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.

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.

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.

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]