SAA SERS LSS Harem
Ble lele
\\ SK
‘ RS x
A
Dyce
<
sleloloicic.
\
~
AX
acfololictojote |:
nS ea
EAT ec nROWs x co
ql
Sc
Cornell Alniversity Library
BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME
FROM THE
- SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND
THE GIFT OF
Henry W. Sage
1891
iii
jcoezO
P24
O4
iq OQ
FRANCIS PARKMAN'S WRITINGS.
THE OreGon TRAIL... ee we
THE CoNSPIRACY OF Pontiac .
France and England in North America,
PIONEERS OF FRANCE IN THE NEW WorLD . .
THE Jesuirs In NortH AMERICA. . .
La SALLE AND THE DISCOVERY OF THE GREAT
WEST: 6. oe ws we SO we OS
THE OLD REGIME IN CANADA UNDER Louis XIV.
Count Frontenac and NEW FRANCE UNDER
Ours! KLVes ae + se oR ie Be a
A Har-CEentury oF ConFLicT
MontcaumM AND WOLFE... . .
1 vol.
2 vols.
1 vol.
1 vol.
1 vol.
1 vol.
1 vol.
2 vols.
2 vols.
THE OLD REGIME IN CANADA.
FRANCE AND ENGLAND IN NORTH AMERICA.
PART FOURTH.
THE
OLD REGIME IN CANADA.
BY
FRANCIS PARKMAN,
a
AUTHOR OF ‘THE OREGON TRAIL,” “THE CONSPIRACY OF PONTIAC,”
‘* PIONEERS OF FRANCE IN THE NEW WORLD,” ‘THE JESUITS
IN NORTH AMERICA,” AND “LA SALLE AND THE
DISCOVERY OF THE GREAT WEST.”
REVISED, WITH ADDITIONS.
BOSTON
LITTLE, BROWN, AND COMPANY
1900
ry
be
Listas
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1874, by
FRANCIS PARKMAN,
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.
Copyright, 1893,
By Francis PARKMAN.
Gniversity ress:
JoHN WILSON AND SON, CAMBRIDGE.
TO
GEORGE EDWARD ELLIS, D.D.
My pear Dr. Exuis-
When, in my youth, 1 proposed to write a series of books on the
French in America, you encouraged the attempt, and your helpful
kindness has followed it from that day to this. Pray accept the dedica-
tion of this volume in token of the grateful regard of
Very faithfully yours,
FRANCIS PARKMAN.
PREFATORY NOTE TO REVISED EDITION.
WuHen this book was written, I was unable to
' gain access to certain indispensable papers relat-
ing to the rival claimants to Acadia, La Tour and
D’Aunay, and therefore deferred all attempts
to treat that subject. The papers having at
length come to hand, the missing chapters are
supplied in the present edition, which also contains
some additional matter of less prominence.
The title of “The Old Régime in Canada” is
“derived from the third and principal of the three
sections into which the book is divided.
June 16, 1893.
PREFACE.
“Tur physiognomy of a government,” says De
Tocqueville, “can best be judged in its colonies,
for there its characteristic traits usually appear
larger and more distinct. When I wish to judge
of the spirit and the faults of the administration
of Louis XIV., I must go to Canada. Its deform-
ity is there seen as through a microscope.”
The monarchical administration of France, at
the height of its power and at the moment of
its supreme triumph, stretched an arm across the
Atlantic and grasped the North American conti-
nent. This volume attempts to show by what
methods it strove to make good its hold, why it
achieved a certain kind of success, and why it
failed at last. The political system which has
fallen, and the antagonistic system which has pre-
vailed, seem, at first sight, to offer nothing but
contrasts; yet out of the tomb of Canadian abso-
lutism come voices not without suggestion even to
us. Extremes meet, and Autocracy and Democ-
racy often touch hands, at least in their vices.
x PREFACE.
The means of knowing the Canada of the past
are ample. The pen was always busy in this out-
post of the old monarchy. The king and the min-
ister demanded to know every thing; and officials
of high and low degree, soldiers and civilians,
friends and foes, poured letters, despatches, and
memorials, on both sides of every question, into
the lap of government. These masses of paper
have in the main survived the perils of revolutions
and the incendiary torch of the Commune. Add
to them the voluminous records of the Superior
Council of Quebec, and numerous other documents
preserved in the civil and ecclesiastical depositories
of Canada.
The governments of New York and of Canada
have caused a large part of the papers in the
French archives, relating to their early history, to
be copied and brought to America, and valuable
contributions of material from the same quarter
have been made by the State of Massachusetts and
by private Canadian investigators. Nevertheless,
a great deal has still remained in France, uncopied
and unexplored. In the course of several visits to
that country, I have availed myself of these sup-
plementary papers, as well as of those which had
before been copied, sparing neither time nor pains
to explore every part of the field. With the help
of a system of classified notes, I have collated the
evidence of the various writers, and set down
PREFACE. xi
without reserve all the results of the examination,
whether favorable or unfavorable. Some of them
are of a character which I regret, since they cannot
be agreeable to persons for whom I have a very
cordial regard. The conclusions drawn from the
facts may be matter of opinion, but it will be
remembered that the facts themselves can be
overthrown only by overthrowing the evidence
on which they rest, or bringing forward counter-
evidence of equal or greater strength ; and neither
task will be found an easy one.’
I have received most valuable aid in my inqui-
ries from the great knowledge and experience of
M. Pierre Margry, Chief of the Archives of the
Marine and Colonies at Paris. I beg also warmly
to acknowledge the kind offices of Abbé Henri
Raymond Casgrain and Grand Vicar Cazeau, of
Quebec, together with those of James LeMoine,
Esq., M. Eugéne Taché, Hon. P. J. O. Chauveau,
and other eminent Canadians, and Henry Har-
risse, Esq.
The few extracts from original documents, which
are printed in the appendix, may serve as samples
of the material out of which the work has been
constructed. In some instances their testimony
1 Those who wish to see the subject from a point of view opposite to
mine cannot do better than consult the work of the Jesuit Charlevoix,
with the excellent annotation of Mr. Shea. (History and General De-
scription of New France, by the Rev. P. F. X. de Charlevoix, S.J., trans-
lated with notes by John Gilmary Shea. 6 vols. New York : 1866- 1872.)
xii PREFACE.
might be multiplied twenty-fold. When the place
of deposit of the documents cited in the margin
is not otherwise indicated, they will, in nearly all
cases, be found in the Archives of the Marine
and Colonies.
In the present book we examine the political
and social machine; in the next volume of the
series we shall see this machine in action.
Boston, July 1, 1874.
CONTENTS.
SECTION FIRST.
THE FEUDAL CHIEFS OF ACADIA.
CHAPTER I.
1497-1648.
LA TOUR AND D’AUNAY.
Pace
The Acadian Quarrel. —Biencourt.— Claude and Charles de la
Tour. — Sir William Alexander. — Claude de Razilly. — Charles
de Menou d’Aunay Charnisay.— Cape Sable. — Port Royal. —
The Heretics of Boston and Plymouth. — Madame de la Tour.
— War and Litigation. — La Tour worsted. — He asks help from
the Boston Puritans . . 2. . - + + + + © © we ee ow 2
CHAPTER IL
1643-1645.
LA TOUR AND THE PURITANS.
La Tour at Boston.— He meets Winthrop. — Boston in 1643.—
Training Day. — An Alarm. — La Tour’s Bargain. — Doubts and
Disputes. — The Allies sail. —La Tour and Endicott. —D’Au-
nay’s Overture to the Puritans. — Marie’s Mission . . . . ~ 18
CHAPTER III.
1645-1710.
THE VICTOR VANQUISHED.
D’Aunay’s Envoys. — Their Reception at Boston. — Winthrop and
his “ papist ” Guests. — Reconciliation. — Treaty. — Behavior
xiv CONTENTS.
Pace
of La Tour. — Royal Favors to D’Aunay. — His Hopes. — His
Death. — His Character. — Conduct of the Court towards him.
—Intrigues of La Tour. — Madame D’Aunay. — La Tour
marries her. — Children of D’Aunay.— Descendants of La
Tour edges 2 ak aly GRAY cada ae tk hv Men Spade asian Ugh pes yee OO:
SECTION SECOND.
CANADA A MISSION.
CHAPTER IV.
1653-1658.
THE JESUITS AT ONONDAGA.
The Iroquois War.— Father Poncet. — His Adventures. — Jesuit
Boldness. — Le Moyne’s Mission. — Chaumonot and Dablon. —
Troquois Ferocity. — The Mohawk Kidnappers. — Critical Posi-
tion. — The Colony of Onondaga. — Speech of Chaumonot. —
Omens of Destruction. — Device of the Jesuits. — The Medicine
Feast.— The Escape . . 1 2 1 1 ee ew th ew ee 61
CHAPTER V.
1642-1661.
THE HOLY WARS OF MONTREAL.
Dauversiére. — Mance and Bourgeoys. — Miracle. — A Pious De-
faulter. — Jesuit and Sulpitian. — Montreal in 1659. — The
Hospital Nuns. — The Nuns and the Iroquois. — More Miracles.
— The Murdered Priests. — Brigeac and Closse. — Soldiers of
the Holy Family ..... EV evi nat Siok 91
CHAPTER VI.
1660, 1661.
THE HEROES OF THE LONG SAUT.
Suffering and Terror. — Francois Hertel. — The Captive Wolf. —
The Threatened Invasion. — Daulac des Ormeaux. — The Ad-
venturers at the Long Saut.— The Attack.— A Desperate
Defence. — A Final Assault.— The Fort taken . . . ... 1183
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER VII.
1657-1668.
THE DISPUTED BISHOPRIC.
Domestic Strife. — Jesuit and Sulpitian. — Abbé Queylus. — Fran-
cois de Laval.— The Zealots of Caen.— Gallican and Ultra-
montane. — The Rival Claimants. — Storm at Quebec. — Laval
Triumphattiw =. <2 @« 2 2 8 @ eS ee ee ee
CHAPTER VIII.
1659, 1660.
LAVAL AND ARGENSON.
Francois de Laval.— His Position and Character.— Arrival of
Argenson. — The Quarrel .
CHAPTER IX.
1658-1663.
LAVAL AND AVAUGOUR.
Reception of Argenson. — His Difficulties. — His Recall. — Dubois
d’Avaugour.— The Brandy Quarrel. — Distress of Laval. —
Portents.— The Earthquake . . . 2... ee 2 ee
CHAPTER X.
1661-1664.
LAVAL AND DUMESNIL.
Péronne Dumesnil. — The Old Council. — Alleged Murder. — The
New Council. — Bourdon and Villeray.— Strong Measures. —
Escape of Dumesnil.— Views of Colbert . .......
CHAPTER XI.
1657-1665.
LAVAL AND MEZY.
The Bishop’s Choice. — A Military Zealot. — Hopeful Beginnings.
Signs of Storm. — The Quarrel. — Distress of ee — He
Refuses to yield. — His Defeat and Death . . . . Sy
PaGE
133
153
165
181
195
XV1 CONTENTS.
CHAPTER XII.
1662-1680.
LAVAL AND THE SEMINARY.
Pace
Laval’s Visit to Court. — The Seminary. — Zeal of the Bishop. —
His Eulogists. — Church and State. — Attitude of Laval. . . 209
SECTION THIRD.
THE COLONY AND THE KING,
CHAPTER XIII.
1661-1665.
ROYAL INTERVENTION.
Fontainebleau. — Louis XIV. — Colbert. — The Company of the
West. — Evil Omens. — Action of the King. — Tracy, Courcelle,
and Talon. — The Regiment of Carignan-Salitres.— Tracy at
Quebec. — Miracles. —A Holy War . . . . . . + « © ~ 219
CHAPTER XIV.
1666, 1667.
THE MOHAWKS CHASTISED.
Courcelle’s March. — His Failure and Return. — Courcelle and the
Jesuits. — Mohawk Treachery. — Tracy’s Expedition. — Burn-
ing of the Mohawk Towns. — French and English. — Dollier de
Casson at St. Anne. — Peace. — The Jesuits and the Iroquois . 236
CHAPTER XV.
1665-1672.
PATERNAL GOVERNMENT.
Talon. — Restriction and Monopoly. — Views of Colbert. — Politi-
cal Galvanism.— A Father of the People . ..... =. =. 257
CONTENTS. Xvil
CHAPTER XVI.
1661-1673.
MARRIAGE AND POPULATION.
Pace
Shipment of Emigrants. — Soldier Settlers. — Importation of
Wives. — Wedlock. — Summary Méthods.— The Mothers of
Canada. — Bounties on Marriage. — Celibacy Punished.— Boun-
ties on Children.— Results . . . . Ba MU Sas ae eof 20D
CHAPTER XVIL.
1665-1672.
THE NEW HOME.
Military Frontier. — The Canadian Settler. — Seignior and Vassal.
— Example of Talon.— Plan of Settlement. — Aspect of
Canada. — Quebec. — The River Settlements. — Montreal. —
THE PIONECTS! ee a ee hw wh ee we we 7 2BT
CHAPTER XVIII.
1663-1763.
CANADIAN FEUDALISM.
Transplantation of Feudalism. — Precautions.— Faith and Homage.
— The Seignior. — The Censitaire. — Royal Intervention. — The
Gentilhomme.— Canadian Noblesse . . . . . 1. «1 293
CHAPTER XIX.
1663-1763,
THE RULERS OF CANADA.
Nature of the Government.—The Governor.— The Council. —
Courts and Judges.—The Intendant.—His Grievances.—Strong
Government. — Sedition and Blasphemy.— Royal Bounty. —
Defects and Abuses . . ....... ee ee es 814
XViil CONTENTS.
CHAPTER XX.
1663-1678.
TRADE AND INDUSTRY.
PAGE
Trade in Fetters. — The Huguenot Merchants. — Royal Patronage.
— The Fisheries. — Cries for Help. — Agriculture. — Manufac-
tures. — Arts of Ornament. — Finance. — Card Money. — Repu-
diation. — Imposts. — The Beaver Trade. — The Fair at Mon-
treal. — Contraband Trade. — A Fatal System. — Trouble and
Change. — The Coureurs de Bois. — The Forest. — Letter of
Carell) 2: (ead) Sl athe tae we ve a BOS eS cae 889
CHAPTER XXI.
1663-1702.
THE MISSIONS. THE BRANDY QUESTION.
The Jesuits and the Iroquois. — Mission Villages. — Michillimack-
inac. — Father Carheil. — Temperance. — Brandy and the
Indians. — Strong Measures. — Disputes. — License and Pro-
hibition.— Views of the King.— Trade and the Jesuits . . . 366
CHAPTER XXII.
1663-1763.
PRIESTS AND PEOPLE.
Church and State. — The Bishop and the King. — The King and
the Curés. — The New Bishop. — The Canadian Curé. — Ecclesi-
- astical Rule. — Saint-Vallier and Denonville.— Clerical Rigor.
—Jesuit and Sulpitian. — Courcelle and Chatelain. — The Re-
collets.— Heresy and Witchcraft.— Canadian Nuns. — Jeanne
Le Ber.— Education. — The Seminary. —Saint Joacnim. —
Miracles of Saint Anne.— Canadian Schools . . . . . . . 881
CHAPTER XXIII.
1640-1763.
MORALS AND MANNERS.
Social Influence of the Troops. —A Petty Tyrant. — Brawls. —
Violence and Outlawry. — State of the Population. — Views of
CONTENTS. xix
Pace
Denonville. — Brandy. — Beggary. — The Past and the Present.
Inns. — State of Quebec. — Fires. —The Country Parishes. —
— Slavery. — Views of La Hontan. — Of Hocquart. —Of Bou-
gainville. — Of Kalm.—Of Charlevoix . ....... . 418
CHAPTER XXIV.
1663-1763.
CANADIAN ABSOLUTISM.
Formation of Canadian Character.— The Rival Colonies. — Eng-
land and France. — New England. — Characteristics of Race. —
Military Qualities. —The Church. — The English Conquest . 444
APPENDIX.
A. La Tourand D’Aunay. . . 2... 1 1 6 we we oe 458
B. The Hermitage ofCaen . . . 2... +. 1 se ee 459
C. Lavaland Argenson . . 2... 1. 1 4 ee @ 2 « 463
D. Péronne Dumesnil. . . . 2... 1 2 ee ew ee 465
HE, Lavaband Mésy. 2... 6 we ee ee % He we ~ 469
F. Marriage and Population. . . . . 1... 2... . 472
G, Chateau Sti Louis . . 6 so ps ww 8 ee ee 4B
H. Tradeand Industry ........4.4.242. 6. 478
I. Letter of Father Carheil. . . 2... 1... ww ee 488
J. The Government and the Clergy . . . ...... . 488
K.
Canadian Curés. Education. Discipline ..... . 494
INDEX, 6 2&8 4 we ew me we we we We ae we ey 47
1629.] YOUNG LA TOUR. 3
which thenceforth he is usually known. In his
distress he lived much like an Indian, roaming the
woods with a few followers, and subsisting on fish,
game, roots, and lichens. He seems, however, to
have found means to build a small fort among the
rocks and fogs of Cape Sable. He named it Fort
Loméron, and here he appears to have main-
tained himself for a time by fishing and the fur
trade.
Many years before, a French boy of fourteen
years, Charles Saint Etienne de la Tour, was
brought to Acadia by his father, Claude de la
Tour, where he became attached to the service of
Biencourt (Poutrincourt), and, as he himself says,
served as his ensign and lieutenant. He says,
further, that Biencourt on his death left him all
his property in Acadia, It was thus, it seems,
that La Tour became owner of Fort Loméron
and its dependencies at Cape Sable, whereupon
he begged the king to give him help against
his enemies, especially the English, who, as he
thought, meant to seize the country. And he
begged also for a commission to command in
Acadia for his Majesty.
In fact, Sir William Alexander soon tried to dis-
possess him and seize his fort. Charles de la
Tour’s father had been captured at sea by the
privateer Kirke, and carried to England. Here,
being a widower, he married a lady of honor of
the queen, and, being a Protestant, renounced his
French allegiance.
1 La Tour au Roy, 25 July, 1627.
4 LA TOUR AND D’AUNAY. [1629.
Alexander made him a baronet of Nova Scotia,
a new title which King James had authorized
Sir William to confer on persons of consideration
aiding him in his work of colonizing Acadia.
Alexander now fitted out two ships, with which he
sent the elder La Tour to Cape Sable. On arriv-
ing, the father, says the story, made the most
brilliant offers to his son if he would give up Fort
Loméron to the English, to which young La Tour
is reported to have answered in a burst of pa-
triotism, that he would take no favors except
from his sovereign, the king of France. On this,
the English are said to have attacked the fort, and
to have been beaten off. As the elder La Tour
could not keep his promise to deliver the place to
the English, they would have no more to do
with him, on which his dutiful son offered him
an asylum under condition that he should never
enter the fort. A house was built for him out-
side the ramparts, and here the trader, Nicolas
Denys, found him in 1635, It is Denys who tells
the above story,’ which he probably got from the
younger La Tour, and which, as he tells it, is
inconsistent with the known character of its pre-
tended hero, who was no model of loyalty to his
king, being a chameleon whose principles took the
color of his interests. Denys says, further, that
the elder La Tour had been invested with the
Order of the Garter, and that the same dignity
was offered to his son; which is absurd. The
truth is, that Sir William Alexander, thinking that
1 Denys, Description géographique et historique.
1630.] THE BROTHERS KIRKE. 5
the two La Tours might be useful to him, made
them both baronets of Nova Scotia.’
Young La Tour, while begging Louis XIII. for
a commission to command in Acadia, got from Sir
William Alexander not only the title of Baronet,
but also a large grant of land at and near Cape
Sable, to be held as a fief of the Scottish Crown”
Again, he got from the French king a grant of
land on the river St. John, and, to make assur-
ance doubly sure, got leave from Sir William
Alexander to occupy it.? This he soon did, and
built a fort near the mouth of the river, not far
from the present city of St. John.
Meanwhile the French had made a lodgment on
the rock of Quebec, and not many years after, all
North America from Florida to the Arctic cir-
cle, and from Newfoundland to the springs of the
St. Lawrence, was given by King Louis to the
Company of New France, with Richelieu at its
head* Sir William Alexander, jealous of this
powerful rivalry, caused a private expedition to
be fitted out under the brothers Kirke. It suc-
ceeded, and the French settlements in Acadia and
Canada were transferred by conquest to England.
England soon gave them back by the treaty of
1 Grant from Sir William Alexander to Sir Claude de St. Etienne (de la
Tour), 30 Nov., 1629. Ibid. to Charles de St. Etienne, Esq., Seigneur de St.
Denniscourt and Baigneux, 12 May, 1630. Hazard, State Papers, I. 294,
298. The names of both father and son appear on the list of baronets of
Nova Scotia.
2 Patent from Sir William Alexander to Claude and Charles de la Tour,
30 April, 1630.
3 Williamson, History of Maine, I. 246.
4 See Pioneers of France, 429.
6 LA TOUR AND D’AUNAY. (1632.
St. Germain,’ and Claude de Razilly, a knight of
Malta, was charged to take possession of them in
the name of King Louis.’ Full powers were given
him over the restored domains, together with
grants of Acadian lands for himself.’
Razilly reached Port Royal in August, 1632,
with three hundred men, and the Scotch colony
planted there by Alexander gave up the place in
obedience to an order from the king of England.
Unfortunately for Charles de la Tour, Razilly
brought with him an officer destined to become
La Tour’s worst enemy. This was Charles de
Menou d’Aunay Charnisay, a gentleman of birth
and character, who acted as his commander’s man
of trust, and who, in Razilly’s name, presently
took possession of such other feeble English and
Scotch settlements as had been begun by Alex-
ander or the people of New England along the
coasts of Nova Scotia and Maine. This placed the
French Crown and the Company of New France
in sole possession for a time of the region then
called Acadia.
When Acadia was restored to France, La Tour’s
English title to his lands at Cape Sable became
worthless. He hastened to Paris to fortify his
position, and, suppressing his dallyings with Eng-
1 Traité de St. Germain en Laye, 29 Mars, 1632, Article 8. For reasons
of the restitution, see Pioneers of France, 444, 445.
2 Convention avec le Sieur de Razilly pour aller recevoir la Restitution du
Port Royal, ete., 27 Mars, 1682. Commission du Sieur de Razilly, 10 May,
1632.
8 Concession de la rivitre et baye Saincte Croix a M. de Razilly, 29 May,
1632.
1685.] THE TWO RIVALS. 1
land and Sir William Alexander, he succeeded not
only in getting an extensive grant of lands at Cape
Sable, but also the title of leutenant-general for
the king in Fort Loméron and its dependencies,’
and commander at Cape Sable for the Company
of New France.
Razilly, who represented the king in Acadia,
died in 1635, and left his authority to D’Aunay
Charnisay, his relative and second in command.
D’Aunay made his headquarters at Port Royal,
and nobody disputed his authority except La Tour,
who pretended to be independent of him in virtue
of his commission from the Crown and his grant
from the Company. Hence rose dissensions that
grew at last into war.
The two rivals differed widely in position and
qualities. Charles de Menou, Seigneur d’Aunay
Charnisay, came of an old and distinguished .
family of Touraine,’ and he prided himself above
all things on his character of gentilhomme frangais.
Charles Saint Etienne de la Tour was of less con-
spicuous lineage? In fact, his father, Claude de la
1 Revocation de la Commission du Sieur Charles de Saint Etienne, Sieur
dela Tour, 23 Fév., 1641.
2 The modern representative of this family, Comte Jules de Menou,
is the author of a remarkable manuscript book, written from family
papers and official documents, and entitled L’Acadie colonisée par Charles
de Menou d’Aunay Charnisay. I have followed Comte de Menou’s spelling
of the name. It is often written D’Aulnay, and by New England writers
D’Aulney. The manuscript just mentioned is in my possession. Comte
“de Menou is also the author of a printed work called Preuwves de l’ Histowre
de la Maison de Menou.
3 The true surname of La Tour’s family, which belonged to the
neighborhood of Evreux, in Normandy, was Turgis. The designation of
La Tour was probably derived from the name of some family estate, after
a custom common in France under the old régime. The Turgis’s arms
were “ d’or au chevron de sable, accompagné de trois palmes de méme.”
8 LA TOUR AND D’AUNAY. [1635-
Tour, is said by his enemies to have been at one
time so reduced in circumstances that he carried on
the trade of a mason in Rue St. Germain at Paris.
The son, however, is called gentilhomme dune nais-
sance distinguée, both in papers of the court and
in a legal document drawn up in the interest
of his children. As he came to Acadia when a
boy he could have had little education, and both
he and D’Aunay carried on trade, which in France
would have derogated from their claims as gentle-
men, though in America the fur trade was not
held inconsistent with nodlesse.
Of La Tour’s little kingdom at Cape Sable, with
its rocks, fogs, and breakers, its seal-haunted islets
and iron-bound shores guarded by Fort Loméron,
we have but dim and uncertain glimpses. After
the death of Biencourt, La Tour is said to have
- roamed the woods with eighteen or twenty men,
“living a vagabond life with no exercise of re-
ligion.”? He himself admits that he was forced
to live like the Indians, as did Biencourt before
him? Better times had come, and he was now
commander of Fort Loméron, or, as he called it,
Fort La Tour, with a few Frenchmen and abun-
dance of Micmac Indians. His next neighbor was
the adventurer Nicolas Denys, who with a view
to the timber trade had settled himself with twelve
men on a small river a few leagues distant. Here
Razilly had once made him a visit, and was enter-
tained under a tent of boughs with a sylvan feast
of wild pigeons, brant, teal, woodcock, snipe, and
* Menou, L’Acndie colonisée par Charles de Menou d’ Aunay Charnisay.
2 La Tour au Roy, 25 Juillet, 1627.
1641.] PORT ROYAL. 9
larks, cheered by profuse white wine and claret,
and followed by a dessert of wild raspberries.’
On the other side of the Acadian peninsula
D’Aunay reigned at Port Royal like a feudal lord,
which in fact he was. Denys, who did not like
him, says that he wanted only to rule, and treated
his settlers like slaves; but this, even if true at
the time, did not always remain so. D’Aunay
went to France in 1641, and brought out, at his
own charge, twenty families to people his seign-
iory2 He had already brought out a wife, having
espoused Jeanne Molin or Motin, daughter of
the Seigneur de Courcelles. What with old set-
tlers and new, about forty families were gathered
at Port Royal and on the river Annapolis, and
over these D’Aunay ruled like a feudal Robinson
Crusoe. He gave each colonist a farm charged
with a perpetual rent of one sou an arpent, or
French acre. The houses of the settlers were log
cabins, and the manor-house of their lord was a
larger building of the same kind. The most press-
ing need was of defence, and D’Aunay lost no time
in repairing and reconstructing the old fort on the
point between Allen’s River and the Annapolis.
He helped his tenants at their work, and his con-
fessor describes him as returning to his rough
manor-house on a wet day, drenched with rain and
bespattered with mud, but in perfect good humor,
after helping some of the inhabitants to mark out
1 Denys, Description géographique et historique.
2 Rameau, Une Colonie feodale en Amérique, I. 93 (ed. 1889).
§ Jbid., I. 96, 97.
10 LA TOUR AND D’AUNAY. (1641.
a field. The confessor declares that during the
eleven months of his acquaintance with him he
never heard him speak ill of anybody whatever, a
statement which must probably be taken with
allowance. Yet this proud scion of a noble stock
seems to have given himself with good grace to
the rough labors of the frontiersman, while Father
Ignace, the Capuchin friar, praises him for the
merit, transcendent in clerical eyes, of constant
attendance at mass and frequent confession.’
With his neighbors, the Micmac Indians, he was
on the best of terms. He supplied their needs,
and they brought him the furs that enabled him
in some measure to bear the heavy charges of an
establishment that could not for many years be
self-supporting. In a single year the Indians are
said to have brought three thousand moose skins to
Port Royal, besides beaver and other valuable furs.
Yet, from a commercial point of view, D’Aunay
did not prosper. He had sold or mortgaged his
estates in France, borrowed large sums, built ships,
bought cannon, levied soldiers, and brought over
immigrants. He is reported to have had three
hundred fighting men at his principal station, and
sixty cannon mounted on his ships and forts; for
besides Port Royal he had two or three smaller
establishments.2
Port Royal was a scene for an artist, with its
1 Lettre du Pére Ignace de Paris, Capucin, 6 Aoust, 1658.
? Certificat & Peyard de M. @Aunay Charnisay, signé Michel Boudrot,
Lieutenant Général en VAcadie, et autres, anciens habitans au pays, 5 Oct.,
1687. Lettre du Roy de gouverneur et lieutenant général es costes de |’ Acadie
pour Charles de Menou, Sieur @ Aulnay Charnisay, Fev., 1647.
1642.} A FEUD BEGUN. 11
fort, its soldiers in breastplate and morion, armed
with pike, halberd, or matchlock, its manor-house
of logs, and its seminary of like construction, its
twelve Capuchin friars, with cowled heads, san-
dalled feet, and the cord of Saint Francis; the
birch canoes of Micmac and Abenaki Indians lying
along the strand, and their feathered and painted
owners lounging about the place or dozing around
their wigwam fires. It was medisevalism married
to primeval savagery. The friars were supported
by a fund supplied by Richelieu, and their chief
business was to convert the Indians into vassals of
France, the Church, and the Chevalier d’Aunay.
Hard by was a wooden chapel, where the seignior
knelt in dutiful observance of every rite, and
where, under a stone chiselled with his ancient
scutcheon, one of his children lay buried. In the
fort he had not forgotten to provide a dungeon
for his enemies.
The worst of these was Charles dela Tour. Be-
fore the time of Razilly and his successor, D’Aunay,
La Tour had felt himself the chief man in Acadia;
but now he was confronted by a rival higher in
rank, superior in resources and court influence,
proud, ambitious, and masterful.! He was bitterly
jealous of D’Aunay, and, to strengthen himself
against so formidable a neighbor, he got from the
Company of New France the grant of a tract of
land at the mouth of the river St. John, where
he built a fort and called it after his own name,
1 Besides succeeding to the authority of Razilly, D’Aunay had bought
of his heirs their land claims in Acadia. Arréts du Conseil, 9 Mars, 1642.
12 LA TOUR AND D’AUNAY. [1642.
though it was better known as Fort St. Jean.
Thither he removed from his old post at Cape
Sable, and Fort St. Jean now became his chief
station. It confronted its rival, Port Royal, across
the intervening Bay of Fundy.
Now began a bitter feud between the two chiefs,
each claiming lands occupied by the other. The
Court interposed to settle the dispute, but in its
ignorance of Acadian geography its definitions
were so obscure that the question was more em-
broiled than ever.’
While the domestic feud of the rivals was gath-
ering to a head, foreign heretics had fastened their
clutches on various parts of the Atlantic coast
which France and the Church claimed as their
own. English heretics had made lodgment in
Virginia, and Dutch heretics at the mouth of the
Hudson, while other sectaries of the most malig-
nant type had kennelled among the sands and
pine trees of Plymouth, and others still, slightly
different, but equally venomous, had ensconced
_ themselves on or near the small peninsula of
Shawmut, at the head of La Grande Baye, or
the Bay of Massachusetts. As it was not easy
to dislodge them, the French dissembled for the
present, yielded to the logic of events, and bided
1 Concession de la Compagnie dela Nouvelle France a Charles de Saint-
Etienne, Sieur dela Tour, Lieutenant Général del’ Acadie, du Fort dela Tour,
dans la Riviére de St. Jean, du 15 Janvier, 1635, in Mémoires des Commis-
saires, V. 118 (ed. 1756, 12mo).
2 Louis XIII & d’Aunay, 10 Fev., 1688. This seems to be the occa-
sion of Charlevoix’s inexact assertion that Acadia was divided into three
governments, under D’Aunay, La Tour, and Nicolas Denys, respectively.
The title of Denys, such as it was, had no existence till 1654.
1633-42.] ENGLISH INTERLOPERS. 13
their time. But the interlopers soon began to
swarm northward and invade the soil of Acadia,
sacred to God and the king. Small parties from
Plymouth built trading-houses at Machias and at
what is now Castine, on the Penobscot. As they
were competitors in trade, no less than foes of
God and King Louis, and as they were too few to
resist, both La Tour and D’ Aunay resolved to expel
them ; and in 1633 La Tour attacked the Plymouth
trading-house at Machias, killed two of the five
men he found there, carried off the other three, and
seized all the goods.'| Two years later D’Aunay
attacked the Plymouth trading station at Penob-
scot, the Pentegoet of the French, and took it in
the name of King Louis. That he might not ap-
pear in the part of a pirate, he set a price on the
goods of the traders and then, having seized them,
gave in return his promise to pay at some con-
venient time if the owners would come to him
for the money.
He had called on La Tour to help him in this
raid against Penobscot, but La Tour, unwilling to
recognize his right to command, had refused. He
had hoped that D’Aunay, becoming disgusted with
his Acadian venture, which promised neither honor
nor profit, would give it up, go back to France,
and stay there. About the year 1638 D’Aunay
did in fact go to France, but not to stay, for in
due time he reappeared, bringing with him his
bride, Jeanne Motin, who had had the courage to
share his fortunes, and whom he now installed at
1 Hubbard, History of New England, 163.
14 LA TOUR AND D’AUNAY. [1638-49.
Port Royal, a sure sign, as his rival thought, that
he meant to make his home there. Disappointed
and angry, La Tour now lost patience, went to
Port Royal, and tried to stir D’Aunay’s soldiers to
mutiny; then set on his Indian friends to attack
a boat in which was one of D’Aunay’s soldiers
and a Capuchin friar, the soldier being killed,
though the friar escaped. This was the begin-
ning of a quarrel waged partly at Port Royal and
St. Jean, and partly before the admiralty court of
Guienne and the royal council, partly with bullets
and cannon shot, and partly with edicts, decrees,
and proces verbaux. As D’Aunay had taken a wife,
so too would La Tour, and he charged his agent
Desjardins to bring him one from France. The
agent acquitted himself of his delicate mission, and
shipped to Acadia one Marie Jacquelin, daughter
of a barber of Mans, if we may believe the ques-
tionable evidence of his rival. Be this as it may,
Marie Jacquelin proved a prodigy of mettle and
energy, espoused her husband’s cause with pas-
sionate vehemence, and backed his quarrel like the
intrepid Amazon she was. She joined La Tour at
Fort St. Jean, and proved the most strenuous of
allies.
About this time D’Aunay heard that the Eng-
lish of Plymouth meant to try to recover Pengb-
scot from his hands. On this he sent nine soldiers
thither with provisions and munitions. La Tour
seized them on the way, carried them to Fort St.
Jean, and, according to his enemies, treated them
’ 1 Menon, L’Acadie colonisée par Charles de Menou d’Aunay.
1642.] LA TOUR CONDEMNED. 15
like slaves. D’Aunay heard nothing of this till
four months after, when, being told of it by In-
dians, he sailed in person to Penobscot with two
small vessels, reinforced the place, and was on his
way back to Port Royal when La Tour met him
with two armed pinnaces. A fight took place
and one of D’Aunay’s vessels was dismasted. He
fought so well, however, that Captain Jamin, his
enemy’s chief officer, was killed, and the rest, in-
cluding La Tour, his new wife, and his agent Des-
jardins were forced to surrender, and were carried
prisoners to Port Royal.
At the request of the Capuchin friars D’Aunay
set them all at liberty, after compelling La Tour
to sign a promise to keep the peace in future.'
Both parties now laid their cases before the French
-courts, and, whether from the justice of his cause
or from superior influence, D’Aunay prevailed. La
Tour’s commission was revoked, and he was or-
dered to report himself in France to receive the
king’s commands. Trusting to his remoteness
from the seat of power, and knowing that the king
was often ill served and worse informed, he did not
obey, but remained in Acadia exercising his author-
ity as before. D’Aunay’s father, from his house
in Rue St. Germain, watched over his son’s inter-
ests, and took care that La Tour’s conduct should
not be unknown at court. A decree was there-
upon issued directing D’Aunay to seize his rival’s
forts in the name of the king, and place them in
charge of trusty persons. The order was precise,
~ 1 Menou, L’Acadie colonisée par Charles de Menou a’ Aunay.
16 “LA TOUR AND D’AUNAY. [1642.
but D’Aunay had not at the time force enough
to execute it, and the frugal king sent him only
six soldiers. Hence he could only show the royal
order to La Tour and offer him a passage to France
in one of his vessels if he had the discretion to
obey. La Tour refused, on which D’Aunay re-
turned to France to report his rival’s contumacy.
At about the same time La Tour’s French agent
sent him a vessel with succors. The king ordered
it to be seized; but the order came too late, for
the vessel had already sailed from Rochelle bound
to Fort St. Jean.
When D’Aunay reported the audacious conduct
of his enemy, the royal council ordered that the
offender. should be brought prisoner to France,}!
and D’Aunay, as the king’s lieutenant-general in
Acadia, was again required to execute the decree.
La Tour was now in the position of a rebel, and all
legality was on the side of his enemy, who repre-
sented royalty itself.
D’Aunay sailed at once for Acadia, and in Au-
gust, 1642, anchored at the mouth of the St. John,
before La Tour’s fort, and sent three gentlemen in
a boat to read to its owner the decree of the coun-
eil and the order of the king. La Tour snatched
the papers, crushed them between his hands,
abused the envoys roundly, put them and their
four sailors into prison, and kept them there above
a year.®
1 Arrét du Conseil, 21 Fév., 1642.
2 Menou, L’Acadie colonisée.
3 Menou, L’Acadie colonisée. Moreau, Histoire de l’ Acadie, 169, 170.
1648] LA TOUR SAILS FOR BOSTON. 17
His position was now desperate, for he had
placed himself in open revolt. Alarmed for the
consequences, he turned for help to the heretics of
Boston. True Catholics detested them as foes of
God and man, but La Tour was neither true Catho-
lic nor true Protestant, and would join hands with
anybody who could serve his turn. Twice before
he had made advances to the Boston malignants,
and sent to them first one Rochet, and then one
Lestang, with proposals of trade and alliance. The
envoyswere treated with courtesy, but could get
no promise of active aid.t
La Tour’s agent, Desjardins, had sent him from
Rochelle a ship, called the St. Clement, manned
by a hundred and forty Huguenots, laden with
stores and munitions, and commanded by Captain
Mouron. In due time La Tour at his Fort St.
Jean heard that the St. Clement lay off the mouth
of the river, unable to get in because D’Aunay
blockaded the entrance with two armed ships and
a pinnace. On this he resolved to appeal in per-
son to the heretics. He ran the blockade in a
small boat under cover of night, and, accompanied
by his wife, boarded the St. Clement and sailed for
Boston.’
1 Hubbard, History of New England, chap. liv. Winthrop, ITI. 42, 88.
2 Menon, L’ Acadie colonisée.
CHAPTER II.
1643-1645.
LA TOUR AND THE PURITANS.
La Tour at Boston.— His Meetinc wita Wriyturop. — Boston
In 1643. — Training Day. — An ALArmM. — La Tour’s Barcarn.
— Dousts ann Disputes. — Tue ALLies saiv. — LA Tour ano
Enpicort. — D’Aunay’s OVERTURE TO THE PurITANS. — MaRIE’s
Mission.
On the 12th of June, 1643, the people of the
infant town of Boston saw with some misgiving
a French ship entering their harbor. It chanced
that the wife of Captain Edward Gibbons, with
her children, was on her way in a boat to a farm
belonging to her husband on an island in the
harbor. One of La Tour’s party, who had before
made a visit to Boston, and had been the guest of
Gibbons, recognized his former hostess, and he,
with La Tour and a few sailors, cast off from the
ship and went to speak to her in a boat that was
towed at the stern of the St. Clement. Mrs. Gib-
bons, seeing herself chased by a crew of outland-
ish foreigners, took refuge on the island where
Fort Winthrop was afterwards built, which was
then known as the “Governor’s Garden,” as it
had an orchard, a vineyard, and “many other
conveniences.” * The islands in the harbor, most
1 Wood, New England’s Prospect, Part I. chap. x.
1613.] LA TOUR AND WINTHROP. 19
of which were at that time well wooded, seem to
have been favorite places of cultivation, as sheep
and cattle were there safe from those pests of the
mainland, the wolves. La Tour, no doubt to the
dismay of Mrs. Gibbons and her children, landed
after them, and was presently met by the governor
himself, who, with his wife, two sons, and a daugh-
ter-in-law, had apparently rowed over to their
garden for the unwonted recreation of an after-
noon’s outing. La Tour made himself known to
the governor, and, after mutual civilities, told him
that a ship bringing supplies from France had
been stopped by his enemy, D’Aunay, and that he
had come to ask for help to raise the blockade and
bring her to his fort. Winthrop replied that, be-
fore answering, he must consult the magistrates.
As Mrs. Gibbons and her children were anxious to
get home, the governor sent them to town in his
own boat, promising to follow with his party in
that of La Tour, who had placed it at his disposal.
Meanwhile, the people of Boston had heard of
what was taking place, and were in some anxiety,
since, in a truly British distrust of all French-
men, they feared lest their governor might be .
kidnapped and held for ransom. Some of them
accordingly took arms, and came in three boats to
the rescue. In fact, remarks Winthrop, “if La
Tour had been ill-minded towards us, he had such
an opportunity as we hope neither he nor any
other shall ever have the like again.”’® The castle,
or fort, which was on another island hard by, was
defenceless, its feeble garrison having been lately
1 Winthrop, IL. 107. i 2 Thid.
20 LA TOUR AND THE PURITANS. [1643.
withdrawn, and its cannon might easily have been
turned on the town.
Boston, now in its thirteenth year, was a strag-
gling village, with houses principally of boards or
logs, gathered about a plain wooden meeting-house
which formed the heart or vital organ of the place.
The rough peninsula on which the infant settle-
ment stood was almost void of trees, and was
crowned by a hill split into three summits, whence
the name of Tremont, or Trimount, still retained by
_a street of the present city. Beyond the narrow
neck of the peninsula were several smaller villages
with outlying farms; but the mainland was for
the most part a primeval forest, possessed by its
original owners, wolves, bears, and rattlesnakes.
These last undesirable neighbors made their favor-
ite haunt on a high rocky hill, called Rattlesnake
Hill, not far inland, where, down to the present
generation, they were often seen, and where good
specimens may occasionally be found to this day.
Far worse than wolves or rattlesnakes were the
Pequot Indians, a warlike race who had boasted
that they would wipe the whites from the face of
the earth, but who, by hard marching and fight-
ing, had lately been brought to reason.
Worse than wolves, rattlesnakes, and Indians
together were the theological quarrels that threat-
ened to kill the colony in its infancy. Children
are tanght that the Puritans came to New Eng-
land in search of religious liberty. The liberty
1 Blue Hill in Milton. “Up into the country is a high hill which is
called rattlesnake hill, where there is great store of these poysonous
cveatures.” (Wood, New England’s Prospect.) “ They [the wolves] be
the greatest inconveniency the country hath.” (Ibid.)
1643.] PURITAN TROUBLES. 21
they sought was for themselves alone. It was
the liberty to worship in their own way, and to
prevent all others from doing the like. They
imagined that they held a monopoly of religious
truth, and were bound in conscience to defend it
against all comers. Their mission was to build up
a western Canaan, ruled by the law of God, to
keep it pure from error, and, if need were, purge
it of heresy by persecution; to which ends they
set up one of the most detestable theocracies on
record. Church and state were joined in one.
Church members alone had the right to vote.
There was no choice but to remain politically a
cipher, or embrace, or pretend to embrace, the
extremest dogmas of Calvin. Never was such a
premium offered to cant and hypocrisy; yet in
the early days hypocrisy was rare, so intense and
"pervading was the faith of the founders of New
England.
It was in the churches themselves, the appointed
sentinels and defenders of orthodoxy, that heresy
lifted its head and threatened the state with dis-
ruption. Where minds different in complexion
and character were continually busied with subtle
questions of theology, unity of opinion could not
be long maintained; and innovation found a cham-
pion in one Mrs. Hutchinson, a woman of great
controversial ability and inexhaustible fluency of
tongue. Persons of a mystical turn of mind, or
a natural inclination to contrariety, were drawn
to her preachings, and the church of Boston,
with three or four exceptions, went over to her
22 LA TOUR AND THE PURITANS. [1643.
inabody. “Sanctification,” “ justification,” “ rev-
elations,” the “covenant of grace,” and the “cov-_
enant of works,” mixed in furious battle with
all the subtleties, sophistries, and venom of theo-
logical war, while the ghastly spectre of Antino-
mianism hovered over the fray, carrying terror to
the souls of the faithful. The embers of the strife
still burned hot when La Tour appeared to bring
another firebrand.
As a “papist” or “idolater,” though a mild
one, he was sorely prejudiced in Puritan eyes,
while his plundering of the Plymouth trading-
house some years before, and killing two of its
five tenants, did not tend to produce impressions
in his favor; but it being explained that all five
were drunk, and had begun the fray by firing on
the French, the ire against him cooled a little. .
Landing with Winthrop, he was received under
the hospitable roof of Captain Gibbons, whose
wife had recovered from her fright at his approach.
He went to church on Sunday, and the gravity of
his demeanor gave great satisfaction, a solemn
carriage being of itself a virtue in Puritan eyes.
Hence he was well treated, and his men were per-
mitted to come ashore daily in small numbers.
The stated training day of the Boston militia fell
in the next week, and La Tour asked leave to ex-
ercise his soldiers with the rest. This was granted,
and, escorted by the Boston trained band, about
forty of them marched to the muster field, which
was probably the Common, a large tract of pasture
land in which was a marshy pool, the former home
1643.] “ TRAINING DAY.” 23
of a colony of frogs, perhaps not quite extermi-
nated by the sticks and stones of Puritan boys.
This pool, cleaned, paved, and curbed with granite,
preserves to this day the memory of its ancient
inhabitants, and is still the Frog Pond, though
bereft of frogs.
The Boston trained band, in steel caps and buff
coats, went through its exercise, and the visitors,
we are told, expressed high approval. When the
drill was finished, the Boston officers invited La
Tour’s officers to dine, while his rank and file were
entertained in like manner by the Puritan soldiers.
There were more exercises in the afternoon, and
this time it was the turn of the French, who, says
Winthrop, ‘‘ were very expert in all their postures
and motions.” A certain “judicious minister,” in
dread of popish conspiracies, was troubled in spirit
at this martial display, and prophesied that “ store
of blood would be spilled in Boston,” a prediction
that was not fulfilled, although an incident took
place which startled some of the spectators. The
Frenchmen suddenly made a sham charge, sword
in hand, which the women took for a real one.
The alarm was soon over; and as this demonstra-
tion ended the performance, La Tour asked leave
of the governor to withdraw his men to their
ship. The leave being granted, they fired a salute
and marched to the wharf where their boat lay,
escorted, as before, by the Boston trained band.
During the whole of La Tour’s visit he and
Winthrop went amicably to church together every
Sunday, the governor being attended, on these
24 LA TOUR AND THE PURITANS. (1643.
and all other occasions while the strangers were in
town, by a guard of honor of musketeers and hal-
berd men. La Tour and his chief officers had their
lodging and meals in the houses of the principal
townsmen, and all seemed harmony and good will.
La Tour, meanwhile, had laid his request be-
fore the magistrates, and produced among other
papers the commission to Mouron, captain of his
ship, dated in the last April, and signed and sealed
by the vice-admiral of France, authorizing Mouron
to bring supplies to La Tour, whom the paper
styled lieutenant-general for the king in Acadia ;
La Tour also showed a letter, genuine or forged,
from the agent of the Company of New France,
addressed to him as lieutenant-general, and warn-
ing him to beware of D’Aunay: from all which
the Boston magistrates inferred that their peti-
tioner was on good terms with the French gov-
ernment,! notwithstanding a letter sent them by
D’Aunay the year before, assuring them that La
Tour was a proclaimed rebel, which in fact he was.
Throughout this affair one is perplexed by the
French official papers, whose entanglements and
contradictions in regard to the Acadian rivals are
past unravelling.
La Tour asked only for such help as would en-
able him to bring his own ship to his own fort,
and, as his papers seemed to prove that he was a
! Count Jules de Menou, in his remarkable manuscript book now
before me, expresses his belief that the commission of the vice-admiral
was genuine, but that the letter of the agent of the Company wasa
fabrication.
1643.] LA TOUR'S BARGAIN. 25
recognized officer of his king, Winthrop and the
magistrates thought that they might permit him
to hire such ships and men as were disposed to
join him.
_La Tour had tried to pass himself as a Protes-
tant, but his professions were distrusted, notwith-
standing the patience with which he had listened
to the long-winded sermons of the Reverend John
Cotton. As to his wife, however, there appears
to have been but one opinion. She was approved
as a sound Protestant “ of excellent virtues;”’ and
her denunciations of D’Aunay no doubt fortified
the prejudice which was already strong against
him for his seizure of the Plymouth trading-house
at Penobscot, and for his aggressive and master-
ful character, which made him an inconvenient
neighbor.
With the permission of the governor and the
approval of most of the magistrates, La Tour now
made a bargain with his host, Captain Gibbons,
and a merchant named Thomas Hawkins. They
agreed to furnish him with four vessels; to arm
each of these-with from four to fourteen small
cannon, and man them with a certain number of
sailors, La Tour himself completing the crews with
Englishmen hired at his own charge. Hawkins
was to command the whole. The four vessels were
to escort La Tour and his ship, the St. Clement, te
the mouth of the St. John, in spite of D’Aunay
and all other opponents. The agreement ran for
two months, and La Tour was to pay £250 sterling
a month for the use of the four ships, and mort-
26 LA TOUR AND THE PURITANS. [1643.
gage to Gibbons and Hawkins his fort and all his
Acadian property as security. Winthrop would
give no commissions to Hawkins or any others
engaged in the expedition, and they were all fore
bidden to fight except in self-defence; but the
agreement contained the significant clause that all
plunder was to be equally divided according to
rule in such enterprises. Hence it seems clear
that the contractors had an eye to booty; yet
no means were used to hold them to their good
behavior.
Now rose a brisk dispute, and the conduct of
Winthrop was sharply criticised. Letters poured
in upon him concerning “great dangers,’ “ sin
upon the conscience,” and the like. He himself
was clearly in doubt as to the course he was tak-
ing, and he soon called another meeting of magis-
trates, in which the inevitable clergy were invited
to join; and they all fell to discussing the matter
anew. As every man of them had studied the
Bible daily from childhood up, texts were the chief
weapons of the debate. Doubts were advanced
as to whether Christians could lawfully help idol-
aters, and Jehoshaphat, Ahab, and Josias were
brought forward as cases in point. Then Solomou
was cited to the effect that “he that meddleth
with the strife that belongs not to him takes a dog
by the ear;” to which it was answered that the
quarrel did belong to us, seeing that Providence
now offered us the means to weaken our enemy,
D’Aunay, without much expense or trouble to our-
selves, Besides, we ought to help a neighbor in
1643.] WINTHROP BLAMED. 27
distress, seeing that Joshua helped the Gibeonites,
and Jehoshaphat helped Jehoram against Moab
with the approval of Elisha. The opposing party
argued that “by aiding papists we advance and
strengthen popery ;” to which it was replied that
the opposite effect might follow, since the grateful
papist, touched by our charity, might be won to
the true faith and turned from his idols.
Then the debate continued on the more worldly
grounds of expediency and statecraft, and at last
Winthrop’s action was approved by the majority.
Still, there were many doubters, and the governor
was severely blamed. John Endicott wrote to him
that La Tour was not to be trusted, and that he
and D’Aunay had better be left to fight it out
between them, since if we help the former to put
down his enemy he will be a bad neighbor to us.
Presently came a joint letter from several chief
men of the colony, Saltonstall, Bradstreet, Na-
thaniel Ward, John Norton, and others, saying in
substance: We fear international law has been ill
observed; the merits of the case are not clear;
we are not called upon in charity to help La Tour
(see 2 Chronicles xix. 2, and Proverbs xxvi. 17);
this quarrel is for England and France, and not
for us; if D’Aunay is not completely put down,
we shall have endless trouble; and “he that loses
his life in an unnecessary quarrel dies the devil’s
martyr.”
This letter, known as the “Ipswich letter,”
touched Winthrop to the quick. He thought that
it trenched on his official dignity, and the asperity
28 LA TOUR AND THE PURITANS. [1643.
of his answer betrays his sensitiveness. He calls
the remonstrance “ an act of an exorbitant nature,”
and says that it “ blows a trumpet to division and
dissension.” “If my neighbor is in trouble,”
he goes on to say, “I must help him;” he main-
tains that “there is great difference between giv-
ing permission to hire to guard or transport, and
giving commission to fight,” and he adds the usual
Bible text, “The fear of man bringeth a snare;
but whoso putteth his trust in the Lord shall be
safe.” *
In spite of Winthrop’s reply, the Ipswich letter
had great effect, and he and the Boston magis-
trates were much blamed, especially in the coun-
try towns. The governor was too candid not to
admit that he had been in fault, though he limits
his self-accusation to three points: first, that he
had given La Tour an answer too hastily; next,
that he had not sufficiently consulted the elders
or ministers; and lastly, that he had not opened
the discussion with prayer.
The upshot was that La Tour and his allies
sailed on the 14th of July. D’Aunay’s three ves-
sels fled before them to Port Royal. La Tour
tried to persuade his Puritan friends to join him in
an attack; but Hawkins, the English commander,
would give no order to that effect, on which about
thirty of the Boston men volunteered for the adven-
ture. D’Aunay’s followers had ensconced them-
1 Winthrop’s Answer to the Ipswich Letter about La Tour (no date), in
Hutchinson Papers, 122. Bradstreet writes to him on the 21st of June,
“Our ayding of Latour was very grievous to many hereabouts, the
design being feared to be unwarrantable by dyvers.”
1644] _ JOHN ENDICOTT. 29
selves in a fortified mill, whence they were driven
with some loss. After burning the mill and rob-
bing a pinnace loaded with furs, the Puritans
returned home, having broken their orders and
compromised their colony.
In the next summer, La Tour, expecting a
serious attack from D’Aunay, who had lately been
to France, and was said to be on his way back
with large reinforcements, turned again to Massa-
chusetts for help. The governor this time was
John Endicott, of Salem. To Salem the suppliant
repaired, and as Endicott spoke French the con-
ference was easy. The rugged bigot had before
expressed his disapproval of “ having anything to
do with these idolatrous French;” but, according
to Hubbard, he was so moved with compassion at
the woful tale of his visitor that he called a meet-
ing of magistrates and ministers to consider if any-
thing could be done for him, The magistrates
had by this time learned caution, and the meeting
would do nothing but write a letter to D’Aunay,
demanding satisfaction for his seizure of Penobscot
and other aggressions, and declaring that the men
who escorted La Tour to his fort in the last sum-
mer had no commission from Massachusetts, yet
that if they had wronged him he should have
justice, though if he seized any New England
trading vessels they would hold him answerable.
In short, La Tour’s petition was not granted.
D’Aunay, when in France, had pursued his liti-
gation against his rival, and the royal council had
ordered that the contumacious La Tour should be
30 LA TOUR AND THE PURITANS. (1644,
seized, his goods confiscated, and he himself brought
home a prisoner; which decree D’Aunay was em- - —
powered to execute, if he could. He had returned
to Acadia the accredited agent of the royal will.
It was reported at Boston that a Biscayan pirate
had sunk his ship on the way; but the wish was
father to the thought, and the report proved false.
D’Aunay arrived safely, and was justly incensed
at the support given by the Puritans in the last
year tohisenemy. But he too had strong reasons
for wishing to be on good terms with his heretic
neighbors. King Louis, moreover, had charged
him not to offend them, since, when they helped
La Tour, they had done so in the belief that he was
commissioned as lieutenant-general for the king,
and therefore they should be held blameless.
Hence D’Aunay made overtures of peace and
friendship to the Boston Puritans. Early in Oc-
tober, 1644, they were visited by one Monsieur
Marie, “ supposed,” says the chronicle, “to be a
friar, but habited like a gentleman.” He was
probably one of the Capuchins who formed an
important part of D’Aunay’s establishment at Port
Royal. The governor and magistrates received
him with due consideration; and along with cre-
dentials from D’Aunay he showed them papers
under the great seal of France, wherein the decree
of the royal council was set forth in full, La Tour
condemned as a rebel and traitor, and orders given
to arrest both him and his wife. Henceforth there
was no room to doubt which of the rival chiefs
had the king and the law on his side. The envoy,
1644.] MARIE’S MISSION. 31
while complaining of the aid given to La Tour,
offered terms of peace to the governor and magis-
trates, who replied to his complaints with their
usual subterfuge, that they had given no commis-
sion to those who had aided La Tour, declaring at
the same time that they could make no treaty
without the concurrence of the commissioners of
the United Colonies. They then desired Marie to
set down his proposals in writing, on which he went
to the house of one Mr. Fowle, where he lodged,
and drew up in French his plan for a treaty, add-
ing the proposal that the Bostonians should join
D’Aunay against La Tour. Then he came back
to the place of meeting and discussed the subject
for half a day, sometimes in Latin with the magis-
trates, and sometimes in French with the governor,
that old soldier being probably ill versed in the
classic tongues. In vain they all urged that D’Au-
nay should come to terms with La Tour. Marie
replied, that if La Tour would give himself up his
life would be spared, but that if he were caught
he would lose his head as a traitor; adding that
his wife was worse than he, being the mainspring
of his rebellion. Endicott and the magistrates re-
fused active alliance; but the talk ended in a pro-
visional treaty of peace, duly drawn up in Latin,
Marie keeping one copy and the governor the
other. The agreement needed ratification by the
commissioners of the United Colonies on one part,
and by D’Aunay on the other. What is most
curious in the affair is the attitude of Massachu-
setts, which from first to last figures as an inde-
32 LA TOUR AND THE PURITANS. _ [1644.
pendent state, with no reference to the king under
whose charter it was building up its theocratic
republic, and consulting none but the infant con-
federacy of the New England colonies, of which
it was itself the head. As the commissioners of
the confederacy were not then in session, Endicott
and the magistrates took the matter provisionally
into their own hands.
Marie had made good despatch, for he reached
Boston on a Friday and left it on the next Tuesday,
having finished his business in about three days,
or rather two, as one of the three was “ the Sab-
bath.” He expressed surprise and gratification at
the attention and courtesy with which he had been
treated. His hosts supplied him with horses, and
some of them accompanied him to Salem, where
he had left his vessel, and whence he sailed for
Port Royal, well pleased.
Just before he came to Boston, that town had
received a visit from Madame de la Tour, who,
soon after her husband’s successful negotiation
with Winthrop in the past year, had sailed for
France in the ship St. Clement. She had labored
strenuously in La Tour’s cause; but the influence
of D’Aunay’s partisans was far too strong, and,
being charged with complicity in her husband’s
misconduct, she was forbidden to leave France on
pain of death. She set the royal command at
naught, escaped to England, took passage in a ship
bound for America, and after long delay landed at
Boston. The English shipmaster had bargained to
carry her to her husband at Fort St. Jean; but he
1645.] AN ENRAGED AMAZON. 33
broke his bond, and was sentenced by the Mas-
sachusetts courts to pay her £2,000 as damages.
She was permitted to hire three armed vessels
then lying in the harbor, to convey her to Fort
St. Jean, where she arrived safely and rejoined
La Tour.
Meanwhile, D’Aunay was hovering off the coast,
armed with the final and conclusive decree of the
royal council, which placed both husband and wife
under the ban, and enjoined him to execute its
sentence. But a resort to force was costly and of
doubtful result, and D’Aunay resolved again to
try the effect of persuasion. Approaching the
mouth of the St. John, he sent to the fort two
_ boats, commanded by his lieutenant, who carried
letters from his chief promising to La ‘Tour’s men
pardon for their past conduct and payment of all
wages due them if they would return to their
duty. An adherent of D’Aunay declares that
they received these advances with insults and
curses. It was a little before this time that
Madame de la Tour arrived from Boston. The
same writer says that she fell into a transport of
fury, “ behaved like one possessed with a devil,”
and heaped contempt on the Catholic faith in the
presence of her husband, who approved every-
thing she did; and he further affirms that she so
berated and reviled the Récollet friars in the fort
that they refused to stay, and set out for Port
Royal in the depth of winter, taking with them
eight soldiers of the fort who were too good Cath-
olics to remain in such a nest of heresy and re-
3
34 LA TOUR AND THE PURITANS. [1645.
bellion. They were permitted to go, and provided
with an old pinnace and two barrels of Indian
corn, with which, unfortunately for La Tour, they
safely reached their destination.
On her arrival from Boston, Madame de la Tour
had given her husband a piece of pclitic advice.
Her enemies say that she had some time before
renounced her faith to gain the favor of the Puri-
tans; but there is reason to believe that she had
been a Huguenot from the first. She now advised
La Tour to go to Boston, declare himself a Prot-
estant, ask for a minister to preach to his men,
and promise that, if the Bostonians would help
him to master D’Aunay and conquer Acadia, he
would share the conquest with them. La Tour
admired the sagacious counsels of his wife, and
sailed for Boston to put them in practice just
before the friars and the eight deserters sailed
for Port Royal, thus leaving their departure
unopposed.
At Port Royal both friars and deserters found a
warm welcome. D’Aunay paid the eight soldiers
their long arrears of wages, and lodged the friars
in the seminary with his Capuchins. Then he
questioned them, and was well rewarded. They
told him that La Tour had gone to Boston, leaving
his wife with only forty-five men to defend the
fort. Here was a golden opportunity. D’Aunay
called his officers to council. All were of one
mind. He mustered every man about Port Royal
and embarked them in the armed ship of three
hundred tons that had brought him from France ;
1645] FORT ST. JEAN ATTACKED, 85
he then crossed the Bay of Fundy with all his
force, anchored in a small harbor a league from
Fort St. Jean, and sent the Récollet Pére André to
try to seduce more of La Tour’s men, an attempt
which proved a failure. D’Aunay lay two months
at his anchorage, during which time another
ship and a pinnace joined him from Port Royal.
Then he resolved to make an attack. Meanwhile,
La Tour had persuaded a Boston merchant to send
one Grafton to Fort St. Jean in a small vessel
loaded with provisions, and bringing also a letter
to Madame de la Tour containing a promise from
her husband that he would join her in a month.
When the Boston vessel appeared at the mouth of
the St. John, D’Aunay seized it, placed Grafton
and the few men with him on anisland, and finally
supplied them with a leaky sail-boat to make their
way home as they best could.
D’Aunay now landed two cannon to batter Fort
St. Jean on the land side, and on the 17th of
April, having brought his largest ship within pis-
tol-shot of the water rampart, he summoned the
garrison to surrender.’ They answered with a
1 The site of Fort St. Jean, or Fort La Tour, has been matter of
question. At Carleton, opposite the present city of St. John, are the
remains of an earthen fort, by some supposed to be that of La Tour,
but which is no doubt of later date, as the place was occupied by a suc-
cession of forts down to the Seven Years’ War. On the other hand, it
has been assumed that Fort La Tour was at Jemsec, which is about
seventy miles up the river. Now, in the second mortgage deed of Fort
La Tour to Major Gibbons, May 10, 1645, the fort is described as “ situé
pres de l’embouchure de la riviére de St. Jean.” Moreover, there is a cata-
ract just above the mouth of the river, which, though submerged at high
tide, cannot be passed by heavy ships at any time; and as D’Aunay
brought his largest ship of war to within pistol-shot of the fort, it must
36 LA TOUR AND THE PURITANS. (1645.
volley of cannon-shot, then hung out a red flag,
and, according to D’Aunay’s reporter, shouted
“a thousand insults and blasphemies””!* Towards
evening a breach was made in the wall, and
D’Aunay ordered a general assault. Animated
by their intrepid mistress, the defenders fought
with desperation; and killed or wounded many of
the assailants, not without severe loss on their own
side. Numbers prevailed at last; all resistance
was overcome ; the survivors of the garrison were
made prisoners, and the fort was pillaged. Madame
de la Tour, her maid, and another woman, who
were all of their sex in the place, were among the
captives; also Madame de Ja Tour’s son, a mere
child. D’Aunay pardoned some of his prisoners,
but hanged the greater part, “to serve as an ex-
ample to posterity,’ says his reporter. Nicolas
Denys declares that he compelled Madame de la
Tour to witness the execution with a halter about
her neck; but the more trustworthy accounts say
nothing of this alleged outrage. On the next
day, the 18th of April, the bodies of the dead
were decently buried, an inventory was made of
the contents of the fort, and D’Aunay set his men
to repair it for his own use. These labors occu-
pied three weeks or more, during a part of which
Madame de la Tour was left at liberty, till, being
detected in an attempt to correspond with her
have been below the cataract. Mr. W. F. Ganong, after careful exam-
ination, is convinced that Fort La Tour was at Portland Point, on the
east side of the St. John, at its mouth. See his paper on the subject in
Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada, 1891.
1 See Procés Verbal d’André Certain, in Appendix A.
DEATH OF MADAME LA TOUR. aT
husband by means of an Indian, she was put into
confinement ; on which, according to D’Aunay’s
reporter, “she fell ill with spite and rage,”
and died within three weeks, after, as he tells
us, renouncing her heresy in the chapel of the
fort.
CHAPTER ITI.
1645-1710.
THE VICTOR VANQUISHED.
D’Avnay’s Envoys To THE PurITANS. — THEIR RECEPTION AT Boston,
— WinTHROP AND HIS “PAPIST”’? GUESTS. — RECONCILIATION. —
Treaty. — Benavior or La Tour. — Rorau Favors to D’Anunay.
— His Horrs. — His Deatu. — His CHARACTER. — CONDUCT OF THE
Court TOWARDS HIM.—INnTRIGUES OF LA Tour. — MapamE D’Aunay.
—La Tour MARRIES HER. — CHILDREN OF D’Aunay. — Descenp-
ants oF La Tour.
Havine triumphed over his rival, D’Aunay was
left free to settle his accounts with the Massa-
chusetts Puritans, who had offended him anew by
sending provisions to Fort St. Jean, having always
insisted that they were free to trade with either
party. They, on their side, were no less indignant
with him for his seizure of Grafton’s vessel and
harsh treatment of him and his men.
After some preliminary negotiation and some
rather sharp correspondence, D’Aunay, in Septem-
ber, 1646, sent a pinnace to Boston, bearing his
former envoy, Marie, accompanied by his own
secretary and by one Monsieur Louis.
It was Sunday, the Puritan Sabbath, when the
three envoys arrived; and the pious inhabitants
were preparing for the afternoon sermon. Marie
1646.] PAPIST VISITORS. 39
and his two colleagues were met at the wharf by
two militia officers and conducted through the
silent and dreary streets to the house of Captain,
now Major, Gibbons, who seems to have taken
upon himself in an especial manner the office of
entertaining strangers of consequence.
All was done with much civility, but no cere-
mony, for the Lord’s day must be kept inviolate.
Winthrop, who had again been chosen governor,
now sent an officer, with a guard of musketeers,
to invite the envoys to his own house. Here he
regaled them with wine and sweetmeats, and then
informed them of “our manner that all men either
come to our publick meetings or keep themselves
quiet in their houses.” * He then laid before them
such books in Latin and French as he had, and told
them that they were free to walk in his garden.
Though the diversion offered was no doubt of the
dullest, since the literary resources of the colony
then included little besides arid theology, and the
walk in the garden promised but moderate delights
among the bitter pot herbs provided against days
of fasting, the victims resigned themselves with.
good grace, and, as the governor tells us, “gave
no offence.” Sunset came at last and set the
captives free.
On Monday both sides fell to business. The
envoys showed their credentials, but, as the com-
missioners of the United Colonies were not yet
in session, nothing conclusive could be done till
Tuesday. Then, all being assembled, each party
1 Winthrop, IT. 273, 275.
40 THE VICTOR YANQUISHED. (1646.
made its complaints of the conduct of the other,
and a long discussion followed. Meals were pro-
vided for the three visitors at the “ordinary,”
or inn, where the magistrates dined during the
sessions of the General Court. The governor, as
their host, always sat with them at the board and
strained his Latin to do honor to his guests. They,
on their part, that courtesies should be evenly
divided, went: every morning at eight o'clock to
the governor’s house, whence he accompanied
them to the place of meeting, and at night he, or
some of the commissioners in his stead, attended
them to their lodging at the house of Major
Gibbons.
Serious questions were raised on both sides; but
as both wanted peace, explanations were mutually
made and accepted. The chief difficulty lay~ in
the undeniable fact that, in escorting La Tour to
his fort in 1643, the Massachusetts volunteers had
chased D’Aunay to Port Royal, killed some of his
men, burned his mill, and robbed his pinnace, for
which wrongs the envoys demanded heavy dam-
ages. It was true that the governor and magis-
trates had forbidden acts of aggression on the part
of the volunteers; but on the other hand they had
had reason to believe that their prohibition would
be disregarded, and had taken no measures to en-
force it. The envoys clearly had good ground of
complaint; and here, says Winthrop, “they did
stick two days.” At last they yielded so far as to
declare that what D’Aunay wanted was not so
much compensation in money as satisfaction to his.
1646.} THE “NEW SEDAN.” 41
honor by an acknowledgment of their fault on the
part of the Massachusetts authorities; and they
further declared that he would accept a moderate
present in token of such acknowledgment. The
difficulty now was to find such a present. The rep-
resentatives of Massachusetts presently bethought
themselves of a “very fair new sedan” which the
viceroy of Mexico had sent to his sister, and which
had been captured in the West Indies by one
Captain Cromwell, a corsair, who gave it to “ our
governor.” Winthrop, to whom it was entirely.
useless, gladly parted with it in such a cause, and
the sedan, being graciously accepted, ended the
discussion.' The treaty was signed in duplicate
by the commissioners of the United Colonies and
the envoys of D’Aunay, and peace was at last
concluded. :
The conference had been conducted with much
courtesy on both sides. One small cloud appeared,
but soon passed away. The French envoys dis-
played the /eur-de-lys at the masthead of their
pinnace as she lay in the harbor. The townsmen
were incensed, and Monsieur Marie was told that
to fly foreign colors in Boston harbor was not
according to custom. He insisted for a time,
but at length ordered the offending flag to be
lowered.
On the 28th of September the envoys bade
farewell to Winthrop, who had accompanied them
to their pinnace with a guard of honor. Five
cannon saluted them from Boston, five from “the
1 Winthrop, II. 274.
42 THE VICTOR VANQUISIED. [1646.
Castle,” and three from Charlestown. La Reception de Monseigneur le Vicomte d’ Argenson par toutes les nations
du pais de Canada & son entrée au gouvernement de la Nouvelle France; @
Quebecq au College dela Compagnie de Jésus, le 28 de Juillet de Pannée 1658.
The speeches, in French and Indian, are here given verbatim, with the
names of all the boys who took part in the ceremony.
2 Papiers d’Argenson. Kebec, 5 Sept., 1658.
3 Mémoire sur le subject (sic) de la Guerre des Iroquois, 1659.
1668-59. TROUBLES OF ARGENSON. 167
The company turned a deaf ear to his appeals.
They had lost money in Canada, and were griev-
ously out of humor with it. In their view, the
first duty of a governor was to collect their debts,
which, for more reasons than one, was no easy
task. While they did nothing to aid the colony
in its distress, they beset Argenson with demands
for the thousand pounds of beaver-skins, which the
inhabitants had agreed to send them every year, in
return for the privilege of the fur trade, a privi-
lege which the Iroquois war made for the present
worthless. The perplexed governor vents his feel-
ings in sarcasm. “They (the company) take no
pains to learn the truth; and, when they hear of
settlers carried off and burned by the Iroquois,
they will think it a punishment for not settling
old debts, and paying over the beaver-skins.”? “TI
wish,” he adds, “they would send somebody to
look after their affairs here. I would gladly give
him the same lodging and entertainment as my
own.”
Another matter gave him great annoyance. This
was the virtual independence of Montreal; and
here, if nowhere else, he and the bishop were of
the same mind. On one occasion he made a visit
to the place in question, where he expected to be
received as governor-general; but the local gov-
ernor, Maisonneuve, declined, or at least postponed,
to take his orders and give him the keys of the
fort. Argenson accordingly speaks of Montreal as
“a place which makes so much noise, but which is
1 Papiers d’Argenson, 21 Oct., 1659.
168 LAVAL AND AVAUGOUR. (1658 -59
of such small account.”! ‘He adds that, besides
wanting to be independent, the Montrealists want
to monopolize the fur trade, which would cause
civil war; and that the king ought to interpose to
correct their obstinacy.
In another letter he complains of Aillebout, who
had preceded him in the government, though him-
self a Montrealist. Argenson says that, on going
out to fight the Iroquois, he left Aillebout at Que-
bec, to act as his lieutenant; that, instead of doing
so, he had assumed to govern in his own right;
that he had taken possession of his absent supe-
rior’s furniture, drawn his pay, and in other
respects behaved as if he never expected to see
him again. “When I returned,” continues the
governor, “I made him director in the council,
without pay, as there was none to give him. It
was this, I think, that made him remove to Mon-
treal, for which I do not care, provided the glory
of our Master suffer no prejudice thereby.” ?
These extracts may, perhaps, give an unjust
impression of Argenson, who, from the general
tenor of his letters, appears to have been a tem-
perate and reasonable person. His patience and his
nervous system seem, however, to have been taxed
to the utmost. His pay could not support him.
“The costs of living here are horrible,” he writes.
“T have only two thousand crowns a year for all
my expenses, and I have already been forced to
1 Papiers d’ Argenson, 4 Aotit, 1659.
2 Ibid. Double de la lettre escripte par le Vaisseau du Gaigneur, parti le
6 Septembre (1658).
1658-69.] TROUBLES OF ARGENSON. 169
run into debt to the company to an equal amount.”’!
Part of his scanty income was derived from a
fishery of eels, on which sundry persons had en-
croached, to his great detriment.? “I see no rea-
son,” he adds, “for staying here any longer. When
I came to this country, I hoped to enjoy a little
repose, but I am doubly deprived of it; on one
hand by enemies without, and incessant petty dis-
putes within; and, on the other, by the difficulty
I find in subsisting. The profits of the fur trade
have been so reduced that all the inhabitants are
in the greatest poverty. They are all insolvent,
and cannot pay the merchants their advances.”
His disgust at length reached a crisis. “I am
resolved to stay here no longer, but to go home
next year. My horror of dissension, and the mani-
fest certainty of becoming involved in disputes
with certain persons with whom I am unwilling to
quarrel, oblige me to anticipate these troubles, and -
seek some way of living in peace. These excessive
fatigues are far too much for my strength. I am
writing to Monsieur the President, and to the gen-
tlemen of the Company of New France, to choose
some other man for this government.”* And again,
“if you take any interest in this country, see that
the person chosen to command here has, besides the
true piety necessary to a Christian in every condi-
tion of life, great firmness of character and strong
bodily health. I assure you that without these
1 Tbid. Lettre & UM de Morangi, 5 Sept., 1658.
2 Deéliberations de la Compagnie de la Nouvelle France.
3 Papiers @’ Argenson. Lettre @ son Frére, 1659.
170 LAVAL AND AVAUGOUR. [1661
qualities he cannot succeed. Besides, it is abso-
lutely necessary that he should be a man of prop-
erty and of some rank, so that he will not be
despised for humble birth, or suspected of coming
here to make his fortune; for in that case he can
do no good whatever.” !
His constant friction with the head of the church
distressed the pious governor, and made his recall
doubly a relief. According to a contemporary
writer, Laval was the means of delivering him from
the burden of government, having written to the
President Lamoignon to urge his removal.? Be
this as it may, it is certain that the bishop was not
sorry to be rid of him.
The Baron Dubois d’Avaugour arrived to take
his place. He was an old soldier of forty years
service,*? blunt, imperative, and sometimes obsti-
nate to perverseness; but full of energy, and of
a probity which even his enemies confessed. “He
served a long time in Germany while you were
there,” writes the minister Colbert to the Marquis
de Tracy, “and you must have known his talents,
as well as his bizarre and somewhat impracticable
temper.” On landing, he would have no recep-
tion, being, as Father Lalemant observes, “an
enemy of all ceremony.” He went, however,
to see the Jesuits, and “took a morsel of food in
our refectory.”* Laval was prepared to receive
1 Ibid. Lettre (a son Frére?), 4 Nov., 1660. The originals of Argen-
son’s letters were destroyed in the burning of the library of the Louvre
by the Commune.
2 Lachenaye, Mémoire sur le Canada.
8 Avaugour, Mémoire, 4 Aoit, 1663.
4 Lalemant, Journal des Jésuites, Sept., 1661.
1661-62.] THE BRANDY QUARREL. 17]
him with all solemnity at the church; but the
_governor would not go. He soon set out ona tour
of observation as far as Montreal, whence he re-
turned delighted with the country, and immediately
wrote to Colbert in high praise of it, observing
that the St. Lawrence was the most beautiful river
he had ever seen."
It was clear from the first that, while he had a
prepossession against the bishop, he wished to be
on good terms with the Jesuits. He began by
placing some of them on the council; but they and
Laval were too closely united; and if Avaugour
thought to separate them, he signally failed. A few
months only had elapsed when we find it noted in
Father Lalemant’s private journal that the governor
had dissolved the council and appointed a new one,
and that other “ changes and troubles” had befallen.
The inevitable quarrel had broken out; it was a
complex one, but the chief occasion of dispute was
fortunate for the ecclesiastics, since it placed them,
to a certain degree, morally in the right.
The question at issue was not new. It had
agitated the colony for years, and had been the
spring of some of Argenson’s many troubles. Nor
did it cease with Avaugour, for we shall trace its
course hereafter, tumultuous as a tornado. It was
simply the temperance question; not as regards
the colonists, though here, too, there was great
room for reform, but as regards the Indians.
Their inordinate passion for brandy had long
been the source of excessive disorders. They drank
1 Lettre d’ Avaugour au Minstre, 1661.
172 LAVAL AND AVAUGOUR. [1661-62.
expressly to get drunk, and when drunk they were
like wild beasts. Crime and violence of all sorts.
ensued; the priests saw their teachings despised
and their flocks ruined. On the other hand, the
sale of brandy was a chief source of profit, direct
or indirect, to all those interested in the fur trade,
including the principal persons of the colony. In
Argenson’s time, Laval launched an excommunica-
tion against those engaged in the abhorred traffic ;
for nothing less than total prohibition would con-
tent the clerical party, and besides the spiritual
penalty, they demanded the punishment of death
against the contumacious offender. Death, in
fact, was decreed. Such was the posture of affairs
when Avaugour arrived; and, willing as he was to
conciliate the Jesuits, he permitted the decree to
take effect, although, it seems, with great repug-
nance. A few weeks after his arrival, two men
were shot and one whipped, for selling brandy
to Indians." An extreme though partially sup-
pressed excitement shook the entire settlement,
for most of the colonists were, in one degree or
another, implicated in the offence thus punished.
An explosion soon followed; and the occasion of
it was the humanity or good-nature of the Jesuit
Lalemant. ;
A woman had been condemned to imprisonment
for the same cause, and Lalemant, moved by com-
passion, came to the governor to intercede for her.
Avaugour could no longer contain himself, and
answered the reverend petitioner with character-
1 Journal des Jésuites, Oct., 1661
1661-62.) THE BRANDY QUARREL. 173
istic bluntness. “You and your brethren were
the first to cry out against the trade, and now you
want to save the traders from punishment. I will
no longer be the sport of your contradictions.
Since it is not a crime for this woman, it shall not
be a crime for anybody.” And in this posture
he stood fast, with an inflexible stubbornness.
Henceforth there was full license to liquor deal-
‘ers. A violent reaction ensued against the past
restriction, and brandy flowed freely among French
and Indians alike. The ungodly drank to spite
the priests and revenge themselves for the “ con-
straint of consciences,” of which they loudly com-
plained. The utmost confusion followed, and the
principles on which the pious colony was built
seemed upheaved from the foundation. Laval was
distracted with grief and anger. He outpoured
himself from the pulpit in threats of divine wrath,
and launched fresh excommunications against the
offenders; but such was the popular fury, that he
was forced to yield and revoke them.?
Disorder grew from bad to worse. “Men gave
no heed to bishop, preacher, or confessor,” writes
Father Charlevoix. “The French have despised
the remonstrances of our prelate, because they are .
supported by the civil power,’ says the superior of
the Ursulines. “He is almost dead with grief,
and pines away before our eyes.”
Laval could bear it no longer, but sailed for
1 La Tour, Vie de Laval, Liv. V.
2 Journal des Jésuites, Feb., 1662. The sentence of excommunication
is printed in the Appendix to the Esquisse de la Vie de Laval. It bears
date February 24. It was on this very day that he was forced to revoke it.
174 LAVAL AND AVAUGOUR. [1662-63.
France, to lay his complaints before the court, and
urge the removal of Avaugour. He had, besides,
two other important objects, as will appear here-
after. His absence brought no improvement.
Summer and autumn passed, and the commotion
did not abate. Winter was drawing to a close,
when, at length, outraged Heaven interposed an
awful warning to the guilty colony.
Scarcely had the bishop left his flock when the
skies grew portentous with signs of the chastisement
to come. “We beheld,” gravely writes Father
Lalemant, “blazing serpents which flew through
the air, borne on wings of fire. We beheld above
Quebec a great globe of flame, which lighted up
the night, and threw out sparks on all sides. This
same meteor appeared above Montreal, where it
seemed to issue from the bosom of the moon, with
a noise as loud as cannon or thunder, and after
sailing three leagues through the air it disappeared
behind the mountain whereof this island bears the
name.” ?
Stil greater marvels followed. First, a Christian
Algonquin squaw, described as “ innocent, simple,
and sincere,” being seated erect in bed, wide awake,
by the side of her husband, in the night between
the fourth and fifth of February, distinctly heard a
voice saying, “ Strange things will happen to-day ;
the earth will quake!” In great alarm she whis-
pered the prodigy to her husband, who told her
that she lied. This silenced her for a time; but
when, the next morning, she went into the forest
1 Lalemant, Relation, 1668, 2.
1663.| PORTENTS. 175
with her hatchet to cut a faggot of wood, the same
dread voice resounded through the solitude, and
sent her back in terror to her hut.’
These things were as nothing compared with
the marvel that befell a nun of the hospital, Mother
Catherine de Saint-Augustin, who died five years
later, in the odor of sanctity. On the night of the
fourth of February, 1663, she beheld in the spirit
four furious demons at the four corners of Quebec,
shaking it with a violence which plainly showed
their purpose of reducing it to ruins; “and this
they would have done,” says the story, “if a per-
sonage of admirable beauty and ravishing majesty
[ Christ], whom she saw in the midst of them, and
who, from time to time, gave rein to their fury, had
not restrained them when they were on the point
of accomplishing their wicked design.” She also
heard the conversation of these demons, to the
effect that people were now well frightened, and
many would be converted ; but this would not last
long, and they, the demons, would have them in
time. “Let us keep on shaking,” they cried, en-
couraging each other, “and do our best to upset
every thing.”’?
Now, to pass from visions to facts: “ At half-past
five o’clock on the morning of the fifth,” writes
Father Lalemant, “a great roaring sound was
heard at the same time through the whole extent
1 Lalemant, Relation, 1663, 6.
2 Ragueneau, Vie de Catherine de St. Augustin, Liv. TV. chap.i. The
same story is told by Juchereau, Lalemant, and Marie de |’Incarnation,
to whom Charlevoix erroneously ascribes the vision, as does also the
Abbé La Tour.
176 LAVAL AND AVAUGOUR (1668.
of Canada. This sound, which produced an effect
as if the houses were on fire, brought everybody
out of doors; but instead of seeing smoke and flame,
they were amazed to behold the walls shaking, and
all the stones moving as if they would drop from
their places. The houses seemed to bend first: to
one side and then to the other. Bells sounded of
themselves ; beams, joists, and planks cracked ;
the ground heaved, making the pickets of the
palisades dance in a way that would have seemed
incredible had we not seen it in divers places.
“Everybody was in the streets. animals ran
wildly about; children cried; men and women,
seized with fright, knew not where to take refuge,
expecting every moment to be buried under the
ruins of the houses, or swallowed up in some abyss
opening under their feet. Some, on their knees in
the snow, cried for mercy, aud others passed the
night in prayer; for the earthquake continued
without ceasing, with a motion much like that of
a ship at sea, insomuch that sundry persons felt the
same qualms of stomach which they would feel on
the water. In the forests the commotion was far
greater. The trees struck one against the other as
if there were a battle between them ; and you would
have said that not only their branches, but even
their trunks started out of their places and leaped
on each other with such noise and confusion that
the Indians said that the whole forest was drunk.”
Mary of the Incarnation gives a similar account,
as does also Frances Juchereau de Saint-lgnace ;
and these contemporary records are sustained to
1668.] THE EARTHQUAKE. 177
some extent by the evidence of geology.’ A re-
markable effect was produced on the St. Lawrence,
which was so charged with mud and clay that for
many weeks the water was unfit to drink. Con-
siderable hills and large tracts of forest slid from
their places, some into the river, and some into
adjacent valleys. A number of men in a boat near
Tadoussac stared aghast at a large hill covered
with trees, which sank into the water before their
eyes; streams were turned from their courses;
water-falls were levelled ; springs were dried up in
some places, while in others new springs appeared.
Nevertheless, the accounts that have come down to
us seem a little exaggerated, and sometimes ludi-
crously so; as when, for example, Mother Mary of
the Incarnation tells us of a man who ran all night
to escape from a fissure in the earth which opened
behind him and chased him as he fled.
It is perhaps needless to say that “spectres and
phantoms of fire, bearing torches in their hands,”
took part in the convulsion. “The fiery figure of
a man vomiting flames” also appeared in the air,
with many other apparitions too numerous to men-
tion. It is recorded that three young men were on
their way through the forest to sell brandy tc the
Indians, when one of them, a little in advance of
the rest, was met by a hideous spectre which nearly
1 Professor Sterry Hunt, whose intimate knowledge of Vanadian
geology is well known, tells me that the shores of the St. Lawrence are to a
great extent formed of beds of gravel and clay resting on inclined strata
of rock, so that earth-slides would be the necessary result of any convul-
sion like that of 1668. He adds that the evidence that such slides have
taken place on a great scale is very distinct at various points along the
Tiver, especially at Les Eboulemens. on the north shore.
12
178 LAVAL AND AVAUGOUR. [1668
killed him with fright. He had scarcely strength
enough to rejoin his companions, who, seeing his
terror, began to laugh at him. One of them, how-
ever, presently came to his senses, and said: “This
is no laughing matter; we-are going to sell liquor to
the Indians against the prohibitions of the church,
and perhaps God means to punish our disobedi-
ence.” On this they all turned back. That night
they had scarcely lain down to sleep when the
earthquake roused them, and they ran out of their
hut just in time to escape being swallowed up along
with it.’
With every allowance, it is clear that the con-
vulsion must have been a severe one, and it is
remarkable that in all Canada not a life was lost.
The writers of the day see in this a proof that God
meant to reclaim the guilty and not destroy them.
At Quebec there was for the time an intense re-
vival of religion. The end of the world was thought
to be at hand, and everybody made ready for the
last judgment. Repentant throngs beset confes-
sionals and altars; enemies were reconciled ; fasts,
prayers, and penances filled the whole season of
Lent. Yet, as we shall see, the devil could still
find wherewith to console himself.
It was midsummer before the shocks wholly
ceased and the earth resumed her wonted calm.
An extreme drought was followed by floods of
rain, and then Nature began her sure work of
1 Marie de l’incarnation, Lettre du 20 Aowt, 1668. It appears from
Morton, Josselyn, and other writers, that the earthquake extended to New
England and New Netherlands, producing similar effects on the imagi-
nation of the people.
1668.] AVAUGOUR RECALLED. 179
reparation. It was about this time that the thorn
which had plagued the church was at length
plucked out. Avaugour was summoned home.
He took his recall with magnanimity, and on his
way wrote at Gaspé a memorial to Colbert, in
which he commends New France to the attention
of the king. “The St. Lawrence,” he says, “is
the entrance to what may be made the greatest
state in the world;” and, in his purely military
way, he recounts the means of realizing this
grand possibility. Three thousand soldiers should
be sent to the colony, to be discharged and turned
into settlers after three years of service. During
these three years they may make Quebec an im-
pregnable fortress, subdue the Iroquois, build a
strong fort on the river where the Dutch have
a miserable wooden redoubt, called Fort Orange
[ Albany], and finally open a way by that river to
the sea. Thus the heretics will be driven out, and
the king will be master of America, at a total cost
of about four hundred thousand francs yearly for
ten years. He closes his memorial by a short allu-
sion to the charges against him, and to his forty
years of faithful service; and concludes, speaking
of the authors of his recall, Laval and the Jesuits :
“By reason of the respect I owe their cloth, I will
rest content, monseigneur, with assuring you that
I have not only served the king with fidelity, but
also, by the grace of God, with very good success,
considering the means at my disposal.” He had,
in truth, borne himself as a brave and experienced
1 Avaugour, Mémoire, Gaspé, 4 Aoit 1668.
180 LAVAL AND AVAUGOUR. [1663.
soldier; and he soon after died a soldier’s death,
while defending the fortress of Zrin, in Croatia,
against the Turks.
1 Lettre de Colbert au Marquis de Traey, 1664. Mémoire du Roy, pour
verve d’instruction au Sieur Talon
CHAPTER X.
1661-1664.
LAVAL AND DUMESNIL
PtronneE Dumesnit. — Tar Orv Councit. — ALLEGED MURDER. —
Tue New Counciu. — Bourpon anp VILLERAY. — Strona MEas-
URES. — EscaPe or DumESNIL. — VIEWS OF COLBERT.
TuHovueH the proposals of Avaugour’s memorial
were not adopted, it seems to have produced a
strong impression at court. For this impression
the minds of the king and his minister had already
been prepared. Two years before, the inhabitants
of Canada had sent one of their number, Pierre
Boucher, to represent their many grievances and
ask for aid.' Boucher had had an audience of the
young king, who listened with interest to his state-
ments; and when in the following year he returned
to Quebec, he was accompanied by an officer named
Dumont, who had under his command a hundred
soldiers for the colony, and was commissioned to
report its condition and resources.* The move-
1 To promote the objects of his mission, Boucher wrote a little book,
Histoire V éritable et Naturelle des Meurs et’ Productions du Pays de la Nou
velle France. He dedicates it to Colbert.
2 A long journal of Dumont is printed anonymously in the Relation
of 1663.
182 LAVAL AND DUMESNIL. [1660-68.
ment seemed to betoken that the government was
wakening at last from its long inaction.
Meanwhile the Company of New France, feudal
lord of Canada, had also shown signs of returning
life. Its whole history had been one of mishap,
followed by discouragement and apathy; and it is
difficult to say whether its ownership of Canada
had been more hurtful to itself or to the colony.
At the eleventh hour it sent out an agent invested
with powers of controller-general, intendant, and
supreme judge, to inquire into the state of its
affairs. This agent, Péronne Dumesnil, arrived
early in the autumn of 1660, and set himself with
great vigor to his work. He was an advocate of
the Parliament of Paris, an active, aggressive, and
tenacious person, of a temper well fitted to rip up
an old abuse or probe a delinquency to the bottom.
His proceedings quickly raised a storm at Quebec.
It may be remembered that, many years before,
the company had ceded its monopoly of the fur
trade to the inhabitants of the colony, in cousidera-
tion of that annual payment in beaver-skins which
had been so tardily and so rarely made. The direc-
tion of the trade had at that time been placed in
the hands of a council composed of the governor,
the superior of the Jesuits, and several other mem-
bers. Various changes had since taken place, and
the trade was now controlled by another council,
established without the consent of the company,
and composed of the principal persons in the col-
ony. The members of this council, with certain
1 Registres du Conseil du Roy ; Reponse a la requeste presentée au Roy,
1660-68 ] MONOPOLISTS. 183
prominent merchants in league with them, en-
grossed all the trade, so that the inhabitants at
large profited nothing by the right which the com-
pany had ceded ;? and as the councillors controlled
not only the trade but all the financial affairs of
Canada, while the remoteness of their scene of
operations made it difficult to supervise them, they
were able, with little risk, to pursue their own
profit, to the detriment both of the company and
the colony. They and their allies formed a petty
trading oligarchy, as pernicious to the prosperity of
Canada as the Iroquois war itself.
~The company, always anxious for its beaver-
skins, made several attempts to control the pro-
ceedings of the councillors and call them to account,
but with little success, till the vigorous Dumesnil
undertook the task, when, to their wrath and con-
sternation, they and their friends found themselves
attacked by wholesale accusations of fraud and em-
bezzlement. That these charges were exaggerated
there can be little doubt; that they were unfounded
is incredible, in view of the effect they produced.
The councillors refused to acknowledge Dumes-
nil’s powers as controller, intendant, and judge, and
declared his proceedings null. He retorted by
charging them with usurpation. The excitement
increased, and Dumesnil’s life was threatened.
He had two sons in the colony. One of them,
Péronne de Mazé, was secretary to Avaugour, then
on his way up the St. Lawrence to assume the
1 Arrét du Conseil d’Etat,7 Mars, 1657. Also Papiers d’ Argenson, and
Extrait des Registres du Conseil d’Etat, 15 Mars, 1656.
184 LAVAL AND DUMESNI.. [1661.
government. The other, Péronne des Touches,
was with his father at Quebec. Towards the end
of August this young man was attacked in the
street in broad daylight, and received a kick which
proved fatal. He was carried to his father’s house,
where he died on the twenty-ninth. Dumesnil
charges four persons, all of whom were among
those into whose affairs he had been prying, with
having taken part in the outrage; but it is very
uncertain who was the immediate cause of Des
Touches’s death. Dumesnil, himself the supreme
judicial officer of the colony, made complaint to
the judge in ordinary of the company; but he says
that justice was refused, the complaint suppressed
by authority, his allegations torn in pieces, and the
whole affair hushed.’
At the time of the murder, Dumesnil was con-
fined to his house by illness. An attempt was made
to rouse the mob against him, by reports that he
had come to the colony for the purpose of laying
taxes; but he sent for some of the excited inhab-
itants, and succeeded in convincing them that he
was their champion rather than theirenemy. Some
Indians in the neighborhood were also instigated
to kill him, and he was forced to conciliate them
by presents.
1 Dumesnil, Mémoire. Under date August 31 the Journal des Jésuites
makes this brief and guarded mention of the affair: “Le fils de Mons.
du Mesnil . . . fut enterré le mesme iour, tué d’vn coup de pié par N.”
Who is meant by WN. it 1s difficult to say. The register of the parish
church records the burial as follows : —
“T’an 1661. Le 30 Aoust a esté enterré au Cemetiere de Quebeo
Michel peronne dit Sr. des Touches fils de Mr. du Mesnil decedé le Jour
precedent a sa Maison. '
1662-68. ] THE NEW GOVERNMENT. 185
He soon renewed his attacks, and in his quality
of intendant called on the councillors and their
allies to render their accounts, and settle the long
arrears of debt due to the company. They set his
demands at naught. The war continued month
after month. It is more than likely that when in
the spring of 1662 Avaugour dissolved and recon-
structed the council, his action had reference to
these disputes; and it is clear that when in the
following August Laval sailed for France, one of
his objects was to restore the tranquillity which
Dumesnil’s proceedings had disturbed. There was
great need ; for, what with these proceedings and
the quarrel about brandy, Quebec was a little hell
of discord, the earthquake not having as yet fright-
ened it into propriety.
The bishop’s success at court was triumphant.
Not only did he procure the removal of Avaugour,
but he was invited to choose a new governor to
replace him.’ This was not all; for he succeeded
in effecting a complete change in the government
of the colony. The Company of New France was
called upon to resign its claims;* and, by a royal
edict of April, 1663, all power, legislative, judicial,
and executive, was vested in a council composed
of the governor whom Laval had chosen, of Laval
himself, and of five councillors, an attorney-gen-
eral, and a secretary, to be chosen by Laval and
the governor jointly... Bearing with them blank
1 La Tour, Vie de Laval, Liv. V.
2 See the deliberations and acts to this end in Edits et Ordonnances
concernant le Canada, 1. 80-82.
3 Edit de Création du Conseil Supérieur de Quebec.
186 LAVAL AND DUMESNIL [663
commissions to be filled with the names of the new
functionaries, Laval and his governor sailed for
Quebec, where they landed on the fifteenth of
September. With them came one Gaudais-Dupont,
a royal commissioner instructed to inquire into the
state of the colony.
No sooner had they arrived than Laval and
Mézy, the new governor, proceeded to construct the
new council. Mézy knew nobody in the colony,
and was, at this time, completely under Laval’s
influence. The nominations, therefore, were vir-
tually made by the bishop alone, in whose hands,
and not in those of the governor, the blank com-
missions had been placed.’ Thus for the moment
he had complete control of the government; that
is to say, the church was mistress of the civil
power.
Laval formed his council as follows: Jean Bour-
don for attorney-general; Rouer de Villeray, Juch-
ereau de la Ferté, Ruette d’Auteuil, Le Gardeur
de Tilly, and Matthieu Damours for councillors ;
and Peuvret de Mesnu for secretary. The royal
commissioner, Gaudais, also took a prominent place
at the board.? This functionary was on the point
of marrying his niece to a son of Robert Giffard,
1 Commission actroyée au Sieur Gaudais. Mémoire pour servir d’ Instruc-
tron au Sieur Gaudais. A sequel to these instructions, marked secret,
shows that, notwithstanding Laval’s extraordinary success in attaining
his objects, he and the Jesuits were somewhat distrusted. Gaudais is
directed to make, with great discretion and caution, careful inquiry into
the bishop’s conduct, and with equal secrecy to ascertain why the Jesuits
had asked for Avaugour’s recall.
2 As substitute for the intendant, an officer who had been appointed
but who had not arrived.
1668.] THE COUNCIL. 187
who had a strong interest in suppressing Dumes-
nil’s accusations. Dumesnil had laid his statements
before the commissioner, who quickly rejected
them, and took part with the accused.
Of those appointed to the new council, their
enemy Dumesnil says that they were “incapable
persons,” and their associate Gaudais, in defending
them against worse charges, declares that they
were “unlettered, of little experience, and nearly
all unable to deal with affairs of importance.” This
was, perhaps, unavoidable ; for, except among the
ecclesiastics, education was then scarcely known in
Canada. But if Laval may be excused for putting
incompetent men in office, nothing can excuse
him for making men charged with gross public
offences the prosecutors and judges in their own
cause ; and his course in doing so gives color to the
assertion of Dumesnil, that he made up the coun-
cil expressly to shield the accused and smother
the accusation.?
The two persons under the heaviest charges
received the two most important appointments:
Bourdon, attorney-general, and Villeray, keeper of
1 Dumesnil here makes one of the few mistakes I have been able to
detect in his long memorials. He says that the name of the niece of
Gaudais was Marie Nau. It was, in fact, Michelle-Therese Nau, who mar-
ried Joseph, son of Robert Giffard, on the 22d of October, 1663. Dumes-
nil had forgotten the bride’s firstname. The elder Giffard was surety for
Repentigny, whom Dumesnil charged with liabilities to the company,
amounting to 644,700 livres. Giffard was also father-in-law of Juchereau
de la Ferté, one of the accused.
2 Dumesnil goes further than this, for he plainly intimates that the
removing from power of the company, to whom the accused were respon-
sible, and the placing in power of a council formed of the accused them-
selves, was a device contrived from the first by Laval and the Jesuits, to
get their friends out of trouble.
188 LAVAL AND DUMESNIL. (1663
the seals. La Ferté was also one of the avcused.'
Of Villeray, the governor Argenson had written
in 1659: “Some of his qualities are good enough,
but confidence cannot be placed in him, on account
of his instability.”? In the same year, he had
been ordered to France, “to purge himself of sun-
dry crimes wherewith he stands charged.”* He
was not yet free of suspicion, having returned to
Canada under an order to make up and render his
accounts, which he had not yet done. Dumesnil
says that he first came to the colony in 1651, as
valet of the governor Lauson, who had taken him
from the jail at Rochelle, where he was imprisoned
for a debt of seventy-one francs, “as appears by
the record of the jail of date July eleventh in that
year.” From this modest beginning he became in
time the richest man in Canada.* He was strong in
orthodoxy, and an ardent supporter of the bishop
and the Jesuits. He is alternately praised and
blamed, according to the partisan leanings of the
writer.
1 Bourdon is charged with not having accounted for an immense
quantity of beaver-skins which had passed through his hands during
twelve years or more, and which are valued at more than 300,000 livres.
Other charges are made against him in connection with large sums bor-
rowed in Lauson’s time on account of the colony. In a memorial ad-
dressed to the king in council, Dumesnil says that, in 1662, Bourdon,
according to his own accounts, had in his hands 87,516 livres belonging
to the company, which he still retained.
Villeray’s liabilities arose out of the unsettled accounts of his father.
in-law, Charles Sevestre, and are set down at more than 600,000 livres
La Ferté’s are of a smaller amount. Qthers of the council were indi-
rectly involved in the charges.
2 Lettre d’ Argenson, 20 Nov., 1659.
3 Edit du Roy, 13 Mai, 1659.
* Lettre de Colbert & Frontenac, 17 Mai, 1674.
1668] STRONG MEASURES. 189
Bourdon, though of humble origin, was, perhaps,
the most intelligent man in the council. He was
chiefly known as an engineer, but he had also been
a baker, a painter, a syndic of the inhabitants,
chief gunner at the fort, and collector of customs
for the company. Whether guilty of embezzle-
ment or not, he was a zealous devotee, and would
probably have died for his creed. Like Villeray,
he was one of Laval’s stanchest supporters, while
the rest of the council were also sound in doctrine
and sure in allegiance.
In virtue of their new dignity, the accused now
claimed exemption from accountability; but this
was not all. The abandonment of Canada by the
company, in leaving Dumesnil without support,
and depriving him of official character, had made
his charges far less dangerous. Nevertheless, it
was thought best to suppress them altogether, and
the first act of the new government was to this
end.
On the twentieth of September, the second day
after the establishment of the council, Bourdon,
in his character of attorney-general, rose and de-
manded that the papers of Jean Péronne Dumesnil
should be seized and sequestered. The council con-
sented, and, to complete the scandal, Villeray was
commissioned to make the seizure in the presence
of Bourdon. To color the proceeding, it was alleged
that Dumesnil had obtained certain papers unlaw-
fully from the greffe or record office. “As he was
thought,” says Gaudais, “to be a violent man,’
190 LAVAL AND DUMESNIL. [1663.
Bourdon and Villeray took with them ten soldiers,
well armed, together with a locksmith and the
secretary of the council. Thus prepared for every
contingency, they set out on their errand, and
appeared suddenly at Dumesnil’s house between
seven and eight o'clock in the evening. “The
aforesaid Sieur Dumesnil,” further says Gaudais,
“did not refute the opinion entertained of his
violence ; for he made a great noise, shouted rob-
bers! and tried to rouse the neighborhood, out-
rageously abusing the aforesaid Sieur de Villeray
and the attorney-general, in great contempt of the
authority of the council, which he even refused to
recognize.”
They tried to silence him by threats, but with-
out effect ; upon which they seized him and held
him fast in a chair; “me,” writes the wrathful
Dumesnil, “who had lately been their judge.”
The soldiers stood over him and stopped his mouth
while the others broke open and ransacked his
cabinet, drawers, and chest, from which they took
all his papers, refusing to give him an inventory, or
to permit any witness to enter the house. Some of
these papers were private ; among the rest were, he
says, the charges and specifications, nearly finished,
for the trial of Bourdon and Villeray, together with
the proofs of their “ peculations, extortions, and
malversations.” The papers were enclosed under
seal, and deposited in a neighboring house, whence
they were afterwards removed to the council-
chamber, and Dumesnil never saw them again. It
1663.] DESIGNS OF THE COUNCIL. 191
may well be believed that this, the inaugural act
of the new council, was not allowed to appear on
its records."
On the twenty-first, Villeray made a formal re-
port of the seizure to his colleagues; upon which,
“by reason of the insults, violences, and irrever-
ences therein set forth against the aforesaid Sieur
de Villeray, commissioner, as also against the
authority of the council,” it was ordered that the
offending Dumesnil should be put under arrest;
but Gaudais, as he declares, prevented the order
from being carried into effect.
Dumesnil, who says that during the scene at his
house he had expected to be murdered like his
son, now, though unsupported and alone, returned
to the attack, demanded his papers, and was so
loud in threats of complaint to the king that the
council were seriously alarmed. They again decreed
his arrest and imprisonment; but resolved to keep
the decree secret till the morning of the day when
the last of the returning ships was to sail for France.
In this ship Dumesnil had taken his passage, and
they proposed to arrest him unexpectedly on the
point of embarkation, that he might have no time
to prepare and despatch a memorial to the court.
Thus a full year must elapse before his complaints
could reach the minister, and seven or eight months
more before a reply could be returned to Canada.
During this long delay the affair would have time
to cool. Dumesnil received a secret warning of
1 The above is drawn from the two memorials of Gaudais and of
Dumesnil. They do not contradict each other as to the essentia) facts.
192 LAVAL AND DUMESNIL. j1668.
this plan, and accordingly went on poard another
vessel, which was to sail immediately. The council
caused the six cannon of the battery in the Lower
Town to be pointed at her, and threatened to sink
her if she left the harbor; but she disregarded
them, and proceeded on her way.
On reaching France, Dumesnil contrived to draw
the attention of the minister Colbert to his accusa-
tions, and to the treatment they had brought upon
him. On this Colbert demanded of Gaudais, who
had also returned in one of the autumn ships, why
he had not reported these matters to him. Gaudais
made a lame attempt to explain his silence, gave
his statement of the seizure of the papers, answered
in vague terms some of Dumesnil’s charges against
the Canadian financiers, and said that he had
nothing to do with the rest. In the following
spring Colbert wrote as follows to his relative
Terron, intendant of marine : —
“JT do not know what report M. Gaudais has
made to you, but family interests and the connec-
tions which he has at Quebec should cause him
to be a little distrusted. On his arrival in that
country, having constituted himself chief of the
council, he despoiled an agent of the Company of
Canada of all his papers, in a manner very violent
and extraordinary, and this proceeding leaves no
doubt whatever that these papers contained matters
the knowledge of which it was wished absolutely
to suppress. I think it will be very proper that
you should be informed of the statements made by
this agent, in order that, through him, an exact
1663. CHARGES OF DUMESNIL. 193
knowledge may be acquired of every thing that has
taken place in the management of affairs.” '
Whether Terron pursued the inquiry does not
appear. Meanwhile new quarrels had arisen at
Quebec, and the questions of the past were obscured
in the dust of fresh commotions. Nothing is more
noticeable in the whole history of Canada, after it
came under the direct control of the Crown, than
the helpless manner in which this absolute govern-
ment was forced to overlook and ignore the dis-
obedience and rascality of its functionaries in this
distant transatlantic dependency.
As regards Dumesnil’s charges, the truth seems
to be, that the financial managers of the colony,
being ignorant and unpractised, had kept imper-
fect and confused accounts, which they themselves
could not always unravel; and that some, if not all
of them, had made ilicit profits under cover of this
confusion. That their stealings approached the
enormous sum at which Dumesnil places them is not
to be believed. But, even on the grossly improbable
assumption of their entire innocence, there can be
no apology for the means, subversive of all justice,
by which Laval enabled his partisans and support-
ers to extricate themselves from embarrassment.
1 Lettre de Colbert & Terron, Rochelle, 8 Fev., 1664. ‘Il a spolié un
agent de la Compagnie de Canada de tous ses papiers d’une maniéra
fort violente et extraordinaire, et ce procédé ne laisse point & douter
que dans ces papiers il n’y efit des choses dont on a voulu absolument
supprimer la connaissance.” Colbert seems to have received an ex-
aggerated impression of the part borne by Gaudais in the seizure of
the papers.
13
194 LAVAL AND DUMESNIL. (1668
Norz. — Dumesnil’s principal memorial, preserved in the ar-
chives of the Marine and Colonies, is entitled Mémoire concernant les
Affaires du Canada, qui montre et fait voir que sous prétexte de la
Gloire de Dieu, d’Instruction des Sauvages, de servir le Roy et de
faire la nouvelle Colonie, il a été pris et diverti trois millions de livres
ou environ. It forms in the copy before me thirty-eight pages of
manuscript, and bears no address ; but seems meant for Colbert,
or the council of state. There is a second memorial, which is
little else than an abridgment of the first. A third, bearing the
address Au Roy et a nos Seigneurs du Conseil (d’ Etat), and signed
Peéronne Dumesnil, is a petition for the payment of 10,182 livres
due to him by the company for his services in Canada, ‘‘ ou il a
perdu son fils assassiné par les comptables du dit pays, qui n’ont
voulu rendre compte au dit suppliant, Intendant, et ont pillé sa
maison, ses meubles et papiers le 20 du mois de Septembre dernier,
dont il y a acte.’’
Gaudais, in compliance with the demands of Colbert, gives his
statement ina long memorial, Le Sieur Gaudais Dupont a Mon-
seigneur de Colbert, 1664.
Dumesnil, in his principal memorial, gives a list of the alleged
defaulters, with the special charges against each, and the amounts
for which he reckons them liable. The accusations cover a period
of ten or twelve years, and sometimes more. Some of them are
curiously suggestive of more recent ‘‘rings.’’ Thus Jean Gloria
makes a charge of thirty-one hundred livres (francs) for fireworks
to celebrate the king’s marriage, when the actual cost is said to
have been about forty livres. Others are alleged to have embezzled
the funds of the company, under cover of pretended payments to
imaginary creditors ; and Argenson himself is said to have eked out
his miserable salary by drawing on the company for the pay of
soldiers who did not exist.
The records of the Council preserve a guarded silence about this
affair. I find, however, under date 20 Sept., 1663, ‘* Pouvoir a M.
de Villeray de faire recherche dans la maison d’un nommé du Aes-
nil des papiers appartenants au Conseil concernant Sa Majesté ;’’
and under date 18 March, 1664, ‘‘ Ordre pour l’ouverture du coffre
contenaut les papiers de Dumesnil,’’ and also an ‘‘ Ordre pour
mettre 1’Inventaire des biens du Sr. Dumesnil entre les mains du
Sr. Fillion.”
CHAPTER XI.
1657-1665.
LAVAL AND MB&ZY.
Tae Bisnor’s Cuoice.— A Mitirary Zeator. — Horeru, Beaty-
NinGs.— Signs oF Storm.— THE QuaRREL.— Distress or Mézy.—
He Rervuses To YieLp.—His DEFEeat anD DeaTH.
We have seen that Laval, when at court, had
been invited to choose a governor to his liking.
He soon made his selection. There was a pious
officer, Saffray de Mézy, major of the town and
citadel of Caen, whom he had well known during
his long stay with Berniéres at the Hermitage.
Mézy was the principal member of the company of
devotees formed at Caen under the influence of
Berniéres and his disciples. In his youth he had
been headstrong and dissolute. Worse still, he had
been, it is said, a Huguenot; but both in life and
doctrine his conversion had been complete, and the
fervid mysticism of Berniéres acting on his vehe-
ment nature had transformed him into a red-hot
zealot. Towards the hermits and their chief he
showed a docility in strange contrast with his past
history, and followed their inspirations with an
ardor which sometimes overleaped its mark.
196 LAVAL AND MEZY. [1657 -b9.
Thus a Jacobin monk, a doctor of divinity, once
came to preach at the church of St. Paul at Caen;
on which, according to their custom, the brother-
hood of the Hermitage sent two persons to make
report concerning his orthodoxy. Mézy and an-
other military zealot, “who,” says the narrator,
“hardly know how to read, and assuredly do not
know their catechism,” were deputed to hear his
first sermon; wherein this Jacobin, having spoken
of the necessity of the grace of Jesus Christ in
order to the doing of good deeds, these two wise-
acres thought that he was preaching Jansenism,
and thereupon, after the sermon, the Sieur de
Mézy went to the proctor of the ecclesiastical court
and denounced him.” ?
His zeal, though but rideaaieig tempered with
knowledge, sometimes proved more useful than on
this occasion. The Jacobin convent at Caen was
divided against itself. Some of the monks had
embraced the doctrines taught by Berniéres, while
the rest held dogmas which he declared to be con-
trary to those of the Jesuits, and therefore hetero-
dox. A prior was to be elected, and, with the
help of Berniéres, his partisans gained the victory,
choosing one Father Louis, through whom the Her-
mitage gained a complete control in the convent.
But the adverse party presently resisted, and com-
plained to the provincial of their order, who came
to Caen to close the dispute by deposing Father
Louis. Hearing of his approach, Berniéres asked
1 Nicole, Mémoire pour faire connoistre l’esprit et la conduite ee la Com
pagnie appellee ’ Hermitage.
1668. SAFFRAY DE MEZzY. 197
aid from his military disciple, and De Mézy sent
him a squad of soldiers, who guarded the convent
doors and barred out the provincial.’
Among the merits of Mézy, his humility and
charity were especially admired ; and the people of
Caen had more than once seen the town major
staggering across the street with a beggar mounted
on his back, whom he was bearing dry-shod through
the mud in the exercise of those virtues.” In this
he imitated his master Berniéres, of whom similar
acts are recorded? However dramatic in manifes-
tation, his devotion was not only sincere but in-
tense. Laval imagined that he knew him well.
Above all others, Mézy was the man of his choice ;
and so eagerly did he plead for him, that the king
himself paid certain debts which the pious major
had contracted, and thus left him free to sail for
Canada.
His deportment on the voyage was edifying, and
the first days of his accession were passed in har-
mony. He permitted Laval to form the new
council, and supplied the soldiers for the seizure of
Dumesnil’s papers. A question arose concerning
Montreal, a subject on which the governors and
the bishop rarely differed in opinion. The present
instance was no exception to the rule. Mézy re-
moved Maisonneuve, the local governor, and imme-
diately replaced him ; the effect being, that whereas
1 Tid.
2 Juchereau, Histoire de I’ Hétel-Dieu, 149.
3 See the laudatory notice of Bernitres de Louvigny in the Nouvel
Biographie Universelle.
198 LAVAL AND M&zy. [1668
he had before derived his authority from the seign-
iors of the island, he now derived it from the
governor-general. It was a movement in the in-
terest of centralized power, and as such was cor-
dially approved by Laval
The first indication to the bishop and the Jesuits
that the new governor was not likely to prove in
their hands as clay in the hands of the potter, is
said to have been given on occasion of an inter-
view with an embassy of Iroquois chiefs, to whom
Mézy, aware of their duplicity, spoke with a deci-
sion and haughtiness that awed the savages and
astonished the ecclesiastics.
He seems to have been one of those natures that
run with an engrossing vehemence along any chan-
nel into which they may have been turned. At
the Hermitage he was all devotee; but climate and
conditions had changed, and he or his symptoms
changed with them. He found himself raised sud-
denly to a post of command, or one which was
meant to be such. The town major of Caen was
set to rule over a region far larger than France.
The royal authority was trusted to his keeping, and
his honor and duty forbade him to break the trust.
But when he found that those who had procured
for him his new dignities had done so that he
might be an instrument of their will, his ancient
pride started again into life, and his headstrong
temper broke out like a long-smothered fire. Laval
stood aghast at the transformation. His lamb had
turned wolf.
What especially stirred the governor’s dudgeon
1664. | THE QUARREL BEGUN. 199
was the conduct of Bourdon, Villeray, and Au-
teuil, those faithful allies whom Laval had placed on
the council, and who, as Mézy soon found, were
wholly in the bishop’s interest. On the 13th of
February he sent his friend Angoville, major of
the fort, to Laval, with a written declaration to the
effect that he had ordered them to absent them-
selves from the council, because, having been
appointed “on the persuasion of the aforesaid
Bishop of Petraea, who knew them to be wholly his
creatures, they wish to make themselves masters in
the aforesaid council, and have acted in divers ways
against the interests of the king and the public for
the promotion of personal and private ends, and
have formed and fomented cabals, contrary to their
duty and their oath of fidelity to his aforesaid
Majesty.”* He further declares that advantage
had been taken of the facility of his disposition and
his ignorance of the country to surprise him into
assenting to their nomination; and he asks the
bishop to acquiesce in their expulsion, and join him
in calling an assembly of the people to choose others
in their place. Laval refused; on which Mézy
caused his declaration to be placarded about Quebec
and proclaimed by sound of drum.
The proposal of a public election, contrary as it
was to the spirit of the government, opposed to the
edict establishing the council, and utterly odious to
the young autocrat who ruled over France, gave
1 Ordre de M. de Mézy de faire sommation a I’ Evéque de Petrée, 18 Fev.,
1664. Notification du dit Ordre, méme date. (Registre du Conseil
Supérieur.)
200 LAVAL AND MEZY {1664
Laval a great advantage. “TI reply,” he wrote,
“to the request which Monsieur the Governor
makes me to consent to the interdiction of the
persons named in his declaration, and proceed to
the choice of other councillors or officers by an
assembly of the people, that neither my conscience
nor my honor, nor the respect and obedience which
T owe to the will and commands of the king, nor
my fidelity and affection to his service, will by any
means permit me to do so.’’?
Mézy was dealing with an adversary armed with
redoubtable weapons. It was intimated to him that
the sacraments would be refused, and the churches
closed against him. This threw him into an agony
of doubt and perturbation ; for the emotional relig-
ion which had become a part of his nature, though
overborne by gusts of passionate irritation, was still
full of life within him. Tossing between the old
feeling and the new, he took a course which reveals
the trouble and confusion of his mind. He threw
himself for counsel and comfort on the Jesuits,
though he knew them to be one with Laval against
him, and though, under cover of denouncing sin in
general, they had lashed him sharply in their ser-
mons. There is something pathetic in the appeal
he makes them. For the glory of God and the
service of the king, he had come, he says. on
Laval’s solicitation, to seek salvation in Canada;
and being under obligation to the bishop, who had
recommended him to the king, he felt bound to
show proofs of his gratitude on every occasion,
1 Réponse de l’ Evéque de Petrée, 16 Fev., 1664.
164. ] DISTRESS OF MEZY. 201
Yet neither gratitude to a benefactor nor the
respect due to his character and person should be
permitted to interfere with duty to the king, “since
neither conscience nor honor permit us to neglect
the requirements of our office and betray the in-
terests of his Majesty, after receiving orders from
his lips, and making oath of fidelity between his
hands.” He proceeds to say that, having discov-
ered practices of which he felt obliged to prevent
the continuance, he had made a declaration expel-
ling the offenders from office; that the bishop and
all the ecclesiastics had taken this declaration as an
offence ; that, regardless of the king’s service, they
had denounced him as a calumniator, an unjust
judge, without gratitude, and perverted in con-
science ; and that one of the chief among them had
come to warn him that the sacraments would be
refused and the churches closed against him.
“This,” writes the unhappy governor, “has agi-
tated our soul with scruples; and we have none
from whom to seek light save those who are our
declared opponents, pronouncing judgment on us
without knowledge of cause. Yet as our salvation
and the duty we owe the king are the things most
important to us on earth, and as we hold them to
be inseparable the one from the other; and as
nothing is so certain as death, and nothing so un-
certain as the hour thereof; and as there is no time
to inform his Majesty of what is passing and to
receive his commands; and as our soul, though
conscious of innocence, is always in fear,— we feel
obliged, despite their opposition. to have recourse
202 LAVAL AND MEZY. (1664.
to the reverend father casuists of the House of
Jesus, to tell us in conscience what we can do for
the fulfilment of our duty at once to God and to
the king.’’?
The Jesuits gave him little comfort. Lalemant,
their superior, replied by advising him to follow
the directions of his confessor, a Jesuit, so far as
the question concerned spiritual matters, adding
that in temporal matters he had no advice to give.
The distinction was illusory. The quarrel turned
wholly on temporal matters, but it was a quarrel
with a bishop. To separate in such a case the
spiritual obligation from the temporal was beyond
the skill of Mézy, nor would the confessor have
helped him.
Perplexed and troubled as he was, he would
not reinstate Bourdon and the two councillors.
The people began to clamor at the interruption
of justice, for which they blamed Laval, whom a
recent imposition of tithes had made unpopular.
Meézy thereupon issued a proclamation, in which,
after mentioning his opponents as the most subtle
and artful persons in Canada, he declares that, in
consequence of petitions sent him from Quebec
aud the neighboring settlements, he had called the
people to the council chamber, and by their advice
had appointed the Sieur de Chartier as attorney-
general in place of Bourdon.’
Bourdon replied by a violent appeal from the
1 Mézy aux PP. Jésuites, Fait au Chateau de Quebec ce dernier jout
de Fevrier, 1664.
2 Lettre du P. H. Lalemant a Mr. le Gouverneur.
3 Declaration du Sieur de Mézy, 10 Mars, 1664.
1664.} CONTINUED STRIFE. 203
governor to the remaining members of the council,’
on which Mézy declared him excluded from all
public functions whatever, till the king’s pleasure
should be known? Thus church and state still
frowned on each other, and new disputes soon arose
to widen the breach between them. On the first
establishment of the council, an order had been
passed for the election of a mayor and two alder-
men (échevins) for Quebec, which it was proposed
to erect into a city, though it had only seventy
houses and less than a thousand inhabitants. Re-
pentigny was chosen mayor, and Madry and Char-
ron aldermen; but the choice was not agreeable to
the bishop, and the three functionaries declined to
act, influence having probably been brought to bear
on them to that end. The council now resolved
that a mayor was needless, and the people were
permitted to choose a syndic in his stead. These
municipal elections were always so controlled by
the authorities that the element of liberty which
they seemed to represent was little but a mockery.
On the present occasion, after an unaccountable
delay of ten months, twenty-two persons cast their
votes in presence of the council, and the choice
fell on Charron. The real question was whether
the new syndic should belong to the governor or
to the bishop. Charron leaned to the governor’s
party. The ecclesiastics insisted that the people
were dissatisfied, and a new election was ordered,
but the voters did not come. The governor now
1 Bourdon au Conseil, 18 Mars, 1664.
3 Ordre du Gouverneur, 18 Mars, 1664.
2.04 LAVAL AND MEZY. [1664
sent messages to such of the inhabitants as he knew
to be in his interest, who gathered in the council
chamber, voted under his eye, and again chose a
syndic aarecsble to him. Laval’s party protested
in vain.’
The councillors held office for a year, and the
year had now expired. The governor and the
bishop, it will be remembered, had a joint power
of appointment; but agreement between them was
impossible. Laval was for replacing his partisans,
Bourdon, Villeray, Auteuil, and La Ferté. Mézy
refused; and on the eighteenth of September he
reconstructed the council by his sole authority,
retaining of the old councillors only Amours and
Tilly, and replacing the rest by Denis, La Tesserie,
and Péronne de Mazé, the surviving son of Dumes-
nil. Again Laval protested; but Mézy proclaimed
his choice by sound of drum, and caused placards
to be posted, full, according to Father Lalemant, of
abuse against the bishop. On this he was excluded
from confession and absolution. He complained
loudly ; “but our reply was,” says the father,
“that God knew every thing.” ?
This unanswerable but somewhat irrelevant re-
sponse failed to satisfy him, and it was possibly on
this occasion that an incident occurred which is re-
counted by the bishop’s eulogist, La Tour. He says
that Mézy, with some unknown design, appeared
before the church at the head of a band of soldiers,
while Laval was saying mass. The service over, the
bishop presented himself at the door, on which, to
1 Registre du Conseil Supérieur. 2 Journal des Jésuites, Oct , 1664.
1664.] MEZY’S DEFEAT. 205
the governor’s confusion, all the soldiers respect-
fully saluted him. The story may have some
foundation, but it is not supported by contemporary
evidence.
On the Sunday after Mézy’s coup détat, the
pulpits resounded with denunciations. The people
listened, doubtless, with becoming respect; but
their sympathies were with the governor; and he,
on his part, had made appeals to them at more
than one crisis of the quarrel. He now fell into
another indiscretion. He banished Bourdon and
Villeray, and ordered them home to France.
They carried with them the instruments of their
revenge, the accusations of Laval and the Jesuits
against the author of their woes. Of these accusa-
tions one alone would have sufficed. Mézy had
appealed to the people. It is true that he did so
from no love of popular liberty, but simply to make
head against an opponent; yet the act alone was
enough, and he received a peremptory recall.
Again Laval had triumphed. He had made one
governor and unmade two, if not three. The
modest Levite, as one of his biographers calls him
in his earlier days, had become the foremost power
in Canada.
Laval had a threefold strength at court; his
high birth, his reputed sanctity, and the support
of the Jesuits. This was not all, for the perma-
nency of his position in the colony gave him another
advantage. The governors were named for three
1 La Tour, Vie de Laval, Liv. VII. It is charitable to ascribe this
writer's many errors to carelessness.
206 LAVAL AND MEZY. [1665
years, and could be recalled at any time; but the
vicar apostolic owed his appointment to the Pope,
and the Pope alone could revoke it. Thus he was
beyond reach of the royal authority, and the court
was in a certain sense obliged to conciliate him.
As for Mézy, a man of no rank or influence, he
could expect no mercy. Yet, though irritable and
violent, he seems to have tried conscientiously to
reconcile conflicting duties, or what he regarded as
such. The governors and intendants, his succes-
sors, received, during many years, secret instruc-
tions from the court to watch Laval, and cautiously
prevent him from assuming powers which did not
belong to him. It is likely that similar instruc-
tions had been given to Mézy,' and that the attempt
to fulfil them had aided to embroil him with one
who was probably the last man on earth with whom
he would willingly have quarrelled.
An inquiry was ordered into his conduct; but a
voice more potent than the voice of the king had
called him to another tribunal. A disease, the
result perhaps of mental agitation, seized upon
him and soon brought him to extremity. As he
lay gasping between life and death, fear and horror
took possession of his soul. Hell yawned before
his fevered vision, peopled with phantoms which
long and lonely meditations, after the discipline of
Loyola, made real and palpable to his thought.
Tle smelt the fumes of infernal brimstone, and
1 The royal commissioner, Gaudais, who came to Canada with Mézy,
had, as before mentioned, orders to inquire with grest secrecy into the
conduct of Laval. The intendant, Talon, who fcllowed immediately
after, had similar instructions.
1665.] DEATH OF MEZY 207
heard the howlings of the damned. He saw the
frown of the angry Judge, and the fiery swords of
avenging angels, hurling wretches like himself,
writhing in anguish and despair, into the gulf of
unutterable woe. He listened to the ghostly coun-
sellors who besieged his bed, bowed his head in
penitence, made his peace with the church, asked
pardon of Laval, confessed to him, and received
absolution at his hands; and his late adversaries,
now benign and bland, soothed him with promises
of pardon, and hopes of eternal bliss.
Before he died, he wrote to the Marquis de Tracy,
newly appointed viceroy, a letter which indicates
that even in his penitence he could not feel himseif
wholly in the wrong.’ He also left a will in which
the pathetic and the quaint are curiously mingled.
After praying his patron, Saint Augustine, with
Saint John, Saint Peter, and all the other saints, to
intercede for the pardon of his sins, he directs that
his body shall be buried in the cemetery of the
poor at the hospital, as being unworthy of more
honored sepulture. He then makes various lega-
cies of piety and charity. Other bequests follow,
one of which is to his friend Major Angoville, to
whom he leaves two hundred francs, his coat of
English cloth, his camlet mantle, a pair of new
shoes, eight shirts with sleeve buttons, his sword
and belt, and a new blanket for the major’s servant.
Felix Aubert is to have fifty francs, with a gray
jacket, a small coat of gray serge, “which,” says
the testator, “has been worn for a while,” and a
1 Lettre de Mézy au Marquis de Tracy, 26 Avril 1665
208 LAVAL AND MEZY. 11665,
pair of long white stockings. And in a codicil he
farther leaves to Angoville his best black coat, in
order that he may wear mourning for him.’
His earthly troubles closed on the night of the
sixth of May. He went to his rest among the
paupers ; and the priests, serenely triumphant, sang
requiems over his grave.
Nortr. — Mézy sent home charges against the bishop and the
Jesuits which seem to have existed in Charlevoix’s time, but for
which, as well as for those made by Laval, I have sought in vain.
The substance of these mutual accusations is given thus by the
minister Colbert, in a memorial addressed to the Marquis de Tracy,
in 1665: ‘‘ Les Jésuites l’accusent d’avarice et de violences ; et lui
qu’ils voulaient entreprendre sur ]’autorité qui lui a été commise
par le Roy, en sorte que n’ayant que de leurs créatures dans le
Conseil Souverain, toutes les résolutions s’y prenaient selon leurs
sentiments.’’
The papers cited are drawn partly from the Registres du Conseil
Supérieur, still preserved at Quebec, and partly from the Archives
of the Marine and Colonies. Laval’s admirer, the abbé La Tour,
in his eagerness to justify the bishop, says that the quarrel arose
from a dispute about precedence between Mézy and the intendant,
and from the ill-humor of the governor because the intendant
shared the profits of his office. The truth is, that there was no
intendant in Canada during the term of Mézy’s government. One
Robert had been appointed to the office, but he never came to the
colony. The commissioner Gaudais, during the two or three months
of his stay at Quebec, took the intendant’s place at the council-
board; but harmony between Laval and Mézy was unbroken till
after his departure. Other writers say that the dispute arose from
the old question about brandy. Towards the end of the quarrel
there was some disorder from this source, but even then the brandy
question was subordinate to other subjects of strife.
1 Testament du Sieur de Mézy. This will, us well as the letter, is en-
grossed in the registers of the council.
CHAPTER XII.
1662-1680.
LAVAL AND THE SEMINARY.
Lavat's Visrt to Court. — THE SEMINARY. — ZEAL OF THE BISHOP. —
His Eviogists. —CaurcH anp State. — ATTITUDE OF Lavat.
THaT memorable journey of Laval to court,
which caused the dissolution of the Company of
New France, the establishment of the Supreme
Council, the recall of Avaugour, and the appoint-
ment of Mézy, had yet other objects and other
results. Laval, vicar apostolic and titular bishop
of Petraea, wished to become in title, as in fact,
bishop of Quebec. Thus he would gain an in-
crease of dignity and authority, necessary, as he
thought, in his conflicts with the civil power ; “ for,”
he wrote to the cardinals of the Propaganda, “1
have learned from long experience how little secu-
rity my character of vicar apostolic gives me against
those charged with political affairs: I mean the
officers of the Crown, perpetual rivals and con-
temners of the authority of the church.”?
1 For a long extract from this letter, copied from the original in the
archives of the Propaganda at Rome, see Faillon, Colonie Frangazee,
I. 432
14
210 LAVAL AND THE SEMINARY. [1662-80.
This reason was for the Pope and the cardinals.
It may well be believed that he held a different
language to the king. To him he urged that the
bishopric was needed to enforce order, suppress
sin, and crush heresy. Both Louis XIV. and the
queen mother favored his wishes ;* but difficulties
arose and interminable disputes ensued on the
question, whether the proposed bishopric should
depend immediately on the Pope or on the Arch-
bishop of Rouen. It was a revival of the old quar-
rel of Gallican and ultramontane. Laval, weary of
hope deferred, at length declared that he would
leave the colony if he could not be its bishop in
title; and in 1674, after eleven years of delay, the
king yielded to the Pope’s demands, and the vicar
apostolic became first bishop of Quebec.
If Laval had to wait for his mitre, he found no
delay and no difficulty in attaining another object
no less dear to him. He wished to provide priests
for Canada, drawn from the Canadian population,
fed with sound and wholesome doctrine, reared
under his eye, and moulded by his hand. To this
end he proposed to establish a seminary at Quebec.
The plan found favor with the pious king, and a
decree signed by his hand sanctioned and confirmed
it. The new seminary was to be a corporation of
priests under a superior chosen by the bishop;
and, besides its functions of instruction, it was vested
with distinct and extraordinary powers. Laval,
1 Anne d@’Autriche & Laval, 23 Avril, 1662; Lows XIV. au Pape, 28
Jan., 1664; Louis XIV. au Duc de Créquy, Ambassadeur & Rome, 28
June, 1664.
1662-80. THE PARISH PRIEST. 211
an organizer and a disciplinarian by nature and
training, would fain subject the priests of his
diocese to a control as complete as that of monks
in a convent. In France, the curé or parish priest
was, with rare exceptions, a fixture in his parish,
whence he could be removed only for grave reasons,
and through prescribed forms of procedure. Hence
he was to a certain degree independent of the
bishop. Laval, on the contrary, demanded that
the Canadian curé should be removable at his will,
and thus placed in the position of a missionary,
to come and go at the order of his superior. In
fact, the Canadian parishes were for a long time so
widely scattered, so feeble in population, and so
miserably poor, that, besides the disciplinary advan-
tages of this plan, its adoption was at first almost
a matter of necessity. It added greatly to the
power of the church; and, as the colony increased,
the king and the minister conceived an increasing
distrust of it. Instructions for the “ fixation”’ of
the curés were repeatedly sent to the colony, and
the bishop, while professing to obey, repeatedly
evaded them. Various fluctuations and changes
took place ; but Laval had built on strong founda-
tions, and at this day the system of removable
curés prevails in most of the Canadian parishes. *
Thus he formed his clergy into a family with
1 On the establishment of the seminary. Mandement de l’Evéque de
Petrée, pour lEtablissement du Séminaire de Québec; Approbation du Roy
(Edits et Ordonnances, I. 88, 35); La Tour, Vie de Laval, Liv. VI.;
Esquisse de la Vie de Laval, Appendix. Various papers bearing on the
subject are printed in the Canadian Abeille, from originals in the archives
of the seminary.
vale LAVAL AND THE SEMINARY. 1662-80.
himself at its head. His seminary, the mother who
had reared them, was further charged to maintain
them, nurse them in sickness, and support them in
old age. Under her maternal roof the tired priest
found repose among his brethren; and thither
every year he repaired from the charge of his
flock in the wilderness, to freshen his devotion
and animate his zeal by a season of meditation
and prayer.
The difficult task remained to provide the neces-
sary funds. Laval imposed a tithe of one-thirteenth
on all products of the soil, or, as afterwards settled,
on grains alone. This tithe was paid to the sem-
inary, and by the seminary to the priests. The
people, unused to such a burden, clamored and
resisted ; and Mézy, in his disputes with the bishop,
had taken advantage of their discontent. It be-
came necessary to reduce the tithe to a twenty-
sixth, which, as there was little or no money among
the inhabitants, was paid in kind. Nevertheless,
the scattered and impoverished settlers grudged
even this contribution to the support of a priest
whom many of them rarely saw; and the collection
of it became a matter of the greatest difficulty and
uncertainty. How the king came to the rescue,
we shall hereafter see.
Besides the great seminary where young men
were trained for the priesthood, there was the
lesser seminary where boys were educated in the
hope that they would one day take orders. This
school began in 1668, with eight French and
six Indian pupils, in the old house of Madame
1662-80.] ENDOWMENTS OF LAVAL. 213
Couillard ; but so far as the Indians were concerned
it was a failure. Sooner or later they all ran wild
in the woods, carrying with them as fruits of their
studies a sufficiency of prayers, offices, and chants
learned by rote, along with a feeble smattering of
Latin and rhetoric, which they soon dropped by
the way. There was also a sort of farm-school
attached to the seminary, for the training of a
humbler class of pupils. It was established at the
parish of St. Joachim, below Quebec, where the
children of artisans and peasants were taught farm-
ing and various mechanical arts, and thoroughly
grounded in the doctrine and discipline of the
church.’ The Great and Lesser Seminary still sub-
sist, and form one of the most important Roman
Catholic institutions on this continent. To them
has recently been added the Laval University, rest-
ing on the same foundation, and supported by the
same funds.
Whence were these funds derived? Laval, in
order to imitate the poverty of the apostles, had
divested himself of his property before he came to
Canada; otherwise there is little doubt that in the
fulness of his zeal he would have devoted it to his
favorite object. But if he had no property he
had influence, and his family had both influence
and wealth. He acquired vast grants of land in
the best parts of Canada. Some of these he sold
or exchanged; others he retained till the year
1 Annales du Petit Séminaire de Quebec, see Abeille, Vol. I.; Notice His-
torique sur le Petit Séminaire de Quebec, Ibid., Vol. I.; Notice Historique sur
la Paroisse de St. Joachim, Ibid., Vol. 1 The Abeille is a journal pub-
lished by the seminary.
214 LAVAL AND THE SEMINARY. [ 1662-80.
1680, when he gave them, with nearly all else that
he then possessed, to his seminary at Quebec. The
lands with which he thus endowed it included the
seigniories of the Petite Nation, the island of Jesus,
and Beaupré. The last is of great extent, and at
the present day of immense value. Beginning a
few miles below Quebec, it borders the St. Law-
rence for a distance of sixteen leagues, and is six
leagues in depth, measured from the river. From
these sources the seminary still draws an abundant
revenue, though its seigniorial rights were com-
muted on the recent extinction of the feudal tenure
in Canada.
Well did Laval deserve that his name should
live in that of the university which a century and
a half after his death owed its existence to his
bounty. This father of the Canadian church, who
has left so deep an impress on one of the commu-
nities which form the vast population of North
America, belonged to a type of character to which
an even justice is rarely done. With the excep-
tion of the Canadian Garneau, a liberal Catholic,
those who have treated of him, have seen him
through a medium intensely Romanist, coloring,
hiding, and exaggerating by turns both his actions
and the traits of his character. Tried by the
Romanist standard, his merits were great; though
the extraordinary infiuence which he exercised in
the affairs of the colony were, as already observed,
by no means due to his spiritual graces alone. To
a saint sprung from the haute noblesse, Earth and
Heaven were alike propitious. When the vicar-
1862- 80.] LAVAL’S POSITION. 215
general Colombiére pronounced his funeral eulogy
in the sounding periods of Bossuet, he did not fail
to exhibit him on the ancestral pedestal where his
virtues would shine with redoubled lustre. “The
exploits of the heroes of the House of Montmo-
rency,” exclaims the reverend orator, “form one
of the fairest chapters in the annals of Old France;
the heroic acts of charity, humility, and faith,
achieved by a Montmorency, form one of the fairest
in the annals of New France. The combats, victo-
ries, and conquests of the Montmorency in Europe
would fill whole volumes; and so, too, would the
triumphs won by a Montmorency, in America, over
sin, passion, and the devil.” Then he crowns the
high-born prelate with a halo of fourfold saintship.
“ It was with good reason that Providence permitted
him to be called Francis: for the virtues of all the
saints of that name were combined in him; the zeal
of Saint Francis Xavier, the charity of Saint Fran-
cis of Sales, the poverty of Saint Francis of Assissi,
the self-mortification of Saint Francis Borgia; but
poverty was the mistress of his heart, and he loved
her with incontrollable transports.”
The stories which Colombiére proceeds to tell of
Laval’s asceticism are confirmed by other evidence,
and are, no doubt, true. Nor is there any reason-
able doubt that, had the bishop stood in the place of
Brebeuf or Charles Lalemant, he would have suf-
fered torture and death like them. But it was his
lot to strive, not against infidel savages, but against
countrymen and Catholics, who had no disposition
to burn him, and would rather have done him
reverence than wrong.
216 LAVAL AND THE SEMINARY (1662-80.
To comprehend his actions and motives, it is
necessary to know his ideas in regard to the rela-
tions of church and state. They were those of
the extreme ultramontanes, which a recent Jesuit
preacher has expressed with tolerable distinctness.
In a sermon uttered in the Church of Notre Dame,
at Montreal, on the first of November, 1872, he
thus announced them. “The supremacy and in-
fallibility of the Pope; the independence and liberty
of the church; the subordination and submission
of the state to the church; in case of conflict
between them, the church to decide, the state te
submit: for whoever follows and defends these
principles, life and a blessing ; for whoever rejects
and combats them, death and a curse.”’?
These were the principles which Laval and the
Jesuits strove to make good. Christ was to rule
in Canada through his deputy the bishop, and God’s
law was to triumph over the laws of man. As in
the halcyon days of Champlain and Montmagny,
the governor was to be the right hand of the
church, to wield the earthly sword at her bidding,
and the council was to be the agent of her high
behests.
France was drifting toward the triumph of the
parti dévot, the sinister reign of petticoat and cas-
sock, the era of Maintenon and Tellier, and the
1 This sermon was preached by Father Braun, S. J., on occasion of the
“Golden Wedding,” or fiftieth anniversary, of Bishop Bourget of Mon-
treal.