In accordance with its charter, the company held the
ownership and government of the country de jure. But in
point of fact the king wielded the government, thus taking
back with one hand what he had given with the other. By
right the company controlled the administration of justice;
it could, and actually did, establish courts. But, in
fact, the king appointed the intendant supreme judge in
civil cases, and made the Sovereign Council a tribunal
of superior jurisdiction. By right, to the company belonged
the power of granting land and seigneuries. In fact, the
governor or the intendant, the king's officers, made the
grants at their pleasure. This strange situation, which
lasted ten years--until the West India Company's charter
was revoked in 1674--is often confusing to the student
of the period.

Talon saw at a glance the anomaly of the situation; but,
being a practical man, he was less displeased with the
falsity of the principle than apprehensive of the evil
that was likely to result. In a letter to Colbert, dated
October 4, 1665, he discussed the subject at length,
putting it in plain terms. If, when the grant was made,
it was the king's intention to benefit only the company--to
increase its profits and develop its trade--with no
ulterior consideration for the development of the colony,
then it would be well to leave to the company the sole
ownership of the country. But if His Majesty had thought
of making Canada one of the prosperous parts of his
kingdom, it was very doubtful whether he could attain
that end without keeping in his own hands the control of