THIRD VOYAGE TO FRANCE
Disembarking in the year 1675 on that soil where as apostolic vicar he
had already accomplished so much good, giving his episcopal benediction
to that Christian throng who came to sing the Te Deum to thank God for
the happy return of their first pastor, casting his eyes upon that manly
and imposing figure of one of the most illustrious lieutenants of the
great king, the Count de Frontenac, what could be the thoughts of Mgr.
de Laval? He could not deceive himself: the letters received from Canada
proved to him too clearly that the friction between the civil powers and
religious authorities would be continued under a governor of
uncompromising and imperious character. With what fervour must he have
asked of Heaven the tact, the prudence and the patience so necessary in
such delicate circumstances!
Two questions, especially, divided the governor and the bishop: that of
the permanence of livings, and the everlasting matter of the sale of
brandy to the savages, a question which, like the phoenix, was
continually reborn from its ashes. "The prelate," says the Abbé
Gosselin, "desired to establish parishes wherever they were necessary,
and procure for them good and zealous missionaries, and, as far as
possible, priests residing in each district, but removable and attached
to the seminary, which received the tithes and furnished them with all
they had need of. But Frontenac found that this system left the priests
too dependent on the bishop, and that the clergy thus closely connected
with the bishop and the seminary, was too formidable and too powerful a
body. It was with the purpose of weakening it and of rendering it, by
the aid which it would require, more dependent on the civil authority,
that he undertook that campaign for permanent livings which ended in the
overthrow of Mgr. de Laval's system."
Colbert, in fact, was too strongly prejudiced against the clergy of
Canada by the reports of Talon and Frontenac. These three men were
wholly devoted to the interests of France as well as to those of the
colony, but they judged things only from a purely human point of view.
"I see," Colbert wrote in 1677 to Commissioner Duchesneau, "that the
Count de Frontenac is of the opinion that the trade with the savages in
drinks, called in that country intoxicating, does not cause the great
and terrible evils to which Mgr. de Québec takes exception, and even
that it is necessary for commerce; and I see that you are of an opinion
contrary to this. In this matter, before taking sides with the bishop,
you should enquire very exactly as to the number of murders,
assassinations, cases of arson, and other excesses caused by brandy ...
and send me the proof of this. If these deeds had been continual, His
Majesty would have issued a most severe and vigorous prohibition to all
his subjects against engaging in this traffic. But, in the absence of
this proof, and seeing, moreover, the contrary in the evidence and
reports of those that have been longest in this country, it is not just,
and the general policy of a state opposes in this the feelings of a
bishop who, to prevent the abuses that a small number of private
individuals may make of a thing good in itself, wishes to abolish trade
in an article which greatly serves to attract commerce, and the savages
themselves, to the orthodox Christians." Thus M. Dudouyt could not but
fail in his mission, and he wrote to Mgr. de Laval that Colbert, while
recognizing very frankly the devotion of the bishop and the
missionaries, believed that they exaggerated the fatal results of the
traffic. The zealous collaborator of the Bishop of Quebec at the same
time urged the prelate to suspend the spiritual penalties till then
imposed upon the traders, in order to deprive the minister of every
motive of bitterness against the clergy.
The bishop admitted the wisdom of this counsel, which he followed, and
meanwhile the king, alarmed by a report from Commissioner Duchesneau,
who shared the view of the missionaries, desired to investigate and come
to a final decision on the question. He therefore ordered the Count de
Frontenac to choose in the colony twenty-four competent persons, and to
commission them to examine the drawbacks to the sale of intoxicating
liquors. Unfortunately, the persons chosen for this enquiry were engaged
in trade with the savages; their conclusions must necessarily be
prejudiced. They declared that "very few disorders arose from the
traffic in brandy, among the natives of the country; that, moreover, the
Dutch, by distributing intoxicating drinks to the Iroquois, attracted by
this means the trade in beaver skins to Orange and Manhattan. It was,
therefore, absolutely necessary to allow the brandy trade in order to
bring the savages into the French colony and to prevent them from taking
their furs to foreigners."
We cannot help being surprised at such a judgment when we read over the
memoirs of the time, which all agree in deploring the sad results of
this traffic. The most crying injustice, the most revolting immorality,
the ruin of families, settlements devastated by drunkenness, agriculture
abandoned, the robust portion of the population ruining its health in
profitless expeditions: such were some of the most horrible fruits of
alcohol. And what do we find as a compensation for so many evils? A few
dozen rascals enriched, returning to squander in France a fortune
shamefully acquired. And let it not be objected that, if the Indians had
not been able to purchase the wherewithal to satisfy their terrible
passion for strong drink, they would have carried their furs to the
English or the Dutch, for it was proven that the offer of Governor
Andros, to forbid the sale of brandy to the savages in New England on
condition that the French would act likewise in New France, was formally
rejected. "To-day when the passions of the time have long been silent,"
says the Abbé Ferland, "it is impossible not to admire the energy
displayed by the noble bishop, imploring the pity of the monarch for the
savages of New France with all the courage shown by Las Casas, when he
pleaded the cause of the aborigines of Spanish America. Disdaining the
hypocritical outcries of those men who prostituted the name of commerce
to cover their speculations and their rapine, he exposed himself to
scorn and persecution in order to save the remnant of those indigenous
American tribes, to protect his flock from the moral contagion which
threatened to weigh upon it, and to lead into the right path the young
men who were going to ruin among the savage tribes."
The worthy bishop desired to prevent the laxity of the sale of brandy
that might result from the declaration of the Committee of Twenty-four,
and in the autumn of 1678 he set out again for France. To avoid a
journey so fatiguing, he might easily have found excuses in the rest
needed after a difficult pastoral expedition which he had just
concluded, in the labours of his seminary which demanded his presence,
and especially in the bad state of his health; but is not the first
duty of a leader always to stand in the breach, and to give to all the
example of self-sacrifice? A report from his hand on the disorders
caused by the traffic in strong liquors would perhaps have obtained a
fortunate result, but thinking that his presence at the court would be
still more efficacious, he set out. He managed to find in his charity
and the goodness of his heart such eloquent words to depict the evils
wrought upon the Church in Canada by the scourge of intoxication, that
Louis XIV was moved, and commissioned his confessor, Father La Chaise,
to examine the question conjointly with the Archbishop of Paris.
According to their advice, the king expressly forbade the French to
carry intoxicating liquors to the savages in their dwellings or in the
woods, and he wrote to Frontenac to charge him to see that the edict was
respected. On his part, Laval consented to maintain the _cas réservé_
only against those who might infringe the royal prohibition. The Bishop
of Quebec had hoped for more; for nothing could prevent the Indians from
coming to buy the terrible poison from the French, and moreover,
discovery of the infractions of the law would be, if not impossible, at
least most difficult. Nevertheless, it was an advantage obtained over
the dealers and their protectors, who aimed at nothing less than an
unrestricted traffic in brandy. A dyke was set up against the
devastations of the scourge; the worthy bishop might hope to maintain
it energetically by his vigilance and that of his coadjutors.
Unfortunately, he could not succeed entirely, and little by little the
disorders became so multiplied that M. de Denonville considered brandy
as one of the greatest evils of Canada, and that the venerable superior
of St. Sulpice de Montréal, M. Dollier de Casson, wrote in 1691: "I have
been twenty-six years in this country, and I have seen our numerous and
flourishing Algonquin missions all destroyed by drunkenness."
Accordingly, it became necessary later to fall back upon the former
rigorous regulations against the sale of intoxicating liquors to the
Indians.
Before his departure for France the Bishop of Quebec had given the
devoted priests of St. Sulpice a mark of his affection: he constituted
the parish of Notre-Dame de Montréal according to the canons of the
Church, and joined it in perpetuity to the Seminary of Ville-Marie, "to
be administered, under the plenary authority of the Bishops of Quebec,
by such ecclesiastics as might be chosen by the superior of the said
seminary. The priests of St. Sulpice having by their efforts and their
labours produced during so many years in New France, and especially in
the Island of Montreal, very great fruits for the glory of God and the
advantage of this growing Church, we have given them, as being most
irreproachable in faith, doctrine, piety and conduct, in perpetuity, and
do give them, by virtue of these presents, the livings of the Island of
Montreal, in order that they may be perfectly cultivated as up to now
they have been, as best they might be by their preachings and examples."
In fact, misunderstandings like that which had occurred on the arrival
of de Queylus were no longer to be feared; since the authority to which
Laval could lay claim had been duly established and proved, the
Sulpicians had submitted and accepted his jurisdiction. They had for a
longer period preserved their independence as temporal lords, and the
governor of Ville-Marie, de Maisonneuve, jealous of preserving intact
the rights of those whom he represented, even dared one day to refuse
the keys of the fort to the governor-general, M. d'Argenson. Poor de
Maisonneuve paid for this excessive zeal by the loss of his position,
for d'Argenson never forgave him.
The parish of Notre-Dame was united with the Seminary of Montreal on
October 30th, 1678, one year after the issuing of the letters patent
which recognized the civil existence of St. Sulpice de Montréal. Mgr. de
Laval at the same time united with the parish of Notre-Dame the chapel
of Bonsecours. On the banks of the St. Lawrence, not far from the church
of Notre-Dame, rises a chapel of modest appearance. It is Notre-Dame de
Bonsecours. It has seen many generations kneeling on its square, and has
not ceased to protect with its shadow the Catholic quarter of Montreal.
The buildings about it rose successively, only to give way themselves
to other monuments. Notre-Dame de Bonsecours is still respected; the
piety of Catholics defends it against all attacks of time or progress,
and the little church raises proudly in the air that slight wooden
steeple that more than once has turned aside the avenging bolt of the
Most High. Sister Bourgeoys had begun it in 1657; to obtain the funds
necessary for its completion she betook herself to Paris. She obtained
one hundred francs from M. Macé, a priest of St. Sulpice. One of the
associates of the Company of Montreal, M. de Fancamp, received for her
from two of his fellow-partners, MM. Denis and Leprêtre, a statuette of
the Virgin made of the miraculous wood of Montagu, and he himself, to
participate in this gift, gave her a shrine of the most wonderful
richness to contain the precious statue. On her return to Canada,
Marguerite Bourgeoys caused to be erected near the house of the Sisters
a wooden lean-to in the form of a chapel, which became the provisional
sanctuary of the statuette. Two years later, on June 29th, the laying of
the foundation stone of the chapel took place. The work was urged with
enthusiasm, and encouraged by the pious impatience of Sister Bourgeoys.
The generosity of the faithful vied in enthusiasm, and gifts flowed in.
M. de Maisonneuve offered a cannon, of which M. Souart had a bell made
at his expense. Two thousand francs, furnished by the piety of the
inhabitants, and one hundred louis from Sister Bourgeoys and her nuns,
aided the foundress to complete the realization of a wish long
cherished in her heart; the new chapel became an inseparable annex of
the parish of Ville-Marie.
These most precious advantages were recognized on November 6th, 1678, by
Mgr. de Laval, who preserved throughout his life the most tender
devotion to the Mother of God. On the other hand, the prelate imposed
upon the parish priest the obligation of having the Holy Mass celebrated
there on the Day of the Visitation, and of going there in procession on
the Day of the Assumption. Is it necessary to mention with what zeal,
with what devotion the Canadians brought to Mary in this new temple
their homage and their prayers? Let us listen to the enthusiastic
narrative of Sister Morin, a nun of St. Joseph: "The Holy Mass is said
there every day, and even several times a day, to satisfy the devotion
and the trust of the people, which are great towards Notre-Dame de
Bonsecours. Processions wend their way thither on occasions of public
need or calamity, with much success. It is the regular promenade of the
devout persons of the town, who make a pilgrimage there every evening,
and there are few good Catholics who, from all the places in Canada, do
not make vows of offerings to this chapel in all the dangers in which
they find themselves."
The church of Notre-Dame de Bonsecours was twice remodelled; built at
first of oak on stone foundations, it was rebuilt of stone and consumed
in 1754 in a conflagration which destroyed a part of the town. In 1772
the chapel was rebuilt as it exists now, one hundred and two feet long
by forty-six wide.