Charles Diel - Habitant:

The wilderness of New France held no long-term attraction for those who would come only to exploit the fur trade or find a route to the Orient or to exploit the engagés they brought with them. They would come only to make a quick profit and return to France. King Louis XIV devised plans to reward a new breed of seigneur who was willing to settle in the colony and provide a livelihood for those who would in partnership develop the land and establish a permanent residence in Canada.

Historians differ in opinion as to how content those pioneer settlers were. Some say the habitants eked out a living under a repressive economic system that was designed to bolster the megalomania of Louis XIV. His lavish expenditures on the grandeur of France at Versailles and his imperialistic penchant for war impoverished the peasants of France and led to the eventual failure of the colony under Louis XV and to the French Revolution in the time of Louis XVI.

Conversely, W. J. Eccles in The Canadian Frontier 1534-1760 suggests that the reforms made in the colony by Louis XIV and Jean-Baptiste Colbert reflected the humanitarian attitude of the King and his ministers, reforms that would have been made in France if not for the opposition from the courts and the "legal fraternity". There is ample evidence to support that view in the rights extended to the habitants to give them equal footing in legal matters over which the seigneurs of France had complete control. Whether those changes were made out of compassion for the lower class or out of pragmatic concerns for the expansion of the empire is arguable, but "the immediate benefits of the reforms were so great that no one could envisage a better system", according to Eccles.

Although colonial life in New France was patterned after the old feudal system, the settlers, or habitants, of these seigneuries were not so heavily burdened with feudal dues and services as were the peasants of old France. The rigidly divided class structure between privileged and deprived had given way to a more harmonious, symbiotic relationship between landlord and tenant based on mutual need and respect for each other’s contribution. Seigneurs often did the same work as the habitants. Each recognized the value of the other as their relationship was more personal than the feudal system allowed. In his book, The Seigneurs of Old Canada, William Bennett Munro sums up the colonial spirit this way:

Sur cette terre encore sauvage,		On this still wild land,
Les vieux titres sont inconnus;		The older titles are unknown;
La noblesse est dans le courage,		The nobility is in the courage,
Dans les talents, dans les vertus.		In the talents, in the virtues.

However, there were annual payments due to the seigneur called "cens et rentes". The cens was a nominal amount that imposed no heavy burden on the tenants or censitaires and was often negotiable between parties. It is because of this payment that the habitants were called censitaires, which term they preferred over habitant. Rentes were heftier obligations payable in money or in goods and were typically based on the amount of river frontage of the tenant.

The seigneur also had claim to a sort of transfer or inheritance tax called lods (short for lord's dues) and ventes in the amount of one twelfth of the property value. This became due if property ownership was transferred for any reason other than by direct inheritance, but one third of that amount was customarily rebated.

Habitants were bound by their title-deed to use the seigneurs' grist mills for a fee equaling one fourteenth of their grain. This was called a droit de banalite, but it was much less burdensome than the banalities peasants in France had to contend with. In France, only a seigneur could own a grist-mill, wine-press, slaughter-house, or baking oven, and the peasants paid a rather exorbitant toll fee for any of those services. In New France, the habitants could have their own baking ovens and were only bound to use the seigneur’s grist mill. The mill, incidentally, also served as a fort in the event of an Indian attack.

There was also an additional obligation called the corvée. It amounted to indebtedness to the seigneur of a few days' labor per year. The censitaire also had to maintain the road that crossed his portion of river frontage. The map below shows what seems to be a road along the southern shore of the St. Lawrence, but that is not the Chemin du Roi or King's Road which was built after Charles' time and on the northern shore of the river.

Charles completed his indentured service and became a landowner. The earliest documented evidence of Charles Diel being a resident in the colony of New France can be found on a marriage record dated 19 January 1672 when he witnessed the marriage of Louis Haume (Homo, Homme) and Anne-Marie Linière in Montreal. He appears on an earlier passenger list of a transport vessel of the Carignan Regiment and on the list of soldiers who stayed when the regiment left the colony, but in the Haume marriage record he is named as a habitant living in La Prairie.

According to Monsignor Emile Yelle and M. Viateur Robert of the Société de Généalogie de La Prairie:

Whether Charles received the full benefits accorded to the Carignan veterans or not, he obtained his land from the Jesuits and not from a Carignan officer. The Carignan veterans were supposed to work for three years improving their piece of land before a concession was granted. In addition they were given food, supplies, and tools to work with. Charles must have been assigned to the Jesuits or some other employer upon arrival as was usual for the supernumeraries in lieu of military service. Whatever the case, he would have served the Jesuits for at least three years prior to receiving the land grant. If Charles started his indentured period with the Jesuits when the regiment returned to France in 1668, he would have been only sixteen years old at the time and nineteen years old when he became a landowner, presumably in 1671.

For whatever reason, Charles sold that plot of land to Pierre Poupart on 10 JULY 1672. The document, Remise de la concession par Charles Diel a Pierre Poupart, is not easy to read or translate and does not make clear whether the sale was voluntary or involuntary on Charles' part. Perhaps he failed to meet his oblgation to the Jesuits. The project of developing his concession into productive farm land might have been more than he could handle at his young age. Clearing land was hard work with simple tools and oxen. Trees had to be chopped down and cleared, stumps had to be pulled out of the ground, rocks had to be hauled away. Plowing itself was very difficult with the French plow known as a charrue. It was awkward to handle, and oxen move slowly. The design of the charrue made it so diffcult to turn around that the land was laid out in long narrow parcels so the plow didn't have to be turned so often.

The name 'La Prarie' seems to imply that his land might have been a natural grassland with rich, alluvial soil requiring little preparation other than plowing. In that case, Charles might have decided to sell his concession, reap the reward of his labor, and move on to an easier life than farming could offer. However, records show that after Charles sold his land to Poupart the other habitants of that area protested the poor quality of the land they received and were awarded compensation by the court - La Prairie en Nouvelle-France, 1647-1760: ƒtude d'histoire sociale by Louis Lavallée. "Mouille Pieds" seems to tell a more realistic story of soggy ground and drainage ditches rather than rich farm land. At any rate, If Charles had to surrender his land because he did not meet his obligations, he would have been paid for the work he did accomplish when the land was transferred to Poupart.

Charles again acquired land from the Jesuits on 02 FEB 1674 consisting only of four arpents in area on the river frontage. This is not on the same plot as his original concession since "Poupart" does not appear on plot number 17 of the map below. Poupart is on plot number 15. The census of 1681 shows that he owned four arpents of land "en valeur". The amount of land reported on the census only refers to the land that was improved for farming or cultivated land and was called "land en valeur".

At some period of unknown duration between 1672, when he surrendered his concession, and 1674, when he again acquired land, he was forced by Frontenac, along with other habitants, to transport goods and material over the waterway between Montreal and Cataraqui or Cataracoui where Fort Frontenac was to be built under the direction of La Salle. It's possible that he earned enough wages during that time to buy the land from the Jesuits.

Cataraqui, Cataracoui

It was on that plot of land that Charles together with his first wife, Marie Anne Picard, started a family. He contracted marriage with Marie Anne on Monday, 10 AUG 1676, before the notary Basset. They were married in Montreal on Monday, 31 AUG 1676, before Marie Anne had reached the age of thirteen. She had the first of her nine children before she was 15 years old.

Marie Anne was the daughter of Hugues Picard dit Lafortune and Antoinette De Liercourt. (See Note 5) She was baptized on Saturday, 03 NOV 1663, in Montreal. Marie died in Laprairie on Monday, 04 FEB 1697, at the young age of 33 years and three months.

Children of Charles Diel and Anne Picard:

1. Marie Marguerite was born 18 APR 1678 in Monreal. She married Pierre Perras 18 NOV 1696 in Laprairie. After Pierre's death, 1 AUG 1699, she married Julien Baritau dit Lamarche in Laprairie on 13 May 1700. Marie died in the Hotel-Dieu in Montreal on 26 JUL 1715. Julien was found dead on the edge of the St-Lambert River in Laprairie on 14 JUL 1736; he had been married to Catherine Suprenant since April 12, 1717. See Note 6
2. Pierre, was born 24 NOV 1680 in Montreal. He was captured by the Iroqouis when he was young. He lived with them thereafter, eventually forgetting the French language. Some think he had a twin named Marie, possibly the one who married Baritault. See Notes 4 and 6. Pierre returned to Laprairie in 1739 and again in 1742 to settle his inheritance rights.
3. Jacques was born 02 MAR 1683 in Laprairie. Nothing more is known.
4. Marie Anne was born 07 MAY 1684 in Laprairie; she died at the age of 8 months. Burial Record
5. Marie Anne was born in 1685 and died 15 MAY 1708. She married Francois Bory dit Grandmaisson 27 OCT 1704. They had one or more daughters who died in infancy. Francois Bory died in an attack, "en filibust", on the English in 1711 which is why Charles was caring for Marie Anne's children in 1715.
6. Charles was born 05 AUG 1688 in Laprairie and married Jeanne Boyer on 17 February 1716. More to follow on Charles.
7. Marguerite was born 14 JUN 1691 in Laprairie. She married Jean Lacombe 03 FEB 1711. Died 26 MAY 1763. There must have been another given name to distinguish her from her sister, Marie Marguerite above.
8. Jacques was born 02 February 1693 in Laprairie, married Marie Anne Crepin on 13 July 1715, and died 23 SEP 1745 in Montreal. Jacques had a son born out of wedlock 25 DEC 1713 with Marie Duclos before his marriage to Anne Crepin. Jacques refused in court to marry Marie Duclos so the boy was named Jacques Duclos. Jacques and Marie Anne Crepin also had a son named Jacques 26 SEP 1721.
9. Catherine, the last child, was born 09 AUG 1695 and died the following day.

The King's plan was precise. In order to exploit the colony's wealth and to develop a balanced commerce for France, Canada would have to rely on its own human resources, material, and finances. The colony would export agricltural products, wheat and flour, fish, and lumber to the Antilles, and fur to France and in return buy manufactured goods from France. The King wanted to reduce the need to buy from foreign countries and to expand France's manufacturing capability to diversify the economy which was basically agricultural.

The plan was not a success, however. The triangular trade route between Canada, France and the Antilles could not be maintained. Exporting goods to the Antilles was not cost-effective. The settlers could not sell grain at a profit and were unable to buy goods from France. Neither were the settlers efficient or knowledgeable farmers. They failed to fertilize their land and used crude impliments. Crops such as flax quickly depleted the rich alluvial soil along the St. Lawrence. Hemp produced inferior fibers and couldn't be used for the ropes needed by navy and merchant vesels. Wheat was probably the most successful commercial crop but was not economically feasible. Farmers lost interest in working hard to produce market crops without making a profit. They kept small gardens and livestock to feed themselves, and food was easily obtainable by hunting and fishing or gathering from the forest. There was litle incentive to continue the hard labor required to raise drops for the export market.

The settlers had a hard life but were better off than they were in France. They had food. They needed money. The most obvious opportunity to acquire money lay in the fur trade. Habitants were deserting their farms even under the threat of stiff penalties to trade manufactured goods with the Indians for beaver pelts. By 1681 Colbert was forced to acknowledge the pull of the fur trade, and he inaugurated the congé system. Each year up to 25 congés (licences to trade) were to be issued by the governor and the intendant. Each conge allowed 3 men with one canoe to trade in the West. It was fondly hoped that the Canadians would wait their turn for a congé, thus leaving the colony only 75 men short each year; but, the new system did little to reduce the number of men who illegally engaged in the fur trade. In 1684, the same year that he got more land from the Sulpicians, Charles gave la traite des fourrures a try. See Charles and the fur trade

Leger Hebert of Cap de la Trinite acquired a congé in May 1684 and contracted Charles, Pierre Lefebvre, and Antoine Caille to go to the Outaouais country for the sum of 630 livres. Because they had never been there before, they are guided by Jean Lesieur dit La Calot who promises to lead them to Michillimakinac without receiving part of their share. On 23 September, they borrow the value of "2616 livres and six sols" of merchandise to bring to the Indians of Ottawa to trade for pelts. See Note 7

This occurred two days after Pierre Lefebvre sold his boat of 12-ton capacity to Antoine Brunet for 240 livres. The sum of 630 livres was the equivalent of about half a year's wages for an unskilled worker, and farmers probably saw even less cash than unskilled workers. The voyage took less than two and a half months, because Charles had returned by the ninth of December and attended his daughters burial on that day. So, even if Charles had not made more money by trading some goods of his own on that trip, he made out better than if he had stayed home on the farm. It appears that on the second voyage, if not the first as well, Charles and his partners are not just engagés, or employees of Bougine, who will be paid for paddling a canoe. They will also be merchants and will make a profit on their investment. (needs to be verified)

Jean Deniau guarantees them of other trips for Hilarie Bourgine. The first voyage is followed by a second in 1688. On 31 July of that year, he (Charles) promises Antoine Caille to go to the Outaouais to "put forward the good of their association". On the third of August, with Pierre Lefebvre and Andre Danny, he borrows 1063 livres, 2 sols, and six sums of money from Hilarie Bourgine, and, on the same day, in company of Antoine Caille and Pierre Lefebvre, 81 livres, 15 sols and six deniers from the same. See Note 6

The three partners must have made other voyages as they were called as witnesses to "a summary investigation of the fur trade" in 1692. Edge of Empire Documents of Michilimackinac, 1671-1716 Peyser/ Brandão. There were new opportunities for the habitants to make money. Lefebvre had a boat that could have been used for fishing or transporting goods. In addition to the fur trade, Charles rented some of his farm land to another farmer. He bought and sold land several times.

Having been a supernumerary and not a regular in the Carignan-Salières Regiment, Charles more than likely did not see combat as a Carignan soldier but surely must have fought in later skirmishes as a militiaman. The English and Dutch from Albany along with their Iroquois allies conducted several raids against his area. The work of the Carignan Regiment had not been complete, and the presence of a militia did not deter the hostile Iroquois tribes from sporadically attacking the habitants. Some of the five Iroquois tribes would remain hostile for years to come, encouraged by the English colonists who had also become aggressive.

In August of 1690, a small force of English troops with about a hundred Iroquois allies attacked La Prairie killing or capturing 25 habitants. The attack was part of a much larger but failed attempt to attack Montreal. In August of 1691, a combined force of one hundred fifty English and Dutch colonists from Albany and fifty Iroquois made an unsuccessful attack on Fort Ville-Marie (Montreal). La Prairie was defended at that time by a militia of 1800 men, and most of the attackers were killed. Then, on 29 OCT 1691 Denise Lemaistre, the grandmother of Jeanne Boyer who would marry Charles' son, also named Charles, was killed by the Iroquois in La Prairie on the banks of the St. Lawrence where Charles also lived. Charles' oldest son, Pierre, was kidnapped at an early age in one such raid, probably in 1690 or 1691, and lived the rest of his life with the Indians returning only briefly in 1742 at the age of 62 to settle a contract (see note 4) "undoubtedly in connection with the succession of his parents" and needing an interpreter because he had forgotten the French language.

TO BE CONTINUED..........The gap between 1690 and 1702 has to be filled in; e-mail information.

According to Michel Langlois' Dictionnaire biographique des ancêtres québécois, 1608-1700, five years after Marie Anne Picard's death, Charles contracted marriage in front of the notary Raimbault on Monday, 17 APR 1702, with Marie Francoise Simon dit Lapointe, widow of Etienne Godeau. Baptized in Sillery on Sunday, 18 JAN 1671. She was the daughter of Hubert Simon and Marie Vie. They were married on 08 MAY 1702 in Montreal. Langlois listed only two children, Marie Francoise and Jean Francois, but four children resulted from this marriage:

• Marie Josephte was born in 1705 in St. Vincent de Paul, Laval, PQ and died 13 JUN 1775 in St. Vincent de Paul, Laval, PQ and was buried the following day.
• Therese was born in 1707 and died at age 70 on 06 September 1777, St. Vincent de Paul.
• Marie Francoise was born 19 JAN 1708 in Montreal, Quebec. She married Rene Lariviere on 01 DEC 1725.
• Jean Francois, born 24 DEC 1710 in Montreal. He married Francoise Potier on 02 JUN 1738 in Immaculate Heart of Notre Dame Church, Kaskaskia, Illinois.

On 16 September 1707, Charles makes Marie Simon of Quebec procurator to obtain 200 livres from Noel Rullois according to an obligation of 27 JUN 1707 in front of La Cetiere.

With the aim of refunding debts, he sells land on the Saint Laurent to Dennis D'Estienne de Clerin on 16 NOV 1711 for 400 livres. He buys from Jean Baptiste Marette, for the sum of 300 livres, 60 arpents of land on 29 MAY 1712. For the lods and sales, he owes the Sulpicians on the following 12th of June, the sum of 76 livres, 17 sols, and 6 deniers. This sum was determined to be 230 livres the 7th of JUN 1714 and constitutes an annual rent of 11 livres and 10 sols sent to them the following 7th of July.

As tutor (provider) for the minor children of Francois Bory dit Grandmaisson (husband of Anne Diel), and of Pierre Perras (Perot), husband of Marguerite Diel, he rents land in Laprairie Saint Lambert on 19 FEB 1716 to his son, Charles.

He admits owing 75 livres to Jean Gervais on 22 MAY 1718. He sells to his son, Jacques, on 22 SEP 1722, his dwelling on the St. Lambert at the cost of 500 pounds. His date of death is unknown, but he was alive at the time of the marriage contract between his daughter, Francoise, and Rene Lariviere, 18 NOV 1725.

Nothing is known about Charles after 1725. The date, circumstances, and whereabouts of his death and burial are unknown. It is known that when he sold his property to his son, Jacques, in 1722 the conditions of sale obligated Jacques to provide living space for Charles and also to provide for his burial. Francois Simon dit Lapointe was buried with her first husband Etienne Godeau, and Charles was not mentioned as spouse on her burial record. Charles would have been about 73 years old in 1725. It is possible that he died in such a manner or location that his body was not recovered, such as drowning in the St. Lawrence or in some remote area of wilderness. The church would not have recorded his death if there was no burial service.

The next chapter will focus on his son, Charles, who married Jeanne Boyer.

NOTES: