacity of our socicty to

providc thc tcchnological Iinks that convcy Our mcssagcs, oftcn without human

participation. In contrrist, thc scvcntccnth and cightccnth century Iettcr-writcr was

ultiniately dcpcndc~it upon the willinpcss of othcrs to takc charge of his or her

corrcspondcncc. The community at large--not a set of wircs and circuits--provided the

nctwork that made coniniunications possible.

Looking back at lcttcr cornniunications in thc carly scvcntccnth and eightccnth

ccnturics, onc is struck by thc rcsilicncc of thc structures that providcd for

communications, thc strcngth of the convcntions that lcd mcmbcrs of thc community at

largc to assumc a rcsponsibility for the mails of othcrs, and thc ways in which individual

Canadians nianagcd thcir corrcspondcncc in ordcr to maximizc the opportunities available

to thcm.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

A. Archival and Manuscript Sources

.-frchives du Québec

Archives privées

Adhémar, Antoine, Corrcspondence, P1000-01-10.

Cabart de Villcrrnont, Esprit de, Correspondence, P272.

Delormc, Sieur, Corrcspondence, Plûûû-28-522.

Hazcur, François, Corrcspondence, P1000/48-95 1.

Lesacquc, Pierre, Correspondencc, Plûûû/64-1269-

Perrault, L'ainé, Correspondance, E04.

.4rchives du Séminuire de Qukbec

Carton Seminaire

Fonds Vcrrcau

Lcttrcs M, N, O.

.-lrclrives de 1 'Universiri de Montréul

Collection Baby, Partie 2, Sknç U, Correspondancc Générale.

McCord Museum

McCord Family Papers, MS 141 1. : McCord family correspondence. : Arthur Davidson correspondence, 1433-1459.

Hart Family, 1760-1843, M21359.

Munro Family, M20345.

Metrupolitan Toronto Public Library, Baldwin Room

Powell, W.D. Papers, L16, AMC Powell Correspondence, Senes A93.

Elizabeth Russell Papcrs, L21 cup 17, Vol. 1.

Arutiortcrl .-irchives of Canada

Officia1 rccords

MG 1, Archivcs des Colonies - Paris, Scric Cl 1 A, Concspondance Generale, Canada. Scrie P,B, Commcrcc aux Colonics.

MG 6, Archives Dcpartemcntallcs, municipales, maritimes. B3, Archivcs Municipales dc La Rochelle B17, Chambre de Comrncrce de Bayonne, B5 Deliberations.

MG 8, Docurncnts Relatifs a la Nouvelle-France et au Qucbec (XVI Ic-XXe sicclcs),

A. Documents Generaux, 6. Ordomanccs dcs Intendants, Transcriptions.

MG 1 1, Colonial Office Rccords, CO 5, Sccrctary of Statc Amcrica and West Indics, gencral mattcrs, vols 134-37. CO 42, [Q scries] Canada, Original Correspondance.

MG 15, Trcasury Board T28, Out Lctters, Vol. 1.

MG 21, Transcripts frorn Papers in the British Museum Add. Mss. 3 166 1-3 1892, Fredcrick Haldimand Papers-

MG 40 8 7 , "Instructions to Govcrnors," Quebec, 1763-1787, p. 116 "tnstnictions to our Trusty and Wcll-beloved Guy Carleton-"

MG 43, British Post Office Papers, Scrics B, Transcripts, Vol. 1 and 2. Scrics C, General Post Office

- Post 1, Treasury Letterbooks, Vol. 9-37. - Post 41, Packet Reports, Vol. 1-6. - Post 44, Ovcrscas Mails, Organization: Colonial Post Offices, Vols. 1-30.

RG 3, Post Oificc Departmcnt, Vols. 907-20; 1007, 1142, 1125

RG 8, British Military and Naval Records, Serics C, Vols. 283-86.

Manuscript Collections

Allsopp Fan~ily Papcrs, MG 13 G III 1, Vol. 1, George Allsopp, "Photostat of Letterbook, 1793-1796,"

Askin, John, Papcrs, MG 19 A 3, Vol. 34.

Baby Collcction Transcripts, MG 24 U, Vols. 1-3.

Charticr dc Lothbinikrc, Michcl, Papcrs MG 18 K3.

Cotton, Charlcs Caleb and Family Papcrs, MG 24 J47.

Currattcau, Dossicr dc la Faniillc, MG G A 5 Archivcs dcpartrncntalcs dc la Luirc-Atlantique (Nantes), Scrie E.

Ermatingcr Family Papcrs, MG 19 AS, Scrics 1, Vol. 1, Lawrence Ermatingçr Lctterbook.

Finlay, Hugh, Papcrs, MG 23, GII 9.

Howard (Mclcan), James Scott, Papers, MG 24 B 166

Janlis Farnily Papcrs, MG 23 H t 3,

McDonald - Stone Family Papers, MG 23 H II 1.

Nairnc, John and Thomas, Papers, MG 23 G II1 23.

Osgoode, William, Papers, MG 23 H 1 10.

dc Ramczay, Famille, MG 18 H 54, Vol.1, Correspondence.

Sewell, Jonathan, Papers, MG 13 G II 10, Correspondence, Vols. 2-8.

Vigcr, Jacques, Corrcspondence, MG 24 L8, "Ma saberdache."

Whitc John, Papcrs, MG 23 H 1 5

New York Historical Society, Ncw York City

Robcrt Saundcrs Lettcr Book, Microfilm

Public ,-lrchives of Ontario

MU 7106, #7, Sandwich Post Office, Draft Lctter, William Hands to Gcorgc Hcriot, 3 October 1807.

Mode Islarid Hisroricul Society, Providence Rhode Island,

Gabricl Barnon Papcrs, Mss 294.

B. Printed Primary Sources

cadia a t _ U d of the Seventecnth Ce-ttem JO

m. Edited by John Clarence Webster. Monographic Series, No. 1. Saint John, N.B.: The N e w Brunswick Museum, 1934.

A l m a n a c h h , . Paris: Laurcnt dtHoury, 1709-1760 (NAC, Library, Rare AY 831 A4).

T h c d r o s Papcrs: Files of the Provin-etary of Ncw York D- 74 - 16m . Edited by Peter R. Christoph

and Florence A. Christoph. transl. from the Dutch by Charles T. Gehring. New York: Syracuse University Press, 1989-91.

"Archives Gradis." In Rapport de l'archiviste de la province dc Ouébec, 1957-58 and 1958-59.

P-. Edited by Milo Quaiffe, 2 Vols. Detroit: Detroit Library Commission, 1928-3 1.

dc Bougainville, Louis-Antoinc. Ecrits sur Ic Canada: Mcrnoires J o ~ a l C - - -Jxttres. Edited by Roland Lamontagne. Québcc: Pélican, 1993.

. . . - a . Charlevoix, Pf rc Picrrc-François-Xavier. firstoirc ct Dcscnptlon Gcncralc dc la Nouvelle Francc. 3 Vols. Paris: Giffart, 1744.

Chausscgros dc E r y . hventairc des wiers de u c r v é s a u x u i v e s d c h province dc OuCbcc. Editcd by Picne-Georges Roy. Québec: Archives de la province de Québcc, 1939-40. Vol. 1.

Collection dc Manuscrits Contcnant Ixttres. m c t c n t s H- . . Nouvelle-Francc. 4 Vols. QuCbcc: A. CotE, 1885.

"Corrcspondancc cchangéc cntrc la cour de Francc ct le gouvcrncur de Frontenac, pendant sa sccondc Adnlinistration (1689-1699)." dc I ' a r ~ v i s t c dc la rovinu dc Ouébec, 1927-38. 1928-29.

"Corrcspondancc echangCc cntrc la cour dc France et l'intendant Talon pendant ses deux adniiiiistratioiix dans Iri Nouvcllc-France." W o r t dc lt=hivistc dc la provhcc dc Ouébcc, 1930-31.

Corrcspondancc entre M. dc Vaudreuil ct la Cour." -deviste de la p o v h de O U ~ ~ C C , 1938-39, 1939-40, 1942-43, 1946-47, 1947-48.

Correspondçncç of the Ho-ble Peter Russell with Al1 ed D- re- - . cnt of UD O ~ I & T- Licut - GO vcrnor J.G. Simcoe. Vol. 1: 1796-1797. Edited by E.A. Cruikshank. Toronto: Ontario Historia1 Society, 1932.

Dcclaration du Roi Donné a Vcrsaillçs le h u i t i c c - .. tation du Tarif dcs norts dc Izttres. Grenoble, France: imprimerie D'André

Giroud, Irnprimcur-Librarie du Parlement, au Palais, 1759. [NAC, Canadian Postal Archives, K 4243 A48 F71 1759, cx- 1 Rare]

ef Justice W- 1784 - 1793 . Edited by L.F.S. Upton. Vol. 2. Toronto: Champlain Socicty, 1965.

- - Dollicr dc Crisson, François. kiistoirc du Montreal- Nouvelle &dition critique par Marcel Trudcl ct Maric Baboyant. Cahicrs de Quçbcc. Quebcc: Hurtubisc, 1992.

. . v Journal. Colon s t w 1773 - 177 4. Edited by Franck H. Norton. Brooklyn Mcrcantilc Library Association, 1867; reprint, US: U S Philatelic Classics Socict y, 1975.

. - . . h v c n t u e des iueemçnts çt dçlibçra erreur de la Nou , - vdle-Frace de 1717-1760. 7 Vols. Bcauceville, Quebcc: L'Eclaireur, 1932-35.

g c c s des intcn w i . ar . . provincmlcs dc Ouébcc. 4 Vols. Editcd by Pierre-George Roy. Beauccville, Quebec: L'Eclriircur, I Y 19.

. C t . Invcntairc Jcs ~rocès-verbaux des w d s vovcrs conscn-és aux archivcs de la ~rovince de Ou6bcr. G Vols. QuCbcc, Officc dc grand Voyer. Bcauccville: L'cclaireur, 1923.

Editcd by Reubcn Gold Thwaites. 73 Volumes. Clc\.land, 1896-1901.

ca: The F ,nelish Version of 177Q. Revised and Edited by Adolph B. Bcnson. 2 Vols. Ncw York: Dovcr Publications, 1964.

ttrcs au cher fils: c o r r c s ~ o n d ~ c m a b c t h Béwn a vcc son m e (1748 - 1753) . Edited 1 -

by Nicolc Dcschampcs. Montrcal: Hurtubisc, 1972.

"Lcs Lcttrcs dc Dorcil," m o r t dc llarcfiiviste de la p-e de O u é h , 1944-45.

"Lcttrcs dc Mkrc Marie-Andrée Duplessis de Sainte-Hélène, Supericur des Hospitalières dc l'Hôtel-Dicu d Qucbcc." In Nova Fr&. Vol. 2 (1926-27), Vol. 3 (1927-28), Vol. 4 (1928-?O), Vol. 5 (192'1-1930), and Vol. 6 (1930-31).

"Lcttrcs du Saint Charles Garnier," Bapport de l'archiviste de k p ~ w i n c e de Ouébec, 1929-30.

"Lcttrcs d u pèrc Aulneau," W p o r t de llar&viste de la province de Ouébe~, 1926-27.

"Lettres ct mémoires de l'abbé de L'Isle-Dieu," Bsipport de l'archiviste de la p r o v h e de Ouébcc, 1935-36, 1936-37.

> - Lct t r c s .~ ruc t ions . ct memoires de Colbert Publics d & C C .' 1, - . .

o~osition de son ExccIlçncç. M. - Par Pierre Clément, Tome III, IIe partic - Instructions au Marquis de Seignelay, Colonies. Paris: Imprirnenc Impériale, 1865.

"Livre dc Raison dc Mllc Briand." W o r t dç l'archiviste de la province de Ouébcc. I ')-+(>-47.

M a r k de l'Incarnation. Ursulinc ! 1599- 1672): Corrcspondancc. Editcd by Dom Guy Oury. Solcsnies: Abbaye Srrintc-Picrre, 1971.

Ncw Yo& Historical Manusçri~ts: Books of Crrmral Fm y of Ncw York. 1674-1688. Edited Ely Pctcr R. Christoph and Florence A. Chnstoph. Baltimore: Gcncological Publishing Co., 1982.

The Pa~crs of Be4- Fr- . . . Edited by Leonard W. Labarce. Vols. 9-11. New Haven

and London: Yale University Press, 1966.

Qucbcc O a n a c k or m a n a c h dc Oucbcç [also known as The British Amcrican Royal Kale&]. Vols. for 1780, 1782, 1774-89, published by William Brown; Vols. for 1791, 1792, 1794, 1796-1812, publishcd by John Neilson.

ivistc dc la ~ r o "Quclqucs PrCtrcs cn exil au Canada," W o r t dc l'arch vincc de Out5bc~, 1966.

. . . . -c-t cc qui s'est passé de plus rc-ble dans les missions

rcs dc la Co s la nouvcile-France. 3 Vols., Québec: Augustin Coté, 1858.

"Report of the Cornmissionncrs appointed to cnquire into thc affairs of the Post Office in British North Amcrica." 3 1 Dcccmbcr 1841. Province. of Canada, Lcgislative Asscmbly, Journals. 1846, Appcndix F, no. 16.

"Scratching Along Arnongst thc Stumps:" Letters from Thomas Priestman, a Settler in the Niagara Pcninsula, 181 1-1839." Edited by Angus I.L. Winchester. -tory. Vol. 81, No. 1 (March 1989): 41-58.

coe's Di=. Editcd by Mary Quayle Innis. Toronto: McMiIlan of Canada, 1965.

"Table of Distances in the British Provinccs in North America to which k t t e r s may be Conveyed Through the P.O. [c. 17901

Thc To -

wn of York 1793-1 81 s : A Collect on of Documçnts of b r l y T0rcm.t~. Edited by Edith Firth. Toronto: Champlain Society, 1962.

Wiiislow Pa~crs. A.D. 1776-1816. Editcd by W.O. Raymond. Printcd under the Auspices of the New Brunswick Historiwl Society. St. John N.B.: The Sun Printing Co., 1901.

Secondary Sources

A. Book and Articles

Albcrt, Thomas. fiist -. Quebec: Hurtubisc HMH et La Société Historique du Madawaska, 1982.

Albion, Robert G. The Risc of New York Port !1815 - 18601 . Connecticut: Archon Books, 1961.

Altman, Janct Gurkin. "The Lcttcr Book as a Litcrary Institution, 1539-1789: Toward a Cultural History of Publishcd Corrcspondenccs in France." YalcFrcnch NO. 71 (1986): 17-62

Anderson, Patricia. n e Pri- and thc Tr ansformation of P w a r Culturc. 1790 - 1 860. Oxford: Clarendon Prcss, 199 1.

. . Amcll, I.C. &tic Mails: A W o r y of the Mail Scrvicc Between Great

to 18139. Ottawa: National Postal Muscurn, 1980.

. Stcam and thc North Atlantic Ma 1s: T h ç a c t of the Cu..mrd 1- . -.. . -.. Suh\cuucnt T r d a n t i c M a . Canc3a:

Unitradc Prcss, c. 1986.

T r a n s a t t t o a n d f r o m Davs t~ . .

U.P.U.. British North America Philatelic Society, Transatlantic Mail Study Group. Handbook Numbcr Four. [Hamilton, Ontario]: J.C. Amell, c. 1996.

"Au sujct dc la Famille de Lotbinicrc." u t i n des Recherches. Vol. 33 (1937): 389-98.

Bailyn, Bernard. New E w d M e r w s in the Sev- Ce-. Cambridge Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1955.

Balcom, B.A. The Cod F i w v of Isle 1713-58. Studies in Archacology and Architccturc and History. Parks Canada: National Historic Parks and Sites Branch, 1984.

. "The Cod Fishcry of Isle Royale, 1713-58," in A p e c t s of Jouisbo- on the His * . -torv of an tccnth C c n t u r m in NO

3 - 1 Cc rncniora tc the -73th Anni v crsary of the Fou- of hu isbourg , eds. Eric Krause, Carol Corbin and William O'Shea. Cape Breton: University College of Cape Breton Press, 1995.

Barrcy, M. Ph. "Une Chambre de commerce indépendante au XVIIIe siècle. Les . C représentants du commerce du Havre." In U t i n du C o r n e des Travea-es et Scicntifiaucs. .. S c c t b dcs scicnccséconomjqucs et socialeg . . Congrès des soci6tEs savantes, 1909, 76-86.

- "Lcs prcmicrs paquebots postaux entre le Havre, New-York ct les colonies françaises, 1786-1788.'' In Bulletin du- . . . * \'

. . k X b n des sciences éco&uues ct sociales. CongrCs des sociCtCs savantes, 1906, 154-70.

Bcal, Philip. A History of the Post in F u from the R o w s to the S t u m . Aldershot, England: Ashgatc Publishing, 1998.

Bird, William R. The K w to Old Acadia. Toronto: Rycrson Press, 1928.

The TclceraDh thç ,qo Blondhcim, Mcnahçm. Nçws Ovçr the I n f o r m ü t i o n c A n i . 1844-1897. Cambridp: Harvard University Press, 1994.

Boggs, Winthrop S. Thc fostagç S t w s and Postal Historv of Canada. Chambers Pu bl is hing Company, 1945; reprint Lawrence Massachusetts: Quarteman Publications, 1974.

Borcr, Mary Cathcart. The Cit of London--tory. London: Constable, 1977.

Boshcr, John F. "A Québec Mcrchant's Trading Circles in France and Canada: Jean-André Lmalctic bcforc 1763." Social Histo@istoirc Soc . . ials;. Vol. 10, No. 19 (May 1977): 24-44.

. . . ess and R- in U e of New France. 1600 - 1760 : T ~ t v - T W Q

Studies. Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press, 1994.

e C d a M c r c h a n t s , . - . London: Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1987.

. "Huguenot Merchants and the Protestant international in the Seventeenth Century." W i l v Ouart&. 3rd Series, Vol. 52 (January 1995): 77-102.

1660 1760: A z. . . - Studies in Archaeology and Architecture and History. Parks Canada: National Historic Parks and Sites Branch, 1992.

. . Bouchardeau, France et Philippe. w d e - ~ h a m b r e . Vol. 1: h i du p;itranat dromois au m e sièch. Université des sciences sociales de Grenoble: Chambre dc Cornmercc et d'Industrie de Valence ct de la Drome, 1981.

ter Bracke, Alcx l., ed. v . State Collcgc Pa: Amcrican Philatclic Rescarch Library, 1975.

. . Brcwcr, John. -- bndon; New York: Cambridge University Prcss, 1976.

Brière, Jcan-François. W a - e du Nord au XV-. Montrcai: Fidcs, 1990.

Brown, Richard D. &~owlcdrç is Po . . on of Information- l7W- 1 865. Ncw York: Oxford University Prcss, 1989.

Bruegel, Martin. "'Time That Can Bc Relied Upon.' The Evolution of Time Consciousness in the Mid-Hudson Valley, 1790-1860." m a l of Soc- (American). Vol. 28. No. 3 (Spring 1995): 547-64.

Bruneau, Marie-Florinc. "A New Perspective on the Historiography of the New World." Wcstcm Society for Frençh p r o c c c d ~ of the Annual iMec m. Vol. 18

(1991): 493-97.

Brunct, Michcl. "b Conquftc Anglaise et la Déchéance de la Bourgeoisie Canadienne, (1 760-1793)." Chap. in L;i Présencc Anglaise et !es C e n s : Etudes sur M o i r e et 1 . -

ux Canadas. Montrcal: Bcauchemin, 1964.

Brunn, Stanley D. and Thomas R Lcinbach, cds. Y a c n d : Ge- &ccts of Communication and Information . . . hndon: Harpcr Collins, 1991.

Burt, A.L. Thc Old Province of Ouebec. Vol. 1: 1760 - 1778 . Thc Carleton Library Senes, No. 37. Toronto: McClelland and Stcwart, 1968.

w w Butler, Jon. -ts in Amcrica: A R e f u e e c . Cambridge Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1983.

West- of Vermont. 1600 - 1800 : War- Calloway, Colin G. The Peo-&. Norman Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1990.

Cameron, Wendy. "'Till they get tidings from those who are gone...:' Thomas Sockett and Lcttcrs from Petwonh Emigrants, 1832-1837." OntarioHistorv. Vol. 85 (March 1993): 1-16.

. . Carey, James W. Communications as C u b e : -band Boston: Cnwin Hyman, 1989.

. "Tcchnology and Ideology: The Casc of the Telegraph." (Great Britain), Vol. 8 (1983): 302-23.

Caron, Adrien, cn collaboration avcc Yves Hébert et Nelson Michaud. -a en Acad~c: lx Grand-Ponÿgr. Cahier d'histoire No. 15, La Pocatière, Québec: Société historique dc la Côte-du-Sud, 1980.

iants Marsçillars au X I I I ç s . * Carrière, Charles. WC V ièclc. 2 Vols. Institut historique de Provcncc, Marseille: imprimerie Robert, n-d.

- . . . Cazaux, Yves. L'Acadie: Histoire des Acadiens du XvITç siecle à nos jours. Paris: Albin Michct, c. 1993.

. . Charbonneau, Hubcrt ct al. Naissançe d'unc population. Lcs Fr-m e t a b au -da au XVIlc sièclc. Co11. "Travcaus ct documents," No. 118. ParMMontrcal: Institut national d'étudcs dCn~ogaphiqucslPrcsscs dc I'UnivcrsitE dc Montrcal, 1987.

Charron, J.I. "Postal History of Canada undcr the French Regirne, 1608-1760." , Vol. 19 (1968): No. 2: 91-95; No. 3, 109-111.

Choquette, LcsIie. "'Ces Amazones du Grand-Dieu': Women and Mission in Seventeenth- Ccntury Canada" m t o r i c a l St*, Vol. 17, No. 3 (Spring 1992): 626-55.

Cipolla, Car10 M. Clocks and Culture. 13OO-17OO. New York: Walkcr and Company, 1967.

CIanchy, M.T. From Mcmory to Writtcn Record: E m n d 1066 - 1307 - Cambridge Massachusetts: Hamard Univcrsity Press, 1979.

Clark, Andrcw Hill. Acadia: The G c w h y of Farly Nova Scotia to 1760. Madison: The Univcrsity of Wisconsin Press, 1968.

Clark, John G. -1le -c Atlanticconoav Du-th C e W . Baltimore: John Hopkins Univcrsity Prcss, 1981.

Coates, Colin M. "Authority and Illegitimacy in New France: The Burial of Bishop Saint- . - Vallier and Madeleine de Verchères vs. the Priest of Batiscan." Histoire S - S U m. Vol. 22, No. 43 (May 1989): 65-90.

Colc, A.H. "The Tempo of Mercantile Life in Colonial Arncrica." Businçsstory Rcvicw. Vol. 33 (1959): 277-99.

Crcighton, Donald. Thc F w i r e of the Sa -wre~ . Toronto: Macmillan, 1956.

Crcssy, David. Comia O . . ver: on a& CommunicationBEngiar&d New tcenth Century. US.: Cambridge University Press, 1987.

Litçracm- W w in Writing Stuart Eneland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980.

. . . Crowlcy, David and Paul Hcycr, cds. Communiç;ttion in fiistory: Tech-. C- Soçicty. 22s ed. White Plains, Ncw York: Longman, 1995.

Curtis, Bruce. "Sornc Rcccnt Work on thc History of Litcracy in Canada." f i to ry af Education Ouartçrly. Vol. 30, No. 4 (Winter 1990): 613-24.

Czitrom, Daniel J. Mcdia and t k - Mind: From M a s e to MçLuhan. Chapcl Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1982.

. . Daiglc, Jcan. "L'acadic, 1604-1763, SynthCsc histonquc," In J R S AcadicnS des Etudcs Thcrnatic!ucii. cd. Jcan Daiglc. Moncton: Centre d'ctudes acadiennes, 1980.

Dauphin, Cicile, Picnctte Lebrun-PEzcrat, DaniClc Poublan. Ces Une . .

ccirrcs~ondancc famI~aIc au XiX sitclc. Prefacc dc Roger Chartier. Pans: AIbin Michel, 1995.

Davis, Natalic Zcnon. Womçn on the w: Threc Scv- Ccntw 1 , i v ~ . Cam bridge, Massachusc tts: Haward Univcrsity Prcss, 1995.

Dcchênc, Louisc. Lc art= dcs subsistwcs au Canada sous lc r c w . Montreal: Borcal, 1994.

H a b i t a n t s d - . M i n h v Cent- . Translated by Liana Vardi. Montrcal: McGill-Quccn's, 1992.

Dclafossc, M. "La Rochcllc et lc Canada au XVIIe sièclc." f ivue d'H&irc de 1'Amcriqw Françaisç. Vol. 4, No.4 (March 1951): 469-51 1.

. . Dclécusc, Jacqucs. I r s Consuls dc Rol içn :s to~rc de la Chambre de Comte et d'Industrie de Rouen. Roucn: Editions du P'tit Normand, 1985.

Demos, John. -1y v - S t w fro- . New York: AIfred A. Knopf, 1993.

Dickinson, John A. and Bnan Young. u o r t of Ouebec. 2nd ed. Toronto: Copp Clark Pitman, 1993.

."Pcriodization in Quebcc History: A Reevaluation." Ouebec Stu&, Vol. 12 (SpringJSummer 1991): 1 - 10.

. . I C ~ X O Rio-. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1967 - .

. . . . Diebcrt, Ronald J. P a r c h m c n t . t a n d o n s UWorld O r d a Transformation. Ncw York: Columbia University Press, 1997.

Dohrn-van Rossum, Gerhard. fitory of W u r : C w d M o d m Temporal O r d a . transl. Thomas Dulap. Chicago: University of Chicago Prcss, 1996.

Donoe:an, Kcnneth. "A Lcttcr from Louisbourg." A m. Vol. 10. No. 1 (Autumn 1980): 113-3U.

. "The Marquis de Chabert and the Louisbourg Obsewatory in the 1750's." crican Ncntune. Vol. 14, No. 3 (Summer 1984): 186-97.

Douglas, Susan. I n v e n t i n e r o a d c â s r i n g - 2 2 . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987.

Eccles, W J . Canada Under Louis XIV. 1666-1701. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1978-

n Fronticr. 1533- 17611. Albuquerque: University of Ncw Mexico Press, 1983.

ont . Toronto: McClelland and Stcwart, 1959. -

. "Quclqucs réflcxions sur la concspondancc entre la Nouvellc-France et le ministkrc dc la Marine." Ja Ilcttre au XVIIIe siccle ct ses a -. vatm. m e s du C o l l o w . . - . universitaire Glcndon. Iln vcrsite York, Tarnnto. Ca-

r mai 1993. cd. Gcorgçs Bérubé ct Maric-France Silver. Toronto: Editions du Grcf, Colicctions Dont actcs no. 14, 1996.

. . Eisenstein, Elizabeth L. Thc Pr- Press as m t of C m : Co- . . Cuit ural T r a n s f o r m a t i o n s 1 1 E u r w . Cambridge : Cambridge University Prcss, 1979.

Ellis, Kenneth. ative m. London: Oxford University Prcss, 1958.

- Finlcy, Gerald. GeorggHgxiot: P o s m t e r P W r of the Cênad;is. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1983.

Fischer, Claude S. A&ca C u A Soc- of the TelephOne to 194Q. Berkley: University of California Press, 1992.

Folcy, Michael S. "A Mission Unfulfilled: The Post Office and the Distribution of Information in Rural New England, 1821-1835." -of Re-. Vol. 17 (Wiiitçr 1997): 61 1-41.

. 8 - Fournier, Marcel. De La Nouvcllc Angletcrrç à la Nouvelle Fruce. Lhlstolre des n c u au -da entre 1675 et 176Q. Montrcal: Société généalogique

canadienne-française, 1992.

. . . Frégault, Guy. Ia Crviliaation dc la Nouvcllc-France. 1713 - 1744 . Montreal: Fides, 1969.

Fry, Bruce W. "'An Appearance of Strcngth:' The Fortifications of Louisbourg," Aspects . . : Essavs on the History of an W t c c n t h Ccntury French Co- in North

9 - i c ' a h-: A n o r a t c rhc -73th -]vers uisbourg. cds- Eric kausc , Carol Corbin and William OIShea. Cape Brcton: University

Collcgc of Cape Brcton Press, 1995.

Galbraith, J.S. "Thc "Turbulent Fronticr" as a Factor in British Expansion." -rive * -

> Studlcs ln Socicty m. Vol.2 (January 1960): 150-68.

Gentillcorc, R. Louis and Geoffiçy J. Matthews cds. n e -1 &lgs of (&&, Vol. 2, ~r;ànsfomcd. 1 8 ~ 1891 - . Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993.

Gidncy, R.D. "Elcmcntary Education in Uppcr Canada: A Reasscssment." In Education and Social Changc: Thcnxs F r m Ontario's Past. cd. Michael B. Katz and Paul H. Mattingly. New York: Ncw York Univcrsity Prcss, 1975.

Gillis, John. "Making Timc for Family: Thc Invention of Family Timc(s) and the . . . . Rcinvcntion of Famiiy History." Journal of F w t o r y ; Studics in F w . Kinshia m d Dcrnqgaphy. Vol. 21, No. 1 (January 1996): 4-21.

Gingrich, Andrc. "Time, Ritual and Social Expericncc." Social Errpcricnce and & t h r < l p o l o g i ~ o w l c d ~ . cd. Kirstcn Hastrup and Peter Hewik. London: Routledgc 1993.

Gohccn, Pctcr. "Canadian Con~munications Circa 1845." The G c e c a l Rcvicw. Vol. 77 (January 1987): 35-5 1.

. "The Changing Bias of inter-Urban Communications in Nineteenth-Century Canada." Jlc JO-1 of -1 Gco-. Vol. 16, no. 2 (1990): 177-96.

. "Communications and Urban Systems in Mid-Nineteenth Ccntury Canada." UrbrinHistory Rcview. Vol. 14, No. 3 (February 1986): 235-45.

. *

Goldgar, Annc. C~~mmunrty ln t h e u b l i c of Letters. 1680 - 1750 . New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1995.

Goodfricnd, Joyce D. -t: S o c i e t ~ d Culture in C o w New Y& . New Jersey: Princeton University Prcss, 1992.

ications Re . . Gordon, Gcorgc N. Thc Cornun orv of u s M i n & United Statc'i. Ncw York: Communications Arts Books, 1977.

Graff, HJ. "Litcracy and Social Structurc in Elgin County, Canada West: 1861." Histoire tory. Vol. 6, No. 11 (Apnl 1973): 25-48.

Grassi, Marie-Claire. "Friends and Lovcrs (or the Codification of htimacy)." Yale French Studics. No. 72 (1986): 77-92.

Grccr, Allan."L'alphabCtisrition ct son histoire au Québec: Etat dc la qucstion," In L'Iniprime au O - 4 uçhcc: Asoecrs Historiques ( 1 8 ~ - B c siècles). Québec: Institut Québécois dc Recherce sur la Culture, 1983.

. "Thc Pattcrn of Litcracy in Quebcc, 1745-1899" Histoire Socidc/Socd History. Vol. 11, No. 32 (1978): 293-335.

c Pcoole of Ncw France. Toronto: University of Toronto Prcss, 1997.

Gregory, Dcrck, "Thc Friction of Distance? Information Circulation and the Mails in Early Ninctecnth-Ccntury England." Jouml of Historical Geo-, Vol. 13, No. 2 (1987): 130-54.

Guillet, Edwin C. . Toronto: The Ontario Publishing Co., 1933.

cr and Backwoodsman. Vol. 1. Toronto: Ontario Publishing Co., c. - 1963.

Hacfcli, Evan and Kcvin Swccncy. "Revisiting 'The Redeemed Captive:' New Perspectives on the 1704 Attack on Dcerfield." Williamand O-. 3rd Scrics, Vol. 52 (January 1995): 3-46.

. . H m , John, Marc Lafrancc and David-Thicry Ruddcl. U o i r c dc la Ville dc Ouébec, IOO8-l87L. Muskcs nationaux du Canada. Qucbcc: Boréal, 1987.

Harris, R. Cole and Geoffrey J. Matthews eds. me H&sajcal &.las of C2ul&i. Vol. 1: F r o m t h ç c to 18

. . 00. Toronto: University of Toronto Prcss, 1987.

Harrison, Janc E. Until Next Year: Letter rn -40 - 1w. Canada: Wilfrid Laurier Press and the Canadian Museum of Civilization, 1997.

Hawcy, D.C. me Fr& Regimc in Prince Edward W. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1926.

Hccht, Arthur. "United States-Canadian Postal Relations of the 18th Century." New York m. Vol. 38, No. 3 (July 1957): 233-56.

Hill, Pctcr P. "Poor Mail Service as a Factor in Early Franco-Amcrican Relations.'' Societv for the Historians of American Foreign Relations Newslet t~. Vol. 21, No. 3 (1990): 7-16.

Houston, Susaii and Allison Prcnticc. S c h o ~ ~ o l a r s in Nineteenth Cenhuy Ontario. Toronto: Univcrsity of Toronto Press, 1988.

Howland, John W. Par;rdox. New York: Pcter Lang, 1991.

cc: Problcms of Scttlcmçnt at this Newfo- Outpost of Ne Humphrcys, John. Plaisan w cc. 2 660- 169Q. Ottawa: National Muscums of Canada, 1970.

Huttcnback, Robcrt. Thc British lmpcrial E.YDÇTicnce. Ncw York and London: Harper and Row, 1966.

Igartua, JosC Eduardo. "A Change in Climate: The Conqucst and the Marchands of Montrcal." Canadian Historical Association. rntorical Papers.(1974): 115-34.

. . Innis, Harold. I3-e Bias of Communrcatians. Toronto: Univcrsity of Toronto Press, 1951.

. . ire and Communrcat rw. ed. David Godfrey . Oxford Univcrsity Press,

1950; rcprint cd. Victoria: Prcss Porcépic, 1986.

Sclcct Docurucnts in C a d i a n F--tory. 1497 - 1783 . Toronto: Univcrsity of Toronto Prcss, 1929.

John, Richard. a r c a a c r i s . w - Postal Systcrn Fr- tto M-. Cambridge: Harvard Univcrsity Prcss, 1995.

Johnson, Lco J. J l c -of Cowty of Ont&. - 1875 . Whitby Ontario: The Corporation of thc County of Ontario, 1973.

Johnson, Richard. lohn Nclsm M ç r c b fc Rctween the m. Ncw York: Oxford Univcrsity Prcss, 1991.

lohnston, A.J.B. "From pon de pé-to ville: The Evolution of Urban Louisbourg, 1713-1758." In k p c c t s of m b o u r g ; Fsskvs on of aiï

Century French (hmmmly in No- Publishcd to Commcmorate k . .

bourg. eds. Eric Krause, Carol Corbin and William O'Shea. Cape Breton: University Collcge of Cape Breton Press, 1995.

Joycc, Herbert. The History of thc Post Office from its establishment Down to 1w. London: Richard Bentley air Son, 1893.

Kiebowicz, Richard B. News in the Mess. Post O f f i c e . PubInformation. 1700 - 1860 'S. New York: Greenwood Press, 1989.

Labrousse, Erncst, Picrrc E o n , Pierre Goubert, Jean Bouvier, Charles Camère, ct Paul Harsin. m e é c e e et Sociale de la F- Tome 2: Des de- temps de 1 age f -

1 - . w e u n a l aux D ludcs dc 1 aec - indust el (1660- 1789 . Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1970.

. . . . bcoursiCrc, Jacques. m i r c ~pulairc du Oucbcç. Vol 1: Des -es à 1791. Quebec: Scptcntrion, 1995.

. . Lacy, Dan. From Grunts to Gigabytes: Commrinicat1ons and Society. Urbana: University of Illinois, 1996.

"La Postc sous lc regimc Français." Wlctin dcs Re-. Vol. 45 (1939): 86-87, Vol. 47 (1941): 126.

. . Latham, Robert F. "The Tcicphone and Social Change." in in Society. cd. Bcnjamin D. Singcr. 2J rcvised cd. Vancouver: Copp Clark, 1975.

. . Lcc, David. "The French in Gaspé, 1534-1760." -stonc Sites. Oc-

chaeology a n d . No. 3. Ottawa: National Historic Sites Service, 1970.

LcGoff, Jacques. "Au Moyen Age: Temps dc llEglise ct temps du marchand." An-. Vol. 15 (May-Junc 1960): 417-33.

Etourncau, Jocel yn. " Lc temps du lieu raconte. Essai suc quelque chronologies récentes rc1atii.e~ 5 l'histoire du QuEbcc." Vol. 15 (Spring 1997): 153-65.

Lcvinson, Paul. -c: Knowing in the Technological Agç. Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press, 1988.

Lockridgc, Kcnneth A. . . W

Contcst of Litcracv Mo&m W U . New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1974.

Lunn, N i c e Jean E. DéveloppamaU Fconomique de la Nouvelle Frmce. 1713 - 1760. Montrcal: Presses de l'université dc Montrcal, 1986.

. "The Illegal Trade out of New France, 1713-1760." The Canadian Historical Association, u. (1939): 61-76.

MacMillan, David S. "The 'Ncw Man' in Action: Scottish Mercantile and Shipping Operations in the Nonh Amencan Colonies, 1760-1815." In Cclcctcd Studics! 1397-1971. ed. David S. MacMillan. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1972.

Martin, MicheIc. "Hcllo Cenual. Gender, Teh010-d Culture i n e F o w . 1' Tcle~honc System. Montrcal: McGill-Queen's University Prcss, 1991.

Marvin, Carolyn. "Spacc, Time, and Captive Communications History." in C o w c a t i o n s in Tr-n: R e d . . - . . ed. Mary S. Mander. New York: Pracgcr Publishcrs, 1983.

Massicottc, E.-2. "Les Prcmicrs Mcssagcrs de la Nouvelle-France." m e t i n des s t o r i w . Vol. 27 (1921): 211-13.

. . Mathieu, Jacqucs. J r: Commerce WC la Nouvelle-France et fes An es au X V I I I e s i e c l e . QuEbcc: Fidcs, 198 1.

. "Un Negociant de Québcc à 1'Epoquc de la ConquStc, Jacques Perrault, l'ainé." ort dc I'archivistç dc la ~rov incc de Ouébcc. (1970): 27-82

. . iMatson, Cathy. Merchants and Enigirc: T r a d u in Colanial Ncw Yo&. Baltimore and tondon: Johns Hopkins University Prcss, 1998.

McCalla, Douglas. Plantine thc Provincc: The E c e History of Upjer Canada, 1784 - 187Q. Ontario Historia1 Studics Series. Toronto: Univcrsity of Toronto Press, 1993.

McGuirc, C. Ronald. "Private Mcsscngcrs and Public Servants: Carrying the Mails in . * Prcconfcdcration Ontario." In By Rivcr. Road and Rail. in Old Ont- . . F,ssavs in Tcc 1 and L o ~ s t o r y . cd. Thomas F. McIlwraith. Toronto: Ontario Muscun1 Association, 1984.

McKcnna, Kathcrinc J. A 1-ife of Prapriety: Anne *ay Powell -y. 1755 - 1849. Montrcal and Kingston: McGill-Quccn's University Prcss, 1994.

McLcnnan, J.S. U b o f r o m its F o u u h k u ~ to its Fall. 1713 - 1758 . Sydney Nova Scotia: Fortrcss Prcss, 1969.

McLuhan, Marshall. Thc Crutcnburg G d a g . Ncw York: Signct Books, 1969.

Outpost: War and Socict in C o l w DçerficLdl Ne Mclvoin, Richard 1. Ncw E- w York: W.W. Norton and Co,. New York: Norton, 1989.

- Merwick, Merwick. Possessine Alhiiny. 1630 1710: The i h t c h n. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

Michaud, Doctcur Marguerite. "Les établissements français de la rivière Saint-Jean." La SociEtC. -e Aca-. Vol. 11, No. 2, douzième cahier (July 1966): 53-60.

Millcr, Pcrry. The New E-d Mind: From Colo . Boston: Beacon Press, 1961.

West in- 1729 Miquelon, Dale. 12irgard of Rouen: F w a d c to Chxu&u~d the - 1770. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University, 1978.

. New Fmcç, 1701 - 174: A S . Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1987.

French Canada. 1 7OO- 1 850. Vancouver: Copp Clarkc, 1977.

Moogk, Pctcr. " Rcluctant Exilcs: Emigrants from France in Canada Beforc 1760," W i l w and Mary Ouarterly, Vol. 46 (July 1989): 463-505.

Moore, Christophcr. "Capc Breton and the North Atlantic World in the Eighteenth Ccntury." In T h ç d : New Pcr~pcctivcs on WC Breton s bstorv. 1713 1990 I - - . cd. Kenncth Donovan. Ncw Brunswick: Acadiensis Press, 1990.

. "The Other Louisbourg: Tradc and Mcrchant Enterprise in Ile Royale, 1713- 1758." Histoirc SociaIc?"Social History. Vol. 12, No. 23 (1979): 79-96.

Murray, Joan. "The Pcnls of the Post: Communications in Upper Canada." in 1837 R-mbcred: PaprrsPrcsaicd at the 1837 Rcbcllion 0

istorial Socicty. 3 8 Sc tcnibçr to 3 Oc- . WiIlowdale, Ontario: Ontario Historical Society, 1988.

bcc in the Rc Ncatby, Hilda. Ouc 1760-1 799. Toronto: McClclland and Stewart, 1966.

Ncgropontc, Nicholas. Bcinr D a . Ncw York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1995.

Norton, Thomas E. The Fur Tradc in Coloriial Ncw YQ& 1686 - 1776 . [Madison]: University of Wisconsin Prcss, [1971].

Osbornc, Brian and Robcrt Pikc. "Lowering 'thc Walls of Oblivion':" Thc Rcvolution in Postal Communications in Central Canada, 185 1-191 1 ." i n -ers in History. Vol. IV. ed. Donald H. Akcnson. Gananoque, Ontario: Langdale Press, 1984.

Paradis, Roger. "Louis Mercure: Fondateur du Madawaska." L&S C w U a -. . uc A m m . Vol. 20 (1989): 49-56.

Parsons, Robcrt S. "Post along the Kingston Road." -tory Society of C& Journal. No. 46 (June 1986): 4-9.

1 Piaget, Jean. The Childs C o m t i o n of m. transl- by M. Pomeraqns. 1st published 1927; London: Routledgc and Kegan Paul, 1969.

99 . . Pool, Ithiel de Sola. Global &. cd Eli M. Noam. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1990.

W Pottçr-MacKinnon, Janicc. W ~ C omcn Only Eastern Ont&. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Quccn's University Press, 1993.

. . Pritchard, James S. A m y of a Naval -ter: The 1746 F m c h naval wediuon to Forth Amcria. Montreal: McGill-Quecn's University Press, 1995.

. "French Charting of the East Coast of Canada-" In Five H b e d Years of Nautical Scicncc. 1400-1900. Procecdings of the 3rd International Reunion for the History of Nautical Scicncc and Hydrography. Editcd by Dcrek Howse. Grecnwich, London: National Marine Museum, 1981.

. "The Pattcm of French Colonial Shipping to Canada Bcforc 1760." Rcvuc fiancaisc d'histoire d'outre-mec. Vol 63 (1976): 189-210.

- "Thc Voyage of the Fier: An Analysis of a Shipping and Trading Venture to . . Ncw Francc, 1734- 1728." Social History/fListoirc So*. Vol. 6, no. 11 (1973): 74-97.

. . Proulx, Gilles. Betwecn Francc and New F m c c ; 1.s~ Aboard thç Ta11 -. Toronto and Charlottetown: Dundurn University Prcss, 1984.

évotcs: Wom-d Ch Rapcly, Elizabeth. n e D Montreal: McGill-Quccn's University Prcss, 1990.

Raymond, William O. The River St. John: Its Physical Feat-ds a n d o r y from J 604- 1784. St. John, N.B.: Strathrnore Press, 1910.

Rcid, John G. Acadi-Mainc. andc . - w Scotland: M al Co lmcs ln shc Seve-

Century. Toronto: University of Toronto Press and Huronia Historical Parks, 2981.

. - Robinson, Howard. C a w s Ovcrscils. New York University Press, 1964.

Roscnthal, Max. "The Rise and Fall of Niagara." Postal fiisto Society of GuuhAmd. No. 33 (Septcmber 1980): 4-13.

. "Postal Beginnings in Norfolk County." Postal Society of C& $ou&. No. 33 (March 1983): 22-30.

. "Elgin County - The First Post Offices." Postal History Society of Canada Vol. 45 (March 1986): 21-27.

. "The First Post Offices Between Toronto and Hamilton." Postal m t o ~ SOC&)! of Canada Journal. No. 20 (June 1981): 11-19.

. " Glcngarry County Post Offices." p o s t w o r y Society of C-. Vol. 27 (September 1981): 10-16.

. " When Did the York Post Office Open?" &&LWstory Society of Canada Jou&. Vol. 43 (September 1985): 36-37.

. . Rothman, Ellen. S r y of C o o f ln &mxk.a. New York: Basic Books, 1984.

Roy, Picrrc-Georges. "Les Postes dans la Nouvcllc-France." In Les Pdtes Choses de . . !Votre Histoire. Prcmièrc Série. Lcvis 1919: 121-25.

. . . "La postc sous le regime français." Toutes Petites Choses du w e Fr-. DcuxiCmc Sénc, Quebcc: Editions Garneau, 1944: 204-5.

. "Lcs trois FrErcs houiller." &lJg$b dcs&&crches HistoriauesHistoriaues Vol. 12. No. 1 (January 1906): 3-21.

Roy, R., Yves Landry, ct H. Charbonneau. "Quclques comportements des canadiens au XVIlc siCclc d'après les rcgistrcs paroissiaux." Revue d'histoire de 1' Vol. 31, No. 1 (1977): 49-74.

Schillcr, Herbert 1. "Thc Erosion of National Sovereignty by thc World Business Systcm." . . In n c Myth of thelnfannatiPn Rcvolution: SoçiirLirnéEthical Implicatl~n-f

cation Technologv. cd. Michael Traber. London: Sage Publications, 1986.

. . Shcman, Stuart. T c l l i n g e : Clocks.Diaucs,and DDiumal Fonn, 1660 - 1785. Chicago: University of Chicago Prcss, 1996.

P çrS ln . . Shields, David S. Civil Tgngycs and Polite L t t BntishAmerica. lnstitutc of Early Anicricm History and Culrurc. Virginia Chapcl Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1997.

Smith, A.D. Thc Dcvclopmcnt of Rates of Postage: An Xistorical md h l y t i c a l Study. London: Gcorgc AlIcn and Unwin, 1917.

Smith, Mark M. "Culture, Commcrcc, and Calcndar Reforrn in Colonial Amerka," William Wmv Ouarte*. 3rd Serics, Vol. 55 (Octobçr 1998): 557-84.

. . . . Smith, William. n e of Post Offrce in British No- 1639 - 187Q. Cam bridge: University Press, 1920.

. . Spigel, Lynn. W Ro- & Chicago: Thc University of Chicago Press, 1992.

. . Stcclc, Ian K. Thc W h Atlantic. 1 Ci75-1740: An -on of C- Cornmunit?. New York: Oxford University Prcss, 1986.

- "~Moat Thçorics and thc English Atlantic, 1675 to 1740." Canadian Historical Association. Hjatonçal P-. (2978): 8-33.

- "Time, Communications, and Society: The English Atlantic, 1702." encan Studies. Vol. 8 (April 1974): 1-21.

Stcinhart, AIlan L. "A Canadian Private Post in 1809." Postal m t o r v Societ Journal. Vol. 81: 44-45.

. . 1 - w - Stock, Brian. -etam

in thc 11th andl .31 Cent-. Princcton, N.J.: Princcton University Prcss, 1983.

Thf ry, Chantal. "Marie de l'Incarnation, intimée et intime, à travers sa Correspondance et ses Ecrits spirituels." In Cours et priltiques dc lintime . I O . ed. Manon Brunct et Serge Gagnon. Qucbcc: Institut Quebécois de Recherche sur la Culturc, 1993.

Thompson, E.P. "Time, Work-Discipline and Industrial Capitalism." in C ~ ~ n ~ n ~ o n . London: Merlin Prcss, 1991.

Trudcl, Marcel. Histoire dc la Nc . Part 3: 1 a S c w e des cent - ass-- -. ~ u v c l l ç Fr- Vol. 1: LGS Evénçmcnts. Montreal: Editions Fidcs, 1979.

of New Fracc. fi24 - 1663 . Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1973.

Turgeron, Lauricr. "Pour unc histoire dc la pCchc: le marché dc la morue à Marseille au . . XVIIIc siéclc." H~stoire Socialc/Sodal W t o r y , Vol. 14, No. 38 (Novernber 1981): 295-

322.

Turklc, Sherry. Lifç o n thc Scrccn: Iden n tbc Age of titv i - New York: Simon and Schustcr, 1995.

Vachon, André. Takine Root: C w £rom 1700 - 176Q . Ottawa: Public Archives of Canada, 1985.

. - . . Vaille, Eugène. -Gençrale. Vois. 3-6. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1950-55.

Vincent, David. "Communication, Community and the Statç." In vs Prcsented to Gwvn A. Williams. ed. Clive Emsley and

.James Walvin. London: Croom Helm, 1985.

. k a c v and Po&- 1750 - 1914 . Cambridge: Cambridge University Prcss, 1989.

Wallis, Robert. me: FourthIlimçnsion of the Mid. Translated by Betty B. and Denis B. Montgomery. New York: Harcourt, Bracc and World, Inc., [1968].

Il. Wcbstcr, John Clarence. Thomas Pichon. "The Spy of Beausyour . An Account of H& Carccr In Europe and Arnakj. Public Archivcs of Nova Scotia, 1937.

Whitrow, G J. Timc in History: Views of T- Prebtory to t& Present Day. New York: Oxford University Prcss, 1989.

Willcocks, R.M. E w ' s Postal History to 1840 with Notes on S c o t l u Wales and Irciand. Scotland: published by the author, printed by Woods, Pcrth, 1975.

. . Wilson, Bruce. As Shc B c w . An IlIustrated Introduction to 1,walist on tari^. Toronto: Dunduni Prcss, 198 1.

Colonial I d c ~ t ~ t ~ c s : C d a from 17 . . 60 to 1815. Ottawa: National Archivcs of

Canada, 1988.

c Entcr Iton: A Studv of Wcalth oçr Canada. 1776-1813. Ottawa: Carleton Univcrsity Prcss, 1983.

. "Sauf les pcrils ct fortunes dc la mcr: Mcrchant Womcn in Ncw Francc and the Frcnch Transatlantic Tradc, 1713-36." Canadian Review. Vol. 77, No. 3 (Scptcnlbcr 1990): 388-407.

Wood, J. David. "Population Change on an Agncultural Fronticr: Upper Canada, 1796 to 1841 ." In Patterns of the Past: I n t c n i r c t i n e a r i o s Hlstory S I . cd. Rogcr Hall, William

Wcstfall, and b u r c l Scfton MacDowcll. Toronto: Dundurn Prcss, 1988.

Young, Kathryn. "Crown Agcnt - Canadian Corrcspondcnt: Michel Sarrazin and the Acadhi ic Royalc dc Scicnccs, 1697-1734." Frcnch Wtorical S tum. Vol. 18, No. 2 (Fall 1993): 416-33.

B. Unpublisbed Tbeses and Manuscnpts

Armour, David Arthur. "Thc Mcrchants of Albany, New York: 1686-1760." PhD d i s , Northwestern University, 1965.

Banks, Kçnncth J. "Communications and Imperia1 Absolutisrn in Three French Colonial Ports, 1713-1763." PhD diss., Queen's University, Kingston, 1995.

Campbell, Frank. -da Postal Estory. Unpublishcd manuscript. [PAO, MU 4881.

Daigle, Jean. "Nos Amis lcs enncmis: relations commerciales de L'Acadie avec le Massachusctts, 1670- 171 1 ." PhD diss., University of Maine, 1975.

Dufour, Picrrc. "Equisse dc L'Svolution physique du Port dc Québcc des origines à 1960." Parks Canada Microfiche Rcport Scrics, No. 23, 298[1?]. [PAC FC 215.M37 MF].

Evans, David P. "Lowcr Canada, 1697-1867: Selçctions from the Early Postal History of the Province of Quebec." Unpublishcd manuscript, 1982. Canadian Postal Archives, Ottawa. [CPA HE 6185 C255C51 E93 19821.

Goudreau, Claire. "Marie de l'incarnation: lettres à son fils." Communication prononcée lors du colloquc <<Ecriturc féminine ou spécifité générique? le cas des femmes dc Icttrcs.>> Ccntrc universitaire dc lccture sociopoétique dc I'Epistolaire et des corrcspondanccs. LUnivcrsitl de MontrCal, Départcrncnt dcs Littcratures, 15 Avril 1994.

Guévin, Marc. "Lc conlmcrcc ~Montrcal-Albany sous le rkgimc français: histoire d'un phenoniènc con~mcrcial-" MA diss., Univcrsity of Montreal, 1995.

Igartua, José Eduardo. "The Mcrchants and Ncgociants of Montreal, 1750-1775: A Study in Socio-Economic History." PhD diss., Michigan Statc, 1974.

. . Janict' Mauricc. 150 Ans d1Histoirr ost talc dcs A n b c s Colonies Fr-s O-

$ 1800. publishcd by Mnlc M. Jamct. Pans: Imprirncrie FinanciCre, n-d.

Lcc, Ian R. "Thc Canadian Postal Systcm: Origins, Growth and Dccay of the Statc Postal Funct ion, 1765- 1981 ." PhD Diss., Carleton Univcrsity, Ottawa, 1989.

McInt yrc, Shcila McCall. "'This Loving Corrcspondcncy': New England Ministcrial Communication and Association, 1670-1730." PhD diss., Boston University, 1996.

Mclançon, François. "Façonner ct Suwcillcr l'Intime. Lire en Nouvelle-France: Entre Pédagogie Scolaire, Discours Ecclésiastique ct Pratiques." Communication présentee lors du colloque << Discours et pratiques de l'intime au Québec>> tenu par la Centre d'études québécoises à l'Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, Trois-Rivières, 5 Novembre 1992.

Mcnkis, Richard. "The Gradis Farnily of Eighteenth Century Bordeaux: A Social and Economic Study ." PhD diss., Brandeis University, 1988.

Miquelon, Dale. "The Baby Family in the Tradc of Canada, 1750-1820." M.A. diss., Carleton University, 1966.

Moore, Christopher. "Merchant Tradc in Louisbourg, Ile Royale." M.A. diss., University of Ottawa, 1977.

Pritchard, Jamcs S. "Ships, Mcn, and Commerce: A Study of Maritime Activity in Ncw France." PhD diss., University of Toronto, 1971.

Skinner, Clairbornc. "'The Sinews of Empire:' The Voyageurs and the Carrying Tradc of thc Pays d'cn haut, 1681-1754," PhD diss., University of Illinois at Chicago, 1991.

Srciiihart, Allan. "lllustratcd Canadian Postal History, 1685-1865. Selected Covers !3om the Aflan Stcinhart Collcction." n.d-

Young, Kathryn. "Kin, Commerce, and Community: Mcrchants in the Port of Quebec from 17 17-1745.'' PhD diss., University of Manitoba, 1991.