for three years, besides maintenance. On this understanding
Hebert sold his house and shop, bought an equipment for
the new home, and set off with his family to embark at
Honfleur. Here he found that Champlain's shareholders
were not prepared to stand by their agreement. The company
first beat him down from two hundred to one hundred crowns
a year, and then stipulated that he, his wife, his
children, and his domestic should serve it for the three
years during which the grant was payable. Even at the
end of three years, when he found himself at liberty to
till the soil, he was bound to sell produce to the company
at the prices prevalent in France. The company was to
have his perpetual service as a chemist for nothing, and
he must promise in writing to take no part in the fur
trade. Hebert had cut off his retreat and was forced to
accept these hard terms, but it is not strange that under
such conditions colonists should have been few. Sagard,
the Recollet missionary, says the company treated Hebert
so badly because it wished to discourage colonization.
What it wanted was the benefit of the monopoly, without
the obligation of finding settlers who had to be brought
over for nothing.

A man of honour like Champlain could not have tricked
Hebert into the bad bargain he made, and their friendship
survived the incident. But a company which transacted
its business in this fashion was not likely to enjoy long
life. Its chief asset was Champlain's friendship with
the Indians, especially after his long sojourn with them
in 1615 and 1616. Some years, particularly 1617, showed