expected, in turn, that the seigneurs would show a like
spirit in all dealings with their dependants. Many of
them did; but some did not. On the whole, however, the
habitants who took farms within the seigneuries fared
pretty well in the matter of the feudal dues and services
demanded from them. Compared with the seigneurial tenantry
of Old France their obligations were few in number, and
imposed almost no burden at all.

This is a matter upon which a great deal of nonsense has
been written by English writers on the early history of
Canada, most of whom have been able to see nothing but
the spectre of paternalism in every domain of colonial
life. It is quite true, as Tocqueville tells us, that
the physiognomy of a government can be best judged in
its colonies, for there its merits and faults appear as
through a microscope. But in Canada it was the merits
rather than the faults of French feudalism which came to
the front in bold relief. There it was that seigneurial
polity put its best foot forward. It showed that so long
as defence was of more importance than opulence the
institution could fully justify its existence. Against
the seigneurial system as such no element in the population
of New France ever raised, so far as the records attest,
one word of protest during the entire period of French
dominion. The habitants, as every shred of reliable
contemporary evidence goes to prove, were altogether
contented with the terms upon which they held their lands,
and thought only of the great measure of freedom from
burdens which they enjoyed as compared with their friends