The Fighting Governor Part 3

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 t.i.thes which had been established under an order of 1667. Thus on the subject of the {61} 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 {62} 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,[3] 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, {63} 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 d.u.c.h.esneau, the strife revolved about a different set of questions without losing any of its bitterness. Frontenac and Laval disputed over ecclesiastical affairs. Frontenac and d.u.c.h.esneau disputed over civil affairs. But as Laval and d.u.c.h.esneau were both at war with Frontenac they naturally drew together. The alliance was rendered more easy by d.u.c.h.esneau'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 {64} their duties as members of the Sovereign Council.

It is worthy of remark that each of the contestants, Frontenac, Laval, and d.u.c.h.esneau, 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, d.u.c.h.esneau 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 circ.u.mstances forced him into the thankless position of being a henchman to the bishop and a drag upon the governor.

Everything which d.u.c.h.esneau 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 {65} 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, d.u.c.h.esneau's instructions gave him a degree of authority which proved galling to the governor.

Within three weeks from the date of d.u.c.h.esneau'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. d.u.c.h.esneau 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 {66} place his intention beyond doubt. He meant that d.u.c.h.esneau 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 d.u.c.h.esneau 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.

Frontenac saw the matter differently and was unwilling to be deposed.

Royal letters, which he produced, had styled him 'President of the Council,' and on the face of it d.u.c.h.esneau's commission only indicated that he should preside in Frontenac's absence. With these arguments the governor stood his ground. Then followed the representations of both parties to the king, each taxing the other with misdemeanours both political and {67} personal. During the long period which must elapse before a reply could be received, the Sovereign Council was turned into an academy of invective. Besides governor, bishop, and intendant, there were seven members who were called upon to take sides in the contest. No one could remain neutral even if he had the desire. In voting power Laval and d.u.c.h.esneau had rather the best of it, but Frontenac when pressed could fall back on physical force; as he once did by banis.h.i.+ng three of the councillors--Villeray, Tilly, and Auteuil--from Quebec (July 4, 1679).

Incredible as it may seem, this issue regarding the right to preside was not settled until the work of the Council had been disturbed by it for five years. What is still more incredible, it was settled by compromise. The king's final ruling was that the minutes of each meeting should register the presence of governor and intendant without saying which had presided. Throughout the controversy Colbert remonstrated with both Frontenac and d.u.c.h.esneau for their turbulence and unwillingness to work together. d.u.c.h.esneau is told that he must not presume to think himself the equal of the governor. Frontenac is told that the intendant has very important {68} functions and must not be prevented from discharging them. The whole episode shows how completely the French colonial system broke down in its attempt to act through two officials, each of whom was designed to be a check upon the other.

Wholly alienated by this dispute, Frontenac and d.u.c.h.esneau soon found that they could quarrel over anything and everything. Thus d.u.c.h.esneau became a consistent supporter of Laval and the Jesuits, while Frontenac retaliated by calling him their tool. The brandy question, which was partly ecclesiastical and partly civil, proved an excellent battle-ground for the three great men of Canada; and, as finance was concerned, the intendant had something to say about the establishment of parishes. But of the manifold contests between Frontenac and d.u.c.h.esneau the most distinctive is that relating to the fur trade. At first sight this matter would appear to lie in the province of the intendant, whose functions embraced the supervision of commerce. But it was the governor's duty to defend the colony from attack, and the fur trade was a large factor in all relations with the Indians. A personal element was also added, for in almost every letter to the {69} minister Frontenac and d.u.c.h.esneau accused each other of taking an illicit profit from beaver skins.

In support of these accusations the most minute details are given.

d.u.c.h.esneau even charged Frontenac with spreading a report among the Indians of the Great Lakes that a pestilence had broken out in Montreal. Thereby the governor's agents were enabled to buy up beaver skins cheaply, afterwards selling them on his account to the English.

Frontenac rejoined by accusing the intendant of having his own warehouses at Montreal and along the lower St Lawrence, of being truculent, a slave to the bishop, and incompetent. Behind d.u.c.h.esneau, Frontenac keeps saying, are the Jesuits and the bishop, from whom the spirit of faction really springs. Among many of these tirades the most elaborate is the long memorial sent to Colbert in 1677 on the general state of Canada. Here are some of the items. The Jesuits keep spies in Frontenac's own house. The bishop declares that he has the power to excommunicate the governor if necessary. The Jesuit missionaries tell the Iroquois that they are equal to Onontio. Other charges are that the Jesuits meddle in all civil affairs, that their revenues {70} are enormous in proportion to the poverty of the country, and that they are bound to domineer at whatever cost.

When we consider how Canada from end to end was affected by these disputes, we may well feel surprise that Colbert and the king should have suffered them to rage so long. By 1682 the state of things had become unbearable. Partisans of Frontenac and d.u.c.h.esneau attacked each other in the streets. d.u.c.h.esneau accused Frontenac of having struck the young d.u.c.h.esneau, aged sixteen, and torn the sleeve of his jacket.

He also declared that it was necessary to barricade his house.

Frontenac retorted by saying that these were gross libels. A year earlier Colbert had placed his son, Seignelay, in charge of the Colonial Office. With matters at such a pa.s.s Seignelay rightly thought the time had come to take decisive action. Three courses were open to him. The bishop and the Jesuits he could not recall. But both the governor and the intendant came within his power. One alternative was to dismiss Frontenac; another, to dismiss d.u.c.h.esneau. Seignelay chose the third course and dismissed them both.

[1] 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.

[2] 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.

[3] 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.

{71}

CHAPTER V

FRONTENAC'S PUBLIC POLICY

As was said long ago, every one has the defects of his qualities. Yet, in justice to a man of strong character and patriotic aim, the chronicler should take care that constructive work is given its due place, for only those who do nothing make no mistakes.

During his first term of office Frontenac had many enemies in the higher circles of society. His quarrel with Laval was a cause of scandal to the devout. His deadlock with d.u.c.h.esneau dislocated the routine of government. There was no one who did not feel the force of his will. Yet to friends and foes alike his recall at sixty-two must have seemed the definite, humiliating close of a career. It was not the moment to view in due perspective what he had accomplished. His shortcomings were on the lips of every one. His strength had been revealed, but was for the time forgotten. When he left Quebec in 1682 he must {72} have thought that he would never see it again. Yet when need came he was remembered. This fact is a useful comment on his first term, extenuating much that had seemed ground for censure in less troubled days.

Let us now regard Frontenac's policy from his own point of view, and attempt to estimate what he had accomplished down to the date of his recall.

However closely Laval and d.u.c.h.esneau might seek to narrow Frontenac's sphere of action, there was one power they could not deny him. As commander of the king's troops in Canada he controlled all matters relating to colonial defence. If his domestic administration was full of trouble, it must also be remembered that during his first term of office there was no war. This happy result was due less to accident than to his own gifts and character. It is true that the friends.h.i.+p of Louis XIV and Charles II a.s.sured peace between New France and New England. But Canada could thank Frontenac for keeping the Iroquois at arm's length.

We have seen how he built the stronghold at Cataraqui, which was named Fort Frontenac. The vigour and the tact that he displayed on this occasion give the keynote to {73} all his relations with the Indians.

Towards them he displayed the three qualities which a governor of Canada most needed--firmness, sympathy, and fair dealing. His arrogance, so conspicuous in his intercourse with equals or with refractory subordinates, disappears wholly when he comes into contact with the savages. Theatrical he may be, but in the forest he is never intolerant or narrow-minded. And behind his pageants there is always power.

Thus Frontenac should receive personal credit for the great success of his Indian policy. He kept the peace by moral ascendancy, and to see that this was no light task one need only compare the events of his regime with those which marked the period of his successors, La Barre and Denonville. This we shall do in the next chapter. For the present it is enough to say that throughout the full ten years 1672-82 Canada was free from fear of the Iroquois. Just at the close of Frontenac's first term (1680-82) the Senecas were showing signs of restlessness by attacking tribes allied to the French, but there is abundant reason to suppose that had Frontenac remained in office he could have kept these inter-tribal wars under control.

{74}

Bound up with the success of Frontenac's Indian policy is the exploration of the West--an achievement which adds to this period its chief l.u.s.tre. Here La Salle is the outstanding figure and the laurels are chiefly his. None the less, Frontenac deserves the credit of having encouraged all endeavours to solve the problem of the Mississippi. Like La Salle he had large ideas and was not afraid.

They co-operated in perfect harmony, sharing profits, perhaps, but sincerely bent on gaining for France a new, vast realm. The whole history of colonial enterprise shows how fortunate the French have been in the co-operation of their explorers with their provincial governors.

The relations of La Salle with La Barre form a striking exception, but the statement holds true in the main, and with reference to Algiers as well as to Canada.

La Salle was a frank partisan of Frontenac throughout the quarrel with Perrot and Fenelon. On one occasion he made a scene in church at Montreal. It was during the Easter service of 1674. When Fenelon decried magistrates who show no respect to the clergy and who use their deputed power for their own advantage, La Salle stood up and called the attention of the leading citizens to {75} these words. Frontenac, who was always a loyal ally, showed that he appreciated La Salle's efforts on his behalf by giving him a letter of recommendation to the court in which La Salle is styled 'a man of intelligence and ability, more capable than any one else I know here to accomplish every kind of enterprise and discovery which may be entrusted to him.'

The result of La Salle's visit to Versailles (1674) was that he gained privileges which made him one of the most important men in Canada, and a degree of power which brought down on him many enemies. He received the seigneury of Fort Frontenac, he was made local governor at that post, and, in recognition of services already performed, he gained a grant of n.o.bility. It is clear that La Salle's forceful personality made a strong impression at court, and the favours which he received enabled him, in turn, to secure financial aid from his wealthy relatives at Rouen.

What followed was the most brilliant, the most exciting, and the most tragic chapter in the French exploration of America. La Salle fulfilled all the conditions upon which he had received the seigneury at Fort Frontenac, and found financial profit in maintaining the post.

{76} The original wooden structure was replaced by stone, good barracks were built for the troops, there were bastions upon which nine cannon announced a warning to the Iroquois, a settlement with well-tilled land sprang up around the fort, schooners were built with a draught of forty tons. But for La Salle this was not enough. He was a pathfinder, not a trader. Returning to France after two years of labour and success at Fort Frontenac, he secured a royal patent authorizing him to explore the whole continent from the Great Lakes to Mexico, with the right to build forts therein and to enjoy a monopoly of the trade in buffalo skins. The expenses of the undertaking were, of course, to be borne by La Salle and his a.s.sociates, for the king never invested money in these enterprises. However, the persuasiveness which enabled La Salle to secure his patent enabled him to borrow the necessary funds. At the close of 1678 he was once more at Fort Frontenac and ready for the great adventure.

How La Salle explored the country of the Illinois in company with his valiant friend, Henri de Tonty 'of the iron hand,' and how these two heroic leaders traversed the continent to the very mouth of the Mississippi, {77} is not to be told here. But with its risks, its hards.h.i.+ps, its tragedies, and its triumphs, this episode, which belongs to the period of Frontenac's administration, will always remain a cla.s.sic in the records of discovery. The Jesuits, who did not love La Salle, were no less brave than he, and the l.u.s.tre of his achievements must not be made to dim theirs. Yet they had all the force of a mighty organization at their back, while La Salle, standing alone, braved ruin, obloquy, and death in order to win an empire for France.

Sometimes he may have thought of fame, but he possessed that driving power which goes straight for the object, even if it means sacrifice of self. His haughtiness, his daring, his self-centred determination, well fitted him to be the friend and trusted agent of Frontenac.

Another leading figure of the period in western discovery was Daniel Greysolon du Lhut. d.u.c.h.esneau calls him the leader of the coureurs de bois. There can be no doubt that he had reached this eminence among the French of the forest. He was a gentleman by birth and a soldier by early training. In many ways he resembled La Salle, for both stood high above the common coureurs de {78} bois in station, as in talent.

Du Lhut has to his credit no single exploit which equals La Salle's descent of the Mississippi, but in native sagacity he was the superior.

With a temperament less intense and experiences less tragic, he will never hold the place which La Salle securely occupies in the annals of adventure. But few Frenchmen equalled him in knowledge of the wilderness, and none displayed greater force of character in dealing with the Indians.

What the mouth of the Mississippi was to La Salle the country of the Sioux became to Du Lhut--a goal to be reached at all hazards. Not only did he reach it, but the story of how he rescued Father Hennepin from the Sioux (1680) is among the liveliest tales to be found in the literature of the wilderness. The only regrettable circ.u.mstance is that the story should have been told by Hennepin instead of by Du Lhut--or rather, that we should not have also Du Lhut's detailed version instead of the brief account which he has left. Above all, Du Lhut made himself the guardian of French interests at Michilimackinac, the chief French post of the Far West--the rendezvous of more tribes than came together at any other point. The finest tale of his courage {79} and good judgment belongs to the period of La Barre's government--when, in 1684, at the head of forty-two French, he executed sentence of death on an Indian convicted of murder. Four hundred savages, who had a.s.sembled in mutinous mood, witnessed this act of summary justice. But they respected Du Lhut for the manner in which he had conducted the trial, and admired the firmness with which he executed a fair sentence.

Du Lhut's exploits and character make him the outstanding figure of the war which d.u.c.h.esneau waged against the coureurs de bois. The intendant certainly had the letter of the law on his side in seeking to clear the woods of those rovers who at the risk of their own lives and without expense to the government were gaining for France an unequalled knowledge of the interior. Not only had the king decreed that no one should be permitted to enter the forest without express permission, but an edict of 1676 denied even the governor the right to issue a trading pa.s.s at his unrestrained discretion. Frontenac, who believed that the colony would draw great profit from exploration, softened the effect of this measure by issuing licences to hunt. It was also within his power to dispatch messengers to the tribes {80} of the Great Lakes.

d.u.c.h.esneau reported that Frontenac evaded the edict in order to favour his own partners or agents among the coureurs de bois, and that when he went to Montreal on the pretext of negotiating with the Iroquois, his real purpose was to take up merchandise and bring back furs. These charges Frontenac denied with his usual vigour, but without silencing d.u.c.h.esneau. In 1679 the altercation on this point was brought to an issue by the arrest, at the intendant's instance [Transcriber's note: insistence?], of La Toupine, a retainer of Du Lhut. An accusation of disobeying the edict was no trifle, for the penalty might mean a sentence to the galleys. After a bitter contest over La Toupine the matter was settled on a basis not unfavourable to Frontenac. In 1681 a fresh edict declared that all coureurs de bois who came back to the colony should receive the benefit of an amnesty. At the same time the governor was empowered to grant twenty-five trading licences in each year, the period to be limited to one year.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIGURE OF FRONTENAC. From the Hebert Statue at Quebec]

The splendid services of Du Lhut, covering a period of thirty years, are the best vindication of Frontenac's policy towards him and his a.s.sociates. Had d.u.c.h.esneau succeeded in his efforts, Du Lhut would have been {81} severely punished, and probably excluded from the West for the remainder of his life. Thanks to Frontenac's support, he became the mainstay of French interests from Lake Ontario to the Mississippi. Setting out as an adventurer with a strong taste for exploration, he ended as commandant of the most important posts--Lachine, Cataraqui, and Michilimackinac. He served the colony n.o.bly in the war against the Iroquois. He has left reports of his discoveries which disclose marked literary talent. From the early years of Frontenac's regime he made himself useful, not only to Frontenac but to each succeeding governor, until, crippled by gout and age, he died, still in harness. The letter in which the governor Vaudreuil announces Du Lhut's death (1710) to the Colonial Office at Paris is a useful comment upon the accusations of d.u.c.h.esneau. 'He was,' says Vaudreuil, 'a very honest man.' In these words will be found an indirect commendation of Frontenac, who discovered Du Lhut, supported him through bitter opposition, and placed him where his talents and energy could be used for the good of his country.

It will be remembered that Frontenac received orders from Colbert (April 7, 1672) to {82} prevent the Jesuits from becoming too powerful.

In carrying out these instructions he soon found himself embroiled at Quebec, and the same discord made itself felt throughout the wilderness.