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.