The opposition to the views of Mgr. de Laval did not come, however, so much from the king as from Mgr. de Harlay, Archbishop of Rouen, who had never consented to the detachment of Canada from his jurisdiction.

Events turned out fortunately for the apostolic vicar, since the Archbishop of Rouen was called to the important see of Paris on the death of the Archbishop of Paris, Hardouin de Perefixe de Beaumont, in the very year in which Mgr. de Laval embarked for France, accompanied by his grand vicar, M. de Lauson-Charny. The task now became much easier, and Laval had no difficulty in inducing the king to urge the erection of the diocese at Quebec, and to abandon his claims to making the new diocese dependent on the archbishopric of Rouen.

Before leaving Canada the Bishop of Quebec had entrusted the administration of the apostolic vicariate to M. de Bernieres, and, in case of the latter's death, to M. Dudouyt. He embarked in the autumn of 1671.

To the keen regret of the population of Ville-Marie, which owed him so much, M. de Queylus, Abbe de Loc-Dieu and superior of the Seminary of Montreal for the last three years, went to France at the same time as his ecclesiastical superior. "M. l'abbe de Queylus," wrote Commissioner Talon to the Minister Colbert, "is making an urgent application for the settlement and increase of the colony of Montreal. He carries his zeal farther, for he is going to take charge of the Indian children who fall into the hands of the Iroquois, in order to have them educated, the boys in his seminary, and the girls by persons of the same s.e.x, who form at Montreal a sort of congregation to teach young girls the petty handicrafts, in addition to reading and writing." M. de Queylus had used his great fortune in all sorts of good works in the colony, but he was not the only Sulpician whose hand was always ready and willing. Before dying, M. Olier had begged his successors to continue the work at Ville-Marie, "because," said he, "it is the will of G.o.d," and the priests of St. Sulpice received this injunction as one of the most sacred codicils of the will of their Father. However onerous the continuation of this plan was for the company, the latter sacrificed to it without hesitation its resources, its efforts and its members with the most complete abnegation.[6] Thus when, on March 9th, 1663, the Company of Montreal believed itself no longer capable of meeting its obligations, and begged St. Sulpice to take them up, the seminary subordinated all considerations of self-interest and human prudence to this view. To this MM. de Bretonvilliers, de Queylus and du Bois devoted their fortunes, and to this work of the conversion of the savages priests distinguished in birth and riches gave up their whole lives and property. M. de Belmont discharged the hundred and twenty thousand francs of debts of the Company of Montreal, gave as much more to the establishment of divers works, and left more than two hundred thousand francs of his patrimony to support them after his death. How many others did likewise! During more than fifty years Paris sent to this mission only priests able to pay their board, that they might have the right to share in this evangelization. This disinterestedness, unheard of in the history of the most unselfish congregations, saved, sustained and finally developed this settlement, to which Roman Catholics point to-day with pride. The Seminary of Paris contributed to it a sum equal to twice the value of the island, and during the first sixty years more than nine hundred thousand francs, as one may see by the archives of the Department of Marine at Paris. These sums to-day would represent a large fortune.

Finally the prayers of Mgr. de Laval were heard; Pope Clement X signed on October 1st, 1674, the bulls establishing the diocese of Quebec, which was to extend over all the French possessions in North America.

The sovereign pontiff incorporated with the new bishopric for its maintenance the abbey of Maubec, given by the King of France already in 1662, and in exchange for the renunciation by this prince of his right of presentation to the abbey of Maubec, granted him the right of nomination to the bishopric of Quebec. To his first gift the king had added a second, that of the abbey of Lestrees. Situated in Normandy and in the archdeaconry of Evreux, this abbey was one of the oldest of the order of Citeaux.

Up to this time the venerable bishop had had many difficulties to surmount; he was about to meet some of another sort, those of the administration of vast properties. The abbey of Maubec, occupied by monks of the order of St. Benedict, was situated in one of the fairest provinces of France, Le Perry, and was dependent upon the archdiocese of Bourges. Famous vineyards, verdant meadows, well cultivated fields, rich farms, forests full of game and ponds full of fish made this abbey an admirable domain; unfortunately, the expenses of maintaining or repairing the buildings, the dues payable to the government, the allowances secured to the monks, and above all, the waste and theft which must necessarily victimize proprietors separated from their tenants by the whole breadth of an ocean, must absorb a great part of the revenues. Letters of the steward of this property to the Bishop of Quebec are instructive in this matter. "M. Porcheron is still the same,"

writes the steward, M. Matberon, "and bears me a grudge because I desire to safeguard your interests. I am incessantly carrying on the work of needful repairs in all the places dependent on Maubec, chiefly those necessary to the ponds, in order that M. Porcheron may have no damages against you. This is much against his will, for he is constantly seeking an excuse for litigation. He swears that he does not want your farm any longer, but as for me, I believe that this is not his feeling, and that he would wish the farm out of the question, for he is too fond of hunting and his pleasure to quit it.... He does his utmost to remove me from your service, insinuating many things against me which are not true; but this does not lessen my zeal in serving you."

Mgr. de Laval, who did not hesitate at any exertion when it was a question of the interests of his Church, did not fail to go and visit his two abbeys. He set out, happy in the prospect of being able to admire these magnificent properties whose rich revenues would permit him to do so much good in his diocese; but he was painfully affected at the sight of the buildings in ruins, sad relics of the wars of religion. In order to free himself as much as possible from cares which would have encroached too much upon his precious time and his pastoral duties, Laval caused a manager to be appointed by the Royal Council for the abbey of Lestrees, and rented it for a fixed sum to M. Berthelot. He also made with the latter a very advantageous transaction by exchanging with him the Island of Orleans for the Ile Jesus; M. Berthelot was to give him besides a sum of twenty-five thousand francs, which was employed in building the seminary. Later the king made the Island of Orleans a county. It became the county of St. Lawrence.

Mgr. de Laval was too well endowed with qualities of the heart, as well as with those of the mind, not to have preserved a deep affection for his family; he did not fail to go and see them twice during his stay in France. Unhappily, his brother, Jean-Louis, to whom he had yielded all his rights as eldest son, and his t.i.tles to the hereditary lordship of Montigny and Montbeaudry, caused only grief to his family and to his wife, Francoise de Chevestre. As lavish as he was violent and hot-tempered, he reduced by his excesses his numerous family (for he had had ten children), to such poverty that the Bishop of Quebec had to come to his aid; besides the a.s.sistance which he sent them, the prelate bought him a house. He extended his protection also to his nephews, and his brother, Henri de Laval, wrote to him about them as follows: "The eldest is developing a little; he is in the army with the king, and his father has given him a good start. I have obtained from my pet.i.tions from Paris a place as monk in the Congregation of the Cross for his second son, whom I shall try to have reared in the knowledge and fear of G.o.d. I believe that the youngest, who has been sent to you, will have come to the right place; he is of good promise. My brother desires greatly that you may have the goodness to give Fanchon the advantage of an education before sending him back. It is a great charity to these poor children to give them a little training. You will be a father to them in this matter." One never applied in vain to the heart of the good bishop. Two of his nephews owed him their education at the seminary of Quebec; one of them, Fanchon (Charles-Francois-Guy), after a brilliant course in theology at Paris, became vicar-general to the Swan of Cambrai, the ill.u.s.trious Fenelon, and was later raised to the bishopric of Ypres.

Meanwhile, four years had elapsed since Mgr. de Laval had left the soil of Canada, and he did not cease to receive letters which begged him respectfully to return to his diocese. "Nothing is lacking to animate us but the presence of our lord bishop," wrote, one day, Father Dablon.

"His absence keeps this country, as it were, in mourning, and makes us languish in the too long separation from a person so necessary to these growing churches. He was the soul of them, and the zeal which he showed on every occasion for the welfare of our Indians drew upon us favours of Heaven most powerful for the success of our missions; and since, however distant he be in the body, his heart is ever with us, we experience the effects of it in the continuity of the blessings with which G.o.d favours the labours of our missionaries." Accordingly, he did not lose a moment after receiving the decrees appointing him Bishop of Quebec. On May 19th, 1675, he renewed the union of his seminary with that of the Foreign Missions in Paris. "This union," says the Abbe Ferland, "a union which he had effected for the first time in 1665 as apostolic bishop of New France, was of great importance to his diocese. He found, indeed, in this inst.i.tution, good recruits, who were sent to him when needed, and faithful correspondents, whom he could address with confidence, and who had sufficient influence at court to gain a hearing for their representations in favour of the Church in Canada." On May 29th of the same year he set sail for Canada; he was accompanied by a priest, a native of the city of Orleans, M. Glandelet, who was one of the most distinguished priests of the seminary.

To understand with what joy he was received by his parishioners on his arrival, it is enough to read what his brother, Henri de Laval, wrote to him the following year: "I cannot express to you the satisfaction and inward joy which I have received in my soul on reading a report sent from Canada of the manner in which your clergy and all your people have received you, and that our Lord inspires them all with just and true sentiments to recognize you as their father and pastor. They testify to having received through your beloved person as it were a new life. I ask our Lord every day at His holy altars to preserve you some years more for the sanctification of these poor people and our own."

FOOTNOTES:

[6] _Vie de M. Olier_, par De Lanjuere. As I wrote this life some years ago with the collaboration of a gentleman whom death has taken from us, I believe myself ent.i.tled to reproduce here and there in the present life of Mgr. de Laval extracts from this book.

CHAPTER X

FRONTENAC IS APPOINTED GOVERNOR

During the early days of the absence of its first pastor, the Church of Canada had enjoyed only days of prosperity; skilfully directed by MM. de Bernieres and de Dudouyt, who scrupulously followed the line of conduct laid down for them by Mgr. de Laval before his departure, it was pursuing its destiny peacefully. But this calm, forerunner of the storm, could not last; it was the destiny of the Church, as it had been the lot of nations, to be tossed incessantly by the violent winds of trial and persecution. The difficulties which arose soon reached the acute stage, and all the firmness and tact of the Bishop of Quebec were needed to meet them. The departure of Laval for France in the autumn of 1671 had been closely followed by that of Governor de Courcelles and that of Commissioner Talon. The latter was not replaced until three years later, so that the new governor, Count de Frontenac, who arrived in the autumn of 1672, had no one at his side in the Sovereign Council to oppose his views. This was allowing too free play to the natural despotism of his character. Louis de Buade, Count de Palluau and de Frontenac, lieutenant-general of the king's armies, had previously served in Holland under the ill.u.s.trious Maurice, Prince of Orange, then in France, Italy and Germany, and his merit had gained for him the reputation of a great captain. The ill.u.s.trious Turenne entrusted to him the command of the reinforcements sent to Candia when that island was besieged by the Turks. He had a keen mind, trained by serious study; haughty towards the powerful of this world, he was affable to ordinary people, and thus made for himself numerous enemies, while remaining very popular. Father Charlevoix has drawn an excellent portrait of him: "His heart was greater than his birth, his wit lively, penetrating, sound, fertile and highly cultivated: but he was biased by the most unjust prejudices, and capable of carrying them very far. He wished to rule alone, and there was nothing he would not do to remove those whom he was afraid of finding in his way. His worth and ability were equal; no one knew better how to a.s.sume over the people whom he governed and with whom he had to deal, that ascendency so necessary to keep them in the paths of duty and respect. He won when he wished it the friendship of the French and their allies, and never has general treated his enemies with more dignity and n.o.bility. His views for the aggrandizement of the colony were large and true, but his prejudices sometimes prevented the execution of plans which depended on him.... He justified, in one of the most critical circ.u.mstances of his life, the opinion that his ambition and the desire of preserving his authority had more power over him than his zeal for the public good. The fact is that there is no virtue which does not belie itself when one has allowed a dominant pa.s.sion to gain the upper hand. The Count de Frontenac might have been a great prince if Heaven had placed him on the throne, but he had dangerous faults for a subject who is not well persuaded that his glory consists in sacrificing everything to the service of his sovereign and the public utility."

It was under the administration of Frontenac that the Compagnie des Indes Occidentales, which had accepted in 1663 a portion of the obligations and privileges of the Company of the Cent-a.s.socies, renounced its rights over New France. Immediately after his arrival he began the construction of Fort Cataraqui; if we are to believe some historians, motives of personal interest guided him in the execution of this enterprise; he thought only, it seems, of founding considerable posts for the fur trade, favouring those traders who would consent to give him a share in their profits. The work was urged on with energy. La Salle obtained from the king, thanks to the support of Frontenac, letters patent of n.o.bility, together with the ownership and jurisdiction of the new fort.

With the approval of the governor, Commissioner Talon's plan of having the course of the Mississippi explored was executed by two bold men: Louis Joliet, citizen of Quebec, already known for previous voyages and for his deep knowledge of the Indian tongues, and the devoted missionary, Father Marquette. Without other provisions than Indian corn and dried meat they set out in two bark canoes from Michilimackinac on May 17th, 1673; only five Frenchmen accompanied them. They reached the Mississippi, after having pa.s.sed the Baie des Puants and the rivers Outagami and Wisconsin, and ascended the stream for more than sixty leagues. They were cordially received by the tribe of the Illinois, which was encamped not far from the river, and Father Marquette promised to return and visit them. The two travellers reached the Arkansas River and learned that the sea was not far distant, but fearing they might fall into the hands of hostile Spaniards, they decided to retrace their steps, and reached the Baie des Puants about the end of September.

The following year Father Marquette wished to keep his promise given to the Illinois. His health is weakened by the trials of a long mission, but what matters this to him? There are souls to save. He preaches the truths of religion to the poor savages gathered in attentive silence; but his strength diminishes, and he regretfully resumes the road to Michilimackinac. He did not have time to reach it, but died near the mouth of a river which long bore his name. His two comrades dug a grave for the remains of the missionary and raised a cross near the tomb. Two years later these sacred bones were transferred with the greatest respect to St. Ignace de Michilimackinac by the savage tribe of the Kiskakons, whom Father Marquette had christianized.

With such an adventurous character as he possessed, Cavelier de la Salle could not learn of the exploration of the course of the Upper Mississippi without burning with the desire to complete the discovery and to descend the river to its mouth. Robert Rene Cavelier de la Salle was born at Rouen about the year 1644. He belonged to an excellent family, and was well educated. From his earliest years he was pa.s.sionately fond of stories of travel, and the older he grew the more cramped he felt in the civilization of Europe; like the mettled mustang of the vast prairies of America, he longed for the immensity of unknown plains, for the imposing majesty of forests which the foot of man had not yet trod. Maturity and reason gave a more definite aim to these aspirations; at the age of twenty-four he came to New France to try his fortune. He entered into relations with different Indian tribes, and the extent of his commerce led him to establish a trading-post opposite the Sault St. Louis. This site, as we shall see, received soon after the name of Lachine. Though settled at this spot, La Salle did not cease to meditate on the plan fixed in his brain of discovering a pa.s.sage to China and the Indies, and upon learning the news that MM. Dollier de Ca.s.son and Gallinee were going to christianize the wild tribes of south-western Canada, he hastened to rejoin the two devoted missionaries. They set out in the summer of 1669, with twenty-two Frenchmen. Arriving at Niagara, La Salle suddenly changed his mind, and abandoned his travelling companions, under the pretext of illness. No more was needed for the Frenchman, _ne malin_,[7] to fix upon the seigniory of the future discoverer of the mouth of the Mississippi the name of Lachine; M. Dollier de Ca.s.son is suspected of being the author of this gentle irony.

Eight years later the explorations of Joliet and Father Marquette revived his instincts as a discoverer; he betook himself to France in 1677 and easily obtained authority to pursue, at his own expense, the discovery already begun. Back in Canada the following year, La Salle thoroughly prepared for this expedition, acc.u.mulating provisions at Fort Niagara, and visiting the Indian tribes. In 1679, accompanied by the Chevalier de Tonti, he set out at the head of a small troop, and pa.s.sed through Michilimackinac, then through the Baie des Puants. From there he reached the Miami River, where he erected a small fort, ascended the Illinois, and, reaching a camp of the Illinois Indians, made an alliance with this tribe, obtaining from them permission to erect upon their soil a fort which he called Crevecoeur. He left M. de Tonti there with a few men and two Recollet missionaries, Fathers de la Ribourde and Membre, and set out again with all haste for Fort Frontenac, for he was very anxious regarding the condition of his own affairs. He had reason to be.

"His creditors," says the Abbe Ferland, "had had his goods seized after his departure from Fort Frontenac; his brigantine _Le Griffon_ had been lost, with furs valued at thirty thousand francs; his employees had appropriated his goods; a ship which was bringing him from France a cargo valued at twenty-two thousand francs had been wrecked on the Islands of St. Pierre; some canoes laden with merchandise had been dashed to pieces on the journey between Montreal and Frontenac; the men whom he had brought from France had fled to New York, taking a portion of his goods, and already a conspiracy was on foot to disaffect the Canadians in his service. In one word, according to him, the whole of Canada had conspired against his enterprise, and the Count de Frontenac was the only one who consented to support him in the midst of his misfortunes." His remarkable energy and activity remedied this host of evils, and he set out again for Fort Crevecoeur. To cap the climax of his misfortunes, he found it abandoned; being attacked by the Iroquois, whom the English had aroused against them, Tonti and his comrades had been forced to hasty flight. De la Salle found them again at Michilimackinac, but he had the sorrow of learning of the loss of Father de la Ribourde, whom the Illinois had ma.s.sacred. Tonti and his companions, in their flight, had been obliged to abandon an unsafe canoe, which had carried them half-way, and to continue their journey on foot. Such a series of misfortunes would have discouraged any other than La Salle; on the contrary, he made Tonti and Father Membre retrace their steps. Arriving with them at the Miami fort, he reinforced his little troop by twenty-three Frenchmen and eighteen Indians, and reached Fort Crevecoeur. On February 6th, 1682, he reached the mouth of the Illinois, and then descended the Mississippi. Towards the end of this same month the bold explorers stopped at the juncture of the Ohio with the Father of Rivers, and erected there Fort Prudhomme. On what is Fame dependent?

A poor and unknown man, a modest collaborator with La Salle, had the honour of giving his name to this little fort because he had been lost in the neighbourhood and had reached camp nine days later.

Providence was finally about to reward so much bravery and perseverance.

The sailor who from the yards of Christopher Columbus's caravel, uttered the triumphant cry of "Land! land!" did not cause more joy to the ill.u.s.trious Genoese navigator than La Salle received from the sight of the sea so ardently sought. On April 9th La Salle and his comrades could at length admire the immense blue sheet of the Gulf of Mexico. Like Christopher Columbus, who made it his first duty on touching the soil of the New World to fall upon his knees to return thanks to Heaven, La Salle's first business was to raise a cross upon the sh.o.r.e. Father Membre intoned the Te Deum. They then raised the arms of the King of France, in whose name La Salle took possession of the Mississippi, and of all the territories watered by the tributaries of the great river.

Their trials were not over: the risks to be run in traversing so many regions inhabited by barbarians were as great and as numerous after success as before. La Salle was, moreover, delayed for forty days by a serious illness, but G.o.d in His goodness did not wish to deprive the valiant discoverers of the fruits of their efforts, and all arrived safe and sound at the place whence they had started. After having pa.s.sed a year in establishing trading-posts among the Illinois, La Salle appointed M. de Tonti his representative for the time being, and betook himself to France with the intention of giving an account of his journey to the most Christian monarch. His enemies had already forestalled him at the court; we have to seek the real cause of this hatred in the jealousy of traders who feared to find in the future colonists of the western and southern country compet.i.tors in their traffic. But far from listening to them, the son of Colbert, Seignelay, then minister of commerce, highly praised the valiant explorer, and sent, in 1684, four ships with two hundred and eighty colonists to people Louisiana, this new gem in the crown of France. But La Salle has not yet finally drained the cup of disappointment, for few men have been so overwhelmed as he by the persistence of ill-fortune. It was not enough that the leader of the expedition should be incapable, the colonists must needs be of a continual evil character, the soldiers undisciplined, the workmen unskilful, the pilot ignorant. They pa.s.s the mouth of the Mississippi, near which they should have disembarked, and arrive in Texas; the commander refuses to send the ship about, and La Salle makes up his mind to land where they are. Through the neglect of the pilot, the vessel which was carrying the provisions is cast ash.o.r.e, then a gale arises which swallows up the tools, the merchandise and the ammunition. The Indians, like birds of prey, hasten up to pillage, and ma.s.sacre two volunteers. The colonists in exasperation revolt, and stupidly blame La Salle. He saves them, nevertheless, by his energy, and makes them raise a fort with the wreck of the ships. They pa.s.s two years there in a famine of everything; twice La Salle tries to find, at the cost of a thousand sufferings, a way of rescue, and twice he fails. Finally, when there remain no more than thirty men, he chooses the ten most resolute, and tries to reach Canada on foot. He did not reach it: on May 20th, 1687, he was murdered by one of his comrades. "Such was the end of this daring adventurer," says Bancroft.[8] "For force of will, and vast conceptions; for various knowledge and quick adaptation of his genius to untried circ.u.mstances; for a sublime magnanimity that resigned itself to the will of Heaven and yet triumphed over affliction by energy of purpose and unfaltering hope, he had no superior among his countrymen.... He will be remembered in the great central valley of the West."

It was with deep feelings of joy that Mgr. de Laval, still in France at this period, had read the detailed report of the voyage of discovery made by Joliet and Father Marquette. But the news which he received from Canada was not always so comforting; he felt especially deeply the loss of two great benefactresses of Canada, Madame de la Peltrie and Mother Incarnation. The former had used her entire fortune in founding the Convent of the Ursulines at Quebec. Heaven had lavished its gifts upon her; endowed with brilliant qualities, and adding riches to beauty, she was happy in possessing these advantages only because they allowed her to offer them to the Most High, who had given them to her. She devoted herself to the Christian education of young girls, and pa.s.sed in Canada the last thirty-two years of her life. The Abbe Casgrain draws the following portrait of her: "Her whole person presented a type of attractiveness and gentleness. Her face, a beautiful oval, was remarkable for the harmony of its lines and the perfection of its contour. A slightly aquiline nose, a clear cut and always smiling mouth, a limpid look veiled by long lashes which the habit of meditation kept half lowered, stamped her features with an exquisite sweetness. Though her frail and delicate figure did not exceed medium height, and though everything about her breathed modesty and humility, her gait was nevertheless full of dignity and n.o.bility; one recognized, in seeing her, the descendant of those great and powerful lords, of those perfect knights whose valiant swords had sustained throne and altar. Through the most charming simplicity there were ever manifest the grand manner of the seventeenth century and that perfect distinction which is traditional among the families of France. But this majestic _ensemble_ was tempered by an air of introspection and unction which gave her conversation an infinite charm, and it gained her the esteem and affection of all those who had had the good fortune to know her." She died on November 18th, 1671, only a few days after the departure for France of the apostolic vicar.

[Ill.u.s.tration: The Ursuline Convent, Quebec

Drawn on the spot by Richard Short, 1761]

Her pious friend, Mother Mary of the Incarnation, first Mother Superior of the Ursulines of Quebec, soon followed her to the tomb. She expired on April 30th, 1672. In her numerous writings on the beginnings of the colony, the modesty of Mother Mary of the Incarnation has kept us in the dark concerning several important services rendered by her to New France, and many touching details of her life would not have reached us if her companion, Madame de la Peltrie, had not made them known to us.

In Mother Incarnation, who merited the glorious t.i.tle of the Theresa of New France, were found all the Christian virtues, but more particularly piety, patience and confidence in Providence. G.o.d was ever present and visible in her heart, acting everywhere and in everything. We see, among many other instances that might be quoted, a fine example of her enthusiasm for Heaven when, cast out of her convent in the heart of the winter by a conflagration which consumed everything, she knelt upon the snow with her Sisters, and thanked G.o.d for not having taken from them, together with their properties, their lives, which might be useful to others.

If Madame de la Peltrie and Mother Mary of the Incarnation occupy a large place in the history of Canada, it is because the inst.i.tution of the Ursulines, which they founded and directed at Quebec, exercised the happiest influence on the formation of the Christian families in our country. "It was," says the Abbe Ferland, "an inestimable advantage for the country to receive from the schools maintained by the nuns, mothers of families reared in piety, familiar with their religious duties, and capable of training the hearts and minds of the new generation." It was thanks to the efforts of Madame de la Peltrie, and to the lessons of Mother Incarnation and her first co-workers, that those patriarchal families whose type still persists in our time, were formed in the early days of the colony. The same services were rendered by Sister Bourgeoys to the government of Montreal.

FOOTNOTES:

[7] Allusion to a verse of the poet Boileau.

[8] _History of the United States_, Vol. II., page 821.

CHAPTER XI

A TROUBLED ADMINISTRATION

A thorough study of history and the a.n.a.lysis of the causes and effects of great historical events prove to us that frequently men endowed with the n.o.blest qualities have rendered only slight services to their country, because, blinded by the consciousness of their own worth, and the certainty which they have of desiring to work only for the good of their country, they have disdained too much the advice of wise counsillors. With eyes fixed upon their established purpose, they trample under foot every obstacle; and every man who differs from their opinion is but a traitor or an imbecile: hence their lack of moderation, tact and prudence, and their excess of obstinacy and violence. To select one example among a thousand, what marvellous results would have been attained by an _entente cordiale_ between two men like Dupleix and La Bourdonnais.

Count de Frontenac was certainly a great man: he made Canada prosperous in peace, glorious in war, but he made also the great mistake of aiming at absolutism, and of allowing himself to be guided throughout his administration by unjustified prejudices against the Jesuits and the religious orders. Only the Sovereign Council, the bishop and the royal commissioner could have opposed his omnipotence. Now the office of commissioner remained vacant for three years, the bishop stayed in France till 1675, and his grand vicar, who was to represent him in the highest a.s.sembly of the colony, was never invited to take his seat there. As to the council, the governor took care to const.i.tute it of men who were entirely devoted to him, and he thus made himself the arbiter of justice. The council, of which Peuvret de Mesnu was secretary, was at this time composed of MM. Le Gardeur de Tilly, Damours, de la Tesserie, Dupont, de Mouchy, and a subst.i.tute for the attorney-general.

The first difficulty which Frontenac met was brought about by a cause rather insignificant in itself, but rendered so dangerous by the obstinacy of those who were concerned in it that it caused a deep commotion throughout the whole country. Thus a foreign body, sometimes a wretched little splinter buried in the flesh, may, if we allow the wound to be poisoned, produce the greatest disorders in the human system. We cannot read without admiration of the acts of bravery and daring frequently accomplished by the _coureurs de bois_. We experience a sentiment of pride when we glance through the accounts which depict for us the endurance and physical vigour with which these athletes became endowed by dint of continual struggles with man and beast and with the very elements in a climate that was as glacial in winter as it was torrid in summer. We are happy to think that these brave and strong men belong to our race. But in the time of Frontenac the ecclesiastical and civil authorities were averse to seeing the colony lose thus the most vigorous part of its population. While admitting that the _coureurs de bois_ became stout fellows in consequence of their hard experience, just as the fishermen of the French sh.o.r.e now become robust sailors after a few seasons of fishing on the Newfoundland Banks, the parallel is not complete, because the latter remain throughout their lives a valuable reserve for the French fleets, while the former were in great part lost to the colony, at a period when safety lay in numbers. If they escaped the manifold dangers which they ran every day in dealing with the savages in the heart of the forest, if they disdained to link themselves by the bond of marriage to a squaw and to settle among the redskins, the _coureurs de bois_ were none the less drones among their compatriots; they did not make up their minds to establish themselves in places where they might have become excellent farmers, until through age and infirmity they were rather a burden than a support to others.

To counteract this scourge the king published in 1673, a decree which, under penalty of death, forbade Frenchmen to remain more than twenty-four hours in the woods without permission from the governor.

Some Montreal officers, engaged in trade, violated this prohibition; the Count de Frontenac at once sent M. Bizard, lieutenant of his guards, with an order to arrest them. The governor of Montreal, M. Perrot, who connived with them, publicly insulted the officer entrusted with the orders of the governor-general. Indignant at such insolence, M. de Frontenac had M. Perrot arrested at once, imprisoned in the Chateau St.

Louis and judged by the Sovereign Council. Connected with M. Perrot by the bonds of friendship, the Abbe de Fenelon profited by the occasion to allude, in the sermon which he delivered in the parochial church of Montreal on Easter Sunday, to the excessive labour which M. de Frontenac had exacted from the inhabitants of Ville-Marie for the erection of Fort Cataraqui. According to La Salle, who heard the sermon, the Abbe de Fenelon said: "He who is invested with authority should not disturb the people who depend on him; on the contrary, it is his duty to consider them as his children and to treat them as would a father.... He must not disturb the commerce of the country by ill-treating those who do not give him a share of the profits they may make in it; he must content himself with gaining by honest means; he must not trample on the people, nor vex them by excessive demands which serve his interests alone. He must not have favourites who praise him on all occasions, or oppress, under far-fetched pretexts, persons who serve the same princes, when they oppose his enterprises.... He has respect for priests and ministers of the Church."

Count de Frontenac felt himself directly aimed at; he was the more inclined to anger, since, the year before, he had had reasons for complaint of the sermon of a Jesuit Father. Let us allow the governor himself to relate this incident: "I had need," he wrote to Colbert, "to remember your orders on the occasion of a sermon preached by a Jesuit Father this winter (1672) purposely and without need, at which he had a week before invited everybody to be present. He gave expression in this sermon to seditious proposals against the authority of the king, which scandalized many, by dilating upon the restrictions made by the bishop of the traffic in brandy.... I was several times tempted to leave the church and to interrupt the sermon; but I eventually contented myself, after it was over, with seeking out the grand vicar and the superior of the Jesuits and telling them that I was much surprised at what I had just heard, and that I asked justice of them.... They greatly blamed the preacher, whose words they disavowed, attributing them, according to their custom, to an excess of zeal, and offered me many excuses, with which I condescended to seem satisfied, telling them, nevertheless, that I would not accept such again, and that, if the occasion ever arose, I would put the preacher where he would learn how he ought to speak...."

On the news of the words which were p.r.o.nounced in the pulpit at Ville-Marie, M. de Frontenac summoned M. de Fenelon to send him a verified copy of his sermon, and on the refusal of the abbe, he cited him before the council. M. de Fenelon appeared, but objected to the jurisdiction of the court, declaring that he owed an account of his actions to the ecclesiastical authority alone. Now the official authority of the diocese was vested in the worthy M. de Bernieres, the representative of Mgr. de Laval. The latter is summoned in his turn before the council, where the Count de Frontenac, who will not recognize either the authority of this official or that of the apostolic vicar, objects to M. de Bernieres occupying the seat of the absent Bishop of Petraea. In order not to compromise his right thus contested, M. de Bernieres replies to the questions of the council "standing and without taking any seat." The trial thus begun dragged along till autumn, to be then referred to the court of France. The superior of St. Sulpice, M. de Bretonvilliers, who had succeeded the venerable M. Olier, did not approve of the conduct of the Abbe Fenelon, for he wrote later to the Sulpicians of Montreal: "I exhort you to profit by the example of M. de Fenelon. Concerning himself too much with secular affairs and with what did not affect him, he has ruined his own cause and compromised the friends whom he wished to serve. In matters of this sort it is always best to remain neutral."

Frontenac was about to be blamed in his turn. The governor had obtained from the council a decree ordering the king's attorney to be present at the rendering of accounts by the purveyor of the Quebec Seminary, and another decree of March 4th, 1675, declaring that not only, as had been customary since 1668, the judges should have precedence over the churchwardens in public ceremonies, but also that the latter should follow all the officers of justice; at Quebec these officers should have their bench immediately behind that of the council, and in the rest of the country, behind that of the local governors and the seigneurs. This latter decree was posted everywhere. A missionary, M. Thomas Morel, was accused of having prevented its publication at Levis, and was arrested at once and imprisoned in the Chateau St. Louis with the clerk of the ecclesiastical court, Romain Becquet, who had refused to deliver to the council the registers of this ecclesiastical tribune. He was kept there a month. MM. de Bernieres and Dudouyt protested, declaring that M. Morel was amenable only to the diocesan authority. We see in such an incident some of the reasons which induced Laval to insist upon the immediate const.i.tution of a regular diocese. Summoned to produce forthwith the authority for their pretended ecclesiastical jurisdiction, "they produced a copy of the royal declaration, dated March 27th, 1659, based on the bulls of the Bishop of Petraea, and other doc.u.ments, establishing incontestably the legal authority of the apostolic vicar." The council had to yield; it restored his freedom to M. Morel, and postponed until later its decision as to the validity of the claims of the ecclesiastical court.

This was a check to the ambitions of the Count de Frontenac. The following letter from Louis XIV dealt a still more cruel blow to his absolutism: "In order to punish M. Perrot for having resisted your authority," the prince wrote to him, "I have had him put into the Bastille for some time; so that when he returns to your country, not only will this punishment render him more circ.u.mspect in his duty, but it will serve as an example to restrain others. But if I must inform you of my sentiments, after having thus satisfied my authority which was violated in your person, I will tell you that without absolute need you ought not to have these orders executed throughout the extent of a local jurisdiction like Montreal without communicating with its governor.... I have blamed the action of the Abbe de Fenelon, and have commanded him to return no more to Canada; but I must tell you that it was difficult to enter a criminal procedure against him, or to compel the priests of St.

Sulpice to bear witness against him. He should have been delivered over to his bishop or to the grand vicar to suffer the ecclesiastical penalties, or should have been arrested and sent back to France by the first ship. I have been told besides," added the monarch, "that you would not permit ecclesiastics and others to attend to their missions and other duties, or even leave their residence without a pa.s.sport from Montreal to Quebec; that you often summoned them for very slight causes; that you intercepted their letters and did not allow them liberty to write. If the whole or part of these things be true, you must mend your ways." On his part Colbert enjoined upon the governor a little more calmness and gentleness. "His Majesty," wrote the minister, "has ordered me to explain to you, privately, that it is absolutely necessary for the good of your service to moderate your conduct, and not to single out with too great severity faults committed either against his service or against the respect due to your person or character." Colbert rightly felt that fault-finding letters were not sufficient to keep within bounds a temperament as fiery as that of the governor of Canada; on the other hand, a man of Frontenac's worth was too valuable to the colony to think of dispensing with his services. The wisest course was to renew the Sovereign Council, and in order to withdraw its members from the too preponderant influence of the governor, to put their nomination in the hands of the king.

By the royal edict of June 5th, 1675, the council was reconst.i.tuted. It was composed of seven members appointed by the Crown; the governor-general occupied the first place, the bishop, or in his absence, the grand vicar, the second, and the commissioner the third.

As the latter presided in the absence of the governor, and as the king was anxious that "he should have the same functions and the same privileges as the first presidents of the courts of France," as moreover the honour devolved upon him of collecting the opinions or votes and of p.r.o.nouncing the decrees, it was in reality the commissioner who might be considered as actual president. It is, therefore, easy to understand the continual disputes which arose upon the question of the t.i.tle of President of the Council between Frontenac and the Commissioner Jacques d.u.c.h.esneau. The latter, at first "_President des tresoriers de la generalite de Tours_," had been appointed _intendant_ of New France by a commission which bears the same date as the royal edict reviving the Sovereign Council. While thinking of the material good of the colony, the Most Christian King took care not to neglect its spiritual interests; he undertook to provide for the maintenance of the parish priests and other ecclesiastics wherever necessary, and to meet in case of need the expenses of the divine service. In addition he expressed his will "that there should always be in the council one ecclesiastical member," and later he added a clerical councillor to the members already installed. There were summoned to the council MM. de Villeray, de Tilly, Damours, Dupont, Louis Rene de Lotbiniere, de Peyras, and Denys de Vitre. M. Denis Joseph Ruette d'Auteuil was appointed solicitor-general; his functions consisted in speaking in the name of the king, and in making, in the name of the prince or of the public, the necessary statements. The former clerk, M. Peuvret de Mesnu, was retained in his functions.