Hemp, Wheat, and the Seigneurial Bargain at Batiscan, 1736
In 1736, the seigneur of a 200-arpent tract along the Batiscan River petitions Intendant Gilles Hocquart for permission to convert 30 arpents of wheat land to hemp and to raise the tenants' corvée from three to six days a year. His 18 tenant families have cleared only 40 arpents and harvested about 15 minots of wheat per arpent in 1735, but the seigneur says naval rope prices in France justify the change and that the Crown has offered a subsidy for hemp. The tenants' spokesman replies that hemp needs eight times the labour of wheat, that wheat is needed for the fur trade and for the annual tithe, and that the banal mill cannot process hemp fibre. The intendant's clerk notes that the seigneur's memoir was written by his brother-in-law, a Montreal merchant, while the tenants' petition is signed by 14 of 18 household heads. The intendant must decide whether to approve the conversion, refuse it, or grant a partial trial.
1. Recommend a decision to the intendant. Justify it using the seigneurial system, mercantilism, and the evidence in the setup.
Read the worked answer
Recommendation: approve a trial of 10 arpents, refuse the corvée increase, and require the seigneur to build or share a hemp-processing facility.
Reasoning:
- The seigneurial system depends on tenants' ability to pay cens et rentes and the tithe. With only 40 of 200 arpents cleared and 14 of 18 household heads opposed, a full 30-arpent conversion risks a wheat shortfall that would undermine those payments and social order.
- Mercantilism favours hemp because it supplies French naval rope, but the Crown subsidy must offset the new risk. A trial produces local evidence about yields and labour before the seigneurial obligation is altered permanently.
- The seigneur's memoir is interested and second-hand: his merchant brother-in-law would profit from rope sales. The tenants' petition is broader but still a negotiating document, so it may exaggerate hardship.
- The intendant's role is to balance metropolitan demand with colonial stability. A partial trial does both; a blanket refusal ignores the subsidy, while full approval ignores the labour constraint.
2. Which source is more reliable for estimating the tenants' capacity to work hemp, and what additional document would you request?
Read the worked answer
The tenants' petition is more reliable than the seigneur's memoir for capacity, because it is signed by 14 of the 18 household heads who would actually perform the labour. It is closer to the work process and collective in form, which reduces dependence on one interested author. However, it is not neutral: it is a petition designed to resist the seigneur's demand, so it may stress hardship.
The seigneur's memoir is weaker on capacity because it was drafted by his brother-in-law, a Montreal merchant with a commercial interest in hemp, and because it reports labour requirements second-hand. It is more useful for understanding the seigneur's expectations and the Crown subsidy than for measuring tenant capacity.
To resolve the question, I would request the seigneurial notary's terrier or land register for 1730–1735 and the parish tithe records. These would show actual cleared acreage, household size, and wheat output independent of both petitions. I would also request the banal mill ledger to test the claim that it could not process hemp.
3. Explain how a change in royal policy-for example, a naval crisis that raises hemp prices-would alter your recommendation.
Read the worked answer
A naval crisis raising hemp prices increases the expected return and strengthens the mercantilist case for conversion. It might justify a larger trial than 10 arpents, because the Crown's need for rope becomes more urgent and the subsidy could be raised to cover processing equipment.
But the recommendation should not swing to full conversion automatically. Higher prices do not remove the labour constraint: hemp requires much more work per arpent than wheat, and the tenants still need subsistence wheat and tithe payments. The seigneurial system's stability depends on those obligations being met. If the Crown guarantees purchase and finances a brake or mill, the risk shifts from tenants to the seigneur and the state, making a larger trial defensible.
A second policy change-for example, withdrawing the subsidy-would reverse the decision. Then the intendant should refuse conversion and perhaps order the seigneur to grant new concessions only on cleared land. The judgement therefore depends on whether royal policy absorbs the processing and price risk, not merely on the price of hemp.