DIVIDED POWER
If the king read carefully, as he says he did, the cruel mass of
correspondence which Frontenac forwarded to him in connection with the
Perrot-Fenelon imbroglio, he could hardly have failed to come to the
conclusion that something was amiss in the state of Canada. Frontenac
had begged, somewhat piteously, that he might be "sustained," and
sustained he was in a manner, as we have just seen; but the king and the
minister had their own opinion on the subject, which they only partly
expressed in words, the rest they translated into action. Frontenac,
from the date of his arrival in Canada, had been the only visible source
of authority. Laval was in France, looking after the long delayed bull
which was to raise him from the doubtful rank of a bishop _in partibus_
to the full legal status of bishop of Quebec. Talon, too, had left the
country a few weeks after the governor's arrival, and no one had been
sent to replace him. The old warrior had, therefore, had things entirely
his own way, and his own way had not proved to be the way of peace. To
place matters on a better footing, the court decided on two measures: to
reorganize the Sovereign Council, and to revive the office of intendant.
The council, it will be remembered, consisted of four members and an
attorney-general, nominated by the governor and the bishop jointly, and
holding office during their good pleasure. Henceforth it was to consist
of seven members, each holding office by direct commission from the
king. The main object of the change was to enable it to act with more
independence in the performance of its proper functions, which were
essentially of a judicial character. A secondary effect, probably
neither foreseen nor intended, was to augment the influence of the
bishop, at the expense of that of the governor, through the operation of
the natural law which inclines men to side rather with permanent than
with transient forces. Frontenac was jealous from the first of the
increased prestige of the council, and soon became disagreeably aware of
the advantage it afforded to his ecclesiastical rival.
The council, as reconstituted, consisted of the four old members, Louis
Rouer de Villeray, who received the designation of first councillor, Le
Gardeur de Tilly, Mathieu Damours, and Nicolas Dupont, with three new
ones, Rene Charlier de Lotbiniere, Jean Baptiste de Peyras, and Charles
Denis de Vitre. The attorney-general, Denis Joseph Ruette d'Auteuil, a
man described by Frontenac a couple of years later as "very ignorant,
and having such imperfect sight that he can neither read nor write," was
by name reappointed to his office, with one Gilles Rageot as clerk. All
these, holding their appointments directly from the king, were secure
from removal by any lesser authority. The utmost the governor could do
would be to suspend one or more of them for grave misconduct, subject to
confirmation of his action by the sovereign. Another change in the
judiciary of the colony was made a couple of years later. The king had,
in the year 1674, abolished a court called the Prevote (Provost's Court)
of Quebec, which had been established by the West India Company for the
purpose of exercising a kind of police jurisdiction, and making
preliminary inquiries in certain cases. The royal idea at the time had
been that it would be simpler to intrust the whole administration of
justice to one court, the Sovereign Council. The enlargement and
strengthening of the council, however, and the appearance upon the scene
of an intendant whose views did not always harmonize, to speak very
moderately, with those of the governor, somewhat altered the situation.
There was a balance of powers; but justice itself would sometimes hang
in the balance longer than was desirable. In order, therefore, to get as
many cases as possible disposed of without troubling that important
tribunal, his Majesty, in the month of May 1677, determined to
re-establish the Prevote, with power to judge, as a court of first
instance, all cases civil and criminal, subject to appeal to the
Sovereign Council. The court was to consist of a lieutenant-general as
judge, a public prosecutor and a clerk. To these was added, by an edict
of the same month, a special officer having the title of _prevot_, with
judicial functions in criminal cases only. It probably was not foreseen
that the governor might play off the Prevote against the Sovereign
Council. That, however, is what happened, and as the lower court had at
its service six "archers" or constables, it was able, when acting in
concert with the governor, to accomplish an occasional _tour de force_.
The new intendant, M. Jacques Duchesneau, arrived at Quebec in the month
of September 1675 by the same vessel which bore back Laval, in all the
glory and power of full episcopal authority, to a flock from which he
had been absent three long years. His letter of instructions mentions
the fact that he had filled a somewhat similar office at Tours in
France, and had acquitted himself therein to the great satisfaction of
his Majesty. Research has been made without success to find out what the
office was; we have only, therefore, to take his Majesty's word for it.
Whatever M. Duchesneau's previous history may have been, he seems to
have come to Canada with the determination to keep a very watchful, and
not too benevolent, eye on the proceedings of his official superior, the
governor. There was the strongest possible contrast between the
characters of the two men. Frontenac was haughty, headstrong, and
aggressive; Duchesneau, cautious, crafty, and persistent. When two such
men come into conflict, it is not the cool calculator who suffers most,
however he may whine (as Duchesneau did) at the high-handed proceedings
of the other. Under the best of circumstances a governor and an
intendant were not likely to work very harmoniously together. Courcelles
and Talon did not, though both were well-meaning men. M. Lorin hints
that Colbert sent out Duchesneau to act as a spy upon Frontenac.[16] The
supposition seems to be a needless one. Duchesneau was sent out as Talon
had been before him, to see that the intentions of the court in the
government of the country were duly carried into effect, and in
particular that the considerable sums of money which the king
appropriated to the uses of the colony were rightly expended. It is
possible that, had Frontenac acted with more judgment and moderation
during the first two years of his administration, the appointment of an
intendant would not have been considered necessary; but, in any case,
the court in giving him a colleague, and thus relieving him of part of
his responsibilities, was simply applying to Canada a system of
administration long established in France, where, as a rule, every
province had its intendant as well as its governor.
Duchesneau's instructions were certainly very clear as to the attitude
he was to maintain towards the governor. He was enjoined "to be careful
to live with Comte de Frontenac in relations of great deference, not
only on account of the honour he had of representing the king's person,
but also on account of his personal merit, and not to do anything in the
whole range of his duties without his consent and participation." To
secure concordant conduct on the governor's part, he was instructed in a
despatch of even date to allow the intendant to act "with entire liberty
in everything relating to justice, police, and finance, without meddling
at all in these matters, except when they are discussed in the Sovereign
Council." It is significant that in this same letter a hint is dropped
about trading: not only was Frontenac not to trade himself, or allow
trading on his behalf, but he was not to permit any one belonging to his
household to trade. It thus appears that, before Duchesneau had even
arrived in the country, the court had had its suspicions aroused as to
the course the king's personal representative might be tempted to pursue
in this matter. We may be certain that anything Perrot and Fenelon knew
on the subject would be poured into the minister's ear, nor were they
the only ones whose representations regarding the governor would not be
of a friendly character. Villeray, the senior member of the Sovereign
Council and the Abbe d'Urfe, a relative of Fenelon's, were in France at
the same time. The former had been denounced by Frontenac in one of his
earliest despatches as a busybody and a close ally of the Jesuit order;
while the latter had been very haughtily treated by him in connection
with the Fenelon matter, and had left Canada in high indignation by the
same vessel which bore Fenelon and Perrot. It happened that, just about
this time, Urfe's cousin, a Mademoiselle d'Allegre, was being contracted
in marriage to Colbert's son and destined successor in office, the
Marquis de Seignelay, so that altogether the influences which were
operating against Frontenac at this juncture were of a somewhat
formidable character. That his position should have been so little
affected speaks well for his claim to personal consideration. It speaks
well also for the spirit of equity which actuated the king in his
relations with his officers.
A meeting of the reorganized Sovereign Council was held at Quebec on the
16th September 1675. It is this meeting which fixes for us as nearly as
it can be done the date of the arrival of the bishop and intendant, for
the minutes show that the former was present, and that part of the
business transacted was the registration of the commission of the
latter. M. de Laval lost no time in making his influence felt. The Abbe
Fenelon, when arraigned before the Sovereign Council the year before,
had demanded to be tried by an ecclesiastical tribunal, and reply had
been made that there was no such tribunal in Canada. The bishop's first
act was to supply this lack by establishing a court consisting of his
two grand-vicars, Bernieres and Dudouyt, and a clerk or registrar. The
new court soon found work to do. A man was cited before it, upon
information of the _cure_ of Montreal, for having failed to perform his
Easter duties. He appealed to the Sovereign Council, which at first
showed a disposition to assume jurisdiction in the case, but in the end
left it in the hands of the ecclesiastics. The bishop wished it to be
understood that Canada was not France. Some encroachments of the civil
on the spiritual power had, he said, taken place in that country, but
"these were things to be guarded against in a country in which a Church
is in course of establishment." Manifestly Laval understood the word
"Church" in a very absolute sense, and meant to enforce his
understanding of it if possible.
During his absence from the country the clergy had got into the way,
either of their own accord, or at Frontenac's suggestion, of paying the
governor certain honours in church which the bishop considered--correctly
it appears--unsanctioned by precedent or usage. He ordered that they
should be discontinued. A wrangle with the governor ensued, and the
matter had to be referred to the king, who must sometimes have wondered
whether the colonial game was worth the candles consumed in reading the
colonial despatches; for his Majesty, no less than his minister, had
often to prolong the work far into the night. The patient monarch
replied that the governor had been claiming more than was his due, and
more than was accorded to men of his rank in the provinces of the
kingdom; he must, therefore, make up his little difference with the
bishop of Quebec, by gracefully moderating his pretensions. Three years
later there were still some differences of the same nature pending, for
we find the king sending directions to the bishop to pay the same
honours to the governor of Canada as were paid to the governor of
Picardy in the cathedral of Amiens. Frontenac, on his part, was not to
claim more.
The document which throws most light on Frontenac's attitude towards the
dominant ecclesiastical powers--the bishop and the Jesuits--and on his
estimate of their work and general policy, is a letter which he wrote to
Colbert in 1677, and which must have been of a confidential nature.[17]
"Nearly all the disorders existing in New France," he therein declares,
"have their origin in the ambition of the ecclesiastics, who wish to add
to their spiritual authority an absolute power over temporal matters."
Their aim from the first, he goes on to say, was to amass wealth as a
means of influence; and in this they have been extraordinarily
successful. They have had subsidies from the king and charitable
donations from individuals in France; they have obtained concessions of
large tracts of the best and most valuable lands in the country;
finally, in spite of the king's prohibitions, they have been driving an
active and most profitable trade. In support of the latter statement he
cites the names of a number of persons who have given him positive and
detailed evidence on the point. He estimates the bishop's revenue from
all sources at not less than forty thousand livres; and refers to the
fact that he is erecting vast and superb buildings at Quebec at a cost
of four hundred thousand livres, although he and his ecclesiastics are
already lodged much better than the governor-general. He complains of
the espionage they exercise through the country and in his own
household; and says there would be no end to the story if he were to
attempt to tell all that they have done to augment their influence
through the confessional and by threats of excommunication. Instances
are given of what the writer claims to have been their undue severity
towards persons who had incurred their censure. If the bishop chose, he
could do what he has always hitherto refused to do: provide the country
with a reasonable number of parish priests having fixed positions. He
has ample means for the purpose if he would employ them in a less
ambitious manner; his main objection to doing so is that the erection of
parishes served by priests not removable at pleasure would diminish his
power and throw patronage into the hands of the king. So far the
governor. It is probable that his impeachment of his ecclesiastical
rivals did not fall on altogether unsympathetic ears; but Colbert, as a
statesman, recognized power wherever it existed; and his only advice to
the civil administrators was to hold their own as well as they could. In
a despatch, written some years before, he had told Courcelles that be
looked forward to the time when, with an increase of population, things
would get into better shape, and the secular power assume its just
preponderance.
Duchesneau himself, shortly after his arrival in the country, had a
passing difficulty with the bishop, arising out of an idea he
entertained, that, as intendant, he ought to rank next to the governor;
and this wretched matter had also to be referred to the court, which
promptly decided in the bishop's favour. From that time forward there
was perfect harmony between the two, so much so that, on more than one
occasion, the intendant drew down upon himself the censure of the court
for what was regarded as his undue subservience to the bishop's views.
One of the first matters regarding which he and the bishop joined forces
was the policy of the governor in connection with the issue of hunting
and trading licences. The law under which Frontenac had previously taken
severe measures against the _coureurs de bois_ was still in force; but
the governor had felt himself justified in issuing a limited number of
permits to responsible persons, authorizing them to carry goods to the
Indians and trade in the Indian settlements. These persons became, in a
certain sense, _coureurs de bois_; but as they went out by authority,
and could be held to the terms of their licences, and as, moreover, they
could be used for the purpose of obtaining information as to the
movements and disposition of the native tribes, the governor thought,
or professed to think, that he was acting for the best in relaxing to
this extent the strict letter of the law. The bishop, on the other hand,
objected to the system; in the first place, because the persons licensed
carried liquor as part of their stock-in-trade, and, in the second,
because it threw impediments in the way of the effective ecclesiastical
control of the population. It was agreed that he and the intendant
should both write to the minister, the one dwelling on the evils of the
liquor traffic with the Indians, and the other on the infringement of
the law. Duchesneau, we have seen, had been warned in his instructions
to keep in close touch with the governor in all that he did; but he had
not been three months in the country before, in a matter of the first
importance, and one affecting the governor's own actions, he sent home
recommendations of which his superior officer knew nothing.
The answer came back the following year. It was dated 15th April 1676,
but seems only to have reached Quebec in September. The governor, by
royal edict, was forbidden to issue permits under any pretext
whatsoever. The punishment of contumacious _coureurs de bois_ was placed
in the hands of the intendant exclusively, as it was he alone--such was
the reason given--who had official knowledge of the conditions under
which the fur trade was being farmed out. Quebec, Montreal, and Three
Rivers were at the same time indicated as the only places where the
trade with the Indians might lawfully be carried on.
Frontenac was not at Quebec when this document arrived; he was at Fort
Frontenac (Cataraqui), which was now in the hands of his friend La Salle
under a concession from the king. Doubtless he was enjoying, not only
his temporary freedom from the worries and vexations of office, but also
the congenial society of a man, who, though much his junior, had, in
common with himself, a large knowledge of the world, a keen and aspiring
spirit, and a strong love of adventure. At Quebec the councillors were
somewhat at a loss what to do in the matter of the despatch. Some were
indisposed to register, in the absence of the governor, an edict which
so directly condemned the policy he was pursuing. Duchesneau, however,
did not approve of delay, and on the 5th of October the document was
registered, and thus became the law of the land. When Frontenac returned
to Quebec and found what had been done--that one of the first acts of
the intendant had been to hand him over to the censure of the court, and
that its censure had practically been pronounced--he was indignant
beyond measure. He saw at a glance that, if the situation were not in
some way retrieved, his authority and prestige in the colony he had been
sent out to govern would be gravely compromised. The fall vessels were
to leave in a week or two, so he sat down and wrote a despatch to
Colbert which gave that able minister something to think about. The
bishop, dreading lest the governor's reasons--he probably knew that
Frontenac wielded a vigorous pen--might lead to a countermanding of the
instructions, thought it well to send an envoy of his own to France in
the person of the Abbe Dudouyt. Frontenac meantime so far complied with
the edict as to publish an order requiring all _coureurs de bois_,
licensed and unlicensed, to return at once to the settlements; though,
according to Duchesneau, he nullified this to a great extent by issuing
a number of hunting permits which were only trading permits in disguise.
So far as the sale of liquor to the Indians was in question, it is
impossible not to approve, theoretically at least, the stand taken by
the bishop. He would have suppressed it absolutely, if he had had the
power. The thing, however, was practically impossible. We see the effect
probably of Frontenac's representations on the subject in a despatch
which the intendant received dated in the spring of 1677. He is told
that he had yielded too easily to the extreme views of the bishop in
regard to this matter. The bishop had spoken of the fearful effects
caused by drink amongst the Indians, who maimed and murdered one
another, and committed all kinds of abominations, when under its
influence. Colbert is not content with such a general statement; he
wants particulars; and instructs Duchesneau to find out how many such
crimes can be proved to have been committed since he (the intendant) had
arrived in Canada. Here was a very suitable piece of work cut out for
M. Jacques Duchesneau, who was nothing if not a man of facts and
figures; but there is nothing to show that he ever prepared the desired
statement. The minister goes on to say: "The general policy of the state
is necessarily opposed to the views of a bishop who, in order to prevent
the abuse made by a few individuals of a thing good in itself, is
prepared to abolish entirely the trade in an article of consumption
which serves greatly to promote commerce, and to bring the savages into
contact with orthodox Christians like the French. We should run the
risk, if we yielded to his opinion, not only of losing this commerce,
but of forcing the savages to do business with the English and Dutch,
who are heretics; and it would thus become impossible for us to keep
them favourably disposed towards the one pure and true religion."
Colbert, it will be seen, had that judicious blending of the missionary
with the commercial spirit which has been so efficacious in our own day
in promoting great colonial enterprises. One or two other allusions to
the bishop may be quoted: "It is easy to see that, though the bishop is
a very good man, and most faithful in the performance of his duty, he
nevertheless is aiming at a degree of power which goes far beyond what
is exercised by bishops in any other part of Christendom, and
particularly in France." Then, with reference to his attendance at
meetings of the Sovereign Council: "You ought to try and put him out of
love with going there; but in doing so you must act with the greatest
prudence and secrecy, and take care that no person whatsoever knows what
I am writing to you on this point."
The minister, it is evident, had hard work to keep his representatives
in Canada to their respective spheres of duty. He opens his despatch to
Duchesneau by begging him to mind his own business, and not in future
recommend any military appointments, as he had done in a late
communication. He wrote to Frontenac a few days later, cautioning him to
keep aloof from questions of justice, police, and finance, observing
that men in military command "are too apt to let flatterers persuade
them that they ought to take cognizance of everything and look after
everything." Touching on the drink question, he said that "if the
disorders complained of are limited in number, and if the Indians are
only a little more subject to getting intoxicated than the Germans for
example, or, among the French, the Bretons," there was no need for
drastic prohibitive measures; the irregularities happening from time to
time could be dealt with by the courts. He was not to take ground openly
against the bishop; but he was to see that the latter did not go beyond
his proper prerogative "in a matter that was purely one of police." The
Abbe Dudouyt had evidently not succeeded in winning over the minister to
the bishop's extreme views. He must, however, have had more success with
the king, for on the 12th May 1678 a royal edict was issued, dealing in
a very uncompromising fashion with the _coureur de bois_ question as
well as with that of the liquor traffic. As regards the former, the
previous prohibition, which, it was complained, had been rendered
nugatory by the system of special permits, was renewed in all its force.
The liquor traffic was equally condemned: no liquor was to be sold to
the Indians under any circumstances. Colbert thereupon presented a
memoir to his Majesty setting forth his reasons for considering a
prohibition of the liquor traffic inexpedient, these being much the same
as he had embodied in his despatch to Duchesneau of the preceding year.
The result was that the king, without recalling his edict, ordered that
the whole matter should be fully discussed in a meeting of the principal
inhabitants of Canada, including the administrators and magistrates, and
that a report of the proceedings should be sent to him for his
information and further consideration.
Thus was the question referred back to Canada, and an appeal actually
made, after a fashion, to public opinion. The meeting ordered by the
king was held at Quebec on the 26th October. The persons composing it
were chosen by Frontenac and Duchesneau jointly, and were beyond doubt
as influential men as could be found in the country--nineteen in all,
exclusive of those who attended in an official capacity. The sense of
the meeting was overwhelmingly against the suppression of the traffic,
and against the stand taken by the bishop in making a "reserved case" of
the selling of liquor to the Indians, or, in other words, excluding from
the sacraments all who were guilty of that act. Two of the delegates,
the seigneurs of Berthier and Sorel, said that the prohibition which was
then nominally, and to a considerable degree practically, in force
worked injury, not only to trade, but to the Indians themselves. They
could get all the liquor they wanted from the Dutch of Orange (Albany);
and the Dutch rum was not nearly so good as the French brandy. The last
time the Indians came to trade at Cataraqui, they had forty barrels of
Dutch spirits with them, having laid in a supply owing to their
apprehension that they might not be able to obtain any from the French.
But of course they would cease coming to Cataraqui or trading with the
French at all, if they could not get liquor. They denied that the
drinking of brandy prevented the Indians from becoming Christians. Did
not the Christian Indians in the missions near Montreal drink brandy?
Yet they remained docile to their teachers, and were not often seen
drunk--a statement which certainly might have been challenged. Others
urged the argument with which we are already familiar that, if the
Indians had to get their liquor from the Dutch and English, they would
either imbibe heresy at the same time, or be left in their heathenism.
Others again said that the disorders caused by drink amongst the savages
had been greatly exaggerated, and moreover things of the same nature
occurred among Indians who made no use of spirituous liquors. The
"reserved case" was doing no good; on the contrary it was troubling
consciences, and had possibly already caused the damnation of some
inhabitants. Drunkenness, another delegate remarked, was not confined to
the Indians. In the most civilized countries, where all were Christians,
it was a common vice; yet no one thought of making a "reserved case" for
the liquor sellers. One speaker went so far as to say that the Indians
would never become Christians unless they were allowed the same
liberties as the French, and that the clandestine sale of liquor
promoted immoderate drinking. Robert Cavelier de la Salle was strongly
in favour of the trade being left open. It was for laymen, he said, to
decide what was good or bad in relation to commerce, and not for
ecclesiastics. There had been but little disorder, upon the whole,
amongst the savages as the result of drink. He thought they were less
given to intoxication than the French, and much less than the English of
New York. Two delegates were entirely opposed to the trade as being
hurtful to religion, and the source of moral disorders. Two others
thought it should be restricted to the settlements, and that no liquor
should be sold in the woods.[18]
How far the opinions of those who favoured the traffic were
disinterested may be open to question. Traders are apt to consider
exclusively the immediate interests of trade; and the love of gain is
often sufficient to stifle the instincts of humanity. The church looked
upon the Indians as its wards; but the majority of the settlers, it is
to be feared, thought only of exploiting, if not of actually plundering,
them. It is difficult to read the little treatise composed about
twenty-five years after these events, under the title of the _History of
Brandy in Canada_, without feeling persuaded that there was more ground
for the position taken by the clergy than the seigneurs and others who
assembled at Quebec were willing to admit. From what the anonymous
writer, evidently a missionary in close touch with the facts, says, it
is clear that brandy was often made an instrument for the robbery of the
unhappy Indian. We are told of one man at Three Rivers who, having made
an Indian drunk, insisted next day that the score for the brandy the
poor savage had taken amounted to thirty moose skins. The author of the
treatise is convinced that the horrible massacre at Lachine, of which we
shall have to speak in a later chapter, was a direct manifestation of
the anger of God at the drink traffic, of which that place in particular
was the headquarters. If so, the warning unfortunately was not taken to
heart, for the writer himself tells us that the traffic was resumed and
prosecuted as vigorously as ever as soon as the village was rebuilt.
When Laval, who had just laid the corner-stone of his seminary at
Quebec, saw the way things were going, he decided to start for France
himself, to see what he could effect for the cause he had so deeply at
heart by personal representations. The decision of the court, however,
was what might have been expected under the circumstances. Two edicts
were issued in the following year, one dated the 25th April 1679,
confirming the regulations previously laid down respecting the _coureurs
de bois_, but allowing the governor to grant hunting permits good from
the 15th January to the 15th April of each year; and the other, dated
24th May, expressly prohibiting the holders of such permits from
carrying liquor to the Indians, under pain of a fine of one hundred
francs for the first offence, three hundred for the second, and corporal
punishment for the third. The French of the settlements on the other
hand were left free to sell liquor to the Indians resorting thither. The
bishop was at the same time requested to make the "reserved case" apply
only to those selling under illegal conditions, which, with no little
reluctance, he consented to do.
It is to be noted that the second edict contains a clause expressly
entrusting its enforcement to "Sieur, Comte de Frontenac, governor and
lieutenant-general for his Majesty in the said country," and not as
previously to the intendant. Frontenac thus had it in his power, M.
Lorin observes, "to free himself in practice from the time limits
imposed, or even tacitly to authorize the hunters to carry a few goods
to the Indians." This writer, who is an ardent admirer of Frontenac,
seems to regard it as a thing quite to be expected that the king's
representative should seize the opportunity to violate the king's
regulations. The motive, however, which he assigns for such probable
disobedience is a very high one: the governor was anxious to keep in
touch, through the traders, with the outlying Indian tribes, in order
that he might watch the course of their trade, study their dispositions,
and thus be enabled to take timely measures to maintain them in right
relations with the French colony. Were there ground for assurance that
this was his only, or even his greatly predominant, motive, we might
well join with M. Lorin in considering such far-sighted devotion to the
king's interests as more than a set-off to a technical irregularity. But
can we? The question is one in regard to which the documents before us,
consisting mainly of the correspondence of Frontenac and Duchesneau with
the court, render it difficult to arrive at a positive conclusion. The
matter will be discussed in the following chapter; meanwhile let us
briefly note the further development of the _coureur de bois_ question
to the end of Frontenac's first administration.
It does not appear that the ordinance of April 1679 improved the
situation in the least. The law continued to be violated, as Duchesneau
affirms, with the connivance of the governor, and, as Frontenac says,
with the active assistance (in favour of his special friends) of the
intendant. In the month of November 1680 Duchesneau writes to the
minister, observing that the only thing to do is to try and find the
best means to induce these men to return "without prejudice to the
absolute submission they owe to the king's will." He proceeds to hint at
something like a conditional amnesty, lenient treatment to be promised
to all those who, returning home promptly on the publication of the
king's proclamation, should "make a sincere and frank declaration in
court of the time they have been absent, for what persons they were
trading in the Indian country, who furnished them with goods, how many
skins they procured, and how they disposed of them." Evidently M.
Jacques Duchesneau was in pursuit of information; and there can be
little doubt with what intent. What Frontenac wrote on the subject is
not on record. It seems probable that he too suggested an amnesty; but
we may doubt whether he recommended the condition proposed by his friend
the intendant. The court in the month of May following granted an
amnesty, the sole condition of which was that the persons concerned
should return to their homes immediately on being notified to do so.
This was not to imply any indulgence for the offence in future, as
another edict was passed in the course of the same month, providing
severer punishments than had previously been prescribed--flogging and
branding on a first conviction, and perpetual servitude in the galleys
on a second. When these edicts reached Quebec it was noticed that to the
council was given the duty, not only of registering, but of publishing
and executing them. The governor, however, intervened, and, upon his
promising to take the whole responsibility upon himself, the council
agreed to leave the publication and execution in his hands. "Under this
pretext," says M. Lorin, "Frontenac could send officers to all the posts
of the upper country; and if he was anxious to do so, it was less to
participate, despite the king's orders, in the fur trade, than to
control the proceedings of the merchants and missionaries." The word
"less" can hardly be said to imply unambiguous praise. Moreover who can
say what motive was predominant?
Under the edict of 1679 the governor had the power of issuing an
unlimited number of permits for hunting exclusively. The privilege had
clearly been abused; and orders were now issued that in future
twenty-five permits only should be granted each year, the holder of a
permit to be entitled to take or send one canoe only with three men. In
this way the amount of trade which could be done under a permit was
limited. In all only twenty-five canoe loads of merchandise could be
sent out annually. Moreover the intention in granting these permits was
less to promote trade at a distance--an object the court never had at
heart--than to reward certain supposedly meritorious individuals. It
was a species of patronage which was placed in the governor's hands, and
which he was expected to distribute in a judicious manner. If the holder
of a permit did not wish to use it himself, he could sell it to some one
else; and it not infrequently happened that a single trader would buy a
number of permits, and send quite a little fleet of canoes up the river.
The era of "trusts" was not as yet, but even here we can see the trust
in germ.
[Footnote 16: _Le Comte de Frontenac_, p. 159.]
[Footnote 17: It is to be found in Margry, _Memoires et Documents des
Origines Francaises des Pays d'Outre Mer_, vol. i. pp. 301-25.]
[Footnote 18: See Report (Proces Verbal) of the proceedings of the
assembly in Margry, _Memoires et Documents_, vol. i. pp. 405-20.]