1672-1682
ALTERCATIONS
FRONTENAC'S FIRST TERM OF GOVERNORSHIP
I. THE RIVAL GOVERNORS
II. CHURCH AND STATE
III. THE GOVERNOR, THE INTENDANT AND THE SOVEREIGN COUNCIL
I. THE TWO GOVERNORS--PERROT--ILE PERROT--REMONSTRANCES OF
CITIZENS--FRONTENAC--A "VICE-ROI"--GENEROUS ATTEMPT TO GRANT
REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT RESTRAINED--FORT FRONTENAC (OR
KINGSTON)--CORVEES--THE GOVERNOR GENERAL--EXPEDITION STARTS FOR
MONTREAL--LA SALLE--THE FRONTENAC-PERROT DUEL COMMENCES--PERROT
IMPRISONED--COUREURS DE BOIS--DULUTH--CHICAGO--FRONTENAC RULES
MONTREAL.
II. THE FRONTENAC-FENELON DUEL--THE EASTER SERMON IN THE
HOTEL-DIEU--LA SALLE PRESENT IN THE CHAPEL--M. FENELON RESIGNS
FROM THE SULPICIANS--THE TRIAL BEFORE THE SOVEREIGN COUNCIL--THE
MONTREAL PARTY PRESENT THEIR CASE IN FRANCE--FRONTENAC AND FENELON
REPRIMANDED, PERROT IN PRISON--PERROT QUICKLY RELEASED AND SENT
BACK AS LOCAL GOVERNOR OF MONTREAL.
III. THE MONTREAL COMPLAINTS HAVE A RESULT--THE REARRANGEMENT OF
THE POSITIONS OF HONOUR IN THE SOVEREIGN COUNCIL--THE GOVERNOR AND
THE INTENDANT, DUCHESNEAU--RIVAL FACTIONS--CENTRALIZATION AND HOME
RULE THE CAUSE OF FRENCH FAILURE IN CANADA--PERROT MADE GOVERNOR
OF ACADIA.
We have now to consider the fortunes of Montreal under the reign of
Frontenac, as governor general, and M. Perrot, as local governor.
Louis de Buade, Count de Pallua et de Frontenac, arrived in Canada in
September of 1672, whereas M. Perrot had been in Montreal since 1670
as governor, by the goodwill of the seigneurs, and by the letters
patent of March 14, 1671, he held the rank also by royal commission.
He considered himself in a strong position, but Frontenac was also a
strong man, and when the clash came in the autumn of next year, the
old opposition of Quebec and Montreal was renewed. Both antagonists
had powerful protectors at court. Unfortunately Perrot's character was
haughty and violent, and his unworthy attempts to enrich himself by
engaging in the nefarious liquor trade, leaves us unable to sympathize
with his case, as we did with that of the gentle and single-minded
de Maisonneuve. To illustrate this, Perrot, as governor of Montreal,
could not openly engage in the trade, yet he chose a situation on an
island given to him by Talon as his seigneury and named after him,
"Ile Perrot," lying at the toe of Montreal, between the seigneuries of
Bellevue and Vaudreuil and at the western end of Lake St. Louis, an
excellent spot for a receiving station for peltry from the Indians,
descending from above. There, he placed a former lieutenant of his
company, Antoine de Fresnay, Sieur de Brucy, who acted as his agent and
gave protection to the deserting _volontaires_ now illegally becoming
_coureurs de bois_, who were growing numerous around Montreal and were
being more or less openly encouraged by the local government. These
were given liquor and merchandise in exchange for the products of
their hunting expeditions. The consequence was that frequent disorders
occurred through their irregularities.
A delegation consisting of the foremost citizens called on M. Perrot,
respectfully remonstrating on this situation. Among them were Migeon
de Branssat, Charles Le Moyne, Picoté de Bélestre, Jacques Leber,
and Vincent de Hautmesnil. The haughty governor received them with
insult and he imprisoned their spokesman, Migeon de Branssat, who as
_procureur fiscal_ was acting as judge in place of M. d'Ailleboust,
then absent. "I am not like M. de Maisonneuve," said he, "I know how
to keep you in your proper places." Next day, Dollier de Casson as a
representative of the seigneurs expostulated at such imprisonment,
especially as the course of justice was being held up; but to no avail
at the moment. Perrot was governor by royal commission, and he meant to
show it. Eventually, however, the _procureur fiscal_ was freed and the
court sittings continued.
It will be remembered that Marie François Perrot had espoused Madeleine
de La Guide, niece of Talon, and under the régimes of Courcelles and
his uncle, Talon, the illicit commerce had either passed unperceived or
authority had closed its eyes. But he was to meet his match under the
new government.
Let us now turn to Frontenac, who was soon to cross swords with Perrot
of Montreal. The new governor general, now a man of fifty, having
been born in 1622, was a very complex character with high qualities
and serious defects. He was every inch a Gascon, a boastful talker,
an exaggerator, fond of posing and a little of a bully. Yet he could
be gay, was a lover of a good table, a man of the world, brilliant,
communicative, and generous with his friends, as he was haughty and
distant with those he disliked.
[Illustration: STATUE OF FRONTENAC
(By Philippe Hébert)]
From the age of fifteen he followed camp life, serving at first under
Maurice, Prince of Orange, and his reputation for bravery was sound. He
was placed at the head of a Norman regiment and distinguished himself
in Flanders, Germany and Italy; at the battle of Orvietto he broke
his arm. In 1664, while at St. Gothard, Turenne sent him to fight
against the Turks, to the Island of Candia, whence he returned to
Paris, covered with glory. He rose to the rank of a _maréchal de camp_
or brigadier general. His married life was not too domestic. Himself,
the godchild of Louis XIII, his father being the chief majordomo
and captain of the Château de St. Germain-en-Laye, he married the
daughter of one of his neighbours in Paris, Lagrange Trianon, a master
of accounts. Madame de Frontenac was handsome, gallant, witty, fond
of high society, imperious, and very independent. In these qualities,
she resembled monsieur and after a time Frontenac found warring more
to his taste than the fireside, and madame lived with Mademoiselle
Montpensier, and together these two "divines" held a kind of court of
their own in their "apartment," in which they set the tone for the best
society of Paris. It was, therefore, no doubt through her influence,
combined with his services as a distinguished soldier to the king, that
the office of governor general of Canada was secured for him, to help
him in his poverty.
As a governor he had high gifts of administration; according to
Charlevoix, "his work and his capacity were equal; ... his views for
the development of the country were great and just." He knew how
to maintain his position, and even to gain the affection of those
he ruled, especially the Indians. But he was absolute, dominating,
despotic, violent, headstrong, ambitious, jealous, choleric and
impatient of opposition. He also came full of prejudice against the
clergy and especially the Jesuits.
On arriving at Quebec, this "High and Puissant Seigneur," as he
prefixed to his title of "Governor, Lieutenant-General for the King
in France," introduced a gayety and high style of living, somewhat
surprising and unaccustomed to the Canadian _bourgeoisie_. In official,
governmental life he assumed the reins with a high hand. He was, as
he thought himself, a "vice-roi" and he would model the colony on the
lines of France. Thus his preliminary act was to call a representative
convocation of the people in three several orders or estates, the
clergy, the noblesse, and the third estate, to receive the oath of
fealty from them, a proceeding which Colbert evidently disapproved of
as too democratic, and opposed to the centralizing policy, then in
favour in France, a policy which eventually ruined the initiative and
delayed the progress of the colony. The minister wrote on June 13,
1673: "It is good for you to know that in the government of Canada you
always ought to follow the forms practiced in France, where the kings
have for some time considered it better for their service, not to
assemble the 'Etats Généraux.' Also, you ought but rarely, or better
say, never, give this form to the body of habitants of your country;
it will even be necessary, in a little time, and when the colony is
stronger than it is now, gradually to suppress the office of the
syndic, who presents the requests in the name of all the inhabitants;
it being good that each speaks for himself and not one for all." What
is everybody's business is no one's, was evidently Colbert's view. Thus
the people never learned the art of self-government.
The new governor very soon showed his desire to be sole master of
the situation. Of his own responsibility he had made several police
regulations and had established aldermen at Quebec and, contrary to
the rights of the Company of the West Indies, then still existing, he
had attributed to them the power of administering police regulations.
This brought a letter from Colbert, dated May 17, 1674: "His Majesty
orders me to tell you, that you have therein passed the limits of the
power given by him. Besides, the police regulations ought to be made by
the Sovereign Council, and not by you alone. The power which you have
been given by the king gives you entire authority in the command of the
army, but with regard to what concerns the administration of justice,
your authority consists in presiding at the Sovereign Council. The
intention of His Majesty is that you take the advice of the councillors
and that it is for the council, to pronounce on all matters which
belong to its jurisdiction."
On his arrival he quickly turned his gaze on Lake Ontario, lately
visited by M. de Courcelles, and already the construction of a fort was
in his mind, to divert the fur trade towards Montreal, and on to Quebec
in place of it descending to Albany. Writing to Colbert, on November 2,
1672, two months after his arrival, he says: "You will have heard from
M. de Courcelles of a post which he has projected on Lake Ontario and
which he believes to be of the utmost necessity, in order to prevent
the Iroquois taking peltry to the Dutch and to force them to trade with
us, as it is but just, seeing that they hunt on our lands.
"The establishment of such a post will strengthen the mission at
Kenté, already settled there by the _Messieurs de Montréal_. I beg you
to believe that I will spare no trouble or pains or even my life to
attempt to do something to please you."
It is alleged by the Duke de St. Simon in his mémoires (Paris 1829,
Vol. II), that Frontenac came to France a "ruined man," that he was
given the governorship for his means of living, and that he would
sooner go to Quebec than die of hunger in Paris. His disinterestedness
in setting up a trading post for the good of the colony is therefore
somewhat discounted.
Frontenac determined to construct this fort before the return of the
vessels from France. In order to obtain the necessary men, boats and
canoes, he relied on the precedent of M. de Courcelles' official visit
as governor general to Lake Ontario. To impress the Indians with the
dignity of the French conquerors, he called a _corvée_ from Quebec,
Montreal, Three Rivers and other places to supply the above at their
own expense. In the meantime he had built two bateaux to face the
rapids and currents and mounted on them two pieces of cannon. These he
had painted, which was considered a novelty.
At Montreal there was no little murmuring at his novel and burdensome
_corvées_, for to avoid the Rapids of St. Louis, he made the
inhabitants repair the road leading to Lachine. He requisitioned about
200 canoes and 400 men and kept them at work until he finished his fort
there.
La Salle was then in Montreal, and Frontenac, seeing an ally in this
already experienced traveler, wrote to him to proceed to Onondaga, the
ordinary rendezvous of the Iroquois nation, and there to explain, that
the projected expedition was a visit of courtesy to the Mission of
Kenté and to the neighbouring tribes. La Salle, nothing loath, set out
ahead, leaving Montreal in the beginning of May, 1673. Frontenac left
Quebec on June 3d and arrived at Montreal on June 15th, having delayed
his journey, being received in the other towns on his way. Arriving at
5 o'clock that evening, the governor general was met at the wharf by
Perrot, the governor of Montreal--no doubt with some jealousy and some
resentment at the _corvées_ demanded by his superior--and the principal
citizens, with their military companies. After the volleys of musketry
and cannon, there came the addresses of the officers of justice and
that by Sieur Chevalier, the syndic of the people. Then they made their
way to the temporary parish church attached to the Hôtel-Dieu and there
the clergy held their reception and also harangued him. After which the
Te Deum was sung in thanksgiving for his happy voyage and the governor
retired to the hospitality of Fort Maisonneuve, not as yet demolished
as we know.
For thirteen days, there was a great bustle at Montreal, fixing up
canoes and loading them, and arranging the men in companies,--all
requisitioned in the name of the king. The last preparations for the
important journey were broken, however, by the celebration of feast
of St. Jean Baptiste; on this occasion M. de Salignac Fénelon, the
brother of the famous archbishop of Cambrai, returned from Kenté with
M. Durfé, and about to return together, with the expedition, pronounced
an elegant eulogium on the governor-general. At last all to join the
vice-regal party had left the town and gone by road to Lachine, whence
on June 28th, all being reunited, the expedition started--two flat
bateaux, nearly one hundred and twenty canoes and about four hundred
men, among them being Charles Le Moyne, who was a skilled interpreter.
We cannot follow its progress. For us, it is interesting to record it
in connection with Montreal as resulting in the establishment of Fort
Frontenac, or Cataracqui, the modern Kingston, the construction and
management of which was now entrusted to a Montrealer, Sieur de la
Salle to whom, on May 13, 1675, on the occasion of his visit to France,
letters of nobility were given with the property and government of the
new fort and some adjacent leagues of land. La Salle had gone to France
in 1674, well recommended by Frontenac. His family, seeing a fortune in
the new trading station, procured the necessary funds for him to pursue
his career, and presented a memorial of La Salle's discoveries and his
good actions, which secured the above privilege. La Salle named his
seigneury Fort Frontenac in honour of his patron. His enemies say that
he became Frontenac's agent, as de Brucy was that of Perrot.
On returning from Lake Ontario, Frontenac and Perrot soon began their
duel. Towards the end of autumn, 1673, Frontenac, receiving Perrot at
Quebec, reprimanded him severely for the continued disturbances already
mentioned at Montreal. Perrot respectfully promised better care, in
regard to the observances of the king, for the future, and returned to
Montreal. But hardly had he been back eight days, when trouble began.
Two _coureurs de bois_ had returned and gone to lodge with M. Carion,
the officer of whom we have spoken. Charles D'Ailleboust, the judge,
sent Sergeant Bailly to arrest him, whereupon Carion obstructed and
ill treated the sergeant. Instead of punishing Carion, Perrot sent
for D'Ailleboust and reprimanded him for having sent the sergeant to
the house of an officer, without warning him, and threatened him with
prison himself, if he repeated his conduct, notwithstanding any orders
from the governor-general.
The astonished D'Ailleboust acquainted Frontenac with this incident,
and he, scenting rebellion, immediately dispatched three of his guards
with their lieutenant, Sieur Bizard, to arrest Carion. Bizard did this
faithfully, leaving a guard over him. But he had made a grave error
in etiquette in so doing. Before leaving Quebec he had received from
Frontenac a letter for Perrot, acquainting him of the intended arrest
in his jurisdiction, but fearful of the wrath of the local governor,
Bizard sought the house of Jacques LeBer, to leave the letter there, so
that it might be delivered to Perrot after the departure of the guard
from the town. Meanwhile Madame Carion had quickly acquainted Perrot
of her husband's arrest and immediately the indignant governor, with
a sergeant and a guard from the garrison, angrily confronted Bizard
at LeBer's house and threw Frontenac's letter, presented him, back in
Bizard's face.
"Take it back," he said, "to your master and warn him to teach you
your official duties, better, a second time." He then put him into
prison but released him the next day with a letter to M. Frontenac.
Bizard, however, had a statement of his arrest made out which was
signed by Jacques LeBer, La Salle and a domestic, the witnesses of
it. Four or five days later, Perrot, coming to hear of this, sent
LeBer to prison without any form of justice; but La Salle he left
alone, keeping him under watch during the day. But by night the nimble
explorer, with Norman adroitness, leaped the enclosure of the house and
hurried secretly to Quebec to tell his patron Frontenac of his flouted
authority. Thither also journeyed later the friends of M. LeBer to make
their protestation.
If Frontenac's officer had erred in trespassing on the prerogatives
of the governor of Montreal, the latter, by imprisoning Bizard, had
similarly encroached on those of the governor-general. They could have
cried quits, but it is alleged that Frontenac was eager to deprive
Montreal of its autonomy, and herein was his excuse. It was Frontenac's
policy to appear to smoothen out the situation. He wrote to Perrot
inviting him to set LeBer at liberty and to come himself to Quebec
to render an account of his conduct, and to M. de Salignac Fénelon,
the Sulpician, who had eulogized him in the parish church of Montreal
before departing to Fort Frontenac, he wrote another, saying that he
wished to terminate amicably the differences between himself and M.
Perrot. Both fell into the trap. M. Fénelon, determined to accompany
M. Perrot, started with him on the ice of the river in the heart of
winter, and they arrived at nightfall in Quebec on the 28th of January,
1674.
The next morning M. Perrot made his call on the governor and hardly
had he set his foot across his threshold than he was arrested by
Lieutenant Bizard, his sword being taken from him and then led to
prison in solitary confinement in the Château St. Louis without any
formal process, and there he remained till the following November. The
simplicity of M. Fénelon was rudely shocked by this "_volte face_."
He sought the governor to intercede for his friend and when he strove
to obtain a pass to see the prisoner he only angered Frontenac, who
accused him of wishing to corrupt his guards.
Back went Fénelon on the St. Lawrence on his snowshoes. Hardly had
he reached Montreal when Dollier de Casson received several letters
from the governor-general, complaining of the conduct of M. Fénelon
"as unworthy of a man of his character and birth." There is reason
from after-events to believe that Fénelon's zeal was not sufficiently
tempered with discretion. Montreal having now need of a governor,
Frontenac speedily appointed on the 4th of February, as commandant
in his absence, one of his devoted friends, M. de la Nouguère,[122] an
ensign in a cavalry regiment. In the act, making this appointment, he
explains his superseding of the town major, Sieur Dupuis, as due to
the advanced stage of his age, but he bids him to have de la Nouguère
recognized by the officers of the garrison. (Vide this document in the
City Hall Archives, dated February 10, 1674.) He then ordered the new
commandant to arrest Sieur de Brucy and two of his servants, and to
send M. Gilles de Boisvinet, the judge of Three Rivers, to conduct the
trial and to inform against all _coureurs de bois_ in Montreal--an
insult to M. Charles D'Ailleboust, whose faith and sympathy he
distrusted. Certainly Frontenac had made himself master of Montreal.
These actions, derogatory to the privileges of the Seigneurs granted
in 1644, were borne with wise moderation, though under protest, to
avoid undue friction in a difficult position. A document of Dollier
de Casson, dated March 22, 1674, on the occasion of a protest against
Boisvinet, who had gone beyond the limits of his commission, following
a former juridical protestation against the infringement of their right
to appointment of a governor, dated March 10, 1674, shows this clearly
and explains the neutral policy now adopted.
Meanwhile in his prison at Quebec, the deposed governor of Montreal
refused to be judged by Frontenac and the Sovereign Council, and asked
to have his case tried by the king. In justification of his firm action
at Montreal, Frontenac wrote to Colbert some months later, that he
had hanged one of the _coureurs de bois_, the same that had lodged
with Carion, and that the others, to the number of thirty, had been
thus intimidated and had submitted to fines and had taken up lands as
habitants. "I can assure you," he says, "with certainty, that there
are now not more than five _coureurs de bois_ in Canada, of whom three
belong to M. Perrot's garrison, whom he allowed to desert; the fourth
is a farmer on the island bearing his name. You will gather from this
whether I have reason or not, in retaining him as a prisoner."
That there were only five _coureurs de bois_ in Canada seems an
exaggeration unless we take it that they were dispersed over the North
American continent. For from Montreal there wandered many an expedition
which left its mark there. Accompanying these were the "voyageurs,"
"coureurs de bois" and "_bois brulés_," as they were variously named.
These often allied themselves with women of the Indian tribes and
united the vices of both races. Restlessly they pursued their vagabond
life, and it would be impossible to find a northern Indian tribe
unaffected by these wanderers. In 1678 David Greysolon Duluth or the
Sieur Du Luth built the first trading post at the western end of Lake
Superior. The only post of Minnesota bears his name. He was by no means
a saint--he was a worthy gentleman of the wild woods--a knight of the
fur trade--a great leader of the coureurs de bois, and he enhanced his
fortunes with illicit trading in spirits. But he was a power among the
Indians in the land of the Dakotas (Minnesota), which was the name
of one of the principal tribes formed into a league, or Dakota, and
given to the general body. They were called the Ojibways north of Lake
Superior and Nadowaysioux, the last syllable of which, "Sioux," being
used as a nickname for them by the French. Other historical sites as
that of Chicago were first visited by those who started from Montreal,
such as Marquette, the Jesuit, and Joliet, who arrived at the site of
modern Chicago in August, 1673.
[Illustration: VOYAGEURS RUNNING THE RAPIDS]
Meanwhile Frontenac was exercising a control and overlordship over
Montreal as the following document will indicate:
"Count Frontenac, king's councillor, governor and lieutenant general
for His Majesty in Canada, Acadia, Newfoundland and other countries in
Western France.
"Being necessary to create and establish a captain of militia in the
Town and Island of Montreal, under the authority of its local governor,
to exercise and manoeuvre with army, and to put it in a better state
of defence, in the event of an attack from enemies. We have appointed
and do establish, the Sieur Le Moyne in the said position of captain,
under the authority of its local governor, commandant of the militia of
the said town and island. To whom we ordain, that he must be careful
that he drills the said inhabitants of the said place as often as he
can, and at least once or twice a month; to take care that they keep
their arms in good condition; to prevent as much as in his power, that
they trade or do away with their arms, and to execute all orders that
we may give to him, being assured of his fidelity to the service of the
king, of which he has given many proofs in numerous engagements, as
well as of his bravery and experience in drill. This warrant is given
to Sieur de la Nougère, present commandant in the said Town and Island
of Montreal, that he may make the appointment known to the inhabitants
of the said island, to whom we commend that they must obey in all
duties appertaining to his functions, on penalty of disobedience, and
we give him full power and authority to command the same, in virtue of
powers confided to us by His Majesty. On proof of which we have signed
these presents and have appended the seal of our arms and have further
signed by one of our secretaries.
"Given at Quebec, the 24th day of April, 1674.
"Frontenac.
"By His Lordship's orders,
"B. Chasseur."
The Sieur de la Nougère, above mentioned, is M. Th. X. Tarieu de
Lanaudière. The spelling of the period was not as hidebound as today.
Frontenac's secretary spelled phonetically like so many of his
contemporaries--a source of embarrassment to historians.
[Illustration: PLAN DE MONTREAL
de
1673 A 1687
EARLY MAP OF MONTREAL]
CHURCH AND STATE
The difficult equipoise of neutrality, aimed at by the Seigneurs in
the Frontenac-Perrot dispute, was rudely jolted on Easter Day, little
more than a month later, in a most dramatic manner. The scene was
the crowded Hôtel-Dieu chapel, then being used as a parish church,
while the new parish church higher up the street was being slowly
raised, and all the notables of Montreal were present at the High
Mass. The celebrant was M. Perrot, the curé, in the absence of the
superior of the seminary, Dollier de Casson, who was confined to his
bed in the hospital from the effects of fever, after an accident
on the St. Lawrence, when the ice having broken he had almost lost
his life through cold from the long immersion in the water, before
rescue came. The deacon was M. de Cavelier, La Salle's brother, and
the subdeacon M. Rémy, the lawyer Sulpician. After the gospel, M. de
Fénelon, the same who had preached the eulogium of Frontenac the year
previously, mounted the pulpit. The preacher announced that he would
speak on the Christian's double necessity, of dying with Christ, and
of rising with him. Following the scholastic divisions of St. Thomas
Acquinas he divided the life of man into the vegetative, sensitive and
rational states. The sinful vices, destroying the vitality of this
threefold life, must die in Christ and the new man must arise with
Christ, purified and reestablished in his threefold life. In pursuing
this second point the preacher entered into the details of the various
dispositions that risen Christians of different conditions should
manifest as a sign of the new Easter life in them. Turning to those
vested with temporal authority, he said, "that the magistrate,
animated with the spirit of the risen Christ, should have as much
diligence in punishing those faults committed against the person of
the prince, as he had of readiness in pardoning those against his own
person...."
La Salle, who had been sitting towards the back of the chapel, near the
door, and had listened with approbation to the familiar doctrine of St.
Thomas, which as a Jesuit he had studied in his philosophical course,
began now to show unusual interest in the preacher's application. In
order to get a better view of the speaker, he rose from his seat. He
saw that M. de Fénelon, a man who was known to have been in sympathy
with Perrot and to have had trouble with his own patron, Frontenac, was
treading on delicate ground and might commit himself. La Salle had,
what journalists call, the reportorial instinct for "news." Besides,
since the famous expedition of 1669, his relations with the Sulpicians
were cold. As the preacher proceeded, La Salle's face flushed with
anger, and casting his eyes around, he drew the special attention of
several to what the preacher was saying. Among these was Jean Baptiste
Montgaudon de Bellefontaine, the brigadier of de Frontenac's guard.
Soon La Salle's gestures attracted the attention of the celebrant,
seated in the sanctuary, to what was being said; but he shrugged his
shoulders in return, as though to convey that no personal allusions
were being made. The preacher had also noticed La Salle, "and changed
colour," said Bellefontaine later in giving his _procès verbal_. The
preacher went on: "The Christian magistrate should be full of respect
for the ministers of the altar, and should not maltreat them, when
in the exercise of their duty, they strove to reconcile enemies and
to establish peace everywhere; that he should not make creatures to
praise him, nor oppress under specious pretexts persons also vested
with authority and who, serving the same prince, were opposed to his
enterprises; that he should make use of his power to maintain the
authority of the monarch and not to further his own interests; that
looking upon his subjects as his own children and treating them as a
father, he should be content with the rewards which he received from
the prince, without troubling the commerce of the country and without
ill using those who did not share their profits with him; and, that in
fine, he should not harass the people with extraordinary and unjust
_corvées_ for his own interests, under cover of the king's name, who
was unaware of their extent and that they bore so heavily on them."
These phrases were shortly afterwards attested to, in the official
declarations of MM. de la Salle, Jean Baptiste Montgaudon de
Bellefontaine, Jacques LeBer, de la Nouguère, commandant of Montreal,
Rémy, and Jean Baptiste Migeon de Branssat, procurator fiscal of the
seigneury of Montreal and others, before Commissioners Legardeur de
Tilly and Dupont, sent from Quebec as the court of investigation which
opened on May 2d and lasted for a fortnight.
To La Salle, every phrase appeared leveled at the conduct of the
governor general, especially as the preacher was M. de Fénelon. Jacques
LeBer testified that the curé, who came to visit him the same day,
declared that the words of the preacher appeared to him so imprudent
and out of place that he was very near intoning the Credo to cut
the sermon short. Others saw in them only generalities within the
legitimate sphere of a preacher. The Sulpicians took immediate steps
to disclaim to M. de la Nouguère all responsibility for the utterance
of one of its members. It was in no way authorized or foreseen, and
Dollier de Casson left his sick bed to confirm this and to assure the
commandant that M. de Fénelon should never preach again. They also
wrote immediately to Frontenac a similar disclaimer. That afternoon
M. de Fénelon, before his fellow clergy, gave his word of honour as a
man and a priest, that he had meant no conscious personal allusion,
but had spoken in general terms of all bearing authority. There is
no doubt, however, that M. de Fénelon, though a virtuous and zealous
missionary, had been "blazingly indiscreet." In his want of prudence,
he had also but recently personally canvassed the householders of the
Island of Montreal for signatures to a petition to be sent to court,
on behalf of Madame Perrot, in which the subscribers stated that they
had no complaint to make against her husband. The memorial was signed
by many prominent men, such as Louis Chevalier, the syndic, Zacharie
Dupuis, Sieur de Verdun and Mayor of the Isle of Montreal, Philippe de
Hautmesnil, Picoté de Bélestre and others. Madame Perrot had previously
approached d'Ailleboust to make the canvass, but the judge, already in
hot water, was too wary. M. de Fénelon fell an easier victim, and his
action was not calculated to prejudice M. de Frontenac in favour of
his pretentious of absence of _malice prepense_, in his Easter sermon.
La Salle communicated the details of the latter to Frontenac. On April
23d, in his anger, the governor wrote, ordering the Sulpicians to expel
the offending preacher from their community. This they could not do,
without a formal conviction of rebellion, as required by canon and
civil law. M. de Fénelon, however, resigned from the "congregation,"
using his right to do so, as the Sulpicians was not a "religious
order," and thus saved the situation. In this way, there was no
acquiescence to any claim of jurisdiction of the governor general over
ecclesiastics. M. de Fénelon retired to Lachine as a secular priest,
and is reckoned one of the first _curés_ of this place.
With the above letter M. de Frontenac sent out a set of questions to
be answered by each of the Sulpicians. This was equivalent to giving
evidence against M. de Fénelon in a civil court, whereas they claimed
the right of trying such a case in a prior ecclesiastical court,
according to precedent. They, therefore, refused, but later consented
when assured that their information would not be used juridically.
Commissioners Legardeur de Tilly and Dupont accordingly arrived at
Montreal, and opened a court of investigation, beginning on May 2d.
On August 21st M. de Fénelon appeared by command before the Sovereign
Council at Quebec. He came determined to protest against the competency
of the civil court to try him, relying on the privileges granted by
the kings of France. "Clericus, si cogatur ad forum laici, debet
protestari," was an axiom of many jurisconsults of the period, such as
Aufrerius, president of the parliament of Rouen.[123]
Among other privileges, a cleric summoned before the lay court, unless
sent there for misdemeanour by his bishop, could reply seated and
uncovered. On entering the hall of justice, M. de Fénelon, uncovered,
made for a seat. The governor reproved him, and Fénelon quoted his
canonical privilege. The heated head of the council then told him,
he might walk out if he would not take the attitude ordered. M. de
Fénelon demanded rather that M. de Frontenac should leave the council,
as he was acting not as his judge and the head of the council, but as
his opponent. The council, however, sustained the governor and M. de
Fénelon was taken as prisoner to the brewery under the conduct of an
usher.
On August 23d M. de Fénelon again appeared, presenting his protest in
writing, and refusing to be tried till sent by his bishop, when he
would give his reasons for alleging that the governor was his opposing
party and was not acting as the president of the council. Again the
recalcitrant de Fénelon went back to his prison. The council, however,
began to doubt their power to try the case, and it sent to the king
the judgment on M. de Fénelon, with the statement that there remained
only three judges whom he did not refuse. Similar action was taken in
M. Perrot's case. The unfortunate governor of Montreal had been kept
a close prisoner since January 26th and had not ceased sending to the
council protest upon protest,[124] refusing to accept his judges, and
demanding, without avail, to have his case concluded and sent to be
tried before the king in France.
In the month of September some of the council wavered and M. de
Villeray refused to act against either, alleging that there was such
a natural connection between the affairs of M. de Fénelon and M.
Perrot that having refused to act in the case of M. Perrot, fearing
to displease the late Intendant Talon, the uncle of Madame Perrot,
who had given him his own nomination to the council, he could do not
less for M. de Fénelon, and his reasons were accepted by the council.
(Archives de la Marine, October 22, 1674.) Thus it was that Frontenac
had to allow M. Perrot and M. de Fénelon to go for a time to France by
the last vessels sailing in November. With them went Dollier de Casson,
now broken in health and suffering from the loss of sight in one of
his eyes since his fall on the ice, and M. l'Abbé d'Urfé, on important
business to the country. The latter intended to complain at court of
the vexatious conduct of M. de Frontenac in regard to the missionaries,
whose letters to France he opened and to whom he handed, among those
arriving for them, only such as he pleased. Perhaps it was knowledge of
his intention, added to his displeasure at M. d'Urfé's friendship for
Fénelon, that made the governor refuse to allow M. d'Urfé's servant to
accompany him on the voyage. Thus the Montreal party sailed, hoping for
redress in France.
At the same time M. de Frontenac, scenting recrimination, wrote, on
November 14, 1674, to Colbert: "I am sending M. Perrot to France and
with him M. l'Abbé Fénelon, so that you may judge of their conduct. On
my part, I submit mine to everything that it shall please His Majesty
to impose on me; if I have been found wanting, I am ready to accept
the correction pleasing to him. A governor would be very much to be
pitied, if he was not sustained, having no one in whom he can trust,
and being ever obliged to distrust everybody; and when he should commit
any fault, it should assuredly be very pardonable, since there are not
wanting snares stretched for him, so that having to avoid a hundred of
them, it would be difficult not to fall into one. The distance, too,
from the court and the impossibility of receiving new orders, except
after a long interval, make his faults necessarily no short ones. Thus,
Monseigneur, if it shall have happened that I have made any false step,
which may displease His Majesty, he will have the goodness to pass it
over and to believe that it has occurred rather by an excess of zeal to
do my duty and to carry out His intentions, than from any other motive."
But Colbert was likely to be sympathetic to the Montrealers. When M.
d'Urfé arrived he was warmly welcomed by the minister, for on the 8th
of February following, his son, the Marquis de Seignelay contracted
a marriage with M. d'Urfé's cousin-germain, the rich and youthful
heiress, the Marquise Marie-Marguerite d'Allègre, only daughter of
Claude-Ives d'Allègre. The chosen intermediary in the marriage was also
M. de Bretonvilliers, the superior general of the Sulpicians at Paris.
Hence M. d'Urfé's mémoire on the conduct of M. de Frontenac, received
by Colbert and communicated to the king, on April 22, 1675, brought
from the latter the following series of counsels to guide the governor
in his future conduct: "I have noted with attention," wrote the king,
"all that is contained in your dispatches of February 16th and November
14th last, and to explain to you my designs and all they contain, I
will tell you that in a feeble colony, such as yours, your principal
and almost sole employment ought to be, to maintain and conserve all
the inhabitants there and to induce others to come thither. You ought
then to use the power I give you, only with the greatest moderation and
gentleness, more particularly with regard to the ecclesiastics whom
it is your duty to uphold in their functions, in peace and concord,
without giving them any trouble: being assured, as I am, that they will
never be wanting in the obedience due me, nor in their readiness to
inspire my people with the same sentiments.[125] Although I do not attach
importance to all that has been told me of many petty annoyances, given
by you to the ecclesiastics, I deem it necessary all the same for
the good of my government, to warn you of them, so that you correct
what is amiss, if they are true. But my present order is, that you
make known to no one, that I have written to you about them; and that
even when the bishop or the ecclesiastics speak of them, you will not
cherish any resentment against them.... They say, then here, that you
are not willing to allow the ecclesiastics power to attend to their
missions and their other functions, or to leave their stations without
passports, even to go from Montreal to Quebec; that you cause them to
journey to you often for very slight reasons; that you intercept their
letters and do not allow the liberty of writing; that you have not been
willing to allow M. d'Urfé's valet to cross over to France with his
master; nor permitted the grand vicar of the bishop of Petrea to take
his place at the Sovereign Council, in accordance with the regulation
of the month of April, 1673. If any part of the things is true, or even
the whole, you must make amends."
In a similar delicate strain Colbert wrote on May 13, 1675, adding that
he wished Frontenac to pay some mark of consideration to M. d'Urfé, now
that he had become allied to him as his daughter-in-law's first cousin.
The conduct of M. de Fénelon at Montreal, both for his sermon and
his support of M. Perrot, was blamed, and caused a letter dated May
7, 1675, to be written by M. de Bretonvilliers to the Sulpicians at
Montreal: "I exhort you all to profit by the example of M. de Fénelon.
For being too much mixed up with the world, and with affairs which did
not concern him, he has mismanaged his own affairs, and has done wrong
to those of his friends, while wishing to serve them. In these kinds of
affairs, which have regard only to personal quarrels, neutrality is to
always be approved...."
The upshot was that M. de Fénelon was not allowed to return to Canada
by the king, on recommendation of M. de Bretonvilliers. The criminal
procedure instituted by de Frontenac was not allowed to proceed. A
letter from the king to Frontenac, dated April 22, 1675, explains
this: "I have blamed the action of M. de Fénelon and I have ordered
him not to return to Canada. But I must tell you that it was difficult
to institute criminal procedure against this cleric and also to oblige
the priests of the Seminary of Montreal to testify against him; at
least, he should have been left in the hands of the bishop or the grand
vicar. Besides, the differences between you and the priests of the
Seminary of Montreal are entirely settled and can have no consequences.
As, moreover, the superior of the Seminary of St. Sulpice (M. de
Bretonvilliers) has assured me that all the priests of his community,
who are at Montreal, live in the respect and obedience due to me,
and to your dignity, I desire that you forget all that has passed.
Strive then, assiduously to reunite to yourself all minds, that these
differences may have divided."
On the 14th of May a characteristic letter of Colbert followed this
up: "It is to the good estate and good government of the king and the
colony, that you show particular consideration for the community of the
Seminary of St. Sulpice at Montreal, of which M. de Bretonvilliers, the
superior, is one of my best friends."
M. Perrot did not escape as easily as did M. de Fénelon, at the hands
of the king, being sent to the Bastille Prison for three weeks. On the
same April 22d as above, the king writing to Frontenac said: "I have
seen, and examined with care, all that you have sent me concerning the
Sieur Perrot; and after having also seen the memoirs, which he has put
in for his defense, I have condemned his action in having imprisoned
the officer of the guards sent to Montreal. To punish him, I have put
him for some time in the bastille, in order that this punishment may
not only render him more circumspect in the future regarding his duty
but will serve moreover as an example to restrain others. But having
given this satisfaction to my authority, which has been violated in
your person, I must tell you, to direct you in my views, that you ought
not, without absolute necessity, carry out an order in the territory of
a local governor, without having apprised him of it, and also that the
punishment of ten months, accorded him, has appeared to me too great in
proportion to the fault committed. This is why I have made him undergo
the punishment in the bastille only long enough to repair publicly the
violation of my authority. Another time, I direct that in a like fault,
you must be content with the satisfaction offered you, or with some
months in prison, or to transfer the case for decision to me, sending
over to France the defaulting officer; imprisonment for ten months
being a little too rigorous."
But thanks doubtlessly to M. Talon's interest in his relative, M.
Perrot was confirmed by the king in the government of Montreal, as the
above letter continues: "After having left M. Perrot some days in the
bastille I will send him back to his government and I will order him
to call on you and to offer you his apologies for all that has passed.
After which I desire that you will not retain any resentment against
him, but that you will treat him in accordance with the power I have
given him. Finally you ought to punish the _habitants_ only for capital
faults, avoiding lengthy punishments, because minds are thus divided,
and embittered and are diverted from their principal work, which is to
provide for the surety and subsistence of the family."
Colbert's letter of May 13th begged Frontenac to live in good harmony
with M. Perrot, urging his family alliance "with persons for whom I
have great consideration," of whom, no doubt, Talon was one.
THE GOVERNOR, THE INTENDANT AND THE SOVEREIGN COUNCIL
One of the gravest charges alleged against Frontenac, by the
Montrealers now in France, was that he had usurped the powers of the
council and that he had rendered himself absolute and all powerful.
This brought about that, at Colbert's instigation, the king himself
named the councillors and fixed the rank they should hold in the
Sovereign Council. In consequence, on April 25th of this year, Louis
XIV named M. Denis-Joseph Ruette d'Auteuil as his _procureur général_;
on May 10th following, the seven councillors in order of rank: Louis
Rouer de Villeray, first councillor, Charles Legardeur de Tilly,
Mathieu d'Amours, Nicholas Dupont, René-Louis Chartier de Lothbinière,
Jean Baptiste de Peyras and Charles Denys. To render them the more
independent of the governor, the king named on June 5th M. Jacques
Duchesneau, then treasurer of France at Tours, as the intendant, making
him the real president of the council and reserving for the governor
general only a simple presidency of honour. He arrived on September
25th. He further endowed the new intendant[126] with full powers
concerning the administration of justice, police and finance, with the
order, to see to it that all the inferior judges and other officers of
justice should be upheld in the exercise of their functions without
any interference--a privilege often demanded by the Montrealers. He
arranged that the intendant should judge conjointly with the Sovereign
Council all civic and criminal cases, in conformity with the _coutume
de Paris_ and that the council should make all police regulations;
with this clause, however, that the intendant could, if he deemed it
opportune, act alone as supreme judge in civil matters, and could make
all police regulations and ordinances.[127]
At this time the remuneration of the governor general was 3,000
_livres_, of the local governors of Montreal and Three Rivers 1,200,
and the members of the Sovereign Council 300 each. This was small, but
there were not many inhabitants as yet. A letter of the minister to
Duchesneau, dated April 15, 1675, showing surprise that there are only
7,832 persons in Canada, 1,120 guns and 5,117 horned cattle helps us
to understand the situation. The smallness of salaries would certainly
tempt the governors to engage in commerce.
Finally the king, on June 5th, by a new declaration confirmed the
establishment of the Sovereign Council, reserving the right to name the
councillors after a place fell vacant. The council was to be composed
as before, of the governor general, the bishop of Quebec or in case
of his absence in France, of his representative, the grand vicar, the
intendant and seven councillors. To take away from the governor general
every pretext of mixing himself in the transactions of the council, the
king ordered that in conformity with the custom of the sovereign or
supreme courts of the kingdom of France, the intendant, although only
holding the third place of honour, should, however, as president of the
council, consult the opinions of the councillors, count their votes,
pronounce their resolutions and enjoy the same advantages as the first
presidents of the courts of the kingdom. (Edits et Ordonnances, Quebec,
1854, pp. 83, 84.)
Still, four years later, bitter animosities continued in the council
for some months to the exclusion of all other business, as to the
exact position of the governor and the intendant. In spite of the
ordinance of 1675, Frontenac claimed to be entered in the minutes as
the chief and president of the council, in that the intendant was only
the acting president. Thus was the governor general "cribbed, cabined
and confined." His wings were cut and his powers more closely defined
and limited than ever. Moreover, a rival was placed by his side,
to be a thorn in it for many a long day. He was no longer absolute
in the council chamber. Thence began the long series of vexatious
complaints of Frontenac and Duchesneau of encroachment on one another's
authority,--this intolerable bickering eventually ending in the recall
of both, by the instructions of the king on May 10, 1682. The new form
of legislation, however, was a marked improvement, and since it was
the outcome of Montreal agitation for clearly defined and responsible
government, hence, the length of treatment that has been accorded to
its constitutional history of this picturesque period may be not out of
place.
Letters went to and fro; one from the minister to Duchesneau on April
25th severely blames him, that in relying on the great power given
him and by his title of president, he was wrong in thinking himself
nearly equal to the governor, and that the latter can do nothing
without consulting him. The reverse should be the position. When the
governor interdicts any affair at the council, he had only to submit.
The council can only make representations and if the governor does not
listen to them, let the matter be submitted to the king. Even then
the governor should be shown the complaints, so that he may be in a
position to make his reply. This would seem to show that Frontenac's
position was upheld. Still the trouble went on and finally produced on
May 20, 1679, a decision of the Council of State, that in the minutes
of the Sovereign Council M. de Frontenac shall be solely intitled, the
governor and lieutenant general of His Majesty in New France and M.
Duchesneau as the intendant of justice, police and finance, but that
he should also exercise the functions of the first president of the
council--a re-affirmation of the declaration of His Majesty of June 5,
1675,--a victory for the Intendant Duchesneau.
In a letter from the king to Frontenac this latter had been styled,
"Chief and President of the Council," and relying on this, Frontenac
wished to force the recording clerk to inscribe this intitulation. On
the other side it was argued, that a private letter giving incidentally
this title to the governor, could not prevail against the formal
ordinance of June 5, 1675, not revoked. The quarrel became so envenomed
that all the business of the council was paralyzed during many months.
For as surely as the time came for the minutes to be read and the
titles of those present to be enumerated, the pother began anew. The
clerk received contrary orders, and nothing was done. Finally he was
sent to prison by M. de Frontenac. Some of the councillors, opposing
this, came also under his condemnation, and M. de Villeray, M. de Tilly
and M. d'Auteuil were sent to "rusticate" with their friends while
awaiting the order to go to France to answer for their conduct. Rival
factions were also created in the colony, and Montreal was divided.
Even with this new restatement of the position, the spheres of
authority of the governor and of the intendant were still ill-defined.
There were apparently two independent heads, yet overlapping; still
one was supposedly subordinate to the other. Consequently harmony was
impossible and the history of the French régime up to the final fall
is one continual attempt to harmonize contradictions. Had the French
government been less paternal, less desirous of centralization and less
jealous of delegating its powers; had it given a measure of home rule
or representative government, the rulers in Canada would have found
a way to solve their difficulties, even those of church and state,
without having to recur, like children in every trivial dispute, to
the jealously guarded center of authority at headquarters, thousands
of miles away. "_L'état c'est moi_," said Louis XIV, Le Soleil, in
his brilliant court at Versailles, while Canada was a big growing boy
confined to petticoats. If the French Government had even given the
governor and intendant some real initiative power, instead of expecting
them to be the mere executive arm of a not too well informed directing
mind, far away, the sense of responsibility would have kept things
in order, with less friction and with more progress. If only it had
trusted its own appointed official advisers, instead of encouraging
every subordinate Jack-in-office to write to His Majesty criticizing,
misrepresenting, and offering suggestions on the administration of
colonial affairs, there might have been some unity. The policy of
_espionage_ of the departments, on one another, encouraged by the
mother country, only provoked tale bearing, tittle-tattle, suspicion,
jealousy, cabals, intrigues, discord and infringement on one another's
privileges, and was one of the chief causes leading to the slow
development of colonization, the paralyzation of the trade and the
delay of the progress of New France.
It must not be imagined that M. Perrot was entirely free from further
trade arrangements and scandals at Montreal. A document, believed to
have been written by Duchesneau in 1681 to the king, speaks of the
ill-treatment meted out by him or his employés to many persons. He is
accused of ruining the country, of trading publicly, of having a store
on the "Common" and holding open market there, of trading himself and
through his representatives and soldiers, in the camp of the Indians,
and of monopolizing the market by having a guard at the end of the
bridge leading to it which allowed only his friends to pass. Thus the
_habitants_ had only the fringes of the trade with the Indians. He
still encouraged the _coureurs de bois_ and had fitted out a great
number of them. His avidity is thus described: "He has been seen
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.'" It is further stated that last year his commerce was
valued at 40,000 _livres_. In his reply in March, 1682, to the above
mémoire, he states that he has made little trade since, the result
of his business transactions reaching only 13,325 _livres_. The money
of the country being the beaver, trading in peltry was one of the
necessities of life. He continued to have troubles with the seminary
and in August, 1682, he was removed during the first year of M. de La
Barre's governorship and given the government of Acadia!
FOOTNOTES:
[122] The real name was Thomas Tarieu de la Naudière. His son, Pierre
Thomas de la Naudière, married the heroine Madeleine de Verchères.
[123] A subplot in this drama is the refusal of M. Trancheville and
M. Rémy, Montreal Sulpicians, to appear against de Fénelon before
secular judges. M. Rémy, who was fined several times for not appearing,
claimed exemption on the same ground that as a son is not obliged
to witness against a father, a brother against a brother, similarly
an ecclesiastic is not obliged to face a situation which would make
him fall into sin and ecclesiastical irregularity. They pleaded the
privilege of canon law, recognized in France.
[124] August 17, 27. September 6, 22. October 15, 22.
[125] Archives de la Marine, Registre des Dépêches, 1674-5, Vol. QQ, 12.
[126] Duchesneau arrived on September 25th.
[127] Complément des Ordinances, Quebec, 1856, pp. 42, 43.