For the story of Champlain it is not necessary to touch upon the relations of the French government with traders at a date earlier than 1599.  Immediately following the failure of La Roche’s second expedition, Pierre Chauvin of Honfleur secured a monopoly which covered the Laurentian fur trade for ten years.  The condition was that he should convey to Canada fifty colonists a year throughout the full period of his grant.  So far from carrying out this agreement either in spirit or letter, he shirked it without compunction.  After three years the monopoly was withdrawn, less on the ground that he had failed to fulfil his contract than from an outcry on the part of merchants who desired their share of the trade.  To adjudicate between Chauvin and his rivals in St Malo and Rouen a commission was appointed at the close of 1602.  Its members were De Chastes, governor of Dieppe, and the Sieur de la Cour, first president of the Parlement of Normandy.  On their recommendation the terms of the monopoly were so modified as to admit to a share in the privilege certain leading merchants of Rouen and St Malo, who, however, must pay their due share in the expenses of colonizing.  Before the ships sailed in 1603 Chauvin had died, and De Chastes at once took his place as the central figure in the group of those to whom a new monopoly had just been conceded.

[Footnote:  The history of all the companies formed during these years for trade in New France is the same.  First a monopoly is granted under circumstances ostensibly most favourable to the Government and to the privileged merchants; then follow the howls of the excluded traders, the lack of good voluntary colonists, the transportation to the colony of a few beggars, criminals, or unpromising labourers; a drain on the company’s funds in maintaining these during the long winter; a steady decrease in the number taken out; at length no attempt to fulfil this condition of the monopoly; the anger of the Government when made aware of the facts; and finally the sudden repeal of the monopoly several years before its legal termination.—­H.  P. Biggar, ’Early Trading Companies of New France,’ p. 49.]

We are now on the threshold of Champlain’s career, but only on the threshold.  The voyage of 1603, while full of prophecy and presenting features of much interest, lacks the arduous and constructive quality which was to mark his greater explorations.  In 1603 the two boats equipped by De Chastes were under the command of Pontgrave [Footnote:  Francois Grave, Sieur du Pont, whose name, strictly speaking, is Dupont-Grave, one of the most active French navigators of the seventeenth century.  From 1600 to 1629 his voyages to the St Lawrence and Acadia were incessant.] and Prevert, both mariners from St Malo.  Champlain sailed in Pontgrave’s ship and was, in fact, a superior type of supercargo.  De Chastes desired that his expedition should be self-supporting, and the purchase of furs was never left out of sight.