1659
THE NEW REINFORCEMENT FOR MONTREAL
THE COMING OF LAVAL
RETROSPECT OF MAISONNEUVE'S JUDICIAL SENTENCES--FIRST DEATH
SENTENCE--INJURIOUS LANGUAGE--CALUMNY--BANISHMENT--GAMES OF
CHANCE, DRUNKENNESS AND BLASPHEMY, ETC., FORBIDDEN--THE GOVERNOR
GENERAL AND THE LOCAL GOVERNOR OF MONTREAL--A PESSIMISTIC
PICTURE OF MONTREAL IN 1659--A BISHOP FOR NEW FRANCE--LAVAL,
CONSECRATED BISHOP OF PETREA IN ARABIA, ARRIVES AT QUEBEC AS
VICAR APOSTOLIC--DE QUEYLUS RECALLED TO FRANCE--THE REINFORCEMENT
ARRIVES WITH JEANNE MANCE AND MARGUERITE BOURGEOYS--THE STORY
OF ITS JOURNEY--DIFFICULTIES AT LA FLECHE--SHIP FEVER ON THE
ST. ANDRE--DIFFICULTIES AT QUEBEC--LAVAL WOULD RETAIN THE
HOSPITALIERES BROUGHT BY JEANNE MANCE--THEY ARE FINALLY ALLOWED TO
PROCEED TO THE HOTEL DIEU OF MONTREAL.
Before we narrate the outcome of the visit to France of Jeanne Mance
and Marguerite Bourgeoys, who returned on September 7th to Quebec, and
also the events leading up to the coming of Laval on June 16th, we
shall still keep the setting of Montreal as the background of our story.
So far we have considered Maisonneuve as a military governor. He was
also a judge. This was a special privilege superadded to his commission
as a "gouverneur particulier," which office, _per se_, did not include
the administration of justice. Several of his judgments being extant, a
study of them reveals a picture of the social life of Montreal hitherto
unconsidered.
The journal of the Jesuits relates that towards September, 1648, a
drummer had been condemned to death at Montreal for a detestable crime
not specified, but as the clergy were secretly opposed to the execution
of the sentence, it was arranged that he should be sent to Quebec to
use his right of appeal. There the sentence was commuted to service
in the galleys or, in exchange for his liberty, he should exercise
the duty of public executioner, which latter condition was accepted.
Heretofore there is no record of any condemnation to death.
Sometimes the cases coming before Maisonneuve were of a purely domestic
nature. On July 3, 1658, two women having quarrelled, each laid a
complaint against the other of bad language. The wrong appearing to
be on both sides, Maisonneuve gave each twenty-four hours, for their
anger to evaporate, and to declare before Basset, the greffier, and
two witnesses, that they had spoken in pure anger. If either of them
refused she should pay fifty _livres_ to the parish church and besides
be forcibly constrained to acknowledge her fault. Both wisely took the
cheaper course, as the acts of Basset prove.[80]
De Maisonneuve's skill had been shown in a judgment of July 13, 1656.
A brave soldier, Saint Jacques, one Sunday morning when coming out
of church after mass, had been attacked with a stick at the hands of
an irate woman. He gallantly did not retaliate but contented himself
with taking the case before the governor. The good lady was present,
confident in the justice of her cause, for she accused the soldier of
having got his deserts by her trouncing for having uttered a calumny
against her honour. On cross-examination it appears that she heard
the calumny, through another soldier, who related it to her as coming
from the lips of Saint Jacques. This witness being called, he now
owned that he had told the calumny to the woman but he had invented
the story himself out of frivolousness, and that Saint Jacques was
guiltless. This malicious meddler was ordered by Maisonneuve to pay a
fine of twenty _livres_ to the church, as his offence had been against
God, and fifty to the woman for her wounded honour. She, in turn, for
having struck an innocent man was condemned to pay twenty _livres_ to
the church for the offence against God, and to pay back to the wounded
victim of her misplaced energy, the fifty _livres_ received from the
meddler.
In the case of grave public scandals de Maisonneuve had recourse to
the sentence of banishment. A soldier of the garrison, having been
appointed to be on guard at Point St. Charles, was accused of daily
absenting himself from the guardhouse of the redoubt, and being found
annoying an honest woman with his unseemly and scandalous discourse. In
his sentence of November 4, 1658, Maisonneuve says: "We have cast him
out of the garrison and condemned him to pay a penalty of 200 _livres_,
applicable to some poor girls, to help them to get married at Ville
Marie." In 1660 Maisonneuve, who was no respecter of persons, ordered
perpetual banishment to one of the principal men of Montreal[81] for an
offence with a woman; and her he permitted the husband either to send
back to her father and mother, or to keep her shut up for the rest of
her days.
We have referred to an ordinance issued in 1658 to insure public
safety. He had now to issue proclamations to safeguard public morals.
Accordingly, as his short notice of July 9th forbidding, under pain
of confiscation, liquor to be smuggled from the boats arriving in
the harbour, and requiring his permission, had not apparently been
sufficiently observed, on the 18th day of January, 1659, he drew up a
long proclamation, that was posted up by Basset, the official clerk of
justice, at the parish church next day at the end of vespers, so that
no one might be ignorant of it.
Maisonneuve, forced by circumstances revealed in the proclamation,
was determined to put down the passion for games of chance, strong
drink and blasphemy, as soon as they should show themselves. It is
not difficult to imagine excesses creeping in during the long winter
evenings in a small enclosed garrison town, where there was no outlet
for higher forms of amusement, especially as fear of invasion kept the
inhabitants closely confined. Three of his garrison, Sébastien Dupuis,
Nicholas Duval and Pierre Papin, having, through drink and gambling,
found themselves unable to pay their debts, had deserted the garrison
and fled the neighbourhood. They were arrested at a distance of only
four leagues from Ville Marie, brought back and confined in irons in
the fort on January 8, 1659.
After stating the causes leading to his proclamation of January 18th
the governor continued: "In consequence we forbid (1) Any person
whatsoever, of whatever rank or condition, an inhabitant of this
place or elsewhere, to sell, wholesale or retail, under any pretext
whatsoever, without an order from us, expressed in writing, any
intoxicating liquor, under penalty of an arbitrary fine, the payment
of which will be rigidity and forcibly exacted (à lesquelles on sera
contraint par corps).
"(2) Moreover, we interdict all games of chance.
"(3) We rescind and annul any promise, written or verbal, direct or
indirect, made or to be made, as well for the aforesaid game or for any
other sort of game, with a prohibition to tavern keepers to sue in a
court of justice for the recovery of this kind of debts under a penalty
of twenty _livres'_ fine, and of the confiscation of the sums demanded.
"(4) As for those who shall be convicted of having taken to excess
wine, _eau de vie_, or other intoxicating liquors, or having sworn by
or blasphemed the holy name of God, they shall be chastised, either by
an arbitrary fine or by corporal punishment, according to the exigency
of the case.
"(5) To obviate the above mentioned desertions we declare, by the
present observance, that all the fugitives shall be by the same
convicted of the crime of desertion; and, moreover, that all who shall
abet them in their flight, whether by concealment or assistance of any
kind, shall be considered to be guilty of the same crime."
This vigilance and firmness had its results, for we do not find any
record of any contravention of any section of the above till February
22, 1663, when a man was severely punished for drunkenness and
blasphemy.
When spring was approaching this same year of 1659, by a decree of
April 5th, knowing the restlessness of the men to go fishing and
hunting, and thus risk their own individual lives besides hindering the
establishment of a lasting peace by provoking the enemy, he forbade
them, under pain of punishment, to go to any place for hunting or
fishing where they might be in danger of falling into the enemy's hands.
Later on in the year, on Pentecost Sunday, Maisonneuve published
a decree of His Majesty, already given in council March 9, 1657,
forbidding the sale of wine or _eau de vie_ to the Indians under pain
of corporal punishment.
A picture of Montreal of this year is preserved for us in the state
papers under date of March 4, 1659, by the new governor-general, the
young Vicomte d'Argenson, who had arrived less than a year ago in
Canada and who now came in the spring of 1659 to visit Montreal.
[Illustration: PIERRE DE VOYER D'ARGENSON]
He was a man of upright conduct, virtuous life and full of devotion
for the development of the colony. He came with great ideas of his
prerogatives as governor-general in relation to the subordinate
position of a local governor such as obtained in other provinces of
the kingdom of France. But he had to be made aware of the special
privileges granted to Maisonneuve as the representative of the Company
of Montreal.
Arriving at Montreal, he expected honours paid to him such as a
governor-general would receive in France, when on entering a fortress
he would have the keys given to him with other like signs of submission.
The governor of Montreal received him with politeness, but without
absolutely refusing the keys, put difficulties in the way lest he
should seem to acknowledge his inferior position to the representative
of the Company of One Hundred Associates. The case required diplomacy
and adroitness, and Maisonneuve acted tactfully. As for receiving the
"mot d'ordre" he only accepted this on the third day and then he sent
his major for it.
D'Argenson realized the situation which the independent Maisonneuve
had created, and doubtless it is in consequence of these painful
impressions that he penned the following pessimistic description of the
settlement.
After complaining of his reception he adds: "I must talk with you
about Montreal, a place which makes a deal of noise and is of little
consequence. I speak from knowledge; I have been there this spring,
and I can assure you that if I were a painter I should soon finish my
picture of it.
"Montreal is an island, difficult enough to land at, even in a
chaloupe, by reason of the great currents of the St. Lawrence river.
These meet each other at its landing place, and particularly at a half
league below. There is a fort where the chaloupes lay by, and which
is falling into ruins. A redoubt has been commenced and a mill has
been erected on a little eminence very advantageously situated for
the defence of the settlement. There are about forty houses, nearly
all facing one another, and in this they are well placed, since they
in part defend one another. There are fifty heads of families and one
hundred and sixty men in all. Finally, there are only two hundred
arpents of land tilled, belonging to the Gentlemen of the Company, of
which a half is appropriated to the hospital, so that no more than a
hundred remains to them; and the enjoyment of these is not entirely
theirs, these arpents having been cultivated by private individuals, to
whom have been given the fruits of their labour until these Gentlemen
of the Company of Montreal shall have furnished the equivalent of their
work on the concessions belonging to the habitants."
Governor d'Argenson's short stay in Montreal makes his account
slightly inaccurate for, besides the portion of the hundred acres
already cultivated, which were only lent temporarily, the habitants
were allowed, at a convenient time, to break land on the rest of the
Domain of the Seigneurs, in quantity they required according to their
concessions, whether it was land on which timber was still standing or
where it was simply felled and not cut.
If d'Argenson had arrived later, when the reinforcement of 109 men
sent out by the Sulpicians in the fall had built the fortified houses
of St. Gabriel and Ste. Marie, his picture would have taken longer to
paint; but he arrived at a time when the labourers had to abandon their
fields for fear of Iroquois ambuscades. Still the long stretch of land,
dotted with charred and blackened stumps, between which the few tilled
arpents could be seen sparse and thin in the early spring, would have
looked a barren and a gloomy sight to a jaundiced critic had he been
able to be unimpressed by the beauty of Mount Royal dignifying the
landscape. Moreover, the little progress made after seventeen years
must have surprised him. We must not, therefore, be too hard on the
young governor-general, then thirty-three years old. For his government
was one of the best of those yet sent to represent France, and his
bravery and good judgment did much to restrain the Iroquois; but he
was abandoned by the company he represented as well as by the French
government. He could not depend on the help of Montreal to share his
expenses, nor upon the poverty-stricken habitants of Quebec. The main
support of the colony, trade in peltry, was bad at Quebec. Living was
very expensive and no laughing matter. His own salary of 2,000 _écus_
and the grant of 2,000 others for the upkeep of the garrison were not
enough to sustain the situation. It is no wonder that we find him
writing, in August, that he did not see the advantage of continuing
in his office, especially as he urged the plea of bad health. Still
he was not recalled from his arduous and unremunerative position, but
continued to give fresh proof of his zeal for the good of the colony.
Meanwhile in France, steps were being taken which would bring M.
de Laval to the ecclesiastical rule of Canada, thus unifying the
ecclesiastical system, at present endangered by the presence of two
vicar generals of the diocese of Rouen.
We have related the early events of the Montreal Company to secure
a bishop for Canada as far back as 1645. But the contention of the
Jesuits that the time was not ripe in the then unprogressive state
of the colony, together with the unsettled times, with war nearly
always impending, had delayed such an appointment. We have seen the
agitation renewed by the Company on de Maisonneuve's late visit when
their candidate was M. de Queylus; while that of the Jesuits, who were
now more ready to admit the advisability of a bishop, was one of their
former students at the Collège Royal of La Flèche and now a secular
priest, François de Laval de Montmorency. They had not desired one of
themselves to be appointed, since it was not in accordance with their
constitution to seek dignities, and consequently in 1650 the names
of the Canadian Jesuits, Charles Lalemant, Ragueneau and Le Jeune,
submitted by the Company of the Hundred Associates, were withdrawn as
candidates by Goswin Nickel, the vicar general of the order.
We have seen sufficient of the ecclesiastical troubles between Père de
Quen, the ecclesiastical superior of Quebec, and M. de Queylus, that
of Montreal, both "grands vicaires" of the archbishop of Rouen, to see
that a bishop was necessary to restore the unity of government. The
experience that the Jesuits had had of M. de Queylus made them more
anxious than ever to push their candidate.
François de Laval was born on April 30, 1622, in the Château de
Montigny-sur-Aure in the diocese of Chartres, of the illustrious house
of Montmorency. At the age of nine years he was sent to the Royal
College of La Flèche, taught by the Jesuits, to commence his literary
studies. He finished his philosophy course in 1641, and during that
time he had made the acquaintance of many Jesuit priests who afterwards
joined the Canadian mission. The next four years he studied theology at
Paris, till 1645. It was thought that he would take priest's orders,
but on the death of his two brothers in 1644 and 1645 he was persuaded
by his cousin, the bishop of Evreux, to renounce his canonship in the
cathedral of Evreux and take his brother's place in the family in
caring for his mother, Madame de Montigny. The bishop died on July 22,
1646, not before repenting of his advice to François, whom he exhorted
to go back to the priesthood, and he named him archdeacon of the
church of Evreux. Laval now renounced his right of primogeniture and
his title to the Seigneury of Montigny in favor of his brother, Jean
Louis de Laval, and taking his degree in canon law, received priesthood
orders on September 22, 1647.
[Illustration: MGR. FRANÇOIS DE LAVAL DE MONTMORENCY]
Fur three years he remained in Paris and associated with the
congregation of pious laymen and others, mostly graduates from Jesuit
colleges. In 1650 he joined a small group of five of these earnest men
who lived in common in a kind of religious life under the direction
of the Jesuit, Père Bagot, and a society was formed under the title
of the "Society of Good Friends," with the purpose of charitable and
social work. These five men were increased to twelve, of whom some were
priests.
In 1652 the Jesuit, Père de Rhodes, one of the most remarkable men
of the Cochin-China missions, came to Paris in search of recruits to
form an ecclesiastical hierarchy, and it fell to the lot of three of
the priests of the Society of Good Friends to be chosen to have their
names sent to Rome as suitable bishops for the purpose, François
Paillu, canon of St. Martin de Tours; Bernard Picquet (or Piques),
doctor of the Sorbonne, and François de Laval, archdeacon of Evreux.
The long negotiations did not end till 1658, when Paillu was named
vicar apostolic of Tonkin, and two others of the above society vicars
apostolic of Cochin-China and China.
In the meantime in 1657, on the nomination of Queylus for the bishopric
of New France, the Jesuits made their overtures to Laval to adopt him
as their candidate for the same post, and he accepted. The curia at
Rome moved slowly and it was not till fifteen months later that the
bull naming the Abbé François de Laval de Montigny, bishop of Petrea
in Arabia and vicar apostolic of Canada was promulgated. On December
8th, the papal nuncio consecrated him in the church of the abbey of St.
Germain-des-Prés.
When the archbishop of Rouen, Mgr. de Harlay, who had looked upon New
France as a part of his diocese, heard of this, he resented it and
obtained a decree of the parliament of Rouen ordering word to all the
officers of the kingdoms and the subjects of the king, to refuse to
accept the new vicar apostolic.
Louis XIV on March 27, 1659, retorted by letters patent bidding
acceptance of Laval, but on the other side he wished "that these
episcopal functions should be exercised _without prejudice to the
rights of the jurisdiction of the Ordinary_, that is to say the
archbishop of Rouen; and that, while awaiting the erection of a
bishopric, of which the titulary occupant shall be the suffragan of the
archbishop."
Rome objected to the concession granted in the clause "without
prejudice to the rights of the jurisdiction of the Ordinary" because it
could not admit the pretensions of the archbishop of Rouen. However, M.
de Harlay, supported by Mazarin, maintained his position and Laval left
La Flèche on Easter Sunday, April 13, 1659, for Canada, accompanied by
the new superior of the Jesuit missions, Father Jérome Lalemant, who
had formerly worked in the missions and now came, sent by the general
of the Jesuits, Goswin Nickel, at the special request of Laval.
He arrived unannounced at Quebec, on June 16th, as a simple vicar
apostolic, a bishop indeed, but with his see in far-off Arabia,
and shorn of the dignity of canons and a chapter, and the external
emblems of a bishop in his own see. The colony could not support,
with its scanty revenues, such a position. Still he was the first
ecclesiastical superior, and thus he brought unity to the church
government, then split between the superior of the Jesuits at Quebec
and the Abbé de Queylus, at Montreal.
On arriving Laval found the colony in two divisions: on the one
side, the majority, composed of the missionaries, the communities of
religious women, and those colonists most sincerely devoted to the
church; on the other the governor, the partisans of the Abbé de Queylus
and a group of traders who scented trouble on the appearance of a man
whose unflinching character would not allow him to truckle his duty or
his conscience.
The situation was greatly cleared when, seven weeks after the arrival
of Laval, de Queylus went down from Montreal, reaching Quebec on
September 7th, and gave his submission and ceased to be grand vicaire.
At first he was uncertain whether his own powers as independent head of
the church in Montreal still held good, but the letters patent of the
king, dated March 27, 1659, received by d'Argenson, left no doubt on
the point.
Thus submission was made all the easier because de Queylus did not know
of the determination of the archbishop of Rouen to maintain him in his
function in Montreal. Indeed new letters patent, with a letter from the
king, dated May 11, 1659, were now on the way, confirming him in his
position without prejudice to the jurisdiction of the vicar apostolic.
On May 14, 1659, the king, repenting of his letter to Mgr. de Harlay,
sent two _lettres de cachet_, one to Laval and the other to Governor
d'Argenson, derogating the appointment of May 11th.
The king's letter to d'Argenson contained this: "The letter that I have
accorded to the archbishop of Rouen, it is my intention that neither
he nor the grands vicaires shall avail themselves of, until by the
authority of the church it has been declared if this archbishop is in
the right in his pretension that new France is in his diocese."
All these letters arrived by the St. André on September 8th, with the
reinforcement brought back by Marguerite Bourgeoys and Jeanne Mance.
After the conflicting nature of their contents were mastered the
position of de Queylus remained as after his submission.
Queylus returned to Montreal and later came back to Quebec, from which
he departed on October 2d on the St. André on its return voyage.
The causes of his departure are shrouded in silence, and in guarded
words d'Argenson writes: "I do not send you the reasons in writing for
fear lest the letter shall fall into other hands."
Dollier de Casson says: "After the arrival of the reinforcement and
of the Hospitalières at Ville Marie we witnessed the return of M. de
Queylus to France, which afflicted this place very much," adding as a
commentary: "Thus in this life are its sweets mixed with bitterness."
Laval in his letter to the Propaganda laconically says: "In Galliam
ipse transfretavit" (he sailed over to France).
This would look as if the voyage was of a voluntary nature. It was
otherwise. Laval feared the opposition of de Queylus; he looked upon
him as a rival, a disturber of the peace by his continued presence
in the country, and had written to France shortly after his arrival,
asking a _lettre de cachet_ for his removal. M. de Queylus was a
powerful personality and had the support of an active minority. Already
on his return to Montreal in the previous year the two other secular
priests, chaplains of the convent, at Quebec, had left Canada on this
account, and sixty persons had accompanied him on his journey back to
Montreal on that occasion.
After his recent visit to Laval and while he was welcoming new recruits
at Montreal, the _lettre de cachet_ arrived for his departure.
Speaking of the position of Laval after the receipt of the letter
of May 11th, the journal of the Jesuits on September 7th says that
"he disposed all things sovereignly at Quebec and Montreal." Laval's
critics would translate it "imperiously" or "high-handedly," for,
according to the history of Canada by M. Belmont, Laval, in acquainting
de Queylus of his recall persuaded the governor to assist the departure
of his friend from Montreal with a squad of soldiers; or rather, as M.
d'Allet, his secretary, reports in his _Mémoire_, "with a considerable
number of our men as for some military expedition." But may not this
escort have been one of honour and protection in war time rather
than one of ignominy? The governor general himself carried out this
order and this escort may therefore have been appropriate on such an
occasion, both for the governor and his friend. Two others were removed
with the late grand vicaire, M. d'Allet and another Sulpician, though
d'Allet got no further than Quebec, at which place sickness detained
him during the winter.
We can imagine the grief of the Montrealers watching their departure at
the little harbour at the mouth of the St. Peter River near the fort.
But though silenced at present, Queylus is not finally suppressed,
for we shall find him back again at Montreal before the end of two
years. In the meantime he was determined to clinch the matter of the
disputed jurisdiction. Before leaving, however, he had the satisfaction
of having received on September 7th at Quebec, and having accompanied
to Montreal, the new recruits led by Jeanne Mance and Marguerite
Bourgeoys, whose experiences, since leaving Ville Marie in the previous
year, must now be chronicled.
After the cure of her hand and wrist on February 2, 1659, Jeanne Mance
visited Madame de Bullion, who gave her 22,000 _livres_, of which
20,000 were to be set aside for the annual income to support four
Hospitalières at Montreal, from M. de la Dauversière's foundation at
La Flèche. In addition, this lady paid Jeanne's passage and gave her
presents for the church as well as money to assist struggling families
in Montreal. In all, Madame de Bullion had given 60,000 _écus_ or
1,000,000 _francs_ to the Montreal work.
At Troyes, Marguerite Bourgeoys had been equally successful, having
received the co-operation of three workers, Edmée Chastel (Aimée
Chatel), Catherine Crolo, and Marguerite Raisin. Mademoiselle Catherine
Gauchet de Belleville also joined the party. She was the cousin of M.
Souart and came from the parish of St. Sulpice in Paris. She was then
sixteen years old. In 1665 she married Migeon de Brausaat. At La Flèche
three Hospitalière Sisters of St. Joseph were chosen: Judith Moreau
de Brésoles, Catherine Massé and Marie Maillé, with Marie Polo, their
servant, and the departure of the party from La Flèche was fixed for
May 25th.
[Illustration: DEPARTURE OF THE THREE HOSPITALIERES FROM LA FLECHE FOR
CANADA]
But they did not leave peaceably, for there was a party at La Flèche,
which had resented the previous consignments of "pious young girls"
that had been previously taken to Montreal through the instrumentality
of M. de la Dauversière, it being alleged that this enthusiast, as
he was thought, had done it against the wishes of their parents.
Open persecution broke out against him. Dollier de Casson tells us
that there was a popular resentment; each one murmured, "M. de la
Dauversière is leading these girls away by force; we must stop it."
In their anxiety many could not sleep that night; but next morning,
May 26th, M. Robert Saint André, an admirer of M. de la Dauversière,
who, with his wife, was returning to Montreal, forced, with the
assistance of other gentlemen, a way on to the ship for the girls,
at the point of the sword. On reaching Rochelle M. Dauversière's
party was met by agents from Mgr. Laval, who wished to restrain their
departure on the ground that they were not wanted in Canada, as one
institute of Hospitalières was sufficient. We have seen that even M.
de Queylus was of this opinion. But M. de la Dauversière's resolution
was unshaken. "If they do not go this year they will never go." The La
Flèche institute had been founded for Montreal; the departure of the
Hospitalières had been delayed several years. He now carried his point.
New embarrassments arose. The owner of the ship, doubtless influenced
by the agents, refused to weigh anchor without the passage money being
paid in advance; he appears even to have profited by this circumstance
to raise the price. But Jeanne Mance, never to be taken by surprise,
immediately obtained the money from a merchant in consequence of a
contract which she made with a group of colonists who were coming "en
famille." These latter obliged themselves, on June 5th, before Notary
Demontreau, as a body to reimburse their debts to her in two years. In
addition they were indebted to Jeanne Mance for 199 _livres_ 8 _sols_,
which she turned over for hotel expenses to Daniel Guerry, mine host of
the Grâce-de-Dieu.[82]
The above money was not to be paid, however, till ten years after, when
Mademoiselle Mance gave them a deed of acquittance in 1669, made out by
Maître Basset, the town clerk.
At last the recruit force for Montreal was ready and it embarked on
the St. André (Captain Poulet) on June 29th. Besides the ladies with
the two foundresses, there were two Sulpicians, MM. de Vignal and
Le Maître, and a body of sixty-two men, and forty-seven women, or
marriageable girls honest families, most of whom were from Marans
in Saintonge and more or less interrelated, who were sent out at the
expense of the company and of the Hôtel-Dieu, the third of the trilogy
of religious institutions to minister at Montreal in this early period.
There were other settlers who paid their own expenses. In addition
there were sixteen or seventeen young women for Quebec.
The St. André, containing about two hundred souls, set sail for
Rochelle on July 2d. It was a veritable pesthouse of infection, having
been used as a hospital troop-ship two years ago, and it had never
been quarantined, so that hardly were they on their way when the
contagion declared itself. The food of the emigrants was the poorest;
the accommodations of the barest and most primitive description; the
supply of fresh water very limited. For two months sickness and furious
tempests and contrary winds afflicted the wretched vessel. Eight or
ten died, but most were sick, among them Marguerite Bourgeoys but
principally Jeanne Mance, who was reduced to the last extremity. The
ship became a hospital and among the devoted nurses none were more so
than the women for the Hôtel-Dieu of Montreal.
At last Quebec harbour was reached on September 7th but disembarkation
took place next day. Here the sick were landed, a work in which Mgr.
de Laval gave his personal service, "tending the sick and making their
beds," as the Annales of the Hôtel-Dieu relate. The hospital was filled
with the convalescents but the rest of the Montreal party put up at the
storehouse sheds of the "Magasin de Montréal."
Marguerite Bourgeoys was the first to be able to lead her party from
Quebec and she arrived at Montreal just a year after her departure, on
September 29th, carrying the little Thibaudeau baby (the three other
Thibaudeau children had died on the ocean) that she had tended on the
voyage and which she had allowed the father to nurse at Quebec, but he,
unlucky wight, having let it get burned, she had again taken care of
the poor sufferer on the journey up the river.
Mademoiselle Mance remained behind, still too sick to travel.
Moreover, the opposition of the vicar apostolic Monseigneur de
Laval, to the Hospitalières for Montreal, had to be met. He examined
their constitution, drawn up by a married man, M. de la Dauversière,
and found it different from other congregations. They wore secular
clothing. Though erected canonically in October, 1643, they only
took simple vows and they had not yet received the approbation of
Rome. He thought it would be better for them to go back to France or
seek admission to the Hospitalières of the Hôtel-Dieu of Quebec, a
constituted regular institution, which could form a branch to serve
Montreal. But their superior, Judith de Moreau de Brésoles, and her
companions, did not acquiesce with either suggestion.
Moreover, a practical difficulty of money matters prevented this, for
the Associates of Montreal had declared they would withdraw their alms
altogether, if any others went to the Hôtel-Dieu but those already
chosen, and in addition if the Quebec Sisterhood should take up the
Hôtel-Dieu at Montreal, that part of the foundation given by Madame
d'Aiguillon for Quebec should be diverted to Montreal. This solved the
difficulty for, as Mère Jucherau, in the Annales of the Hôtel-Dieu of
Quebec, says: "Monseigneur liked to keep up our community with its
revenue rather than to share our funds between two houses, neither of
which could support the other."
On October 2d the Hôtel-Dieu Sisters of Montreal left with full
authorization to exercise their work until ordered otherwise. On
October 20th they received from Maisonneuve the act of the "prise de
possession" of the Hôtel-Dieu, dated from the governor's house, which
was still in the fort. On October 26th the St. André returned to
France, bearing the Abbé de Queylus, as before related. Jeanne Mance
started a week later for Montreal but she was here on November 3d and
had the satisfaction of being present at the marriage of the widow,
"Miss" Bardillières, whom she had left in charge of the hospital and
who now wedded Jacques Testard, Sieur de la Forest. It was a notable
wedding, the witnesses' names including, besides Jeanne Mance, those
of Maisonneuve and the governor of Three Rivers and many notables.
Hospital work has since conduced to match-making in Montreal as
heretofore.[83]
FOOTNOTES:
[80] Records of punishment for injurious words are also to be found
on May 20, 1660; September 20, 1662; August, 1663; June, 1665. Women
figure largely in these cases.
[81] This man was afterwards allowed to return, perhaps on appeal. It
is certain he reformed and gave a perpetual foundation to the church.
[82] The original copies of these documents lately transcribed by Mr.
E. Z. Massicotte, city archivist, can be seen at the archives' office
or printed in the Numismatic and Antiquarian Journal, published at the
Château Ramezay, Third Series, No. 2, Vol. X.
[83] On the reinforcement of 1659 Mr. E. Z. Massicotte, city archivist
of Montreal, has recently published in the "Canadian Antiquarian and
Numismatic Society Journal, Third Series, No. 2, Vol X," a copy of the
statement of men, women and girls who crossed to Montreal in 1659,
found lately in the city archives of the courthouse. The contingent,
including those from Quebec and those who died from the ship fever,
consisted of about two hundred souls. Of those who arrived at Montreal
the list contains 102 names. The list made of those of Jeanne Mance's
party before sailing enumerates 109 persons. Two of these did not
embark and a note in the margin mentions that they were "hidden"; of
the remaining 107, there were 60 men and youths, 39 women--married
and single--and 8 children of tender age. Of the men there were two
priests--M. Jacques Le Maistre, slain by the Iroquois on the 29th of
August, 1661, and M. Guillaume, also slain by the Iroquois on the 25th
of October, 1661; 6 "soldiers for the fort," of whom one was Pierre
Picoté de Bélestre; 7 masons, 3 sawyers, 1 carpenter, 9 tillers, 2
woodcutters and tillers, 1 baker and tiller, 2 joiners, and 26 whose
occupations are unknown. Of the unmarried women the mother superior,
Judith Moreau de Brésoles, and Sisters Catherine Macé and Marie Maillet
came to found the "Hospitalières de St. Joseph," the religious order
to carry on the Hôtel-Dieu. These, with the addition of their servant,
Marie Polo, came with Jeanne Mance. With Marguerite Bourgeoys there
came the future sisters for the foundation of the "Congregation of
Notre Dame," Mademoiselles Catherine Croleau (or Crolo), Marie Raisin
and Anne Hiou (or Iou).