222 ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA 



capacity for undertaking difficult pieces of work. In one of these 

 his name is even given in the Iroquois form. 



What is there to be said as to Mesplet's character and dis- 

 position? Shall we accept Laterrière's estimate as conclusive and draw 

 no other deductions? This estimate seems hardly fair. We must 

 remember that it was formed under most unfavourable circumstances. 

 Mesplet was in close confinement under which, being used to work, he 

 chafed. Then there was Jautard's evil influence which, with enforced 

 idleness and drink, would in many cases debase the sweetest disposition. 

 That he did reform after his liberation is proved by the fact that he 

 broke away from Jautard's influence and was received into the bosom 

 of the church. That he was untruthful and ungrateful, or, to put it 

 mildly, made promises he was unable to fulfil, is amply proved by his 

 action in regard to his promise to abstain from all oontroversial subjects 

 in his Gazette Littéraire, in his neglect to meet his bonds when due, 

 and in his treatment of his friend Berger. The debt due the latter was 

 altogether ignored, notwithstandinçf his many acts of kindness. In this 

 ^[esplet was most ungrateful. Another indication of his untruthful- 

 ness is the immoderate language used in his appeal to Congress, and this 

 too, after settling down as a British subject, in which he claims that 

 the ill-treatment at the hands of the Loyalists, whom he calls 

 "'' Canaille," because of his sympathy with the cause of the united 

 "did- him honour." But Laterrière's assertion is not true; that he was 

 actuated by " an evil genius, which, but for the softening influence of 

 his wife, would have led him to commit many wrong things unworthy 

 of an honest main." 



From Cramahé's letter to Haldimand,^ which states " when our 

 printer has a cup too much, which is not seldom," coupled with Later- 

 rière's account of the drinking bout every afternoon, we are forced to 

 the conclusion that Mesplefs besetting sin was drunkenness and to 

 this should be attributed his utter financial failure; nevertheless, he 

 must have had some good qualities to secure the patronage he did and 

 some attractiveness of manner to obtain loans and other financial help 

 through all his business career. 



While he had a fair education and was a most intelligent workman 

 we may conclude with Laterrière that he lacked refinement and culture. 

 The whole tone of his memorial to Congress, one of the few examples 

 of his own composition we possess, bears this out. ^ The use of the 

 expression " ces animeaux " — these heasts — stamps him as of a rather 

 low nature — grossière — as the French would express it. 



^ See appendix C KTo. 10. 

 ^ See appendix D No. 33. 



