THE LIFE OF A COLONY
The great trouble in Canada was that it was an over-governed country.
The whole population when Frontenac arrived was but little over six
thousand souls, scattered over a territory stretching from Matane and
Tadousac in the east, to the western limit of the Island of Montreal.
What these people needed in the first place was freedom to seek their
living in their own way, and secondly, an extremely simple form of
government. Instead of this they were hampered in their trade, and made
continually to feel their dependence on the central power; while, in the
matter of political organization, they were placed under the precise
system which prevailed in the provinces of the French kingdom. In the
Sovereign Council they had the equivalent of a parliament in the
French--by no means in the English--sense; that is to say, a body for
registering, and so bestowing a final character of validity upon, the
decrees of the sovereign, and for administering justice. The executive
power was divided between governor and intendant with very doubtful
results. Below the Sovereign Council, as a judicial body, was the court
of the Prevote. The one thing the people were not allowed to have was
anything in the way of representative institutions. Colbert, perhaps by
immediate royal direction, gave the keynote of monarchical absolutism
when he said, in words already quoted: "Let every man speak for himself;
let no one presume to speak for all." Thus was the king in his strength
and majesty placed over against the solitary protesting individual.
Doubtless self-government in the full sense would not have been possible
at the time, seeing that self-government implies, as its first
condition, pecuniary independence, and the country was not in a position
to provide all the money required for its civil and military
expenditure. However, possible or impossible, the thing was not thought
of, or to be thought of, at the time. The result of the elaborate
organization actually established was that administrators and
councillors, having far too little to do, fell to quarrelling with one
another in the manner already seen and yet to be seen. The Canadian
colony was not really peculiar in this respect. Any one who reads in
Clement's great work the voluminous correspondence of Colbert will see
that strife and jealousy was the rule throughout the whole colonial
service. The same spirit, in fact, prevailed which was exhibited in the
daily life of the court, where every one was desperately struggling for
the sunshine of royal favour, and where, consequently, questions of
precedence and etiquette were regarded as of surpassing importance. And
now a most serious question of this nature was to blaze forth in Canada.
In various despatches from the court, Frontenac had been spoken of as
"President of the Sovereign Council," though that office had never in
any formal way been attached to the governorship. Shortly after
Duchesneau's appointment as intendant, a royal ordinance was issued
conferring the title in question upon him. In this there was no
intention whatever to diminish the rank or prestige of the governor. The
idea was rather to relieve him from the drudgery of presiding at
meetings of the council, by giving to the latter a permanent working
head in the person of the intendant, a man assumed to be accustomed to
routine business and to have the trained official's capacity for
details. Any other man than Frontenac would have seen the matter in this
light, and rejoiced that a substitute had been found for him in a most
uninteresting duty. He still had access to the council, and whenever he
chose to attend, he occupied the seat of honour as the king's immediate
representative, while a lower functionary would act as chairman, put
questions to the vote, and sign the minutes. To the mind of Frontenac,
unfortunately, the thing presented itself in a very different light; he
saw his prerogative attacked, his dignity impaired. If he was not
president of the council, why was he ever so addressed in official
despatches? M. Duchesneau, on the other hand, took his stand on the
stronger ground of a special ordinance appointing him to the office.
Behold the elements of a mighty quarrel!
In the early days of Frontenac's governorship the preamble of the
proceedings in council used to read: "The council having assembled, at
which presided the high and mighty lord, Messire Louis de Buade
Frontenac, chevalier, Comte de Palluau," etc. Later it was simplified so
as to read: "At which presided his Lordship, the governor-general."
After the arrival of Duchesneau a new formula was adopted. In the
minutes of the 23rd September 1675, the intendant is mentioned as
"having taken his seat as president"; and in those of 30th September we
find the words "acting as president according to the declaration of the
king." The bickering began almost from the date of Duchesneau's arrival;
but it was not till the winter of 1678-9 that it developed into actual
strife. The minister received many tiresome communications on the
subject, and in April 1679 he seems to think that the chief fault is on
the side of the intendant, for he writes to him sharply: "You
continually speak as if M. de Frontenac was always in the wrong. . . .
You seem to put yourself in a kind of parallel with him. The only reply
I can make to all these despatches of yours is that you must strive to
know your place, and get a proper idea into your head of the difference
between a governor and lieutenant-general representing the person of the
sovereign, and an intendant." This was hard enough, but what follows is
a shade worse: he is told that in making his reports, particularly when
they contain accusations, he "should be very careful not to advance
anything that is not true." Finally, he is warned that until he learns
the difference between the king's representative and himself, he will be
in danger, not only of being rebuked, but of being dismissed.
Frontenac's turn came a few months later. Colbert writes in December of
the same year, and tells him that the king is getting very tired of all
this squabbling, and has come to the conclusion that he (Frontenac) "is
not capable of that spirit of union and conciliation which is necessary
to prevent the troubles that are continually arising, and which are so
fraught with ruin to a new colony." The king had heard of the trouble
that was being made over this petty question, and Colbert expresses his
Majesty's surprise that Frontenac should bother his head about such a
thing.
When this despatch reached Canada, Frontenac had gone much further in
the matter than either the king or the minister suspected. Peuvret,
clerk of the council, had been imprisoned because he would not disobey
the orders of the council, in the matter of his minutes, in order to
obey those of the governor. During four months the routine business of
the council had been suspended while this wretched business was being
fought over. Three of the councillors had been banished from Quebec,
being ordered to remain in their country-houses till permitted to
return. A more discreditable state of things could not well be imagined,
nor one of worse example for the country. At last a compromise was
proposed by d'Auteuil, the attorney-general, which was that the minutes
should mention the presence of the governor and intendant at the
meetings of the council, without speaking of either as presiding or as
president. Frontenac at first would not have anything to do with such an
arrangement, but finally he consented to it till the king's pleasure
could be known.
The king this time lost patience. When an answer came back, it was his
_dis_pleasure that was known, and displeasure with his "high and mighty
Lordship, the governor." The king told him plainly that he had on
various occasions advanced claims that had very little foundation, and
that in this matter his pretensions were directly opposed to a royal
ordinance. His Majesty added: "I am sure you are the only man in my
kingdom who, being honoured with the titles of governor and
lieutenant-general, would care to be styled chief and president of a
council such as that at Quebec." Colbert dealt with the matter
officially, and quoted this opinion of the king's almost in the same
words. He also observed that, if Frontenac had any wish to give
satisfaction to his Majesty, he would have to change entirely the line
of conduct he had hitherto pursued. It seemed, however, as if the court
could not afford to give a clear victory to Duchesneau, for, as a
practical settlement of the point at issue, it was ordered that the
_modus vivendi_ suggested by the attorney-general and actually in force
should be adopted as a permanent rule--a classical example of political
trimming.
It is difficult to understand how any man in Frontenac's position could
fail to feel profoundly humbled and chastened by so emphatic a reproof
emanating direct from his sovereign master, and echoed in an official
despatch from the minister in charge of colonies. We look in vain,
however, for evidence that any such effect was produced on the spirit of
the governor. He doubtless felt that he had achieved at least half a
victory. The title had been depreciated in the despatches from the
court; it was not worth _his_ having, and Duchesneau was not to have it.
For a time there was what looked like a truce between the two heads of
the state, and shortly afterwards we find Duchesneau writing to say that
he and the governor are now on excellent terms; that he is omitting
nothing on his side that can give satisfaction to the latter; that he
communicates the very smallest things to him, and that he hopes, by
sheer force of amiability, to secure a little show of kindness in
return. Seeing, however, that in the same despatch in which these
excellent sentiments occur, he enters into lengthy accusations against
Frontenac on the trading question, and that the latter was engaged about
the same time in working up similar charges against him, as appears by a
document bearing date the following year, we may reasonably doubt
whether very amicable or charitable feelings prevailed on either side.
D'Auteuil, the attorney-general, who had been for some time in a failing
condition, and whose health had probably not been improved by his
occasional stormy interviews with the governor, by whom he was cordially
detested, died in the early winter of 1679-80. Duchesneau, in
anticipation of this event, had obtained the king's permission to name a
successor, and had secured a signed commission which, to be complete,
only required to have a name filled in. Auteuil's son, Francois
Madeleine, had been assisting him for a couple of years in his office,
and as he was a very assuming youth--he was not yet twenty-one--and
bitterly hostile to the governor, he was naturally the intendant's
choice. Young d'Auteuil had hardly entered on his duties before he
picked a quarrel with Boulduc, prosecutor of the lower court, known as a
firm ally of Frontenac, whom he ordered to wait upon him at his office
every Saturday to prepare cases for the court under his (d'Auteuil's)
supervision. Boulduc refused. The council took the matter up, but found
it hard to decide, and the squabble dragged during most of the year
1680. In the following year facts came to light which caused Boulduc to
be charged with embezzlement, and d'Auteuil pushed the matter with great
zeal. Frontenac, anxious to save his friend, tried to represent the
accusation as the outcome of private vengeance; unfortunately the facts
were against the _procureur_, who was condemned, and dismissed from
office.
Some of the side issues that were raised on this occasion brought out
strikingly the spirit of Canadian official society. Villeray, first
councillor, a man more obnoxious to Frontenac on account of his extreme
devotion to the ecclesiastical authorities perhaps than by reason of his
dubious antecedents,[19] gave himself, in certain pleadings, the title
of "esquire." Frontenac denied that he had any right to it, and held the
pleadings invalid. Frontenac's secretary, Le Chasseur, appeared on a
summons before the council, but refused to answer because he had been
described in the summons as "secretary of Monsieur, the Governor,"
instead of "Monseigneur the Governor." Thus were the king's instructions
to all and sundry to practise peace and concord being observed! A worse
affair was that of the councillor, Damours, who, in the summer of 1681,
obtained a _conge_ from Frontenac to go as far as Matane where he had a
property, and who was arrested by order of the governor on his return a
few weeks later for having in some way exceeded the terms of his permit.
Damours' wife appealed to the council, but Frontenac objected to having
her letter read. Duchesneau urged the council to take cognizance of the
case, but some of the members did not feel it safe to do so, and finally
the papers were referred to the king--another quarrel for his Majesty
to adjust! Meantime Damours remains in confinement for about six weeks.
His Majesty of course disapproves of such harshness. In a letter dated
30th April 1681, after giving his representative various other cautions,
he begs him to divest his mind of all those private animosities which up
to the present have been almost the sole motive of his actions. "It is
hard," he adds, "for me to give you my full confidence when I see that
everything gives way to your personal enmities."
A question reserved for consideration in this chapter was as to how far
there was foundation for the charges of illegitimate trading brought so
continually by the intendant against the governor, and retorted by the
latter against the intendant. What may be noticed in the first place is
the slight amount of attention apparently paid by the court to these
charges and counter-charges. The king could not openly approve of
trading on the part of his high officers; he was obliged to condemn it
in strong and precise terms; but he knew at the same time that they had
starvation salaries, and it is possible that he was not wholly unwilling
that they should, in a quiet way, make a little money out of the traffic
in furs. Frontenac and Duchesneau were both recalled in the end; but it
was not for trading; it was for quarrelling, playing at cross-purposes,
and sacrificing the welfare of the country to their mutual jealousies.
M. Lorin, whose sympathy with Frontenac is conspicuous, is disposed to
admit that he did not wholly abstain from trading; but he thinks he did
it in a more respectable and less rapacious manner than Duchesneau. He
observes that Frontenac's partners, if partners he had, were chiefly the
great explorers, La Salle, Du Lhut and others; while the associates of
Duchesneau were traders pure and simple, men like Lebert, Le Moyne and
La Chesnaye. On the other hand the court does not seem to have taken
Frontenac's accusations against the intendant seriously. The king indeed
informs him that he regards his charges as "mere recriminations."
Duchesneau, it will be remembered, had been warned not to put into his
despatches things that were not true; possibly he was worrying the
minister and the king with information they would rather not receive.
The correspondence of 1679 shows clearly the hostile relations of the
two administrators.
In the summer and fall of that year the governor spent nearly three
months at Montreal. On the 6th November, having returned to Quebec, he
writes to the king: "I have received diverse advices from the Jesuit
fathers and other missionaries that General Andros (Governor of New
York) was lately soliciting the Iroquois in an underhand way to break
with us, and that he was about convening a meeting of the Five Nations,
in order to propose matters of a nature to disturb our trade with them."
Four days later the intendant takes up his parable and informs the
minister that the governor "had _made_ the news he pretended to have
received regarding the plans of the English general, Andros, to debauch
the Iroquois," the whole thing being a mere pretext for making a
prolonged stay at Montreal at the height of the trading season. He
charges the governor with exacting presents from the Indians in return
for the protection afforded them by his guards, and with having taken
seven packages of beaver skins from the Ottawas in consideration of his
having settled a dispute into which they had got with some Frenchmen at
Montreal. It will be remembered, and the fact certainly has an air of
significance, that, when it was a question of granting amnesty to the
_coureurs de bois_, it was Duchesneau who suggested that each man should
be required to give the fullest information as to what trade he had been
carrying on, and _on whose account_. The amnesty was granted without
this condition. Evidently the court did not want an embarrassment of
information. Duchesneau's trouble was an excess of not wholly
disinterested zeal.
The case is not overstated by Frontenac's latest and fullest biographer,
M. Lorin, when he says that "the lack of a good understanding between
the two administrators had divided Canadian society, or at least that
portion of it which came into contact with the king's officers, into two
camps." Street brawls arising out of the embitterment of feeling were
not infrequent. An illustrative incident was the imprisonment of young
Duchesneau, son of the intendant, for singing in the streets some
snatches of a song disrespectful to the governor. The patience of the
court was at last exhausted, and in the summer of 1682, Frontenac and
Duchesneau were simultaneously recalled; and thus was brought to a close
the count's first term of office as governor of Canada.
Some larger questions relating to this period may now profitably occupy
our attention. One of the earliest acts of Frontenac, it will be
remembered, was to summon the Iroquois to meet him in conference at
Cataraqui, where, by his happy manner of dealing with them, he
established a remarkable personal ascendency over their minds, and
succeeded, for the time at least, in placing the relations between them
and the French upon an excellent footing. The frequent visits which he
subsequently paid to his favourite fort gave him opportunities of
improving his acquaintance with his dusky lieges and of strengthening
the good understanding that had been brought about. For some years
things worked smoothly, and the colony enjoyed a comfortable sense of
security. From the first, however, the influence of Onontio was more
felt by the eastern and nearer members of the confederacy than by the
western and more remote; and, as time wore on, the latter, particularly
the Senecas, began to show a quarrelsome and insolent temper. They did
not venture to attack the French, but they committed various acts of
aggression on native tribes allied with them and under their
protection. Several years before they had waged war with the Illinois
and driven them from their habitations. Then they turned southwards and
engaged in a prolonged conflict with a tribe known as the Andostagnes,
during which time the Illinois, having recovered in a measure from their
losses, ventured to return to their former abodes. The explorations of
La Salle had brought these people into alliance with the French; but
when the Senecas had successfully concluded their war with the
Andostagnes they were not disposed to refrain from attacking them anew
on that account. After various preliminary raids, they sent, in the
spring of 1680, an army of five or six hundred men into the Illinois
territory and committed great havoc. It was on this occasion that Tonty,
La Salle's lieutenant, nearly lost his life at Fort Crevecoeur. The
question now was whether the French would stand idly by and see their
allies destroyed. If they did, not only would their influence over the
tribes trusting in their protection be annihilated, but they might soon
have to fight for their own preservation without any native assistance.
Frontenac sent messages to the Iroquois enjoining them to keep the
peace; but the voice that once had charmed and overawed sounded now a
very ineffectual note. Father Lamberville, Jesuit missionary to the
Iroquois, wrote to say that the upper tribes had lost all fear of the
French, and that a slight provocation would cause them to make war on
Canada.
Frontenac and Duchesneau both discuss the matter in their despatches of
the year 1681, the latter as usual blaming the former, hinting that he
shirked his duty in not going up to Cataraqui in the previous summer in
order to meet the tribes and use his personal influence in favour of
peace. Frontenac writes as if he had not much confidence in that method;
he asks for five or six hundred soldiers to quell the rebellious tribes.
He thinks it would be quite enough to patrol Lake Ontario with a
respectable force in order to bring them to submission. After this
despatch had gone, news arrived of a most regrettable incident which
threatened to precipitate war. This was the murder of a Seneca chief by
an Illinois on the territory of the Kiskakons, one of the Ottawa tribes
in alliance with the French. According to Indian usage the Kiskakons
were responsible for the crime, and the Senecas were hot for revenge.
Appreciating the gravity of the situation, Frontenac sends a special
message to request the offended tribe to stay their hands, promising to
hold himself responsible for seeing that full atonement is made for the
wrong done. They consent, but ask that he will meet them somewhere in or
near Iroquois territory on the 15th June of the following year. No
pledge is given on this point, but messengers are sent to the Ottawas to
tell them that they must be prepared to make full amends, and that, if
they will send delegates to Montreal, the matter will be discussed and
arranged there.
The winter of 1681-2 was clearly an anxious one for the colony.
Frontenac thought it well to summon the wisest heads in the country to
meet in the Jesuit Seminary at Quebec in order to discuss the Indian
question in all its bearings. Those taking part in the conference, in
addition to himself, were the intendant, the provost, and three Jesuit
fathers, who had had long experience in mission work and knew the savage
tribes thoroughly. The general opinion of the meeting was that Frontenac
should go to Fort Frontenac to meet the Iroquois, as they had requested,
in the following month of June. Frontenac, for some reason or other, did
not like the idea. He did not want to go further than Montreal.
Moreover, there was no use, he said, in meeting the Iroquois till he
knew what the Ottawas were going to do; and they would not reach
Montreal till late in the summer. The governor had his way. The Ottawas,
including the Kiskakons, came in August. Only with great difficulty were
they persuaded to give the necessary satisfaction to the Iroquois, who,
they said, no doubt with truth, were much keener in seeking satisfaction
for wrongs than in giving it when wrong was done by themselves. The
Iroquois sent delegates to Montreal in the following month; and by dint
of presents and promises a somewhat doubtful arrangement was patched up
for the temporary maintenance of peace. Frontenac took advantage of his
visit to Montreal to survey the fortifications and give instructions
for strengthening them at several points. These were virtually the final
acts of his administration, for in the last week of September his
successor landed at Quebec.
What at this time were the resources of the colony in population? In
1668, under the administration of Courcelles, Talon, the intendant, had
reported the population at 6282. In 1673, a year after his arrival,
Frontenac made a return showing a total of 6705 souls. The king, Colbert
said, was much disappointed at these figures and thought they could not
be correct, as there were more people in the country ten years before.
Where his Majesty got this information we do not know, but probably from
some agent of the West India Company interested in exaggerating the
prosperity of the country. He seems to have completely overlooked
Talon's figures for 1668, not to mention two previous returns made by
the same careful officer in 1666 and 1667; the first showing a
population of 3418 only, and the second one of 4312. It seems probable,
however, that Frontenac's figures were somewhat short, as the increase
they showed was less than seven per cent. over Talon's for 1668, five
years earlier; while a return which he made two years later gave a
population of 7832, indicating a gain of nearly seventeen per cent. in
that comparatively brief period. Even these figures did not satisfy the
king, who insisted that he had sent over more people himself in the
fifteen years or so that the country had been under his direct control.
It is to be remarked that for some years after Frontenac's arrival in
Canada immigration received a serious check. His commission as governor
was nearly even in date with the commencement of Louis XIV's
buccaneering war against Holland, in which he was joined by his English
cousin Charles II. The heroic stand made by the Dutch against the united
power of the French and English monarchies is one of the glories of
their history. It was not a good time for French immigrant ships to be
abroad; moreover, all available Frenchmen were wanted for military
service, over 200,000 having been drafted into the land forces alone,
and the losses by war continually calling for recruits. A natural
increase, however, was going on in the colony all the time; and in 1679
Duchesneau reported the population of Canada at 9400, and that of Acadia
at 515. Three years later, at the end of Frontenac's first
administration, the number had increased to over 10,000.
Trade, however, was not prosperous. Duchesneau, in November 1681, speaks
of it as declining; though he tries to show that the West India trade in
particular had increased in his time. The reason why trade was not
prosperous is not far to seek: it was hampered and strangled by various
forms of political control. The West India Company, called into
existence by Colbert in 1663, had not fared much better than the
Company of New France organized by Richelieu. The reflections which
Clement makes on this subject in his life of Colbert are much to the
point. "If ever a company," he says, "was placed in circumstances where
everything seemed to promise success, assuredly it was the West India
Company as reconstituted by Colbert. Monopolizing the commerce of a
large part of the West Indies and of the settlements on the west coast
of Africa, absolute and sovereign proprietor of all the territory in
which its privilege was exercised, receiving large premiums on all that
it exported or imported, one would naturally expect it to surpass the
expectations of its founders. The contrary, however, was what happened,
and new mortifications were added to all that had gone before. . . . By
the year 1672 the company was bankrupt."[20] The chief cause of the
failure M. Clement believes to have been the prohibition of trade with
foreigners. Certainly what Canada most wanted was an outlet for its
productions; and, could foreign vessels have freely visited the country
to buy fish, lumber, potash, and skins, not to mention their own
supplies, Canada would have had an open and really unlimited market
during nearly the whole season of navigation. This restriction of
foreign trading continued unfortunately after the king had bought out
the rights of the bankrupt company in the year 1674. Having only the
market of France to depend on, the trade of the colony was subject to
all the vicissitudes by which that market was affected. It thus suffered
severely through the war with Holland, which brought an enormous strain
to bear, for a period of six years (1672-8), on the finances of the
kingdom. In the years 1675 and 1676 starvation was stalking through the
land; the courtiers, in driving from Paris to Versailles, would
frequently see the corpses of the wretched victims of famine strewing
the highway; while in Brittany and one or two other provinces the
hangman was doing a merry business in swinging off the unfortunates
whose misery had driven them to theft or other acts of disorder.
"Gallows and instruments of torture were to be seen at all the
crossways," says Henri Martin. Madame de Sevigne gives the most horrible
details in regard to the severities exercised, but with very little show
of sympathy for the unhappy people whom she speaks of as a "_canaille
revoltee_"--rebellious riff-raff. "This province" [Brittany], she says,
"will be a fine example for the rest and will teach the lower orders to
respect the higher powers." To the same fluent and graceful pen we owe
the almost Tacitean utterance: "The punishments are easing off: by dint
of vigorous hanging, there will be no more hanging to do." "They make a
desert," says Tacitus, "and they call it peace."
Such was the industrial stagnation prevalent about this time throughout
the kingdom that very often vessels arriving at certain ports could not
find return freights; there was nothing to export. Colbert's efforts to
build up great industries by means of bounties and restrictive tariffs
had, after a temporary flash of success, resulted in dismal failure; and
when peace was made with Holland in 1678, one of the conditions agreed
upon was that "reciprocal liberty of trade between France and the United
Provinces was not to be forbidden, limited, or restrained by any
privilege, customs duty, or concession, and that neither country should
give any immunities, benefits, premiums, or other advantages not
conceded equally to subjects of the other." Thus was Colbert's leading
principle of commercial policy completely overthrown, and that after a
war which had brought him to the verge of despair to provide the means
for carrying it on.
Those were the days, however, of "imperialism" in a very real sense.
Whatever the state of commerce might be in the Mother Country, Canada
still had to trade with her alone; and, even so, all mercantile
operations were hampered by an arbitrary fixing of prices. This was so
under the sway of the company, and continued to be so to a large extent
after its privileges had been swept away. Very imperial was the rule of
Louis XIV. In his youth he had seen an attempt by the parliament of
Paris to assert its prerogatives. In January 1649, just about the time
when the scaffold was being prepared for Charles I of England, he and
the court hardly knew where to turn for shelter; and he never forgot
one night which they had to spend in fireless rooms without any
attendance. The royal power, astutely guided by Mazarin, asserted itself
eventually over parliaments and princes alike; and Louis XIV, arrived at
manhood, determined that no such trouble should occur again in his time.
Gaillardin, in his history of the reign of Louis XIV, fixes upon the
year 1672--the year in which Frontenac was sent to Canada--as the epoch
of the most complete enslavement of the parliaments. The historic
function which those bodies were supposed to exercise, apart from their
judicial powers, was that of registering the royal edicts; and in theory
such registration was necessary in order to give any edict the full
force of law. Manifestly this privilege might, like the control over
money votes exercised by the English House of Commons, have developed
into an effective check upon monarchical absolutism. The possibility was
not overlooked, and marvellously clear and precise is the declaration by
which Louis XIV, in the year 1673, put all the parliaments of his
kingdom into the precise position he meant them to occupy. "First of
all," the decree reads, "silent obedience: the courts [parliaments] are
strictly forbidden to listen to any opposition to the registration of
the letters of the king; clerks are forbidden to enter such oppositions
on the records; bailiffs are forbidden to give notification of
them. . . . The courts are ordered to register the letters of the king
without any modification, restriction, or condition which might cause
delay or impediment to their execution." When this duty has been
submissively performed, then, if the parliaments have any observations
to make, they may make them; but, when once the king has replied, there
is to be no further discussion of any kind, simply prompt obedience. The
registration of the royal edicts became henceforth a mere matter of
form; and remonstrances of any kind, even such as the king graciously
permitted _after_ registration, ceased to be made. The Chancellor
d'Aguesseau[21] says that none were made during the remaining forty-two
years of the king's lifetime.
It may be objected, perhaps, that this is French and not Canadian
history; if so the answer must be that it is impossible to understand
the history of Canada in this period unless we have a sufficient
comprehension of the political system to which Canada was bound by the
most vital of ties. We get a strong light upon the character of
Frontenac when we rightly grasp that of his master, the Roi-Soleil, as
he allowed himself to be called, the man who, daring the fate of Herod
or Nebuchadnezzar, once said, "It seems to me as if any glory won by
another was robbed from myself." Some years before he had put on record
the sentiment: "It is God's will that whoever is born a subject should
not reason but obey."
To return, however, to Canada, when the king bought out the rights of
the bankrupt company, monopoly was not at an end, for he proceeded to
put up the trade of the country, under limited leases, to the highest
bidders. Those who obtained leases were called the "farmers," and were
entitled to ten per cent. of the value of all furs taken in the country.
The Sovereign Council at Quebec undertook to fix the prices of goods
except as regards dealings with the Indians; and non-resident merchants,
while they might establish warehouses, and there sell to the French
inhabitants, were not allowed to deal directly with the Indians, these
being left to the mercy of local traders who made a practice of charging
them excessive prices for all that they sold. Frontenac and Duchesneau
both report to the home government that the Indians get twice as much
from the English and Dutch in exchange for their furs as they do from
the French; and yet the aim of both is to force all the Indians in their
jurisdiction to sell their furs exclusively in Canada. Canadians who
went to the English settlements, either in New England or in what is now
New York, were amazed at the cheapness of goods. Duchesneau, in one of
his later despatches, speaks of the commercial prosperity of Boston and
the large fortunes accumulated by some of its citizens. Nothing similar
was to be seen in Canada, where there was a settled belief on the part
of the governing powers in whatever was most restrictive and illiberal
in commercial policy.
The first administration of Frontenac will always be associated with the
intrepid enterprises of the great western explorers, Jolliet, La Salle,
Du Lhut, Nicolas Perrot, and others. To Jolliet is reasonably assigned
the first discovery of the Mississippi. Starting from Green Bay, or, as
it was then called, Baie des Puants, on the west shore of Lake Michigan,
in company with the Jesuit father, Marquette, he worked his way to the
Wisconsin River, which he followed to its junction with the Mississippi;
and then descended the latter river till he reached latitude 33 deg., or
about as far as the northern boundary of the present state of Louisiana.
Fear of falling into the hands of the Spaniards, who, as he was informed
by the Indians, had settlements not far to the south, caused him to
retrace his steps. When he was just completing his return journey, his
canoe upset close to Montreal, and all his papers were lost, including
the notes he had made of his observations, and a map of the region
through which he had passed. He himself narrowly escaped with his
life--the laws of nature were in fact suspended, as he gravely declares,
in his behalf--but a young savage whom he was bringing from the country
of the Illinois was drowned.[22] He reached Quebec in the month of
August 1674, and the thrilling account which he gave of his adventures
produced a strong impression on the mind of the governor. Nevertheless
when, two years later, he asked permission to go with twenty men to make
further explorations in the same direction, Colbert refused his request.
A possible explanation is that his previous journey with Pere Marquette
had established relations which Frontenac did not quite approve between
him and the Jesuits in the western country, who had lost no time in
pushing their missions towards the south. However this may have been,
Frontenac had his eye at this very time upon a man who seemed to him
much better suited to be an agent of his policy.
It has already been mentioned that Robert Cavelier de la Salle obtained
from the king in the year 1675 a grant of the fort erected by Frontenac
at Cataraqui. The conditions of the grant were that he was to reimburse
the cost of construction, estimated at ten thousand livres; keep it in
good repair; maintain a sufficient garrison; employ twenty men for two
years in clearing the land conceded to him in the neighbourhood; provide
a priest or friar to perform divine service and administer the
sacraments; form villages of Indians and French; and have all his lands
cleared and improved within twenty years. On these terms he was to have
four square leagues of land, that is to say, eight leagues in length
along the river and lake front, east and west of the fort, by half a
league in depth, together with the islands opposite. But what was of
most value in a pecuniary sense, and what he depended on to compensate
his outlay, was the right of hunting and fishing in the neighbouring
region, and of trading with the Indians. To what extent La Salle
actually developed the property thus conceded to him is a matter of
dispute. The Abbe Faillon, who perhaps has some little animus against
him, says that he did nothing worth mentioning towards establishing such
a colony as the king intended. The king, on the other hand, when
granting La Salle authority to undertake explorations in the direction
of the Mississippi speaks approvingly of the work he had done on his
concession. The information may have been derived from La Salle himself,
who went to France in the autumn of 1677 to obtain sanction for his
proposed expedition; but it is hardly likely that he would lay
altogether false information before the minister for submission to the
king. It seems to be certain that he did at least put the fort in a good
condition of defence. He pulled down the old one, which consisted merely
of a wooden palisade banked up with earth and having a circumference of
one hundred and twenty yards, and replaced it by one having a
circumference of seven hundred and twenty yards, and protected by four
stone bastions.
The probability is that La Salle, from the first, looked upon his
establishment at the fort partly as an advanced base for the further
explorations he had in view, and partly as a means of providing the
funds without which his schemes could not be realized. The proposition
which he laid before the government, was that he should erect at his own
expense two forts, one at the mouth of the Niagara River on the east
side, the other at the southern extremity of Lake Michigan; and that he
should be commissioned to proceed to the discovery of the mouth of the
Mississippi, and be granted the exclusive right of trading with the
Indians inhabiting the countries to be visited. The trade he was most
anxious to control was that in buffalo hides, a sample of which he had
brought with him to France. Having obtained all necessary powers, he
sailed for Canada in the summer of 1678, bringing with him as much money
as he could persuade his family and friends to advance, together with a
large quantity of goods. The pecuniary obligations thus assumed were to
be paid off, as he hoped, partly by the profits of his trade at
Cataraqui, and partly by those of his operations in the more distant
West. The story of his struggles and tribulations is too long to give in
any detail here, but the main points may be hurriedly sketched.
The first care of the explorer on arriving at Quebec in the autumn was
to load several canoes with goods to the value of several thousands of
francs, and despatch them with a party of men to the Illinois country.
In the spring carpenters were sent forward to Niagara to commence the
construction of a fort. He himself followed in a large canoe laden with
provisions and goods. His first misadventure was the loss of this canoe
and its freight, not far from the mouth of the Niagara River. The
accident was due to the inattention of his men while he was on shore. A
little above the Falls of Niagara he began the construction of a
forty-five ton vessel, destined for the trade between that point and an
establishment he proposed to make at the southern end of Lake Michigan.
The Iroquois of the neighbourhood did not like these proceedings, but
did not make any active opposition. The vessel was completed and La
Salle and his men sailed away in her through Lake Erie, the St. Clair
River, and Lake Huron into Lake Michigan. Severe storms were encountered
on the way. Near Green Bay the men whom he had sent forward with goods
the previous fall met him with a number of canoes, all laden with skins,
the result of their trading with the Illinois. This was more expedition
than he had counted on, for he had told them to await his arrival. He
caused the goods, however, to be transferred to his vessel, the
_Griffon_, as she was called, and sent her back to Niagara with a
sufficient crew. She was never heard of more; but the Indians reported
that, shortly after she left shelter, a terrible storm had arisen on
Lake Michigan. They watched her for some time as she was tossed about by
the fury of the waves, and then they lost sight of her. Ignorant of this
disaster, La Salle was making his way south. He established two forts on
the Illinois River. The first, which he called St. Louis, was near the
site of the present town of La Salle. The second, a little further
south, near to Peoria, he named Crevecoeur. The name is significant of
"heartbreak," and his fortunes were then at their lowest ebb, for
provisions were exhausted and a number of men had deserted; still it is
not recorded that the name was given on that account. Leaving Henry
Tonty, a man of great energy and resource, whom he had brought out from
France, in charge of Fort Crevecoeur he made his way back alone to Fort
Frontenac and thence to Montreal.
It was at Fort Frontenac that La Salle first learnt the fate of his
richly-laden _Griffon_; while at Montreal the news reached him of the
loss of a vessel coming from France with a large quantity of goods for
his trade. Such an accumulation of misfortunes was enough to break the
spirit of an ordinary man; but La Salle was a man whom adversity could
not conquer. Straining his credit to the utmost to procure supplies and
reinforcements, he returns to the Illinois country to find Fort
Crevecoeur in ruins. It had been attacked by the Iroquois and its
defenders scattered. Tonty, wounded in the skirmish, had gone to
Michilimackinac. Getting no word of him, La Salle assumes that he is
dead. Once more the long journey eastward must be faced. He reaches
Montreal, and succeeds in organizing yet another expedition. Again he
sets out for the West. It is late in the fall of 1680 when he reaches
Michilimackinac, where he is overjoyed to find the lost Tonty. The two
proceed together to the Illinois country. The year 1681 is spent in
establishing or re-establishing posts and dealing or negotiating with
the natives. On the 6th February 1682 La Salle strikes the Mississippi.
Two months and three days later, or on the 9th of April, he is gazing
forth over the waters of the Gulf of Mexico.
The tale is quickly told; but not so easy is it adequately to appraise
the courage, determination and resource necessary for the accomplishment
of such an enterprise. Knowing what we do of the man, the portrait of
him in Margry's third volume seems to possess a certain convincing
character, though Margry himself does not vouch for its authenticity. We
see a face sensitive, perhaps sensuous, subtle, passionate, daring,
tenacious. Such a man could not bind himself to the task of patient
colonization at Fort Frontenac, or even find satisfaction in the more
varied and exciting life of a frontiersman and trader. An overwhelming
desire possessed him
"To sail beyond the sunset and the baths
Of all the western stars,"
and to follow the swelling flood of the mightiest of rivers to its
bourne in some mighty sea. Such a man will have the defects of his
qualities, and La Salle was neither devoid of jealousy nor incapable of
injustice; and he was a somewhat hard taskmaster. Possessed himself of
iron nerve and unbending resolution, and sustained by visions of high
accomplishment, he expected more from average men than they were
altogether capable of rendering. More than once some of his followers
deserted him. One attempt was made at Fort Frontenac to poison him; and
finally he met his death at the hand of an assassin, a member of his own
party, in that far southern region which he had added to the domain of
France.
Frontenac's personal relations with La Salle are not very clearly
defined. He was certainly favourable to him at first. The two men were
much alike in their attitude towards the ecclesiastical power; and both
showed a preference for the Recollet order, two members of which La
Salle maintained at the fort. Frontenac also approved of La Salle's
plans of discovery in the west and south, as tending to the extension of
the French dominions and the glory of the French name, and possibly also
as furnishing a counterpoise to the growing influence of the Jesuits
among the western Indians. There is nothing, however, to show that he
followed the later movements of the great explorer with any particular
sympathy.
Du Lhut was a man of a different type. He did not possess the vaulting
ambition, nor perhaps the talent for organization, of La Salle; but he
discovered a vast stretch of new territory in what is now the western
part of New Ontario, and along the course of the Assiniboine; and, so
far as skill in the management of the native races was concerned he was
probably superior to the more romantic explorer. No man was more
successful in upholding French prestige amongst the Indian tribes. It
was just before La Salle returned from France in the autumn of 1678 that
Du Lhut, in somewhat clandestine fashion, slipped off to the West. Those
were the days in which the _coureur de bois_ difficulty was at its
height; and, upon arriving at Sault Ste. Marie, he wrote to Frontenac in
a rather deprecatory tone as if sensible of the doubtful legality of his
position, but pointed out the advantages that would accrue from entering
into relations with the North Western Indians. About a year later he
presided over a great meeting of the tribes on the site of the important
city which now bears his name (according to one spelling of it);
established peace between communities that had long been at war; and
obtained the promise of the important tribe of the Nadessioux to direct
their trade in future to Montreal. This was eminently useful work, and
gained for its author the full sympathy of Frontenac. Nevertheless, on
his return to Quebec in the following year (1680), he was imprisoned for
violation of the king's regulations, in all probability at the instance
of the vigilant M. Jacques Duchesneau, who would be prompt to suspect
complicity in illegal trading between him and the governor. He was
released after a short detention, and went to France in the fall of
1681, in the hope of obtaining the king's sanction for further
explorations. In this he was unsuccessful; but, returning to Canada, he
obtained employment in the West as post commander and agent to the
tribes west and north of Lake Superior. Through him the French influence
was extended, not only far into what is now our own North-West, but even
to the shores of Hudson's Bay, much of the trade which had before been
done with the English of that region being diverted, through his
persuasions, to Montreal.
While the secular rulers of the country were, with somewhat divided
aims, striving to promote the material interests and provide for the
security of the colony, the church, with considerably more unity of
purpose, was labouring to achieve spiritual results. The promotion of M.
de Laval to the see of Quebec put an end to much disputing and mutual
distrust amongst different orders of the clergy. It is said to have had
a markedly beneficial effect on Laval himself, who seemed at once to
dismiss the exaggerated suspicions he had entertained regarding all who
were not thoroughly subdued to his influence, and the Sulpician order in
particular. Missionary work was actively carried on, and though the
question of tithes gave more or less trouble, and the people were not as
zealous as might have been wished in providing for the maintenance of
their local clergy, the influence of the church and of religion was
strongly felt throughout the length and breadth of the land. The king
had much at heart the establishment of permanent curacies, and in 1679
issued an edict on the subject, which, however, had little effect. His
Majesty's idea was that the _cure_ should receive tithes, and that if
these did not suffice to give him a decent living, further rates should
be levied on the seigneurs and the people. As even the tithes were paid
very grudgingly, it is easy to believe that a scheme of further taxation
for church purposes stood little chance of acceptance. We have already
seen that Laval was by no means in love with the policy of fixed
_cures_, and he was probably not sorry to be able to represent to the
court that it really could not be carried into effect. Bishop and people
together were too much even for the king.
The Recollets, always on the alert to make themselves useful, rose to
the occasion by offering to serve the parishes and accept simply what
the people might be disposed to give, but the bishop thought their zeal
savoured of officiousness, and declined the offer with scanty thanks.
These worthy ecclesiastics were very popular in the country, and it is
probable they could have successfully carried out their undertaking had
they been allowed to try. The bishop had other views for the nurture of
his Canadian flock. The Recollet fathers did not at this time stand very
high in his esteem. The Jesuits accused them of tolerating grave abuses
in the household of the governor, who had a Recollet, Father
Maupassant, for confessor; but, as M. Lorin pertinently observes, the
accusation was singularly ill-timed, considering the flagrant disorders
which marked the private life of Frontenac's master, Louis XIV, whose
spiritual interests were in charge of the Jesuit, Pere Lachaise. The
monarch--"ce religieux prince," as the Abbe Faillon calls him--had no
hesitation in demanding of the parliament of Paris legitimation of
successive batches of his bastard offspring, and registration of the
titles of nobility he was pleased to confer upon them. Whatever the
responsibilities of Father Maupassant may have been, he must have had a
sinecure in comparison with the king's confessor. It may be added that
Frontenac vehemently denied that there were any disorders or scandals in
his household.
Missions to the different Indian tribes were in active operation during
the whole of the period now under review. Those of the Jesuits were by
far the most widespread. Their chief establishment outside of Quebec was
at Sault Ste. Marie; in addition they had permanent missions at
Mackinac, Green Bay, and various points in the Iroquois country; while
Father Albanel penetrated as far as Hudson's Bay, and others laboured
amongst the Indians of the Saguenay region. The Sulpicians were less
adventurous; they did most of their evangelizing work on or near to the
Island of Montreal. They had an establishment, however, on the Bay of
Quinte, and one or more on the Ottawa River. The Recollets had Fort
Frontenac, Perce on the Baie des Chaleurs, and certain posts on the line
of La Salle's explorations.
As regards the conversion of the savage tribes, it can hardly be claimed
that any of these missions were very successful. All authorities agree
that it was extremely difficult to impress the Indian mind with the
truths of Christianity, or with the idea of any absolute and exclusive
theology. The Indian was quite ready to accept the missionary's version
of the origin of the world, provided the missionary would reciprocate
and accept his decidedly different version. Each, he held, was good in
its place; a little variety in these matters did no harm. He had little
or no sense of sin, for he did not recognize that the things he did were
wrong, and when threatened with the terrors of a future world, he simply
said that he did not believe the "master of life" could hate anybody. At
the same time he was quite prepared to join in religious services if
requested, and seemed even to enjoy the ceremonial. He believed in
unlimited charity to relatives and friends, but could not be got to
admit the duty of forgiving enemies. An Indian who had been informed
that in France many died of want, while others of the same nation had
food and substance of all kinds in the greatest profusion, was
scandalized beyond measure. He was affected much as we should be by some
dark tale of cruelty and superstition from a far-off heathen land. And
to think that people of whom such things could be told were sending
missionaries to _him_, to enjoin upon him, among other things, the duty
of charity![23]
But if the missionaries made comparatively little headway in the matter
of actual conversions, it is impossible to doubt that they exerted a
general influence for good upon the tribes to whom they ministered. This
may fairly be inferred from the moral authority they exercised and the
security and respect they enjoyed. They were themselves men of pure
lives and disinterested motives; and so far they personally recommended
the doctrines they preached. To some extent also they taught the savages
various useful arts of life. Frontenac specially commends the Montreal
Seminary for their efforts to civilize the Indians of their missions
who, under their instruction, had taken to raising domestic animals,
swine, poultry, etc., and to cultivating wheat as well as native grains.
The Abbe Verreau, on the other hand, is inclined to hold that the
attempts made, at the urgent demand of the French government, to
civilize as well as christianize the Indians are accountable, in part at
least, for the general failure of the missions. "We all know now," he
says, "what has been the result of so much effort and so much outlay of
money. Two or three poor villages inhabited by unhappy creatures who
have added our vices to their own deficiencies, without having adopted
any of our better qualities. That is all that remains of the Abenaquis,
the Hurons, and the Iroquois."[24] The reflection is a sad one, and the
abbe feels it, for he speaks further of the painful mystery of the
disappearance of these children of the forest. Truly does the poet say
that "God fulfils Himself in many ways," yet none the less the surviving
white man may well feel some misgiving when he thinks of all his past
dealings with his red brother.
[Footnote 19: He had been charged some years before by a commissioner
sent out by the Company of the Hundred Associates with embezzlement, and
had taken part in a violent attack on the commissioner and in the
seizure of his papers.]
[Footnote 20: _Vie de Colbert_, vol. i. p. 502.]
[Footnote 21: Quoted by Gaillardin, _Histoire du Regne de Louis XIV_,
vol. iv. p. 311.]
[Footnote 22: See extract from a letter written by him in Faillon, vol.
iii. p. 315. The Recollet, Pere Leclercq, is uncharitable enough to hint
that the canoe accident may have been made to cover a lack of the
documents which the explorer professed to have had with him.]
[Footnote 23: See the _Recit d'un ami de l'Abbe Galinee_, in Margry,
vol. i.]
[Footnote 24: Mere de l'Incarnation remarked even in her day the
decrease of the native population. "When we arrived in this country,"
she says, "the Indians were so numerous that it seemed as if they were
going to grow into a vast population; but after they were baptized God
called them to Himself either by disease or by the hands of the
Iroquois. It was perhaps His wise design to permit their death lest
their hearts should turn to wickedness."--_Lettres Spirituelles_,
edition of 1681, p. 230.]