1675-1682.
Frontenac and Duchesneau.
Frontenac receives a Colleague • He opposes the Clergy • Disputes in the
Council • Royal Intervention • Frontenac rebuked • Fresh Outbreaks •
Charges and Countercharges • The Dispute grows hot • Duchesneau
condemned and Frontenac warned • The Quarrel continues • The King loses
Patience • More Accusations • Factions and Feuds • A Side Quarrel • The
King threatens • Frontenac denounces the Priests • The Governor and the
Intendant recalled • Qualities of Frontenac.
While writing to Frontenac in terms of studied mildness, the king and
Colbert took measures to curb his power. In the absence of the bishop,
the appointment and removal of councillors had rested wholly with the
governor; and hence the council had been docile under his will. It was
now ordained that the councillors should be appointed by the king
himself. [1] This was not the only change. Since the departure of the
intendant Talon, his office had been vacant; and Frontenac was left to
rule alone. This seems to have been an experiment on the part of his
masters at Versailles, who, knowing the peculiarities of his temper,
were perhaps willing to try the effect of leaving him without a
colleague. The experiment had not succeeded. An intendant was now,
therefore, sent to Quebec, not only to manage the details of
administration, but also to watch the governor, keep him, if possible,
within prescribed bounds, and report his proceedings to the minister.
The change was far from welcome to Frontenac, whose delight it was to
hold all the reins of power in his own hands; nor was he better pleased
with the return of Bishop Laval, which presently took place. Three
preceding governors had quarrelled with that uncompromising prelate; and
there was little hope that Frontenac and he would keep the peace. All
the signs of the sky foreboded storm.
[1] Édits et Ordonnances, I. 84.
The storm soon came. The occasion of it was that old vexed question of
the sale of brandy, which has been fully treated in another volume, [2]
and on which it is needless to dwell here. Another dispute quickly
followed; and here, too, the governor's chief adversaries were the
bishop and the ecclesiastics. Duchesneau, the new intendant, took part
with them. The bishop and his clergy were, on their side, very glad of a
secular ally; for their power had greatly fallen since the days of Mézy,
and the rank and imperious character of Frontenac appear to have held
them in some awe. They avoided as far as they could a direct collision
with him, and waged vicarious war in the person of their friend the
intendant. Duchesneau was not of a conciliating spirit, and he felt
strong in the support of the clergy; while Frontenac, when his temper
was roused, would fight with haughty and impracticable obstinacy for any
position which he had once assumed, however trivial or however mistaken.
There was incessant friction between the two colleagues in the exercise
of their respective functions, and occasions of difference were rarely
wanting.
[2] The Old Régime in Canada.
The question now at issue was that of honors and precedence at church
and in religious ceremonies, matters of substantial importance under the
Bourbon rule. Colbert interposed, ordered Duchesneau to treat Frontenac
with becoming deference, and warned him not to make himself the partisan
of the bishop; [3] while, at the same time, he exhorted Frontenac to
live in harmony with the intendant. [4] The dispute continued till the
king lost patience.
[3] Colbert à Duchesneau, 1 Mai, 1677.
[4] Ibid., 18 Mai, 1677.
"Through all my kingdom," he wrote to the governor, "I do not hear of so
many difficulties on this matter (of ecclesiastical honors) as I see in
the church of Quebec." [5] And he directs him to conform to the practice
established in the city of Amiens, and to exact no more; "since you
ought to be satisfied with being the representative of my person in the
country where I have placed you in command."
[5] Le Roy à Frontenac, 25 Avril, 1679.
At the same time, Colbert corrects the intendant. "A memorial," he
wrote, "has been placed in my hands, touching various ecclesiastical
honors, wherein there continually appears a great pretension on your
part, and on that of the bishop of Quebec in your favor, to establish an
equality between the governor and you. I think I have already said
enough to lead you to know yourself, and to understand the difference
between a governor and an intendant; so that it is no longer necessary
for me to enter into particulars, which could only serve to show you
that you are completely in the wrong." [6]
[6] Colbert à Duchesneau, 8 Mai, 1679
Scarcely was this quarrel suppressed, when another sprang up. Since the
arrival of the intendant and the return of the bishop, the council had
ceased to be in the interest of Frontenac. Several of its members were
very obnoxious to him; and chief among these was Villeray, a former
councillor whom the king had lately reinstated. Frontenac admitted him
to his seat with reluctance. "I obey your orders," he wrote mournfully
to Colbert; "but Villeray is the principal and most dangerous instrument
of the bishop and the Jesuits." [7] He says, farther, that many people
think him to be a Jesuit in disguise, and that he is an intriguing
busybody, who makes trouble everywhere. He also denounces the
attorney-general, Auteuil, as an ally of the Jesuits. Another of the
reconstructed council, Tilly, meets his cordial approval; but he soon
found reason to change his mind concerning him.
[7] Frontenac au Ministre, 14 Nov., 1674
The king had recently ordered that the intendant, though holding only
the third rank in the council, should act as its president. [8] The
commission of Duchesneau, however, empowered him to preside only in the
absence of the governor; [9] while Frontenac is styled "chief and
president of the council" in several of the despatches addressed to him.
Here was an inconsistency. Both parties claimed the right of presiding,
and both could rest their claim on a clear expression of the royal will.
[8] Declaration du Roy, 23 Sept., 1675.
[9] "Présider au Conseil Souverain en l'absence du dit Sieur de
Frontenac."--Commission de Duchesneau, 5 Juin, 1675.
Frontenac rarely began a new quarrel till the autumn vessels had sailed
for France; because a full year must then elapse before his adversaries
could send their complaints to the king, and six months more before the
king could send back his answer. The governor had been heard to say, on
one of these occasions, that he should now be master for eighteen
months, subject only to answering with his head for what he might do. It
was when the last vessel was gone in the autumn of 1678 that he demanded
to be styled chief and president on the records of the council; and he
showed a letter from the king in which he was so entitled. [10] In spite
of this, Duchesneau resisted, and appealed to precedent to sustain his
position. A long series of stormy sessions followed. The councillors in
the clerical interest supported the intendant. Frontenac, chafed and
angry, refused all compromise. Business was stopped for weeks.
Duchesneau lost temper, and became abusive. Auteuil tried to interpose
in behalf of the intendant. Frontenac struck the table with his fist,
and told him fiercely that he would teach him his duty. Every day
embittered the strife. The governor made the declaration usual with him
on such occasions, that he would not permit the royal authority to
suffer in his person. At length he banished from Quebec his three most
strenuous opponents, Villeray, Tilly, and Auteuil, and commanded them to
remain in their country houses till they received his farther orders.
All attempts at compromise proved fruitless; and Auteuil, in behalf of
the exiles, appealed piteously to the king.
[10] This letter, still preserved in the Archives de la Marine, is dated
12 Mai, 1678. Several other letters of Louis XIV. give Frontenac the
same designation.
The answer came in the following summer: "Monsieur le Comte de
Frontenac," wrote Louis XIV., "I am surprised to learn all the new
troubles and dissensions that have occurred in my country of New France,
more especially since I have clearly and strongly given you to
understand that your sole care should be to maintain harmony and peace
among all my subjects dwelling therein; but what surprises me still more
is that in nearly all the disputes which you have caused you have
advanced claims which have very little foundation. My edicts,
declarations, and ordinances had so plainly made known to you my will,
that I have great cause of astonishment that you, whose duty it is to
see them faithfully executed, have yourself set up pretensions entirely
opposed to them. You have wished to be styled chief and president on the
records of the Supreme Council, which is contrary to my edict concerning
that council; and I am the more surprised at this demand, since I am
very sure that you are the only man in my kingdom who, being honored
with the title of governor and lieutenant-general, would care to be
styled chief and president of such a council as that of Quebec."
He then declares that neither Frontenac nor the intendant is to have the
title of president, but that the intendant is to perform the functions
of presiding officer, as determined by the edict. He continues:--
"Moreover, your abuse of the authority which I have confided to you in
exiling two councillors and the attorney-general for so trivial a cause
cannot meet my approval; and, were it not for the distinct assurances
given me by your friends that you will act with more moderation in
future, and never again fall into offences of this nature, I should have
resolved on recalling you." [11]
[11] Le Roy à Frontenac, 29 Avril, 1680. A decree of the council of
state soon after determined the question of presidency in accord with
this letter. Édits et Ordonnances, I. 238.
Colbert wrote to him with equal severity: "I have communicated to the
king the contents of all the despatches which you have written to me
during the past year; and as the matters of which they treat are
sufficiently ample, including dissensions almost universal among those
whose duty it is to preserve harmony in the country under your command,
his Majesty has been pleased to examine all the papers sent by all the
parties interested, and more particularly those appended to your
letters. He has thereupon ordered me distinctly to make known to you his
intentions." The minister then proceeds to reprove him sharply in the
name of the king, and concludes: "It is difficult for me to add any
thing to what I have just said. Consider well that, if it is any
advantage or any satisfaction to you that his Majesty should be
satisfied with your services, it is necessary that you change entirely
the conduct which you have hitherto pursued." [12]
[12] Colbert à Frontenac, 4 Dec., 1679. This letter seems to have been
sent by a special messenger by way of New England. It was too late in
the season to send directly to Canada. On the quarrel about the
presidency, Duchesneau au Ministre, 10 Nov., 1679; Auteuil au Ministre,
10 Aug., 1679; Contestations entre le Sieur Comte de Frontenac et M.
Duchesneau, Chevalier. This last paper consists of voluminous extracts
from the records of the council.
This, one would think, might have sufficed to bring the governor to
reason, but the violence of his resentments and antipathies overcame the
very slender share of prudence with which nature had endowed him. One
morning, as he sat at the head of the council board, the bishop on his
right hand, and the intendant on his left, a woman made her appearance
with a sealed packet of papers. She was the wife of the councillor
Amours, whose chair was vacant at the table. Important business was in
hand, the registration of a royal edict of amnesty to the coureurs de
bois. The intendant, who well knew what the packet contained, demanded
that it should be opened. Frontenac insisted that the business before
the council should proceed. The intendant renewed his demand, the
council sustained him, and the packet was opened accordingly. It
contained a petition from Amours, stating that Frontenac had put him in
prison, because, having obtained in due form a passport to send a canoe
to his fishing station of Matane, he had afterwards sent a sail-boat
thither without applying for another passport. Frontenac had sent for
him, and demanded by what right he did so. Amours replied that he
believed that he had acted in accordance with the intentions of the
king; whereupon, to borrow the words of the petition, "Monsieur the
governor fell into a rage, and said to your petitioner, 'I will teach
you the intentions of the king, and you shall stay in prison till you
learn them;' and your petitioner was shut up in a chamber of the
château, wherein he still remains." He proceeds to pray that a trial may
be granted him according to law. [13]
[13] Registre du Conseil Supérieur, 16 Aoûst, 1681.
Discussions now ensued which lasted for days, and now and then became
tempestuous. The governor, who had declared that the council had nothing
to do with the matter, and that he could not waste time in talking about
it, was not always present at the meetings, and it sometimes became
necessary to depute one or more of the members to visit him. Auteuil,
the attorney-general, having been employed on this unenviable errand,
begged the council to dispense him from such duty in future, "by
reason," as he says, "of the abuse, ill treatment, and threats which he
received from Monsieur the governor, when he last had the honor of being
deputed to confer with him, the particulars whereof he begs to be
excused from reporting, lest the anger of Monsieur the governor should
be kindled against him still more." [14] Frontenac, hearing of this
charge, angrily denied it, saying that the attorney-general had
slandered and insulted him, and that it was his custom to do so. Auteuil
rejoined that the governor had accused him of habitual lying, and told
him that he would have his hand cut off. All these charges and
countercharges may still be found entered in due form on the old records
of the council at Quebec.
[14] Registre du Conseil Supérieur, 4 Nov., 1681.
It was as usual upon the intendant that the wrath of Frontenac fell most
fiercely. He accuses him of creating cabals and intrigues, and causing
not only the council, but all the country, to forget the respect due to
the representative of his Majesty. Once, when Frontenac was present at
the session, a dispute arose about an entry on the record. A draft of it
had been made in terms agreeable to the governor, who insisted that the
intendant should sign it. Duchesneau replied that he and the clerk would
go into the adjoining room, where they could examine it in peace, and
put it into a proper form. Frontenac rejoined that he would then have no
security that what he had said in the council would be accurately
reported. Duchesneau persisted, and was going out with the draft in his
hand, when Frontenac planted himself before the door, and told him that
he should not leave the council chamber till he had signed the paper.
"Then I will get out of the window, or else stay here all day," returned
Duchesneau. A lively debate ensued, and the governor at length yielded
the point. [15]
[15] Registre de Conseil Supérieur, 1681.
The imprisonment of Amours was short, but strife did not cease. The
disputes in the council were accompanied throughout with other quarrels
which were complicated with them, and which were worse than all the
rest, since they involved more important matters and covered a wider
field. They related to the fur trade, on which hung the very life of the
colony. Merchants, traders, and even habitants, were ranged in two
contending factions. Of one of these Frontenac was the chief. With him
were La Salle and his lieutenant, La Forêt; Du Lhut, the famous leader
of coureurs de bois; Boisseau, agent of the farmers of the revenue;
Barrois, the governor's secretary; Bizard, lieutenant of his guard; and
various others of greater or less influence. On the other side were the
members of the council, with Aubert de la Chesnaye, Le Moyne and all his
sons, Louis Joliet, Jacques Le Ber, Sorel, Boucher, Varennes, and many
more, all supported by the intendant Duchesneau, and also by his fast
allies, the ecclesiastics. The faction under the lead of the governor
had every advantage, for it was sustained by all the power of his
office. Duchesneau was beside himself with rage. He wrote to the court
letters full of bitterness, accused Frontenac of illicit trade,
denounced his followers, and sent huge bundles of procès-verbaux and
attestations to prove his charges.
But if Duchesneau wrote letters, so too did Frontenac; and if the
intendant sent proofs, so too did the governor. Upon the unfortunate
king and the still more unfortunate minister fell the difficult task of
composing the quarrels of their servants, three thousand miles away.
They treated Duchesneau without ceremony. Colbert wrote to him: "I have
examined all the letters, papers, and memorials that you sent me by the
return of the vessels last November, and, though it appears by the
letters of M. de Frontenac that his conduct leaves something to be
desired, there is assuredly far more to blame in yours than in his. As
to what you say concerning his violence, his trade with the Indians, and
in general all that you allege against him, the king has written to him
his intentions; but since, in the midst of all your complaints, you say
many things which are without foundation, or which are no concern of
yours, it is difficult to believe that you act in the spirit which the
service of the king demands; that is to say, without interest and
without passion. If a change does not appear in your conduct before next
year, his Majesty will not keep you in your office." [16]
[16] Colbert à Duchesneau, 15 Mai, 1678.
At the same time, the king wrote to Frontenac, alluding to the
complaints of Duchesneau, and exhorting the governor to live on good
terms with him. The general tone of the letter is moderate, but the
following significant warning occurs in it: "Although no gentleman in
the position in which I have placed you ought to take part in any trade,
directly or indirectly, either by himself or any of his servants, I
nevertheless now prohibit you absolutely from doing so. Not only abstain
from trade, but act in such a manner that nobody can even suspect you of
it; and this will be easy, since the truth will readily come to light."
[17]
[17] Le Roy à Frontenac, 12 Mai, 1678.
Exhortation and warning were vain alike. The first ships which returned
that year from Canada brought a series of despatches from the intendant,
renewing all his charges more bitterly than before. The minister, out of
patience, replied by berating him without mercy. "You may rest assured,"
he concludes, "that, did it not appear by your later despatches that the
letters you have received have begun to make you understand that you
have forgotten yourself, it would not have been possible to prevent the
king from recalling you." [18]
[18] Colbert à Duchesneau, 25 Avril, 1679.
Duchesneau, in return, protests all manner of deference to the governor,
but still insists that he sets the royal edicts at naught; protects a
host of coureurs de bois who are in league with him; corresponds with Du
Lhut, their chief; shares his illegal profits, and causes all the
disorders which afflict the colony. "As for me, Monseigneur, I have done
every thing within the scope of my office to prevent these evils; but
all the pains I have taken have only served to increase the aversion of
Monsieur the governor against me, and to bring my ordinances into
contempt. This, Monseigneur, is a true account of the disobedience of
the coureurs de bois, of which I twice had the honor to speak to
Monsieur the governor; and I could not help telling him, with all
possible deference, that it was shameful to the colony and to us that
the king, our master, of whom the whole world stands in awe, who has
just given law to all Europe, and whom all his subjects adore, should
have the pain of knowing that, in a country which has received so many
marks of his paternal tenderness, his orders are violated and scorned;
and a governor and an intendant stand by, with folded arms, content with
saying that the evil is past remedy. For having made these
representations to him, I drew on myself words so full of contempt and
insult that I was forced to leave his room to appease his anger. The
next morning I went to him again, and did all I could to have my
ordinances executed; but, as Monsieur the governor is interested with
many of the coureurs de bois, it is useless to attempt to do any thing.
He has gradually made himself master of the trade of Montreal; and, as
soon as the Indians arrive, he sets guards in their camp, which would be
very well, if these soldiers did their duty and protected the savages
from being annoyed and plundered by the French, instead of being
employed to discover how many furs they have brought, with a view to
future operations. Monsieur the governor then compels the Indians to pay
his guards for protecting them; and he has never allowed them to trade
with the inhabitants till they had first given him a certain number of
packs of beaver skins, which he calls his presents. His guards trade
with them openly at the fair, with their bandoleers on their shoulders."
He says, farther, that Frontenac sends up goods to Montreal, and employs
persons to trade in his behalf; and that, what with the beaver skins
exacted by him and his guards under the name of presents, and those
which he and his favorites obtain in trade, only the smaller part of
what the Indians bring to market ever reaches the people of the colony.
[19]
[19] Duchesneau au Ministre, 10 Nov., 1679.
This despatch, and the proofs accompanying it, drew from the king a
sharp reproof to Frontenac.
"What has passed in regard to the coureurs de bois is entirely contrary
to my orders; and I cannot receive in excuse for it your allegation that
it is the intendant who countenances them by the trade he carries on,
for I perceive clearly that the fault is your own. As I see that you
often turn the orders that I give you against the very object for which
they are given, beware not to do so on this occasion. I shall hold you
answerable for bringing the disorder of the coureurs de bois to an end
throughout Canada; and this you will easily succeed in doing, if you
make a proper use of my authority. Take care not to persuade yourself
that what I write to you comes from the ill offices of the intendant. It
results from what I fully know from every thing which reaches me from
Canada, proving but too well what you are doing there. The bishop, the
ecclesiastics, the Jesuit fathers, the Supreme Council, and, in a word,
everybody, complain of you; but I am willing to believe that you will
change your conduct, and act with the moderation necessary for the good
of the colony." [20]
[20] Le Roy à Frontenac, 29 Avril, 1680.
Colbert wrote in a similar strain; and Frontenac saw that his position
was becoming critical. He showed, it is true, no sign of that change of
conduct which the king had demanded; but he appealed to his allies at
court to use fresh efforts to sustain him. Among the rest, he had a
strong friend in the Maréchal de Bellefonds, to whom he wrote, in the
character of an abused and much-suffering man: "You exhort me to have
patience, and I agree with you that those placed in a position of
command cannot have too much. For this reason, I have given examples of
it here such as perhaps no governor ever gave before; and I have found
no great difficulty in doing so, because I felt myself to be the master.
Had I been in a private station, I could not have endured such
outrageous insults without dishonor. I have always passed over in
silence those directed against me personally; and have never given way
to anger, except when attacks were made on the authority of which I have
the honor to be the guardian. You could not believe all the annoyances
which the intendant tries to put upon me every day, and which, as you
advise me, I scorn or disregard. It would require a virtue like yours to
turn them to all the good use of which they are capable; yet, great as
the virtue is which has enabled you to possess your soul in tranquillity
amid all the troubles of the court, I doubt if you could preserve such
complete equanimity among the miserable tumults of Canada." [21]
[21] Frontenac au Maréchal de Bellefonds, 14 Nov., 1680.
Having given the principal charges of Duchesneau against Frontenac, it
is time to give those of Frontenac against Duchesneau. The governor says
that all the coureurs de bois would be brought to submission but for the
intendant and his allies, who protect them, and carry on trade by their
means; that the seigniorial house of Duchesneau's partner, La Chesnaye,
is the constant resort of these outlaws; and that he and his associates
have large storehouses at Montreal, Isle St. Paul, and Rivière du Loup,
whence they send goods into the Indian country, in contempt of the
king's orders. [22] Frontenac also complains of numberless provocations
from the intendant. "It is no fault of mine that I am not on good terms
with M. Duchesneau; for I have done every thing I could to that end,
being too submissive to your Majesty's commands not to suppress my
sharpest indignation the moment your will is known to me. But, Sire, it
is not so with him; and his desire to excite new disputes, in the hope
of making me appear their principal author, has been so great that the
last ships were hardly gone, when, forgetting what your Majesty had
enjoined upon us both, he began these dissensions afresh, in spite of
all my precautions. If I depart from my usual reserve in regard to him,
and make bold to ask justice at the hands of your Majesty for the wrongs
and insults I have undergone, it is because nothing but your authority
can keep them within bounds. I have never suffered more in my life than
when I have been made to appear as a man of violence and a disturber of
the officers of justice: for I have always confined myself to what your
Majesty has prescribed; that is, to exhorting them to do their duty when
I saw that they failed in it. This has drawn upon me, both from them and
from M. Duchesneau, such cutting affronts that your Majesty would hardly
credit them." [23]
[22] Mémoire et Preuves du Désordre des Coureurs de Bois.
[23] Frontenac au Roy, 2 Nov., 1681.
In 1681, Seignelay, the son of Colbert, entered upon the charge of the
colonies; and both Frontenac and Duchesneau hastened to congratulate
him, protest their devotion, and overwhelm him with mutual accusations.
The intendant declares that, out of pure zeal for the king's service, he
shall tell him every thing. "Disorder," he says, "reigns everywhere;
universal confusion prevails throughout every department of business;
the pleasure of the king, the orders of the Supreme Council, and my
ordinances remain unexecuted; justice is openly violated, and trade is
destroyed; violence, upheld by authority, decides every thing; and
nothing consoles the people, who groan without daring to complain, but
the hope, Monseigneur, that you will have the goodness to condescend to
be moved by their misfortunes. No position could be more distressing
than mine, since, if I conceal the truth from you, I fail in the
obedience I owe the king, and in the fidelity that I vowed so long since
to Monseigneur, your father, and which I swear anew at your hands; and
if I obey, as I must, his Majesty's orders and yours, I cannot avoid
giving offence, since I cannot render you an account of these disorders
without informing you that M. de Frontenac's conduct is the sole cause
of them." [24]
[24] Duchesneau au Ministre, 13 Nov., 1681.
Frontenac had written to Seignelay a few days before: "I have no doubt
whatever that M. Duchesneau will, as usual, overwhelm me with
fabrications and falsehoods, to cover his own ill conduct. I send proofs
to justify myself, so strong and convincing that I do not see that they
can leave any doubt; but, since I fear that their great number might
fatigue you, I have thought it better to send them to my wife, with a
full and exact journal of all that has passed here day by day, in order
that she may extract and lay before you the principal portions.
"I send you in person merely the proofs of the conduct of M. Duchesneau,
in barricading his house and arming all his servants, and in coming
three weeks ago to insult me in my room. You will see thereby to what a
pitch of temerity and lawlessness he has transported himself, in order
to compel me to use violence against him, with the hope of justifying
what he has asserted about my pretended outbreaks of anger." [25]
[25] Frontenac au Ministre, 2 Nov., 1681.
The mutual charges of the two functionaries were much the same; and, so
far at least as concerns trade, there can be little doubt that they were
well founded on both sides. The strife of the rival factions grew more
and more bitter: canes and sticks played an active part in it, and now
and then we hear of drawn swords. One is reminded at times of the
intestine feuds of some mediæval city, as, for example, in the following
incident, which will explain the charge of Frontenac against the
intendant of barricading his house and arming his servants:--
On the afternoon of the twentieth of March, a son of Duchesneau, sixteen
years old, followed by a servant named Vautier, was strolling along the
picket fence which bordered the descent from the Upper to the Lower Town
of Quebec. The boy was amusing himself by singing a song, when
Frontenac's partisan, Boisseau, with one of the guardsmen, approached,
and, as young Duchesneau declares, called him foul names, and said that
he would give him and his father a thrashing. The boy replied that he
would have nothing to say to a fellow like him, and would beat him if he
did not keep quiet; while the servant, Vautier, retorted Boisseau's
abuse, and taunted him with low birth and disreputable employments.
Boisseau made report to Frontenac, and Frontenac complained to
Duchesneau, who sent his son, with Vautier, to give the governor his
version of the affair. The bishop, an ally of the intendant, thus
relates what followed. On arriving with a party of friends at the
château, young Duchesneau was shown into a room in which were the
governor and his two secretaries, Barrois and Chasseur. He had no sooner
entered than Frontenac seized him by the arm, shook him, struck him,
called him abusive names, and tore the sleeve of his jacket. The
secretaries interposed, and, failing to quiet the governor, opened the
door and let the boy escape. Vautier, meanwhile, had remained in the
guard-room, where Boisseau struck at him with his cane; and one of the
guardsmen went for a halberd to run him through the body. After this
warm reception, young Duchesneau and his servant took refuge in the
house of his father. Frontenac demanded their surrender. The intendant,
fearing that he would take them by force, for which he is said to have
made preparation, barricaded himself and armed his household. The bishop
tried to mediate, and after protracted negotiations young Duchesneau was
given up, whereupon Frontenac locked him in a chamber of the château,
and kept him there a month. [26]
[26] Mémoire de l'Evesque de Quebec, Mars, 1681 (printed in Revue
Canadienne, 1873). The bishop is silent about the barricades of which
Frontenac and his friends complain in several letters.
The story of Frontenac's violence to the boy is flatly denied by his
friends, who charge Duchesneau and his partisans with circulating libels
against him, and who say, like Frontenac himself, that the intendant
used every means to exasperate him, in order to make material for
accusations. [27]
[27] See, among other instances, the Défense de M. de Frontenac par un
de ses Amis, published by Abbé Verreau in the Revue Canadienne, 1873.
The disputes of the rival factions spread through all Canada. The most
heinous offence in the eyes of the court with which each charged the
other was the carrying of furs to the English settlements; thus
defrauding the revenue, and, as the king believed, preparing the ruin of
the colony. The intendant farther declared that the governor's party
spread among the Indians the report of a pestilence at Montreal, in
order to deter them from their yearly visit to the fair, and thus by
means of coureurs de bois obtain all their beaver skins at a low price.
The report, according to Duchesneau, had no other foundation than the
fate of eighteen or twenty Indians, who had lately drunk themselves to
death at La Chine. [28]
[28] Plumitif du Conseil Souverain, 1681.
Montreal, in the mean time, was the scene of a sort of by-play, in which
the chief actor was the local governor, Perrot. He and Frontenac appear
to have found it for their common interest to come to a mutual
understanding; and this was perhaps easier on the part of the count,
since his quarrel with Duchesneau gave sufficient employment to his
natural pugnacity. Perrot was now left to make a reasonable profit from
the illicit trade which had once kindled the wrath of his superior; and,
the danger of Frontenac's anger being removed, he completely forgot the
lessons of his imprisonment.
The intendant ordered Migeon, bailiff of Montreal, to arrest some of
Perrot's coureurs de bois. Perrot at once arrested the bailiff, and sent
a sergeant and two soldiers to occupy his house, with orders to annoy
the family as much as possible. One of them, accordingly, walked to and
fro all night in the bed-chamber of Migeon's wife. On another occasion,
the bailiff invited two friends to supper: Le Moyne d'Iberville and one
Bouthier, agent of a commercial house at Rochelle. The conversation
turned on the trade carried on by Perrot. It was overheard and reported
to him, upon which he suddenly appeared at the window, struck Bouthier
over the head with his cane, then drew his sword, and chased him while
he fled for his life. The seminary was near at hand, and the fugitive
clambered over the wall. Dollier de Casson dressed him in the hat and
cassock of a priest, and in this disguise he escaped. [29] Perrot's
avidity sometimes carried him to singular extremities. "He has been
seen," says one of his accusers, "filling barrels of brandy with his own
hands, and mixing it with water to sell to the Indians. He bartered with
one of them his hat, sword, coat, ribbons, shoes, and stockings, and
boasted that he had made thirty pistoles by the bargain, while the
Indian walked about town equipped as governor." [30]
[29] Conduite du Sieur Perrot, Gouverneur de Montréal en la Nouvelle
France, 1681; Plainte du Sieur Bouthier, 10 Oct., 1680; Procès-verbal
des huissiers de Montréal.
[30] Conduite du Sieur Perrot. La Barre, Frontenac's successor, declares
that the charges against Perrot were false, including the attestations
of Migeon and his friends; that Dollier de Casson had been imposed upon,
and that various persons had been induced to sign unfounded statements
without reading them. La Barre au Ministre, 4 Nov., 1683.
Every ship from Canada brought to the king fresh complaints of
Duchesneau against Frontenac, and of Frontenac against Duchesneau; and
the king replied with rebukes, exhortations, and threats to both. At
first he had shown a disposition to extenuate and excuse the faults of
Frontenac, but every year his letters grew sharper. In 1681 he wrote:
"Again I urge you to banish from your mind the difficulties which you
have yourself devised against the execution of my orders; to act with
mildness and moderation towards all the colonists, and divest yourself
entirely of the personal animosities which have thus far been almost
your sole motive of action. In conclusion, I exhort you once more to
profit well by the directions which this letter contains; since, unless
you succeed better herein than formerly, I cannot help recalling you
from the command which I have intrusted to you." [31]
[31] Le Roy à Frontenac, 30 Avril, 1681.
The dispute still went on. The autumn ships from Quebec brought back the
usual complaints, and the long-suffering king at length made good his
threat. Both Frontenac and Duchesneau received their recall, and they
both deserved it. [32]
[32] La Barre says that Duchesneau was far more to blame than Frontenac.
La Barre au Ministre, 1683. This testimony has weight, since Frontenac's
friends were La Barre's enemies.
The last official act of the governor, recorded in the register of the
council of Quebec, is the formal declaration that his rank in that body
is superior to that of the intendant. [33]
[33] Registre du Conseil-Supérieur, 16 Fév., 1682.
The key to nearly all these disputes lies in the relations between
Frontenac and the Church. The fundamental quarrel was generally covered
by superficial issues, and it was rarely that the governor fell out with
anybody who was not in league with the bishop and the Jesuits. "Nearly
all the disorders in New France," he writes, "spring from the ambition
of the ecclesiastics, who want to join to their spiritual authority an
absolute power over things temporal, and who persecute all who do not
submit entirely to them." He says that the intendant and the councillors
are completely under their control, and dare not decide any question
against them; that they have spies everywhere, even in his house; that
the bishop told him that he could excommunicate even a governor, if he
chose; that the missionaries in Indian villages say that they are equals
of Onontio, and tell their converts that all will go wrong till the
priests have the government of Canada; that directly or indirectly they
meddle in all civil affairs; that they trade even with the English of
New York; that, what with Jesuits, Sulpitians, the bishop, and the
seminary of Quebec, they hold two-thirds of the good lands of Canada;
that, in view of the poverty of the country, their revenues are
enormous; that, in short, their object is mastery, and that they use all
means to compass it. [34] The recall of the governor was a triumph to
the ecclesiastics, offset but slightly by the recall of their
instrument, the intendant, who had done his work, and whom they needed
no longer.
[34] Frontenac, Mémoire adressé à Colbert, 1677. This remarkable paper
will be found in the Découvertes et Établissements des Français dans
l'Amérique Septentrionale; Mémoires et Documents Originaux, edited by M.
Margry. The paper is very long, and contains references to attestations
and other proofs which accompanied it, especially in regard to the trade
of the Jesuits.
Thus far, we have seen Frontenac on his worst side. We shall see him
again under an aspect very different. Nor must it be supposed that the
years which had passed since his government began, tempestuous as they
appear on the record, were wholly given over to quarrelling. They had
their periods of uneventful calm, when the wheels of administration ran
as smoothly as could be expected in view of the condition of the colony.
In one respect at least, Frontenac had shown a remarkable fitness for
his office. Few white men have ever equalled or approached him in the
art of dealing with Indians. There seems to have been a sympathetic
relation between him and them. He conformed to their ways, borrowed
their rhetoric, flattered them on occasion with great address, and yet
constantly maintained towards them an attitude of paternal superiority.
When they were concerned, his native haughtiness always took a form
which commanded respect without exciting anger. He would not address
them as brothers, but only as children; and even the Iroquois, arrogant
as they were, accepted the new relation. In their eyes Frontenac was by
far the greatest of all the "Onontios," or governors of Canada. They
admired the prompt and fiery soldier who played with their children, and
gave beads and trinkets to their wives; who read their secret thoughts
and never feared them, but smiled on them when their hearts were true,
or frowned and threatened them when they did amiss. The other tribes,
allies of the French, were of the same mind; and their respect for their
Great Father seems not to have been permanently impaired by his
occasional practice of bullying them for purposes of extortion.
Frontenac appears to have had a liking not only for Indians, but also
for that roving and lawless class of the Canadian population, the
coureurs de bois, provided always that they were not in the service of
his rivals. Indeed, as regards the Canadians generally, he refrained
from the strictures with which succeeding governors and intendants
freely interlarded their despatches. It was not his instinct to clash
with the humbler classes, and he generally reserved his anger for those
who could retort it.
He had the air of distinction natural to a man familiar all his life
with the society of courts, and he was as gracious and winning on some
occasions as he was unbearable on others. When in good humor, his ready
wit and a certain sympathetic vivacity made him very agreeable. At times
he was all sunshine, and his outrageous temper slumbered peacefully till
some new offence wakened it again; nor is there much doubt that many of
his worst outbreaks were the work of his enemies, who knew his foible,
and studied to exasperate him. He was full of contradictions; and,
intolerant and implacable as he often was, there were intervals, even in
his bitterest quarrels, in which he displayed a surprising moderation
and patience. By fits he could be magnanimous. A woman once brought him
a petition in burlesque verse. Frontenac wrote a jocose answer. The
woman, to ridicule him, contrived to have both petition and answer
slipped among the papers of a suit pending before the council. Frontenac
had her fined a few francs, and then caused the money to be given to her
children. [35]
[35] Note by Abbé Verreau, in Journal de l'Instruction Publique
(Canada), VIII. 127.
When he sailed for France, it was a day of rejoicing to more than half
the merchants of Canada, and, excepting the Récollets, to all the
priests; but he left behind him an impression, very general among the
people, that, if danger threatened the colony, Count Frontenac was the
man for the hour.