Bibliographie complète

In New France in the eighteenth century, illicit trade between Montreal and Albany had become commonplace. The economic structures of the colony and the repressive measures aimed at contraband gave this trade its particular organization. Another important factor in the normalization of illicit trade was the discourse produced by colonial authorities on contraband. As top magistrate and administrator of the colony, the intendant of New France occupied a singular place in the repressive and discursive apparatus set up to fight unauthorized trade. The intendant and his Montreal subdélégué brought smugglers to trial, and the intendant often took up the matter in his correspondence with his superior in metropolitan France, the secretary of state of the Marine. In this thesis, three intendants will bring their own unique brand of discourse to bear on the Montreal-Albany trade. Based on information obtained from first-hand reports, these intendants classify facts and behaviours related to contraband, for judicial proceedings and ministerial decision-making. But the means and methods they employ to defend the fur exporting privilege of the Compagnie des Indes prove to be rather deficient and counterproductive. As their discourse delineates the many obstacles to the full application of French colonial law, the intendants give the Montreal-Albany trade its colouring. In official correspondence, the intendant describes the consolidated network of merchants who hold intercolonial commerce in their grasp, and the deleterious effects of distance on colonial subjects from the civilizing ways of the metropole. The intendant scrutinizes how the Compagnie's policies stimulate the phenomenon it deplores and anticipates breaches to colonial security related to the participation of the Domiciliés, or "settled" Natives, in the prohibited trade. This study focuses on the discursive strategies of three intendants, Michel Bégon de La Picardière (1712-1726), Claude-Thomas Dupuy (1726-1728), and Gilles Hocquart (1728-1748), who formulate in their correspondence with the secretary of state of the Marine in France matters of official policy toward a contraband which they officially must fight, but also tolerate.