We have already had occasion to mention incidentally the dismissal by Tracy of Maisonneuve. Whatever the motive of this harsh act may have been, its consequences were most unhappy. Maisonneuve was a man of incorruptible integrity. His successor, Francois Marie Perrot, was a man of good family and fine appearance, who enjoyed considerable protection at court and needed it all, for he had simply the instincts of a dishonest trader, and used his office for the sole purpose of personal gain. Tracy's connection with Canada was brief, for he was recalled in the year following that in which he made his campaign against the Iroquois, and the government of the country was left in the hands of Courcelles and Talon; the former, as governor, representing the king in a military, political, and high administrative capacity; while the latter, as intendant, was entrusted with all that concerned the finances of the colony and its industrial and commercial development. The two heads of the state seem to have worked together at first, and for a considerable time, with commendable harmony. The governor was a judicious and capable administrator; the intendant, a man of wide views, of singular discretion, and of indefatigable industry. The Abbe Gosselin, in his _Life of Laval_, says that Talon "troubled himself little about the moral condition of the colony so long as he saw its commerce and industry flourishing"; and again that "he was never well disposed to the clergy, whose influence he feared, dreading that they might become too rich." It is probably the case that he was not very sympathetic with the ecclesiastical powers of the day, but he certainly did apply himself to promote the material prosperity of the colony. Amongst other things he caused three vessels to be built which were despatched to the West Indies with cargoes of dried fish, staves, and lumber; and also established a brewery at Quebec, in the hope of abating the consumption of imported spirits. If he did not achieve a larger measure of success, it was because little was possible under a system of combined monopoly and paternalism. His reports to the home government speak of the country as prosperous. In 1670 he writes that the money granted by the king for the encouragement of families, and the different industries established, have had such a good effect, that now no one dares to beg, unless perhaps some unprotected child too young to work, or some man too old to work or incapacitated by accident or disease.