THE COMMENCEMENT OF TROUBLES
It is difficult in the present advanced condition of all the arts and
sciences which converge on the perfecting of our means of transport and
communication to form an adequate idea of the toils, inconveniences, and
perils encountered by those who in the seventeenth century attempted the
task of colonizing this continent. To say nothing of the difficulties of
land travel, the colonist, by the mere fact of crossing the ocean,
placed a barrier of two or three months of perilous navigation between
himself and the land that had been his home. To the dangers of the sea
were added the yet more serious danger of infection on ill-ventilated
and pest-breeding vessels. A ship coming to the St. Lawrence could in
those days make but one trip to and fro in the year. It is easy to see,
therefore, in how critical a position a colony would be that depended in
any large measure on supplies brought from the other side. The wreck or
capture of one or two vessels might bring it to the verge of starvation.
Success in agriculture, again, can only be looked for where there is
peaceable and secure possession of the land. If all the results of
laborious tillage are liable to be carried off or destroyed at any
moment by marauding foes, there is little encouragement to engage in
that kind of industry. The population will, by preference, turn to the
search for metals, or seek to trade in articles easily marketed. Thus it
was that, in the early days, the Canadian settlers gave themselves up
almost wholly to hunting and fur-trading. Later, when the French
government began to interest itself directly in the settlement of the
country, strong efforts were made to induce the colonists to apply
themselves to agriculture. Lands were conceded on condition that they
should be cleared and cultivated within a specified time, failing which,
they should revert to the Crown. The same condition applied to any
_portion_ of a grant remaining unimproved after the stipulated period.
Under these inducements agriculture began to make a little headway,
particularly, as we have seen, after the lesson given to the Iroquois by
Tracy.
Still, there was too much hunting and too much trading with the Indians
in the woods, as distinguished from legitimate trading in the
settlements. Mention has already been made of the _coureurs de bois_.
These were men who, instead of awaiting the arrival of the Indians at
the posts of Montreal, Three Rivers, or Quebec, went out to meet them,
in order that they might get the pick of the skins they possessed, and
perhaps also get the better of them in a trade by first making them
drunk. Two classes of _coureurs de bois_ have been distinguished: on the
one hand, the men who merely _traded_ in the woods in the way described,
and, on the other, those who attached themselves to different Indian
bands, and lived the common life of their savage companions. This
reversion to savagery had a great fascination for many of the Canadian
youths; and, as it led to great moral disorder, the clergy were quite as
much opposed to it as the civil governors. As a convert is generally
more zealous than one born in the faith, so these converts from
civilization to barbarism seemed bent on outdoing the original sons of
the forest in all that was wild and unseemly. Like their bronzed
associates they would sometimes spurn clothing altogether, even when
visiting settlements, and would make both day and night hideous with
their carousing and yelling.[13]
Frontenac had received from the king strict instructions to repress the
_coureurs de bois_ by all means in his power. The law against them was
severe, for the punishment was death. One of the first things Frontenac
learnt on arriving in the colony was that Montreal was the headquarters
of these lawless men, and that not only did the local governor, Perrot,
make no effort to reduce them to order, but that he was commonly
understood to be a sharer in their illicit gains. It was further stated
that he had an establishment of his own on an island, which still bears
his name, at the confluence of the Ottawa and St. Lawrence, where his
agents regularly intercepted the Indians on the way to Montreal, and
took the cream of the trade. The king's instructions, it was well known,
forbade any trading on the part of officials; but Perrot, whose family,
as already mentioned, was influential, and whose wife was a niece of the
late Intendant Talon, did not think that such a regulation was made for
him. In passing through Montreal at the time of his expedition to
Cataraqui, Frontenac had requested Perrot to see that the king's
instructions respecting the _coureurs de bois_ were obeyed. The latter
promised compliance, but the promise was not redeemed. Frontenac at
first thought he could get round the difficulty by appointing M. de
Chambly as local governor for the district surrounding the Island of
Montreal--Perrot's jurisdiction being limited strictly to the
island--and thus establishing a kind of cordon by which the comings and
goings of the _coureurs de bois_ might be controlled. This arrangement
was never put into operation, for the reason that, just about the same
time, M. de Chambly received from the king the appointment of governor
of Acadia. Perrot, however, accompanied him as far as Quebec, and this
gave Frontenac the opportunity of placing under the eyes of the Montreal
governor the orders he had received from the court, and urging him to
co-operate in giving them effect. Again Perrot promised to do his duty
in the matter, but with what degree of sincerity events quickly showed.
He had hardly returned to Montreal when the local judge, Ailleboust, who
had received personal instructions from Frontenac in regard to carrying
out the law, tried to effect the arrest of two offenders who were
lodging in the house of one Carion, an officer. Carion refused to permit
the arrest, and was upheld therein by Perrot, whereupon the judge took
the only course open to him, namely, to notify the governor-general. It
was now midwinter; but, without a moment's hesitation, Frontenac
deputed one Bizard, a lieutenant of his guard, to go to Montreal with
three men, effect the arrest of Carion, and bring him to Quebec. He gave
Bizard at the same time a letter to Perrot, but instructed him not to
deliver it till he had first made sure of his prisoner. The lieutenant
carried out his instructions, so far as the arrest of Carion was
concerned; but, before he could leave Montreal, Perrot pounced down upon
him and made him prisoner in turn, asking him how he dared to make an
arrest in the limits of the government of Montreal without first
notifying him. The scene was witnessed by two prominent residents of
Montreal, Lebert, the merchant, and La Salle, of whom we have already
heard; and a report of the matter, attested by them, was despatched to
Quebec. The choleric Perrot, hearing of this piece of officiousness, as
he regarded it, put Lebert also into prison. La Salle, thinking the same
treatment might be meted out to him, lost no time in taking the road to
Quebec.
The rage of Frontenac at this open defiance of his authority may be
imagined. Was it for this that he had come to Canada, to be flouted and
set at nought by a subordinate officer? The worst of it was that there
was no immediate remedy. The only thing to do at the moment was to
summon the culprit to appear before the Sovereign Council at Quebec. But
would he come? If he refused, Frontenac had no force to compel him. The
force was all on the other side; the governor-general had but his body
guard, whereas Montreal was full of men accustomed to Indian warfare,
who would probably obey Perrot's orders, especially as there was a
standing jealousy between Montreal and Quebec. At this point in his
reflections, the count bethought him of writing a letter to the Abbe de
Fenelon, Sulpician, of Montreal, who had accompanied him to Cataraqui,
and with whom he was on very friendly terms, asking him to represent to
Perrot what a serious thing it would be if he aggravated his former
misconduct by refusing to go to Quebec. Rightly or wrongly, M. de
Fenelon understood this letter as signifying that the governor, while
desirous of vindicating his authority, was prepared to compromise the
difficulty to some extent, and consequently gave Perrot to understand
that, if he would obey the order to go to Quebec, the matter would in
all probability be amicably adjusted. He offered to accompany him; and
the two set out towards the close of January on a snowshoe tramp to
Quebec over the frozen St. Lawrence. They arrived at the capital on the
29th of the month. Perrot at once sought an interview with the governor;
but the discussion, far from taking a friendly turn, soon became
extremely violent; and the result was that Perrot found himself in an
hour's time placed under arrest.
The surprise and chagrin of the Montreal official may be imagined. As
for the abbe, his indignation at what he regarded as a breach of faith
knew no bounds.[14] Sharp words passed between him and the governor, and
he returned to Montreal in a most agitated and rebellious state of mind.
A few weeks later, having to preach on Easter Sunday in the parish
church, he slipped into his sermon some observations which could only be
construed as an attack on the king's representative. Speaking of those
who are invested with temporal authority, he said--according to a
summary of his discourse given by the Abbe Faillon--that the magistrate
who was animated by the spirit of the risen Christ would be strict, on
the one hand, to punish offences against the service of his Prince, and
prompt, on the other, to overlook those against his own dignity; would
be full of respect for the ministers of the altar, and would not treat
them harshly when, in the discharge of their duty, they strove to
reconcile enemies and establish general good-will; would not surround
himself with servile creatures to fill his ears with adulation, nor
oppress under specious pretexts persons also invested with authority who
happened to oppose his projects; further that such a ruler would use his
power to maintain the authority of the monarch, and not to promote his
own advantage, and would content himself with the salary allowed him
without disturbing the commerce of the country or ill-using those who
would not give him a share of their gains; finally, that he would not
vex the people by unjustly exacting forced labour for ends of his own,
nor falsely invoke the name of the monarch in support of such
proceedings.
In every sentence there was a sting. The last words referred to the
expedition to Lake Ontario, and the unpaid labour of the men by whom the
fort at Cataraqui had been constructed. The preacher, in fact, may be
said to have summed up the charges which certain Montrealers were at the
time making against the governor, and which the Abbe Faillon, swayed
perhaps in some measure by sympathy with a fellow Sulpician, does not
hesitate to say were well founded.
The church on that Easter Sunday was filled to its utmost capacity, over
six hundred persons being present. Amongst these was the watchful La
Salle, who, not only took it all in himself, but by his gestures and
movements called the attention of as many persons as possible to what
was being said, and its obvious import. It was not only the friends of
Frontenac, however, who recognized the drift of the sermon, for the cure
of the parish, the Rev. M. Perrot, said to M. de Fenelon as he came down
from the pulpit: "Really, sir, you have entered into details which have
caused me a great deal of trouble." Other ecclesiastics were affected in
the same manner, amongst them La Salle's own brother, an ecclesiastic of
the Seminary, who went at once to the Superior, the excellent M. Dollier
de Casson, to tell him what had happened. The latter, in turn,
foreseeing trouble, sent to tell La Salle that the Seminary had no
responsibility whatever for M. de Fenelon's sermon, as it had not been
submitted beforehand for approval, and no one had the least notion what
he intended to say. The same communication was made in the most earnest
terms to M. de la Nauguere, who was temporarily filling the place of
governor of Montreal by Frontenac's nomination, with a request that he
would convey the assurance to the governor-general.
The extraordinary thing is that the reverend gentleman who had caused
all this trouble, when spoken to on the subject by the Superior, gave
his word as a man of honour and a priest, that he had no intention
whatever of alluding to the governor-general, adding that those who so
applied his remarks were doing much dishonour to that high officer. The
Abbe Faillon does not like to call M. de Fenelon's word in question, but
he says that he manifestly lacked "one quality very important in a
missionary, the prudence which directs the exercise of zeal, and keeps
it within the bounds that circumstances require."
It was not only by this sermon that the Abbe Fenelon showed his lack of
prudence. Madame Perrot had come out from France with her husband when
he was appointed to the governorship of Montreal in 1669, and now that
he was in trouble, and his case was likely to come before the king, she
was anxious to get some testimonial from the people of Montreal in his
favour. As to the kind of a governor Perrot had really been, we may
safely rely on the judgment pronounced by the industrious author of the
_Histoire de la Colonie Francaise en Canada_, who says[15]: "This
governor contributed more than any one else to that fatal revolution
which changed entirely the moral aspect of this colony [Montreal]. . . .
The whole course of his conduct in Canada justifies us in thinking that
when, in 1669, he decided to come here, it was in the hope of making a
great fortune through the influence of M. de Talon, whose niece,
Madeleine Laguide, he had married." The abbe goes on to explain that the
Seminary (as seigneurs of the Island of Montreal) would never have
nominated Perrot had they known his true character, and would certainly
not have retained him in office after his character became known, if
they had been free to act in the matter. What stood in the way was that,
through Talon's influence, his commission as governor had been confirmed
by the king, and that he had thus, in a manner, been rendered
independent of the Seminary authorities. "From that moment," the writer
continues, "he considered himself free from all control in the matter of
the traffic in drink which he was already carrying on with the savages
to the great scandal of all the respectable inhabitants. . . . It is
certain that he himself gave open protection to the _coureurs de bois_,
not only in his own island through M. Bruey, his agent, but also
throughout the whole extent of the Island of Montreal. . . . In order to
have, without much expense, _coureurs de bois_ under his orders, he
allowed nearly all the soldiers in the island to desert and take to the
woods, without either pursuing them, or notifying the governor-general
of their desertion." It may be added that, when some of the most
respectable inhabitants of Montreal ventured on a timid remonstrance
respecting the irregularities that were taking place, he assailed them
in the lowest and most ruffianly language, and put their principal
spokesman, who at the time was the acting judge of Montreal, into
prison.
This was the man, then, in whose interest, when Madame Perrot could not
get any one else to do it, M. de Fenelon undertook to go round the
Island of Montreal, and get the inhabitants to sign a petition. The
petition, it is true, only stated that the signers had no complaints to
make against M. Perrot; but its object was to throw dust in the eyes of
the court, and it is impossible to think highly of the candour of the
man--elder brother, though he was, of the great Archbishop of
Cambrai--who was the chief agent in procuring it.
It is not surprising, in view of these proceedings, that M. de Fenelon
received an order to repair to Quebec. Before summoning him, Frontenac
had carried on a prolonged correspondence with the Seminary at Montreal.
He first of all required them to banish Fenelon from their house as
being a factious and rebellious person. To save his brethren trouble,
Fenelon retired of his own accord, and took up parish work at Lachine.
Frontenac then asked for signed declarations as to what had been said in
the sermon. These the Sulpicians declined to give, saying they could not
be called upon to testify against a brother. "Then send down a copy of
the sermon," the governor said. The reply to this was that they had no
copy of it. For form's sake they consented to ask the vicar-general at
Quebec, the highest ecclesiastical authority in the absence of the
bishop, to request M. de Fenelon to furnish the original. The
vicar-general did so, and the abbe promptly replied that he would do
nothing of the kind; he did not acknowledge himself to be guilty of any
misdemeanour, but, if he were, he could not be required to furnish
evidence against himself.
These _pourparlers_ consumed considerable time, as letters were not
exchanged in those days with modern rapidity between Quebec and
Montreal. Moreover, Frontenac took a slice out of the summer in order to
pay a visit to Montreal at the height of the trading season, not
impossibly with some thrifty design, though it is known that he attended
to the king's business to the extent of capturing, through his officer
M. de Vercheres, no less than twelve _coureurs de bois_. It was not till
some time in the month of August that M. de Fenelon appeared to answer
for himself at Quebec.
To follow in detail the incidents of the abortive inquiry into Perrot's
insubordination, and the equally unsatisfactory proceedings in the case
of the refractory abbe, would be tedious and unprofitable. Two of the
councillors, Tilly and Dupont, were appointed a commission to examine
Perrot. The latter made no objection at first to answering their
questions, but a few days later he took it into his head to protest the
competency of the council to try the charges against him. The governor,
he said, was his personal enemy, and the members of the council,
holding office during his good pleasure, could only be considered as his
creatures. The council disregarded the protest, and continued the
inquiry; but on each subsequent occasion Perrot refused to answer any
question till his protest had been duly entered in the minutes. One of
his answers almost betrays a sense of humour. He was asked why he had
not arrested the _coureurs de bois_ who made his private island their
headquarters. "Because," he said, "I had no jurisdiction; my government
does not extend beyond the Island of Montreal." In other words, he had
chosen a spot for his illegal operations where, in his private capacity,
he could, so to speak, snap his lingers in his own face in his official
capacity. Possibly it was an attempt on Frontenac's part to repay humour
with humour, when he caused one of these very _coureurs de bois_, a man
whom Perrot probably knew very well, to be hanged directly in front of
his prison window.
During the summer a despatch was received from the minister for the
colonies which somewhat disquieted Frontenac, and doubtless had some
effect also on the minds of the councillors. In order to lay an account
of Perrot's rebellious conduct at the earliest possible moment before
the king, Frontenac had taken the unusual course of sending a letter by
way of Boston in February, hoping that it might reach the minister's
hands in time to be answered by the ship leaving in the spring or early
summer. Colbert wrote under date the 17th May 1674, evidently without
having received the letter, for he terminated his despatch with these
words: "His Majesty instructs me to recommend to you particularly the
person and interests of M. Perrot, governor of Montreal, and nephew of
M. Talon, his principal _valet de chambre_." Nothing could well have
been more awkward, considering that the person so warmly recommended was
at that moment, and had been for months, in durance vile, as a rebel
against the governor's authority, and indirectly against his Majesty's.
The Abbe Fenelon, when he appeared before the council, was more defiant
by far than Perrot. He was told to stand up. He said, No, he would sit
down, as he was not a criminal; and, if he were, he could only be tried
by an ecclesiastical court. He was asked to remove his hat; to which he
replied by jamming it harder on his head, saying that ecclesiastics had
a right to keep their heads covered. In the end the council began to
fear that the governor was getting them into trouble; and they
consequently determined, in both cases, that they would confine
themselves to taking evidence, and leave the court to pronounce
judgment. This conclusion was not pleasing to Frontenac, who wished to
have a distinct decision of the council in his favour. He, too, was
"weakening," however, as we may see by his letter to the minister, dated
14th November 1674, and despatched by the same vessel by which the
governor of Montreal--released at last after ten months'
confinement--and the fiery abbe sailed for France. "I am sending," he
says, "M. Perrot and M. de Fenelon to France, in order that you may
judge their conduct. For myself, if I have failed in any point of duty,
I am ready to submit to his Majesty's corrections. A governor in this
country would be much to be pitied if he were not sustained, seeing
there is no one here on whom he can depend; and should he commit any
fault he might assuredly be excused, seeing that all kinds of nets are
spread for him, and that, after avoiding a hundred, he is liable to be
caught in the end. So, My Lord, I hope that, should I have had the
misfortune to take any false step, his Majesty will be kind enough to
sympathize with me, and to believe that the error was due to an excess
of zeal for his service, and not to any other motive."
The tone of this communication, it must be confessed, is not quite what
one would expect from a man of Frontenac's character and antecedents. It
shows what influence at court counted for in that day. The letter was
accompanied by a docket of enormous proportions containing the charges
against Perrot and the abbe, and all the evidence taken in the course of
the prolonged investigation at Quebec. He received replies both from the
king and the minister. In regard to Perrot the king wrote: "I have seen
and examined all you have sent me concerning M. Perrot; and, after
having seen all that he has put forward in his defence, I have condemned
his action in imprisoning the officer you sent to Montreal. To punish
him I have sent him for some time to the Bastille, in order that this
discipline may not only render him more circumspect for the future, but
may serve as an example to others. But, in order that you may thoroughly
understand my views, I must tell you that, except in a case of absolute
necessity, you should not execute any order within the sphere of a local
government without having first notified the governor of the locality.
The punishment of ten months' imprisonment you inflicted on him seems to
me sufficient; and that is why I am sending him to the Bastille for a
short term only, in order to vindicate in a public manner my violated
authority." His Majesty added that he was sending Perrot back to his
government, but that he would instruct him to call on the
governor-general at Quebec and apologize for all his past offences;
after which Frontenac was to dismiss all resentment, and treat him with
the consideration due to his office.
As regards Fenelon, he was not allowed to return to Canada; and he was
censured by the Superior of his order for having busied himself with
things with which he had no concern. At the same time Frontenac was
informed that he was wrong in instituting a criminal process against
that ecclesiastic, as well as in calling upon his brethren of the
Seminary to give evidence against him. The king made it clear that he
thought Frontenac had been unduly harsh and autocratic in his
proceedings generally. It would have been well for that dignitary if he
could have taken the admonition more deeply to heart.
[Footnote 13: It was no doubt in large measure due to the extraordinary
physical vitality of the French race in Canada that so strong a tendency
was manifested towards this reversion, which of course was facilitated
by the general condition of life in a country that was little else than
forest. "_L'ecole buissonniere_" was at every one's door, and the men of
the colony were not alone in feeling the call of the wild. Mere Marie de
l'Incarnation, in her _Lettres Spirituelles_ says: "Sans l'education que
nous donnons aux filles francaises qui sont un peu grandes, durant
l'espace de six mois environ, elles seraient des brutes pires que les
sauvages; c'est pourquoi on nous les donne presque toutes, les unes
apres les autres." See Ferland's _Cours d'Histoire du Canada_, vol. ii.
p. 85, who quotes this passage without any reference to page. Passages
of similar purport may, however, be found on pp. 231 and 258 of the
first edition (1681) of the _Lettres Spirituelles_.]
[Footnote 14: Mr. P. T. Bedard, in his lecture on _Frontenac_, published
in the _Annuaire_ of the Institut Canadien of Quebec for 1880 speaks of
Frontenac's "duplicity" in this matter, a stronger term than the facts
seem to justify.]
[Footnote 15: Vol. iii. pp. 446-52.]