William H. Atherton

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.

Statue of Frontenac

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.

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.

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!