1666-1672
GARRISON LIFE--SLACKENING MORALS
SIEUR DE LA FREDIERE--LIQUOR TRAFFIC WITH THE INDIANS--SOLDIERS
MURDER INDIANS--THE CARION-DE LORMEAU DUEL--THE FIRST BALL IN
CANADA--LARCENIES, ETC.--A CORNER IN WHEAT--THE "VOLUNTAIRES," OR
DAY LABOURERS--THE TAVERNS--A POLICE RAID--"HOTEL" LIFE--BLASPHEMY
PUNISHED--THE LORDS' VINEYARDS RUINED.
The history of garrison towns, sad to relate, seems always to be
besmirched with scandals having their origin among the soldiers. So it
was with Montreal after the settlement of the officers and men of the
Carignan and other regiments, in marked contrast with the times of de
Maisonneuve and his brave "milice," who had been especially trained
under religious influences and had not been reared in the atmosphere of
camp or barrack life.
Among the officers sent to Montreal, after the war of 1666, to command
the garrison, was the Sieur de la Fredière, a nephew of M. de Sallières
and a major in the Sallières-Carignan Regiment. This man, disfigured by
the loss of an eye, has left a name as one who was repulsive alike in
mind, in conscience, and in honour. He was banished to France after the
visit of Talon in 1667, who heard from the inhabitants such a catalogue
of acts of tyranny, injustice, and immorality against this officer of
the king that, having referred the charges to de Tracy, the latter
ordered the expulsion of the offender.
On de Sallières' remonstrance at the severity of the sentence, Talon
ordered on September 1, 1667, a judicial investigation into the charges
so that they might be presented in legal form.
Accordingly the copies of records of the judicial archives of Montreal
of September 17-19, preserved in the _greffe_ of the city, containing
these informations against la Fredière before M. d'Ailleboust, remain
as standing evidence produced by Jean Beaudoin, Mathurin Marsta, André
Demers, Claude Jaudoin, Anne Thomasse, his wife, and Marie Anne Hardye,
wife of Pierre Malet, of the justice of the above charges. Those who
wish to read the scandalous details can do so at will.
One of the charges against la Fredière had been that of selling liquor
to the savages, and of fraudulently diluting it, at that. He was not
without imitators among the officers who, not content with selling them
liquor in their settlements, followed them to their hunting fields,
so that through their continual drunken orgies, the savages brought
back but few skins, and thus the habitants of Montreal, who had gone to
great expense in advancing them on credit, arms, powder and provisions,
were reduced to great want. Dollier de Casson, contrasting the
singlemindedness of M. de Maisonneuve with the new régime of avaricious
officers, says that if things went on so, the country would be ruined.
"It is impossible that it can hold together," he says in his account of
the year 1667, "if individuals have not the wherewith to buy utensils,
linen, clothes, in a country where wheat has no value. Owing to the
cupidity of the officers, the inhabitants, not having any peltry for
exchange, are forced to sell their arms to provide the wherewith
to cover themselves, and having only their feet and arms to defend
themselves, they will become the prey of the Iroquois, should they wish
to begin to war again."
Speaking of this period Marie l'Incarnation (letter of October, 1669)
says "that it would have been better to have less inhabitants and
better Christians," and Dollier de Casson in his history of the year
1664, bewailing the departure of M. de Maisonneuve, says that "since
Montreal had fallen into other hands, vices unknown before had crept
in."
The common soldiers followed the licenses of their betters and were
within an ace of endangering the safety of the colony by rekindling
the smouldering embers of Iroquois hatred. In their greed the soldiers
of the Montreal garrison had killed a Seneca chief for his peltry,
having plied him with brandy and killed him. His body they loaded with
weights to sink it, but it was found floating by some Iroquois who
brought it to Montreal, and thus the murder was out. As we have related
they were put to death, on the day of the departure of La Salle for
the West. About the same time, in the winter of 1668-69, three other
scamps who had left the Carignan Regiment and settled at Montreal
cruelly massacred six Oneidas (Onneiouts) on the banks of the River
Mascouche, first intoxicating them in their cabin, and then during
the night falling on them, not even sparing the woman and her young
children. And this for a load of fifty elk and beaver skins! One of
the assassins confessed the brutal deed to La Salle, as we have said,
before departing.
The first armed attack on life at Montreal among Frenchmen was also
committed by a soldier, viz., by Carion, a lieutenant of La Motte's
regiment, on the person of M. de Lormeau, an ensign of M. de Gué's
company, in payment of a grudge. The case was brought up before M.
d'Ailleboust in May, 1671, and the records of the _greffe_ giving
the depositions of the witnesses, tell an exciting story, of how, on
Pentecost evening, after vespers and just before the first sound of
the "salut" pealed, the Sieur de Lormeau was walking with his wife
towards the common and had passed the seminary enclosure, apparently
on the way to his dwelling, when nearing the house of Charles Le
Moyne, of Longueuil, who was at table entertaining Picoté de Bélestre
and a merchant of Rochelle named Baston, they saw M. de Carion coming
to meet them. They advanced towards him and they were near Migeon de
Branssat's house when Carion, seeking a pretext for provocation, called
out, "Coward! Why have you struck this child? Why don't you attack me?"
"Coward yourself!" was the reply. "Go away!" On the instant Carignan's
sword is out and de Lormeau follows suit. Three or four blows are
struck and they clinch one another. In the struggle Carion, taking
his sword by the blade, tries to plunge its point into de Lormeau's
stomach. De Lormeau's péruque now falling to the ground, Carion takes
the opportunity of seizing his sword by the hilt and deals blows with
its pommel on de Lormeau's unprotected head till the blood began to
flow. Whereupon de Lormeau's lady, Marie Roger Lepage, terror-stricken
and beside herself, runs back to Charles Le Moyne's house and disturbs
the supper party by crying, "Murder! Murder! M. de Bélestre, come
out!" The three, leaving the table, rushed to separate the struggling
officers but in vain. Picoté de Bélestre then exclaimed in indignation:
"Since you won't separate, then kill yourselves if you want to." And
now, one called Gilles, a former servant of M. Carion, comes on the
scene with drawn sword, brandishing it in defence of his master, but
doing no damage. M. Morel, an ensign in the same company as Carion
and a partner in the same quarrel against de Lormeau, also comes on
with naked sword and makes a thrust at de Lormeau, much to Charles Le
Moyne's disgust strongly expressed, at seeing an unarmed man so struck.
By this time de Lormeau had received three wounds, when two priests
from the seminary ran out to separate them, M. de Frémont and M.
Dollier de Casson, the strapping soldier priest, whose presence soon
acted as a peacemaker. But de Lormeau took the affair to the court, as
we have seen.
The military introduced a love of gayety, good cheer and dissipation
into the colony. In Quebec in 1667, on February 4th, the first ball was
held and the Jesuit journal of the period adds this reflection: "May
God grant that there are no sad consequences."
At Montreal, larcenies, breaches of respect for authority, blasphemies
and Sabbath breaking are now recorded.
In 1670 an attempt was made for the first time, in Montreal to make a
corner in wheat to the detriment of the poor. By an act of January 26,
1671, Talon fixed the price at three _livres_ and two sous the bushel,
and punished a refractory miller, de la Touche-Champlain who, profiting
by the dearth of wheat, sold it at twenty sous, and even then it was
mixed with Indian corn.
The "_volontaires_," or day labourers, began to be a trouble, as they
were more numerous at Montreal than elsewhere. Many of these were lazy
and wanderers, and would not hire themselves out or take up land, and
doubtless many of the petty larcenies now commencing, were due to these
gentlemen living on their wits. The woods appealed to them and the
"_coureurs de bois_" would soon be recruited from them. The simplicity
of primitive manners was going. An ordinance of the "_procureur fiscal_"
in the records of the city for March 9, 1670, shows that precautions
had to be now taken to prevent sacks of wheat and flour from being
willfully changed at the mill, and their amounts from being falsified.
Theft was severely punished, according to the "_greffe_" of April 15,
1667. A man who had stolen thirteen bushels of wheat was condemned
to be marked with the royal "_fleur de lys_" and to be sent to the
Canadian galleys for three years. On December 20, 1668, another was
sentenced to stand outside the parish church for a quarter of an hour,
as the people were leaving after mass on Sunday. The town clerk read
his sentence out to the people and an officer of justice affixed to the
culprit's breast a notice in large characters so that all might read
the legend, "_voleur de blé_" (wheat thief).
Again, on March 8, 1670, a man convicted of stealing from a store by
night was condemned by M. d'Ailleboust, under the good pleasure of the
sovereign council, to be hanged on a market day, so that by "this dire
example, the evil disposed might be intimidated and prevented from
committing greater larcenies and other crimes." The condemned man,
however, appealed to the sovereign council, and the execution does not
appear to have taken place.
Tavern frequentation was also a source of dissipation and trouble. The
cabarets became the rendezvous of Montrealers, although they were only
licensed for strangers and marketers. In 1669, the intendant came to
town and on this occasion at the request of the Seigneurs brought about
a special ordinance dated April 2, 1669, which ran as follows:
"Desirous of doing all in our power to stop these dissipations and
debaucheries, which serve only for the corruption of morals and the
destruction of families and of the colony, we, in execution of this
ordinance of the king, very expressly forbid all those who shall keep
cabarets or taverns, in the town as well as in the bourgs, villages
or other places, to open them to receive any person on Sundays and
holy days and during divine service, under a penalty of a fine for the
first offence, and of prison for the second. We forbid, under the same
penalties, all those domiciled in towns, bourgs and villages where
there are cabarets or taverns, even those who are married and have
families or households, to go to eat or to drink in these places, and
those who keep these cabarets or taverns to give them food or drink, or
gaming, under any pretext whatever. They can only sell them wine by the
pot, which they shall take home to drink.
"We forbid them also, under the same penalties, to receive in these
places any dissolute or lewd men or women, or to give them food or
'aliment' of any kind, or likewise to give to any _engagé_ (hired man)
or 'volontaire' food or drink.
"They shall, however, be allowed to give drink in moderation to
travelers and to give board and lodging to those who shall be obliged
to reside in this town to manage their affairs. Finally we forbid
all innkeepers to give credit for their dues or to exact any promise
or obligation of payment under the penalty of loss of their stock,
for which they shall not take any action of recovery, conformably to
Article 128 of the 'Custom of Paris.'"
This ordinance appears to have been strictly enforced for some time,
for we find the syndic himself on August 19, 1670, appearing before
M. d'Ailleboust to answer a charge of eating and drinking at an inn
on a Sunday or a feast day during divine service. The syndic owned up
to having contravened the law on a week day, but brought witnesses to
prove that he had not broken the ordinance of the Sunday and feast day
observance. The innkeeper was condemned to pay the law expenses of the
case and to pay a fine to the church.
Even those who broke the ecclesiastical abstinence in these cabarets
seem to have been in danger of the secular arm.
A watch was kept by the Seigneurs on the weights and measures and they
had them stamped with their seal. In order to see that innkeepers did
not substitute others, the _procureur fiscal_, or his substitute,
accompanied by the clerk of the justices and two sergeants, went on a
tour of inspection from time to time. (Greffe de Ville Marie, June 11,
1673.)
In 1676, on a surprise visit after vespers one Sunday,--"on information
received" doubtless,--these officers found four men being entertained
at one of the cabarets, now beginning to open up without authorization
and apparently contravening all the above-quoted ordinance. One June
11th the four men and the innkeeper were fined. On September 27th the
judge of the seigneurs, forced to cut down the growing abuses, ordered
all inns to be closed under penalty of a 100 _livres_, provided that
the autumn then ending and the forthcoming winter did not bring any
strangers to Montreal. He declared at the same time that in the spring
there would be established one or two "cabaretiers hôteliers," which we
may translate as "hostelry innkeepers," to board and lodge traveling
merchants coming to Montreal. Shall we consider this the first
indication of the hotel life of Montreal, the commercial metropolis of
Canada?
The crime of blasphemy was severely punished. On Ascension Day, 1668,
the new royal edict, supplementing a former one of 1651, was placarded
at the door of the parish church at Montreal.[106] Various fines and
imprisonments are meted out to those who shall sin. At the sixth
offence it is ordered that the blasphemer's upper lip shall be cut with
a hot iron, the lower lip on the seventh, and if after this he still
continues his blasphemy, his tongue is to be cut out.
A man near Lachine, having attempted outrage on two young girls of
eleven and seven years, was fined and banished, on June 2, 1672, from
the Isle of Montreal, for seven years.
Evil livers were punished even after death. A former corporal, who had
been killed by accident by an Ottawan at the "Little" River, was, in
July, 1674, refused burial in holy ground but was allowed to be buried
on the commons by one who offered to do that service on the condition
that the clothing covering the deceased man should be left him.[107]
We may sum up the history of the transition of morals from the pristine
fervour of the early days of Maisonneuve to the early years of royal
colonization, in the words of Sister Morin in her annals: "But this
happy time is past. The war with the Iroquois having obliged our good
king to send us troops at several times, the officers and soldiers have
ruined the Lord's vineyards, and vice and sin are almost as common in
Canada as in Old France. This it is that makes good people grieve,
especially the missioners who wear themselves out in preaching and
exhortation almost without fruit, regretting with tears and sobs those
happy bygone years, when virtue flourished, as it were, without any
labour on their part."
FOOTNOTES:
[106] Edits et Ordonnances, page 62-63.
[107] The "Greffe" of Montreal, dated July, 1674.