In only one respect were the French at a serious disadvantage. They could not compete with the English in the matter of prices. The English trader could give the Indian for his furs two or three times as much merchandise as the French could offer him. To account for this commercial discrepancy there were several reasons. The cost of transportation to and from France was high--approximately twice that of freighting from London to Boston or New York. Navigation on the St. Lawrence was dangerous in those days before buoys and beacons came to mark the shoal waters, and the risk of capture at sea during the incessant wars with England was considerable. The staples most used in the Indian trade--utensils, muskets, blankets, and strouds (a coarse woolen cloth made into shirts)--could be bought more cheaply in England than in France. Rum could be obtained from the British West Indies more cheaply than brandy from across the ocean. Moreover, there were duties on furs shipped from Quebec and on all goods which came into that post. And, finally, a paternal government in New France set the scale of prices in such a way as to ensure the merchants a large profit. It is clear, then, that in fair and open competition for the Indian trade the French would not have survived a single season.[1] Their only hope was to keep the English away from the Indians altogether, and particularly from the Indians of the fur-bearing regions. This was no easy task, but in general they managed to do it for nearly a century. [Footnote 1: In the collection of _Documents Relating to the Colonial History of New York_ (ix., 408-409) the following comparative table of prices at Fort Orange (Albany) and at Montreal in 1689 is given: _The Indian pays for at Albany at Montreal_ 1 musket 2 beavers 5 beavers 8 pounds of powder 1 beaver 4 " 40 pounds of lead 1 " 3 " 1 blanket 1 " 2 " 4 shirts 1 " 2 " 6 pairs stockings 1 " 2 "]