QUEBEC RESTORED
Through the exertions of Champlain negotiations were soon entered into
for the purpose of restoring the colony of New France to the French.
Champlain had visited the French ambassador, M. de Chateauneuf, when in
London, and had laid before him a statement of the events which had
recently taken place, together with the treaty of capitulation and a map
of New France, so far as it was explored. According to Champlain, the
country comprised all the lands which Linschot thus describes: "This
part of America which extends to the Arctic pole northward, is called
New France, because Jean Verazzano, a Florentine, having been sent by
King François I to these quarters, discovered nearly all the coast,
beginning from the Tropic of Cancer to the fiftieth degree, and still
more northerly, arboring arms and flags of France; for that reason the
said country is called New France."
Champlain was not quarrelling with the English for the Virgines,
although this country had been occupied by the French eighty years
before, and they had also discovered all the American coast, from the
river St. John to the peninsula of Florida. No one can deny that
Champlain had given names to the rivers and harbours of New England as
far as Cape Cod, about the fortieth degree of latitude.
After having spent about five weeks with the ambassador in furnishing
him with information to guide him in his negotiations with the English
authorities, Champlain resolved to visit France, as he had a reasonable
hope of seeing his designs accomplished. He left London on November
20th, and embarked at Rye, in Sussex, for Dieppe. Here he met Captain
Daniel, who had just returned from his expedition to Canada, and it was
here also that he received his commission of governor of New France,
which had been forwarded by the directors of the Company of New France.
Champlain paid a visit to Rouen, and then went to Paris, where he had
interviews with the king, with the cardinal, and some of the associates
of the company. A prominent topic of discussion was, naturally, the loss
of New France, and the best means of recovering it. Champlain's ideas
were excellent, and he did his best to have them acknowledged and agreed
to by all those who were interested in the fate of New France.
Events progressed favourably, and Champlain was pleased to learn that
Doctor Daniel had been sent to London with letters for King Charles I.
Louis XIII demanded the restoration of the fort and habitation of
Quebec, and the forts and harbours of the Acadian coast, for the reason
that they had been captured after peace had been concluded between the
two countries. Doctor Daniel returned to France, bearing despatches by
which Charles I answered that he was ready to restore Quebec, but no
mention was made of Acadia. The directors of the company immediately
ordered Commander de Razilly to equip a fleet, and, as we have already
stated, to take possession of Quebec by force or otherwise.
The Hundred Associates subscribed sixteen thousand livres for the
freighting of the vessels, and the king granted the balance of the
expenses. The news of these extraordinary war-like preparations caused
alarm in London, but the French ambassador stated that these vessels
were not being sent to trouble or disturb any of the English settlers
who had taken possession of the French habitations. This explanation
relieved the public mind in England, and Charles I promised to give back
to France its ancient possessions in America, as they were on April
24th, 1629, the date of the signing of the Treaty of Suze. In justice to
England it may be said that two English vessels were seized by the
French at about the same time that Kirke had forced Champlain to
surrender. There was, therefore, illegal action on both sides, and both
countries had claims to be regulated.
The English would have preferred to have retained possession of Canada,
at least until the following year, as the Kirke brothers and their
associates hoped to be able to realize considerable sums from their
trade with the Indians. This condition of affairs is explained in a
letter addressed by Cardinal Richelieu to Chateauneuf, on December 20th,
1629: "They assure us that they cannot restore Canada at once; this is
the reason for our delay in restoring these vessels." And he adds: "If
they agree to the restitution of Quebec without any condition, you shall
take it for granted, if not, it is better to put a delay to the
settlement."
It is obvious that Charles I had twice promised to restore Quebec, and
when Chateauneuf retired from his position of ambassador in the month of
April, 1630, he had obtained "every assurance of restitution of all
things taken since the peace." The Marquis of Fontenay-Mareuil, who
succeeded Chateauneuf on March 13th, received special instructions from
the cardinal on this subject: "His Majesty's design is that, continuing
the negotiations of Chateauneuf, you continue to ask for the restitution
of Canada, and of all goods and vessels taken from the French since the
peace."
The new ambassador could not urge the claims of France with greater
activity than his predecessor. During the space of two months,
Chateauneuf had prepared five documents relating to Canadian affairs, to
which the commissioners appointed to settle the matter had replied on
February 11th. These officials were Sir Humphrey May, Sir John Coke, Sir
Julius Cæsar, and Sir Henry Martin. Their conclusion regarding Canada
was that His Majesty had not changed his mind concerning the
restoration of places, vessels and goods taken from the French,
according to the first declaration he had made through a memorandum in
Latin, communicated some time since to the French ambassador.
Louis XIII was at this time engaged in war with Austria, and Richelieu
was too busy to attend to Canadian matters, which were of less
importance than the European questions which occupied his time. Interior
dissensions were soon added to the trouble which France had to undergo.
Gaston, the king's brother, was compromised, and the Duke of
Montmorency, who took part in a plot against the king, was seized and
put to death.
The negotiations commenced in 1629 were not resumed until 1632. In the
meantime the English authorities had not been idle. Charles I had not
forgotten his promise, and even if he had, there were men in France who
had a good memory. On June 12th, 1631, Charles I addressed a long letter
to Sir Isaac Wake, ambassador to France, respecting the restitution of
Quebec and Acadia. The terms were as follows:--
"That which we require, which is the payment of the remainder of the
money, the restitution of certain ships taken and kept without any
colour or pretence, and the taking of arrests and seizures which were
made in that kingdom against our subjects contrary to treaty, being of
right and due. And that which is demanded of us concerning the places
in Canada and those parts, and some few ships of that nation (French)
which remained yet unrestored, but have passed sentence of confiscation
in our high Court of Admiralty upon good grounds in justice, being
things of courtesy and good correspondence."
According to her marriage settlement the Queen Henrietta possessed a
dowry of eight hundred thousand crowns, equivalent to eight hundred
thousand écus de trois livres, French currency. The half of that sum had
been made payable on the day before the marriage in London, and the
other half a little later. The marriage took place on June 13th, 1625,
and the first instalment was then paid. In the year 1631 the second
instalment had not been paid, and Charles I claimed it as one of the
conditions of settlement.
Some historians have stated that the king took this opportunity to have
a money question solved. If, however, the debt was legitimate, France
was obliged to pay it, and the difficulties that had occurred in the
meantime had nothing to do with the deed of marriage upon which the
claim was based. Chateauneuf had promised to pay the claim. Unless,
therefore, there was any doubt as to the right of the king to claim the
sum, it is difficult to understand why the king should be blamed.
In his letter to his ambassador at Paris Charles I alludes to documents
exchanged between Chateauneuf and Fontenay-Mareuil on the one side, and
the lords commissioners appointed to give a ruling. In this document it
is noticed that Guillaume de Caën had discussed with Kirke the value of
the goods and peltry that had been taken out of the stores at Quebec.
They disagreed both as to the number and value. De Caën claimed four
thousand two hundred and sixty-six beaver skins which had been captured
by Kirke, while Kirke pretended to have found only one thousand seven
hundred and thirteen, and that the balance of his cargo, four thousand
skins, was the result of trade with the Indians.
According to the books of the English company, Kirke had bought four
thousand five hundred and forty beaver skins, four hundred and
thirty-two elk skins, and had found in the stores one thousand seven
hundred and thirteen beaver skins. The difference in the calculation is
due to the fact that the English only mentioned the beaver skins
registered in their books, and the French included all the skins which
belonged to them when the fort surrendered, making no mention of those
that they had taken out of the fort with the permission of the English.
Guillaume de Caën valued each skin at twelve pounds ten shillings, and
Burlamachi had written from Metz to representatives of the English
company, that he had been compelled to accept de Caën's estimates, as
under the terms of an Act of Private Council, he was bound to make them
good. The king had promised to reimburse de Caën for his losses by the
payment of the sum of fourteen thousand three hundred and thirty
pounds, of which eight thousand two hundred and seventy pounds were for
his peltry and goods, and six thousand and sixty pounds for the vessels
which had been captured. David Kirke strongly opposed the payment of
this sum on the ground that it was excessive, but the king through his
councillors ordered the payment to be made.
Having determined to seize the peltry brought to London from Quebec, the
Kirke associates blew off the padlock which had been fixed to the
storehouse door by an order of justice. Some time after, when Guillaume
de Caën visited the store, accompanied by a member of the company and a
constable, he discovered that only three hundred beaver skins and four
hundred elk skins remained. Complaint was lodged with the king, who
ordered Kirke to return the skins which were missing within three days,
on pain of imprisonment or the confiscation of his property. None of the
associates of Kirke appear to have obtained the sympathy of the public
in that affair.
The English company had suffered a great loss over the transaction, and
the king thought that it would be just to grant them some compensation.
He therefore appointed two commissioners, Sir Isaac Wake and Burlamachi,
to look after the interests of the English company. Their mission was to
make an agreement with Guillaume de Caën, who represented the French
company. After the exchange of a long correspondence, the king of
France agreed to pay to David Kirke the sum of twenty thousand pounds,
on the condition that he should restore the fort of Quebec, the contents
of the storehouse, the vessel belonging to Emery de Caën, and the peltry
seized in Canada.
David Kirke was much dissatisfied with the agreement, which he believed
was due to the action of Sir Isaac Wake, to whom he wrote, accusing him
of not having followed the instructions of the English company. His
letter concluded with these words: "I understand that the conduct of
this affair has been absolutely irregular, as it is evident that you
have only resorted to the French testimony, having no care for the
English evidence."
In the same memorandum the Kirke family complained of the fact that the
Company of English Adventurers had been compelled to plead in France,
while the French were not subject to the same conditions. This
accusation was not correct, as Guillaume de Caën had been obliged not
only to live in London in order to vindicate his goods, but also to
watch them and prevent damage.
Kirke had no other claim than compensation for losses, and de Caën, who
had apparently no responsibility for the conflict of 1629, could not
reasonably be expected to pay the amount of Kirke's claim. The contents
of the storehouse at Quebec were the property of the de Caëns, and in
visiting Quebec Emery de Caën had no other object in view than to
secure his goods and take them to France. He had nothing to do with the
war, and believed that he was sailing in times of peace. Thomas Kirke,
by whom he was taken prisoner, treated him as a pirate, illegally, and
in spite of the Treaty of Suze. It is true that the Kirkes ignored the
existence of this treaty when they sailed for America, but this was only
an excuse for their attitude as belligerents.
As soon as the provisions of the negotiations were determined upon
between the two countries, the claims had to be sent to the king, if
they considered that they had any grievance under the privileges
conferred upon them by letters of marque. The royal commission took a
correct stand in demanding from them in the name of Charles I an
indemnity for France. All these differences were at length terminated
through the energetic interference of Richelieu. These disputes had
lasted for more than two years, and constantly occupied the attention of
the ambassadors. The king of France, therefore, empowered Bullion and
Bouthillier on January 25th, 1632, to act. Charles I had already sent
Burlamachi to France with letters in favour of the restoration of Canada
and Acadia, and had also given instructions to Sir Isaac Wake, his
ambassador extraordinary. On March 5th, Louis XIII granted an audience
to the ambassadors, and the basis of a treaty was agreed upon. Sir Isaac
Wake represented Charles I, and Bullion and Bouthillier represented the
king of France.
The commissioners took up the question of seizures, which was the most
difficult. The king of France agreed to pay the sum of sixty-four
thousand two hundred and forty-six pounds to Lumagne and Vanelly for the
goods seized on the _Jacques_, and sixty-nine thousand eight hundred and
sixty-six pounds for the goods seized on the _Bénédiction_, and to
restore these two vessels to their owners within fifteen days. This
agreement included the effects taken from the _Bride_, and sold at
Calais, the property of Lumagne and Vanelly. The king of England
promised to render and restore all the places occupied by the subjects
of His Majesty of Great Britain in New France, Canada and Acadia, and to
enjoin all those who commanded at Port Royal, at the fort of Quebec and
at Cape Breton, to put these places in the hands of those whom it shall
please His Majesty, eight days after notice given to the officers named
by the king of France.
Under this agreement, de Caën was obliged to pay for the equipment of a
vessel of two hundred to two hundred and fifty tons, and for the
repatriation of the English subjects established in New France. The
forts and places occupied by the English were to be restored as they
were before their capture, with all arms and ammunition, according to
the detailed list which Champlain had given. Burlamachi was authorized
to pay for everything that was missing, and also to place Emery de Caën
in possession of the ship _Hélène_, which had been taken from him,
together with all goods abandoned at Quebec during his voyage of 1631.
Burlamachi was also instructed to pay to Guillaume de Caën the sum of
eighty-two thousand seven hundred pounds within two months. The sum of
sixty thousand six hundred and two pounds tournois was also to be paid
by Burlamachi to whomever it might belong, for the vessels _Gabriel_ of
St. Gilles, _Sainte-Anne_, of Havre de Grâce, _Trinité_, of Sables
d'Olonne, _St. Laurent_, of St. Malo, and _Cap du Ciel_, of Calais,
seized by the English after the signing of the Treaty of Suze.
After this was agreed to, the commissioners embodied in eight articles
the conditions of free trade between the two countries. The whole was
signed by Wake, Bullion and Bouthillier, at St. Germain-en-Laye, on
March 29th, 1632.
Thus terminated this quarrel between England and France, but it was only
the precursor of a far more serious conflict which was to arise. From
time to time, however, these differences were adjusted temporarily by
treaties, only to lead to further complications. The principal
difficulty arose regarding the boundaries of New France, the limits of
which were not clearly defined in the treaty. Some adjacent parts were
claimed by the English as their territory. The king of France had
granted to the Hundred Associates "in all property, justice and
seigniory, the fort and habitation of Quebec, together with the country
of New France, or Canada, along the coasts ... coasting along the sea
to the Arctic circle for latitude, and from the Island of Newfoundland
for longitude, going to the west to the great lake called Mer Douce
(Lake Huron), and farther within the lands and along the rivers which
passed through them and emptied in the river called St. Lawrence,
otherwise the great river of Canada, etc."
Quebec was considered as the centre of these immense possessions of the
king of France, and included the islands of Newfoundland, Cape Breton
and St. John (Prince Edward).
The king of England had granted to Sir Thomas Gates and others, in 1606,
three years after the date of de Monts' letters patent, "this part of
America commonly called Virginia, and the territories between the
thirty-fourth and forty-fifth degrees of latitude, and the islands
situated within a space of one hundred miles from the coasts of the said
countries."
In the year 1621, James I granted to Sir William Alexander, Count of
Sterling, certain territory, which under the name of Nova Scotia was
intended to comprise the present provinces of Nova Scotia, New
Brunswick, the islands of St. John and Cape Breton, and the whole of
Gaspesia. Charles I granted to Sir William Alexander in the year 1625
another charter, which revoked the one of 1621.
It is evident that the king of England and the king of France had each
given charters covering about the same extent of territory, and it is
therefore easy to understand that tedious correspondence of a
complicated nature thereby arose between the two countries. The treaty
of St. Germain-en-Laye did not determine the question of the boundaries
of the territory, and each power reserved its rights in this respect.
The inhabitants of Quebec at this time were in a state of suspense, for
they had no knowledge of the progress made with the negotiations between
the two countries. They had no reason to complain of the English,
however, who treated them well, but the Huguenots, their own countrymen,
who seemed prepared to serve under the English flag, were, as usual,
troublesome and fanatical on religious questions. The settlers were so
much distressed at not having the benefit of the ministration of a
priest of their church, that they had resolved to leave the country at
the earliest opportunity.
The Lutheran minister, who had decided to remain at Quebec with Kirke's
men, had much to suffer. His advice was not accepted by his own people,
and he was, moreover, kept in prison for a period of six months under
the pretext of inciting the soldiers of the garrison to rebellion. All
these disagreements rendered the condition of the Catholics almost
unendurable.
On July 13th, 1632, a white flag was seen floating from a vessel which
was entering the harbour of Quebec. The inhabitants were rejoiced, and
when they were able to hear mass in the house of Madame Hébert, their
happiness was complete. It was three years since they had enjoyed this
privilege. One girl had been born in the interval, to the wife of
Guillaume Couillard. But no death had been recorded, except the murder
of an Iroquois prisoner by a Montagnais while in a state of
intoxication.
The Jesuits who had arrived at the same time as Emery de Caën, took
charge of the Quebec mission. In the year 1627, the Récollets, seeing
that their mission had not apparently produced the results that they
desired, and that they were also reduced to great distress, resolved to
abandon New France for a country less ungrateful. We have seen that
after the capitulation, the Récollets left with the greater number of
the French for their motherland, but when they heard that Canada had
been restored to France, they made preparations to resume their labours.
Their superiors offered no objection, but the chief directors of the
Hundred Associates, thinking the establishment of two different
religious orders in the country, which as yet had no bishop, would
create jealousies, determined to refuse the services of the Récollets.
Jean de Lauzon, intendant of the company for Canadian affairs, made a
formal protest, and thus these noble missionaries were forced to abandon
their work in Canada. The Récollets were much disappointed, but Father
Le Caron, the first apostle to the Huron tribes, was so distressed at
the news that he was taken ill and died on March 29th, 1632, some days
before the departure of Emery de Caën for Quebec. He had brought some
manuscripts from Canada, which were accidently burnt in Normandy. This
man was perhaps the purest example of all the Récollets in Canada.
Others had a more illustrious name, but none gave greater proof of
devotedness and courage in their dealings with the Indians, and
especially the Hurons. He was generally regarded as a saint.