The Fighting Governor

C >> Charles W. Colby >> The Fighting Governor

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

On returning from Lake Ontario to Quebec Frontenac had
good reason to be pleased with his summer's work. It
still remained to convince Colbert that the construction
of the fort at Cataraqui was not an undue expense and
waste of energy. But as the initial outlay had already
been made, he had ground for hope that he would not
receive a positive order to undo what had been accomplished.
At Quebec he received Colbert's disparaging comments upon
the assembly of the Three Estates and the substitution
of aldermen for the syndic who had formerly represented
the inhabitants. These comments, however, were not so
couched as to make the governor feel that he had lost
the minister's confidence. On the whole, the first year
of office had gone very well.

A stormier season was now to follow. The battle-royal
between Frontenac and Perrot, the governor of Montreal,
began in the autumn of 1673 and was waged actively
throughout the greater part of 1674.

Enough has been said of Frontenac's tastes to show that
he was a spendthrift; and there can be no doubt that as
governor of Canada he hoped to supplement his salary by
private trading. Soon after his arrival at Quebec in the
preceding year he had formed an alliance with La Salle.
The decision to erect a fort at Cataraqui was made for
the double reason that while safeguarding the colony
Frontenac and La Salle could both draw profit from the
trade at this point in the interior.

La Salle was not alone in knowing that those who first
met the Indians in the spring secured the best furs at
the best bargains. This information was shared by many,
including Francois Perrot. Just above the island of
Montreal is another island, which lies between Lake St
Louis and the Lake of Two Mountains. Perrot, appreciating
the advantage of a strategic position, had fixed there
his own trading-post, and to this day the island bears
his name. Now, with Frontenac as a sleeping partner of
La Salle there were all the elements of trouble, for
Perrot and Frontenac were rival traders. Both were wrathful
men and each had a selfish interest to fight for, quite
apart from any dispute as to the jurisdiction of Quebec
over Montreal.

Under such circumstances the one thing lacking was a
ground of action. This Frontenac found in the existing
edict against the coureurs de bois-those wild spirits
who roamed the woods in the hope of making great profits
through the fur trade, from which by law they were
excluded, and provoked the special disfavour of the
missionary by the scandals of their lives, which gave
the Indians a low idea of French morality. Thus in the
eyes of both Church and State the coureur de bois was a
mauvais sujet, and the offence of taking to the forest
without a licence became punishable by death or the
galleys.

Though Frontenac was not the author of this severe measure,
duty required him to enforce it. Perrot was a friend and
defender of the coureurs de bois, whom he used as employees
in the collection of peltries. Under his regime Montreal
formed their headquarters. The edict gave them no concern,
since they knew that between them and trouble stood their
patron and confederate.

Thus Frontenac found an excellent occasion to put Perrot
in the wrong and to hit him through his henchmen. The
only difficulty was that Frontenac did not possess adequate
means to enforce the law. Obviously it was undesirable
that he should invade Perrot's bailiwick in person. He
therefore instructed the judge at Montreal to arrest all
the coureurs de bois who were there. A loyal attempt was
made to execute this command, with the result that Perrot
at once intervened and threatened to imprison the judge
if he repeated his effort.

Frontenac's counterblast was the dispatch of a lieutenant
and three soldiers to arrest a retainer of Perrot named
Carion, who had shown contempt of court by assisting the
accused woodsmen to escape. Perrot then proclaimed that
this constituted an unlawful attack on his rights as
governor of Montreal, to defend which he promptly imprisoned
Bizard, the lieutenant sent by Frontenac, together with
Jacques Le Ber, the leading merchant of the settlement.
Though Perrot released them shortly afterwards, his tone
toward Frontenac remained impudent and the issue was
squarely joined.

But a hundred and eighty miles of wilderness separated
the governor of Canada from the governor of Montreal. In
short, before Perrot could be disciplined he must be
seized, and this was a task which if attempted by frontal
attack might provoke bloodshed in the colony, with heavy
censure from the king. Frontenac therefore entered upon
a correspondence, not only with Perrot, but with one of
the leading Sulpicians in Montreal, the Abbe Fenelon.
This procedure yielded quicker results than could have
been expected. Frontenac's letter which summoned Perrot
to Quebec for an explanation was free from threats and
moderate in tone. It found Perrot somewhat alarmed at
what he had done and ready to settle the matter without
further trouble. At the same time Fenelon, acting on
Frontenac's suggestion, urged Perrot to make peace. The
consequence was that in January 1674 Perrot acceded and
set out for Quebec with Fenelon as his companion.

Whatever Perrot's hopes or expectations of leniency, they
were quickly dispelled. The very first conference between
him and Frontenac became a violent altercation (January
29, 1674). Perrot was forthwith committed to prison,
where he remained ten months. Not content with this
success, Frontenac proceeded vigorously against the
coureurs de bois, one of whom as an example was hanged
in front of Perrot's prison.

The trouble did not stop here, nor with the imprisonment
of Brucy, who was Perrot's chief agent and the custodian
of the store-house at Ile Perrot. Fenelon, whose temper
was ardent and emotional, felt that he had been made the
innocent victim of a detestable plot to lure Perrot from
Montreal. Having upbraided Frontenac to his face, he
returned to Montreal and preached a sermon against him,
using language which the Sulpicians hastened to repudiate.
But Fenelon, undaunted, continued to espouse Perrot's
cause without concealment and brought down upon himself
a charge of sedition.

In its final stage this cause celebre runs into still
further intricacies, involving the rights of the clergy
when accused by the civil power. The contest begun by
Perrot and taken up by Fenelon ran an active course
throughout the greater part of a year (1674), and finally
the king himself was called in as judge. This involved
the sending of Perrot and Fenelon to France, along with
a voluminous written statement from Frontenac and a great
number of documents. At court Talon took the side of
Perrot, as did the Abbe d'Urfe, whose cousin, the Marquise
d'Allegre, was about to marry Colbert's son. Nevertheless
the king declined to uphold Frontenac's enemies. Perrot
was given three weeks in the Bastille, not so much for
personal chastisement as to show that the governor's
authority must be respected. On the whole, Frontenac
issued from the affair without suffering loss of prestige
in the eyes of the colony. The king declined to reprimand
him, though in a personal letter from his sovereign
Frontenac was told that henceforth he must avoid invading
a local government without giving the governor preliminary
notice. The hint was also conveyed that he should not
harry the clergy. Frontenac's position, of course, was
that he only interfered with the clergy when they were
encroaching upon the rights of the crown.

Upon this basis, then, the quarrel with Perrot was settled.
But at that very moment a larger and more serious contest
was about to begin.

CHAPTER IV

GOVERNOR, BISHOP, AND INTENDANT

At the beginning of September 1675 Frontenac was confronted
with an event which could have given him little pleasure.
This was the arrival, by the same ship, of the bishop
Laval, who had been absent from Canada four years, and
Jacques Duchesneau, who after a long interval had been
appointed to succeed Talon as intendant. Laval returned
in triumph. He was now bishop of Quebec, directly dependent
upon the Holy See [Footnote: Laval had wished strongly
that the see of Quebec should be directly dependent on
the Papacy, and his insistence on this point delayed the
formal creation of the diocese.] and not upon the king
of France. Duchesneau came to Canada with the reputation
of having proved a capable official at Tours.

By temper and training Frontenac was ill-disposed to
share authority with any one. In the absence of bishop
and intendant he had filled the centre of the stage. Now
he must become reconciled to the presence at Quebec of
others who held high rank and had claims to be considered
in the conduct of public affairs. Even at the moment of
formal welcome he must have felt that trouble was in
store. For sixteen years Laval had been a great person
in Canada, and Duchesneau had come to occupy the post
which Talon had made almost more important than that of
governor.

Partly through a clash of dignities and partly through
a clash of ideas, there soon arose at Quebec a conflict
which rendered personal friendship among the leaders
impossible, and caused itself to be felt in every part
of the administration. Since this antagonism lasted for
seven years and had large consequences, it becomes
important to examine its deeper causes as well as the
forms which under varying circumstances it came to assume.

In the triangular relations of Frontenac, Laval, and
Duchesneau the bishop and the intendant were ranged
against the governor. The simplest form of stating the
case is to say that Frontenac clashed with Laval over
one set of interests and with Duchesneau over another;
over ecclesiastical issues with the bishop and over civil
interests with the intendant. In the Sovereign Council
these three dignitaries sat together, and so close was
the connection of Church with State that not a month
could pass without bringing to light some fresh matter
which concerned them all. Broadly speaking, the differences
between Frontenac and Laval were of more lasting moment
than those between Frontenac and Duchesneau. In the end
governor and intendant quarrelled over everything simply
because they had come to be irreconcilable enemies. At
the outset, however, their theoretical grounds of opposition
were much less grave than the matters in debate between
Frontenac and Laval. To appreciate these duly we must
consider certain things which were none the less important
because they lay in the background.

When Frontenac came to Canada he found that the
ecclesiastical field was largely occupied by the Jesuits,
the Sulpicians, and the Recollets. Laval had, indeed,
begun his task of organizing a diocese at Quebec and
preparing to educate a local priesthood. Four years after
his arrival in Canada he had founded the Quebec Seminary
(1663) and had added (1668) a preparatory school, called
the Little Seminary. But the three missionary orders were
still the mainstay of the Canadian Church. It is evident
that Colbert not only considered the Jesuits the most
powerful, but also thought them powerful enough to need
a check. Hence, when Frontenac received his commission,
he received also written instructions to balance the
Jesuit power by supporting the Sulpicians and the Recollets.

Through his dispute with Perrot, Frontenac had strained
the good relations which Colbert wished him to maintain
with the Sulpicians. But the friction thus caused was in
no way due to Frontenac's dislike of the Sulpicians as
an order. Towards the Jesuits, on the other hand, he
cherished a distinct antagonism which led him to carry
out with vigour the command that he should keep their
power within bounds. This can be seen from the earliest
dispatches which he sent to France. Before he had been
in Quebec three months he reported to Colbert that it
was the practice of the Jesuits to stir up strife in
families, to resort to espionage, to abuse the confessional,
to make the Seminary priests their puppets, and to deny
the king's right to license the brandy trade. What seemed
to the Jesuits an unforgivable affront was Frontenac's
charge that they cared more for beaver skins than for
the conversion of the savages. This they interpreted as
an insult to the memory of their martyrs, and their
resentment must have been the greater because the accusation
was not made publicly in Canada, but formed part of a
letter to Colbert in France. The information that such
an attack had been made reached them through Laval, who
was then in France and found means to acquaint himself
with the nature of Frontenac's correspondence.

Having displeased the Sulpicians and attacked the Jesuits,
Frontenac made amends to the Church by cultivating the
most friendly relations with the Recollets. No one ever
accused him of being a bad Catholic. He was exact in the
performance of his religious duties, and such trouble as
he had with the ecclesiastical authorities proceeded from
political aims rather than from heresy or irreligion.

Like so much else in the life of Canada, the strife
between Frontenac and Laval may be traced back to France.
During the early years of Louis XIV the French Church
was distracted by the disputes of Gallican and Ultramontane.
The Gallicans were faithful Catholics who nevertheless
held that the king and the national clergy had rights
which the Pope must respect. The Ultramontanes defined
papal power more widely and sought to minimize, disregard,
or deny the privileges of the national Church.

Between these parties no point of doctrine was involved,
[Footnote: The well-known relation of the Jansenist
movement to Gallican liberties was not such that the
Gallican party accepted Jansenist theology. The Jesuits
upheld papal infallibility and, in general, the Ultramontane
position. The Jansenists were opposed to the Jesuits,
but Gallicanism was one thing and Jansenist theology
another.] but in the sphere of government there exists
a frontier between Church and State along which many wars
of argument can be waged--at times with some display of
force. The Mass, Purgatory, the Saints, Confession, and
the celibacy of the priest, all meant as much to the
Gallican as to the Ultramontane. Nor did the Pope's
headship prove a stumbling-block in so far as it was
limited to things spiritual. The Gallican did, indeed,
assert the subjection of the Pope to a General Council,
quoting in his support the decrees of Constance and Basel.
But in the seventeenth century this was a theoretical
contention. What Louis XIV and Bossuet strove for was
the limitation of papal power in matters affecting property
and political rights. The real questions upon which
Gallican and Ultramontane differed were the appointment
of bishops and abbots, the contribution of the Church to
the needs of the State, and the priest's standing as a
subject of the king.

Frontenac was no theorist, and probably would have written
a poor treatise on the relations of Church and State. At
the same time, he knew that the king claimed certain
rights over the Church, and he was the king's lieutenant.
Herein lies the deeper cause of his troubles with the
Jesuits and Laval. The Jesuits had been in the colony
for fifty years and felt that they knew the spiritual
requirements of both French and Indians. Their missions
had been illuminated by the supreme heroism of Brebeuf,
Jogues, Lalemant, and many more. Their house at Quebec
stood half-way between Versailles and the wilderness.
They were in close alliance with Laval and supported the
ideal and divine rights of the Church. They had found
strong friends in Champlain and Montmagny. Frontenac,
however, was a layman of another type. However orthodox
his religious ideas may have been, his heart was not
lowly and his temper was not devout. Intensely autocratic
by disposition, he found it easy to identify his own will
to power with a defence of royal prerogative against the
encroachments of the Church. It was an attitude that
could not fail to beget trouble, for the Ultramontanes
had weapons of defence which they well knew how to use.

Having in view these ulterior motives, the acrimony of
Frontenac's quarrel with Laval is not surprising. Rightly
or wrongly, the governor held that the bishop was
subservient to the Jesuits, while Colbert's plain
instructions required the governor to keep the Jesuits
in check. From such a starting point the further
developments were almost automatic. Laval found on his
return that Frontenac had exacted from the clergy unusual
and excessive honours during church services. This
furnished a subject of heated debate and an appeal by
both parties to the king. After full consideration
Frontenac received orders to rest content with the same
honours which were by custom accorded the governor of
Picardy in the cathedral of Amiens.

More important by far than this argument over precedence
was the dispute concerning the organization of parishes.
Here the issue hinged on questions of fact rather than
of theory. Beyond question the habitants were entitled
to have priests living permanently in their midst, as
soon as conditions should warrant it. But had the time
come when a parish system could be created? Laval's
opinion may be inferred from the fact that in 1675,
sixteen years after his arrival in Canada, only one priest
lived throughout the year among his own people. This was
the Abbe de Bernieres, cure of Notre Dame at Quebec. In
1678 two more parishes received permanent incumbents--Port
Royal and La Durantaye. Even so, it was a small number
for the whole colony.

Frontenac maintained that Laval was unwilling to create
a normal system of parishes because thereby his personal
power would be reduced. As long as the cures were not
permanently stationed they remained in complete dependence
on the bishop. All the funds provided for the secular
clergy passed through his hands. If he wished to keep
for the Seminary money which ought to go to the parishes,
the habitants were helpless. It was ridiculous to pamper
the Seminary at the expense of the colonists. It was
worse than ridiculous that the French themselves should
go without religious care because the Jesuits chose to
give prior attention to the souls of the savage.

Laval's argument in reply was that the time had not yet
come for the creation of parishes on a large scale.
Doubtless it would prove possible in the future to have
churches and a parochial system of the normal type.
Meanwhile, in view of the general poverty it was desirable
that all the resources of the Church should be conserved.
To this end the habitants were being cared for by itinerant
priests at much less expense than would be entailed by
fixing on each parish the support of its cure.

Here, as in all these contests, a mixture of motives is
evident. There is no reason to doubt Frontenac's sincerity
in stating that the missions and the Seminary absorbed
funds of the Church which would be better employed in
ministration to the settlers. At the same time, it was
for him a not unpleasant exercise to support a policy
which would have the incidental effect of narrowing the
bishop's power. After some three years of controversy
the king, as usual, stepped in to settle the matter. By
an edict of May 1679 he ordained that the priests should
live in their parishes and have the free disposition of
the tithes which had been established under an order of
1667. Thus on the subject of the cures Frontenac's views
were officially accepted; but his victory was rendered
more nominal than real by the unwillingness or inability
of the habitants to supply sufficient funds for the
support of a resident priesthood.

In Frontenac's dispute with the clergy over the brandy
question no new arguments were brought forward, since
all the main points had been covered already. It was an
old quarrel, and there was nothing further to do than to
set forth again the opposing aspects of a very difficult
subject. Religion clashed with business, but that was
not all. Upon the prosecution of business hung the hope
of building up for France a vast empire. The Jesuits
urged that the Indians were killing themselves with
brandy, which destroyed their souls and reduced them to
the level of beasts. The traders retorted that the savages
would not go without drink. If they were denied it by
the French they would take their furs to Albany, and
there imbibe not only bad rum but soul destroying heresy.
Why be visionary and suffer one's rivals to secure an
advantage which would open up to them the heart of the
continent?

Laval, on the other hand, had chosen his side in this
controversy long before Frontenac came to Canada, and he
was not one to change his convictions lightly. As he saw
it, the sale of brandy to the Indians was a sin, punishable
by excommunication; and so determined was he that the
penalty should be enforced that he would allow the right
of absolution to no one but himself. In the end the king
decided it otherwise. He declared the regulation of the
brandy trade to fall within the domain of the civil power.
He warned Frontenac to avoid an open denial of the bishop's
authority in this matter, but directed him to prevent
the Church from interfering in a case belonging to the
sphere of public order. This decision was not reached
without deep thought. In favour of prohibition stood
Laval, the Jesuits, the Sorbonne, the Archbishop of Paris,
and the king's confessor, Pere La Chaise. Against it were
Frontenac, the chief laymen of Canada, [Footnote: On
October 26, 1678, a meeting of the leading inhabitants
of Canada was held by royal order at Quebec to consider
the rights and wrongs of the brandy question. A large
majority of those present were opposed to prohibition.]
the University of Toulouse, and Colbert. In extricating
himself from this labyrinth of conflicting opinion Louis
XIV was guided by reasons of general policy. He had never
seen the Mohawks raving drunk, and, like Frontenac, he
felt that without brandy the work of France in the
wilderness could not go on.

Such were the issues over which Frontenac and Laval faced
each other in mutual antagonism.

Between Frontenac and his other opponent, the intendant
Duchesneau, the strife revolved about a different set of
questions without losing any of its bitterness. Frontenac
and Laval disputed over ecclesiastical affairs. Frontenac
and Duchesneau disputed over civil affairs. But as Laval
and Duchesneau were both at war with Frontenac they
naturally drew together. The alliance was rendered more
easy by Duchesneau's devoutness. Even had he wished to
hold aloof from the quarrel of governor and bishop, it
would have been difficult to do so. But as an active
friend of Laval and the Jesuits he had no desire to be
a neutral spectator of the feud which ran parallel with
his own. The two feuds soon became intermingled, and
Frontenac, instead of confronting separate adversaries,
found himself engaged with allied forces which were ready
to attack or defend at every point. It could not have
been otherwise. Quebec was a small place, and the three
belligerents were brought into the closest official
contact by their duties as members of the Sovereign
Council.

It is worthy of remark that each of the contestants,
Frontenac, Laval, and Duchesneau, has his partisans among
the historians of the present day. All modern writers
agree that Canada suffered grievously from these disputes,
but a difference of opinion at once arises when an attempt
is made to distribute the blame. The fact is that characters
separately strong and useful often make an unfortunate
combination. Compared with Laval and Frontenac, Duchesneau
was not a strong character, but he possessed qualifications
which might have enabled him in less stormy times to fill
the office of intendant with tolerable credit. It was
his misfortune that circumstances forced him into the
thankless position of being a henchman to the bishop and
a drag upon the governor.

Everything which Duchesneau did gave Frontenac annoyance--
the more so as the intendant came armed with very
considerable powers. During the first three years of
Frontenac's administration the governor, in the absence
of an intendant, had lorded it over the colony with a
larger freedom from restraint than was normal under the
French colonial system. Apparently Colbert was not
satisfied with the result. It may be that he feared the
vigour which Frontenac displayed in taking the initiative;
or the quarrel with Perrot may have created a bad impression
at Versailles; or it may have been considered that the
less Frontenac had to do with the routine of business,
the more the colony would thrive. Possibly Colbert only
sought to define anew the relations which ought to exist
between governor and intendant. Whatever the motive,
Duchesneau's instructions gave him a degree of authority
which proved galling to the governor.

Within three weeks from the date of Duchesneau's arrival
the fight had begun (September 23, 1675). In its earliest
phase it concerned the right to preside at meetings of
the Sovereign Council. For three years Frontenac, 'high
and puissant seigneur,' had conducted proceedings as a
matter of course. Duchesneau now asked him to retire from
this position, producing as warrant his commission which
stated that he should preside over the Council, 'in the
absence of the said Sieur de Frontenac.' Why this last
clause should have been inserted one finds it hard to
understand, for Colbert's subsequent letters place his
intention beyond doubt. He meant that Duchesneau should
preside, though without detracting from Frontenac's
superior dignity. The order of precedence at the Council
is fixed with perfect clearness. First comes the governor,
then the bishop, and then the intendant. Yet the intendant
is given the chair. Colbert may have thought that Duchesneau
as a man of business possessed a better training for this
special work. Clearly the step was not taken with a view
to placing an affront upon Frontenac. When he complained,
Colbert replied that there was no other man in France
who, being already a governor and lieutenant-general,
would consider it an increase of honour to preside over
the Council. In Colbert's eyes this was a clerk's work,
not a soldier's.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8