The Master Balance Sheet: Two Pauls, One Page
The Master Balance Sheet:
Two Pauls, One Page
Two men called Paul appear in the North West Company’s 1821 settlement register, in the same department, in the same season. The clerks spelled both several ways, so the spelling could not tell them apart. The figures could, and did. What took longer to learn is that telling two accounts apart is only half the work — and the easier half.
The problem began, as most genealogical problems do, with a name. A search of the Hudson’s Bay Company Archives under the Guilbault surname cluster returned two men called Paul in the same 1821 records. Two men, one name, one company, the same handful of years — and no obvious way to tell which document belonged to which.
The instinct is to reach for the spelling. Every French-Canadian researcher has done it: Gibeau here, Guilbeau there, surely the clerks were distinguishing two people. It is a tempting hypothesis and it is wrong, and being wrong about it cost this research several months.
What separated the accounts in the end was the wage column. What it did not do — and this is the part that took another year to see — was tell us who either man was.
Two Men, One Name, One Company
A real problem, not a clerical illusionThe 1821 balances volume was drawn up as the North West Company merged into the Hudson’s Bay Company. Its title leaf announces it as a list of persons whose engagements for service have been transferred to the Governor and Company of Adventurers of England trading into Hudson’s Bay, with their departments, their wages and their balances carried across.
In the G run of that list, two men called Paul sit within a few lines of each other. Both were servants of the same company. Both had accounts open in the Athabasca department. Both were settled in the same season. The confusion was not an artefact of bad indexing — it was two real men occupying the same documentary space.
The Spelling Trap
What the clerks actually wrote, volume by volumeHere is the hypothesis that had to be abandoned: that the company’s clerks used different spellings for the two men, and that recovering the pattern would sort the documents.
Set the renderings side by side and the pattern dissolves.
How the surname is written across the volumes
One man is Gibeau in one volume, Gebeault in another and Gibeault on the facing page of the same volume. The medial l and the terminal t are both silent in Quebec French, and a clerk writing what he hears produces approximations — different ones on the same afternoon. There is no orthography attached to either individual, only to whichever clerk was holding the pen.
There is a second reason to distrust spelling, and it applies to any indexed collection. A database’s standardised surname is an editorial decision, not a statement in the record. When an index normalises Gibeau and Gibauche and Guilbeau to a single heading, it is telling you what a cataloguer concluded — not what the clerk wrote, and certainly not who the man was.
What the Figures Do
Two wage rates, two settlements, and a page that footsWhere the spelling wanders, the numbers hold absolutely still. Across every volume in which each man appears, one carries a wage of five hundred livres and the other three hundred and fifty. Neither figure ever moves.
Gibeau Paul · wages 500 · Athᵃ · credit 617.14 Guilbau Paul · wages 350 · Athᵃ · debit 96
Two accounts. Two wage rates. Two completely different financial pictures. And crucially, each figure matches that account’s own documents elsewhere in the archive.
| Evidence | The account at 500 | The account at 350 |
|---|---|---|
| Wage rate, everywhere | 500 livres | 350 livres |
| Signed contract | F.5/3, p. 32 — 22 May 1821, agent Samuel Black, cinq cents livres, signed by mark | None found in the F.5 volumes searched |
| Athabasca blotter | Opening 69.14; credit By Lieut Franklin 100; wages 500; charges 52. Foots 669.14 both ways, closing 617.14 | Fort William transfer 179.10; purchases at Chipewyan, Slave Lake and Fort Providence; wages 350; balance 80.8 |
| General ledger | p. 389 — a ten-year account, 1811–1821, opening on a balance carried from an earlier ledger | p. 396 — debits 446, wages 350, balance 96 |
| 1821 settlement register | 500 / credit 617.14 | 350 / debit 96 |
| Identified? | No. See below. | Probably — with a caution. See below. |
The 617.14 is the anchor. It is not a round number, not a standard wage, and not a figure that recurs by chance — and it appears against the same account in the general ledger, in the Athabasca blotter and again in the settlement register, tied to a contract that says cinq cents livres in words. Once that chain is established, a second Paul at 350 with a balance of 96 is recognisable immediately as a different account.
The man at 350 carries 96 in the general ledger and 80.8 in the Athabasca blotter. Those are balances struck at different points, in different books, for different purposes. They are not competing claims about one figure.
The constant that identifies the account is the wage of 350, which never varies. Balances move as an account is worked; a contracted wage does not.
The Page That Foots
Why adding the column is the whole methodThere is one more reason to trust figures over spelling, and it is the reason an accountant would give: a page of arithmetic checks itself.
By Balance (opening) — 69.14
By Lieut Franklin — 100
1821 By Wages — 500
——————
669.14
To Sundries (charges) — 52
To Balance — 617.14
——————
669.14 SETTLED
The page balances at 669.14 in both directions. That is what makes the reading secure: this man contracted at five hundred and settled at 617.14, and the credit entered as By Lieut Franklin is visibly what lifted him above his wage. An earlier version of this research reported 617.14 as the wage. The page will not foot that way.
The same test has since been applied to the general ledger account at p. 389, which runs from 1811 to 1821. Eleven annual blocks, every one balancing in livres and sols. Arithmetic is not a matter of interpretation, which is precisely why it is worth more than a clerk’s spelling — and why make the page foot belongs in every fur-trade researcher’s method.
Who Is Who
Two accounts, cleanly separated — and only one of them attached to a personThis is where the post that used to stand here went wrong, and where the method reveals its limit.
The man the clerks called Paul Gibeau
UnidentifiedHis account at p. 389 opens in 1811 on a balance brought forward from an earlier ledger, credits wages every year to 1821, and charges his purchases to the North West Book until 1820 and to the Athabasca Book thereafter. A decade of continuous service, and prior service before it.
Two engagements are attached to him: one passed at Lac la Pluie in July 1798 under Roderick McKenzie, wintering at Great Slave Lake; one in May 1821 under Samuel Black, with a clause exempting him from carrying at the portages. He signed both by mark.
Not one of those documents records a parish, a parentage or an age. He was identified for years as Paul Guilbault père of St-Paul-de-Lavaltrie. That identification has been withdrawn.
Paul Guilbault “the Canadian”
Probably identifiedBorn January 1798 at Lavaltrie, a first cousin once removed of the Guilbault line through their common ancestor Charles Guilbault, who married Catherine-Antoinette Deguise dit Flamand in 1727. Gauthier entry 57.
His account traces a route rather than a settlement: transferred in from Fort William, then purchases at Fort Chipewyan, at Slave Lake, then tobacco and sundries at Fort Providence. He left Quebec in 1821 and did not come back.
A governor’s 1828 journal names him on a mountain portage in New Caledonia. The Catholic Church Records of the Pacific Northwest find him at Fort Vancouver — married to a Walla Walla woman, father of six, godfather across fifteen register pages — until his death about 1849 at French Prairie, Oregon.
The Oregon man is thoroughly documented as a person — baptism, parentage, marriage, children, death. What is less secure is the join between that person and the ledger account at 350.
That join rests on the given name, a surname variant, the period, and a westward trajectory that fits: a man who left Quebec in 1821 and turned up in New Caledonia by 1828, against an account whose charges run Fort William, Chipewyan, Slave Lake, Fort Providence. It is a good fit. It is the same species of argument that attached the other account to the wrong man for years, and it should be held to the same standard.
What would settle it: a Montreal engagement naming him with a home parish, or a Pacific Northwest record giving a figure that matches. Until then, probably is the honest word.
What this post used to say
An earlier version identified the account at 500 as Paul Guilbault père, the brother of Gabriel — a mason of St-Paul-de-Lavaltrie with twenty-three children, who came home from the Athabasca and lent his settlement to neighbours as secured grain annuities. That identification is withdrawn.
Three Quebec documents place him at home inside the account’s own years: a godparent clause of October 1798, a guardianship account rendered in person before a notary in July 1820, and a witness clause at his daughter’s wedding in October 1821. Athabasca is a wintering department; the two men cannot be one. His life, and his annuities, are set out in a biography of their own, and the money that funded them is now an open question.
A second correction while the file was open. This post described Paul fils collecting repayment of the Lorion capital in July 1832. That act is a fresh life annuity constituted by Dominique Rivet and his wife, with no Lorion party to it and nothing discharged.
What survives is the method. The wage column really did separate the two accounts, and it did so correctly. Nothing in the disambiguation depended on the misidentification — which is why the correction left the finding standing and only removed the names.
The Two Rules This Produced
First: in the ledgers, figures are the discriminator and spelling is noise. Two men of one name, in one department, in one season, are separated by their wage column and by nothing else. The clerks spelled both several ways; the figures never moved. That generalises to any family that recycled given names, which is most French-Canadian families.
Second, and harder: separating two accounts is not identifying two men. Sorting the documents feels like solving the problem, and it produces a satisfying table with two clean columns. But a wage figure distinguishes one servant from another without saying who either one was. Every question a genealogist actually cares about — parish, parents, descendants — lies outside the account books entirely.
What the Figures Don’t Settle
Three places the method stopsThe account at 500 carries a credit reading By Lieut Franklin — 100. Franklin’s published narrative confirms he was at Fort Chipewyan from late March 1820, requisitioning company men and paying in goods on company account — the mechanism that produces a credit of exactly this form.
But the two accounts pull in opposite directions. The credit sits on the account at 500. The account whose charges trace the Franklin corridor in order, ending at Fort Providence, is the one at 350. Fort Providence was an ordinary company post as well as the expedition’s rendezvous. The documents do not choose, and the entry is logged as unresolved rather than probable.
The Lac La Pluie blotter for 1820 lists a Gbault Paul. Nothing in that volume carries a wage figure that would attach it to either account, and no other document has yet been found that would.
It is a real account, held by a real Paul, and it has not been assigned. Saying so is more useful than guessing.
Ten years of wages, two signed engagements, three volumes that interlock to the sol — and no parish. The leading untested hypothesis is that he belonged to the Gibeau families of La Prairie, La Tortue, Sorel and Mascouche, men of that surname documented in the Montreal notarial engagements through the 1780s and 1790s, and never reconstructed from parish registers because there was never a reason to.
The highest-value document outstanding is the earlier ledger his account carries a balance from. It has never been read.
Related Reading
Who Was Paul Gibeau? →
The full case study of the account at 500 — a career documented across three volumes, and a man nobody has identified.
Assigning a Fur-Trade Account to a Man Who Has No Parish →
Document by document: the ledger read in full, the arithmetic shown, and the three-state presence ledger that decided it.
The Canadian: from Lavaltrie to French Prairie →
The one Paul of this family who has been identified, and the Pacific Northwest records that did it.
Documentary Biography: Paul Guilbault père →
Twenty-three children, five trades, a seven-year guardianship and two annuities — the life the parish recorded.
Research Methodology →
The full collection of field guides and case studies, grouped by the problem each one solves.
The Master Balance Sheet: Two Pauls, One Page
Part of the Storyline Genealogy series: The Guilbault Line · Voyageurs of the Pays d’en Haut
A Storyline Genealogy research article · From Research to Story
Primary sources, all transcribed rather than reproduced: HBCA F.4/47, North West Balances 1821; F.4/46, NWC Account Book 1820–1821; F.4/37, NWC Athabasca General Blotter 1820–1821; F.4/32, NWC General Ledger, pp. 389 and 396; F.5/1 fo. 115 and F.5/3 pp. 32–33, NWC Servants’ Contracts; Archives of Manitoba, Winnipeg. Gauthier, Ancestry of French Canadians to Oregon Prior to 1842, entry 57. Munnick, Catholic Church Records of the Pacific Northwest. Franklin, Narrative of a Journey to the Shores of the Polar Sea, 1823. Registres paroissiaux, St-Paul-de-Lavaltrie; BAnQ CN605,S24 and CN605,S25, Joliette.
Are You Connected to the Guilbault Line?
If you descend from the Guilbault (Guilbeau, Guilbeault) family of Charlesbourg and the Quebec parishes, from the children of Marie Josephte Abitakijikokwe, or from the founding families of the line — Senécal, Séguin dit Ladéroute, Morin, Couillaud dit Roquebrune, Gaulin — I’d like to compare notes. Documented trees, DNA matches, family papers, and even half-remembered stories have all moved this research forward.
Get in Touch About This FamilyCousin connections are informal and reciprocal — no fee, no obligation, just shared work on shared ancestry.
Every Family Has a Story Worth Telling
Whether you're just beginning your research or ready to transform years of work into a narrative your family will treasure, I'd love to help.
LET'S TALK ABOUT YOUR FAMILY