1661-1662

HOSTILITIES AND LOSSES

MONTREAL THE THEATRE OF IROQUOIS CARNAGE—THE FIRST SULPICIAN SLAUGHTERED, M. LE MAITRE—THE SECOND, M. VIGNAL—THE FIRST VISIT OF LAVAL TO MONTREAL—THE ABBE DE QUEYLUS AGAIN APPEARS—ECCLESIASTICAL DISPUTES LEGAL, NOT PERSONAL—THE DEATH OF LAMBERT CLOSSE—THE EXPLOIT OF PICOTE DE BELESTRE—MAISONNEUVE'S ORDINANCE AGAINST SALE OF LIQUOR TO INDIANS—INDIAN ORGIES AND BLOODSHED—THE GOVERNOR GENERAL AT QUEBEC DISAPPROVES OF MAISONNEUVE'S ACTION—THE FAMOUS LIQUOR TRAFFIC DISPUTES—JEANNE MANCE LEAVES FOR FRANCE.

The year 1661 saw the renewal of hostilities of the Iroquois from Montreal to Cape Tourment, "but," says Marie de l'Incarnation writing in September of this year, "Montreal has been the principal theatre of their carnage."

On February 25th a party of Montrealers were going to work in the fields unarmed, not fearing any ill, since there was usually no fear of Iroquois attacks at this early season, when suddenly they found themselves surrounded by sixty of their foes. There was only one weapon among them and that a small pistol borne by Charles Le Moyne, and, unable to defend themselves with their tools, they sought safety in flight to the town, but not without thirteen being captured.

On March 24th 200 Iroquois fell upon a body of Montrealers and captured ten. Had they not been now armed the numbers would have been more. The "Relation" of this year, speaking of these losses says: "After the capture of the thirteen in the month of February, ten others fell into the same captivity. Then later more, and still more, in such sort that, during the whole summer this island was constantly harassed by these goblin imps who sometimes appeared on the outskirts of the woods, contenting themselves with hurling insults at us; sometimes they glided stealthily into the midst of the field, to fall upon the workmen by surprise; sometimes they drew near our houses, ceaselessly annoying us, and like unfortunate harpies or evil birds of prey, would swoop down on us unawares."

Of the ten captured in March four were butchered in the neighbouring woods; their bodies, brutally dismembered, hacked and burned, were discovered by the dogs of the town, who came back each day glutted with blood. This led to their being followed to their foul feasting place. "Such disasters made the people turn their thoughts to eternity," says the pious Dollier de Casson. "Vice was then almost unknown at Ville Marie, and in the time of war, religion flourished there on all sides in quite a different manner than it does today, in that of peace."

Three Rivers and Quebec suffered similarly. Near Quebec the sÉnÉchal of New France, M. Jean de Lauson, son of the former governor, fell a victim on June 22nd. On this same day a picturesque scene occurred at Montreal, when two canoes of Iroquois arrived under the protection of a white flag of peace, and bringing with them four French prisoners. It was an embassy of the two nations Onondaga and Oi8guere, who professed to be neutral. They parleyed offering the release of the four prisoners and twenty others at Onondaga; requesting that hospital sisters such as those at Quebec should be sent them, and insisting as the main condition of the release that a black robe be sent. M. Maisonneuve sent this proposal on to Quebec with the result that Father Le Moyne, the Jesuit, was deputed to accompany the ambassadors to Onondaga. On the arrival of Father Le Moyne at Montreal the four Frenchmen were exchanged for the eight Iroquois prisoners held, for a year past, in Montreal.

After their departure other Iroquois onslaughts resulted in the death of Jean Valets, at Point St. Charles, on August 14th, of the Sulpician M. LemaÎtre, and that of Gabriel de RÉe with him on August 29th, near St. Gabriel's fortified farmhouse. M. LemaÎtre was saying his breviary in the fields and acting as a lookout, somewhat apart from the fourteen or fifteen workmen, when he suddenly came across an ambush of sixty Iroquois. Seizing a cutlass and facing the savage crew, he called out to the workers to hurry with their arms. He was now shot by the Iroquois and running towards his friends he dropped down dead. These managed to make their way to the farmhouse but left one man, Gabriel de RÉe, dead on the field. The Iroquois cut off the heads of each, and one of them, a Christian renegade, put on the dead priest's soutane, and wearing a shirt over it for a surplice, went stalking around the body in mockery of the Christian burial service. The early memoirs of this event further tell that the head of the murdered priest had spoken after being severed from the body, and that when it had been carried away in a white handkerchief, probably taken from the pockets of his soutane, the features of the dead man became perfectly imprinted upon it. This handkerchief had been seen in the camp by a French prisoner, Lavigne, who tried in vain to obtain possession of it for, recognizing the features of the dead priest, he had learned of his massacre. This story he told to Dollier de Casson, who records it in his "Histoire de MontrÉal."

Meanwhile the party that had taken Father Le Moyne to Onondaga with the promise of leading back the twenty French prisoners in forty days had not returned, and great fear was entertained at Montreal for their safety. On October 5th, however, nine were brought back by the intercession of the friendly chief named GaracontiÉ, the rest having been kept behind with Father Le Moyne during the coming winter.

On October 25th another disaster occurred in the little island À la Pierre, above St. Helen's Island, [88] whither a party had gone the day before to quarry stone for the new seminary, for up to this the Sulpicians still dwelt in the HÔtel-Dieu. Along with the party, joining them on the second day, was M. LemaÎtre's successor as "economus;" another Sulpician priest, M. Vignal, who went to supervise the work. Hardly had the party in the first boat, in which was M. Vignal, put foot to land, when they fell into an ambuscade, and M. Vignal was pierced with a sword, along with Sieur de Brigeac, a young soldier of thirty years of age; M. Maisonneuve's private secretary, RenÉ CuillÉrier, and Jacques Dufresne. M. Vignal was thrown in the enemy's canoes and taken to La Prairie de la Madeleine, facing Montreal. The rest of the French escaped, except Jean Baptiste Moyen, who was left mortally wounded.

After two days they put the priest to death, roasted his body on a funeral pyre and ate it. His bones were never found. This death gave great grief at Montreal as well as Quebec, for M. Vignal it will be remembered had been the chaplain of the HospitaliÈres there.

After this cruel and horrible repast the party broke up; the Mohawks took Jacques Dufresne with them, while the Oneidas led away the Sieur de Brigeac and RenÉ CuillÉrier. Both of these were condemned to be burned and de Brigeac, after being horribly mutilated and slowly burned, succumbed after twenty-four hours' torture, "praying," as the Historian de Casson relates, "for the conversion of his tormentors without uttering a cry of complaint."

The same fate awaited CuillÉrier, but he had an intercessor in the person of the sister of the chief, who wished to adopt him as her brother. Eventually he escaped to the Dutch at Fort Orange, and he finally made his way back to Montreal in the following year.

During the summer the Vicar Apostolic, Mgr. Laval, made his first visit to Montreal. He was received with honour on the evening of August 21st. On this occasion he showed great solicitude for the HospitaliÈres of the HÔtel-Dieu, who, by the failure of M. DauversiÈre, now become a bankrupt, had lost the funds entrusted to him, and had nothing to live on, unless the one thousand livres' income, granted to the Company of Montreal by Madame de Bullion for the support of a hospital, was transferred to them. They were now thinking of going back to France, but Mgr. Laval arranged, on the request of the inhabitants of Montreal, that the income of the hospital could support them.

At the same time Montreal was visited again by the AbbÉ de Queylus. He arrived at Quebec, incognito, on the third day of August. Since his absence he had not been idle in pushing the ecclesiastical position of Montreal, for on calling on the vicar apostolic, he astonished him by communicating to him the results of his visit to Rome, viz., the apostolic Bull of the Dateria, creating Montreal into an independent parish, and a mandate from the archbishop of Rouen charging the bishop of Petrea to preside at the installation of M. de Queylus as the canonical "parochus." Finally the vicar general reminded M. de Queylus of the lettre de cachet of February 27, 1660, forbidding his return. Queylus retorted by quoting a contradictory "lettre de cachet" annulling it. The vicar general refused to accept the Bull of the Dateria on the ground that it was obtained surreptitiously, and he cancelled the jurisdiction of Rouen as incompatible with his own as vicar apostolic. On August 4th he forbade Queylus to go to Montreal under penalty of disobedience. This he communicated to d'Argenson, but the night of the 5th or 6th of August saw de Queylus making for Montreal furtively by canoe, with no obstacle placed in his way by the sympathetic governor. M. de Queylus had large landed property interests in Montreal, in fact he was one of the largest proprietors and one of its chief mainstays. It was therefore argued that he could not, as a private individual, be stayed from attending to his business there. On the 6th, Laval issued the ecclesiastical suspension of de Queylus unless he returned to Quebec. Meanwhile the abbÉ remained at Montreal and no doubt received Laval on his official visit of August 21st, already mentioned. On August 29th he grieved with his brethren over the massacre of his fellow Sulpician, M. LemaÎtre, and he performed several important business transactions as "Superior of Ecclesiastics Associated for the Conversion of the Savages."

In the meantime Laval had written to Rome exposing his case. He looked upon the peculiar pretensions for ecclesiastical monopoly of Montreal and the presence of Queylus, as injurious to the interests of the church in Canada, as menacing its unity and fostering schism. Accordingly prevailing in this view, his protests brought letters demanding the return to France of M. de Queylus, which took place October 22d, from Quebec, the new Governor d'Avaugour being intrusted with its execution.

It is well to avoid reading into these ecclesiastical disputes personal hostility or the clash of rancour among high placed churchmen. Each would have fought, lawyer-like, on principle, for a case of canonical jurisdiction not yet settled in the ecclesiastical courts, owing to the doubt remaining as to the validity of the overlordship of Rouen and the acquiescence of Rome in its pretensions. Law at that time seems also to have been unsatisfactorily managed, and the facility with which "lettres de cachet" were sent to and fro, countermanding one another, did not tend to simplify matters, as we have seen.

Add to these the difficulties inherent in the foundation of a young French colony and the inevitable struggles for precedence and "locus standi," especially among representatives of a nation that adored etiquette and the preceding quarrel will be looked upon as an interesting episode in a difficult period of history rather than as an ecclesiastical scandal needlessly resuscitated by the historian, for the purpose of opening old sores. Later on it will be seen that when the archbishop of Rouen had relinquished his pretension, de Queylus returned in 1668 as Laval's appointed vicar general at Montreal, and the Sulpicians had no greater friend than the fighting bishop.

The same remarks could apply to the struggles that had been going on in Quebec between Laval and d'Argenson in the matter of social precedence. The relations of the church to the state had not been clearly defined in a new country, primarily established for the promotion of Christianity, and it would still take some time to straighten them out.

On September 11th of this year d'Argenson was formally succeeded in the reins of office by the Baron du Bois d'Avaugour, arrived on August 31st, but it must not be understood that his quarrels with Laval were the cause of this. The Vicomte's term of office, as we know, had already been renewed for a second term, and he had sent in his resignation more than once, urging ill health as an explanation. His loss was, however, felt at Montreal by the Sulpicians, on whose side he had ranged himself in the above disputes with Laval. His administration would have been more successful if he could have been more impersonal in such encounters.

M. d'Argenson was shortly followed to France by the founder of Boucherville, Pierre Boucher, ex-governor of Three Rivers. He left on October 31st on a mission as special agent to promote the recognition of the need of national help from France, if Canada was to remain a white man's land. He was sustained by the new governor, d'Avaugour, and by d'Argenson, now in France; with what success we shall hear.

1662

The parish register of Montreal has the following sad entry: "1662-February 6. Le Sieur Lambert Closse, sergeant-major de la garnison; Simon Le Roy, Jean Lecompte et Louis Brisson,[89] tuÉ par les Iroquois."

On this date, February 6th, the brave Lambert Closse met his death at the hands of those he had so often withstood. The place of the combat was somewhere near the corner of Craig Street and St. Lambert Hill. A tablet placed by the Antiquarian Society erected on the south corner of St. Lambert Hill and St. James Street, near the site of his house, reads: "Near to this place Raphael Lambert Closse, first town major of Ville Marie, fell bravely defending some colonists attacked by Iroquois, 6th February, 1662. In his honour St. Lambert's Hill received its name."

His biographer, Dollier de Casson, says he died "as a good soldier of Christ and the king." He was one of those chivalrous knights who looked upon the Montreal venture as a holy crusade against the infidels, and death to him was victory. "Gentlemen," he once explained, "I am not come here, except to die for God in the service of arms. If I did not believe I should die so, I should leave this land and go to fight against the Turk so as not to be deprived of this glory." He left behind his young widow of nineteen years, Elizabeth Moyen, and a child, Jeanne CÉcile Closse, now two years old. Some colonists, being fallen upon in the fields by the Iroquois, Lambert ran, as was his wont, to their assistance. He would have saved them had he not been basely deserted by a cowardly Fleming, his serving man. The historian of the "Relations" for 1662 says, "He has justly merited the praise of having saved Montreal by his arms and his reputation."

On May 6, 1662, PicotÉ de BÉlestre signalized that Montreal had still brave men to follow in his footsteps by the brilliant defense of the Fort Ste. Marie. This redoubt on the east, with the corresponding outlying one, on the west, of St. Gabriel, was a most valuable fortress, without which, as a writer has remarked, Montreal "would have been snuffed like a penny dip."

The Fort Ste. Marie was opposite the little rapid, down the harbour, still known as Ste. Marie's Current, and was placed among some fifty acres which had been cleared and cultivated in prehistoric days by the Indians. The site of the above event is recorded by a tablet on the corner of Campeau and LagauchetiÈre streets: "Here Trudeau, Roulier and Langevin-Lacroix resisted fifty Iroquois." The three men were returning to the habitation after their day's work in the fields, when suddenly one of them cried: "To arms! The enemy is upon us!" At the same moment a large party of Iroquois, who had been lurking here all day, rose and fired. Each Frenchman seized his musket and fled to a hole nearby, called "the redoubt." This they held stoutly till rescued by BÉlestre, the commandant of Ste. Marie. After a brisk fight the enemy finally retired to the woods.

Apart from these alarms from the Iroquois, a new danger to life had arisen from the drunken fits of the Indian allies. On the night of June 23-24 Michel Louvard dit Desjardins had been slain before his door in Montreal by a savage, "Wolf." This produced the following ordinance from de Maisonneuve on June 24th:

"In consequence of the murder committed last night on the person of one named Desjardins by drunken savages, caused by the sale of intoxicating liquors, notwithstanding previous prohibitions given both by the Baron du Bois d'Avaugour, lieutenant general of His Majesty, and Mgr. the Bishop of Petrea, vicar apostolic; after having considered, in consequence of the sales of these drinks, the dangers of a general massacre of the inhabitants by the savages, for which there are weighty presumptions, having regard to the ordinary insolences of these latter, and considering, besides, the ordinary crimes committed on this subject by the French, of which we shall shortly inform the Baron d'Avaugour and the Bishop of Petrea, so that there shall be established good order on the subject of the sale of liquors, as well as for the good of the inhabitants and for the savages; we, while awaiting this order by virtue of the power we have received from His Majesty, have prohibited and do now prohibit all kinds of persons, of whatsoever quality and condition, from selling, giving or trading intoxicating drinks to the savages, under such pains and punishments as we shall judge proper to inflict, to procure the service of God and the good of this habitation."

This looks but just and wise; but it was also bold, seeing that the prohibition of the sale of liquor was at that moment a burning question at Quebec. It was especially bold, seeing that Maisonneuve adroitly challenged the governor general to stand by his own previous legislation, which he was now tacitly neglecting to enforce. It will be seen that de Maisonneuve made reference to powers "we have received from the king." Shortly after the publication of this ordinance the Baron d'Avaugour visited Montreal and he flatly doubted the right to introduce these words, especially as he had lately taken the stand of permitting liquor traffic with the Indians. As the governor of Montreal had been used slightingly and jealously of late by the governor general, he did not show him his documentary authority, although the reader will remember that the royal edict of March 7, 1657, warranted the words.

KEY TO SIGNATURES ON OPPOSITE PAGE

This marriage contract between Lambert Closse and Elizabeth Moyen must have been signed by Jean de St. PÈre, the first notary of Montreal, but his signature appears to have faded. The flourishes or paraphes at the end of the names were customary at the period to insure against imitation.

This is now the place to introduce the famous quarrels about the liquor trade, which were of passionate interest in New France in the seventeenth century.

It is claimed by the French that the English were the first to introduce the liquor curse to the natives, in payment for furs. When the French returned to Quebec the traders followed suit in spite of the prohibitions of Champlain, Montmagny, d'Ailleboust, de Maisonneuve, de Queylus and Laval.

The letters of the Jesuit missionaries and the contemporary memorialists reveal a shameful story of vice, mingled with that of the establishment of a Christian civilization. Drink made the savages and the Christian neophytes yield to the most deplorable depths of immorality and barbarous brutality. The delights of conviviality gave way to disgusting debaucheries, quarrels and bloody fights. Fathers slaughtered their children; husbands, their wives; and the women became veritable furies. Children, boys and girls, were all demoralized. After a night's carouse the cabins of the Indians were a gruesome sight, heartbreaking to those responsible for the morality of the country. The good nuns were shocked at naked men and women running amuck in the streets of Quebec, clearing all before them at the point of the sword. Notwithstanding prohibitions and ordinances, the scenes of carouses and of carnage continued, because the minority, the traders, maintained the right as necessary for trade alliances with the natives, asserting that they were not responsible for the abuse. On his arrival Laval fought the custom fiercely and finally found himself forced, on May 6, 1660, to fulminate the terrors of the church's excommunication "ipso facto" against the traffickers, and in this he was supported by the Jesuit missionaries. This had a decided effect, backed up by the severe sanctions, even those of death, promulgated by the secular arm of the state, represented by the Baron d'Avaugour.

An unfortunate incident, trivial in itself, destroyed this harmony. It came from the characteristic inflexibility of the soldier governor. He had all the qualities of a soldier who, having made up his mind, is immovable, but he had the defects of these same qualities. What in a good cause would have been constancy in maintaining a point of honour became pigheadedness and impracticability in another. A woman of Quebec had been taken, selling a bottle of wine to the Indians. Her friends and relatives interceded for her to the priest, Father Lalemant, who in turn approached the governor. The governor must have been in a bad humour and not very philosophical, for he did not distinguish between clemency and justice, between a general command and an extenuating circumstance, or legitimate exemption. It was the priest's part to urge clemency, the governor's to exercise justice. Father Lalemant was answered brusquely: "Since the selling of eau de vie is not punishable for this woman, it shall not be so for anyone"—the answer of the man of the sword and not of the lawyer or statesman. Soon the word went around that the governor tolerated the liquor traffic. The obstinate and headstrong soldier would not retract his hasty words and disorders began again. The governor was inactive and shut his eyes, but Laval levelled his threats again at the traders, who now openly revolted, saying they would not be dictated to by bishop, priest, preacher or confessor, since the viceroy was on their side.

It was under these circumstances that de Maisonneuve issued his ordinance forbidding at Montreal what was known to be permitted at Quebec. Hence the passage of arms between the two governors as described. Maisonneuve was supported by the clergy of Montreal. Affairs went from bad to worse at Quebec and on August 12, 1662, the vicar apostolic went to France to place the liquor situation before the king. Thither also went the secretary of the Baron d'Avaugour, PÉronne de MazÉ, to justify his master and the traders.

Charge and countercharge, and recriminations, exercised the French court. The bishop and the Jesuits were accused of too much severity and clericalism, the governor and traders of too much laxity and avarice. The problem of the relations of church and state had still to be worked out in New France. In the meantime the bishop won; the Sorbonne in 1662 had justified his action; the liquor traffic was forbidden and d'Avaugour was to be recalled. When Laval returned next year, the new governor, de MÉsy, accompanied him, the man of his own choice—an unfortunate one as we shall see.

The month following, September, 1662, de Maisonneuve wished to go to France, his object being to secure troops and to arrange for the transfer of the seigneurship of the island from the nearly moribund Company of Montreal to the Seminary of St. Sulpice. Before leaving he appointed the town major, Zacharie Dupuis to take his place and an ordinance to that effect was put up at the door of the parish church dated September 10, 1662. On September 16th he started with Jeanne Mance and the AbbÉ Souart, conducted by M. Jacques Leber. When at Quebec d'Avaugour forbade Maisonneuve to depart on the ground that he was needed in Montreal to quell the sedition that had arisen there in July in reference to the establishment of a storehouse by the Company of One Hundred Associates. This was but a pretext. Maisonneuve, however, consented to return. Mademoiselle Mance set sail alone on September 20th.

On his return to Montreal Maisonneuve busied himself in promoting agriculture. There were four classes now living at Montreal: The "habitants," or settlers, who took up the lands and were self-supporting, these alone having the rights of trading in peltry; the soldiers of the garrison; hired workers by contract for a definite time; and day labourers.

By an ordinance of November 4, 1662, Maisonneuve gave permission to soldiers and hired workers to cultivate four arpents on the seigneurs' domain, till four others equally cultivated were given them elsewhere. As a further inducement, those taking up land would be granted peltry privileges like the habitants. Sixty-three responded to this before the end of the year.