GOVERNOR, BISHOP, AND INTENDANT
At the beginning of September 1675 Frontenac was confronted
with an event which could have given him little pleasure.
This was the arrival, by the same ship, of the bishop
Laval, who had been absent from Canada four years, and
Jacques Duchesneau, who after a long interval had been
appointed to succeed Talon as intendant. Laval returned
in triumph. He was now bishop of Quebec, directly dependent
upon the Holy See [Footnote: Laval had wished strongly
that the see of Quebec should be directly dependent on
the Papacy, and his insistence on this point delayed the
formal creation of the diocese.] and not upon the king
of France. Duchesneau came to Canada with the reputation
of having proved a capable official at Tours.
By temper and training Frontenac was ill-disposed to
share authority with any one. In the absence of bishop
and intendant he had filled the centre of the stage. Now
he must become reconciled to the presence at Quebec of
others who held high rank and had claims to be considered
in the conduct of public affairs. Even at the moment of
formal welcome he must have felt that trouble was in
store. For sixteen years Laval had been a great person
in Canada, and Duchesneau had come to occupy the post
which Talon had made almost more important than that of
governor.
Partly through a clash of dignities and partly through
a clash of ideas, there soon arose at Quebec a conflict
which rendered personal friendship among the leaders
impossible, and caused itself to be felt in every part
of the administration. Since this antagonism lasted for
seven years and had large consequences, it becomes
important to examine its deeper causes as well as the
forms which under varying circumstances it came to assume.
In the triangular relations of Frontenac, Laval, and
Duchesneau the bishop and the intendant were ranged
against the governor. The simplest form of stating the
case is to say that Frontenac clashed with Laval over
one set of interests and with Duchesneau over another;
over ecclesiastical issues with the bishop and over civil
interests with the intendant. In the Sovereign Council
these three dignitaries sat together, and so close was
the connection of Church with State that not a month
could pass without bringing to light some fresh matter
which concerned them all. Broadly speaking, the differences
between Frontenac and Laval were of more lasting moment
than those between Frontenac and Duchesneau. In the end
governor and intendant quarrelled over everything simply
because they had come to be irreconcilable enemies. At
the outset, however, their theoretical grounds of opposition
were much less grave than the matters in debate between
Frontenac and Laval. To appreciate these duly we must
consider certain things which were none the less important
because they lay in the background.
When Frontenac came to Canada he found that the
ecclesiastical field was largely occupied by the Jesuits,
the Sulpicians, and the Recollets. Laval had, indeed,
begun his task of organizing a diocese at Quebec and
preparing to educate a local priesthood. Four years after
his arrival in Canada he had founded the Quebec Seminary
(1663) and had added (1668) a preparatory school, called
the Little Seminary. But the three missionary orders were
still the mainstay of the Canadian Church. It is evident
that Colbert not only considered the Jesuits the most
powerful, but also thought them powerful enough to need
a check. Hence, when Frontenac received his commission,
he received also written instructions to balance the
Jesuit power by supporting the Sulpicians and the Recollets.
Through his dispute with Perrot, Frontenac had strained
the good relations which Colbert wished him to maintain
with the Sulpicians. But the friction thus caused was in
no way due to Frontenac's dislike of the Sulpicians as
an order. Towards the Jesuits, on the other hand, he
cherished a distinct antagonism which led him to carry
out with vigour the command that he should keep their
power within bounds. This can be seen from the earliest
dispatches which he sent to France. Before he had been
in Quebec three months he reported to Colbert that it
was the practice of the Jesuits to stir up strife in
families, to resort to espionage, to abuse the confessional,
to make the Seminary priests their puppets, and to deny
the king's right to license the brandy trade. What seemed
to the Jesuits an unforgivable affront was Frontenac's
charge that they cared more for beaver skins than for
the conversion of the savages. This they interpreted as
an insult to the memory of their martyrs, and their
resentment must have been the greater because the accusation
was not made publicly in Canada, but formed part of a
letter to Colbert in France. The information that such
an attack had been made reached them through Laval, who
was then in France and found means to acquaint himself
with the nature of Frontenac's correspondence.
Having displeased the Sulpicians and attacked the Jesuits,
Frontenac made amends to the Church by cultivating the
most friendly relations with the Recollets. No one ever
accused him of being a bad Catholic. He was exact in the
performance of his religious duties, and such trouble as
he had with the ecclesiastical authorities proceeded from
political aims rather than from heresy or irreligion.
Like so much else in the life of Canada, the strife
between Frontenac and Laval may be traced back to France.
During the early years of Louis XIV the French Church
was distracted by the disputes of Gallican and Ultramontane.
The Gallicans were faithful Catholics who nevertheless
held that the king and the national clergy had rights
which the Pope must respect. The Ultramontanes defined
papal power more widely and sought to minimize, disregard,
or deny the privileges of the national Church.
Between these parties no point of doctrine was involved,
[Footnote: The well-known relation of the Jansenist
movement to Gallican liberties was not such that the
Gallican party accepted Jansenist theology. The Jesuits
upheld papal infallibility and, in general, the Ultramontane
position. The Jansenists were opposed to the Jesuits,
but Gallicanism was one thing and Jansenist theology
another.] but in the sphere of government there exists
a frontier between Church and State along which many wars
of argument can be waged--at times with some display of
force. The Mass, Purgatory, the Saints, Confession, and
the celibacy of the priest, all meant as much to the
Gallican as to the Ultramontane. Nor did the Pope's
headship prove a stumbling-block in so far as it was
limited to things spiritual. The Gallican did, indeed,
assert the subjection of the Pope to a General Council,
quoting in his support the decrees of Constance and Basel.
But in the seventeenth century this was a theoretical
contention. What Louis XIV and Bossuet strove for was
the limitation of papal power in matters affecting property
and political rights. The real questions upon which
Gallican and Ultramontane differed were the appointment
of bishops and abbots, the contribution of the Church to
the needs of the State, and the priest's standing as a
subject of the king.
Frontenac was no theorist, and probably would have written
a poor treatise on the relations of Church and State. At
the same time, he knew that the king claimed certain
rights over the Church, and he was the king's lieutenant.
Herein lies the deeper cause of his troubles with the
Jesuits and Laval. The Jesuits had been in the colony
for fifty years and felt that they knew the spiritual
requirements of both French and Indians. Their missions
had been illuminated by the supreme heroism of Brebeuf,
Jogues, Lalemant, and many more. Their house at Quebec
stood half-way between Versailles and the wilderness.
They were in close alliance with Laval and supported the
ideal and divine rights of the Church. They had found
strong friends in Champlain and Montmagny. Frontenac,
however, was a layman of another type. However orthodox
his religious ideas may have been, his heart was not
lowly and his temper was not devout. Intensely autocratic
by disposition, he found it easy to identify his own will
to power with a defence of royal prerogative against the
encroachments of the Church. It was an attitude that
could not fail to beget trouble, for the Ultramontanes
had weapons of defence which they well knew how to use.
Having in view these ulterior motives, the acrimony of
Frontenac's quarrel with Laval is not surprising. Rightly
or wrongly, the governor held that the bishop was
subservient to the Jesuits, while Colbert's plain
instructions required the governor to keep the Jesuits
in check. From such a starting point the further
developments were almost automatic. Laval found on his
return that Frontenac had exacted from the clergy unusual
and excessive honours during church services. This
furnished a subject of heated debate and an appeal by
both parties to the king. After full consideration
Frontenac received orders to rest content with the same
honours which were by custom accorded the governor of
Picardy in the cathedral of Amiens.
More important by far than this argument over precedence
was the dispute concerning the organization of parishes.
Here the issue hinged on questions of fact rather than
of theory. Beyond question the habitants were entitled
to have priests living permanently in their midst, as
soon as conditions should warrant it. But had the time
come when a parish system could be created? Laval's
opinion may be inferred from the fact that in 1675,
sixteen years after his arrival in Canada, only one priest
lived throughout the year among his own people. This was
the Abbe de Bernieres, cure of Notre Dame at Quebec. In
1678 two more parishes received permanent incumbents--Port
Royal and La Durantaye. Even so, it was a small number
for the whole colony.
Frontenac maintained that Laval was unwilling to create
a normal system of parishes because thereby his personal
power would be reduced. As long as the cures were not
permanently stationed they remained in complete dependence
on the bishop. All the funds provided for the secular
clergy passed through his hands. If he wished to keep
for the Seminary money which ought to go to the parishes,
the habitants were helpless. It was ridiculous to pamper
the Seminary at the expense of the colonists. It was
worse than ridiculous that the French themselves should
go without religious care because the Jesuits chose to
give prior attention to the souls of the savage.
Laval's argument in reply was that the time had not yet
come for the creation of parishes on a large scale.
Doubtless it would prove possible in the future to have
churches and a parochial system of the normal type.
Meanwhile, in view of the general poverty it was desirable
that all the resources of the Church should be conserved.
To this end the habitants were being cared for by itinerant
priests at much less expense than would be entailed by
fixing on each parish the support of its cure.
Here, as in all these contests, a mixture of motives is
evident. There is no reason to doubt Frontenac's sincerity
in stating that the missions and the Seminary absorbed
funds of the Church which would be better employed in
ministration to the settlers. At the same time, it was
for him a not unpleasant exercise to support a policy
which would have the incidental effect of narrowing the
bishop's power. After some three years of controversy
the king, as usual, stepped in to settle the matter. By
an edict of May 1679 he ordained that the priests should
live in their parishes and have the free disposition of
the tithes which had been established under an order of
1667. Thus on the subject of the cures Frontenac's views
were officially accepted; but his victory was rendered
more nominal than real by the unwillingness or inability
of the habitants to supply sufficient funds for the
support of a resident priesthood.
In Frontenac's dispute with the clergy over the brandy
question no new arguments were brought forward, since
all the main points had been covered already. It was an
old quarrel, and there was nothing further to do than to
set forth again the opposing aspects of a very difficult
subject. Religion clashed with business, but that was
not all. Upon the prosecution of business hung the hope
of building up for France a vast empire. The Jesuits
urged that the Indians were killing themselves with
brandy, which destroyed their souls and reduced them to
the level of beasts. The traders retorted that the savages
would not go without drink. If they were denied it by
the French they would take their furs to Albany, and
there imbibe not only bad rum but soul destroying heresy.
Why be visionary and suffer one's rivals to secure an
advantage which would open up to them the heart of the
continent?
Laval, on the other hand, had chosen his side in this
controversy long before Frontenac came to Canada, and he
was not one to change his convictions lightly. As he saw
it, the sale of brandy to the Indians was a sin, punishable
by excommunication; and so determined was he that the
penalty should be enforced that he would allow the right
of absolution to no one but himself. In the end the king
decided it otherwise. He declared the regulation of the
brandy trade to fall within the domain of the civil power.
He warned Frontenac to avoid an open denial of the bishop's
authority in this matter, but directed him to prevent
the Church from interfering in a case belonging to the
sphere of public order. This decision was not reached
without deep thought. In favour of prohibition stood
Laval, the Jesuits, the Sorbonne, the Archbishop of Paris,
and the king's confessor, Pere La Chaise. Against it were
Frontenac, the chief laymen of Canada, [Footnote: On
October 26, 1678, a meeting of the leading inhabitants
of Canada was held by royal order at Quebec to consider
the rights and wrongs of the brandy question. A large
majority of those present were opposed to prohibition.]
the University of Toulouse, and Colbert. In extricating
himself from this labyrinth of conflicting opinion Louis
XIV was guided by reasons of general policy. He had never
seen the Mohawks raving drunk, and, like Frontenac, he
felt that without brandy the work of France in the
wilderness could not go on.
Such were the issues over which Frontenac and Laval faced
each other in mutual antagonism.
Between Frontenac and his other opponent, the intendant
Duchesneau, the strife revolved about a different set of
questions without losing any of its bitterness. Frontenac
and Laval disputed over ecclesiastical affairs. Frontenac
and Duchesneau disputed over civil affairs. But as Laval
and Duchesneau were both at war with Frontenac they
naturally drew together. The alliance was rendered more
easy by Duchesneau's devoutness. Even had he wished to
hold aloof from the quarrel of governor and bishop, it
would have been difficult to do so. But as an active
friend of Laval and the Jesuits he had no desire to be
a neutral spectator of the feud which ran parallel with
his own. The two feuds soon became intermingled, and
Frontenac, instead of confronting separate adversaries,
found himself engaged with allied forces which were ready
to attack or defend at every point. It could not have
been otherwise. Quebec was a small place, and the three
belligerents were brought into the closest official
contact by their duties as members of the Sovereign
Council.
It is worthy of remark that each of the contestants,
Frontenac, Laval, and Duchesneau, has his partisans among
the historians of the present day. All modern writers
agree that Canada suffered grievously from these disputes,
but a difference of opinion at once arises when an attempt
is made to distribute the blame. The fact is that characters
separately strong and useful often make an unfortunate
combination. Compared with Laval and Frontenac, Duchesneau
was not a strong character, but he possessed qualifications
which might have enabled him in less stormy times to fill
the office of intendant with tolerable credit. It was
his misfortune that circumstances forced him into the
thankless position of being a henchman to the bishop and
a drag upon the governor.
Everything which Duchesneau did gave Frontenac annoyance--
the more so as the intendant came armed with very
considerable powers. During the first three years of
Frontenac's administration the governor, in the absence
of an intendant, had lorded it over the colony with a
larger freedom from restraint than was normal under the
French colonial system. Apparently Colbert was not
satisfied with the result. It may be that he feared the
vigour which Frontenac displayed in taking the initiative;
or the quarrel with Perrot may have created a bad impression
at Versailles; or it may have been considered that the
less Frontenac had to do with the routine of business,
the more the colony would thrive. Possibly Colbert only
sought to define anew the relations which ought to exist
between governor and intendant. Whatever the motive,
Duchesneau's instructions gave him a degree of authority
which proved galling to the governor.
Within three weeks from the date of Duchesneau's arrival
the fight had begun (September 23, 1675). In its earliest
phase it concerned the right to preside at meetings of
the Sovereign Council. For three years Frontenac, 'high
and puissant seigneur,' had conducted proceedings as a
matter of course. Duchesneau now asked him to retire from
this position, producing as warrant his commission which
stated that he should preside over the Council, 'in the
absence of the said Sieur de Frontenac.' Why this last
clause should have been inserted one finds it hard to
understand, for Colbert's subsequent letters place his
intention beyond doubt. He meant that Duchesneau should
preside, though without detracting from Frontenac's
superior dignity. The order of precedence at the Council
is fixed with perfect clearness. First comes the governor,
then the bishop, and then the intendant. Yet the intendant
is given the chair. Colbert may have thought that Duchesneau
as a man of business possessed a better training for this
special work. Clearly the step was not taken with a view
to placing an affront upon Frontenac. When he complained,
Colbert replied that there was no other man in France
who, being already a governor and lieutenant-general,
would consider it an increase of honour to preside over
the Council. In Colbert's eyes this was a clerk's work,
not a soldier's.
Frontenac saw the matter differently and was unwilling
to be deposed. Royal letters, which he produced, had
styled him 'President of the Council,' and on the face
of it Duchesneau's commission only indicated that he
should preside in Frontenac's absence. With these arguments
the governor stood his ground. Then followed the
representations of both parties to the king, each taxing
the other with misdemeanours both political and personal.
During the long period which must elapse before a reply
could be received, the Sovereign Council was turned into
an academy of invective. Besides governor, bishop, and
intendant, there were seven members who were called upon
to take sides in the contest. No one could remain neutral
even if he had the desire. In voting power Laval and
Duchesneau had rather the best of it, but Frontenac when
pressed could fall back on physical force; as he once
did by banishing three of the councillors--Villeray,
Tilly, and Auteuil--from Quebec (July 4, 1679).
Incredible as it may seem, this issue regarding the right
to preside was not settled until the work of the Council
had been disturbed by it for five years. What is still
more incredible, it was settled by compromise. The king's
final ruling was that the minutes of each meeting should
register the presence of governor and intendant without
saying which had presided. Throughout the controversy
Colbert remonstrated with both Frontenac and Duchesneau
for their turbulence and unwillingness to work together.
Duchesneau is told that he must not presume to think
himself the equal of the governor. Frontenac is told that
the intendant has very important functions and must not
be prevented from discharging them. The whole episode
shows how completely the French colonial system broke
down in its attempt to act through two officials, each
of whom was designed to be a check upon the other.
Wholly alienated by this dispute, Frontenac and Duchesneau
soon found that they could quarrel over anything and
everything. Thus Duchesneau became a consistent supporter
of Laval and the Jesuits, while Frontenac retaliated by
calling him their tool. The brandy question, which was
partly ecclesiastical and partly civil, proved an excellent
battle-ground for the three great men of Canada; and, as
finance was concerned, the intendant had something to
say about the establishment of parishes. But of the
manifold contests between Frontenac and Duchesneau the
most distinctive is that relating to the fur trade. At
first sight this matter would appear to lie in the province
of the intendant, whose functions embraced the supervision
of commerce. But it was the governor's duty to defend
the colony from attack, and the fur trade was a large
factor in all relations with the Indians. A personal
element was also added, for in almost every letter to
the minister Frontenac and Duchesneau accused each other
of taking an illicit profit from beaver skins.
In support of these accusations the most minute details
are given. Duchesneau even charged Frontenac with spreading
a report among the Indians of the Great Lakes that a
pestilence had broken out in Montreal. Thereby the
governor's agents were enabled to buy up beaver skins
cheaply, afterwards selling them on his account to the
English. Frontenac rejoined by accusing the intendant of
having his own warehouses at Montreal and along the lower
St Lawrence, of being truculent, a slave to the bishop,
and incompetent. Behind Duchesneau, Frontenac keeps
saying, are the Jesuits and the bishop, from whom the
spirit of faction really springs. Among many of these
tirades the most elaborate is the long memorial sent to
Colbert in 1677 on the general state of Canada. Here are
some of the items. The Jesuits keep spies in Frontenac's
own house. The bishop declares that he has the power to
excommunicate the governor if necessary. The Jesuit
missionaries tell the Iroquois that they are equal to
Onontio. Other charges are that the Jesuits meddle in
all civil affairs, that their revenues are enormous in
proportion to the poverty of the country, and that they
are bound to domineer at whatever cost.
When we consider how Canada from end to end was affected
by these disputes, we may well feel surprise that Colbert
and the king should have suffered them to rage so long.
By 1682 the state of things had become unbearable.
Partisans of Frontenac and Duchesneau attacked each other
in the streets. Duchesneau accused Frontenac of having
struck the young Duchesneau, aged sixteen, and torn the
sleeve of his jacket. He also declared that it was
necessary to barricade his house. Frontenac retorted by
saying that these were gross libels. A year earlier
Colbert had placed his son, Seignelay, in charge of the
Colonial Office. With matters at such a pass Seignelay
rightly thought the time had come to take decisive action.
Three courses were open to him. The bishop and the Jesuits
he could not recall. But both the governor and the
intendant came within his power. One alternative was to
dismiss Frontenac; another, to dismiss Duchesneau.
Seignelay chose the third course and dismissed them both.